I spent a
good portion of my life reading and revering two canonical American writers, Thoreau
and Whitman. Today, I find both largely repellent, as writers and men. Thoreau’s
prose, especially in the journals, can still be read for pleasure, when it isn’t cloyingly
self-regarding. He was a snob, an enthusiastic despiser, like many bohemians,
of ordinary human beings. His politics are rooted in contempt. He judged the
psychopathic John Brown a hero. Whitman is one of literature’s heroic gasbags.
He often approaches unreadability, though I do admire his service in military
field hospitals during the Civil War.
In contrast,
some bookish loyalties remain strong and grow even deeper. One such writer for
me is George Santayana. I read The Sense of Beauty (1896) in high school
and was smitten. In 1968, Washington Square Press published a series of
twenty-two books in its Great American Thinkers series, including George
Santayana by Willard E. Arnett. It was tough going for a kid not yet
well-read in philosophy, but I persisted. Here are several brief samples
of Santayana’s prose that suggest why he remains important to me. In his
autobiography Persons and Places he writes:
“Cultivate
imagination, love it, give it endless forms, but do not let it deceive you.
Enjoy the world, travel over it, and learn its ways, but do not let it hold you.
. . .To possess things and persons in idea is the only pure good to be got out
of them; to possess them physically or legally is a burden and a snare.”
This is from
the chapter titled “Form” in Santayana’s first published work in prose, The
Sense of Beauty:
“Whenever
beauty is really seen and loved, it has a definite embodiment: the eye has
precision, the work has style, and the object has perfection. The kind of
perfection may indeed be new; and if the discovery of new perfections is to be
called romanticism, then romanticism is the beginning of all aesthetic life.
But if by romanticism we mean indulgence in confused suggestion and in the
exhibition of turgid force, then there is evidently need of education, of attentive
labour, to disentangle the beauties so vaguely felt, and give each its adequate
embodiment.”
You can see
why a budding Midwestern aesthete was permanently hooked. The sole
blight on my otherwise unqualified love of Santayana’s gifts is his vulgar, ignorant strain
of anti-Semitism. We think of anti-Semites as thuggish Brown Shirts or Labour
Party loyalists, but even so sophisticated an artist as Santayana
was not immune to the Jew-hating infection.
Santayana
was born on this date, Dec. 16, in 1863, and died on Sept. 26, 1952, age
eighty-eight.
[*When asked
to select their favorite book, politicians and other celebrities often name a
children’s title; say, Goodnight Moon. This suggests two things: 1.) They
wish to appear whimsical and childlike, not stuffy and grown-up. 2.) They’ve
not read another book since his age four.]
3 comments:
Or a third thing: They've read the book to a child, and it works! in putting the li'l darling to sleep.
Madman and psychopathic John Brown maybe but what do you call a country that upholds an institution like chattel slavery? Not trying to pick a fight, it's just that the man was representative of the country in my mind.
Many public figures, as well as ordinary people, when asked what is their favorite book, will usually name what is often the only book, or one of the very few books, they've ever read or remembered. Reading books is still seen as a high status activity in our society, but to my experience, very few accomplished people in non-literary fields have read much at all, outside of school. They're really too busy, and they don't get much pleasure from reading. Those of us who are besotted with literature and everything surrounding it, must resign ourselves to the fact that we are a increasingly rare and peculiar breed.
Post a Comment