“The library is, and always has been, the heart of a college. . . . For professors--professors of the humanities, at any rate--as much as students, are the creatures of the library. Just as the laboratory is the domain of the sciences, so the library is the domain of the humanities. For it is the library that is the repository of the learning and wisdom that are transmitted from the professors to the students.”
I can hear
the snorts over “learning and wisdom.” How quaint. What’s “wisdom” got to do
with acquiring a college degree? Since I started working remotely more than
three years ago, I’ve reduced my library visits to once a week, meaning I keep
lists of the books I want to borrow on Saturday. Much of the staff at the
circulation desk, students and library employees, is new and young. They often
comment on the number of books I check out but I no longer have spontaneous
conversations about books. One librarian used to chat about William Maxwell.
She’s from Lincoln, Ill., his birthplace. Another woman had lived in Ireland
and loved Yeats. With a third, born in Mexico, I talked about Juan Rulfo and
Octavio Paz. These were polite social exchanges, but with content important to
me and the librarians.
Borrowing
books is now strictly a formal transaction, like depositing a check at the
bank. Also, the third floor – fine arts, Russian and other Slavic literatures,
much of the French collection, etc. – is typically empty. I often have the place
to myself.
I was a lazy,
incompetent undergraduate but I virtually lived in the library. It was a
paradise, a home I didn’t know I wanted until I got there. I savored the sense
that virtually any book I wanted was on the shelf – virtually instant
gratification. Until then I had relied on bookstores and public libraries. I
remember when my brother and I almost simultaneously discovered that all books
are linked to other books, that following such linkages might supply you with a
pretty good education, regardless of the academic degrees you earned.
The passage
at the top is from “Revolution in the Library,” an essay by the late scholar of
Victorian England, Gertrude Himmelfarb, published in 1999 in Library Trends, a journal of the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. It was still early in the process of
digitalizing everything. Enthusiasts were proclaiming an imminent utopia,
learning for the masses, accessible to everyone with a computer. That’s not quite
how it worked out. Himmelfarb is a realist with an understanding of human
nature. For many reasons, the humanities and their conjoined twin, reading,
have shriveled. She goes on:
“The humanities are an essentially human enterprise--an enterprise to which human beings have devoted themselves for all of civilized history. The record of that enterprise reposes in the library in the form of books--a vast multitude of books, including, to be sure, many worthless or meretricious ones, but also all the great ones. These are the books that sustain our minds and inspire our imaginations. It is there that we look for truth, for knowledge, for wisdom. And it is these ideals that we hope will survive our latest revolution.”
In her 2009
volume, The Jewish Odyssey of George
Eliot (Encounter Books), Himmelfarb writes:
“Victorian writers seem to have had an enormous capacity for reading as well as writing (books, essays, reviews, and voluminous letters), all of this while traveling incessantly, often under difficult conditions, and nurturing varieties of ailments, some of which were nearly incapacitating. Eliot was more than their equal. . . . it is impressive evidence of an extraordinary breadth of interests and knowledge.”
I often wonder about Victorian writers' "enormous capacity for reading as well as writing." How did they do it? Over the years, I've concluded that letter-writing was the key. The custom or need to maintain a voluminous correspondence with friends, acquaintances and family, meant a pen was always in hand, and the verbal part of the mind was always open for business. Reading, authoring, and correspondence were a single, ongoing stream of activity that could not be broken by illness or difficult travel.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to know about the reading speeds of our favorite modern authors since the time of, say, Jane Austen, recognizing the variations in speed appropriate to different types of books and periodicals. Even more interesting would be to know about their practices as regards re-reading. Do people today re-read, much? It would be possible to say that the point of reading a book once is so that I can go on to the more profitable experience of re-reading -- though of course many popular books are not meant to be read more than once. I wonder how much our beloved modern authors (the most recent 200 years) expected or even thought much about being re-read, as distinct from being read by new readers of future generations.
ReplyDeleteDale Nelson