If you're familiar with Andrew Lang (1844-1912) at all, it’s likely as a collector of folk and fairy tales. I remember as a kid reading some of his twelve “Coloured” Fairy Books. He was also a prolific poet and critic, though that work is largely forgotten. He remains best known not for his original productions but as a collector of other people’s work. Here’s how Lang begins the title essay in his Adventures Among Books (1905):
“In an age of
reminiscences, is there room for the confessions of a veteran, who remembers a
great deal about books and very little about people? I have often wondered that a Biographia
Literaria has so seldom been attempted—a biography or autobiography of a
man in his relations with other minds. Coleridge, to be sure, gave this name to
a work of his, but he wandered from his apparent purpose into a world of alien
disquisitions.”
That’s probably the finest
almost-polite description of Coleridge’s gassiness I have ever encountered: “alien
disquisitions.” He is the father of today’s critical bombast. Lang is something
else – a dedicated reader whose bookish tastes started when he was a boy
in Scotland. He continues:
“The following pages are
frankly bookish, and to the bookish only do they appeal. The habit of reading
has been praised as a virtue, and has been denounced as a vice. In no case, if we except the perpetual study
of newspapers (which cannot fairly be called reading), is the vice, or the
virtue, common. It is more innocent than
opium-eating, though, like opium-eating, it unlocks to us artificial paradises.
I try to say what I have found in books, what distractions from the world, what
teaching (not much), and what consolations.”
Like other longtime
readers, if I were ever to write an autobiography (fat chance), its scaffolding
would be my reading history. That would reveal more about my nature than a recitation
of schools attended and jobs held—mere externals. I enjoy the company of
old-fashioned, unapologetic, non-academic bookmen like Lang. His example
reminds me of John Gross’ bookish apologia in The Rise and Fall of the Man of
Letters (1991; rev. ed. 1991):
“Isn’t there a certain
basic antagonism between the very nature of a university and the very spirit of
literature? The academic mind is cautious, tightly organized, fault-finding,
competitive – and above all aware of other academic minds. . . . Think of the
whole idea of regarding literature as a discipline. Literature can be strenuous
or difficult or deeply disturbing; it can be a hundred things – but a
discipline is not one of them. Discipline means compulsion, and an interest in
literature thrives on spontaneity, eager curiosity, the anticipation of
pleasure; it is unlikely that a reader who comes to a book under duress, or
weighed down with a sense of duty, will ever really read it at all, however
much he may learn about it. Even the most intensely serious literature needs to
be approached with a certain lightness of heart, if it is to yield its full
intensity.”
No comments:
Post a Comment