Few novelists have a
great gift for the essay. Usually the essays of the professional novelist, the
Martin Amis type, have a between-work air. Among the Brits, the great
essayist-novelists are Lawrence, Woolf and Pritchett. I have been in love with
Jimmy Joyce since highschool, and consider Ulysses the summit – but he was no
essayist. Nor is this a gift distributed largely among great poets. Wallace
Stevens’ essays are read only in as much as they refer to the real work.
Marianne Moore and Elizabeth Bishop wrote beaucoup prose, but it, similarly, is
parasitic to the work.
But even if you subtracted the fiction
from Lawrence, Woolf and Pritchett,
their essays would enroll them among the great writers.
Woolf in her essays
retains her novelist’s gift for describing the body – in fact, her description
of, say, Hazlitt is of a more concentrated, pictorial strain than she usually
devotes to the characters in her novels, who go from the voice to the body. Her
Hazlitt (in her essay on Hazlitt in the Common Reader, series 2) comes out of his
own works as a posture, a stance, a
character. He is a shoe-gazer, your typical emo, with a genius for his
particular division of life, which inserts itself with some difficulty into the
usual intellectual divisions of labor. For he is neither philosopher nor
literary critic nor pamphleteer, although he has parts of all three. Plus Woolf catches that something reminiscent
of the incel. This is there in Hazlett, but there is something a touch, well,
snobbish here, Woolf passing on that
class contempt from which Hazlitt suffered in his life and afterlife:
“We see him as
Coleridge saw him, ‘brow- hanging, shoe-contemplative, strange’. He comes
shuffling into the room, he looks nobody straight in the face, he shakes hands
with the fin of a fish; occasionally he darts a malignant glance from his
comer. ‘His manners are 99 in 100 singularly repulsive’, Coleridge said. Yet
now and again his face lit up with intellectual beauty, and his manner became
radiant with sympathy and understanding. Soon, too, as we read on, we become
familiar with the whole gamut of his grudges and his grievances. He lived, one
gathers, mostly at inns. No woman’s form graced his board.”
This is the kind of
thing that reminds us that Virginia Woolf was, first and foremost, a Stephen,
the daughter of Leslie Stephen of the National Biography, the heiress of a line that incorporated the collective memory of the whole tribe of
allowable writers – a kind of noblesse de clercs. All of the romantics
suffered, from the point of view of the
high bourgeois Victorian vision, from “unfortunate” sex lives – from the
incestuous Byron to, what was worse, the declasse Hazlitt. The Hazlett of Liber
Amoris, the closest English lit gets to Rousseau’s Confessions, damned him by
describing a passion for a servant – the kind of thing no aspiring functionary
in the literary world could tolerate. Byron, at least, ran off with women with
titles, and Shelley with a wealthy man’s daughter. But a servant in a boarding
house – well, it was all very well to do it, but then to write a book about
one’s unsuccessful courtship of same – well, that went beyond scandal into
tawdriness.
Leslie Stephen wrote
his own essay on Hazlitt, which shares certain judgments with his daughter.
Especially about Hazlitt’s penchant for indelicacy:
“Indeed he takes the
public into his confidence with a facility which we cannot easily forgive.
Biographers of late have been guilty of flagrant violations of the unwritten
code which should protect the privacies of social life from the intrusions of
public curiosity. But the most unscrupulous of biographers would hardly have
dared to tear aside the veil so audaciously as Hazlitt, in one conspicuous
instance at least, chose to do for himself. His idol Rousseau had indeed gone
further ; but when Rousseau told the story of his youth, it was at least seen
through a long perspective of years, and his own personality might seem to be
scarcely interested. Hazlitt chose, in the strange book called the "New
Pygmalion," or "Liber Amoris," to invite the British public at
large to look on at a strange tragi- comedy, of which the last scene was
scarcely finished.”
That Hazlitt must,
indisputably, be included among the romantic generation’s worthies was a
problem for those who wanted to merge literature and respectability.
Woolf did not –
although a part of her was always returning to her father’s voice. Interestingly, in Woolf’s essay, she mentions
that Hazlitt was the object of malignant
persecution--Blackwood's reviewers called him "pimply Hazlitt",
though his cheek was pale as alabaster.”
The pimple shows up in
another of Woolf’s views, although one that was not put down in an essay.
Rather, it first appears in her diary entry about reading Joyce’s Ulysses which she had take up out of a certain duty to
the modern novel – and a certain envy of the competition: “I . . . have been
amused, stimulated, charmed interested by the first 2 or 3 chapters–to the end
of the Cemetery scene; & then puzzled, bored, irritated, &
disillusioned as by a queasy undergraduate scratching his pimples.” The pimples
move from the undergraduate to a serving boy in her letter to Lytton Strachey:
“Never did I read such tosh. As for the first 2 chapters we will let them pass,
but the 3rd 4th 5th 6th–merely the scratching of pimples on the body of the
bootboy at Claridges.” In fact, all of Woolf’s criticisms about Joyce are
swaddled in the kind of snobbishness that anti-Woolfians can’t forgive.
Joyce’s origins – about which Woolf knew
little, except that they were Irish and had never been mentioned in the
National Biography series edited by her father – figure overwhelmingly in her
response to the book.
I think that Yeats’
line about the art that arises from one’s struggle with one’s self applies in
particular to Woolf, who struggled with the masculinist ideology of the Stephen
type which was definitely in her head, an illness, and with class feelings that were entangled
with the masculinist ideology as well, which she worked out to her satisfaction
(and mine – but I think I am in minority in that opinion) in Three
Guineas. It is what made her the most
complete literatus of the canonical writers of the English 20th century.
2 comments:
Not sure if I have anything much to say in response, but am pleased as punch at this post! Ok, I'm not sure what pleased as punch means, but I do love your appreciation of Virginia Woolf and Hazlitt. You might feel in the minority regarding whether Virginia Woolf sorted matters satisfactorily in Three Guineas, which as you say meant battling herself and much of her milieu, but I think an old friend of yours would heartily agree. It is to her I owe my appreciation of Virginia and William and I can't help but find this post another instance of your secret telepathy.
It's interesting the question of novelists or poets who also have a gift for the essay. I hadn't thought of the relative lack of that among English writers. You can't say the same for other literatures. I mean in French, one only has to mention Baudelaire....
Reconciling literature and respectability is another issue. I suppose the Victorians could make Donne respectable because he joined the Church, but Shakespeare!? Keats did compare Hazlitt to Shakespeare!
The comparison of Hazlitt to Rousseau is also telling. Virginia Woolf touches on something very real when she writes of how Hazlitt was persecuted. So was Rousseau as you know. In neither case was it some weirdo imagining things.
If you think of the French tradition, there are numerous writers that the Academy wants to canonize and render respectable though they were anything but respectable.From Rabelais to Guyotat. Most of them, and not just in ancient times, were persecuted mercilessly. You know the list better than me.
Sophie
I'm pleased as punch at your comment, and the echoes from your aunt. Pleased as punch, by the way, is a phrase associated with Hubert Humphrey, that liberal warrior. He used pleased as punch enough that comic imitators picked it up as his signature line, just as Nixon's was "I want to be crystal clear." Since Humphrey looked a bit like Punch - the big awkward head - it made the phrase more reflexive - as though Punch after throwing his baby out the window had a moment of self-awareness.
The French tradition of the essay is sometimes a little monumental. I picked up Montherlant's essays a month ago and thought, wow, this man is continually crowning himself with laurels! It isn't even the quasi-fascism. Bernanos, on the other hand, I like quite a bit, in spite of his far right origins. There's something Dostoevskian about Bernanos.
But Woolf has an ability to be intimate - which supposedly she was really like. I read somewhere that at parties, when she was sitting next to someone she didn't know, she would ask the person questions until she caught the drift of the character, and then weave a certain vision of this person's possibilities, her future, that would be quite convincing. Although always, of course, an illusion. The fortune teller's gift. Which is the novelist's too.
Post a Comment