Henry James -- A critical study E-Book

Ford Madox Ford

• Herausgeber: DigiCat
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022

Beschreibung

In 'Henry James - A Critical Study' by Ford Madox Ford, the reader is taken on a journey through the life and works of the renowned American author, Henry James. Ford delves into James' literary style, character development, and the recurring themes in his works such as social class, human relationships, and the complexities of human nature. Ford's analysis is thorough and insightful, providing readers with a deeper understanding of James' contribution to the literary world. This book serves as an invaluable resource for scholars and fans of Henry James alike. Ford's writing is engaging and scholarly, making it a must-read for anyone interested in literary criticism and analysis. The book is a testament to Ford's expertise in the field and his admiration for James' work. Through this critical study, Ford sheds light on the nuances of James' writing and solidifies his place in literary history.

Leseprobe

Ford Madox Ford

Henry James -- A critical study

 

EAN 8596547186564

DigiCat, 2022 Contact: [email protected]

Table of Contents

I

II

II

III

III

IV

APPENDIX

Four Meetings (Edition: Macmillan, 1883) .

Four Meetings (Edition: Macmillan, 1883) .

I

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

Let me say at once that I regard the works of Mr. Henry James as those most worthy of attention by the critics—most worthy of attention of all the work that is to-day pouring from the groaning presses of continents. In saying this I conceal for the moment my private opinion—which doesn’t in the least matter to anyone, though it is an opinion that can hardly be called anything but mature—that Mr. James is the greatest of living writers and in consequence, for me, the greatest of living men.

I might, that is to say, have thought, as I have, that Mr. James is the greatest of living men without ever contemplating thus setting out to write a book about him. A man may be supremely great and offer no opportunity for comment of any kind. I cannot, that is to say, imagine any serious writer setting to work to say anything about Shakespeare, about Turgenieff, or for the matter of that about Nelson or Moltke. There are people who just “are,” consummate in various degrees, perfect engines of providence. It is a little difficult, or at any rate it would call for a great number of words to explain exactly what I mean; but in order to avoid the danger of being considered paradoxical I will venture here and now upon a rough digest of that number of words so as to plan out the ground of this book.

Thus, when I say that no one can write much about Shakespeare or Turgenieff I say it because, thank God, we know nothing whatever about Shakespeare. He is personally nothing but a wise smile and a couple of anecdotes. And his work, considered from a literary point of view, is too consummate for any literary comment. You can annotate his words and his historic matter to an extent that has provided us with fifty libraries of pedagogic dullness or of anecdotal interest, as the case may be; but the beautiful spirit of the man you cannot in any way touch. So in a sense it is with Turgenieff whom Mr. James calls at one moment “my distinguished friend,” at another “the amiable Russian”; but finally, being worthy of himself, he styles him “the beautiful genius.”

And that is all that can be said about Turgenieff—he was “the beautiful genius.” Again, thank God, we know as little of his personality as we know of Shakespeare’s. I do not mean to say that he is as tangibly indefinite a solar myth; we know enough about him to be able to say that he was not the late Mr. Pobiedonostieff, procurator of the Holy Synod, and to be certain that his work was not written by the late Count Tolstoy. Fragments of his personality are, in fact, recoverable here and there. These two eyes have seen him in a studio; a rather nasty Slav, Russian, or Pole has written a rather nasty book about him. In this he attempts to place “the beautiful genius” in an unfavourable light as sneering at his great French fellow-workers. To-day Young Russia sneers at him for not being a Collectivist, a Nihilist, a Marxist, a Syndicalist or what you will. And Young England, which is always sycophantically at the bidding of any whining Intellectual, whether Celt or Slav, repeats the lament of Young Russia that Turgenieff was not a Collectivist, a Marxist, and all the rest of it. And against Turgenieff Young England erects the banner of Dostoievsky, as if the fame of that portentous writer of enormous detective stories, that sad man with the native Slav genius for telling immensely long and formless tales, must destroy the art, the poetry and the exquisiteness that are in the works of “the beautiful genius.” ...

At any rate, precious little is recoverable of the personality of Turgenieff. We know that he shot partridges which perhaps he shouldn’t have done. We know also that he purchased cakes of scented soap for a mistress whom perhaps he shouldn’t—or perhaps he should—have had. But the fact is that he lived partly amongst men of letters who could not find anything much to say about his work and partly amongst gentlefolk who did not want to say much about his personality. Therefore he remains, baffling and enticing, but practically, too, only a smile and a couple of anecdotes. About his work the critic can say no more than he can about that of Shakespeare. Its surface is too compact, is too polished; the critical pickaxe or geological hammer just cannot get up a little chunk of that marble for chemical analysis. It exists as the grass exists which the good God made to grow, and that is the end of the matter.

Similarly, as I have said, with Nelson and Field-Marshal von Moltke. These were “the beautiful geniuses” of embattled nations. Their genius probably consisted in their being ready to take chances. You may analyse the strategy of Nelson just as you may analyse that of Von Moltke, but you cannot say why God was on their side, and until you can say that you cannot very well say much that is to the point. Nelson ought never to have fought the battle of Trafalgar; the chances, in that particular spot of the Bay of Biscay, were seven to one that such an unfavourable wind must there spring up as should frustrate the manœuvres ordered from the Victory. Similarly, Moltke should never have fought Gravelotte; the chances were twenty-seven to one that the Crown Prince of Saxony would not arrive in time; the chances were eleven to one in favour of the French rifle; there was practically no chance that the German troops would face that hill of death in the final charge and, in the event of any of these evil chances taking effect, final disaster was all that Germany could have expected.

Thus, once more there is very little to be said about these matters.

There is very little in short to be said about pure genius. It is just a thing that is. And there is nothing left for us, who are in the end but the stuff with which to fill graveyards, to say more than that marvellous are the ways of Providence that gives to a few so much and to the vast many nothing at all. But there remains a second—by no means secondary—order of great people into whose work it is possible, and very profitable, minutely to enquire. For, if you can’t say much about Moltke you can discover pretty easily, and descant for long upon, the strategy of Marlborough; if you can’t say much about Shakespeare you might write several books about the craftsmanship of Goethe; if Johannes Sebastian Bach defies the pen as far as his peculiar magic is concerned, the pen can find endless objects for its activity in the music drama of Richard Wagner; or, if you can’t find out how Turgenieff did any single blessed thing you could write a volume about the wording of one paragraph by Flaubert. To this latter category belong the works of Mr. Henry James.

Mr. Henry James has of course his share of the talent which can’t be defined. He has, that is to say, plenty of personality. You could no more confound him, say, with Théophile Gautier than you could confound Homer with Dante or with Quintus Horatius Flaccus, but in addition to having—to being—a temperament Mr. James has a conscious craftsmanship. His temperament we may define clearly enough if Providence provides the words, though we couldn’t, any of us, say where in the world he got it from. But his craftsmanship, his conscious literary modifications, his changes of word for word, the maturing of his muse, the way in which quite consciously he mellows his vintages, all these things he has very efficiently betrayed to us. And it is this betrayal that makes one select his work rather than those of Monsieur Anatole France, of Monsieur Henri de Regnier; for the matter of that of Monsieur André Gide, of Mr. Joseph Conrad, or Mr. W. H. Hudson—to name the other really great writers of our day—for analysis. With any one of these five fine spirits you might go a long way. You might define their geniuses, you might dimly guess at their methods, but you can’t—as you can with Mr. James—say quite definitely that here he changed the words “she answered” into the words “she indefinitely responded.” Mr. James has in fact given hostages to all of us who will be at the pains of a little grubbing up these definite facts as to his methods; the others have given us practically nothing of the sort, so that, in their cases, if one submitted them to the pains of vivisection one must leave the whole question of their methods very much to conjecture. In planning out therefore the following book I propose firstly to state why this writer appears to me to be the greatest author of our day—which is as much as to say why he is valuable to the world; secondly, I shall attempt to define his temperament to the extent of trying to show how far it is a mirror of the concrete things and the invisible tendencies of our day; and in the third place I shall attempt for the instruction of this day of ours, to define, as clearly as may be, what are the methods of this distinguished writer. This I am aware is, as the American poet said, “all sorts of a job.”

I am aware too that the charges may be brought against me that, firstly, in these pages I have made a profuse use of the “I”. I can’t help that. I have wanted to be plain and, in matters difficult to express, such locutions as “the present writer” add confusion. These are the present writer’s personal impressions of our author’s work put as clearly as the medium will allow.

Moreover, there are in these pages a great many disquisitions on the “conditions” of modern life. But for these also I do not apologise. You cannot write about a great writer of Actualities without giving some account of the times in which he lived. You cannot write about Euripides and ignore Athens. (I am aware that it is usual to do so!)

II

Table of Contents

SUBJECTS

I have said that I consider the author of The Spoils of Poynton the greatest writer now living; let me now bring forward the reasons for this belief. Greatness as it appears to me is a quality possibly connected with, but certainly not solely dependent upon, artistry. I should hesitate in fact to say that Mr. James is the greatest artist now living; indeed, I should hesitate to say whether any one artist was ever greater than any other artist. This, however, is a point upon which I by no means wish to dogmatise. If I say that I regard Christina Rossetti as as great an artist as, let us say, Horace, or that I regard Beckford who wrote the letters from Portugal as as great an artist as Prosper Mérimée or Shakespeare or Mr. W. H. Hudson or François Villon, I mean simply that artistry appears to me to be just a quality that either you have or you haven’t. If you have it you are as great but no greater than any other artist, and every other artist is as great but no greater than yourself. I do not mean to say that the effects of your art upon the world may not be greater or less than that of any other artist. It is very likely that the actual effect of Christina Rossetti upon the present age is greater than that of the writer of the single line:

ἡρὰμεν μεν ἐγό σέθεν, Ἀθι, παλαῖ ποτὰ

yet it would be absurd to deny that Sappho was as great an artist as the author of Goblin Market, just as it would be absurd to deny that the sculptor of the Winged Victory was as great an artist as Monsieur Rodin or Michael Angelo. It appears to me, then, that the quality of being an artist is such another quality as are beauty, race, honesty or fineness of temperament—a quality conferred by the gods upon the men whom they love.

But then again we come upon the use to which the artist will put the measure of the light vouchsafed him. God forbid that I should say that all artists are equal in their output, their moral values or, for the matter of that, in their technical industry. The works of Shakespeare are longer than the Bible; François Villon was a scamp, whereas Mr. James in a literary sense would adorn the society of any Cathedral close. Balzac poured out an unceasing stream of imaginings without any particular attention to methods. Flaubert was thinking of methods all day long.

I have said somewhere else that the supreme quality of art is to be interesting, and after some years of reflection upon the matter I do not get any further than that, though I can put it in another way. The real essence of art is a sense of appropriateness, almost as it were a sense of decency. The real artist feels for his subject a quality of chastity; whilst he is handling it he will no more introduce into it extraneous or unsuitable matter than a lady of niceness will go to the opera in the costume she reserves for the golf course. At the same time, this sense of appropriateness in the texture and conception of the work will no more affect, say, the takings of a railway company than will the opera costume of any lady however negligent or however strong-minded. Yet undoubtedly writers may quite remarkably affect the takings of railway companies which, in an Anglo-Saxon community, may well be taken to be the most important things in the world. If we put it upon a very small scale it is, I believe, statistically true that one book brings in an income of £70,000 a year to the Great Western Railway Company, that book being Lorna Doone; for it is estimated that, every year, 60,000 people visit Exmoor and the neighbourhood on account of the glamour that Mr. Blackmore threw over that quite charming country. Or think, again, of all the shipping, the railway, the transport and the motor companies that are kept alive by pilgrims to the shrine of one writer or another at Stratford-on-Avon. Or consider, again, how whole populations have been set moving by writings about various regions. How much population has the vast city which we inhabit gained from the poetic imagining that the streets of London are paved with gold; or what do the plains of Canada, the mountains of Central North America or the islands in the Gulf of Mexico not owe to the imaginings of poets of one kind or another? Consider how the Dominion of Canada resented the poetic appellation of Our Lady of the Snows—and why? Simply because Canada was afraid that intending emigrants might be frightened away by that epithet, shadowing as it seemed to do an arctic climate.

That such greatness then may appertain to the usually despised profession of writing few will probably deny. Nay, the great railway companies themselves give evidence of this fact, for, if you will write to any one of them and state that it is your intention to write a book about any given tract of country served by their line, they will at once present you free of charge with a first-class season ticket over the whole of their system. But they will never stop to enquire whether you are an artist or not, or whether you possess a sense of appropriateness or of the chastity of your subject.

It is not however this type of greatness that I claim to any great extent for the author of The American Scene. For, roughly speaking, when the reader embarks upon that magnificent book of impressions he reads for many pages with a sense of deep, of complete, and finally of utter, non-comprehension. And bewilderment accompanies him through the long process of perusal. But when you close the book—at that very moment a sense of extraordinary reality overwhelms you. You will find that you have actually been in New York whose note is the scream of trolley wheels upon inefficiently laid granite setts; you will find that you have actually been at Manhattan Beach, where ladies, so lacking in elusiveness, say and do the odd, queer things in the high, queer voices. It is, The American Scene, an amazing piece of artistry, but I do not imagine that it ever made any single soul desire to join the scant company of rubber-necks who visit the United States. Let us not however deny to this distinguished author all claims to this particular form of greatness, for many of us have undoubtedly done no more in visiting the country of the Lilies than follow in the footsteps of the author of A Little Tour in France.