|
Leon Edel
Winner of the 1963
NONFICTION AWARD for
HENRY JAMES, VOLUMES II AND III
I am, as you know, a biographer. And a biographer
who attempts to tell a life in several volumes, as I
am doing, has perhaps a reason for offering explanations.
You may remember Lytton Strachey's words about Victorian
biographies "...those two fat volumes with their ill-digested
masses of material, their slip-shod style, their tome
of tedious panegyric, their lamentable lack of selection,
of detachment, of design." He found a "funeral barbarism"
in them.
I have written my volumes with Strachey's words before
me. What I have reminded myself is that he is not complaining
about the number of volumes; he was complaining that
they were badly written. Style, selection, detachment,
design, and varnishing of the truth -- this was what
he asked of us (although perhaps not sufficiently of
himself). It is the challenge biography must learn to
meet. It was the challenge leveled at Boswell by one
of his earliest critics. "Gold dust," wrote this critic,
"should have been ingotted before it was presented to
the public." And sixty years ago T. S. Perry, a New
England critic, described the making of biography in
this fashion: "The biographer gets a dust cart into
which he shovels diaries, reminiscences, old letters,
until the cart is full. Then he dumps the load in front
of your door. That is Vol. I. Then he goes forth again
on the same errand, and there is Vol. II. Out
of this rubbish the reader constructs a biography."
It seems to me that it is time for biographers to
stop putting this burden on the reader. Of course we
can complain that we are swamped by our materials. What
are we to do for example if our Presidents present us
with entire libraries crammed with their documents.
Again I find an answer in Strachey: "[Biographers] should
row out over that great ocean of material and lower
down into it, here and there, a little bucket, which
will bring up to the light of day some characteristic
specimen, from those far depths, to be examined with
careful curiosity." To illustrate, rather than explain,
to select, discriminate, and above all to have some
narrative design -- for the biographer who feels obliged
to include everything, this may seem like an impatience
with facts and dates. It is the reverse. It is a recognition
that all history can never be told: that without selection
all we have is clutter. We must disengage history and
the lives of men from the clutter of events.
It may seem strange to you that I should describe
myself as a devotee of the little bucket rather than
of the dust cart. The truth is I was forced to melt
down my materials or I would have been smothered by
them. Had I followed the dust cart method, my materials
would have filled two dozen volumes and even then I
would not have exhausted everything. It is this inexhaustibility
of biographical data that presents to modern biography
a challenge to find a method, a theory, a technique,
a form. A biography, after all, is a story, a true story.
There is really no excuse for not telling it well and
trying to tell it with all the art at one's command.
|