The Life of George Borrow [173]
vindictiveness the adverse criticism of a book that he had written with such care, and so earnest an endeavour to maintain if not improve upon the standard created in a former work. It never for a moment struck him that the men who had once hailed him "great", should now admonish him as a result of the honest exercise of their critical faculties. No; there was conspiracy against him, and he tortured himself into a pitiable state of wrath and melancholy. A later generation has been less harsh in its judgment. The controversial parts of Lavengro have become less controversial and the magnificent parts have become more magnificent, and it has taken its place as a star of the second magnitude.
The question of what is actual autobiography and what is so coloured as to become practically fiction, must always be a matter of opinion. The early portion seems convincing, even the first meeting with the gypsies in the lane at Norman Cross. It has been asked by an eminent gypsy scholar how Borrow knew the meaning of the word "sap", or why he addressed the gypsy woman as "my mother". When the Gypsy refers to the "Sap there", the child replies, "what, the snake"? The employment of the other phrase is obviously an inadvertent use of knowledge he gained later.
In writing to Mrs George Borrow (24th March 1851) to tell her that W. B. Donne had been unable to obtain Lavengro for The Edinburgh Review as it had been bespoken a year previously by Dr Bowring, Dr Hake adds that Donne had written "putting the editor in possession of his view of Lavengro, as regards verisimilitude, vouching for the Daguerreotype-like fidelity of the picture in the first volume, etc., etc., in order to prevent him from being TAKEN IN BY a spiteful article." This passage is very significant as being written by one of Borrow's most intimate friends, with the sure knowledge that its contents would reach him. It leaves no room for doubt that, although Borrow denied publicly the autobiographical nature of Lavengro, in his own circle it was freely admitted and referred to as a life.
"What is an autobiography?" Borrow once asked Mr Theodore Watts- Dunton (who had called his attention to several bold coincidences in Lavengro). "Is it the mere record of the incidents of a man's life? or is it a picture of the man himself--his character, his soul?" {396a} Mr Watts-Dunton confirms Borrow's letters when he says "That he [Borrow] sat down to write his own life in Lavengro I know. He had no idea then of departing from the strict line of fact."
At times Borrow seemed to find his pictures flat, and heightened the colour in places, as a painter might heighten the tone of a drapery, a roof or some other object, not because the individual spot required it, but rather because the general effect he was aiming at rendered it necessary. He did this just as an actor rouges his face, darkens his eyebrows and round his eyes, that he may appear to his audience a living man and not an animated corpse.
Borrow was drawing himself, striving to be as faithful to the original as Boswell to Johnson. Incidents! what were they? the straw with which the bricks of personality are made. A comparison of Lavengro with Borrow's letters to the Bible Society is instructive; it is the same Borrow that appears in both, with the sole difference that in the Letters he is less mysterious, less in the limelight than in Lavengro.
Mr Watts-Dunton, with inspiration, has asked whether or not Lavengro and The Romany Rye form a spiritual autobiography; and if they do, whether that autobiography does or does not surpass every other for absolute truth of spiritual representation. Borrow certainly did colour his narrative in places. Who could write the story of his early life with absolute accuracy? without dwelling on and elaborating certain episodes, perhaps even adjusting them somewhat? That would not necessarily prove them untrue.
There are, unquestionably, inconsistencies in Lavengro and The Romany Rye -they are admitted, they have been pointed out. There are many inaccuracies,
The question of what is actual autobiography and what is so coloured as to become practically fiction, must always be a matter of opinion. The early portion seems convincing, even the first meeting with the gypsies in the lane at Norman Cross. It has been asked by an eminent gypsy scholar how Borrow knew the meaning of the word "sap", or why he addressed the gypsy woman as "my mother". When the Gypsy refers to the "Sap there", the child replies, "what, the snake"? The employment of the other phrase is obviously an inadvertent use of knowledge he gained later.
In writing to Mrs George Borrow (24th March 1851) to tell her that W. B. Donne had been unable to obtain Lavengro for The Edinburgh Review as it had been bespoken a year previously by Dr Bowring, Dr Hake adds that Donne had written "putting the editor in possession of his view of Lavengro, as regards verisimilitude, vouching for the Daguerreotype-like fidelity of the picture in the first volume, etc., etc., in order to prevent him from being TAKEN IN BY a spiteful article." This passage is very significant as being written by one of Borrow's most intimate friends, with the sure knowledge that its contents would reach him. It leaves no room for doubt that, although Borrow denied publicly the autobiographical nature of Lavengro, in his own circle it was freely admitted and referred to as a life.
"What is an autobiography?" Borrow once asked Mr Theodore Watts- Dunton (who had called his attention to several bold coincidences in Lavengro). "Is it the mere record of the incidents of a man's life? or is it a picture of the man himself--his character, his soul?" {396a} Mr Watts-Dunton confirms Borrow's letters when he says "That he [Borrow] sat down to write his own life in Lavengro I know. He had no idea then of departing from the strict line of fact."
At times Borrow seemed to find his pictures flat, and heightened the colour in places, as a painter might heighten the tone of a drapery, a roof or some other object, not because the individual spot required it, but rather because the general effect he was aiming at rendered it necessary. He did this just as an actor rouges his face, darkens his eyebrows and round his eyes, that he may appear to his audience a living man and not an animated corpse.
Borrow was drawing himself, striving to be as faithful to the original as Boswell to Johnson. Incidents! what were they? the straw with which the bricks of personality are made. A comparison of Lavengro with Borrow's letters to the Bible Society is instructive; it is the same Borrow that appears in both, with the sole difference that in the Letters he is less mysterious, less in the limelight than in Lavengro.
Mr Watts-Dunton, with inspiration, has asked whether or not Lavengro and The Romany Rye form a spiritual autobiography; and if they do, whether that autobiography does or does not surpass every other for absolute truth of spiritual representation. Borrow certainly did colour his narrative in places. Who could write the story of his early life with absolute accuracy? without dwelling on and elaborating certain episodes, perhaps even adjusting them somewhat? That would not necessarily prove them untrue.
There are, unquestionably, inconsistencies in Lavengro and The Romany Rye -they are admitted, they have been pointed out. There are many inaccuracies,