When I was in my last year of undergrad and casting about for some grand project that I could possibly use to fuel funding for my graduate studies I came across an enormously ambitious idea. I would compare Beowulf and a few of the other early stories left in Old English, Old Norse, and Old Welsh and see what sorts of connections I could make. Was there any evidence that Beowulf was the result of some sort of assimilation of the earlier Celtic peoples of the British Isles and the near contemporaneous Nordic traders in the north and their stories into one unified story type? Was Beowulf the first multi-national epic for the social entity we now call “England”?
At the time (and even now) I think this is a pretty cool project idea.
Even if I would need to learn enough of two completely new languages to translate works well enough to detect the differences between the originals and whatever other translations I might be consulting. Even if I would need to dedicate myself to the research while teaching and heading up this and that administrative committee or initiative. Even if I would need to be some sort of PhD or Professor-track contract worker to even be within reach of the archives necessary for all of the research ahead of me.
But to extend that kind of cultural dissection across the entirety of English literature, art, music, and architectural history? That’s just a fool’s errand. There’s too much material to try to cover with any one definition. Any notion of “Englishness” gleaned from such a project just won’t hold up to the slightest scrutiny.
Well, luckily enough for me, Peter Ackroyd must have been itching to also grab a jangly jester’s hat as he reached for his pen to draft this book.
Of course, he definitely has the advantages of academic experience and past scholarship on his side. The man has plenty of points of reference to draw as dots in various configurations. He then gleefully connects said dots and comes to conclusions about the English imagination.
And, to be fair, I think what comes out of these connections has some merit.
His conclusions about “Englishness” being more about place than people and more about understanding and adapting what is not English seems to be very accurate (and, not unlike a spookily correct horoscope, helpfully broad). This notion of Englishness explains how deftly the English were able to colonize so much of the world and adapt those peoples’ resources for the enrichment of that place called England.
But like an English treasure galley sailing heavily home, I think the overall project suffers from Ackroyd’s using far too many reference points to demonstrate something throughout time that really does not have that much range. The book is about the “origins” of the English Imagination after all. But here we are with an entire career path for the thing. And Ackroyd definitely shows his biases when he passes the point in time where the printing press was common in England (especially London) and the amount of published expression explodes.
Despite this superabundance of material he never addresses whether or not those things in the 16th century and onwards that he claims further defined/shaped the English imagination were truly some sort of genius loci speaking the tongue of the realm or just the result of people seeing where the money was and following it. As time goes on it becomes increasingly unclear to me (as a non-resident reader and as someone whose formal studies never really went beyond William Blake) who all of the major points of the “English imagination” even are. Speaking of Blake, Ackroyd makes little room for the visionary poet. Though perhaps that was merely because his popular-er, Englishness, sorry, only grew after his death.
Despite these misgivings about Ackroyd’s efforts here, I did enjoy my time with the book.
It was fun to anticipate the next point he was about to bring up, to refute him in the margins, and just generally engage with the text in a way that I seldom do when reading non-fiction. I can credit much of this fun to the text being strewn with bits like those about Englishness mentioned above as well as nuggets like when he writes on page 359 that novels “reside in the domain of lived experience...guided by the promptings of observation or sentiment” so women are better at writing them than they are at writing poetry which, though the text only implies this connection, relies more on “the precepts of reason or theory.” A notion that knocked the active reader in my head on his bum for a few minutes. During that time I tried to make heads or tails of how anyone who had set out to classify and identify a whole national imagination could stumble over what goes into poetry and novels, not to mention make such a broad generalization without any acknowledgement of societal factors that might have also contributed to the apparent lack of women’s poetry in English. Perhaps there is a bit of a pattern in these generalizations? Or maybe I’m just falling into an English major bad habit here and interpreting what’s implied but not meant rather than what is said.
Also, since this was a book about the English Imagination’s “origin” I consider everything in it after the introduction of the printing press to be like a post-game story addendum in a Dragon Quest or Pokemon game. Within this included DLC I have to shout out the chapters on humour; women writers; the novel itself; and the intersection of plagiarism, forgeries, and Romanticism. Each of these four were illuminating looks at aspects of English culture and history that would enliven even the dullest of undergraduate courses, even if just for the space of their reading.
No doubt you have a favourite English author if you’re reading this review. Maybe they’re the only one you like, or maybe they’re just the brightest star in your personal galaxy of English authors you read/have read. Despite my problem with the lack of honesty in the title, this book is, appropriately enough, the box of wall-ready, glow-in-the-dark star stickers of literary histories. If you rifle through it maybe you’ll only find one that really speaks to you or maybe you’ll stick several on your wall (even the ones with bent arms or that were cut crooked). Either way, this is a book that may not light you up the way it did me, but parts of it will at least glow.