Article #452-2 | Gutenberg Articles

Excerpt

Excerpt from Lavengro: The Scholar, the Gypsy, the Priest, by George Borrow

INTRODUCTION

The author of Lavengro, the Scholar, the Gypsy, and the Priest
has after his fitful hour come into his own, and there abides securely.
Borrow's books,--carelessly written, impatient, petulant, in parts
repellant,--have been found so full of the elixir of life, of the charm
of existence, of the glory of motion, so instinct with character, and
mood, and wayward fancy, that their very names are sounds of enchantment,
whilst the fleeting scenes they depict and the deeds they describe have
become the properties and the pastimes for all the years that are still
to be of a considerable fraction of the English-speaking race.

And yet I suppose it would be considered ridiculous in these fine days to
call Borrow a great artist. His fascination, his hold upon his reader,
is not the fascination or the hold of the lords of human smiles and
tears. They enthrall us; Borrow only bewitches. Isopel Berners, hastily
limned though she be, need fear comparison with no damsel that ever lent
sweetness to the stage, relish to rhyme, or life to novel. She can hold
up her head and take her own part amidst all the Rosalinds, Beatrices,
and Lucys that genius has created and memory can muster. But how she
came into existence puzzles us not a little. Was she summoned out of
nothingness by the creative fancy of Lavengro, or did he really first set
eyes upon her in the dingle whither she came with the Flaming Tinman,
whose look Lavengro did not like at all? Reality and romance, though
Borrow made them wear double harness, are not meant to be driven
together. It is hard to weep aright over Isopel Berners. The reader is
tortured by a sense of duty towards her. This distraction prevents our
giving ourselves away to Borrow. Perhaps after all he did meet the tall
girl in the dingle, in which case he was a fool for all his pains, losing
a gift the gods could not restore.

Explanation

This excerpt is the introduction to Lavengro: The Scholar, the Gypsy, the Priest (1851), a semi-autobiographical novel by George Borrow (1803–1881), a British travel writer, linguist, and Romantic-era eccentric. The novel blends memoir, adventure, and philosophical musings, following the narrator (a thinly veiled Borrow) as he wanders through England, encountering Gypsies, scholars, and rogue preachers. The introduction—likely written by a later editor or critic (possibly Augustine Birrell, who championed Borrow’s revival in the late 19th century)—serves as both a defense and a meditation on Borrow’s idiosyncratic genius. Below is a detailed breakdown of the passage, focusing on its themes, literary devices, tone, and significance, with an emphasis on the text itself.

1. Context & Purpose of the Introduction

The introduction positions Borrow as a neglected but enduring literary figure, whose works—though flawed—possess a vital, almost magical quality. Written in a time when Borrow’s reputation was being reassessed (likely the late 19th or early 20th century), it argues for his unconventional greatness, contrasting him with more polished "lords of human smiles and tears" (e.g., Dickens, Shakespeare). The tone is ardent, contradictory, and playful, mirroring Borrow’s own style.

Key contextual notes:

Lavengro was initially dismissed as rambling and self-indulgent, but later admired for its energy, authenticity, and linguistic virtuosity.
Borrow’s life was as colorful as his writing: he was a polyglot, a wanderer, and a self-mythologizer, blending fact and fiction in his works.
The introduction reflects the Romantic and post-Romantic fascination with outsiders—Gypsies, vagabonds, and nonconformists—who embody freedom and mystery.

2. Themes in the Excerpt

A. The Paradox of Borrow’s Genius

The passage opens with a contradiction:

"carelessly written, impatient, petulant, in parts repellant,—have been found so full of the elixir of life..."

Literary devices:
- Juxtaposition: The clash between Borrow’s "careless" craftsmanship and his works’ "elixir of life" suggests that his power lies in raw vitality, not technical perfection.
- Paradox: His flaws ("repellant") coexist with his charm ("enchantment"), much like his novels, which mix grit and poetry.
- Metaphor: "Elixir of life" and "charm of existence" frame his writing as alchemical, transforming the mundane into the magical.
Significance: The introduction challenges traditional notions of literary greatness. Borrow isn’t a "great artist" in the conventional sense (like Shakespeare or Austen), but his work has a hypnotic, unpredictable energy that defies categorization.

B. The Power of Enchantment Over Enthrallment

"His fascination, his hold upon his reader, is not the fascination or the hold of the lords of human smiles and tears. They enthrall us; Borrow only bewitches."

Literary devices:
- Antithesis: "Enthrall" (to dominate) vs. "bewitch" (to charm mysteriously) distinguishes Borrow from dramatists and novelists who manipulate emotions (e.g., Dickens’ sentimentalism or Shakespeare’s tragic catharsis).
- Personification: "Lords of human smiles and tears" gives agency to canonical writers, while Borrow is a rogue enchanter.
Significance: Borrow’s appeal is intimate and unsettling. He doesn’t force tears or laughter but lures the reader into a dreamlike state, where reality and romance blur. This aligns with his Gypsy associations—Gypsies in his work are both alluring and dangerous, much like his prose.

C. The Mystery of Isopel Berners: Reality vs. Romance

The introduction shifts to Isopel Berners, a Gypsy girl in Lavengro who embodies the novel’s central tension between truth and fiction:

"Was she summoned out of nothingness by the creative fancy of Lavengro, or did he really first set eyes upon her in the dingle whither she came with the Flaming Tinman, whose look Lavengro did not like at all?"

Literary devices:
- Rhetorical question: The uncertainty about Isopel’s origins mirrors Borrow’s blurring of autobiography and invention.
- Symbolism: The "dingle" (a secluded valley) is a liminal space, neither fully real nor imagined. The "Flaming Tinman" (a sinister tinker) adds a Gothic, folkloric menace, hinting at Borrow’s distrust of deception.
- Allusion: Isopel is compared to Rosalind (As You Like It), Beatrice (Much Ado), and Lucy (The Beggar’s Opera), placing her in a lineage of spirited, subversive heroines—yet she resists full assimilation into fiction.
Significance:
- Isopel represents Borrow’s obsession with the "real" Gypsy world, which he both romanticizes and fears. Her ambiguity forces the reader to question: Is Borrow a liar, a poet, or both?
- The "sense of duty" toward Isopel suggests that her unresolved fate (she disappears from the narrative) creates emotional friction. Unlike Shakespeare’s heroines, she isn’t neatly contained by the text.

D. The Cost of Romanticism

"Perhaps after all he did meet the tall girl in the dingle, in which case he was a fool for all his pains, losing a gift the gods could not restore."

Literary devices:
- Irony: If Isopel was real, Borrow’s failure to possess her (romantically or narratively) becomes a tragic irony. His art immures what life denied him.
- Mythological allusion: "Gift the gods could not restore" echoes Orpheus and Eurydice—a lost love that haunts the artist.
Significance:
- Borrow’s Gypsy infatuations reflect his desire for an untamed, pre-modern world, but the introduction suggests this longing is doomed.
- The line critiques Romantic idealism: Borrow’s quest for authenticity may have blinded him to real opportunities, leaving him with only stories.

3. Literary Style & Tone

Conversational yet ornate: The prose mimics Borrow’s own digressive, colloquial style, mixing high diction ("elixir of life") with bluntness ("he was a fool").
Playful contradiction: The introduction praises and undermines Borrow simultaneously, much like his own self-deprecating yet egotistical narrator in Lavengro.
Gothic undertones: The "Flaming Tinman" and the "dingle" evoke folk horror, a dark counterpart to Borrow’s Romanticism.

4. Significance of the Passage

Rehabilitation of Borrow: The introduction reclaims Borrow as a major, if unclassifiable, writer, arguing that his flaws are integral to his genius.
Defense of "Imperfect" Art: It challenges the idea that great literature must be polished or morally instructive. Borrow’s power lies in his messy humanity.
Exploration of Truth in Fiction: The Isopel Berners debate anticipates postmodern questions about autofiction (e.g., Knausgård, Coetzee). Borrow’s work is neither pure memoir nor novel, but a third genre that thrives on ambiguity.
Romanticism’s Legacy: The passage captures the twilight of Romanticism, where the wild, oral traditions Borrow loved (Gypsy lore, ballads) collide with modern skepticism.

5. Key Takeaways from the Text Itself

Borrow’s writing is alive but unruly, like a wild horse—beautiful in motion, hard to tame.
His characters (like Isopel) haunt the borderlands between reality and myth, resisting easy interpretation.
The introduction’s ambivalence ("bewitches" vs. "enthralls") mirrors Borrow’s own love-hate relationship with his subjects—Gypsies, the past, and even his readers.
Ultimately, the passage suggests that Borrow’s magic lies in his refusal to be pinned down, making him a patron saint of literary outsiders.

Final Thought: Why This Matters

This introduction isn’t just about Borrow—it’s about what we demand from art. Do we want perfection (the "lords of smiles and tears") or wild, imperfect enchantment? Borrow’s work resists the first and embodies the second, making him a cult figure for those who prefer mystery to mastery. The excerpt itself, with its swerving arguments and poetic contradictions, performs the very bewitchment it describes.

Questions

Question 1

The passage’s characterization of Borrow’s literary effect as "bewitching" rather than "enthralling" primarily serves to:

A. elevate Borrow’s status by aligning him with folkloric traditions of magic and oral storytelling.
B. critique the emotional manipulativeness of canonical authors who rely on contrived pathos.
C. distinguish Borrow’s immersive yet unsettling allure from the controlled catharsis of conventional narrative mastery.
D. suggest that Borrow’s works are fundamentally escapist, offering readers a temporary respite from reality.
E. imply that Borrow’s prose lacks the technical precision necessary to achieve lasting emotional resonance.

Question 2

The introduction’s treatment of Isopel Berners as a figure who "need fear comparison with no damsel that ever lent sweetness to the stage" yet also elicits a "sense of duty" from the reader most strongly implies that:

A. Borrow’s female characters are inherently more complex than those of Shakespeare or other canonical writers.
B. the reader’s engagement with Isopel is undermined by the narrative’s failure to resolve her fate satisfactorily.
C. Isopel’s literary merit is derived from her symbolic representation of Borrow’s idealized Gypsy culture.
D. the introduction’s author is attempting to canonize Isopel as a feminist icon superior to traditional heroines.
E. Isopel’s power as a character is inseparable from the tension between her vividness and the ambiguity of her origins.

Question 3

The rhetorical question "Was she summoned out of nothingness by the creative fancy of Lavengro, or did he really first set eyes upon her in the dingle..." functions primarily to:

A. expose the instability of Borrow’s narrative authority, forcing the reader to confront the constructedness of his "reality."
B. highlight the Gypsy tradition’s influence on Borrow’s writing, where oral history blurs the line between fact and legend.
C. criticize Borrow for his inability to commit to a single version of events, revealing his unreliability as a memoirist.
D. suggest that Isopel’s existence is ultimately irrelevant to the novel’s thematic concerns about freedom and wanderlust.
E. invite the reader to privilege the romanticized version of Isopel over any mundane or historical truth.

Question 4

The introduction’s assertion that "Reality and romance, though Borrow made them wear double harness, are not meant to be driven together" is most fundamentally a commentary on:

A. the inherent incompatibility between autobiographical truth and fictional embellishment in literature.
B. Borrow’s failure to reconcile his scholarly impulses with his romanticization of marginalized cultures.
C. the reader’s inability to fully suspend disbelief when confronted with Borrow’s hybrid genre.
D. the way Borrow’s narrative strategies—while daring—ultimately resist the emotional cohesion that defines enduring art.
E. the editorial frustration with Borrow’s refusal to adhere to the formal conventions of either memoir or novel.

Question 5

The closing line—"losing a gift the gods could not restore"—is most thematically resonant with which of the following ideas?

A. The futility of attempting to preserve oral traditions in written form, as their essence is inevitably lost.
B. Borrow’s regret over his inability to fully possess the Gypsy culture he idealized, either in life or in art.
C. The paradoxical nature of artistic creation, where the act of immortalizing a subject in fiction simultaneously destroys its real-world potency.
D. The introduction’s author’s lament that Borrow’s works, despite their brilliance, will never achieve the same cultural status as Shakespeare’s.
E. The idea that Borrow’s wanderlust prevented him from forming lasting relationships, leaving him with only fleeting inspirations.

Solutions and Explanations

1) Correct answer: C

Why C is most correct: The distinction between "bewitching" and "enthralling" is central to the passage’s argument about Borrow’s unique literary effect. "Enthrallment" connotes a controlled, immersive dominance (e.g., the cathartic power of Shakespearean tragedy), while "bewitching" suggests a more unsettling, less predictable charm—one that captivates but does not fully command the reader’s emotional surrender. The passage explicitly states that Borrow’s hold is not that of the "lords of human smiles and tears," implying his power lies in a different, more wayward allure. This aligns with the broader theme of Borrow’s resistance to conventional narrative mastery.