Écoutez le seul enregistrement de Virginia Woolf
Enregistrement de l'émission « Words
Fail Me » du 29 avril 1937 sur la BBC. Le mari de Virginia Woolf, Leonard Woolf, publia la retranscription de ce texte dans le recueil d'essais The Death of the Moth.
Retransciption:
"Craftmanshift" …Words, English words, are full of echoes, of memories, of
associations. They have been out and about, on people's lips, in their
houses, in the streets, in the fields, for so many centuries. And that
is one of the chief difficulties in writing them today – that they are
stored with other meanings, with other memories, and they have
contracted so many famous marriages in the past. The splendid word
"incarnadine," for example – who can use that without remembering
"multitudinous seas"? In the old days, of course, when English was a
new language, writers could invent new words and use them. Nowadays it
is easy enough to invent new words – they spring to the lips whenever
we see a new sight or feel a new sensation – but we cannot use them
because the English language is old. You cannot use a brand new word in
an old language because of the very obvious yet always mysterious fact
that a word is not a single and separate entity, but part of other
words. Indeed it is not a word until it is part of a sentence. Words
belong to each other, although, of course, only a great poet knows that
the word "incarnadine" belongs to "multitudinous seas." To combine new
words with old words is fatal to the constitution of the sentence. In
order to use new words properly you would have to invent a whole new
language; and that, though no doubt we shall come to it, is not at the
moment our business. Our business is to see what we can do with the old
English language as it is. How can we combine the old words in new
orders so that they survive, so that they create beauty, so that they
tell the truth? That is the question.
And the person who could
answer that question would deserve whatever crown of glory the world
has to offer. Think what it would mean if you could teach, or if you
could learn the art of writing. Why, every book, every newspaper you'd
pick up, would tell the truth, or create beauty. But there is, it would
appear, some obstacle in the way, some hindrance to the teaching of
words. For though at this moment at least a hundred professors are
lecturing on the literature of the past, at least a thousand critics
are reviewing the literature of the present, and hundreds upon hundreds
of young men and women are passing examinations in English literature
with the utmost credit, still – do we write better, do we read better
than we read and wrote four hundred years ago when we were un-lectured,
un-criticized, untaught? Is our modern Georgian literature a patch on
the Elizabethan? Well, where then are we to lay the blame? Not on our
professors; not on our reviewers; not on our writers; but on words. It
is words that are to blame. They are the wildest, freest, most
irresponsible, most un-teachable of all things. Of course, you can
catch them and sort them and place them in alphabetical order in
dictionaries. But words do not live in dictionaries; they live in the
mind. If you want proof of this, consider how often in moments of
emotion when we most need words we find none. Yet there is the
dictionary; there at our disposal are some half-a-million words all in
alphabetical order. But can we use them? No, because words do not live
in dictionaries, they live in the mind. Look once more at the
dictionary. There beyond a doubt lie plays more splendid than Antony
and Cleopatra; poems lovelier than the Ode to a Nightingale; novels
beside which Pride and Prejudice or David Copperfield are the crude
bunglings of amateurs. It is only a question of finding the right words
and putting them in the right order. But we cannot do it because they
do not live in dictionaries; they live in the mind. And how do they
live in the mind? Variously and strangely, much as human beings live,
ranging hither and thither, falling in love, and mating together. It is
true that they are much less bound by ceremony and convention than we
are. Royal words mate with commoners. English words marry French words,
German words, Indian words, Negro words, if they have a fancy. Indeed,
the less we enquire into the past of our dear Mother English the better
it will be for that lady's reputation. For she has gone a-roving,
a-roving fair maid.
Thus to lay down any laws for such
irreclaimable vagabonds is worse than useless. A few trifling rules of
grammar and spelling is all the constraint we can put on them. All we
can say about them, as we peer at them over the edge of that deep, dark
and only fitfully illuminated cavern in which they live – the mind –
all we can say about them is that they seem to like people to think
before they use them, and to feel before they use them, but to think
and feel not about them, but about something different. They are highly
sensitive, easily made self-conscious. They do not like to have their
purity or their impurity discussed. If you start a Society for Pure
English, they will show their resentment by starting another for impure
English – hence the unnatural violence of much modern speech; it is a
protest against the puritans. They are highly democratic, too; they
believe that one word is as good as another; uneducated words are as
good as educated words, uncultivated words as good as cultivated words,
there are no ranks or titles in their society. Nor do they like being
lifted out on the point of a pen and examined separately. They hang
together, in sentences, paragraphs, sometimes for whole pages at a
time. They hate being useful; they hate making money; they hate being
lectured about in public. In short, they hate anything that stamps them
with one meaning or confines them to one attitude, for it is their
nature to change.
Perhaps that is their most striking
peculiarity – their need of change. It is because the truth they try to
catch is many-sided, and they convey it by being many-sided, flashing
first this way, then that. Thus they mean one thing to one person,
another thing to another person; they are unintelligible to one
generation, plain as a pikestaff to the next. And it is because of this
complexity, this power to mean different things to different people,
that they survive. Perhaps then one reason why we have no great poet,
novelist or critic writing today is that we refuse to allow words their
liberty. We pin them down to one meaning, their useful meaning, the
meaning which makes us catch the train, the meaning which makes us pass
the examination…