Miscellaneous Research
========================== research2 #8, from rdavis, Fri Apr 22 16:07:44 1994 -------------------------TITLE: Johnson, Boswell, and an attempt at understanding authorship in the eighteenth century.
Samuel Johnson and James Boswell had completely opposite concepts of writing. Boswell embraced the idea of being a popular author, but Johnson absolutely hated to write. It has been said many times in class that Johnson was one of the premier conversationalists in the eighteenth century. I believe that Johnson was always eager to express his ideas, though he preferred to do it through conversation rather than through writing. Unfortunately [or perhaps fortunately], Johnson realized that writing was the much more lasting mode of expression. Although Johnson and Boswell had very different views on writing, each expressed in their writings an understanding of what the expectations of an author was in eighteenth-century England.
Through his writing, Samuel Johnson expressed a distaste for writing that gives the twentieth- century reader an idea of the importance of authorship in eighteenth-century England. When asked about writing, Johnson once said, "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money" (A Johnson Reader, 464). In The Life of Johnson, Boswell described in Johnsonian terms Johnson's attempt to ". . . emancipate himself from the drudgery of authorship" (38). Johnson viewed writing as work, important work. The fact that Johnson put so much effort into his writing really proves how important writing was. Furthermore, writing was not just important work, Johnson felt writing was important public work. After he wrote the Parliamentary Debates, Johnson regretted ". . . having been the authour of fictions, which had passed for realities" (Life of Johnson, 44). In actuality, Johnson's disgust for writing was really a manifestation of the pressure writing imposed on him. He realized that he couldn't just sit down and write anything. He understood that authorship was a public agreement to put meaningful and useful thoughts on paper.
Boswell's love of producing and enjoying various works of literature tells the twentieth-century reader what the eighteenth-century's concept of authorship entailed. Although Boswell expressed his love for writing in his London Journal, he acknowledged the difficulties of writing in The Hypochondriack. In essay number one of The Hypochondriack, Boswell said, "To undertake the writing of a large book is like entering on a long and difficult journey, in the course of which much fatigue and uneasiness must be undergone . . ." (103). Despite his love for writing, Boswell reiterates Johnson's opinions about the work it requires to produce a meaningful piece of prose. In addition, Boswell echoes Johnson's opinions about writing being a public pursuit. In essay number one of The Hypochondriack, Boswell wrote, ". . . I cannot help thinking that readers are but too little considered by writers . . . . How few of the readers of books are writers!" (105). Like Johnson, Boswell also addressed the content and subject matter of eighteenth-century writing. In remarks on Johnson's dictionary, Boswell commented, ". . . it should not pass unobserved that he has quoted no authour whose writings had a tendency to hurt sound religion and morality" (Life of Johnson, 54). Boswell's statement commended Johnson's work, but also related an important detail about the desired content of eighteenth-century literature. Eighteenth-century authors had the responsibility to enforce the ideals of "sound religion and morality."
Although Johnson and Boswell generally had diverging opinions about writing, the ideas that they agree on convey a general concept of eighteenth-century authorship. Although writing may not be "drudgery" as Johnson stated, both writers agreed that writing involved work-hard work. In addition, Johnson and Boswell agreed that authors of the eighteenth-century had a responsibility to the public. Boswell described the general opinion of authorship as the writer ". . . supposes that he can instruct or amuse them [the audience], and the publick to whom he appeals, must, after all, be the judges of his pretensions" (Life of Johnson, 57). Finally, both authors agreed that good authors did not meander pointlessly on the page. Johnson and Boswell both repeat the Renaissance idea that literature should be both beautiful and useful (it should teach).
========================== research2 #4, from jgwhite, Tue Apr 12 14:19:15 1994 -------------------------The Gentleman's Magazine was a publication that existed from the eighteenth well into the nineteenth century. Various poems and poetical sketches could be found within its pages. In reading some of the entries from The Poems of Samuel Johnson, edited by Smith and Adam, a section exists called "Poems of Doubtful Authorship." My fingers found the section as fast as they could. I thought to myself, "I found the light -- well maybe the flashlight . . . O.K. it was a Fisher Price nightlight, but it was really cute!" (Applause for the sudden blast of humor.) What I concluded from these few passage is that the sense of an author's work can be misleading at times. The poems printed in this section were ambiguous as to whether they were Johnson's work. Nichols, an editor for the Gentleman's Magazine, relied on the signature found on the bottom of the poems. The word was "Rusticus." Nichols knew the work not to be that of Johnson's hand, but was skeptical because the same name appeared on other works created in 1735 and 1736. The argument did not really make that much sense to me. I do believe though, it was worth documenting. The rest of the entries were works of Latin. The ones that were in English are ambiguous due to their titles, certain ones refer to Erasmus, Moore, and others seem to be Johnson's on their very design alone.
========================== research2 #7, from cbier, Fri Apr 15 10:07:23 1994 --------------------------TITLE: Franny Burney
Speaking of Franny Burney, I found in Divided Fictions: Fanny Burney and Feminine Strategy, by Kristina Straub, an interesting piece concerning what female authors face on pages 3-4.
The ability to sustain and express contradiction is both a response to ideological conflicts in the culture and a strategy for female psychic survival in mid-eighteenth-century life. Whereas the eighteenth-century novel generally imparted to young women readers ideas and expectations about female life that have been summed up by Judith Newton as the ideology of romantic love-- the assumption that female life gains value through romantically conceived marriage--much of the nonfiction written for, by, and about women in Burney's day expresses a vision of female life characterized by its low ceiling of expectations: an ideology of female powerlessness. . . . Rather, the ideology of female powerlessness, as it appears in her [Burney's] novels, journals, and diaries, contradicts culturally reinforced desires to assert self-worth, to maintain a continuing sense of personal power and social value . . . young women like Burney . . . are often told to expect the worst. And while young men are told to see their time as valuable, too valuable to be wasted, middle-class young women are repeatedly told that their pastimes and occupations have little or no value.Reading Evelina in light of the above statement, I believe that Burney, much like Boswell, produced a socially palatable text. However, where Boswell cleanly omitted factual information, Burney did include particularly unflattering aspects in her book. And overall, while both Burney and Boswell felt compelled to make personal commentaries on various issues, Burney does not have hers discriminate for itself the value of numerous societal concerns. Therefore, public acceptability was, as it still is today, an element of eighteenth-century authorship. However, today it is much easier to publish deviant or socially combative types of literature, whereas Burney had to ice over her social commentary with many devices.
========================== research2 #11, from tharteli, Thu Apr 28 16:42:49 1994 -------------------------TITLE:Hinnant on Johnson
Charles Hinnant writes, "Johnson sees language only as a heightened and dramatic instance of the problems besetting all humanity. . . . Johnson's texts provide a mode of discourse which combines an extreme ethical rigor with an uncertain movement that shifts between vacuity and plenitude." Hinnant says that the recurring theme of vacuity of life in Johnson's work stems from the scientific vacuum/plenum argument of Newton and Leibniz. I'm no scientist but the fact that Johnson suffered from melancholy is a kind of proof in itself that the man would have known well about THE VOID. In Ramblers 8,1, and 41 he discourses on vacuity, or inner space in negative terms. I think Johnson was as much influenced by science as anything.
From Robert Voitle's Samuel Johnson the Moralist: SJ is a practical moralist and a neoclassic author. He speaks as a practical moralist, not to inform his audience as the theoretician does, but to reform their actions. For Boswell, the main motive of his journalizing was the desire to understand, correct, and stabilize his character. He said, "as a lady adjusts her dress before a mirror, a man adjusts his character by looking in his journal" (qtd. in Collins 21).
======================= ramblings/research1 #7, from oschulma, Tue Apr 26 16:19:20 1994 --------------------------TITLE Authorship
As I mused on conceptions of authorship, I came to the realization that all of the authors we studied try to be role models to their audience. Burney did it subtly, whereas Wollstonecraft actually lived the life she wrote about. Wolstonecraft had an illicit love affair and had a child when convention dictated marriage was the only correct (moral) way to have basically knowledge of another, much less have a child. Burney, not quite the feminist Wollstonecraft was, still realized the consequences of a bad marriage. Boswell and Johnson did not worry about marriage the way their female counterparts did; however, like teachers or religious leaders, they still tried to impact on why and how to achieve a moral pinnacle. Johnson seemed more concerned with achieving this image than did Boswell, though Johnson did have his quirks and moments. Since most of the writing done at this time was didactic, these authors gave points of view to think about, if not agree with. In a strange sense, these authors use convention (whether pro or con) to get their message across.
========================== ramblings/research1 #8, from cferrett, Tue Apr 26 17:12:07 1994 --------------------------TITLE: On Writing
When Boswell was in Holland (and, no doubt, at other times) he fancied that he would like to be a poet. To that end, he set himself to the task of writing ten lines each morning. This is his debut.
Ten lines a day I task myself to write, Be fancy clouded or be fancy bright, Sure, no Egyptian task; for unconfined Let Genius range the forest of the mind And, as Apollo grants him vigour, grub The tow'ring cedar or the lowly shrub. I seek not sallies elegant and terse, But to acquire the power of making verse; And sure by practice may freely hope To turn a line like Dryden or Pope.Concerning Johnson's assertion that one can wren if one will apply oneself "doggedly" to the task, if this were true, would there be any significance to writing? Is it not an art?
========================== ramblings/research1 #9, from cferrett, Tue Apr 26 17:24:24 1994 There is/are comment(s) on this message. -------------------------TITLE: Johnson on biography
"The business of a biographer is to lead the thoughts into domestic privacies and display the minute details of daily life. . . ."
It seems to me, that according to this criterion, Boswell comes up short. While we undoubtedly are privy to the most (irritating?) minute details of Johnson's life in public, we never really see him at his ease (i.e. domestic privacies). This brings up the question of whether or not we NEED to know exactly what Johnson did with the damned orange peels (although I'm sure the question will nag the back of my mind for some time.)
========================== ramblings/research1 #10, from cbier, 278 chars, Thu Apr 28 10:02:37 1994 This is a comment to message 9. --------------------------Carl, I tend to agree with you. I feel that to know the whole person you must see him privately as well as public ally. Johnson said that he doesn't practice what he writes/says; it would have been nice to see duality.
Thoughts on eighteenth-century authorship, chiefly concerned with Samuel Johnson
Two Views on Boswell
Authors are like Bakers
Correspondence
Thoughts on eighteenth-century authorship, chiefly concerned with Mary
Miscellaneous Research
Introduction