Boswell's Life of Johnson
fantasticanachronism.com
fantasticanachronism.com
I've changed the article title to the book title because it deserves more than 2020-level clickbait and moralizing.
I would have never dared to open this link or read the blog or know ANYTHING about this book without the provocative title. I had seen this article elsewhere so knew what this HN link was because of it.
Why would most normal people be interested in a biography of an 18th century literary figure? I was an English lit major for god's sake and don't care that much about Samuel Johnson.
Most normal people would not be interested. We're not all normal here, so there's a chance.
> Why would most normal people be interested in a biography of an 18th century literary figure?
Because, as other have noted, it opens the door on London's public house intellectual scene in the mid-18th century. And the character Johnson ends up being a fascinating raconteur, even if his literary works have not withstood the test of time.
And it's not really that much of a biography, as we would think of a biography today. There's very little on Johnson's literary work which had propelled him to fame in his lifetime. A royal pension (happily for him) relieved Johnsonof having to produce any more works, I think sometime around the time Boswell met him. Johnson spent the last decades of his life as a popular man about town, with the sycophantic Boswell recording his conversations verbatim, which Johnson and others frequently teased Boswell about.
Not saying it isn't interesting. But journalism needs to be provocative to have a "hook" to bring people in who normally wouldn't bother to read about an 18th century literary figure.
If the subject is Steve Jobs or Donald Trump you don't need to be provocative to get the eyeballs.
I dislike as much as anybody the fashion of judging historical figures by today's mores, but that's not what's happening in Boswell's case. He's being retconned as an idiot and a terrible person not by people in pursuit of 21st century social justice, but by the likes of Borges and Thomas Carlyle. Though the author has gone overboard by calling him "the worst man in the world".
Personally, I like the Borges interpretation, that it needs to be thus for the narrative - the noble and brilliant Johnson contrasted with the base and feeble Boswell. Though I don't get the Don Quixote comparison - isn't Sancho Panza in some ways the smarter one in that relationship?
"The Bottles they drank out of are all broken, the Chairs they sat on all rotted and burnt; the very Knives and Forks they ate with have rusted to the heart, and become brown oxide of iron, and mingled with the indiscriminate clay. All, all has vanished; in every deed and truth, like that baseless fabric of Prospero's air-vision. Of the Mitre Tavern nothing but the bare walls remain there: of London, of England, of the World, nothing but the bare walls remain; and these also decaying (were they of adamant), only slower. The mysterious River of Existence rushes on: a new Billow thereof has arrived, and lashes wildly as ever round the old embankments; but the former Billow with its loud, mad eddyings, where is it? Where! Now this Book of Boswell's, this is precisely a revocation of the edict of Destiny; so that Time shall not utterly, not so soon by several centuries, have dominion over us. A little row of Naphtha-lamps, with its line of Naphtha-light, burns clear and holy through the dead Night of the Past: they who are gone are still here; though hidden they are revealed, though dead they yet speak. There it shines, that little miraculously lamplit Pathway; shedding its feebler and feebler twilight into the boundless dark Oblivion, for all that our Johnson touched has become illuminated for us: on which miraculous little Pathway we can still travel, and see wonders."
For the unaware:
> “After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, ‘I refute it thus.'”(Boswell’s Life of Samuel Johnson, quoted from Wikipedia.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNP_FnCHKYw&list=PLqceOGKmip...
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40holland_tom%20boswell&src=ty...
The dialogue with Rousseau had me in a mild fit of laughter.