So, Johnson embarked on his periodical the ‘Rambler’ and produced twelve editions. Boswell makes the observation that ‘As the Rambler was entirely the work of one man, there was, of course, such a uniformity in its texture, as very much to exclude the charm of variety; and the grave and often solemn cast of thinking, which distinguished it from other periodical papers, made it, for some time, not generally liked. So slowly did this excellent work, of which twelve editions have now issued from the press, gain upon the world at large, that even in the closing number the author says, ‘‘I have never been much a favourite of the publick.’’’
However, in some quarters the Rambler was thought of very highly and during the time it was coming out in single papers in London, a publisher in Scotland, James Elphinston, organised an edition to be produced in Edinburgh. Boswell uses one of Johnson’s undated letters to show how pleased he was to have been befriended by Elphinston.
‘To Mr. James Elphinston.’
‘‘Dear Sir,
I cannot but confess the failures of my correspondence, but hope the same regard which you express for me on every other occasion, will incline you to forgive me. I am often, very often, ill; and, when I am well, am obliged to work: and, indeed, have never much used myself to punctuality. You are, however, not to make unkind inferences, when I forbear to reply to your kindness; for be assured, I never receive a letter from you without great pleasure, and a very warm sense of your generosity and friendship, which I heartily blame myself for not cultivating with more care…. I hope we shall be some time nearer to each other, and have a more ready way of pouring out our hearts.’’
That was the first section of the letter and he ends by urging Elphinston to keep writing to him even though he might not reply for ages.
In this section of the Life of Samuel Johnson, Tetty pops up briefly in that Johnson told Boswell that Mrs. Johnson, ‘in whose judgement and taste he had great confidence, said to him, after a few numbers of the Rambler had come out, ‘‘I thought very well of you before; but I did not imagine you could have writing anything equal to this.’’ Boswell describes this as ‘distant praise.’ I wondered about that phrase for a while and decided that he was referring to what he took to be Tetty’s lack of faith in Johnson’s abilities, that rather she should’ve said something along the lines of I knew you could do it, and then the praise would not have been ‘distant.’ Boswell writes: ‘Distant praise, from whatever quarter, is not so delightful as that of a wife whom a man loves and esteems.’
Boswell tells us that ‘…no writings whatever can be found more bark and steel for the mind, if I may use the expression; more that can brace and invigorate every manly and noble sentiment.’ He tells us that the main purpose of the Rambler was instruction and yet a lot of it was also amusing. Apparently there was talk around town that Johnson was a retired writer who was no longer connected with the world and wrote just from his imagination. But Johnson refuted that when Boswell questioned him on it saying that he’d been running about the world more than almost anybody. In fact Johnson told Boswell that there was a bunch of people up in Essex who thought he’d been writing about them, as they recognised themselves in something they saw in the Rambler – ‘… imagined themselves to be severally exhibited in it, and were much incensed against a person who, they suspected, had thus made them objects of publick notice; nor were they quieted till authentick assurance was given them, that the Rambler was written by a person who had never heard of any of them.’
I hadn’t intended to quote anything from the Rambler, as I felt that in this blog Boswell was doing more work than me, and I was just being a copyist. However Boswell picked out such an interesting quote from the periodical, that I will write it here:
No 179, against affectation, that frequent and most disgusting quality: ‘‘He that stands to contemplate the crowds that fill the streets of a populous city, will see many passengers, whose air and motions it will be difficult to behold without contempt and laughter; but if he examine what are the appearances that thus powerfully excite his risibility, he will find among them neither poverty nor disease, nor any involuntary or painful defect. The disposition to derision and insult, is awakened by the softness of foppery, the swell of insolence, the liveliness of levity, or the solemnity of grandeur; by the sprightly trip, the stately stalk, the formal strut, and the lofty mien; by gestures intended to catch the eye and by looks elaborately formed as evidences of importance.’’
I like Dr. Johnson.
But he did have his critics who thought his writing was turgid and involved and full of difficult words and obscure allusions. Boswell’s position on this was to challenge anyone to point out another English writer whose ‘language conveys his meaning with equal force and perspicuity’ [clearness and lucidity]. Further Boswell states that people with impressive intellects ‘…will want words of larger meaning.’
When Boswell questioned Johnson further about language and words and how he used them, Johnson told him that although he had introduced maybe four or five words to the English language, he disliked the way his generation coined new words, or used words wrongly.
Finally, Boswell shows his admiration for Samuel Johnson and his brilliance by saying that ‘His sentences have a dignified march; and, it is certain, that his example has given a general elevation to the language of his country, for many of our best writers have approached very near to him; and, from the influence which he has upon our composition, scarcely any thing is written now that is not better expressed than was usual before he appeared to lead the national taste.’
However – excuse my French – but Boswell tells us that ‘Johnson’s language, however, must be allowed to be too masculine for the delicate gentleness of female writing. His ladies, therefore, seem strangely formal, even to ridicule; and are well denominated by the names which he has given them, as Misella, Zozima, Properantia, Rhodoclia.’ I couldn’t agree more about the names, don’t know about the rest!
At the time that Boswell was researching and writing Johnson’s life it had become fashionable to compare Addison’s writing style to Johnson’s. Some critics thought Addison’s style was ‘nerveless and feeble.’ But Boswell thought the two styles, although different, of equal merit. He said that Addison wrote with the ‘ease of a gentleman’ and that his readers fancy that ‘a wise and accomplished companion is talking to them; so that he insinuates his sentiments and taste into their minds by an imperceptible influence.’ Whereas Johnson writes like an academic and dictates to his readers with his ‘commanding eloquence.’ Addison is like a light wine and Johnson like a liquor that you get used to over time, Boswell explains.
Johnson himself said of Addison ‘‘… he is never feeble, and he did not wish to be energetick; he is never rapid, and he never stagnates.’ He thought that any writer who wanted to obtain an elegant English style should study Addison.
From the Mirror of Literature, Amusement an Instruction by Reuben Percy, John Timbs and John Limbird on Joseph Addison:-
‘Destitute of suitable conversation, it has been insinuated that Addison sought occasional relief in the glass… he would repair to the above tavern in [the vicinity of his house] in the hope of finding persons capable of calling forth his energies of intellect by exhilarating conversation, wine being not the only whetstone to wit.’
