Ernest Rhys (1859–1946)

At the end of his Life of Johnson, James Boswell admits to many of his subject's faults: Johnson's irascibility, his prejudices, his narrow-mindedness in religion and politics. Johnson was a conservative with a capital C, and he is outright dismissive of many of the important philosophical ideas of his time (there is little consideration of Locke, Hume or Smith, much less Kant).

Instead, Johnson is known has the foremost literary figure of 18th Century London. He was not a man of ideas; show more rather, he was a man of language, and his greatest achievement was to codify that language in his Dictionary. Again, this project was an essentially conservative endeavor, an attempt to protect and elevate the language so that the uneducated masses could be kept in their linguistic place.

The Romantics that followed represented a rebellion against this staid, elitist, infighting group of literati that includes Addison, Steele, Pope and Johnson. Instead of engaging in a game of wits against their intellectual rivals, the Romantics sought to expand the possibilities of language by infusing it with a more natural, vernacular, personal and passionate approach. The writers of the Age of Johnson were essentially backwards looking, translating and retranslating the Greeks and Romans, writing criticism on Shakespeare. The Romantics were visionary and progressive. johnson would have probably scoffed at the likes of a Keats or a Blake as being too radical and impolite in their poetic visions.

Boswell's life of Johnson is confusing in that, while it is a warts and all depiction of the good doctor, the reader is a left with a sense that Boswell looks at his subject through the rose-colored lenses of a literary acolyte. What are we meant to think of this complicated man? show less

Fast paced, very funny and successfully operating on multiple levels AT THE SAME TIME.

The novel concerns one Gil Blas, who sets out to display his slack-jawed idiocy to the world. As just one example of what I mean by multiple levels, early on (I don't think I'm giving away too much here) he is captured by bandits, imprisoned and forced into servitude. He effects his escape by robbing a member of the clergy and is consequently plunged into a series of adventures where he is alternately show more imprisoned or in servitude. So you have an interesting story, a moral and character development. Also, by placing Gil Blas at the bottom of society, Le Sage can aim his satire squarely at the ruling classes.

This is an episodic novel. I like an episodic novel but I'm prepared to admit that the main problem with them is that they are, well, episodic. But here there's a smooth richness to the segues that really adds something. And the whole undertaking is elevated by recurring themes and characters and a mirroring of incident from one episode to another.

Just a word on this edition, the Everyman. It's Malkin's revision of Smollett's translation. I had a quick look at Smottlett's and Malkin appears to follow him structurally clause by clause, but often using different words, near synonyms etc. I suppose it was an updating at the time, but now both are old-fashioned. But don't let that put you off. It's well written and the style fits the nature of the story. There are no notes in the Everyman and there are a number of references which I couldn't understand specifically though they're usually clear from the context. Le Sage categorically denies that the characters who are objects of his satire are based on real people. Frankly, I don't believe him. I suspect that a scholarly edition would identify those individuals. That's the only place where I really missed having notes. show less

The best way to read Boswell's Life of Johnson is this way: via a somewhat cheesy, "classic library" volume of a Great Classics type of series. The book looks like one of those books you would find in the movie set of a lawyer's office, trying to look distinguished and old, although it feels plasticy.

We learn from other sources (outside of Boswell) that Boswell himself was something of an annoying 18th century star f__ker, but thank God he was - because reading this book is like being a part show more of a hundred dinner and parlour conversations with the wits and men of power in 18th century England. Funny bastards some of them were, too.

Skill in the art of conversation was the most highly prized talent, and Johnson was considered king of them all. This is a world steeped in The Classics, post Renaissance but pre Industrial/Scientific Revolution - that sweet spot where men were expected to venture to come up with a theory and interpretation about anything: how to talk, the way to cook a meal, where to travel, you name it. And Johnson always had an interesting and strong Theory of Anything.

Somehow it seems like nobody worked, they were just able to go to each other's houses, eat too much, drink hard, and talk smack about each other full time. Good times.

Today, Johnson would be considered a blowhard; narrow minded, reactionary, pompous, and egotistical. But that's why he's actually interesting.

This was a cool era because you would address your best friend as "Sir".

Ironically, Boswell's writing holds up better than Johnson's himself, but who cares about that history of literature crap.

If each book had a smell, this book would smell like really good roast beef, with some hard licks thrown in.

Sir, I am,

Your most humble reviewer,

&tc &tc show less

I probably couldn't have stomached an unabridged version of this classic, so it was good to read this abridged version. It is a classic, and I see and know why, but it really should be "Boswell's Conversations with Johnson and some Anecdotes I Picked Up From Others." Sometimes he makes good points, sometimes he is funny. But mostly he is curmudgeonly. As a society we've progressed well past people seeing Johnson's greatness and Boswell's usefulness. It was good to read some bons mot I've show more seen before in context, discover where some things come from, and find some new ones. For instance, in the 1964 film Zulu the surgeon tells Hook: "Brandy is for heroes." It's here in Boswell's Johnson. Who knew? But, I wouldn't call this mind-altering or even an essential text anymore. A good one, but well past the ken of usefulness and entertainingness. Glad I read it, but I'd only recommend it to super-nerds with nothing to do and a love of the eighteenth century. This edition is an old, post-War illustrated edition (from 1946), with some pretty color plates and line drawings, though the latter seemed to peter out early on in the book. It looks like some printing restrictions were still in place, like chapters starting on the same page the previous one ended, etc. (I learned that from reading a new edition of Stewart's Names on the Land).

[I bought this edition, too, for like a dollar at a book sale for the friends of the Dick Smith Library at Tarleton State University in Stephenville, Texas, in about 2002 or so, when i was a senior getting my B.A. in history. So, there is a bit of sentimental attachment to the old hunk of book.] show less