“I
had no part in this learned disappointment, who am content to credit my senses,
and to believe that rain will fall when the air blackens, and that the weather
will be dry when the sun is bright. My caution, indeed, does not always
preserve me from a shower.”
Once
common-sensical, the words have turned audacious and bracing. Ours is a
skeptical age, when skepticism means not open-minded questioning but
adversarial stridency. We delight in doubting everything, arguing with everything,
leaving nothing precisely what it is. We wish to be clever and not to be taken
in like the credulous hoi polloi. Our skepticism is a universal corrosive that dissolves
thinking, emotion and morals. Among sophisticates it serves as a genderless surrogate
for machismo.
Unsurprisingly,
the passage quoted above was written by Dr. Johnson in The Idler #17, on this date, Aug. 5, in 1758. Johnson’s customary concern
is the contradictory nature of human nature. True to form, he continues: “Of
those that spin out life in trifles and die without a memorial, many flatter
themselves with high opinions of their own importance, and imagine that they
are every day adding some improvement to human life.” So much for do-gooders,
meddlers and scolds. Johnson then eases into his true target: animal
vivisection and its practitioners. By starting with the general and slowly
focusing on the particular, Johnson suggests no one deserves blanket
absolution. Morality is a spectrum on which we all find a place to occupy.
Johnson writes:
“Among
the inferior professors of medical knowledge, is a race of wretches, whose
lives are only varied by varieties of cruelty; whose favourite amusement is to
nail dogs to tables and open them alive; to try how long life may be continued
in various degrees of mutilation, or with the excision or laceration of the
vital parts; to examine whether burning irons are felt more acutely by the bone
or tendon; and whether the more lasting agonies are produced by poison forced
into the mouth, or injected into the veins.”
More
than two and a half centuries later, this reads like the work of a writer Johnson heartily disliked, Jonathan Swift, and still has the power to disturb.
(One can’t help but think of Dr. Mengele and his colleagues.) We’ve come a long
way in a mere five paragraphs. By its conclusion, the essay turns into an anomaly
in Johnson’s collected works. Almost an anomaly. In his notes to these lines in
Cymbeline (1765) – “Your highness / Shall
from this practice but make hard your heart” – Johnson writes, seemingly out of
the blue:
“There
is in this passage nothing that much requires a note, yet I cannot forbear to
push it forward into observation. The thought would probably have been more
amplified, had our author lived to be shocked with such experiments as have
been published in later times, by a race of men that have practised tortures
without pity, and related them without shame, and are yet suffered to erect
their heads among human beings.”
The
passage is left to stand, undeveloped, without larger context, an impassioned non sequitur. To study human
contradiction and inconsistency, Johnson had only to look within. He was like
the rest of us, only more so. The late Yeats scholar and longtime professor of
English at Hollins College, John Rees Moore, wrote “Dr. Sam Johnson”:
“That
great hulk of a man, Dr. Johnson,
Had
many ills both of mind and body
As
Boswell shows; in spite of melancholy
He
could be merry, and simply bent on fun.
His
opinions were bold, and I can tell you,
His
authority was kingly, his generosity as well.
To
his verbal sword Lord Chesterfield fell.
A
writer writes better than he lives, it is true,
Nine
years on his dictionary, what a noble feat!
Hester
Thrale `betrayed’ him; he loved her still.
God
might punish her; he never will.
He
had a stroke, got back on his feet,
Wrote
Lives of the English Poets, a
masterpiece.
Let
this master of words lie in perpetual peace.”
Not
much of a poem but for that one line: “A writer writes better than he lives
. . .” Perhaps
Moore is answering Yeats’ “The Choice.”
1 comment:
Thank you for today's post. I find it timely in a way you may not have intended, but Johnson can contain as many multitudes as others. I am a daily reader and admirer of your work, and thank you once again. I share your enthusiasm for writing well and for reading good books.
Post a Comment