“Pacing
the streets of town he looked both ways,
For
pleasure, and for fame; compiled with care
A
chronicle of this divided gaze,
“Needing
to view his own reflection there
To
reassure him that he balanced well
Upon
the tightrope stretching high and bare.”
The
subject is James Boswell, the second and best of Dr. Johnson’s biographers, in
a poem, “On the Publication of Boswell’s Journal” (A Word Carved on a Sill, 1956), by a later (1974) Johnson biographer,
John Wain. Caches of Boswell’s papers were discovered in Ireland in the
nineteen-twenties and -thirties. The first of twelve volumes drawn from this
material, Boswell's London Journal,
1762–1763, was published by Yale
University in 1950.
“And
so however many times he fell
His
candour caught him in his bouncy net,
And
truthfulness became a magic spell.
“Attentive
to the task his nature set,
He
chose his prey by instinct, whore or sage;
It
was not time to take decisions yet.”
Those
unburdened with a complicated understanding of human nature will dismiss
Boswell as little more than a diseased, whoring drunk. The London Journal and its “racy” contents proved an unexpected
bestseller not for literary but salacious reasons. Scholars have documented
Boswell’s sexual relations, between the ages of twenty and twenty-nine, with
more than seventy women, at least sixty of whom were prostitutes. He was
treated for gonorrhea at least nineteen times. Wain is shrewd about Boswell’s
cunning: “He chose his prey by instinct, whore or sage.” The sage is Johnson,
whom he idolized.
“So,
timidly, he mustered, page by page
His
bodyguard, and safe among the crowd
Bequeathed
his problems to a later age.
“Till
in the era of the mushroom cloud
They,
having slumbered through the days of calm,
Jumped
out and shouted to be read aloud,
“Flooding
the wise with justified alarm.
Surely
such frank admissions of defeat
From
one so thickly smeared with wisdom’s balm
“Would
make it harder still to be discreet:
For
how could they still pose as their own masters
When
forced to pore on each accusing sheet,
“And
underline, in red, their own disasters?”
Thomas Macaulay famously scorned Boswell as “servile and impertinent, shallow and
pedantic, a bigot and a sot,” and wrote, more damningly: “Of the talents which
ordinarily raise men to eminence as writers, Boswell had absolutely none.”
Macaulay was an early specimen of what Joseph Epstein has called a "virtucrat." He was blind to Boswell’s true virtues, though elsewhere in the review already
quoted he almost sees the light: “That such a man should have written one of
the best books in the world is strange enough. But this is not all. Many
persons who have conducted themselves foolishly in active life, and whose
conversation has indicated no superior powers of mind, have left us valuable works.”
Wain
accepts and thus understands Boswell. He isn’t eager to damn him, nor does he disingenuously
ignore his faults. In 1966, Wain reviews Frederick A. Pottle’s James Boswell: The Earlier Years, 1740-1769 and
lays out a mature, common sense portrait of the man and the artist:
“Boswell’s
[Life of Johnson] has the excitement,
the continuous play of life, of a first-rate novel. It is constructed around a
tension of opposites. Boswell brings himself into the story as the
anti-Johnsonian hero, the man with none of the Johnsonian qualities. He appears
to have done this partly by instinct, and would perhaps have been puzzled if
any contemporary reader of the book had pointed it out. But it was the
infallible instinct of the artist. Macaulay’s caricature of Boswell as the fool
who blundered into writing a great book is only a vulgarized picture of the
mental processes of any artist.”
No comments:
Post a Comment