I find it amazing that Johnson wrote a dictionary. I cannot even imagine trying to take on a task of this multitude. It came to my mind that Johnson could have written a dictionary pertaining to literary words only. Today we have all sorts of dictionaries that specify in certain fields, such as, medical, mechanic, art, literature, and the list goes on. Kernan writes that Johnson’s “frequently quoted authors were Locke, 1.674; Hooker, 1,212; Arbuthnot, 1,029; Boyle, 592; Watts, 509” (196). Not only are these astounding numbers but it shows who Johnson thought as reputable. In Johnson’s “Plan of an English Dictionary,” it felt as if he was trying to prove his expertise in the area. He was proving that he was the right candidate to undertake this monumental task. I am not fully convinced that it was completely addressed to Lord Chesterfield, Johnson seems to want to establish to his class why he was chosen for this monumental task. Johnson believes that people from the lower class unfamiliar with terms would be the essential ones that would use the dictionary, “The unlearned much oftener consult their dictionaries for the meaning of words, than for their structures or formations.” They do not care where the word came from or how it is constructed, they only care about the comprehension of a term. For this reason, the Plan is not directed at the lower class. The dictionary is not out yet, so if they were to read this would they be able to understand it? Johnson produces the feeling that his dictionary is like an instruction booklet to the English language versus the others that are in print.
Johnson has the role of a censor. He gets to decide which authors to quote and which works to use as examples of “marks of distinction” (Johnson 13). He is letting his audience know what his intentions are and his ‘plan’ of action in organizing the dictionary. It’s amazing to think about how much of the English language was omitted because Johnson felt that it was “barbarous, or impure” (Johnson 13). One of the major things that I enjoyed about Johnson is that he knew what a arduous job writing a dictionary would be and did it anyways. He expressed it best when he wrote, “…that I am frighted at its extent, and, like the soldiers of Caesar, look on Britain as a new world, which it is almost madness to invade” (Johnson 15).
One aspect that stood out to me was when Johnson signifies that there are “…the different classes of words…” (Johnson 4). I am ignorant on the dictionaries from this time period so this could be a misinterpretation on my part, but it seems that there is a societal influence in the perceptions of the population regarding language. In an anthropology course, I heard that it is human nature to want to classify things into categories, so this very well could just be a standard human component that shined through the work.
Kernan supports Johnson’s work of the dictionary by saying, “…it’s a central idea that the great writers and their books determine the language” (199). He included the battle of language within his article. Lord Chesterfield wanted to keep the Kings language and Johnson discovered that there is no absolute, official rules of language. Johnson accepted that language is subject to interpretation and that no class had the superiority over another in this sense(Kernan 201). It is interesting to think that a “linguistic revolution” (Kernan 201) was taking place around the time with debates about copyright.
http://librivox.org/plan-and-preface-to-a-dictionary-of-english-by-samuel-johnson/
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/plan.html
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/preface.html
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Locke, McDowell, Statute of Anne, Fielding
Locke was very fervent in proving Filmer wrong in his perceptions. While reading Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government, I felt I may have a better understanding of the culmination of events if I had read Filmer. I have never read Locke before this so I feel like I have misinterpreted some things… so if I have bare with me. I noticed that Locke was against the divine right that the monarchs were using to secure there power. It was intriguing how he used Adam to create doubt about it. As Locke went on, at times I felt like I was in a sermon because the religious references kept coming. I noticed that Locke did not specifically mention the ‘role’ of women in society, but it could be that he mentioned it later in the essay since we stopped at “Of Paternal Power.” I think I noticed this because I read McDowell’s piece prior to this one.
McDowell made some great observations about “Women in the London Book Trade.” The part that was really fascinating was when she says, ”While women running businesses are commonly assumed by modern historians to have been widows..” (37). It is interesting that there were assumptions made by professional historians. I would have thought they would have thoroughly looked into the facts about history, since its their job and all. My favorite example, and I have to admit I laughed at, was Jane Bradford. She “was accused of keeping her husband a prisoner in his own home” (37). Just because she was an able female individual there had to be something wrong with her. It was just as interesting to learn that Ann Franklin, and Tace Sowle “…appear to have chosen to render their own labour invisible” (39). Considering the accusations against Bradford, they had motivation to be anonymous. I wonder if they felt they had to because of the society they lived in, or if they were conditioned by the society to think that it is improper to take credit for the services they accomplished. The “hawkers and ballad singers” bothered me. It was not because they were ‘breaking the law’ but because they were breaking the law for necessity. The government troubled itself over these women that found a job “purely for want of bread” (58). It is ridiculous to think that they brought women that had handicaps into court for trying to survive. For example, Sarah Ogilbie’s mother was 73 yrs old and blind.
After reading the Statute of Anne, I read Fielding’s “The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling” and I am very glad I did this. I don’t think I would’ve gotten the full effect of Fielding’s perspective otherwise. Reading through the statute, well, it was tedious. At times I had to go back and make sure it was referring to the same charge, like in section one. It was really wordy and repetitive but I suppose that is how law is suppose to be. My favorite part of Fielding was the end, this is when he is discussing Pope being plagiarized by Moore, he says, “…and, for a further punishment, imprisoned the said Moore in the loathsome dungeon of the Dunciad…as a proper punishment for such his unjust dealings in the poetical trade” (437). I just found it comical that as a form of punishment Pope imprisons Moore in an imaginary dungeon. Since Pope is mentioned in this piece that does not cite where quotations are from, I am assuming Pope did the same as Fielding. I think Fielding provided a nice comical relief from the other readings that were assigned.
McDowell made some great observations about “Women in the London Book Trade.” The part that was really fascinating was when she says, ”While women running businesses are commonly assumed by modern historians to have been widows..” (37). It is interesting that there were assumptions made by professional historians. I would have thought they would have thoroughly looked into the facts about history, since its their job and all. My favorite example, and I have to admit I laughed at, was Jane Bradford. She “was accused of keeping her husband a prisoner in his own home” (37). Just because she was an able female individual there had to be something wrong with her. It was just as interesting to learn that Ann Franklin, and Tace Sowle “…appear to have chosen to render their own labour invisible” (39). Considering the accusations against Bradford, they had motivation to be anonymous. I wonder if they felt they had to because of the society they lived in, or if they were conditioned by the society to think that it is improper to take credit for the services they accomplished. The “hawkers and ballad singers” bothered me. It was not because they were ‘breaking the law’ but because they were breaking the law for necessity. The government troubled itself over these women that found a job “purely for want of bread” (58). It is ridiculous to think that they brought women that had handicaps into court for trying to survive. For example, Sarah Ogilbie’s mother was 73 yrs old and blind.
After reading the Statute of Anne, I read Fielding’s “The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling” and I am very glad I did this. I don’t think I would’ve gotten the full effect of Fielding’s perspective otherwise. Reading through the statute, well, it was tedious. At times I had to go back and make sure it was referring to the same charge, like in section one. It was really wordy and repetitive but I suppose that is how law is suppose to be. My favorite part of Fielding was the end, this is when he is discussing Pope being plagiarized by Moore, he says, “…and, for a further punishment, imprisoned the said Moore in the loathsome dungeon of the Dunciad…as a proper punishment for such his unjust dealings in the poetical trade” (437). I just found it comical that as a form of punishment Pope imprisons Moore in an imaginary dungeon. Since Pope is mentioned in this piece that does not cite where quotations are from, I am assuming Pope did the same as Fielding. I think Fielding provided a nice comical relief from the other readings that were assigned.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Coming Around to Commerce of Everyday Life
The amusement began with “Addison on Criticism.” He has turned the tables on the critics that have improper credentials for the job of a ‘true critick.’ Addison describes the duty of the critics wonderfully, when he says, “A true Critick ought to dwell rather upon Excellencies than Imperfections, to discover the concealed Beauties of a Writer, and communicate to the World such things as are worth their Observation” (381). By describing the faults found in critics he can knock them of the pedestals that they do not deserve to sit upon. Instead of promoting the flaws they feel an author has made, why can’t the critics advertise the positive aspects of an author? Because they cannot see their own faults it seems they should not be so ready to judge others, and this could possibly make them unworthy of judging others.
The most pleasurable read for me was Edward Ward “The Wit’s coffee-house (From The London Spy). This was really entertaining. Ward agrees with Addison on the focusing on the negative by the critiques. Although, I felt that Ward was a little more harsh in judging them then Addison but that’s what provided the entertainment. The line that describes his stance on the opinion of critics is, “Wanting true merit, he aims to raise a reputation not by his own performances but by others’ failings” (438). The critics seem to be parasites who feed on literary works and the authors but contribute nothing to the success of them, only to the failure.
One quote that proves the unattainable approval of critics is a description of them, “…never to let anything, though well performed, escape their scrutiny, to the discovery of some colorable fault, nor any character pass their lips, though of the worthiest persons in the world, without being tagged with some calumny or other, on purpose to eclipse the brightness of those virtues for which they are chiefly eminent” (438). No matter how well done a piece is there will never be any satisfaction in the realm of the critic. They will invent things to be critically unforgiving about. The character of the critic is described as a very ridiculous figure who is only concerned about his own benefit. This character will go to unreasonable lengths to justify an authors work only if “a better judgment finds a fault” (438).
One article that was extremely interesting was “Addison on the Pleasures of the Imagination”. He discusses “the works of Nature and Art” (394). In the first read through, the interpretation was that there are several instances when nature is more beautiful than any piece of art. The logic behind this is that art is created from a separate perspective than the perspective that admires it. For example, an artist may paint a scene in nature but it is from his perspective that a person will admire it. When observing nature at a first hand experience, someone is more likely to appreciate it more because they are able to take in nature in its entirety, not just a sliver. People seem to be taking nature and manipulating it into their own perspectives.
The imagination that creates a great piece of work gets manipulated by man once again. For example, critics take pieces of work and tear it apart for there own use. The artists work can only be truly appreciated when taken, observed in its entirety. When just a sentence or paragraph gets taken out of context the entire nature of the work is ruined. It is like the gardens that Addison goes on to discuss, “Our British Gardeners…instead of humoring Nature, love to deviate from it as much as possible” (396). Instead of leaving a literary work in the imagination of the author, critics misplace it in the realm of reason. They take their gardening shears and “cut and trimmed into a Mathematical figure” (396). When placing the imaginative into the rational category they rob the work of its natural environment.
The most pleasurable read for me was Edward Ward “The Wit’s coffee-house (From The London Spy). This was really entertaining. Ward agrees with Addison on the focusing on the negative by the critiques. Although, I felt that Ward was a little more harsh in judging them then Addison but that’s what provided the entertainment. The line that describes his stance on the opinion of critics is, “Wanting true merit, he aims to raise a reputation not by his own performances but by others’ failings” (438). The critics seem to be parasites who feed on literary works and the authors but contribute nothing to the success of them, only to the failure.
One quote that proves the unattainable approval of critics is a description of them, “…never to let anything, though well performed, escape their scrutiny, to the discovery of some colorable fault, nor any character pass their lips, though of the worthiest persons in the world, without being tagged with some calumny or other, on purpose to eclipse the brightness of those virtues for which they are chiefly eminent” (438). No matter how well done a piece is there will never be any satisfaction in the realm of the critic. They will invent things to be critically unforgiving about. The character of the critic is described as a very ridiculous figure who is only concerned about his own benefit. This character will go to unreasonable lengths to justify an authors work only if “a better judgment finds a fault” (438).
One article that was extremely interesting was “Addison on the Pleasures of the Imagination”. He discusses “the works of Nature and Art” (394). In the first read through, the interpretation was that there are several instances when nature is more beautiful than any piece of art. The logic behind this is that art is created from a separate perspective than the perspective that admires it. For example, an artist may paint a scene in nature but it is from his perspective that a person will admire it. When observing nature at a first hand experience, someone is more likely to appreciate it more because they are able to take in nature in its entirety, not just a sliver. People seem to be taking nature and manipulating it into their own perspectives.
The imagination that creates a great piece of work gets manipulated by man once again. For example, critics take pieces of work and tear it apart for there own use. The artists work can only be truly appreciated when taken, observed in its entirety. When just a sentence or paragraph gets taken out of context the entire nature of the work is ruined. It is like the gardens that Addison goes on to discuss, “Our British Gardeners…instead of humoring Nature, love to deviate from it as much as possible” (396). Instead of leaving a literary work in the imagination of the author, critics misplace it in the realm of reason. They take their gardening shears and “cut and trimmed into a Mathematical figure” (396). When placing the imaginative into the rational category they rob the work of its natural environment.
Monday, February 2, 2009
The Commerce of Everyday Life: The Tatler and The Spectator
I have a confession. I had a difficult time reading this book so far. I am way out of my element. I do not know the first thing about commenting on periodicals from the 18th century…if you feel you would like to proceed with reading all I ask is that you keep this in mind.
A sentence that stood out to me describes the contradictory cycle of the century was that Addison and Steele “…depend upon the very commercialization and commodification they warn against” (Pg 3). These two tell people not to spend money on frivolous, trivial things but expect them to buy a newspaper centered on telling the public how to live. Well, how they think the public should be living. This brings up “Addison on the Political Upholsterer Addicted to News” (Pg 58). Addison understandably criticizes a man that is unconcerned with his personal life and is consumed by world politics. I took this as a warning that people should concern themselves in moderation with current events. They should be exposed but to a limit. Personal politics of the private sphere are essential to the survival of people. Not to mention, essential to the consumers being able to afford to buy the papers Addison produces.
It is hard to criticize someone for their opinion. Especially, when the opinion was given in the 18th century under the rule of a monarch. I think that it is great that they wanted to reform society but were they better than the monarch that ruled them? They produced two papers under false circumstances, well identities. This is a great idea in the aspect that they are allowed freedom to be “…a spectator of Mankind…a speculative statesman, soldier, merchant and artizan…” (81). To distance themselves through a false identity (or identities) it becomes hard for me to fathom what makes them above the rest of the population. I say ‘above’ because I get the sense that Addison and Steele feel they have the right to critique humankind and make suggestions of improvement. Is it because they are not part of the low or high classes that they can make these remarks?
I stand strong behind my opinion but I have to admit there were some rather interesting sections. One of the sections I found intriguing was “Steele on The Tatler as Antidote for News-Addiction” (Pg 65). Steele brings back his acquaintance the Upholsterer who is in discussion with others over tidbits of information. This observation made by Steele is when affairs are reported from the Courant, he says, “…but the matter was told so distinctly, that these Wanderers thought there was no news in it…” (Pg 68). If a report is made and it consists of facts and evidence it is not up for debate. The men of this society are not interested, perhaps. because it is not entertainment. It cannot be twisted or theorized, the information simply is what it is. If the information is verified and truthful what good is it?
I did notice that The Tatler is of a less personal quality. It has various coffeehouses in charge of the different sections: “All accounts of gallantry, pleasure, and entertainment, shall be under the article of White’s Chocolate-house; Poetry, under that of Will’s Coffee-house; Learning, under the Title of Graecian; Foreign and Domestick News, you will have from St. James’s Coffee-house; and what else I have to offer on any other Subject, shall be dated from my own Apartment” (Pg 50). Steele puts specific places that specialize in certain interests in charge of the news for that section. When The Spectator emerges there is a closer connection. Meaning that Addison puts ‘people’ in charge of the sections that they represent: Sir Roger an old fashioned Tory gentleman, Sir Andrew Freeport the Whig businessman, Captain Sentry the military man, Will Honeycomb a representative of Restoration high life, and a clergyman (Pg 83). With this introduction of these men comes a brief overview of why they are the way they are and their qualifications for reporting. This is the first glimpse of a psychological makeup of characters that I have seen. For example, Sir Roger had his heart broken by a widow a county over. I did not notice this explanation of why people are the way they are in The Tatler.
A sentence that stood out to me describes the contradictory cycle of the century was that Addison and Steele “…depend upon the very commercialization and commodification they warn against” (Pg 3). These two tell people not to spend money on frivolous, trivial things but expect them to buy a newspaper centered on telling the public how to live. Well, how they think the public should be living. This brings up “Addison on the Political Upholsterer Addicted to News” (Pg 58). Addison understandably criticizes a man that is unconcerned with his personal life and is consumed by world politics. I took this as a warning that people should concern themselves in moderation with current events. They should be exposed but to a limit. Personal politics of the private sphere are essential to the survival of people. Not to mention, essential to the consumers being able to afford to buy the papers Addison produces.
It is hard to criticize someone for their opinion. Especially, when the opinion was given in the 18th century under the rule of a monarch. I think that it is great that they wanted to reform society but were they better than the monarch that ruled them? They produced two papers under false circumstances, well identities. This is a great idea in the aspect that they are allowed freedom to be “…a spectator of Mankind…a speculative statesman, soldier, merchant and artizan…” (81). To distance themselves through a false identity (or identities) it becomes hard for me to fathom what makes them above the rest of the population. I say ‘above’ because I get the sense that Addison and Steele feel they have the right to critique humankind and make suggestions of improvement. Is it because they are not part of the low or high classes that they can make these remarks?
I stand strong behind my opinion but I have to admit there were some rather interesting sections. One of the sections I found intriguing was “Steele on The Tatler as Antidote for News-Addiction” (Pg 65). Steele brings back his acquaintance the Upholsterer who is in discussion with others over tidbits of information. This observation made by Steele is when affairs are reported from the Courant, he says, “…but the matter was told so distinctly, that these Wanderers thought there was no news in it…” (Pg 68). If a report is made and it consists of facts and evidence it is not up for debate. The men of this society are not interested, perhaps. because it is not entertainment. It cannot be twisted or theorized, the information simply is what it is. If the information is verified and truthful what good is it?
I did notice that The Tatler is of a less personal quality. It has various coffeehouses in charge of the different sections: “All accounts of gallantry, pleasure, and entertainment, shall be under the article of White’s Chocolate-house; Poetry, under that of Will’s Coffee-house; Learning, under the Title of Graecian; Foreign and Domestick News, you will have from St. James’s Coffee-house; and what else I have to offer on any other Subject, shall be dated from my own Apartment” (Pg 50). Steele puts specific places that specialize in certain interests in charge of the news for that section. When The Spectator emerges there is a closer connection. Meaning that Addison puts ‘people’ in charge of the sections that they represent: Sir Roger an old fashioned Tory gentleman, Sir Andrew Freeport the Whig businessman, Captain Sentry the military man, Will Honeycomb a representative of Restoration high life, and a clergyman (Pg 83). With this introduction of these men comes a brief overview of why they are the way they are and their qualifications for reporting. This is the first glimpse of a psychological makeup of characters that I have seen. For example, Sir Roger had his heart broken by a widow a county over. I did not notice this explanation of why people are the way they are in The Tatler.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
