This rises to near Johnsonian splendor of insight and prose. I can think of no figure better suited to counteract contemporary fluff, fashion and fads. Johnson’s moral seriousness and the vigor of his prose remain unmatched. His fears, his foibles, and his loneliness make him all the more approachable. I hope you have introduced him to a new generation.
Oxford does a "Major Works" which would allow you try out his various different modes--critic, poet, essayist, lexicographer, etc. Rasselas is a good starting place, but remember he does many things, and you may prefer some of them to others. Happy reading!
Henry, This is a truly superb essay about the Great Cham and does him justice. I used to read his majestic prose because I found the Johnsonian cadences so soothing! Thank you and may I request a future essay on The Faerie Queen ? Like you I believe this gorgeous poem is vastly underrated!
I’ve always admired the intellectual force behind Doctor Johnson’s reaction on realising that he’d had a stroke: “To test my faculties, I made my prayers in Greek verses. They were not very good, but I knew they were not very good [which was a relief.]” (From memory, but that’s the general sense of it.]
Another delightful post. And a reminder that I owe you a belated thank you for your inspired answer to the question, "What's your favorite book?" Even as an opening question, a conversation-starter, I used to think it was unanswerable, but your reply— Life of Johnson— works regardless of timing. A better conversation-starter would be “What’s the best response to the question, ‘What’s your favorite book?’” The full version of the question, of course, should be “What’s the best response to the question, ‘What’s your favorite book?’ and why is it the one Henry Oliver has given?”
By the way, you seem to be dispensing with “whom” in a deliberate and aggressive way (If I’m wrong about the deliberate part, then there’s no need to keep reading). I know the word is dying, but surely it is alive and well in some constructions. The subjunctive still survives colloquially (for example, starting a sentence “If I were to tell you…”), and I suspect “whom” will, too, albeit in a diminished state. At any rate, I would think most people (let alone the audience for a post about Samuel Johnson) would find themselves, as I do, unpleasantly distracted by the missing “m” in such phrases as “a man about who more has been written” and “with who he was probably in love.”
I don’t use “whom”. Most people who would say “To whom am I speaking?” also say “Who am I speaking to?” But if you really think it’s grammar to say “whom” then you ought to say, “Whom am I speaking to?” I’m not against that sort of thing. It can be a very quick way to learn something about a person. But we don’t do it here. Those of you who were mis-taught and think “whom” really is grammar should consider whether you would actually change “Who can I turn to?” into “Whom can I turn to?” or indeed, “To whom can I turn?” The explanation of all this is that “whom” is supposedly meant to be used as the object of a verb or preposition, but is often used only with fronted prepositions i.e. when the preposition like “to” is moved to the front of the sentence, hence the examples. Those of you still reading will enjoy more here and here. That second article has the wonderful example that must flaw even the strictest “whom” user. “There are situations where even these speakers might balk at whom: A says “I met someone fascinating yesterday”, B replies “Who?”, and probably not “Whom?”” (You can see on Google Ngram, by the way, that “whom” was never that popular to begin with.)
I'm fine with all of that. Nor is it news to me. You haven't learned anything about me in the unflattering way you seem to insinuate. Consider re-reading my post; I never mentioned grammar or rules. Not using "whom" at all strikes me as an unhelpful and arbitrary rule, a pointless burden to the speaker or writer and on occasion an unwelcome distraction to the listener or reader. But I suppose I am to understand that it's a matter of principle to you, or perhaps a simple description of spontaneous thought and natural habit. So be it. Thank you for the response. I will happily live with what I consider to be one unfortunate choice in terms of style for all the outstanding content you post here.
there's a footnote about whom buried somewhere in this blog--languagelog is good on the topic--basically a lot of people who use it are inconsistent about it and it is a partial rule
But why go out of one's way to frustrate engrained expectations of the ear and eye, especially (and plausibly, non-coincidentally) when there is a gain in mellifluousness? I think it's a question of style rather than grammar or logic.
using whom has to be learned and remembered and I prefer to do without it, easier for me, though it might slip in sometimes the consistent approach is to avoid it, imo
“It is strange that there should be so little reading in the world, and so much writing." Sometimes I feel like this is the case on Substack, which is a pity because there are so many wonderful things to read, not least this essay—I really loved the way you described Johnson in the second section especially, and you describe his lost period poignantly.
I've been slowly reading his Rambler essays, one at a time, here and there, the better to savor them, and his wit and moral wisdom remains timeless.
“Although tall and robust, he was deaf in one ear and blind in one eye. For most of his life he made regular and uncontrolled gestures and tics that disconcerted some upon meeting him.” [Wikipedia note] His deformities and human failings were many— but for all these Johnson was astute, insightful and still highly relevant….
Henry, great post — and found your musings spot on! To not have read Johnson, is to be left bereft of enjoying his literary greatness. Should be required reading for all — and then reread over time…. Yes, that good.
I really liked this piece. It's time for me to admit I have this peculiar blindspot where I only learned about Samuel Johnson through your writing a few months ago. As an American, maybe my own disconnect? Though I grew up in a bookish environment. Between having a father who recites poetry (!) of Rimbaud and Verlaine, to getting a theater degree where we studied Shakespeare, Marlowe, Goldsmith, Sheridan etc, to reading philosophers in college like David Hume, I am bemused that I guess 18th century English essayist and lexicographer slipped my knowledge base!
I am going to get the Boswell book as it sounds delightful. But my main question is, where do I start with the works of the man SJ himself? A biography he wrote? It sounds like such a delightful rabbit hole to get into.
Oxford does a "Major Works" which would allow you try out his various different modes--critic, poet, essayist, lexicographer, etc. Rasselas is a good starting place, but remember he does many things, and you may prefer some of them to others. Happy reading!
Oxford does a "Major Works" which would allow you try out his various different modes--critic, poet, essayist, lexicographer, etc. Rasselas is a good starting place, but remember he does many things, and you may prefer some of them to others. Happy reading!
I've been reading Johnson (and about Johnson) for now nearly fifty years. Henry Oliver's piece is a brilliant contribution to Johnsoniana in two respects. It highlights an often neglected part of his life (those lost years) and offers a dazzlingly concise summary of what made his life so remarkable.
I enjoyed the piece! Johnson lovers out there may enjoy a little fanzine/journal I edit, The Johnsonian News Letter. It's all about Johnson and his world, issued twice a year, and you can read it for free online: https://johnsoniannewsletter.org/archive/
This rises to near Johnsonian splendor of insight and prose. I can think of no figure better suited to counteract contemporary fluff, fashion and fads. Johnson’s moral seriousness and the vigor of his prose remain unmatched. His fears, his foibles, and his loneliness make him all the more approachable. I hope you have introduced him to a new generation.
I would love that
Superb. Also, don’t forget Beryl Bainbridge’s lovely book - According to Queenie.
yes love it
I'm fascinated by him, but intimidated in starting to read his work. Where should one begin when tackling Johnson?
Oxford does a "Major Works" which would allow you try out his various different modes--critic, poet, essayist, lexicographer, etc. Rasselas is a good starting place, but remember he does many things, and you may prefer some of them to others. Happy reading!
Many thanks!
Tremendous essay. Small note of interest – Wordsworth too did maths when depressed (around 1795).
oh yes very interesting thanks
Henry, This is a truly superb essay about the Great Cham and does him justice. I used to read his majestic prose because I found the Johnsonian cadences so soothing! Thank you and may I request a future essay on The Faerie Queen ? Like you I believe this gorgeous poem is vastly underrated!
I would love to but I need to re-read it first!
😉Aye, there’s the rub! Even for a seasoned re-reader, the sheer length of the Faerie Queen is daunting!
I’ve always admired the intellectual force behind Doctor Johnson’s reaction on realising that he’d had a stroke: “To test my faculties, I made my prayers in Greek verses. They were not very good, but I knew they were not very good [which was a relief.]” (From memory, but that’s the general sense of it.]
Another delightful post. And a reminder that I owe you a belated thank you for your inspired answer to the question, "What's your favorite book?" Even as an opening question, a conversation-starter, I used to think it was unanswerable, but your reply— Life of Johnson— works regardless of timing. A better conversation-starter would be “What’s the best response to the question, ‘What’s your favorite book?’” The full version of the question, of course, should be “What’s the best response to the question, ‘What’s your favorite book?’ and why is it the one Henry Oliver has given?”
By the way, you seem to be dispensing with “whom” in a deliberate and aggressive way (If I’m wrong about the deliberate part, then there’s no need to keep reading). I know the word is dying, but surely it is alive and well in some constructions. The subjunctive still survives colloquially (for example, starting a sentence “If I were to tell you…”), and I suspect “whom” will, too, albeit in a diminished state. At any rate, I would think most people (let alone the audience for a post about Samuel Johnson) would find themselves, as I do, unpleasantly distracted by the missing “m” in such phrases as “a man about who more has been written” and “with who he was probably in love.”
ah here you go
I don’t use “whom”. Most people who would say “To whom am I speaking?” also say “Who am I speaking to?” But if you really think it’s grammar to say “whom” then you ought to say, “Whom am I speaking to?” I’m not against that sort of thing. It can be a very quick way to learn something about a person. But we don’t do it here. Those of you who were mis-taught and think “whom” really is grammar should consider whether you would actually change “Who can I turn to?” into “Whom can I turn to?” or indeed, “To whom can I turn?” The explanation of all this is that “whom” is supposedly meant to be used as the object of a verb or preposition, but is often used only with fronted prepositions i.e. when the preposition like “to” is moved to the front of the sentence, hence the examples. Those of you still reading will enjoy more here and here. That second article has the wonderful example that must flaw even the strictest “whom” user. “There are situations where even these speakers might balk at whom: A says “I met someone fascinating yesterday”, B replies “Who?”, and probably not “Whom?”” (You can see on Google Ngram, by the way, that “whom” was never that popular to begin with.)
I'm fine with all of that. Nor is it news to me. You haven't learned anything about me in the unflattering way you seem to insinuate. Consider re-reading my post; I never mentioned grammar or rules. Not using "whom" at all strikes me as an unhelpful and arbitrary rule, a pointless burden to the speaker or writer and on occasion an unwelcome distraction to the listener or reader. But I suppose I am to understand that it's a matter of principle to you, or perhaps a simple description of spontaneous thought and natural habit. So be it. Thank you for the response. I will happily live with what I consider to be one unfortunate choice in terms of style for all the outstanding content you post here.
was not insinuating anything just copy-pasted something from another blog from years ago
there's a footnote about whom buried somewhere in this blog--languagelog is good on the topic--basically a lot of people who use it are inconsistent about it and it is a partial rule
But why go out of one's way to frustrate engrained expectations of the ear and eye, especially (and plausibly, non-coincidentally) when there is a gain in mellifluousness? I think it's a question of style rather than grammar or logic.
using whom has to be learned and remembered and I prefer to do without it, easier for me, though it might slip in sometimes the consistent approach is to avoid it, imo
“It is strange that there should be so little reading in the world, and so much writing." Sometimes I feel like this is the case on Substack, which is a pity because there are so many wonderful things to read, not least this essay—I really loved the way you described Johnson in the second section especially, and you describe his lost period poignantly.
I've been slowly reading his Rambler essays, one at a time, here and there, the better to savor them, and his wit and moral wisdom remains timeless.
I have the same reaction on Medium. So many want to BE Read; relatively few seem to want TO READ.
“Although tall and robust, he was deaf in one ear and blind in one eye. For most of his life he made regular and uncontrolled gestures and tics that disconcerted some upon meeting him.” [Wikipedia note] His deformities and human failings were many— but for all these Johnson was astute, insightful and still highly relevant….
Henry, great post — and found your musings spot on! To not have read Johnson, is to be left bereft of enjoying his literary greatness. Should be required reading for all — and then reread over time…. Yes, that good.
Hi Henry,
I really liked this piece. It's time for me to admit I have this peculiar blindspot where I only learned about Samuel Johnson through your writing a few months ago. As an American, maybe my own disconnect? Though I grew up in a bookish environment. Between having a father who recites poetry (!) of Rimbaud and Verlaine, to getting a theater degree where we studied Shakespeare, Marlowe, Goldsmith, Sheridan etc, to reading philosophers in college like David Hume, I am bemused that I guess 18th century English essayist and lexicographer slipped my knowledge base!
I am going to get the Boswell book as it sounds delightful. But my main question is, where do I start with the works of the man SJ himself? A biography he wrote? It sounds like such a delightful rabbit hole to get into.
Oxford does a "Major Works" which would allow you try out his various different modes--critic, poet, essayist, lexicographer, etc. Rasselas is a good starting place, but remember he does many things, and you may prefer some of them to others. Happy reading!
Great writing. Thank you
thanks!
Wonderful stuff! Thank you. I’ve been meaning to get to Johnson but never quite got there. Will amend this asap! Any recommended starting point?
Oxford does a "Major Works" which would allow you try out his various different modes--critic, poet, essayist, lexicographer, etc. Rasselas is a good starting place, but remember he does many things, and you may prefer some of them to others. Happy reading!
The biography by Boswell. The Idler pieces are more easily digested than the Rambler essays I found.
I love Johnson, but second to only Shakespeare? Really?
EDIT— My apologies. I am reading your splendid article and seeing the case you are building for him.
:)
I've been reading Johnson (and about Johnson) for now nearly fifty years. Henry Oliver's piece is a brilliant contribution to Johnsoniana in two respects. It highlights an often neglected part of his life (those lost years) and offers a dazzlingly concise summary of what made his life so remarkable.
I enjoyed the piece! Johnson lovers out there may enjoy a little fanzine/journal I edit, The Johnsonian News Letter. It's all about Johnson and his world, issued twice a year, and you can read it for free online: https://johnsoniannewsletter.org/archive/
What an excellent piece of writing. A good tribute to a great man.