Samuel Johnson and the journals of the Romantic period

335 Pages·019.707 MB·English

by  George, Dorothy Iris

SAMUEL JOHNSON AND THE JOURNALS OF THE ROMANTIC PERIODS
HIS REPUTATION AS A LITERARY CRITIC
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
Louisiana State University and
Agricultural, and Mechanical College
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
The Department of English
by
Dorothy George
B*A«, Louisiana State Normal College, .1936
M.A., Louisiana State University* 19Yl
May 9 1950
UMi Number: DP69348
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
Dissertation Publishing
UMI DP69348
Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
MANUSCRIPT THESES
Unpolished theses submitted for the master’s end doctor’s
degrees and deposited in the Louisiana State University Library
are available for inspection. Use of any thesis is limited by the
rights of the author. Bibliographical references may be noted, but
passages may not be copied unless the author has given permission*
Credit must be given in subsequent written or published work.
A library which borrows this thesis for use by its clientele
is expected to make- sure that the borrower is aware of the above
restrictions.
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
S9419
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I wish to express bqt sincere gratitude to Dr. A. J.
Bryan for his guidance in the writing of this dissertation.
Also« I am much Indebted to Dr* R. B. Hellmanv now of the
Dniversity of Vashington9 because of whose encouragement and
assistance the study was begun*
3ll.lL U
d*
W 5 D
(* L o . fc. 4 3 2 6 4 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT................................ . iv
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . ........ .. Ix
I THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE STOTT , . . 1
II THE EDITOR AND CRITIC OF SHAKESPEARE * * 17
The Function of Critics and Criticism 18
The Materials of Literature » . . • • 39
The Handling of the Materials • . . . 65
Ill THE BIOGRAPHER AND CRITIC OF MILTON • . 89
The Bases of Prejudice * < > • « * « » 91
The Minor Poems » • . 104
Paradise Igs.tj . . . . 111
IV THE AUTHOR OF Tg£ LIVES OF THE POETS 131
The General Reputation ..........* . 132
The Metaphysical Poets • • • • • • « » 159
The Authors of the Neoclassical Spirit 174
The Eighteenth-century Poets of the
Romantic Spirit • • • • .......... 224
V THE ATTITUDES OF THE INDIVIDUAL JOURNALS 250
T h e _______ 251
The Scots Macasing 261
The Monthly Beylew • • • e e 264
British Critic • • . • • 271
• • 275
The Quarterly SfiYjfiJE • • « 281
The atofftiqjj-najey Review « ® 285
Blafc pood ,j M n l wgh • • * « s 287
The Loydtan Magflz: • • 9 <* » 295
Fraser *9 ttegasloai tsat. I s m S M SfiMrtag • e 9 301
The Hunt Publications * • * • * • « • « 9 tf 302
The Literary fltftatttf . . . . . . . . . . 306
71 COSCUBIOH............ .................. 309
BIBLIOGRAPHY « s « « s s ( « e s « * i > * s » * 317
AUTOBIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . * •
323
ill
ABSTRACT
Prevalent among students of literary criticism today
are two assumptions about the reputation of Dr. Samuel Johnson
during the Romantic period. The first is that, after having
occupied the position of virtual literary dictator in his
own age, Johnson mas either condemned or Ignored In the fol­
lowing one* This assumption is based on the belief that the
antagonism exhibited toward his by the major critics between
1800 and I832 — Coleridge, Wordsworth, Haxlitt, BeQuincey —
was shared by the rest of the literary world* The second
assumption, one which actually contradicts the first, is that
the periodicals of those years, as survivors of eighteenth-
century habits of thought, accepted Johnson unquestioningly
merely because he was commonly considered the standard-bearer
of traditional neoclassicism. Since to hold completely to
either of the two assumptions would mean necessarily an over­
simplification of the picture, It Is to be expected that the
truth lies somewhere between the two extremes* And it was the
purpose of this study to examine the hitherto unexplored body
of evidence In the journals of the homentic period and to de­
termine Johnson*® position as a literary critic in them*
The periodicals investigated were limited to sixteen
of the most representative ones of the time* They were
iv
representative In that some were quarterly# som monthly# and
some meekly publications; in that some ware conservative and
others liberal in religion# politics# and literature; In that
some followed the traditional pattern of the magazine# others
that of the review# and still others that of the journal of
teU&HLi&l£££> Th« list included the Oentlenmn'a Magazine,
tta» Saatl jfBOSiaft* the Monthly Review, the British C£lti£»
MinfrWfll fitXiSMt the Qaarterly Review, the Weatalnater
MliSMt Blackwood1 s Edinhawh Magazine, the London -ifagazlne.
yraser'a Magazine fa£ town Country. the Literary Gazette,
the BTflner, the Xadleator. the Liberal* the Literary
R m ^ y . and the Companione
The material resulting from the investigation of these
sources was organised according to Johnson9s chief contribu­
tions to literary criticism — his Shakespearean analyses
(Chapter ID# his Miltonic criticism (Chapter III)# and the
views expressed in the remaining Lives of the Poets (Chapter
IV) • Chapter V had a two-fold purpose — the presentation of
general comments about Johnson as a critic# and a summary of
the attitudes of the individual journals toward his criticism.
Chapter VI presented the general conclusions ©merging
from the study* One of these was that# although it must be
admitted that there were fewer references to Johnson between
1800 and 1832 than there were in the period immediately fol­
lowing his death# still his name occurred more frequently than
that of any other English critic of the past or the contemporary
period! this situation was true in the face of such new
literary forms as pross fiction and of a new attitude toward
authority and of a nev conception of criticism as apprecia­
tion rather than evaluation.
Actually» very few of the reviewers followed the example
of Coleridge, whose policy was one of accepting absolutely
nothing in Johnson's criticism* On the other hand, very few
of them manifested a passive acceptance of his views* The
general tone was that of an effort to determine what part of
his criticism was still valid and useful and whet part must
be rejected. More attention was directed to the negative than
the positive portions of it; the praise he awarded was for the
most part accepted as a matter of course, but unfavorable com­
ments were meticulously weighed. This attitude accounted for
the fact that the general criticism of his work in Shakespeare
and of The Lives of the Poets was favorable at the same time
that Qualifications end exceptions were defined.
Some of the qualifications arose from the conviction
that Johnson had allowed personal or religious or political
prejudice to enter into fcis criticism — notably that of
Milton ard Gray. Others arose from the fact that almost with­
out exception the reviewers saw in Johnson an exponent of the
vague and the general as the proper material of literature and
considered him incapable of making minute sensuous distinctions.
Similarly, they considered erroneous his definition of genius
as a general power of the mind.
vi
On the question of shethe? Johnson was deficient in
the kind of imagination and sublimity of spirit necessary to
the full comprehension of Shakespeare and 111ton» opinion was
not unanimous* Although to many reviewers Johnson's sober
and modest praise of their idols represented a cold* inade­
quate appreciation, others singled him out as the critic who
had paid noblest tribute to them*
On still other points the periodicals unanimously ac­
cepted him — his repudiation of the unities of tine and
place, his insistence on probability of action and character*
and his definition cf the purpose of poetry* Furthermore,
almost all grunted his supremacy in the realm of human motives
and passions; his discerning interpretations of character won
that position for hia.
Finally, this study demonstrated that, consciously or
unconsciously, the Journals of the Homantic period recognized
the diversity and breadth of Johnson's criticism and paid hira
tribute because of those qualities. After all the objections
had been raised and all the qualifications defined and all
the unacceptable portions of his criticism sifted out, there
was still much that was urilversally considered valuable. It
was not only that periodicals with avowedly conservative lean­
ings — the Gentleman*s» the Scots* the ffirltish Critic, the
Quarterly, and the literary Gazette -- that manifested an
attitude predominantly favorable to Johnson5 such liberal or­
gans as the Monthly, the Edinburgh* Blackwood'ft. and the
vil
London shared their approval of him* And even those periodi­
cals evincing most antagonism — the Westminster. Fraser*s*
and the Ry»*al nay in the latter part of the period — found
occasionally something in him to commend* In other words/
it cannot be said that the antagonism shown Johnson by the
major figures of the Romantic period was imitated by the
journals* nor can it be said that his reputation was the
result of servile admiration in journals still adhering to
eighteenth-century neoclassical standards*
viil