Vulgar Greatness and Common Lords: The Rhetoric of Ambiguity and the Poets of the Nobility in Samuel Johnson's "Lives of the Poets"

Samuel Johnson'sLives of the Poets have since their appearance met with very differing opinions, from accusations of unfairness to praise for critical insight; yet, criticism has rarely considered these discrepancies of reading as an effect of the rhetorical construction of the text.The rhetoric of Johnson's Lives is always one of contradiction, but, through rhetorical close readings of seven minor lives, this study shows how such contradiction also results in ambiguity.The treated texts are those of seven noblemen: Rochester, Roscommon, Dorset, Halifax, Sheffield, Granville, and Lyttelton.Johnson's rhetoric sets out to contradict the "vulgar greatness" of their lives and their overrated poetical reputation, but his contradiction often ends by contradicting itself and ultimately reveals ambiguity.This rhetoric of ambiguity undermines what is commonly seen as Johnson's typical antithetical style and instead reveals different strategies through which Johnson attempts to convey a true depiction of the complexity and ambiguity of his all too human subjects, even if it means contradicting himself.Thus, Johnson uses his rhetoric of ambiguity strategically and sometimes not completely deliberately to reveal prejudices against the nobility, but also to contradict them, manifesting fundamental conflicts within his mind.men of his class, by devoting part of his time to elegant knowledge" (3: 118).Clearly, Johnson's praise is not only very ironic, but includes an attack on his whole class -and yet, it is also very much ambiguous insofar as, if one can look past Johnson's insinuations of condescension, he truly wants to praise him for not being completely idle and ignorant.While we could say that the nobility is not included in this attack, Pope adds them for the same reason, when he ironically described two of the lords discussed in this study, Dorset and Rochester, as "holiday writers--as gentlemen that diverted themselves now and then with poetry, rather than as poets" (Spence 1: 201).Dryden, in the Preface to All for Love, contrasted those who write "for a poor subsistence" and asks "what can be urged in their defence who, not having the vocation of poverty to scribble, out of mere wantonness take pains to make themselves ridiculous" (36-7).Indeed, Johnson himself once contrasted professional writers to the aristocratic leisure writers, according to William Seward, who remembered Johnson's account of La Rochefoucauld as "one of the few gentlemen writers of whom authors by profession had occasion to be afraid" (qtd. in Lonsdale 3: 379n6).46 Finally, Congreve, "descended from a family […] of so great antiquity" (3: 65), is blamed by Johnson through Voltaire for his "despicable foppery of desiring to be considered not as an author but a gentleman; to which the Frenchman replied, 'that if he had been only a gentleman, he should not have come to visit him'" (3: 70).Boswell basically accuses Johnson of doing the same one time, when, discussing the comparative value of the designations of Doctor and Esquire, Johnson "seemed pleased with it [the designation of Esquire], because, as I conjectured, he liked to be sometimes taken out of the class of literary men, and to be merely genteel,--un gentilhomme comme un autre" (Life 2: 333n1).Parke (Biographical Thinking 147) mentions the episode from "Congreve" as an example for Johnson's claim in "Dryden" that " [w]here there is no difficulty there is no praise" (2: 82): the noblemen's emphasis on their leisurely approach is as much to blame for Johnson's prejudice as their actual leisure.47 One major implication of such prejudices against the nobility is their influence on Johnson's critical section.Thus, if Johnson imagines the noblemen poets as "holiday writers," does he automatically read this into their poetry?The connection between an author's life and his works in Johnson's Lives has been discussed extensively and, considering the differing conclusions, it is ambiguous.Folkenflik, accordingly, in his study of the Lives, devotes a whole chapter to "Art and Life: Discriminations" and one to "Connections" (Biographer 118-40, 141-73).The original title of the Lives, Prefaces, Biographical and Critical etc., can indicate either difference (Wheeler 6) or connection.observes this "more general insistence that we keep our distance, that we recognise the dimension of conjecture and speculation and so, by implication, the fictiveness of most biographical intimacy" ("Lives" 327).There are two main ways to do so: an impersonal way, usually through a passive, or a personal admission.An example for the first case is "cannot (now) be known," which in this or similar variants occurs frequently.Here, Johnson is the diligent and objective seeker of truth who simply found the limits of knowledge, despite his best efforts.I am more interested in the second case here, especially Johnson's frequent admissions of "I know not" (66 instances) and "I do not know" ( 5instances).In the best case, the context suggests that it is a case such as the impersonal formulation indicates: ("Of the person of Dryden I know not any account" 4: 110).In this case, the personality of admission brings Johnson closer to the reader and imparts his sense of regret and disappointment at this lack of information.However, very often this personal expression rather insinuates that someone else might know, which in turn implies that Johnson, with more diligence, could have found out himself (e.g. in "Prior": "at Winburne in Dorsetshire, of I know not what parents" 3: 48).47 These cases accordingly present Johnson as lazy or idle, to use his word.Johnson did not seem to be so diligent in most of the minor Lives (and in "Swift"), possibly due to his rushing to finish the project or getting tired of it (e.g."Lyttelton"), according to critics (Lonsdale, Headnote 4: 503).48 In fact, Johnson said himself that he wrote the Lives "in my usual way, dilatorily and hastily, unwilling to work, and working with vigour, and haste" (qtd. in Lonsdale 1: 46).We should neither ignore these implied hints from the author of the Idler, because Johnson did not care for pretentions of ease, nor should we overemphasize them, since Johnson valued effort and hard work.Nevertheless, these indirect admissions of idleness bring Johnson closer to the reader, who, in these moments, can see eye to eye with an idle but honest Johnson.49 There is another way to read these admissions of ignorance: Johnson's 'idleness' may play a role in these cases, but to consider another effect on readers, I would argue these cases can insinuate not only Johnson's idleness but also his (pretended) lack of interest in some of the lives of his poets, his reluctance to treat them, or his writing something else than accurate biography.Thus, in some cases of "I know not," there is no hiding behind an argument that it cannot be known or regret that it is not known; quite simply, Johnson says what should have been in his sources and admits that he does not know it.50 Of such admissions of personal ignorance, the impression for the reader can be that Johnson does not care and will not be bothered with it.Parke also sees such honesty in

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.