THE UNIVERSITY OF I'IAN]TOBA SA}ruEL JOHNSON AND SATIRE by IiILLIAM F. KNISKERN A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES ,IHE IN PARTIAL FULFILI'IENT OF TIIE RIQUIREI'ÍENTS FOR DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PH]LOSOPHY DEPARTI'IENT OF ENGLISH I.IINNIPEG, I'TANIT0BA I'lay 1980 SAMUEL JOI1NSON AND SATIRE BY I,]ILLIAM FREDRICK KNISKERN A thcsis sLrbnrittrcl to tlre Iracrrlt¡, o1'(lracl Lr:rtc StLrtlics ol- tllc Universit-v- o1'N{anitoba in partial lLrlfillnlc¡lt of'the rcrluire rncrrts of the degrec of DOC'TOIì OF PI II LOSC)I)I IY €:' t9g0 Pclnlission hrs bcen grînttd to ihc Lllllli\lì\'Olì l-llLr UNIVIiII SITY OF N,lANIl-OIIA to lencì or scll copics ol this tltcsis. to the NATIONAL LIBI{AIìY OF CANAI)A to nricrof-ilnr this thesis and to lc-ncl or scll cclpics ol'tllc'f ilnr. ancl Uì\l\/l:IìSI-fY Ì\'llClìOFILÌv{S to pr-rblish rn abstract ol'this lhcsis, 'l'lle aLrthor rûse r\ cs ctthcr pLrblicatiorr rigirts. alltl ne itìrc.r thc tlrcsis ¡lrlr crtensir,r cxtriìe ts l'ronr it nlt¡'Lrc ¡trirttccl clr othcr- rl'isc r.:1ri'od tr cccl ivi thoLr t the aLrtìlor's ur'l i L tcn Ienll isrirln. ABSTRACT htren Samuel Johnson first began to v/rite for a living he turned almost immediately to satire. In 1738 he published London, an "Imitation" of Juvenalrs Satire III, and in 1739 he published t\^¡o prose satires, Marmor Norfolciense and A Compleat Vindication of the Licensers of the _Ltgge. In the years that followed, Johnson produced many otl-rer satires, including, most notably, The VanÍty cf, {r4rra" tr^lishes, which appeared in L749. By far the greatest number of his satires, hor^¡ever, are found in the periodical works of the 1750's, the Ra1nllgg, Tdler, and Ld_y3nlgreË. During this time he also wrote a "Review" of Soame Jenyns' A l.eu U5ttl.¿ Into ,the !"trrfg gl4 qlrCrn of Evil (L756), in rvhich he made one of his most effective attacks on human cruelty and indifference. Altliough incidental satire appears in nearly al1 of Johnson's major works, including his Lives of the Poets (L779-8I), his last significant attempt at extended satire is Taxation No Tyranny (I775), in rvhich he exposes the hypocrisy of American slave o\,^rners. Despite this large body of works, extending over Johnsonrs entire career, a number of critics have argued that he wrote no t'truett satires at all, or that r,'hile he sometimes approached satire, the attack is somehorv always foiled. Other critícs have felt it necessary to add such qualifying terms as "tragic" to hís satires, and stíll others have argued that some of his satires are insincere and derivative. This dissertation attempts to demonstrate that Johnson indeed rürote many ii 1a1 satires in r+hich the attack is in no sense "foi1ed." It also argues that rvhile many of Johnsonts satíres are jeux dtesprit, many others are intensely passionate, Aspects of satire have been used as a means of focusing the dis- cussion. The distinction between satÍric and non-satirÍc humour and the opposites of humour and invective provide a basís for understanding Johnson's very different attitudes toward Scotland and America. The tonal spectrum of Johnsonrs satíre, ranging from tolerant amusement at one end to hostile indignation at the other, is also studied, with partÍcu1ar attention given to the targets located rvithin this spectrìlm. IJore extensive notice is taken of Johnsonts choice of "fictions." It has been remarked that, apart from formal verse satire, satire has no distinct structure entirely its ov¡n; that is, it is incorporated instead within forms that exist independently of satire. Among the forms most commonly appropriated by Johnson are the dream vision, beast fab1e, character sketch, and letter to Lhe editor. The choice of "fiction" ís not haphazard, but ín fact constitutes an important part of the satiric strategy. l^Ihereas the earlier discussion is organized on the basis of particular aspects of satíre, London and The Vanit¡1 of Human L,Jishes are dealt with more broadly. By paying attention to structure, imagery, and characterization it is demonstrated that rvhile both are satires, they are very different satires. Finally, in addítion to his satires, Johnsonfs criticism of satire is studied, and rvhat is díscovered is horv closely his practice as a satirist conforms to hís beliefs concerning the proper function of satire. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ii lNTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER ONE Humour and Invective: Johnson on Scotland an d America 29 CHÁPTER TWO The Tonal S pectrum and Targets of Satire 77 CHAPTER TI]REE Johnson and the Fictions of Satire L27 CHAPTER FOUR Johnson as Critic of Satire 2l3 CHAPTER FIVE London and The Van+-y. of Human Wishes 270 CONCLUSION a-1 1 BIBLIOGRÄPHY 381 l-v INTRODUCTION Since this ís Lhe fourth dissertation in recent years to deal wíth Samuel Johnson and satire, some justífícation ís cal1ed fot.1 In the opening chapter of the latest of these dissertatíons, Samuel Johnson and the Style of Satire (L912), Donald Siebert exhibits the uneasiness that I might be expe ct ed to feel: it rnay appear from the subject of this study that I have chosen to desert the cow of truth, already exhausted by scholarship, and try my hand at milking the butl.¿ I{hether Siebert in fact milks the bu1l wÍ1l be left unexpl.ored, but I can assert that he touches very little on matters díscussed in my o\.drt work. Three of Siebertrs principal chapters are: "satire in the Lífe of Richard Savage,t' "The Scholar as Satirist: Johnsonts Edition of ttJohnson Shakespeare,tt and as Satirícal Traveler: A Journey !q !hç t' inlestern Islands of Scotland - None of these works is, in rny view, essentially satiric, though incidental satíre may be found in each. Consequently, the rvorks to which Siebert devotes his major energies form only a sma1l parl of my discussion. Delbert Earisman was the first scholar to examine Johnsonts satires at length, but he restricts himself ín Samuel Johnsonrs Satire (L962) to the periodical essays and Rasselas. I11' *ota extensive study of tfie periodical satires occurs in the third chapter rvhere I focus on Johnsonrs adaptation of the epistolary framervork for the purposes of satire, Earisman, of course, mentions that many of the periodical satires are written in the form of letters, but his comments are more ín the way of passing glances than thorough analysis."3 Further, Earisman concentrates on what he terms "The Objects of the Satire in the Essays." hrLrat Earisman calls "objectsrtt I refer to as tttargetstt; and while he seems most concerned with cataloguing the "objects" (e.g. ttlfen and Womenr" "Moneyrt' ttThe Intell-ectua1r" ttTrades and Occu- pations"), I am more interested in refating target to tone.4 The remaining dissertation, The Satire of Samuef Johnson (1964), by Arnold Tibbetts, also impinges very little on my discussion. Like Earisman, Tlbbetts is conce¡ned primarily with ídentífying the targets in the periodlcal- satires. His chapter on and The y"{!y_ !_."4_9" "l Human !Lr..-r¡Cr might also suggest duplícation since these poems are dealt wíth in my final, and longest, chapter. Tibbettsr treatrnent of London, however, consists, for the most part, of a compari-son of Johnsonts poem to its Juvenalian model; whereas, insofar as I compare London at all , it is to lbg Vanity of Human l^lishes. More ímportantly, my analysis of London deals \^/ith matters of structure, imagery, and characterization that are largely ignoled by Tibbetts. Just as Tibbetts and I are concerned r+ith different features of London, so, too, are our interpretations of The Vanity of Human Wishes widely divergent. Tibbetts, follorving the orthodox line of ínterpretation, sees the poem as "tragicttandttpessimisticrt'while I, on the other hend, see it as ,reither.5 It r¿ould be pointless to go into a detailed account of the dif- ferences between my study of Johnson and satire and those of my pre- decessors. Siebert and I examine different works. And while, líke Earisman, I discuss the periodical satires, and 1íke Tibbetts, the two formal verse salires, there is very little overlapping of detaí1ed analysis or of conclusions. hrhere r,¡e discuss the same works, r,re con- centrate on different features, and Ín the most notable instance rvhere we deal rsíth the same feat.ures (Tibbetts on The Vanity of Human Wishes), our conclusions are opposite. It is rvith some reluctance that I turn now to that unfortunately obligatory task, the definition of terms. One might be excused, perhaps, for urishing to agree with Northrop Frye that "no literary critíc of any experience will make much effort to define his terms."6 Regrettably, one needs Fryers experience and stature to make, or abide by, such a dictum. Robert Elliort throws up his hands i-n despair at the problem of defining satire. t'I can testify,t'he wrítes, that it is a sobering experience to have worked for years on a subject like satire and finally to realize that one cannot dqfine strictly the central term of one t s s t,rdy. 7 The dífficulty that prompts 811íott's resignatíon arises, in part, from the fact that satire Ís used to denote at one time a tonal feature of a literary work and at another tÍme a definite formal structure. Further, r,¡hile at tines an isolated fragment may be referred to as sali¡ic, at other times an entire rvork is characterized as a satíre.