That such a man should have written one of the best books in the world is strange enough.But this is not all.Many persons who have conducted themselves foolishly in active life, and whose conversation has indicated no superior powers of mind, have left us valuable works.Goldsmith was very justly described by one of his contemporaries as an inspired idiot, and by another as a being"Who wrote like an angel, and talked like poor Poll."La Fontaine was in society a mere simpleton.His blunders would not come in amiss among the stories of Hierocles.But these men attained literary eminence in spite of their weaknesses.Boswell attained it by reason of his weaknesses.If he had not been a great fool, he would never have been a great writer.Without all the qualities which made him the jest and the torment of those among whom he lived, without the officiousness, the inquisitiveness, the effrontery, the toad-eating, the insensibility to all reproof, he never could have produced so excellent a book.He was a slave, proud of his servitude, a Paul Pry, convinced that his own curiosity and garrulity were virtues, an unsafe companion who never scrupled to repay the most liberal hospitality by the basest violation of confidence, a man without delicacy, without shame, without sense enough to know when he was hurting the feelings of others or when he was exposing himself to derision; and because he was all this, he has, in an important department of literature, immeasurably surpassed such writers as Tacitus, Clarendon, Alfieri, and his own idol Johnson.
Of the talents which ordinarily raise men to eminence as writers, Boswell had absolutely none.There is not in all his books a single remark of his own on literature, politics, religion, or society, which is not either commonplace or absurd.His dissertations on hereditary gentility, on the slave-trade, and on the entailing of landed estates, may serve as examples.To say that these passages are sophistical would be to pay them an extravagant compliment.They have no pretence to argument, or even to meaning.He has reported innumerable observations made by himself in the course of conversation.Of those observations we do not remember one which is above the intellectual capacity of a boy of fifteen.He has printed many of his own letters, and in these letters he is always ranting or twaddling.Logic, eloquence, wit, taste, all those things which are generally considered as making a book valuable, were utterly wanting to him.He had, indeed, a quick observation and a retentive memory.
These qualities, if he had been a man of sense and virtue would scarcely of themselves have sufficed to make him conspicuous; but because he was a dunce, a parasite, and a coxcomb, they have made him immortal.
Those parts of his book which, considered abstractedly, are most utterly worthless, are delightful when we read them as illustrations of the character of the writer.Bad in themselves, they are good dramatically, like the nonsense of justice Shallow, the clipped English of Dr.Caius, or the misplaced consonants of Fluellen.Of all confessors, Boswell is the most candid.Other men who have pretended to lay open their own hearts, Rousseau, for example, and Lord Byron, have evidently written with a constant view to effect, and are to be then most distrusted when they seem to be most sincere.There is scarcely any man who would not rather accuse himself of great crimes and of dark and tempestuous passions than proclaim all his little vanities and wild fancies.It would be easier to find a person who would avow actions like those of Caesar Borgia, or Danton, than one who would publish a daydream like those of Alnaschar and Malvolio.
Those weaknesses which most men keep covered up in the most secret places of the mind, not to be disclosed to the eye of friendship or of love, were precisely the weaknesses which Boswell paraded before all the world.He was perfectly frank, because the weakness of his understanding and the tumult of his spirits prevented him from knowing when he made himself ridiculous.His book resembles nothing so much as the conversation of the inmates of the Palace of Truth.
His fame is great; and it will, we have no doubt, be lasting; but it is fame of a peculiar kind, and indeed marvellously resembles infamy.We remember no other case in which the world has made so great a distinction between a book and its author.In general, the book and the author are considered as one.To admire the book is to admire the author.The case of Boswell is an exception, we think the only exception, to this rule.His work is universally allowed to be interesting, instructive, eminently original: yet it has brought him nothing but contempt.All the world reads it, all the world delights in it: yet we do not remember ever to have read or ever to have heard any expression of respect and admiration for the man to whom we owe so much instruction and amusement.While edition after edition of his book was coming forth, his son, as Mr.Croker tells us, was ashamed of it, and hated to hear it mentioned.This feeling was natural and reasonable.Sir Alexander saw that in proportion to the celebrity of the work, was the degradation of the author.The very editors of this unfortunate gentleman's books have forgotten their allegiance, and, like those Puritan casuists who took arms by the authority of the king against his person, have attacked the writer while doing homage to the writings.Mr.Croker, for example, has published two thousand five hundred notes on the life of Johnson, and yet scarcely ever mentions the biographer, whose performance he has taken such pains to illustrate, without some expression of contempt.
