Talk:Samuel Johnson/Archive 2

Died of gout?

The 1945 Sherlock Holmes film, "dressed to kill" features a tour of Dr. Johnson's home, during which the guide makes a point of mentioning Dr. J died of gout. True?

Johnson suffered from gout, among other complaints. However, Boswell did not specify gout as the one cause of death. Shortly before his death, Johnson attempted to relieve an accumulation of dropsical fluid by making a deep incision in his body. This may have accelerated his death. In Dressed to Kill (1946 film), the cause of death was given as gout by the Johnson Museum guide. However, his pronouncements were dubious, as indicated by the skeptical reception on the part of the informed and intelligent woman who was touring the museum.Lestrade 12:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Any progress on this point? Exactly a year later, and while watching the same movie on cable, I see that this point is unsettled. Indeed, the main article makes no mention of his death besides the date and location. What was the average filmgoer in 1946 presumed to know about the good doctor that we do not? Why make the point that it was "gout, just gout" and why the dubious look? - Dravecky (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Saints banner and category

Based on this individual being included in the Calendar of saints (Church of England), I am adding the Category:Anglican saints and the Saints WikiProject banner to this article. I am awaiting reliable sources which can be used to add the content to the article. John Carter 17:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Samuel Johnson, Moralist, 1784" is included in the list of Holy Days on the C of E's Common Worship website. No individual is designated there as a "Saint," not even any one of the Apostles. His name is in italics, indicating "commemoration" on the date specified. This applies also to Christina Rosetti and John Donne, who may be esteemed in England but are not usually regarded as "Saints," and figures as diverse as Dietrich Bonhoeffer (a Lutheran pastor, who may well qualify), Valentine (on February 14th), Joan of Arc (a Roman Catholic saint), Ignatius of Loyola (also an RC saint), John Calvin and Martin Luther. If Wikipedia has Samuel Johnson in the "Calendar of Saints" of the Church of England, this must be an over-simplification. NRPanikker 02:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia over-simplify something? Say it ain't so! 138.23.77.251 (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Saints project, despite its name, actually deals with the articles on all individuals commemorated in religious calendars. On that basis, I have every reason to believe it was an appropriate addition. John Carter (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Poet...

Describing Johnson as first a poet seems downright misleading to me... Cckkab 17:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

T.S. Eliot, for one, had a pretty high opinion of Johnson's poetry. I can find the quote if you like - it's in On Poetry and Poets. I will give a source in the article if I can find a way to fit it in. Lexo (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Direct Contradiction

This article states Dr. Johnson is the second most quoted person in the English language after Shakespeare. The Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson article says he is the most frequently quoted person in the English language. I don't know if this matters, as both facts are cited, and Wikipedia holds that they are thus both true. I would like to point out, however, that I could also cite from a logic textbook that (A • ~A) is a logical contradiction; as well, it is unencyclopedic (as no 'professional' encyclopedia would allow a blatant contradiction between two articles). I am not sure how to resolve this dispute; any ideas? Chris b shanks (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this type of contradiction can be resolved. Whether cited or not, an assertion that Person A or Person B is the second most quoted person in the English language after Shakespeare is a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.208.66 (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Article needs cites

On June 15 I added the tags "article needs additional citations for verification" and "the quality of this article or section may be compromised by wording which promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information" to the article, with the <!-- comment --> "Article contains many un-cited assertions, some of which appear to be solely opinion of the editor or original research. Please give good third-party cites for everything un-cited, or remove."
On June 16 User:82.3.229.226 removed the tags, with the comment "Removed meaningless and illiterate twaddle - if you think the article can be improved, make suggestions in the discussion." IMHO the first part of this was an unnecessary and inappropriate violation of WP:CIVIL, and I suspect was intended as deliberate trolling. This was User:82.3.229.226's only edit to Wikipedia to date. I rarely make comments like this, but I suspect that a random anon would not have bothered to do this, and that this user is someone who has previously edited the article from a named account, but who was logged out while making this comment.

My reason for adding these tags to the article are the large number of statements of fact without cites, e.g.

• "In 1736, Johnson established a private academy at Edial, near Lichfield." - Cite?
• "In 1755, after completion of the Dictionary, Johnson was once again a freelance writer." - Cite?
• "A few months later, Johnson met James Boswell, later to become his biographer, for the first time" - Important event in literary history. Cite?
  

-- Etc, etc, etc, -- too many to list here or to inline-tag individually. (Actually, looking through the article, this situation is really pretty bad. There are whole sections without cites. We really should have about three times as many cites in this as we do.) Please note that "everybody knows that -- look it up for yourself" is not adequate, nor is "that's included in one of the sources listed in References -- look it up for yourself."
If we don't provide cites for these things, users have no way of knowing that the editor didn't just pull them out of his/her hat -- Wikipedia is loaded with statements that are not in fact true.

Additionally, article contains some instances of "peacock" terms (WP:PEACOCK) or apparent opinion of the editor.

• "What's most captivating about the Samuel Johnson dictionary is the way in which definitions were derived." -- That's your opinion.

I will not be adding these cites myself, for good and sufficient reasons. Nevertheless, I do think that they need to be added. Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
(P.S. -- I now see a comment ("Uncited material") above from User:SandyGeorgia ("Sandy") dated 5 December 2006 complaining about the same problem. I see that my concerns are well-founded.) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

After I finish with Christopher Smart and his works, I will fill in the biography and citations for Johnson. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I added citations and will continue to expand. I have three other books to add information. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A note

Don't agree. Uncited material is obvious because it doesn't have a cite. Its so obvious that users can find and tag uncited articles using bots its so easy. The primary purpose of this project is not for editting but for reading. I think templates that say "there are no referennces" or "please expand this article" are so obvious. A template for "this article is not in French" would be as useful. I'm not sure that wikipedia is "loaded" with incorrect facts.... and if they are then some of them are cited. Just thought I would note that alternative views exist (although incivility is undefendable.) This debate is useful here. Templates above the article should be reserved fot facts that are important and not obvious. Victuallers (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Boswell

Here are some excerpts from Boswell that are rather known. We should decide which ones should go in, and if they should go in the main body of the prose or on a fancy quote box on either the right or left side as an anecdote to fit in with various time periods.

1. From Mr Garrick's account he did not appear to have been profoundly reverenced by his pupils. His oddities of manner, and uncouth gesticulations, could not but be the subject of merriment to them; and in particular, the young rogues used to listen at the door of his bed-chamber, and peep through the key-hole that they might turn into ridicule his tumultuous and awkward fondness for Mrs Johnson, whom he used to name by the familiar appellation of Tetty or Tetsey. (p. 52 - Edial School)

2. Johnson: Now if any good comes of my addressing to Lord Chesterfield, it will be ascribed to deep polcy, when, in fact, it was only a casual excuse for laziness. (p. 60 - Plan for his Dictionary)

3. When asked how he felt upon the ill success of his tragedy, he replied, 'Like the Monument;' meaning that he continued firm and unmoved as that column. (p. 66 - on his play Irene being performed)

4. On occasion of his play being brought upon the stage, Johnson had a fancy that as a dramatick authour his dress should be more gay than what he ordinarily wore; he therefore appeared behind teh scenes, and even in one of the side boxes, in a scarlet waistcoast, with rich gold lace, and a gold-laced hat. He humourously observed to Mr Langton, 'that when in that dress he could not treat people with the same ease as when in his usual plain clothes.' (p. 66-67 - on his play Irene being performed)

5. His necessary attendance while his play was in rehearsal, and during its performance, brought him acquainted with many of the performers of both sexes, which produced a more favourable opinion of their profession than he had harshly expressed in his Life of Savage... He for considerable time used to frequent the Green Room, and seemed to take delight in dissipating his gloom, by mixing in the sprightly chit-chat of the motley circle than to be found there. Mr David Hume related to me from Mr Garrick, that Johnson at last denied himself this amusement, from considerations of rigid virtue; saying, "I'll come no more behind your scenes, David; for the silk stockings and white bosoms of your actresses excite my amorous propensities.' (p. 67 - on his play Irene being performed)

6. His defence of tea against Mr Jonas Hanway's violent attack upon that elegant and popular beverage, shews how very well a man of genius can write upon the slightest subject, when he writes, as the Italians say, con amore: I suppose no person ever enjoyed with more relish the infusion of that fragrant leaf than Johnson. The quantities which he drank of it at all hours were so great, that his nerves must have been uncommonly strong, not to have been extremely relaxed by such an intemperate use of it. (p. 83 - Johnson during 1756)

7. He now added, "Sheridan cannot bear me. I bring his declamation to a point. I ask him a plain question, 'What do you mean to teach?' Besides, Sir, what influence can Mr Sheridan have upon the language of this great country, by his narrow exertions? Sir, it is burning a farthing candle at Dover, to shew light at Calais." (p. 114 - Johnson during 1763)

8. Dr Johnson then turning to me, "Sir, (said he) a desire of knowledge is the natural feeling of mankind; and evey human being, whose mind is not debauched, will be willing to give all that he has to get knowledge." (p. 115 - Johnson during 1763)

9. After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, "I refute it thus." (p. 122 - Johnson during 1763)

10. Johnson: "No, Sir, I am not obliged to do any more. No man is obliged to do as much as he can do. A man is to have part of his life to himself. If a soldier has fought a good many campaigns, he is not to be blamed if he retires to ease and tranquility. A physician, who has practised long in a great city, may be excused if he retires to a small town, and takes less practice. Now, Sir, the good I can do by my conversation bears the same proportion to the good I can do by my writing, that the practice of a physician, retired to a small town, does to his practice in a great city." Boswell: "But I wonder, Sir, you have not more pleasure in writing than in not writing." Johnson: "Sir, you may wonder." (p. 133 - Johnson during 1767)

11. During the whole of the interview, Johnson talked to his Majesty with profound respect, but still in his firm manly manner, with a sonorous voice, and never in that subdued tone which is commonly used at the levee and in the drawing-room. After the King withdrew, Johnson shewed himself highly pleased with his Majesty's conversation and gracious behaviour. He said to Mr Barnard, "Sir, they may talk of the King as they will; but he is the finest gentleman I have ever seen." (p. 135 - Johnson upon meeting the King February 1767)

12. Mrs Thrale and I had a dispute, whether Shakspeare or Milton had drawn the most admirable picture of a man. I was for Shakspeare; Mrs Thrale for Milton; and after a fair hearing, Johnson decided for my opinion. (p. 272 - on the Lives)

13. He certainly was vain of the society of ladies, and could make himself very agreeable to them, when he chose it; Sir Joshua Reynolds agreed with me that he could. Mr Gibbon, with his usual sneer, controverted it, perhaps in resentment of Johnson's having talked with some disgust of his ugliness, which one would think a philosopher would not mind. (p. 272 - Johnson during 1781)

14. Mr Thrale's death was a very essential loss to Johnson, who, although he did not foresee all that afterwards happened, was sufficiently convinced that the comforts which Mr Thrale's family afforded him, would now in great measure cease. (p. 273 - On the death of Thrale)

15. A few days before his death, he had asked Sir John Hawkins, as one of his executors, where he should be buried; and on being answered, "Doubtless, in Westminster Abbey," seemed to feel a satisfaction, very natural to a Poet. (p. 341 - On Johnson's death)

I can provide more if needed, but I think this is a good basis to chose from. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Flow in posthumous section

The flow here is off, because ... in his day, they didn't know what Tourette syndrome/OCD was, so they didn't have an explanation for what they observed. The TS paragraph is last, but the earlier paragraphs about miscellaneous descriptions of his behaviors are best understood in terms of his posthumous diagnosis of TS, for which the evidence is compelling. The section needs to be recast to introduce it this way; perhaps some of the sources provide the bridge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

An old professor of mine never understood the use of the term "flow". She hated it. However, I agree. :) If someone was really crafty, we could create a separate page for the mental state, and summarize it with one line general fluff, one character background, and three lines of diagnoses. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

Some of "Legacy" needs to come back;[1] these two (at least) should be worked into the text:

• Samuel Johnson Prize
• Hodge, Dr Johnson's cat

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I incorporated Hodge (and added some to Hodge's page). The Johnson Prize will be tricky, since that is a recent item, and the "legacy" section is also tricky, based on few verifiable sources and the potential of pop culture references drifting in. I dumped it because I couldn't figure out how to salvage it, lol. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Links for legacy:

• BlackAdder - Episode Homepage.
• Johnson Prize - Info site but without any reason why its called the Johnson Prize.
• Birmingham Central Library - I couldn't find a source for the frieze at the Birmingham Central Library.
• Lillian de la Torre - Doesn't have a Wikipedia page, possibly not notable enough
• Musicians - One or two lines in a song, or use of a quote isn't really notable "legacy" (no dedication to him).

Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Things that might go in a legacy section:

• Dedications of buildings, properties, monuments, etc, to Johnson
• Dedication of prizes and awards to Johnson
• Museums/exhibits

Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Legacy section as it existed wasn't very good; Johnson is not chiefly known in the English-speaking world for having been a supporting character in 'Blackadder'. However, some of it was worth keeping, including IMO something about the Blackadder episode, since (as a search of IMDB revealed) it's one of the very few times that anyone has played Johnson on film or TV. (The only other surefire reference I could find was to a 1939 film called Johnson Was No Gentleman, in which he was played by an obscure English character actor named Robert Atkins). I don't think there's much risk of a long and trivial list of pop culture stuff drifting into the article, since Johnson is hardly a sexy pop cultural icon. But the Blackadder episode is well-remembered in the UK especially, and not mentioning it at all seems like an omission. Other refernces I can think of are Samuel Beckett's unfinished play Human Wishes, which was about Johnson and his household, and the fact that Nabokov's Pale Fire has an epigraph taken from Boswell's Life. Lexo (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Legacy section - I think that we should include this but we should begin by talking about Life of Samuel Johnson (1787), Life of Samuel Johnson and the Thraliana (which was printed in part for Thrale's Anecdotes of the late Samuel Johnson). These are important biographies, along with the many minor and secondary accounts, which should form part of the legacy. I will have to create a page on the Johnsonian Miscellanies and the tiny anecdotes and the rest that are printed. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

50p coin image

Resolved

That 50 pence coin image looks problematic to me. To start with it's copyrighted, and I can't see a fair use claim succeeding for this article. Perhaps just as importantly though, following the link to the source of the image, it looks like the coin was never produced anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be dropped. I'll try and find a first edition title for the Dictionary. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are two images (volume one and volume two) of the first edition: Volume 1 and Volume 2. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Much better, and lots more relevant. If you can only find room for one, I'd go for the first one, as it's a bit sharper. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

PS to SandyG. Don't get too aerated about still finding dash problems, we're a bit away yet from that being our biggest problem I think. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but I must inflate my edit count :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No matter what you do, you'll probably end up behind me. I like to make lots of small, easily undone changes rather than go for the blitzkrieg approach. Which is why, of course, edit count is not a reliable measure of "significant contributor" ... oh wait, wher I have heard that before ...? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Who knew? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If they measured it by bulk size and not edit count, I would have 50k attributed to my name. Go me. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're bearing in mind that I'm only helping with this article so that I can boost my pathetic WP:WBE tally.<JOKE> --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to add your name to a long Rick Block list, but figured you'd probably just revert me. <NOTJOKE> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Often on wikipedia I feel the force of Shaw's comment that we are two nations separated by a common language. I've got no idea what the Rick Block list is, but if it's a nice place to be, then why not. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Rick Block = WP:WBE; see next week's Dispatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case you're right, I would have reverted you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You will need to become MalleusBot before you can compete. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I never understood that one. It clearly has a mother saying "Don't eat all the cabbage", but shouldn't we encourage people to do just that? I'm so confused. But yes, MalleusBot. JohnCarter is almost bot like in his mass editing effectiveness. I'm sure you can do it too. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

Karanacs will probably deal with this, but I'm not sure about this edit; the boxes are viewed as more professional looking at FAC (see also WP:MOS#Quotations). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I've had problems with {{rquote}} at FAC before. The best compromise, I think, is to use {{cquote}} inside a box, as per my original example. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as we can figure out how to use the cquotes inside of the blocks without the formatting growing excessively, then there shouldnt be a problem with going back to cquotes inside of the blocks. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Back. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Page error

Resolved

There's something wrong with the cite id tags; they're causing weird spacing. I've never used those tags, so don't know how to help, but the References and External links are a mess, and if you remove the cite id tags, they go back to normal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the spacing? It doesn't seem to register on my computer (that doesn't say much though). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

IE7 here; there is an extra asterisk and space between every item after the first cite id in References and External links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats absolutely freaky. Do you get the same thing for the Drapier's Letters page by chance? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Based on the comments DGG just left on the peer review, I think you need to switch to Harvnb anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Found;[2] the cite tags weren't closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that too, lol. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Illness

Johnson suffered from number of illnesses: gout (at the end of his life), asthma, scrofula, anxiety attacks, melancholy/depression, poor eyesight, weak muscle coordination (first in his hands, later in his legs). Some are worked into the page, others aren't. He was a rather energetic fellow who got around a lot, but also suffered from many problems throughout his life. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point, though I'd say the Tourette syndrome should be given the most weight. This talk-page section seems to be a continuation of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine #Samuel Johnson. I like its suggestion of spinning off a subarticle about Samuel Johnson's illnesses (using Charles Darwin's illness as a model) and summarizing the result in Samuel Johnson #Character sketch. That would be some work, though. Eubulides (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the "illness" idea, but I am sure that "Tourette" probably shouldn't be called an illness, and probably not depression and anxiety attacks. Is there another term that can adequately lump these together? "health" perhaps (Samuel Johnson's health)? If so, we could have a section for hereditary disorders (i.e Tourettes), chronic health problems (depression, anxiety, asthma), degenerative (eye sight, muscle coordination), and illness (scrofula, many colds turning into bronchitis). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

For the current statement in the lead ("... conditions unknown to 18th-century physicians", we have History of Tourette syndrome, but in case we need it: " In the seventeenth century, obsessions and compulsions were often described as symptoms of religious melancholy. ... Modern concepts of OCD began to evolve in the nineteenth century". (ocd.stanford.edu) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Smart's diagnosis was "religious mania" for feeling compelled to pray openly and quite often (or, if you believe a lot of scholars, his real diagnosis should be "upsetting his father in law and not working for him enough"). Johnson talked about being afraid of having the same diagnosis thrown against him, and was afraid to publicly speak out too openly about Smart's case. Johnson was one of the few that actually visited Smart while he was treated. He would have seen first hand what the 18th century could do to individuals that it considered "mad". It is strange how the two paralleled each other so greatly, only to diverge in opposite directions. The two use to talk often (when Smart was not imprisoned, and sometimes, while in prison), but Boswell doesn't talk about him often because Boswell dismissed Smart as "mad". Johnson said of Smart, "Many a man is mad in certain instances, and goes through life without having it perceived: - for example, a madness has seized a person of supposing himself obliged literally to pray continually-had the madness turned the opposite way and the person thought it a crime ever to pray, it might not improbably have continued unobserved" (book four of Boswell's Life). Another report of this went: "Madness frequently discovers itself merely by unnecessary deviation from the usual modes of the world. My poor friend Smart shewed the disturbance of his mind, by falling upon his knees, and saying his prayers in the street, or in any other unusual place. Now although, rationally speaking, it is greater madness not to pray at all, than to pray as Smart did, I am afraid there are so many who do not pray that their understanding is not called in question" ( book two of Boswell's Life). Johnson told Charles Burney: "I did not think he ought to be shut up. His infirmities were not noxious to society. He insisted on people praying with him; and I'd as lief pray with Kit Smart as any one else. Another charge was, that he did not love clean linen; and I have no passion for it" (book two, Boswell's Life). Baptist Noel Turner described a conversation in which Johnson stated that "Kit Smart was mad" and when Johnson defined what "mad" meant, he replied "Why, Sir, he could not walk the streets without the boys running after him", and then wrote "Beauclerk said to us, 'What he says of Smart is true of himself;' which well agrees with my observation during the walk I took with him that very morning" (Turner's Illustrations of the Literary History of the Eighteenth Century book 6). Boswell claimed Smart was a man "with whose unhappy vacillation of mind he sincerely sympathised" and that insanity "was the object of his most dismal apprehension" (book one, Boswell's Life). Hester Thrale/Piozzi visited Smart with Johnson, and that was the basis for her many accounts on both of their mental states. The one quote I placed on the man page is far longer than what I put forward: "A friend once told me in confidence, that for two years he durst not ever eat an apple, for feat it should make him drunk; but as he took care to consign no reason for his forbearance, and as no man is much solicited to eat apples, the oddity escaped notice; and would not have been known at this hour, but that he told me many years after he had recovered his senses to perfection, and told it as an instance of concealed INSANITY." Then she describes Smart's "confinement for MADNESS" before the quote that I produced on the article page. I omitted this from the article because I did not want to seem bias towards Smart (having recently supplied the page on Smart) or my personal bias towards working with "Enlightenment" writers who suffered illness or were claimed "mad". Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation checks

Keymer citations need to be checked. Biblio has one page range, citations have another. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Keymer is 177-194. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed page ranges from biblio, given in citations, not needed there anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Johnson Life of Fenton is in the citations, not in the biblio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not a citation, it was a note, and somehow got lost in the mix. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how you want to fix it; not sure what you mean. Right now it's an unexplained citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I was waiting to see if there would be any more quotes from the Lives of the Poets before I found an appropriate edition to pull the page numbers from. Its a short piece and easier to lump in with a collection volume instead of having to deal with multiple volumes. Since it is the only Life quoted, it could probably just be linked from the SJ website. Pittock's ISBN is 052100757 .Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Boswell Aetat. 75 transcribes Johnson's will What is this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to remember my latin to remember the official name. Its a document number. Its not part of a bound printed work, but a manuscript. I don't remember if it made it into The Private Papers of James Boswell from Malahide Castle. Bate says that it is reprinted G. B. Hill's 6 volume edition of Boswell's Life of Johnson (1934-1950). However, I do not have a copy of that edition available to double check. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the only other incomplete citation; can you figure out how to cite it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how you cite the manuscript. Sir John Hawkins describes his account of writing the will and the will's contents/process of writing the will in The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL. D. (1787) London pp. 566-582. Bate talks about Frank being in the will (which is the context of the ref) on 596. Frank was the only one in the will for many months before Johnson returned to writing it just before his death. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I added what ISBN's I could (see the ISBN finder in the userbox on my user page), but I can't add anymore; some of the books have multiple versions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Johnson and madness

This information was moved from here.

I think we need to have a subheading that restores the term "madness" and a page to discuss the issue. Johnson was afraid he would suffer from it. There are a lot of accounts of him possibly being mad. There are quite a few scholars today that discuss it. The term "madness" needs to stay because of the social/political ramifications of the diagnosis and Johnson's own relationship with Christopher Smart. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How about Talk:Samuel Johnson? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean a wikipedia article page. Its own new page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC) - and to clarify, I mean claims of "madness" as opposed to actual diagnosis or a medical condition. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

On Talk:Samuel Johnson; consensus isn't developed by spreading article discussion across multiple editor pages. (And, it's hard for me to get anything done when discussion which belongs on an article page ends up here, and my talk message light is going off :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The above information was moved from here. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the page you propose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Samuel Johnson's alleged madness"? Start off with an autobiographical account, then contemporary accounts, then current reflection on the matter. A background section could discuss Johnson's fears, the 18th century asylums, and his experience with Smart/visiting Smart/seeing first hand how people would mock Smart/witnessing the "treatments" used upon Smart. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear on the definition of madness for this purpose, or why the term is needed. There weren't terms then for conditions known today, so I'm not sure on the article title. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a historical term used by the runners of asylums. This is about the 18th century, not about the modern era. Stop thinking medically and think 18th century about it. Its a label that was applied to people who were then locked up in places like Bedlam. There are many critics who use the term "madness" (especially Foucault), as did Johnson, Piozzi, William Battie, etc. Battie stated "We..find that Madness is, contrary to the opinion of some unthinking persons, as manageable as many other distempers, which are equally dreadful and obstinate, and yet are not looked upon as incurable, and that such unhappy objects ought by no means to be abandoned, much less shut up in loathsome prisons as criminals or nusances to the society." (His A Treatise on Madness 1758 - he diagnosed Smart and Johnson knew him). It would be completely inaccurate, along with historically inaccurate, to look at this from our perspective, especially when we are trying to figure out the social reality that Johnson lived in. Johnson was deathly afraid to be treated like Smart in the asylum institution that existed in England before the 1774 "Act of Regulating Private Madhouses", but the later conditions were not much better. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a rough version of Smart's madness as an example of how the issue would be dealt with, but instead of the "asylum" times, it would have notable incidents of Johnson praying for sanity, praying in general, etc. Note - that page is about half way done, so be gentle with it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that you felt it necessary to put quotation marks around every mention of "mad" or "madness"" rather proves SandyG's point. As well as making the article look rather awkward and contrived. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, maybe you haven't paid any attention, but I never said that he was mad, hence "alleged" madness. The term was used by them, and it occurs in both of their lives and plays an important role. Being diagnosed as mad in the 18th century has serious ramifications, just as being called "atheist" in the 17th century might have. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, I think I've been paying very close attention. I am quite aware of the subject matter, so please don't take me for a fool. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but your statement right there obviously contradicts the above. It was clear by use of quotes and "alleged" what I meant, and your questioning, if what you say is true, served no actual purpose. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have your sails dead set against the obvious. Ah well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If by "obvious", you mean use of a term by Johnson, Piozzi, Boswell, etc etc, along with Johnson's biographers, and many essays devoted to the topic which use "madness" in their title, then you would be correct. Except that it would be you, and not I, that is dead set. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to understand. So you have a start of an article about someone else's "madness"; how does that relate to Samuel Johnson? Johnson was afraid he'd be treated like Smart, and considered "mad"; how does that relate to this article, and why does that topic have to include the word "madness"? Is there evidence that Johnson was psychotic or insane or schizophrenic or whatever current terms we might apply to "mad" or "insane"? Given that we now know he had TS/OCD and depression, how does it all tie together, and why does this article need to concern itself with whatever that article is/does? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, its common for similar topic pages to follow similar patterns. I made that clear above that Smart's page would be a model on what I intended for Johnson. This isn't about current proof about insanity. Why can't you understand that? Its about 18th century perceptions and being labeled something that really has nothing to do about actual mental state. Ottava Rima (talk)

And Sandy, please explain why a page on Johnson calling himself possibly "mad", along with many others calling him possibly "mad" would not have "madness" in it? That is extremely confusing. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why can't I understand? Because you haven't made it clear :-) I still don't know how that article relates to this article: Johnson wasn't "mad". He may have feared being considered "mad" and being treated like Smart, so where would you link that article to the text here? I guess you have a vision for this article that I'm not seeing: in particular, I'm not seeing how it differs from what we have now labeled as "Character sketch". I guess the best thing for you to do is to write that article, and then see where you link it here. But it doesn't replace what's here; in fact, this article still needs to integrate Johnson's TS/OCD with his work, life and personality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a "main template" for the depression section and it would contain information that would surely surpass the amount written on Smart. I never thought that it would replace what is here, but only expand on the various details and accounts of Johnson dealing with the concept of "madness". It would be a biographical, not a medical page, and would be a companion to a page on his Tourettes. Smart's page serves as a model for how it would be integrated into the text (see Christopher Smart#Asylum confinement). The concept of the page is grounded in Michel Foucault's theories and current critical movements that look at the term "madness" in political, not psychiatric, terms. (On Smart's page, I have yet to add the large body of information that suspects Newbery of using the asylum to get rid of Smart based on personal/political reasons, and Smart's inability to free himself/sue St Luke's et al based on similar political problems). Also, Johnson's Rasselas contained many anti-asylum beliefs and attacks the common views of madness. Such a page could tackle the Johnson's own views and the views of others concerning his state, and include aspects modeled on pages like this one. There is a lot of information on this topic, and it could easily be as large as the main article page. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So, it sounds like 1) your only concern is how to title the article, and 2) we could later discuss whether it's a "main" hatnote or a "for further information see" hatnote. Neither of those need to be decided now. If you write the article, and the name is an issue, the article can be moved to a new name. (Madness right now doesn't work for me on any level, but maybe after you write it, I'll see your vision.) If this article doesn't strictly use Summary style to incorporate that article, the template can be changed from "main" to a different hatnote, or just a link in the text. I have a very hard time imagining how you can work "madness" into this article, when he wasn't "mad". But once you write the article, I might see it. Titles and templates can be changed. On this article, the concern is how we can reflect the impact his TS/OCD had throughout his life and on his work. The "madness" concept holds no interest for me, so beyond a read-through once you're finished, I'm not sure how involved I'll get. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Other topics

How will we incorporate the other standard topics of "literary themes" and other views? Make a page for them and main template them under Character sketch? Or put a separate heading under character sketch to discuss it in short, then main template that to another page? Themes range from religious (Anglican), political (pro England, anti Hanoverian), gender (he had some nice things to say about women, or female authors - for instance, he included in his dictionary two quotations from Jane Collier's book (among other female writers) immediately after its release while he claimed that the quotes are supposed to be from works held as "traditional" or "canon"), and critical (biographies, criticism, state of 18th century poetry/rise of Romanticism). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

GA

The page is fully cited, MoS compliant, and copyedited; why not close out the peer review in a few days (allowing for possible Karanacs input) and submit to GA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets set a deadline for Sunday? I have a few other people who said they they will look it over and weigh in when they have a chance. If necessary, there can be a second peer review opened up in order to allow for comments that would help in a final push. Also, I can comment "lightly" on a potential FA, but I will keep out of it to the best of my abilities (still not August yet, after all :) ). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing from the article

An analysis of how his Tourette syndrome (TS) or tic-related OCD affected his entire life, personality and work is missing from the article. TS is dropped in to the last paragraph, when in fact, it explains a good deal of his life. Sources have dealt with the topic, but it hasn't been woven throughout the article. A discussion of his TS should not come up in the last section only, rather should provide context throughout. There are specific mentions of how his TS/OCD affected his life throughout the sources. Examples: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• (Murray p. 1611) Miss Frances Reynolds, younger sister of Sir Joshua Reynolds, noted that in her company at- Twickenham Meadows his gestures were so extraordinary "that men, women and children gathered around him, laughing."
• (Murray p. 1611) When aged 27 Johnson was rejected for the post of assistant headmaster at a grammar school in Staffordshire because of his peculiar appearance and odd movements. It was thought that his involuntary motions would make him an object of ridicule with his students.'3 That same year he applied for another master's position at Solihull School but was again rejected because "he has the character of being a very haughty, illnatured gent., and yet he has such a way of distorting his face (which though he can't help) the gent. think it may affect some young lads."
• (Murray p. 1611, discussion of portraits) Sir Joshua Reynolds painted a portrait of Johnson in which he showed Johnson's fingers and hands in a twisted and contorted position; other portraits showed facial distortion and squinting. ... As shown in many of his portraits, his wig was often awry because of the twisting of his shoulders and the motion of his head.
• (Murray 1612) Miss Frances Reynolds vividly details his peculiar -and complex compulsive behaviour. She wondered why none of his biographers had noticed his tendency to repeat expressions and thoughts over and over.

The problem is with the nature of biography. If an incident of such actions was a notable incident, then it should be in there. It should also be followed by an explanation of such. One of the problems is that the biographers do not use the medical analysis and you could run into OR problems (not problems with me, mind you :P ). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note on the second Murray excerpt - the "odd appearance" were the well defined scars that do not appear in most of his portraits but do appear in his death mask. (I have a picture if anyone is interested). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following your logic, OR. Boswell's bio was used to establish Johnson's TS, and it was certainly well covered there. The other sources used extensively in this article—Bate, 1977; Lane 1975; Watkins 1960—were all written before TS was widely recognized or understood at all (which began to occur in the 1980s) and were also all written before the publications that established Johnson's TS—Murray 1979; Pierce 1994 and others. So, naturally, the older bios we are citing here don't incorporate the TS, which of course, is no reason for us to not write a more current article, given that we do have reliable sources that cover the territory well. I got distracted this afternoon, but I'll continue adding above some excerpts that we can work in. I also don't see any potential problem with original research given that we have reliable secondary sources that analyze many of the earlier bios and primary sources (and there are numerous early sources that discuss his tics, see the references in the Murray and Pierce papers), exactly in line with policy. Given current reliable sources, I don't see how we can comprehensively write a Johnson bio without incorporating these sources, and no reason to neglect them just because older biographers didn't have access to modern information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"written before TS was widely recognized or understood at all" Thats why I said to watch out for potential OR problems. I'm not saying they would be definite. Just saying there is a potential risk that we have to be careful about. :) The problem I see is that the 20th century bios don't have TS in them, and the TS diagnosis is from the 18th century bios, which rely on different information (potentially). It was easy for me to introduce "scrofula" because it was the same thing just renamed. Its a thin line to walk down. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with SandyG here. There is adequate evidence that the signs of Johnson's condition were noticed by his contemporaries, that they affected his life, and probably also his work. To dismiss what may even have been the source of Johnson's creative drive to what presently appears to be almost a footnote does credit neither to him nor to the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps people don't appreciate how little understood TS was until the 1980s or that it only became more widely recognized in the 1990s. We can't expect secondary sources prior to the 1980s to have covered it much (see History of Tourette syndrome), but we can still use what little we have.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) turned down a 1972 grant proposal from the TSA because "the reviewers believed there were probably no more than 100 cases of TS in the entire nation", and a 1973 registry reported only 485 cases worldwide. However, multiple studies published since 2000 have consistently demonstrated that the prevalence is much higher than previously thought. The emerging consensus is that 1–10 children per 1,000 have Tourette's, with several studies supporting a tighter range of 6–8 children per 1,000. Using year 2000 census data, a prevalence range of 1–10 per 1,000 yields an estimate of 53,000–530,000 school-age children with Tourette's in the US and a prevalence range of 6–10 per 1,000 means that 64,000–106,000 children aged 5–18 years may have Tourette's in the UK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be pedantic, to make a point. By definition, Johnson didn't have TS, as TS hadn't been identified in his time. In the same way that I do not have Carpington Stafford Syndrome, a condition only recognised in the late 22nd century. The issue for me isn't his TS, it's the effect the signs of his condition had on his life. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Murray's wording (above) seems accurate in that sense; the sources talk about gesticulations and motions, etc. I'm not a good wordnerd; if anyone wants to work in the few points I excerpted above, I'll continue searching for others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I agree with you. But perhaps we'd be better to let the literary bods finish off and then we psychologists can sprinkle our magic dust? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson in the Medical World

Samuel Johnson in the Medical World by John Wiltshire is a book that tries to combine medical evidence (on all of his conditions, not just TS) with biography in order to trace which problems happened when.

The below was moved. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

--- I don't get a sense that Wiltshire has a medical background, or more importantly, specific knowledge about Tourette syndrome (TS) or tics, and several of the excerpts above dramatically miss the mark. Perhaps Wiltshire is a good general source on Johnson, but medical sources on Johnson's medical conditions would be better. Unfortunately (perhaps because of 1991 publication date, or perhaps because he's not an expert on tics or TS), a good deal of the content above wrt tics and TS is info that is now known to be incorrect or is less than useful when viewed in the context of current understanding. I don't find much usable there (when reading things like a 55% rate of coprolalia, now known to be about 10%, we know we're dealing with outdated information). By the way, Shapiro is Arthur K. Shapiro, one of the founders of the Tourette Syndrome Association, described as "the father of modern tic disorder research". His work is a good source for this topic, although even his statements have to be viewed in the context of the bulk of his work having been done many years ago, without the benefit of current knowledge of TS. Given suppressibility of tics, their unvoluntary nature, and lack of understanding about tics and TS during Johnson's lifetime, I'm not sure these attempts to place dates on Johnson's tics should be given play in the article; when viewed in the context of current knowledge, they no longer make much sense. Another example, Wiltshire tries to pinpoint a date for the origin of Johnson's tics, but several of the primary sources describe childhood behaviors (one source mentions that Johnson was aware of scrupulosity by the age of 10). We're better off relying on sources that are acknowledged to be accurate and up to date by TS experts (for example, even though Sacks doesn't always hit the mark and seems attracted more to literary analyses of sensational and bizarre factors of common conditions, the previous sources -- now deleted from the article -- showed that while the TSA and other TS experts never embraced popular diagnoses of Mozart, they did attach credibility to Sacks' opinions on Johnson.) Specifically because knowledge of tics and TS has advanced so much in the last 10 years, care must be taken when using older or non-expert sources discussing his tics or TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC) ---

Just a few notes (I don't disagree with the points) - John Wiltershire relied on many experts: "Miss E. Allen, Curator of the Hunterian Museum; Professor Harold Attwood; Dr C. H. Brock; the late Professor Kenneth Dewhurst; Dr J. D. Fleeman; Dr Graham Nicholls of the Birthplace Museum. I am especially indebted to Dr. Dennis Gibbs of the London Hospital. Also, the book would have been finished around 1989. In the section pertinent, he relies on around 60 citations, of note are- Henry Meige and E. Feindel (1907), McHenry, A. K. Shapiro (1978), T. J. Murray (1979), Arnold Friedhoff and Thomas Chase (1982), Joseph Bliss (1980), Russell Brain (1960), R Macdonald Ladell (1929), Edward Hitschmann (1945), William Kennedy (1960), Peter Wright and Andrew Treacher (1982). These are a mix of psychiatrists and others. The rest of the medical excerpts deal with asthma, gout, and depression. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of those are respected names in TS research, but unfortunately, because it's all very dated research, the text should be approached with caution and viewed in context of subsequent research and current knowledge. For those who want to delve further, a good starting place (albeit also dated now) is: Kushner, HI. A cursing brain?: The histories of Tourette syndrome. Harvard University Press, 2000. ISBN 0-674-00386-1. More current info on all fronts is at Tourette syndrome and History of Tourette syndrome. If I ever dig out from under (ha!), I have enough material to work towards bringing History of Tourette syndrome to featured status; for now, it's a brief but accurate overview. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Logical quotation

An IP is altering all the logical quotation; I don't think I've corrected all of it, and the page will need to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Missing from the article 2

I don't think that much is actually missing from this article. If anything, it appears to be too long. I have redrafted the intro in an attempt to provide a more concise summing-up of Johnson's career; I will provide inline citations as soon as I have the books to hand. Generally speaking, I would say that this article is suffering from a certain amount of original research. The first two paras of the biography section take an inordinate amount of time to sum up questions about Johnson's biography that are, although interesting, not quite as relevant as all that, and probably more relevant to the article on the Life of Johnson.

There is a mountain of good sources and photos and detail here. Almost certainly too much, in my opinion: the para on Johnson's London: a poem, to take a random example, is too involved and flits forward a couple of centuries to call in TS Eliot's (unsourced and unquoted) opinion, something that should really be removed to a properly cited footnote, before bouncing back to the 18th century via a quick nod to Walter Scott. This article is supposed to be about Johnson's life; surely there is room in WP for a separate article on the poem which can include some of this stuff?

In the very next paragraph we get a sentence like this:

Soon after, in August, Johnson was denied a position as master of the Appleby Grammar School because a Masters degree from Oxford or Cambridge was required for the position.

- which is a rather ugly passive construction and which itself contains too much detail for just the one sentence. I notice, too, that a great deal of reliance is put on Bate's biography; doesn't anyone have a copy of John Wain's?

I intend to limber up for working on this article by doing a much-needed article on The Vanity of Human Wishes - in the meantime, I hope whoever worked on the previous version of the intro will not be offended by my edit of it. Lexo (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unhappy that his post-humous Tourette syndrome diagnosis was deleted from the lead, since it provides context for much about his life and work. As already discussed on this talk page, we can't just drop that info into the last paragraph and expect the reader to weave its relevance back into his bio after they've reached the end and discovered a context for so much of his life and work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, you gave me some additional sources on his TS once, and I no longer know where that is ... still troubled that TS disappeared from the lead,[3] when it is needed for context to understand the rest of his life and work. Can you put that additional source info on his TS up here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Check the lead again. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link for Wiltshire notes and I believe I emailed you under the title of "TS" excerpts/notes from Robert Demaria Jr The Life of Samuel Johnson. TS appears on 5-6, 9, and 24 of that book. Demaria places the beginning of the TS tics around the age of 8 (p. 5), mentions the rejection of an application to the schools at Solihull and Brentwood as being affected by TS (p. 5), problems with his Edial school from TS (p. 5), TS pushing Johnson towards writing instead of teaching (p. 6), a source for his creativity based on Oliver Sacks's claims (p. 6), appearing when Hogarth met Johnson at Richardson's house (p. 6), placing the diagnosis on Johnson might be problematic but it negates any "Freudian interpretations" of his behavior (p. 6), TS related problems "heightened" by solitude and anxiety while writing (p. 9), "bodily laziness" and lack of energy while writing could be explained in part by TS (p. 9), TS part of his "wide swings in mood and energy. From 1730 to 1743 he felt serious depression, melancholy, and even occasional madness. Although Boswell does not mention it in the Life, Edmund Hector told him that Johnson feared madness at this period. Boswell once asked Hector pointblank if he had seen in Johnson 'a tendency to be disorde[re]d in his mind. Hector said he had.' His involuntary mutterings and ejaculations were frequent; he took 'pevish fits'; and, like Swift, he exercised compulsively in order to calm himself. In doing so, Johnson may have been following the advice of the physician Geogre Cheyne, especially as it appears in his work on melancholy, The English Malady." (pp. 24-25). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I don't think the "tics at the age of eight" has made into the article yet, has it? The reason that is important is that eight is dead-on the statistical age at which the tics of Tourette's appear for almost all children; it's a statistical hallmark of the condition, hence worth including somewhere, as it validates the diagnosis. The Leckman et al 1998 study showed that the timecourse of the severity of tics was so predictable that it could be mathematically modeled, and eight is it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be cleaned up a little, but there are your two biographical accounts placing the TS diagnosis directly within the biographical context - at 8 showing first signs with claims that the Ts could have hindered and helped, and after 1729 when the TS tics and gesticulations started appearing en masse in the biographical accounts. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Parking recovered context and citations here in case they are needed:

... other speculative posthumous diagnoses of TS are not "... as entirely convincing ... [as] the case for Samuel Johnson having TS ...".

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

biography

I moved the following section out: ==Biography== There are many biographies and biographers of Samuel Johnson, but James Boswell's ''Life of Samuel Johnson'' is the one best known to the general reader.<ref name="Boswell p.7">{{Harvnb|Boswell|1986|p= 7}}</ref> Yet opinion among 20th-century Johnson scholars such as Edmund Wilson and Donald Greene is that Boswell's ''Life'' "can hardly be termed a biography at all", being merely "a collection of those entries in Boswell's diaries dealing with the occasions during the last twenty-two years of Johnson's life on which they met ... strung together with only a perfunctory effort to fill the gaps".<ref name="Boswell p.7"/><!-- sourced from introduction. Who wrote the introduction? Needs a separate entry in the References list.--> Furthermore, Greene claims that the work "began with a well-organized press campaign, by Boswell and his friends, of puffing and of denigration of his rivals; and was given a boost by one of Macaulay's most memorable pieces of journalistic claptrap".<ref name="Boswell p.7"/> The cause for concern is that Boswell's original ''Life'' "corrects" many of Johnson's quotations, censors many of the more vulgar comments, and largely ignores Johnson's early years.<ref>{{Harvnb|Boswell|1986|p= 25}}</ref> Modern biographers have since corrected Boswell's errors.<ref>{{Harvnb|Boswell|1986|p= 26}}</ref> However, this is not to say that Boswell's work is wrong or of no use: scholars such as Walter Jackson Bate appreciate the "detail" and the "treasury of conversation" that it contains.<ref name="Bate p.xx">{{Harvnb|Bate|1977|p=xx}}</ref> All of Johnson's biographers, according to Bate, have to go through the same "igloo" of material that Boswell had to deal with: limited information from Johnson's first forty years and an extreme amount for those after.<ref name="Bate p.xx"/> Simply put, "Johnson's life continues to hold attention" and "every scrap of evidence relating to Johnson's life has continued to be examined and many more details have been added" because "it is so close to general human experience in a wide variety of ways".<ref>{{Harvnb|Bate|1977|p=3}}</ref>

Why? It was unwieldy and would serve best on its own page about the biographies in general. I have prep work for such a page. This page can be linked from a simple line at the top saying something like "Most of our knowledge about Johnson's life comes from a series of contemporary biographies that sought to collect various anecdotes and important moments that Johnson experienced." Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

All information on individual biographies have been moved to List of contemporary accounts of Samuel Johnson's life‎ and its related pages (and linked from the bottom of the Johnson template). I covered every "notable" early biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

GA / FA ??

This is ready for GA; why not submit? Ottava? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Or would PR be more meaningful? Ceoil ^sláinte 20:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it just had a PR, I was thinking GA, followed by another PR, before FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to submit things for GA, or I would have done quite a few of them a long time ago. I went there once, saw something about not being able to submit your own page or something, and left. :) I just try to stick with adding material and hide from all of the complicated things. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've never done it either (someone put TS up when I was traveling, and I came back to find I had written a GA). Shall I just try it for you? Honestly, if this isn't a GA, I don't know what the difference between GA and FA is supposed to be. And, I think you can put your own up, you just can't pass it yourself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe thats what I read. Feel free to add! I'm just the grunt. You are the boss. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not ... you are ... but speaking of GA noms during travel, sometimes it takes weeks for a reviewer to show up, and I'm got pending travel ... so maybe we should hold off 'til September anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Having recently nominated an article for GA I can tell you the technical stuff is really quite easy; the instructions at the top of WP:GAC tell you all you need to know. And it's expected that articles are nominated by editors heavily involved in the article. You can't list it as GA yourself, of course, but nominating it is no problem. And looking at the article with my unskilled eyes it looks more than ready for GA. Good luck! :-) --Xover (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, go straight for FAC, and leave GAC in its peace!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

But if you insist, it is a piece of cake to submit a nomination there, and there is no restriction like the ones (not to submit one's own article) mentioned by Ottava above.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I agree with Yannis on this now. I think you should nom at FAC, and see what happens. I figure that Johnson is such that the nom will draw out our best editors and the article will improve significatly as a result. Note that Romeo and Juliette is also only days away from nom, and it would be a nice symmetry to see them together at FAC. Ceoil ^sláinte 14:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Because of my involvement with this article, I will have to recuse at FAC and pass it to Raul. Just a note that I'm traveling at month-end, and pls make sure Elcobbola is satisfied before submitting to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have had no input in this, and I won't vote, but will help in the responce and be a shared voice with Ottava in the FAC if he decides to go for it. Ceoil ^sláinte 18:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I added the legacy section. I added info on Tourette syndrome to the end and biography. The lead mentions most of the important works. I filled out any of the biographical detail. I added links to his works (making new pages) and links to biographies produced right after his death. I added information and scenes of every important moment (neutral or Boswell section) that people wanted. All that needs to be finished is the imaging. After that, it is all MoS and grammar/style, which I think everyone else was able to handle. Most of the major works on Johnson have been introduced. If a page is created for an indepth analysis of the history of diagnosing him and/or on his Tourette syndrome, that can be linked later. I've only left out Donald Greene, which I felt was unfortunate. However, I believe my selection of material would match his interpretation of Johnson's life. I feel that there is not much work that I can actually do to the page, and once the images are done, there is nothing more that I can do. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Straight to FAC, I agree. This is a brilliant article thoroughly deserving of that little gold star. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so all primary editors agree. Thats a good start. Now I just want to wait for the image licensing to come back as 100% untouchable. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A pox on Malone?

I've been reading Peter Martin's “Edmond Malone, Shakespearean Scholar: a literary biography” recently and looking at this article (and James Boswell, Life of Samuel Johnson, and The Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides) I'm a little surprised he isn't mentioned. As Martin describes it, Malone held Boswell's hand through both the Life and the Journal, and many of the notable/controversial points in both works were Malone's doing or he had a hand in them. He also seems to have been a great follower of Johnson and put a lot of work into his funerary monument. But perhaps my view is a bit skewed by reading a Malone biography and knowing very little about Johnson? --Xover (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, I forgot Arthur Murphy until this day, and he worked closely with Johnson, wrote a biography, and introduced him to the Thrales. :) Malone has about 8 mentions per bio, so I can find a place to fit a line or two in. I have to do that, add two lines about Tourettes to the bio, and work a legacy section. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And I haven't gotten yet to writing about Johnson's Shakespeare, and I am sure he will come up there. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Do be sure to drop me a note when you do. I'm not sure I can be of any help there (this is an area I know far too little about), but I'm interested and have some relevant sources so I'd like to keep an eye on it and chip in when I can. --Xover (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image check

The following images have issues. Note that sourcing needs to be provided for the source of the image itself and, if not the same, for the claimed dates and authorship. This image, for example, could use this to source the date and author, but the image would also need a source for the particular (i.e. color) version actually uploaded; the image currently has neither.

• Image:Johnson 1769.jpg - needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.
• Image:Johnson003.jpg - needs a verifiable source
• Image:Johnson003.jpg - needs a verifiable source
• Image:Johnson004.jpg - needs a verifiable source
• Image:JoshuaReynoldsParty.jpg - source should not link directly to the image itself; we need a source confirming the author(s) and/or the date of creation. Source appears to be a UK establishment, which means the PD-Art tag is inappropriate for Commons images.
• Image:Dictionary3.jpg - needs a verifiable source
• Image:Dictionary2.jpg - needs a verifiable source
• Image:Edial Hall School.jpg - needs a verifiable source
• Image:Johnson Wife.jpg - needs a verifiable source
• Image:GoughSquare-No.17.jpg - needs a verifiable source (in the case of self-made images, this means an explicit assertion of authorship; we cannot rely on the implications of a {{PD-self}} tag). See Image:Pembroke Lodge.jpg, also in this article, for an example of how this is properly done).
• Image:Samuel Johnson by Joshua Reynolds.jpg - needs a verifiable source

Wikipedia:FCDW/August 11, 2008 may offer some assistance, as well. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Question - For the "paper" versions, I scanned and cropped myself. Should I note that and will that be enough? For the images, should I list the galleries that they are found in? Would that change them from free? If I can find an online reproduction of it, should I list that instead and would it still be free? I also have a few books that catalog the pictures and where they are found, if I were to list these books, would it still be free (books written post 1940)?

1. Johnson 1769.jpg can be found (Black and White)on page 103 of Yung, (Black and White) as illustration 1 in Wain, and (Color) on page 102 of Lane (hers from Tate gallery). It is 30" x 25 1/8" canvas, inscribed "Sam. Johnson. LD. OB^T. 1784" and on the reverse "Sam. Johnson LD./anno aetat.60/J Reynolds - Pinxt. 1769" and "Purchased by His Grace/John Fred^k. Duke of Dorset -1769-" by Sir Joshua Reynolds, 1769. Owned by Lord Sackville. Copies at Tate and National Portrait Gallery. Studio variant owned by Harvard University. A mezzotint was made by James Watson 10 July 1770.

2. Johnson003.jpg can be found (Black and White) on page 115 of Yung, (Black and White) as illustration 26 in Wain, and (Black and White) as illustration 28 in Bate. It is 38 1/2" x 55 1/4" canvas by Sir Joshua Reynolds c. 1777 for Streatham Park. Owned by Beaverbrook Art Gallery in Fredericton, New Brunswick.

3. Johnson004.jpg can be found (Black and White, cropped to just Boswell) as illustration 22 in Bate, (Color) on page 164 of Lane, and (Black and White) on page 99 of Young. It is 52 1/4" x 37" canvas by George Willison during summer 1765. Owned by the Scottish National Portrait Gallery (number 804).

4. JoshuaReynoldsParty.jpg can be found (Black and White) as illustration 23 in Bate and (Black and White) as illustration 22 in Wain . Owned by Mary Hyde and part of the Hyde Collection in Someville, N.J.

5. Edial Hall School.jpg can be found (Black and White) as illustration 10 in Bate and (Black and White) as illustration 10 in Wain. It was drawn by C. J. Smith. Owned by Mary Hyde and part of the Hyde Collection in Someville, N.J.

6. Johnson Wife.jpg can be found (Black and White) as illustration 9 in Bate, (Black and White) as illustration 7 in Wain, (Color) on page 65 in Lane, and (Black and White) on page 53 in Yung. It is 29 1/8" x 24" canvas by an unknown artist before Johnson's marriage to her. Owned by Mary Hyde and part of the Hyde Collection in Someville, N.J. , but Yung says he received his by an anonymous individual.

7. Samuel Johnson by Joshua Reynolds.jpg can be found (Black and White) as illustration 36 in Wain, (Black and White) on page 229 in Lane, It is 30" x 25" canvas claimed by be painted by Sir Joshua Reynolds (but uncertain) c. 1784. A. E. Watts Russel sold it to Christies 20 June 1919 (lot 82) who sold it to John McFadden in 1920 who then sold to A. Edward Newton August 1922. Currently owned by James P. Magill Library of the Haverford College, Haverford. Copy owned by the National Portrait Gallery.

What missing information do I need to do for Image:GoughSquare-No.17.jpg (besides the organization chart) to have it proper? Also, the dictionary copies are from originals taken by myself and scanned by myself (cleaned up some also, cropped, etc). I can find better copies from books mentioned above, or there is the online 18th century database that probably has some versions of the pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image follow-up:

• Image:Samuel Johnson by Joshua Reynolds 2.png - still needs a verifiable source. Did Geogre (talk · contribs) take the image himself (unlikely), or from what book/website/etc. did he obtain it? We need to know this because, if the image of the portrait was first published in the U.K., it shouldn't be using the PD-Art tag on the Commons.
• Image:JoshuaReynoldsParty.jpg - Image has the aforementioned concern of appearing to be an image first published in the UK and, thus, should not be on the Commons. Image should probably be moved to en.wiki and tagged with {{Do not move to Commons}}. You may may also want to supplement the image summary to contain the comment above (original is held in NJ) and provide a Wain reference to allow the date/author to be verified (the direct link to the image itself is not appropriate sourcing).
• Image:Dictionary2.jpg and Image:Dictionary3.jpg: These should probably explicitly articulate that you (Ottava Rima) made the scans (the low resolution and lack of metadata raise red flags otherwise).
• Image:GoughSquare-No.17.jpg: This authorship declaration really should come from the uploader (Taks); otherwise, it is an unsubstantiated assumption. Did Taks, for example, take an image from Flickr, crop it (image does indeed appear to be cropped) and then believe that the derivative was his/hers to license? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've finished sourcing Image:Samuel Johnson by Joshua Reynolds 2.png and Image:JoshuaReynoldsParty.jpg. Commons policy on the UK/PD-Art situation changed today, so I'll forgo the transfer. Images look to be all set. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

One last thing: it's best not to force image size (see MOS:IMAGES and WP:ACCESS). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ready ?

Still not sure why we don't get to try out GA (I've never been through GA, since I was traveling when someone who had never edited it put up TS), but I think it's as ready as it will ever be. Can we archive the talk page? Ottava, it's your nom, I don't want even a mention in the blurb (that will only make it harder on you and I only helped with trivial matters and TS), and I know Malleus and I disagree on this, but I believe he should be a co-nom because of the copyediting ... that's up to you and him, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I kept a list of all of the important people for the creation of this page here and I consider you and Malleus as the co-noms already, regardless of what you guys say. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to try to squeeze in another copyedit tonight, but you two have been going at the article for hours! I can copyedit during the day tomorrow if you're ready for me. Maralia (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm done for the night, and I think OR is as well ... all yours, dear :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Some notes. (I'm no English expert)

1. "his A Dictionary of the English Language" reads awkwardly to me. Without the "A" it makes sense but obviously you can't muck about with the title.
2. "Although TS caused problems in his private and public life,[20] it lend Johnson "great verbal and vocal energy";[21] he excelled in his education and was promoted to the upper school at the age of nine,[19] to be tutored by Edward Holbrooke.[22]" Should that not be "lent"? Why the semicolon? I can't see how the two parts are related.
3. "Johnson's memories of the school differed from his experience with Dame Oliver because the school was directed by Reverend John Hunter, a man known for both his scholarship and, like Holbrooke, his brutality." Seems like a round-about way of saying that both his teacher, Holbrooke, and the school's head, Hunter, were brutal men. Saying his "memories differed" makes it sound like the difference is an aspect of his memory rather than an aspect of his life. I'm not sure you need to make the contrast with Dame Oliver explicit, since the reader has only read about her moments ago.
4. "At the age of 16 Johnson was" Should there be a comma after 16?
5. Ford had a successful career in academia and in society" He didn't have a "successful career ... in society". Can this be reworded?
6. "and he knew many people such as Alexander Pope." Everyone knows "many people". Were these people influential, important, wealthy, noble, famous, literary?
7. "as although Michael Johnson was doing well as a senior bailiff" I got a bit confused here about is father's job. When did he become a bailiff and, from what follows, it appears he is still also a bookseller? Could we say "was supplementing his income as a senior bailiff", if this is an additional role he has taken on?
8. "allowed his son to take a hundred books from his bookshop" I'm guessing these were lent for study rather than for sale or as a gift/fee for the college? Could this be made clearer?
9. "(that of two rereads)" I don't understand what this means.
10. "Just before the publication of his Dictionary in 1755" The jump in time confused me. Until this point (and after it) we have a chronological story. Could the paragraph be introduced in a way that makes it clear we are temporarily discussing future events in his life, which are related to education.

That's all for now. These are really minor points and, from what I've read so far, the article is looking good for FAC. Colin°^Talk 12:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"During this time, Johnson started to exhibit the tics that would influence how people viewed him in his later years and would eventually form the basis of him being diagnosed with Tourette syndrome" - to me this sentences reads as if the diagnosis came during his lifetime, not two and a half centuries later. No matter how compelling the TS diagnosis is, surely it remains a POV, something we are N keen on? (btw, like most people on the planet, I am unsure of the exact meaning of "diagnosis") almost-instinct 21:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Added post-humous to clarify timing, and linked diagnosis (medical). The very reliably sourced post-humous diagnosis was possible precisely because of the detail provided by his biographers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My ideas:

1. Remove "his" from before the Dictionary.

2. Put a period. Change "lend" to "lent".

3. "Johnson's memories of the school differed from his experience with Dame Oliver because the school was directed by Reverend John Hunter, a man known for both his scholarship and, like Holbrooke, his brutality." This is a roundabout way to the point. Clear up with something like: "Johnson did not enjoy his experience at Lichfield Grammar School because of Reverend John Hunter, the school's director who was known for both his scholarship and, like Holbrooke, his brutality"

4. Should there be a comma after 16? - yes.

5. "Ford had a successful career in academia and in society" - how about "Ford was well known within London's social and academic circles"?

6. "Were these people influential, important, wealthy, noble, famous, literary? " Yes. All of the above. :)

7. "Could we say "was supplementing his income as a senior bailiff", if this is an additional role he has taken on?" He was elected/appointed to the position, but yes, that is pretty much it.

8. ""allowed his son to take a hundred books from his bookshop" I'm guessing these were lent for study rather than for sale or as a gift/fee for the college?" The books were taken from the shop for free, and his dad was unable to sell them, so it cost him money. How about "at a high expense to himself, he allowed his son to take a hundred books from his bookshop" or some variation.

9. "that of two rereads" He read it two times after writing. :)

10. "Just before the publication of his Dictionary in 1755" How about "Later, Johnson would attain a degree just before the publication of his Dictionary in 1755"? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Review

Copyedit completed. Brain fried. Beer opened. A few remaining issues:

1. "Richardson, enjoying the essays greatly, questioned the publisher as to who wrote the works, and he, with a few of Johnson's friends, was given the knowledge as to Johnson's authorship." - There's a reorganization error showing through here: Richardson hasn't been introduced, nor even fully named, at this point in the article.
2. "Johnson was a devout, conservative Anglican, a staunch Tory and a compassionate man, supporting a number of poor friends under his own roof." - But he was perpetually broke! Did he somehow support others during his lean years, or did he share the wealth once his pension was granted?
3. Please settle on Universal Visiter or Universal Visitor.
4. Is there some reason that the References don't include original publication dates?

Maralia (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It could be argued that he was perpetually broke because he provided stuff for his poor friends. :) But here are some possible solutions:

1. [[Samuel Richardson]], enjoying the essays greatly, questioned the publisher as to who wrote the works; only he and a few of Johnson's friends were told of Johnson's authorship.

2. Johnson was a devout, conservative Anglican, a staunch Tory and a compassionate man that supported a number of poor friends under his own roof even when able to fully provide for himself.

3. Universal Visiter (thats the original spelling)

4. Which references? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Who's doing Colin's list and Maralia's list? (My prose stinks: I vote for Malleus.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I wondered why my ears were burning. I just saw Colin's list, and I made a start on it. Haven't seen Maralia's list yet ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I guess you mean the list right above this. Doh! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Presumably in #2 you mean 'even when unable', right? And on #4, I mean the actual Reference list - the full {{Citation}} templates, not the footnotes. Long time no see, Malleus! I'm off to dinner; will check back when I get in. Maralia (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and with the references - they should be the exact dates of the publication as per the books I have (and the copyright notice or on title page). Any in particular that seem wrong? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm about done with Colin's list I think. Time for FAC now? Ottava? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe Sandy asked Qp10qp to take a quick read through. Should we wait or start? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC) ‎

Have you checked with Ceoil? What about Karanacs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I vote for FAC now. This is a damn good article, and we can easily deal with any issues that arise during the review. No matter how many people look at it, it'll never be perfect, but luckily perfection isn't one of the FA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My only role here is to hit Ottava across the bottom with a cold fish if and when he deserves it - I cant speak for Karen, but I guess her expectations are similar, if less graphic. So sure, go for it for all we care; nothing naughty to interest us here. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Doh! again. Sorry Ottava, I wasn't thinking. I'd forgotten about all that stuff. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave the fish to Ceoil—I don't touch cold fish (or warm fish)! I've added the FAC to my watchlist in case assistance is needed. Karanacs (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I felt that we could deal with any of the concerns during FA, plus find some new ones. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So just nom! Enough.......Ceoil ^sláinte 02:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented the changes Ottava suggested in response to my list above. My request for original publication dates for the References seems to be moot, since the cited 'old' works with modern-era publication dates appear to be significantly different works from the original (compiled by different editors, etc.). In other words, all resolved, I think. Maralia (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, just a little history about the Thraliana (which is one) - it wasn't published until 1941 (during WW2, and having problems during that time), and was finally republished with corrections in 1951. Hawkins and Boswell first editions? I'd have to have a lot more authority to get a chance to look at those, even though there is a nice copy held of both an hour away and three hours away. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To review

WP:ENGVAR? I don't know: instalments changed to installments SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Should be "instalments", I've changed it back. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the Hitchings footnote (currently number 111) has no page numbers. I have a copy. Would you like the page numbers? Is there anything else that you might want from it? almost-instinct 17:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be delightful. I can't believe I overlooked it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the ref given is for the US edition, not the UK original. It would read:

Hitchings, Henry (2005), Dr Johnson's Dictionary: The Extraordinary Story of the Book that Defined the World, London: John Murray, ISBN 0719566312.

If using this edition the three page references would be: p.54, p.54, p.48 almost-instinct 18:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll be sure to remember you when I get to working on the Dictionary page. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Punc

WP:PUNC error introduced here, I think; I'm not great at logical punctuation, so can someone else review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oo, beg your pardon, I see your point. Up to now I've been using the general rule that the punc should only go inside the inverted commas if necessary for the sense ( eg she said "Cat?" vs did she say "cat"?), but now I see that that isn't what MoS says [Have I misremembered or has this changed?!]. Sorry. IMO when it doesn't really matter one way or the other

cat".^[ref]

looks neater than

cat."^[ref]

—not that MO matters. almost-instinct 08:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

PS If it is deemed correct that fullstops at end of quoted sentences should always go inside the quotation marks, then you'll find many more examples of my non-helpfulness :-/ almost-instinct 08:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

PPS To be helpful, this is what MoS says:

Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation

Do we need to ask Uncle Tony?! almost-instinct 08:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Take that Dog's Whiskey away from him ! Seriously, OR, do all of the statements that are double-cited to Bates and Lane require both citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

They can do fine with just Lane unless there is a quote within them. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say to reduce any of the double citations to the most essential source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have the funny feeling I am vaguely referred to above?? :) I don't set out to be a contrarian ya know. Whiskeydog (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I went through every double citation, picked the one that was more interesting or contained all of the information. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Much better. Where's the Drunken Dog (and who chopped this section into so many little pieces)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hint hint. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There's another way of combining double citations, without losing any of the references. I've changed #194 as an example. Thoughts? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I had one similar up above (until I removed double citations in general), but I did not even not see that one. Good eye. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as a data point… For another article I've combined cites to the same work into a single cite for each range of pages where every consecutive page in the range is cited, but left them separate where there is even a single page in the range not cited. The exception being when the missing page is actually relevant and only omitted by accident or similar. The upper limit for ranges I used as a rule of thumb was to never combine more than a whole chapter (or other meaningful subdivision of the source), but that tends to happen of its own accord for obvious reasons. Where multiple cites cover the exact same point, and where multiple sources are relevant (i.e. to support a controversial point, or where multiple sources are a benefit to the reader), I've combined them into a single ref tag and separated them with a semicolon (which is a balance between visual separation and space concerns). All of which boils down to an attempt to find the right compromise between punctilious sourcing and not overwhelming the reader with a list of cites seemingly longer than the main article text. I am a firm believer in obsessive citations (for practical reasons; I tend to miss them when reading about a topic), but some accommodation for space and readability does have to be made. Hopefully you might find some use in the above for determining your own rules of thumb for this. --Xover (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I still worry about this being a living document that should go on for a long time - someone could always add something, which is not held by the source, and we wouldn't be able to easily determine. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why I suggested the format I did above. That way nothing is lost, but the density in the article body is reduced. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I like the quote being in the reference section with the citations. Can that quote be incorporated into the text? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The critics are fussing about the word count, and since those sources aren't available on line, adding the brief quote in the note covers it. I would say, hold off a bit and see if either Eubulides or Colin (who are both very competent editors) can improve on it. My prose stinks; they are both well versed in TS literature and in FA writing. What do you think about a combined Health section, with depression following Tourette and then autopsy/death results? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You might be able to add it after the page number in the reference. It might show up a little weird in the reference section. There is coding that you can put in a separate section for lengthy foot notes (separated from the ref notes). I can look that up? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is really a small matter that won't affect FAC; why not address outstanding issues first? Colin asked for sorting of the age when tics first appeared, for example. Have all of Colin's and Eubulides' requests been dealt with? I really wouldn't worry about a minor formatting issue that can be sorted later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

First accounts of his tics at 8, TS starting to appear as affecting his life, right after college. This is how the biographers describe it, and there is a gap in between. I put the scene in which he wrote to his godfather (who was a doctor) about what he was experiencing after college and how they both thought it was him going "mad". I have a lot more to add to that page, so don't worry too much about it right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm not sure why Eubulides mentioned an inconsistency, then. Now that you have the daughter article on health, can you trim depression a bit, and more on the rest of his health to the main page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't recall the inconsistency that I mentioned. Anyway, the "wistle" and "chucking" bothered me (the right words, according to the 1799 edition I consulted, were "whistle" and "clucking"), so I changed them, along with a few other minor things, here. Eubulides (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Eubulides, this is turning out to be the best peer review ever.... :) I updated some more about Johnson's health issues. I still have more to add. I don't know how I want to approach testicular cancer/sarcocele. Uck. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

To review again

Someone chopped up my section, so I'll start another:

• Charles II is a dab. Is it supposed to be Charles II, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz?
• We have Frances Reynolds and Francis Reynolds; I believe it's Frances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Charles II of England; Frances Reynolds, Francis Barber. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm confused about Awadewit's comment that "Character sketch" is just a list: I wonder if she mistakenly named the wrong section? Perhaps "Legacy"?
• I agree with adding brief, one or two word identification on some of the individuals, and removing many of the quotes around individual words. I wasn't sure why they were used, but you literary types have different ways of doing things than in the medical articles I usually work on, so I went along with it. For example, artist (or painter) Joshua Reynolds, etc.
• I don't think Johnson's life or work can be understood in context if his TS is only a footnote. (I guess his bio can be written that way, but then Wiki would just be parroting the same old stories written hundreds of years ago about another dead British guy, rather than bringing his story to life with an infusion of knowledge that wasn't available until 20 years ago.) TS doesn't make him "ill" and isn't an "illness": it explains his life, character, personality and work, and puts everything about him and his work into a context that wasn't understood in his time. If that isn't understood and clear in the article, there's a disconnect (I thought we had made that connection well, I guess not?). I would weave his TS throughout to make it even more understandable to anyone who sees its impact on his life and work as only a footnote. I really don't care if you all decide to do something else with the TS text, though. That and the literary issues are up to all of you; my only useful input here was making sure the TS was correctly represented. The remaining literary aspects aren't exactly right up my alley, so I defer to everyone else on any concerns raised, including the TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Adding more text about other people would put unnecessary descriptive (redundancy) when guidelines already say to use Wikilink to achieve the same effect. For the quotes, all words quoted if unquoted would be a direct lie and not follow the sources. Lane puts the name "Dame" in quotes. As does Bates, Wain, etc. 2. WP:WEIGHT states that the TS would need its own section because it is significantly covered, and since it is a medical analysis, and not biographical, it is appropriate. By putting it in the text, you would do exactly as you originally said not to do - add a posthumous diagnosis into the word, which isn't appropriate. Don't worry about these concerns as they can barely be described as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Direct quote in the lead needs citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Was it removed? It was there last time I checked and appears to be there now. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what our citation format was, so after I put in the quotation I checked the rest of article and then went back and added the citation. Probably SandyG was looking at an old diff. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It is there, and hopefully no one will complain. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Misc

Part One

In 1984 (200 years after Johnsons's death), Oxford University held a week-long conference with fifty papers written for the conference. The Arts Council of Great Britain held a "Johsonian portraits and other memorabilia" exhibit. (Greene p. 174)

Johnson societies held celebrations also - The Johnson Society (Lichfield, England, founded 1909), The Johnson Society of London (founded 1928), The Johnsonians (eastern US, founded 1948), The Johnson Society of the Central Region (combination of Johnson society of the Great Lakes Region and the Johnson Society of the Midwest, founded 1966), The Johnson Society of the North West (western Canadian provinces and northwest United States, founded 1969), The Johnson Society of Evansville (Indiana; birthplace of the great Johnsonian scholar James L. Clifford, founded 1982), The Johnson Society of Southern California (founded 1984), and The Johnson Society of India (founded 1986). (Greene pp. 174-175)

London Times and Punch parodied "what they thought to be Johnson's prose style, crammed with polysyllabic words-and old gimmick that goes back to Johnson's own lifetime and demonstrates gross ignorance of the subtleties of his prose". (Greene p. 175)

British Post Office turned down a stamp with Johnson's portrait in favour of Scottish cattle. (Greene p. 175)

Mark Temmer "suggests that Diderot's famous Le Neveu de Rameau (Rameau's Nephew) may be based to some extent on Savage" but not necessarily Johnson's Life of Mr Savage. (Greene p. 180)

On Thoughts on the Late Transactions Respecting Falkland's Islands and the Falkland Island conflict in 1982: "A large number of British and American journalists made reference to it, for it gives a most lucid account of the origins of the quarrel between Britain and Spain (later Argentina) over possession and sovereignty of the islands, a quarrel that has not yet been resolved. Unfortunately, some journalists, not having taken the trouble to read the work carefully, and extrapolating from the Macaulayan image of Johnson as a narrow-minded High Tory John Bull, thought the point of the pamphlet was to support Britain's claim tot he islands. Of course, it does not: Johnson deplores the suggestion that Britain establishes that claim by military action, as happened in 1982" (Greene p. 181)

On Shakespeare: "The ignorant depreciation of the value of Johnson's work is, however, being eroded. Among the best of recent studies are Arthur Sherbo's The Birth of Shakespeare Studies: Commentary from Rowe (1789) to Boswell-Malone (1821) (1986), and a number of articles by Shirley White Johnston, who is at work on a book that will give a careful analysis of Johnson's editorial work on Shakespeare" (Greene p. 182)

This is from Donald Greene in his analysis of all Johnson studies until 1989. Samuel Johnson: Updated Edition. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1989. ISBN 0805769625 Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Part Two

"Dr Johnson, however, the man who, in Fanny Burney's words was, 'the acknowledged Head of Literature in this kingdom', was at ease in their company. His friendship with Elizabeth Carter went back almost fifty years. He had known Eva Garrick, the widow of actor-manager David Garrick, since at least the mid 1740s.... The younger women, Fanny Burney and Hannah More, were more recent friends and favourites, brillant women who looked up to Johnson, and had a profound respect for what he had achieved and what he represented, and whose affections for him was sincere.Fanny Burney had become Johnson's special pet after the publication of her first novel, Evelina, in 1778. Nothing like Evelina had been seen before and Samuel Johnson - perhaps surprisingly - was as enthusiastic a reader of the adventures of this particular 'Young Lady's Entrance into the World' as the next person. Introduced to the author by Hester Thrale, he adored the mixture of shyness and slyness, diffidence and self-determination he discovered in her. The elderly man and the young woman spend hours together tete-a-tete at Streatham, after which Fanny would return to her room and write up their conversations at great length in her diary."(Clarke pp. 4–5)

"All Johnson biographers have drawn on Fanny Burney's diary as raw material for their accounts of Samuel Johnson. It is, like Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson, a primary source, vivid, immediate and intensely personal." (Clarke p. 5)

"Becoming an intimate of Samuel Johnson was itself a significant yardstick of literary success. Writing down her conversations with him was another way for Fanny Burney - the 'mordibly timid', 'the cowardly Writer' - to convey to posterity the achievements of her own 'wonderful, surprising and interesting' self." (Clarke p. 5)

"Johnson's special praise of Charlotte Lennox caused somes tir when it reached public attention with the publication of Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson in 1791. Fanny Burney described one acquaintence, 'eager to inquire of me who was Mrs Lennox? He had been reading, like all the rest of the world, Boswell's Life of Dr Johnson, and the preference there expressed of Mrs Lennox to all other females had filled him with astonishment, as he had never even heard her name.'" (Clarke p. 214)

"Friendship with Johnson meant different things at different stages in his life. Hannah More and Fanny Burney became friends with a man whose notice of them and approbation of their writings secured their sense of having arrived inside the institution of literature. He was 'the acknowledged head of literature'; they were the new generation. His importance to them was symbolic and personal rather than professional. David Garrick was a far more important figure in Hannah More's writing life than was Samuel Johnson; and Samuel Crisop mattered more to Fanny Burney. In the earlier decades, among the first generation bluestockings, the picture was different. Johnson was by no means 'the acknowledged head of literature'. He was a social outsider. The meaning of friendship with Johnson changed as hisposition altered, a change that was intricately bound up with the expansion of print culture and the beginnings of mass readership. The writing lives of Elizabeth Carter and Elizabeth Montagu ran alongside Johnson's, more or less. As readers, writers and thinkers, they responded to many of the same pressures of social and cultural change, but they were insulated in a number of ways." (Clarke pp. 220–221)

"Lennox's friendship with Johnson, extending across four decades, was unquestionably - as Miriam Small, Lennox's biographer put it - 'the most important single fact in Mrs Lennox's literary life'. As Carter looked to Montagu, so Lennox looked to Johnson. Throughout the 1750s she was, like him, a hard-working professional writer, living in London and in constant communication with the booksellers, securely in the public eye." (Clarke pp. 221–222)

"Though self-evidently a woman of independent resourcefulness, Lennox depended heavily on Samuel Johnson. This dependence, and Johnson's acceptance of it, reflected certain mid eighteenth-century assumptions about the writerly life which changed in the decades that followed." (Clarke p. 222)

"A good example of this matter of fact professional assistance can be seen in a letter from Johnson to Lennox of March 1757. Lennox had recently completed a translation from the French, the Memoirs of Madame de Maintenon. Johnson wrote:

I saw last week at Mr Dodsley's a book called Histoire des Conjurations par P. Terre which I told him was a good book, so far as could be judged by the title, for him to publish, and for you to translate. He seemed not to dislike the proposal, but had not then all the volumes, I think he had only the second. Now you have ended Maintenon you may perhaps think on it. I never saw it before, and saw little of it then but fancy is likely to succeed. Mr Dodsley will lend you his volume if you send for it.

Other letters show that Lennox was not the easiest person to help. Exceptionally quarrelsome and imperious, with a quick temper and a sharp tongue, she displayed behaviour that most successful women writers managed to repress or conceal." (Clarke p. 222)

Johnson attempted to produce A New and Elegant Edition, Enlarged and Corrected, of the Original Works of Mrs Charlotte Lennox but no one would subscribe. The new work was never published. "Her efforts to help it along (she was desperate for money) drew from him this reproof:

Madam, in soliciting subscriptions, as perhaps in many other cases, too much eagerness defeats itself. We must leave our friends to their own motives and their own opportunities. your subscription can hardly fail of success, but you must wait its progress. By telling your friends how much you expect from them you discourage them, for they finding themselves unequal to your expectation, will rather do nothing and be quiet, than do their utmost, and yet not please. You complain of Miss Reynolds, who probably knows not three people whom she can properly solicit. Sir Joshua has made it a rule to act on these occasions only as a gentleman. When Miss Reynolds use to lay my proposals in the way of sitters, he always hid them, and undoubtedly did right."

(Clarke pp. 223–224)

"Younger, but of roughly the same generation as the senior bluestockings, she mixed in circles other than the ones they frequented, and in which Johnson was regularly to be found. She was still writing and planning books, still visiting Johnson and involving him professionally in all her schemes. In the very week of the dinner she had been in contact with him about a manuscript - probably an early draft of her last novel, Euphemia, which eventually appeared in 1790. A little from the 1770s survives showing how pleased she was that he had agreed to name a day when he would 'come and eat apple dumplings of my making', though as it was too early for apples he was offered gooseberry tart instead; she wanted to speak with him about matters of business. In 1780s she sought him out on a less happy occasion, as Johnson told Mrs Thrale: 'Mrs Lennox has just been with me to get a chirurgeon to her daughter, the girl that Mrs Cumins rejected, who has received a kick from a horse, that has broken five fore teeth on theupper side... had the blow been a little harder it had killed her." (Clarke pp. 225–26)

Norma Clarke. Dr Johnson's Women. London: Hambledon, 2000. ISBN 1852852542

Part Three

"When Matthew Arnold formulated his ideal of liberal education, he turned not to Coleridge or Hazlitt or De Quincy, or even to Keats or Wordsworth or Tennyson, but to Johnson's Lives of the Poets. In his Six Chief Lives from Johnson's "Lives of the Poets" (1878) Arnold designated Johnson's lives of Milton, Dryden, Pope, Addison, Swift, and Gray as points de repere - "points which stand as so many natural centres, and by returning to which we can always find our way out again." These critical biographies covered the period from the birth of Milton in 1608 to the death of Gray in 1771, a curcial century and a half in English literature; and although there were significant critical disagreements of judgment between Arnold and Johnson, which it came to an education in literature history, biography, and criticsm Arnold saw the Lives of the Poets as offering a "compendious story of a whole important age in English literature, told by a great man, and in performance which is itself a piece of English literature of the first class" (p. 362)"

Information used at Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets.

• Clingham, Greg (1997), "Life and literature in the Lives", in Clingham, Greg (ed.), The Cambridge companion to Samuel Johnson, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 161–191, ISBN 0521556252

"The effect of this Shakespearean presence in Johnson's criticism may be to diminish somewhat the sense in whichthe poets treated in the Lives are significant in defining the critica ideas and ideals of Johnson, how he formed his taste or experienced a 'training.' This includes the place of the poetry of Dryden and Pope in that training, and more boradly the 'Augustan' dramatic and poetical model. But that is one way that Johnson's criticism of Shakespeare (And his criticism more generally perhaps) secures its continuity with the future. The same is true when Stendhal later called Johnson 'le pere du romanticisme.' Or, to apply T. S. Eliot's words on the life of dead poets to the life of a dead critic, it is one way that Johnson 'assert[s] [his] immortality most vigorously.'" (Smallwood pp. 159–160)

• Smallwood, Philip (1997), "Shakespeare: Johnson's poet of nature", in Clingham, Greg (ed.), The Cambridge companion to Samuel Johnson, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 143–160, ISBN 0521556252

"By the time Johnson died in 1784, he had become much more than a well-known writer and scholar. A few years earlier he reportedly remarked to Boswell, 'I believe there is hardly a day in which there is not something about me in the newspapers.' Helen McGuffie's patient search of the London and Edinburgh newspapers (from 1749 to 1784) revealed in 1976 that Johnson 'was closer to the truth than he may have realized.' The press apparently tracked his every move, reporting on 27 August 1784, for instance, that he had returned from Oxford; on the 28th, that he was visiting Lichfield; on 1 September, that he was visiting John Taylor at Ashbourne; on 21 September...." (Lynn p. 240)

"Why was Johnson such a celebrity? And how has that status affected his critical reception? Charlotte Lennox was not alone in determine as early as 1752 that 'the Author of the Rambler' was 'the greatest Genius in the present Age,' as she puts it in the penultimate chapter of The Female Quixote. By 1764, the Biographia Dramatica could refer to Johnson as 'no less the glory of the present age and nation, that he will be the admiration of all succeeding ones'" (Lynn p. 241)

"Johnson's works certaintly were struck passionately at both ends, during his lifetime and afterard. As Vicesimus Knox put it in 1788: 'Few men could stand so fiery a trail as he has done. His gold has been put into the furnance, and really, considering the violence of the fire, and the frequent repetition of the process, the quantity of the dross and alloy is inconsiderable' (CH, p. 1)." (Lynn p. 241)

"William Kenrick;s smoldering reviews of the Shakespeare edition (1765)" "Archibald Campbell's Lexiphanes (1767), which lambasted Johnson's style. Johnson did what was no doubt most infuriating to his critics: he ignored them" (Lynn p. 241)

"When the Prefaces, Critical and Biographical appeared (1779, 1781), the immediate critical response suggested that Johnson had, once more, created a work that people loved, or loved to hate... The reviewer's praise, we may notice, is not limited to the virtues of Johnson's work, but focuses upon the 'purity and excellence of his character as a man,' his learning, his judgment... When Johnson's work is received negatively, it also tends to be examined in these same terms." (Lynn p. 242)

"One way to think about what happened to johnson's reception in the nineteenth century would be to compare George Gleig's thoughtfully appreciative essay on Johnson in the 1797 Encyclopedia Britannica, to Thomas Babington Macaulay's in the 1856 Britannica. Gleig acknowledges, for instance, that some detractors have found Johnson's style excessively difficult and pompous, while others have thought it both eenergetic and elegant. He suggests that the Rambler's style is indeed fatiguing for anyone who "read half a volume" at a time, while "he who reads only one paper in the day will experience nothing of this weariness." Gleig also understands that Johnson's style varies with his purpose... In his Britannica entry, ont he other hand, Macaulay sees Johnson's style quite differently: 'his diction was too monotonous, too obviously artificial, and now and then turgid even to absurdity.; Macaulay does say of the Life of Savage that 'No finer speciment of literary biography exists in any language, living or dead' (p. 796). He concedes that the criticisms in the Lives of the Poets 'even when grossly and provokingly unjust, well deserve to be studied' (p. 802), and that the Dictionary'sdefinitions are so good 'that a leisure hour may always be very agreeably spent in turning over the pages' (p. 797) But overall, Macaulay leaves his reader with a sense of Johnson as a spectacle, not a writer, 'blinking, puffing, rolling his head, drumming with his fingers, tearing his meat like a tiger, and swallowing his tea in oceans' (p. 802)." (Lynn pp. 243–244)

"Macaulay's Johnson appears to be more of an idiot savant than a great intellect, a portrait that was supported by other early nineteenth-century detractors, such as Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, and De Quincey. For Hazlitt, for instance, Johnson's mind was narrowly gloomy to the point of deformity: Rasselas display 'the most melancholy and debilitating moral speculation that ever was put forth.'" (Lynn p. 245)

"The Romantics were in fact especially bothered by Johnson's treatment of Milton, although his supposed failure to appreciate the genius of Shakespeare and Gray as they did bother them too... Repeatedly the Romantics define themselves byt embracing an anti-Johnsonian Milton, rejecting the previous century by deposing its great critical arbiter. When Coleridge gave a public lecture in 1812 on Milton, to pick just one example, he apparently became so worked up attacking Johnson that he used vulgarity, for which he was 'hissed'. His response, according to Henry Crabb Robinson's diary, was to say 'it was the nature of evil to beget evil and that he had therefore in censuring Johnson fallen into the same fault;" (Lynn p. 245)

"There were, to be sure, some supporters of Johnson's work in the nineteeth century, people who actually read his work..." (example given - scholar G. Birkbeck Hill and other scholars tried to find works on him/by him, followed by topics discussed in scholarship) (Lynn p. 245)

• Lynn, Steven (1997), "Johnson's critical reception", in Clingham, Greg (ed.), The Cambridge companion to Samuel Johnson, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 240–253, ISBN 0521556252

Part Four

Characters and The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia:

• Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë - Helen Burns reads
• Cranford by Elizabeth Gaskell - Captain Brown attacks Rasselas while reading The Pickwick Papers and upsets Miss Jenkyns
• The House of the Seven Gables by Nathaniel Hawthorne - Hepzibah Pyncheon reads

In The Female Quixote by Charlotte Lennox, Johnson is mentioned at the beginning of Chapter XI (book 6) - "Nay, then, interrupted Mr. Glanville, you are qualified for a Critic at the Bedford Coffee-house; where, with the rest of your Brothers, Demy-wits, you may sit in Judgment upon the Productions of a Young, a Richardson, or a Johnson. Rail with premeditated Malice at the Rambler; and, for the want of Faults, turn even its inimitable Beauties into Ridicule: The Language, because it reaches to Perfection, may be called stiff, laboured, and pedantic; the Criticisms, when they let in more Light than your weak Judgment can bear, superficial and ostentatious Glitter; and because those Papers contain the finest System of Ethics yet extant, damn the queer Fellow, for over-propping Virtue; an excellent new Phhrase! which those who can find no Meaning in, may accommodate with one of their own; then give shrewd Hints, that some Persons, thoug they do not publish their Performances, may have more Merit, than those that do."

Inclusion

If anyone wants any of the material above, please state what, where, how it would be worded and why. The page can contain about 300 more words, which is about 1.4k. Otherwise, it will go over the 10k word amount. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro re: notability

I still do not see that the intro explains to an entirely ignorant reader why the subject of this article is notable. There have been many editions of Shakespeare, many dictionaries, many travel books; the main contributors to this article know as much as I do why Johnson's contributions in this field are outstanding, and they surely know more than me, so why don't they say so? This intro, at any rate, is written as if for an encyclopedia of English literature. It assumes that the reader is already interested in Johnson and knows why he is worth reading about. We have to take into account the possibility that this article might be accessed by someone whose acquaintance with Eng Lit might go no further back than Harper Lee. Or whatever.

Samuel Johnson is a huge subject. An article on him should not just be his biography. Lexo (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we covered everything possible. The only other way to express to someone who doesn't see from his list of works that he was importance would possibly fall into WP:PEACOCK. Sentence three, however, should tell people why the article is important. Anyway, people wont just be cruising around and find his article. They will come for a reason (i.e. they know him), or if they are happening upon him, they are the type that would read the whole page. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)