Professor Borges - A Course on English Literature

County, an inland town in England, which is not, professionally speaking, his home. That is, it is not the home of his work. Johnson devoted his entire life to literature. He died in 1784, before the French Revolution, which he would have been against, for he was a man of conservative ideas, and was profoundly religious.
    He spent his childhood in poverty. He was a sickly child and had tuberculosis. When he was still small, his parents took him to London for the Queen to touch him and thereby cure his disease. One of his first memories was of the Queen touching him and giving him a coin. His father was a bookseller, which for him was a great fortune. Along with his readings at home, he attended Lichfield Grammar School. “Lichfield” means “field of the dead.”
    Samuel Johnson was a wreck, physically, even though he was very strong. He was stout and ugly. He had nervous tics. He went to London, where he lived in poverty. He attended Oxford University, but he never graduated or even came close: he was laughed out of the place. So he returns to Lichfield and founds a school. He marries an old woman, older than he, an ugly, old, ridiculous woman. But he was loyal to her. Perhaps, at that time, this might indicate how religious he was. Then she dies. He also had phobias. For example, he carefully avoided stepping on the cracks between the flagstones. He also avoided touching poles. Nevertheless, in spite of these eccentricities, he was one of the most sensible intellects of his era; he had a truly brilliant intellect.
    After the death of his wife, he traveled to London and there published his translation of
A Voyage to Abyssinia
, by FatherLobo, a Jesuit. 1 He then wrote a novel about Abyssinia to pay for the cost of his mother’s burial. He wrote that novel in one week. He published several journals, which appeared once or twice a week, for which he was the principal writer. Though it was illegal to publish accounts of the sessions of Parliament, he would often attend them, then publish his accounts, adding a little literary fantasy. In his reports, he would invent speeches, for example, and he always managed to show the conservatives in the best light.
    During that period he wrote two poems: “London,” and “The Vanity of Human Wishes.” At that time,Pope was considered the greatest poet in England. Johnson’s poetry, published anonymously, enjoyed a large circulation and was said to be better than Pope’s. Pope then congratulated him, once his identity was known. “London” was a free translation of a satire byJuvenal. 2 This shows us how different the concept of translation was at that time compared to our concept today. At that time, the concept of a strict translation, where translation was considered a labor based on verbal fidelity, did not exist, as it does today. This concept of literal translation is based on translations of theBible. Those were indeed undertaken with great respect. The Bible, composed by an infinite intelligence, was a book man could not touch, or alter. The concept of literal translation, then, does not have any scientific origin, but is rather a sign of respect for the Bible.Groussac says that “the English of the Bible of the seventeenth century is as sacred a language as the Hebrew of the Old and New Testament.” 3 Johnson used Juvenal as a model for “London,” and applied what Juvenal said about the unpleasant aspects of life for a poet in Rome to that of a poet in London. So, obviously, his translation had no intention of being literal.
    Johnson made himself known through the journals he published, so much so that among writers, he was considered one of the most important. He was considered one of the best writers of his time, but the public didn’t know him, until he published his
Dictionary of the English Language
. 4 Johnson believed that the English language had reached its peak and was in decline due to constant corruption by Gallicisms. Hence, it was the moment to fix it. In reference to this, Johnson said, “The English language is on the verge of losing its Teutonic character.”
    According to Carlyle, Johnson’s style was “buckram.” This is true; his paragraphs are long and heavy. In spite of this, however, we can find sensible and original ideas on every page. Boileau wrote that tragedies that didn’t treat the site of the action as unique were absurd. 5 Johnson reacted against that. Boileau said that it was impossible for the spectator to believe