Ë ġ˂ŠË  ËñB„!B„ñ‚Criticism of Johnson's ”Rasselas• , 1983İ1993 ‚ Critical interest in Samuel Johnson is perennial. The majority of attention is given to Johnson's nonİfiction prose; however, ”Rasselas•, as his best and most extended piece of fiction, is never neglected. Johnson critics over the years have been a fairly mainstream group of scholars reading in traditional ways. In the last ten years, with the exception of a handful of recent, modern theoryİoriented studies, this tendency remains. The bulk of work is, not surprisingly, historicist and new critical. While the tide is not shifting, it appears that it is just beginning to widen. It is on this traditional turf that the battles are fought. After 234 years of analysis, scholars still have arrived at very little consensus about such fundamental concerns as ”Rasselas•' literary merit, overall point, and tone. Boswell initiated the debate with his story of how ”Rasselas• was composed quickly with Johnson not even reading it over before rushing chapters off to the printer to pay for his mother's funeral expenses and debts. Grounding their judgments in that rapid composition, many critics have seen the tale as of much philosophical but little aesthetic value. They consider the narrative to consist of an only looselyİrelated series of individual incidents; other scholars have argued for a meticulous structure suited to Johnson's purpose. Since Boswell, many scholars have seen the tone as quite dark and reflective of Johnson's gloom when writing it due to his mother's death. In such readings, the narrative usually becomes a ”Vanity of Human Wishes• in prose. However, there has always been a counter current, recently gaining strength, of readers who see the tale more optimistically and point out its humor; for them, the satire is gentle. These readers come up with a variety of morals for the tale which tend to see the characters and readers coming to recognize some truth by the end of the tale which will help them to live more productively. Before moving into more detailed analysis of the criticism, it is desirable to see which edition scholars are using to form their interpretations. The standard edition used to be R. W. Chapman's published by the Clarendon Press in 1927. It was a good edition for its time, but simply became outdated. George Birbeck Hill updated this edition in 1960. Both editions are now of interest only for their notes, since they have been superseded by the Yale edition of Johnson's complete works. The volume of the Yale series containing ”Rasselas and Other Tales• is edited by a prominent Johnsonian scholar, Gwin Kolb. It came out in 1990, and should be the definitive edition. Kolb provides all of the scholarly paraphernalia, including a lengthy introduction and very copious footnotes, which some people will find distracting since at times they leave only about a third of the page to the text itself. The volume also contains two less frequently read but interesting tales, "The Vision of Theodore, Ñ˙˙ JñB„!B„ñË  ˂ñ ñË  ˂ñB„!B„ñË  Ë˙Ñthe Hermit of Teneriffe," (which anticipates ”Rasselas• in several significant ways) and "The Fountains: A Fairy Tale." In addition, there is a shortened version of Kolb's examination of "The Reception of ”Rasselas•, 1759İ1800," which shows that the narrative was widely read and received favorable comment overall during that period. In the most recent ten years, the traditional debates mentioned above over the tone, point, and aesthetic value of ”Rasselas• continue, but are frequently subsumed under other focuses. Current criticism of the tale may be classified under the following headings: general criticism, structure/narrative technique, interpretation of the ending and overall message, ambivalence, "Johnson's idea of _______ as seen in ”Rasselas•," dialectic, and dialogics. I purposely mix topical and theoretical headings due to the way the studies naturally group, and will move back and forth between topic and theory within each area. Such categorization is of course always artificial, but may be of value for examining interaction among scholars and the directions in which their studies seem to be moving. ”Rasselas• is, naturally, treated to some degree in the biographies and generalized bookİlength studies of Johnson and his work. I have already mentioned the influence of Boswell's account of the composition history of the tale in his ”Life of Johnson•. Other scattered remarks praising the narrative highly, drawing parallels to ”Ecclesiastes•, and calling it a ”Vanity of Human Wishes• in prose continue to be brought into modern studies frequently, sometimes as support and other times to be refuted. Two studies aimed at the beginning student are Greene's for the Twayne series and Cunningham's for the Studies in English Literature series. The section in Greene's book concerning ”Rasselas• is brief but provides a very useful summary of the issues key to reading the tale informedly; I would definitely send students here rather than to Cunningham's longer, but less informative treatment. In response to Boswell's account of the hurried composition of the tale, there have been occasional attempts to show that ”Rasselas• really does have a definite form and uses specific narrative techniques. Within the time period under examination, two studies have joined Kolb's and Jones' earlier important arguments. Rose Norman's comparison of the structure of the tale to a fugue is surprisingly convincing and a lively read. Richard Braverman also provides an interesting, though perhaps less convincing analysis of "The Narrative Architecture of ”Rasselas•." Although the still unresolved issue of how to interpret the ending and overall point of the narrative plays a role in most studies, there have been only a couple of fairly recent articles concentrating on the question. Graham Cullum works to refute the Boswellian notion of the tale being a ”Vanity• in prose by showing that ”Rasselas• contains "an intelligent vision of those imaginative impulses which are delusive yet essential to life," whereas ”Vanity• "formally abhors the folly of wishing at all." Leopold Damrosch sees the narrative as manifesting "a turning point in Johnson's thought, a farewell to his own dream that wisdom can be taught either by didactic essays or by instructive fictions." Both of these articles work at the general level and are sketchy on specifics. Studies that deal with Johnson's themes and attitudes, which I group under the heading "Johnson's Idea of ______ as Seen in ”Rasselas•," dominate the body of criticism, and are for the most part historicist and new critical. Since they touch on a variety of topics and are described in the annotations that follow, I would like here to mention just a few of the important recent contributions. Gloria Gross' 1985 article fits Johnson treatment of mental disorders in ”Rasselas• within the context of Eighteenthİcentury attitudes toward madness and Johnson's interest in and contributions to psychology. Some of Gross' comments are picked up and further developed by John Wiltshire in the chapter devoted to the tale's astronomer in his 1991 book ”Samuel Johnson in the Medical World: The Doctor and the Patient.• In 1987, Catherine Parke published two wellİwritten articles that fit in this category; one describes history as an antidote for boredom in the tale, and the other discusses the important role performed by biographical conversations. Just two of the studies in this thematic category use more modern theories. The only feminist study, a good one, is Marlene Hansen's "Sex and Love, Marriage and Friendship: A Feminist Reading of the Quest for Happiness in ”Rasselas•." Hansen explores the topics mentioned in her title with special attention to the female characters, and also demonstrates Johnson's positive attitude toward and interaction with women in general. A colonialist slant is taken by Steven Scherwatzky in his 1992 article showing that Johnson was against empire and for isolationism, and that ”Rasselas• is partly a reaction to the Seven Years' War and William Pitt's policies of colonial expansion. These two studies indicate that modern theory may indeed be profitably applied to the tale. Two other theories that are recently proving quite applicable to the narrative are dialectic and dialogics. In his challenging book ”Johnson, Rasselas, and the Choice of Criticism•, Edward Tomarken proposes that a dialectical approach that can encompass both mimetic and formalistic readings of the text is necessary for complete analysis, and in fact is Johnson's own perspective. Another important study is Nicholas Hudson's dialogic and readerİresponse reading. Hudson examines the antithesis between "open" and "enclosed" places and readings, both by characters and by the readers of the tale, and demonstrates that the general movement is towards "openness." Adam Potkay's approach to reading the ending of the tale is also dialogic, arguing that the text allows the reader to choose between religious and secular morals. Studies such as these, using modern theories, are only just beginning in ”Rasselas•, apparently having lagged behind the rest of the critical community. There is much room in this domain for further work. The element of colonialism is not dominant in the tale, and may have been sufficiently covered by Scherwatzky. However, the dialectic, dialogic, and especially feminist approaches promise further applications. It is hard to believe that there is only one feminist study of a work containing important female characters produced by a man possessing progressive ideas about women. Another area in which work needs to be done is comparison studies. The only recent one is Stock's "Johnson Ecclesiastes." There have always been scattered brief comparisons to ”Candide•, various Oriental tales, and Johnson's translation of Lobo, but extended analysis of the connections and differences is missing. The field would also profit from newer connections, for example to other accounts of travelers, such as ”Gulliver's Travels• and ”Robinson Crusoe•. ”Rasselas• needs further contextualization with reference not only to other authors, but also within the body of Johnson's own work. Comparisons and contrasts to ”The Vanity of Human Wishes• and his nonİfiction are common, but critics have neglected analysis of the tale in terms of Johnson's other fiction. The only significant study is Carey McIntosh's 1973 book, which is becoming dated and leaves plenty of gaps in need of filling. Inquiry here may lead to better understanding of Johnson's narrative technique, another area given less recent attention than it merits. Finally, there is still room for traditional studies because of the lack of definitive treatments of key issues. Scholars may leap into the midst of the continuing debates over tone, moral, and artistic value. The genre debate was never resolved, but nonetheless has not been treated recently. Also, because the tale is so packed with ideas, even more "Johnson's Idea of _______ as Seen in ”Rasselas•" studies may not be redundant. This essay and the annotated bibliography that follows show that overall ”Rasselas• has been far from neglected by the scholarly community. However, that community is not yet close to exhausting the tale's critical possibilities. The narrative has supported multiple traditional interpretations, and looks as if it can continue to do so, while also inviting new ways of reading. Thanks are due to Johnson for producing a text on which English departments may continue to thrive. Criticism of Johnson's ”Rasselas• , 1983İ1993 Œ(Note: While this bibliography concentrates on the years 1983İ1993, earlier studies that still exert influence on ”Rasselas• criticism have been included. Items are arranged chronologically within topics.) Editions: Johnson, Samuel. ”The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia•. Ed. R. W. Chapman. Oxford: Clarendon, 1927. Formerly the standard edition, and still can be useful for the notes. Johnson, Samuel. ”History of Rasselas, Prince of Abyssinia•. Ed. George Birbeck Hill, D.C.L., LL.D. Oxford: Clarendon, 1960. Useful only for notes. Johnson, Samuel. ”Rasselas and Other Tales•. Ed. Gwin J. Kolb. The Yale Edition of the Works of Samuel Johnson 16. New Haven: Yale UP, 1990. Probably the definitive edition, by an eminent Johnsonian scholar. Contains a fiftyİone page introduction and footnotes so copious that they sometimes only leave a third of the page to the actual text. Also contains the shorter tales "The Vision of Theodore, the Hermit of Teneriffe," (which in several ways anticipates ”R•) and "The Fountains: A Fairy Tale," as well as a brief version of Kolb's study of "The Reception of ”R•, 1759İ1800" (see under Bibliographies). Bibliography: Clifford, James Lowry. ”Johnsonian Studies, 1887İ1950, a Survey and Bibliography.• Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1951. Unnecessary if have Clifford and Greene bibliography, though introductory discussion/survey could be of interest. No annotations. Wahba, Magdi. ”Johnsonian Studies, Including a Bibliography of Johnsonian• ”Studies•,” 1950İ1960, Compiled by James L. Clifford & Donald J. Greene•. Cairo: [Societe Orientale de Publicete], 1962. Also unnecessary if have Clifford and Greene, below, though this is completely in essay format and so might be useful for discussion and synthesis of the criticism. Clifford, James L. and Donald J. Greene. ”Samuel Johnson: A Survey and Bibliography of Critical Studies•. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1970. A ” •compilation of the two bibliographies above, with additions and corrections. ŒGreene, Donald and John A. Vance. ”A Bibliography of Johnsonian Studies, 1970İ1985•. ELS Monograph Series 39. Victoria, B.C.: English Literary Studies, 1987. Continues as a supplement to the previous bibliography. Only very brief annotations. Kolb, Gwin J. "The Reception of ”Rasselas•, 1759İ1800." ”Greene Centennial Studies: Essays Presented to Donald Greene in the Centennial Year of the University of Southern California•. Ed. Paul J. Lorshin and Robert R. Allen. Charlottesville: UP of Virginia, 1984. 217İ49. A shorter version also printed as an appendix in the Yale edition of ”R• (see above). This rather dry but valuable study surveys reviews, partial reprintings in periodicals, editions and translations, scattered remarks and references, and Knight's continuation to arrive at the general conclusion that the work was widely read and on the whole received favorable comment. Counts "some fifty editions, English and nonİEnglish" in this timeİspan. *See also Tomarken, ”Johnson, Rasselas, and the Choice of Criticism•, under Dialogics. Biography and General Criticism: Boswell, James. ”Life of Johnson•. London: Oxford UP, 1953. Much influence over criticism of ”R•; almost all critics respond to, some negatively and some positively. Starts the legends that J composed ”R• to pay for his mother's funeral expenses (causing the piece to be especially melancholic) and that he wrote "it in the evenings of one week, [and] sent it to the press in portions as it was written," not reading it over again until twentyİtwo years later. Praises ”R• very highly, saying that it alone "would have rendered his name immortal in the world of literature" and that it has been read more widely and translated more frequently than his other writings. Makes one of the early parallels to ”Ecclesiastes• by saying that the work reveals "that this stage of our being is full of 'vanity and vexation of spirit.'" Points out similarity to ”Candide•, but says ”R• has different goal of "by shewing the unsatisfactory nature of things temporal, to direct the hopes of man to things eternal." Perpetuates the idea that ”R• is a "more deeply philosophical discourse in prose" version of the ”Vanity of Human Wishes•. Cannot be ignored. McIntosh, Carey. ”The Choice of Life: Samuel Johnson and the World of Fiction. •New Haven: Yale UP, 1973. The final chapter deals with ”R•, analyzing it in the context of J's other fiction. Claims that the usual generic classifications will not work; rather, the narrative belongs to a large, indiscreet "class of fiction the resources of which are more largely devoted to describing, expressing, and recording the author's attitudes and opinions and feelings than to the animation of characters different from him and events outside his own personal experience." Provides an interesting discussion of the multiple pessimistic voices heard in the tale, which are balanced with "beacons of hope." Comparison/contrast to ”Candide• included. Final judgment of the work is that "it is heroic, it is also bleak and caustic, pious and melancholy, inquisitive and pedestrian sometimes, like any tourist guidebook." A rather strange study. ” • Cunningham, J. S. ”Samuel Johnson, The Vanity of Human Wishes and Rasselas•. Studies in English Literature 75. London: Edward Arnold, 1982. Designed to give students a brief clarification of what goes on in the work, rather like Cliffnotes. Too general and unscholarly to be of any other use. Greene, Donald Johnson. ”Samuel Johnson•. Twayne's English Authors Series 95. Boston: Twayne, 1989. A useful overall introduction to J's works written by a prominent scholar in a readable style. The six pages on ”R• (99İ104) summarize the information most essential to reading the tale informedly. Describes ”R• as having four sections: 1)Chs.1İ14, in the Happy Valley; 2)Chs.15İ29, emerging into the world and Cairo; 3)Chs. 30İ38, dealing with the pyramids and the story of Pekuah's abduction; and 4)Chs. 39İ47, dealing with the mad astronomer, the immortality of the soul, and the 'conclusion.' Particular attention to J' psychological acuity. One of the more positive interpretations of the ending, which he sees as sending the characters to live in Abyssinia (not the Valley) and "strive toward the ideals they have in mind, in full (and healthy) realization that, like other ideals, they will not be completely attained." Structure/Narrative Technique Kolb, Gwin J. "The Structure of ”Rasselas•." ”PMLA• 66 (1951): 698İ717. This article is still labeled "perennially useful" and put in even the briefest selective bibliographies. Argues against judging ”R• as a true oriental tale; instead, an examination of its structure should begin by considering the end for which it was written, and then looking at how elements are included to achieve that end. Says that J's end is to "represent the paucity of happiness" and that the structure does so in two parts, the first showing that lack of happiness in the earthly paradise of the Happy Valley and the other in the outside world, with subparts within these sections. Predominantly interpretive plot summary for much of the essay, but useful for putting the narrative as a whole into perspective. ŒJones, Emrys. "The Artistic Form of ”RasselasË  ˕." ”Review of English Studies•, ns Ë  Ë18 (1967): 387İ401. Argues that ”R• has been misread by reading it too much in light of J's private life (i.e. since he wrote it to pay for his mother's funeral it must be gloomy) and too prejudicially within the context of J's other writings. Jones particularly objects to looking at ”R• as a series of ”Rambler•İlike essays held together by "a flimsy fictional envelope." Instead proposes that the book is divided into three equal movements of sixteen chapters each (excluding the last), with the third section showing the characters actually engaged with life and working to break down the closed systems of the first section of hope and the second section of disappointment. In this scheme the conclusion becomes appropriate because it calls into question the form of the work of art itself and suggests that in both life and art ending is not really possible (cf. the title of the final chapter). An interesting, perceptive study. The division into three parts might be questioned, but in a way that is the point: the conclusion brings into question the artificiality of the prior structure. Norman, Rose. "Fugal Technique in Johnson's ”Rasselas•." ”Journal of Narrative Technique• 15.3 (1985): 267İ76. Argues that the structure of ”R• is similar to a fugue in its use of balance, counterpoint, and repetition, and that this form helped J to convey "the play of contrasting ideas." J introduces the main themes and motifs in the Happy Valley, then returns to them (often repeatedly) later in the narrative, developing them more fully and often "balancing the previous episode and suggesting an alternative approach to the theme." The themes and motifs mentioned are the pilgrimage in pursuit of happiness, the problem of grief, the effect of solitude on the imagination, the importance of diversification, the problem of good government, and marriage and the domestic sphere. Presented as an analog, not a source, though she does counter with convincing evidence the tradition that J disliked music. Lively writing that the person who is not an expert in music can follow. Braverman, Richard. "The Narrative Architecture of ”Rasselas•." ”The Age of Johnson• 3 (1990): 91İ111. Attempts to support the thesis that "prominent architectural spacesİİthe palace of Abyssinia, the Egyptian pyramids, and the catacombsİİserve to objectify thematic complexities by providing a correlative to the travelers' moral progress as they seek to resolve the paradox inherent in their quest." Argues that in such place the temporal and the eternal intersect. Not completely convincing, but appealing. Interpretations of the Ending and the Overall Point:ŒSherburn, George. "Rasselas Returnsİİto What?" ”Philological Quarterly• 38 (1959): 383İ84. Provides a needed corrective to a frequent error by pointing out that we are told at the end that the characters return toœ Abissinia,œ not to the Happy Valley, and that the first chapter says that those who leave the Valley are never allowed to return. Thus, "The work ends in almost complete frustration. The travelers are now in the condition in which Imlac had formerly found himself before he achieved the Happy Valley [see Ch. XII], now closed to him and his companions." Most, but not all, subsequent critics pick up on. O 'Flaherty, Patrick. "Dr. Johnson as Equivocator: The Meaning of ”Rasselas•." ”Modern Language Quarterly• 31 (1970): 195İ208. Positions himself by saying that contemporary readings of ”R• are wrong and that he will offer "a severally modified" version of Boswell's judgment that the purpose of ”R• is "'by shewing the unsatisfactory nature of things temporal, to direct the hopes of man to things eternal.'" Depicts J in ”R• as seeing life to be essentially insignificant, yet clinging to religion anyway, so that ”R• becomes "a kind of catharsis: a purgation of sorrow in absurd comedy, and of doubt in a grimly deterministic philosophy of life which is revealed, on close analysis, as equivocation." A dark and narrow reading. Cullum, Graham. "Dr. Johnson and Human Wishing." ”Neophilologus• 67.2 (1983): 305İ19. Sees ”R• as pitting dogmatic notions against the real world to show that "experience, as it comes, is disjointed from the hopes and desires which have been projected onto it." Says ”R• is different from "Vanity of Human Wishes" because it contains "an intelligent vision of those imaginative impulses which are delusive yet essential to life" whereas "Vanity" "formally abhors the folly of wishing at all." Points out that the characters' final choices in ”R• are just revamped versions of the earlier visionary schemes they renounced in the wake of Imlac's talk on madness, but at the end they acknowledge "both the inevitability and the impossibility of their choices." A sensible study. Damrosch, Leopold, Jr. "Johnson's ”Rasselas•: Limits of Wisdom, Limits of Art." ”Augustan Studies: Essays in Honor of Irvin Ehrenpreis•. Ed. Douglas Lane Patey and Timothy Keegan. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1985. 205İ14. Tries to show that "the wisdom of ”Rasselas• is introspective and selfİdefeating, and to propose that the work represents a turning point in Johnson's thought, a farewell to his own dream that wisdom can be taught either by didactic essays or by instructive fictions." The message of the piece then is not some piece of sententia, "but a recognition of the radical disjunction between fiction and truth, time and eternity." An interesting but tenuous thesis. *Of course, almost all studies touch on this area to some extent. See especially General Criticism and the category below, as well as Potkay under Dialogics. Johnson's Ambivalence as Seen in ”Rasselas• Potkay, Adam. "Johnson and the Terms of Succession." ”SEL• 26.3 (1986): 497İ509. Explores J's "richly contradictory use of the word 'succession'" in ”Rambler•, the preface to the ”Dictionary•, and ”R•. Argues that J uses the word "succession" to "yoke together a practically Humean sense of disconnectedness with a contradictory sense of generative continuity." However, Potkay's own study seems yoked together. Unconvincingly claims that Rasselas' end wish represents J giving in to his "generative, paternal sense of succession" by dissolving the distinction between himself and his father, and that this sense of the word tends to finally win out in J's writings. Finch, G. J. "Reason, Imagination and Will in 'Rasselas' and 'The Vanity of Human Wishes.'" ”English• 38.162 (1989): 195İ209. First, explores the limitations of reason as seen in ”R•. Then, argues that imagination is depicted as good because it "is akin to hope, one of the three great virtues for a Christian," but also as potentially dangerous when perverted. Finally, sees J as having "a deeply conflicting attitude towards the human will." Fails to arrive at any useful conclusion. Lynn, Steven. "Locke's Eye, Adam's Tongue, Johnson's Word: Language, Marriage, and 'The Choice of Life.'" ”The Age of Johnson• 3 (1990): 35İ61. A rambling article that eventually arrives at the vague conclusion that Johnson displays "double thinking" by having the characters in ”R• at the end dream and hope at the same time that they recognize the vanity of human wishes, and that this type of double thinking also characterizes Johnson's visions of language and marriage. *See also Potkay, "The Spirit of Ending in Johnson and Hume," under Dialogics; and O'Flaherty under Interpretations of the Ending and Overall Point. "Johnson's Idea of ________ as Seen in ” Rasselas•" Weinbrot, Howard. "The Reader, the General and the Particular." ”EighteenthİCentury Studies• 5 (1971): 80İ96. Points out that Imlac's poetic views given in Ch. 10 are not all J's: some are, some overlap but J would not wholly share, and some J would outright disagree with. Concentrates on one view that J would shareİİthat the poet's job "'is to examine not the individual, but the species; to remark general properties, and large appearances'"İİand argues that it has been misinterpreted. Claims that J really meant that by describing traits at the level of generality of the species (not genus or individual), the writer will do the most to help the reader recall the original and become involved in "the creative process." Brings in a huge array of Eighteenthİcentury texts, Johnsonian and other, spending very little time on ”R• itself. Walker, Robert G. ”EighteenthİCentury Arguments for Immortality and Johnson's Rasselas•. ELS Monograph Series 9. Victoria, B.C.: English Literary Studies, 1977. After examining the 18thİC. arguments for immortality, emerges with four ways of interpreting ”R•: the first explores the similarities between R's situation in the Valley and those arguments; the second looks at the connections between J's treatment of "the choice of life" and its use in the argument from desire for immortality; the third examines the way evil is dealt with as a moral argument; and the fourth is devoted to the final third of the tale and memento mori, reminders of mortality and death. Useful only for this particular topic. Hansen, Marlene R. "Sex and Love, Marriage and Friendship: A Feminist Reading of the Quest for Happiness in ”Rasselas•." ”English Studies• 66.6 (1985): 513İ25. The only feminist study. Argues that ”R• shows happiness as coming from friendship, defined as "equal and affectionate relationships, which may break down the barriers of social, generational and gender differences." Friendship, as exemplified by the group as a whole, but especially by Pekuah and Nekayah, is the only unambiguous good. Says sexuality is not relevant to happiness, and marriage is the highest form of friendship. Claims that J departs further from stereotypical and patriarchal images of women than any other major Eighteenthİcentury author. Spends the final section showing J's positive attitude toward and interaction with women in general in his life. Hansen's method is actually very eclectic, though she chooses to call it feminist because it emphasizes the female characters. Bold and clearly argued. Stock, R. D. "Johnson Ecclesiates." ”Christianity and Literature• 34.4 (1985): 15İ24. Writes to correct the view of J's religion as troubled belief for which he constantly wrestled, a view he believes has been carried too far in the criticism. Says a major theme of both ”Ecclesiastes• and ”R• is that it is central to human happiness "to dream and plan and work" regardless of the outcome, but when these actions take place without belief in God, the world becomes absurd. So "J admonishes us against idolatry, the pursuit of contentment in external conditions." Discusses Boethius' ”Consolation of Philosophy• and Pascal's ”Pensees• as working in the same tradition. Comes out almost like a personal defense of J's religion, at the same time that it is rather mundane. Gross, Gloria Sybil. "Dr. Johnson's Practice: The Medical Contest for ”Rasselas•." ”Studies in EighteenthİCentury Culture• 14 (1985): 275İ88. An interesting overview of 18thİC. attitudes toward madness and J's interest in and contributions to psychology, but spends only about five pages actually talking about ”R•. Tells about a hot debate the year before ”R• was published between two doctors, one who (Monro) considered madness to result from "'vitiated judgment'" and advocated "violent therapies," and another (Battie) who was more progressive and saw madness as "'deluded imagination'" which should be treated with humane methods. Shows how J in ”R• takes Battie's side in his sympathetic treatment of Rasselas' narcissism, Nekayah's neurotic depression, and the astronomer's paranoid schizophrenia. Parke, Catherine N. "”Rasselas• and the Conversation of History." ”The Age of Johnson• 1 (1987): 79İ109. Sees the travelers' journey as a way for them to exercise the mind's "natural fascination with history and to find for this fascination a full and accurate expression." History thus becomes an antidote for boredom. A wideİranging article with acute analysis of the text. Parke, Catherine N. "Johnson, Imlac, and Biographical Thinking." ”Domestick Privacies: Samuel Johnson and the Art of Biography•. Ed. David Wheeler. Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 1987. 85İ106. Argues that "In ”Rasselas• Johnson dramatizes a model of biographical thinking in education whose aim and method are to maintain an ongoing conversation about one's own and other people's lives." The result is an interaction among "past, present, and future that produces in the present moment ideal conversation" that is of value in itself and as a symbol "of the community of love and esteem" that is for J the basis of our thinking. Sees J as trying to fulfill his literary ideal of "pleasing captivity" by a series of repetitive, yet not boring, stories. Also deals significantly with ”Lives of the Poets•. Makes sense and is wellİwritten. Hewitt, Regina. "Time in ”Rasselas•: Johnson's Use of Locke's Concept." ”Studies in EighteenthİCentury Culture• 19 (1989): 267İ76. Points out that the references to time in ”R• are consistent with Locke's idea of perceived time between succeeding ideas as opposed to actual measured time, and then makes a rather large jump to claim that this demonstrates Johnson's view that philosophy should be functional rather than idealistic. Wiltshire, John. ”Samuel Johnson in the Medical World: The Doctor and the Patient•. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991. Devotes a chapter to the astronomer in ”R•. Similar to Gross' article in treatment of Battie/Monro debate and general 18thİC. attitudes toward mental illness, though more widely reaching. Says that what is impressive about J's depiction of the astronomer is that J was able "to conceive of the study of the insane man as a narrative of his insanity, and to depict İİ as part of the madman's condition İİ the story he tells himself about its genesis, and the story of his interaction with others." Comments that the tale probably had more influence on developing ideas about mental illness than the scientific literature of the time. Very thorough. Scherwatzky, Steven. "Johnson, ”Rasselas•, and the Politics of Empire." ”EighteenthİCentury Life• 16.3 (1992): 103İ13. Sees "”R• as a response both to the Seven Years' War and, more generally, to the ideology of colonial expansion that prevailed in William Pitt's England." Demonstrates from ”Literary Magazine• that J was against empire and for isolationism, and argues that ”R• also shows J's "skepticism toward the promise of happiness in farİoff lands." Gathers evidence from historical context, ”R• itself, and the rest of J's canon to make a solid, convincing argument. Dialectic Tomarken, Edward. ÚڔJohnson, Rasselas, and the Choice of Criticism. •ÚÚLexington: UP of Kentucky, 1989. Tomarken first surveys all prior criticism of ”Rasselas•, distilling it for us in his first chapter, which attempts to show that all prior critical approaches have failed to come fully to terms with the text because they "have been either predominantly mimetic or formalistic." He proposes his own new approach which can incorporate "both kinds of assumptions" through a dialectical approach. He then goes back to earlier works in the Johnsonian canon to explore the process by which Johnson arrived at this "dialectic of perspectives." A challenging book, worth the effort. Tomarken, Edward. "Perspectivism: The Methodological Implications of 'The History of Imlac' in ”Rasselas•." ”The Age of Johnson• 2 (1989): 262İ90. Published the same year as his book ”Johnson, Rasselas, and the Choice • ”of Criticism•, this article is another version of its third chapter. Argues that Imlac's "history" offers a method for understanding the choice of life quest because it implies a relationship between the hermeneutic and structural approaches. Suggests that what the characters learn at the end is that deliberation and action are intertwined and should never be separated, just as critics should recognize the blurred border between language and action. The implications can be fully appreciated only by reading Tomarken's book. Dialogics Hudson, Nicholas. "'Open' and 'Enclosed' Readings of ”Rasselas•." ”The Eighteenth Century• 31.1 (1990): 47İ67. A readerİresponse and dialogic approach. Studies the antithesis in the work between open and enclosed places and readings, both by the characters and by the readers of the tale. Calls emotionallyİdistanced reactions "enclosed" and sympathetic reactions "open." Shows that the general movement is towards "openness" for the characters as they react to the stories they hear, and also for J's readers as the characters become more like them. However, within individual episodes J "builds fragmented and conflicting responses, forcing the reader to judge the characters from two perspectives at once." Argues that J uses this strategy because he realizes he cannot control individual reader responses, but instead can arrange "the diversities of human nature into a more manageable and predictable form." An important reading, pulling in much modern theory. Potkay, Adam. "The Spirit of Ending in Johnson and Hume." ”EighteenthİCentury Life• 16.3 (1992): 153İ66. Criticizes scholars such as Boswell and Kolb for accepting Imlac's speech on the immortality of the soul without considering the undermining openİendedness of the conclusion, where the choices of life are worldly; on the other hand, criticizes the secular readings which ignore Imlac's apparently penultimate discourse on the soul. Argues that both kinds of readings are wrong because they miss the text's dialogic nature, which entertains a vision of contraries, allowing readers to choose the ending they prefer. Likens ”R• to Hume's "Of the Immortality of the Soul" in that both "refus[e] to end with any air of authority." Of some value for pointing out the previous critics' oneİsidedness, but then the rest of the argument is rather obvious. Seems to have picked up on Tomarken's dialogic interpretation, but has not used it particularly profitably. Œ