Since Boswell's papers were discovered in Malahide Castle and other places in the second quarter of this century, greater interest has been revived in Boswell as a man and as a writer. The popular edition of his London Journal, 1762-1763 edited by Frederick A. Pottle, Yale University, was first published in 1950, followed by Boswell in Holland, 1763-1764 (1951), Portraits by Sir Joshua Reynolds (1952), and Boswell on the Grand Tour; Germany and Switzerland; 1764 (1953). Here, in this essay, the writer dwells mostly on Boswell as seen in his London Journal. He views Boswell from two points ; the one is the Boswell drawn there by himself, that is, Boswell as a man, and the other is the Boswell drawing himself, that is, Boswell as a writer. Boswell as a man is indeed "a coxcomb, and a bore, weak, vain, pushing, curious, garrulous," as bitterly condemned by Macauley, but at the same time he is always trying, though mostly in vain, to make himself a better and more solid man. He is like Hamlet, suffering from contradictory elements in his character. Viewing him as such, we cannot help feeling that Boswell is another, though a little exaggerated, figure of ourselves. Then the interest in Boswell as a writer. Why did he expose himself in a manner so cruelly objective? His main object of writing his Journal was, as is stated in his Introduction, to improve his character by showing to himself what he really is. But he appears to have forgotten that moral object as he writes on. Well then, did he intend to make his Journal a literary work to be published later? No. Otherwise he would not have omitted the important topic of Peggy Doig, the mother of his little boy, which he must know would make the Journal more interesting to the general reader. The final answer to the above question, then, would be that he had an instinctive desire to write down whatever experiences he had had, and that he felt great interest in drawing them as objectively as possible. What well proves that natural inclination of his is "Dialogues at Child's" inserted here and there in his Journal. The next question is why his Life of Johnson still remains one of the few best biographies in the world. In the Life the reader's interest turns wholly to Johnson as a great moralist and excellent conversationist. Naturally in this work Boswell hides himself behind Johnson, but we must not forget that Johnson's witty, amusing conversations were copied by none but Boswell, and that he is always playing a skilful planner and producer, who contrives to put Johnson in the most varied possible situations and make him act and express his opinions accordingly. So far as the Life is concerned, therefore, we cannot think of Johnson without appreciating Boswell's unique ability as a biographer. If we want to know Johnson-without-Boswell, we must attend Professor Johnson's class, where he gives us interesting and instructive lectures on the Lives of the English Poets. But now, in this essay, we have to quit here, hoping to get another chance to attend his class.

View full abstract

"The Turn of the Screw" is a "ghost story," and has something enigmatic about it. Many critics have taken it up and tried to explain what the "ghosts" of this story really were. Their conclusions of them have been quite various, and some of them definitely opposite to each other. The first critic who paid serious attention to this story was the author himself, as was the case with most of his works. In a letter to H. G. Wells, James wrote that it was "essentially a pot-boiler and a jeu-d'esprit." This was a rather discouraging remark to his critics, and his" Preface "written for the New York edition proved to be no more than an elaboration upon his remark, though it was a detailed discussion of the source and technical problems of the story. "A piece of ingenuity," "an amusette," or "a fairy tale pure and simple" were some of the definitions given by him. Then, why should there be so much concern? "The Turn of the Screw" is a first person narrative, and the whole story, except the introductory chapter, is told from the point of view of the "central intelligence," a young governess. We cannot be positive of the truth of "her story." She does not seem to a completely reliable witness. Edmund Wilson concentrated upon her "character," and interpreted the whole story from the Freudian point of view. He concluded that the young heroine was "a neurotic case of sex repression," and the "ghosts" were nothing but her "hallucinations." This seemed a sound analysis and won the approval of many critics. For some time it remained the most accepted interpretation of the story. However, could it be that Wilson paid too much attention to her "character" and too little to the story itself? Wasn't this theory just a clever psychological study of a certain "case-history"? Robert Heilman seems to ask such questions. He insists upon the necessity of close texual reading and verbal analysis. What matters for him is, first of all, the verbal pattern, or the language of the story. He finds that some of the recurrent images have a religious implication, and the whole story is directed toward a religious meaning. The "ghosts" are demons, or devils who try to tempt innocent but corruptible children, and the governess is "an expatiatory victim" and saviour. The setting is the Garden of Eden, and the whole story is a modern version of the Fall of Man, an essentially Christian theme, he concludes. Why such a difference in the interpretation of this one story? It is not merely a matter of different "literary tastes" on the part of the critics. What is involved is their fundamental attitude toward the method of literary criticism used. And, at the same time, we may discern in this the changes in the general trend of evaluating all of James's works. Heilman seems to be the more careful reader of the story. But I do not quite agree with his interpretation, because I doubt if James had such a definite standard of moral judgement for the heroine. Heilman tends to ignore the fundamental "ambiguity" of the "central intelligence," so characteristic of James in this period. It seems to me James wanted to remain morally neutral, and that this story represents "an excursion into chaos." This interpretation can be upheld by comparing "The Turn of the Screw" with other stories of this period, and consulting the biographical background of the author at this time.

View full abstract

It is generally supposed that Ulysses is the incarnation of Stephen's theory of "static beauty," and that his esthetic theory owes for the most part to Thomas Aquinas' esthetics, as Stephen himself approves it. The perusal of Portrait reveals, however, an unexpected fact that his esthetics was rooted into his own experience-a kind of ecstacy he was thrown into from time to time. The "static beauty" was nothing but the image of beauty he conceived in this holy silence of rapture. In such mysterious instant he escaped from time and space and elevated to a higher dimension where he bathed in a new life of all with a glee of fullness. It was a feeling of possession du monde, at the same time, of the bliss of being made one with God. In order to induce this rapture he fostered the habit of contemplation, as was the case with Proust. In Stephen Hero, Stephen mentions the sudden spiritual manifestation caused by contemplation, which he calls epiphany. This corresponds to the radiance, the supreme quality of beauty in Stephen's esthetics. Stephen believes that it is for the man of letters to record these epiphanies with extreme care, as they are the most delicate and evanescent of moments. Ulysses is an attempt to eternalize such momental experience. As it was an experience of possession du tnonde, at once, of communion with something divine, obtained through a trivial object, he must pack eternity and all into a short and narrow space and time (space-Dublin Time-one day). This bold attempt was enabled by the double structure of time in monologue interieur. By this new technique he imbued cunningly eternity and all into his grain, pretending to follow faithfully his hero's stream of consciousness. Here we find the intrinsic resemblance with Proust who also tried to fix such instance of ecstacy. But Proust wrote it from inside of "Je", while Joyce tried to build it up into an objective frame work. This striking difference was caused by their mode of existence. Though we cannot tell whether he was conscious or not, Ulysses is an alibi of God. In this manner the theme of Ulysses mirrors the tragedy of Joyce himself.

View full abstract

I This essay is only an attempt to explain how perfect infinitives have come into existence. Before we proceed to begin it, it is necessary to know when the form of the perfect infinitive began to appear. While C. F. Koch supposes that the perfect infinitive "mag schon im Ags. vorkommen," other grammarians, such as Matzner, Jespersen, Franz, Bogholm assert that it appeared in ME.; for instance, Franz states "Die Konstruktion tauscht schon im 13. Jahrhundert auf," and Bogholm, "The OE. inf. had no preterite form." In OE. period, simple tense forms or infinitives were used where perfect infinitives are required in Mod E. (e.g. gif pet fulle maegen pare waere. ne eodan hi naefre eft to scipon. [Sax. Chron., 1004]/for oaemde he Oa ne worhte, oa oe he oa wyrcan sceolde. [Alfred, Pastoral Care, p. 445]),but in the 13th century English some perfect infinitives are found (e.g. Ich mihte habben bet idon. [Poema Morale]/pus wolde eue i nouhreade habben i-onswered. [Ancrene Riwle; p. 23]). Then it would be more advisable to accept the theory of ME.-origin. Then there comes the problem: how the perfect infinitive has come into existence. Franz explains: "Den Ausgangspunkt fur dieselbe kann ein Satz wie me. he hadde iwriten 'er hatte geschrieben' bilden, indem dieser durch die neuere, den veraltenden Konjunktiv hadde umschreibende Form he would have written ersetzt wurde. Leztere Satztyp, der ubrigens auch fur sich als Ausgangspunkt augesehen werden kann, ist aber zweideutig, er heisst nicht nur 'er hatte geschrieben,' sondern auch 'er wunschte geschrieben zu haben,' sobald would als Begriffsverb (Konj. Prat.) gefasst wird and dadurch have in engere Verbindung mit Partizip tritt and so den Infmitiv des Perfekts bildet." This theory of Franz's serves well as a logical or psychological explanation of the construction, but not as a historical one. If this is a historical explanation, the former expression of this formula: hadde iwriten → would have written, must be a common one in the preceding period to the period of the latter expression, i.e. in OE. period, since the perfect infinitive in early ME. (the 13th century). This was not the case in OE., where subjunctive preterite was used instead of subjunctive past perfect. And besides this, we have such expressions as "Ich mihte habben bet idon [Poema Morale]," "his deciples, pe schulden stonden and habben ibeon his siden" (Ancrene Wisse. q. Mosse). Here the periphrases (by means of the aux.) would probably have been adopted from the start, and then possibly the use of the perfect infinitive ought to be attributed not to the "Zweideutigkeit" of the auxiliaries, but to some other difference in their meanings. But before the shifting is carried out, it is necessary for the perfect (tense) form to have been more or less established. At any rate, this analytical examination of Franz's theory would lead us not only to doubt its validity, but also to assume that the perfect infinitive was brought about through extension in the use of perfect tense forms; which idea is practically the same as that of Koch's position: "Er (i.e. Inf. der Perfects) kann erst nach Bildung des Perfects entstanden sein. However, to make the matter clearer, it would be necessary and advisable to examine the meanings of the perfect tense forms in OE. (the period preceding the appearance of perfect infinitives), and then their relation to the meanings of perfect infinitives. Perfect tense forms in OE., not fully established but more or less developed under the influence of popular Latin, are found to mean: (a) Completed action, e.g. Ic haebbe be nu todaeg gesetne ofer rice ... (Alfred, Pastoral Care); (b)=Preterite, e.g. be we on bissum carcerne betyned haebbap. (Blickl. Hom. 245); (c) Pluperfect [Anterior Past], e.g. oa oa he hi geunrotsod haefde.

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

View full abstract