I think that in many ways, Joseph Addison was a modern man, as several of his ideas and musings put out hold true today. The first to strike me is his essay The Royal Exchange, which describes a budding global market that he describes as 'a kind of additional empire'. Today, past the colonial era and the dissolution of the European empires after the second World War, the empires that now stand are multinational corporate ones.
In On the Essay Form he says that the those who write their works in a volume have the advantage of being able to get away with being dull, saying that even 'the most severe reader makes allowances for many rests and nodding-places'. Addison compares this to the essay, which must delve right into the matter and be immediately interesting, or fail to inspire anyone to read on. He seems to admonish the essay's primary use as a vehicle for 'news-writers' and 'zealots of parties' – that is to say propagandists – when it would be better used to instruct men in 'wisdom' and 'virtue'. He also seems certain that had the ancient philosophers had the printing press and essay available to them, they would have put it to much better use than its current use today. I personally find this to be a somewhat ignorant assumption, as he appears to assume that the more popular 'news-writers' and 'zealots' of today would not have been as prolific in ancient Greece.
I also think he comes across as a bit pompous in this article when he says that there is 'a kind of heaviness and ignorance that hangs upon the minds of ordinary men, which is too thick for knowledge to break through', but perhaps I'm misinterpreting him, as he ends the article with a promise to make an example of 'such voluntary moles'. The word voluntary suggests that he is not condemning ignorance but wilful ignorance, which in my opinion validates his criticism towards these people who actively refuse to be less ignorant. Related to the art of the essay, in another of his articles he says:
“A Writer who makes fame the chief end of his endeavours, and would be more desirous of pleasing than of improving his readers, might find an inexhaustible fund of mirth in politics. Scandal and satire are never-failing gratifications to the public. Detraction and obloquy are received with as much eagerness as wit and humour. Should a writer single out particular persons, or point his rallery at any order of men, who by their profession ought to be exempt from it; should he slander the innocent, or satirize the miserable; or should he, even on the proper subjects of derision, give the full play to his mirth, without regard to decency and good-manners; he might be sure of pleasing a great part of his readers, but must be a very ill man, if by such a proceeding he could please himself.”
It's an interesting point he makes. Written three hundred years ago, it unfortunately still holds true today, perfectly describing the tabloids. Channel 4's Dispatches brought to light the phone hacking that had been carried out by News of the World to net private information regarding celebrities and public figures.
In his essay “Laughter”, Addison acknowledges that laughter is naturally 'amiable and beautiful' but has a low opinion of how it is inspired in writing, that is 'ridicule'. He says:
“If the talent of ridicule were employed to laugh men out of vice and folly, it might be of some use to the world; but instead of this, we find that it is generally made use of to laugh men out of virtue and good sense, by attacking every thing that is solemn and serious, decent and praiseworthy in human life.”
Perhaps it was true in Addison's time that ridicule was directed at undeserving men, but I think this particular insight is behind us today. The UK is rich with comedians, the majority of whom ridicule not the man of 'virtue and good sense' but the men, culture and institutions of 'vice and folly'. Maybe we should be worried that it's often the comedians who are the most sensible public figures.
No comments:
Post a Comment