The Life of Samuel Johnson, vol 1 | Page 7

Concordance the general reader, moreover, may find much to delight
him. Johnson's trade was wit and wisdom[35], and some of his best
wares are here set out in a small space. It was, I must confess, with no
little pleasure that in revising my proof-sheets I found that the last line
in my Concordance and the last line in my six long volumes is
Johnson's quotation of Goldsmith's fine saying; 'I do not love a man
who is zealous for nothing.'
In the 'forward' references in the notes to other passages in the book,
the reader may be surprised at finding that while often I only give the
date under which the reference will be found, frequently I am able to
quote the page and volume. The explanation is a simple one: two sets
of compositors were generally at work, and two volumes were passing
through the press simultaneously.
In the selection of the text which I should adopt I hesitated for some
time. In ordinary cases the edition which received the author's final
revision is the one which all future editors should follow. The second
edition, which was the last that was brought out in Boswell's life-time,

could not, I became convinced, be conveniently reproduced. As it was
passing through the press he obtained many additional anecdotes and
letters. These he somewhat awkwardly inserted in an Introduction and
an Appendix. He was engaged on his third edition when he died. 'He
had pointed out where some of these materials should be inserted,' and
'in the margin of the copy which he had in part revised he had written
notes[36].' His interrupted labours were completed by Edmond Malone,
to whom he had read aloud almost the whole of his original manuscript,
and who had helped him in the revision of the first half of the book
when it was in type[37]. 'These notes,' says Malone, 'are faithfully
preserved.' He adds that 'every new remark, not written by the author,
for the sake of distinction has been enclosed within crotchets[38].' In
the third edition therefore we have the work in the condition in which it
would have most approved itself to Boswell's own judgment. In one
point only, and that a trifling one, had Malone to exercise his judgment.
But so skilful an editor was very unlikely to go wrong in those few
cases in which he was called upon to insert in their proper places the
additional material which the author had already published in his
second edition. Malone did not, however, correct the proof-sheets. I
thought it my duty, therefore, in revising my work to have the text of
Boswell's second edition read aloud to me throughout. Some
typographical errors might, I feared, have crept in. In a few
unimportant cases early in the book I adopted the reading of the second
edition, but as I read on I became convinced that almost all the verbal
alterations were Boswell's own. Slight errors, often of the nature of
Scotticisms, had been corrected, and greater accuracy often given.
Some of the corrections and additions in the third edition that were
undoubtedly from his hand were of considerable importance.
I have retained Boswell's spelling in accordance with the wish that he
expressed in the preface to his Account of Corsica. 'If this work,' he
writes, 'should at any future period be reprinted, I hope that care will be
taken of my orthography[39].' The punctuation too has been preserved.
I should be wanting in justice were I not to acknowledge that I owe
much to the labours of Mr. Croker. No one can know better than I do
his great failings as an editor. His remarks and criticisms far too often

deserve the contempt that Macaulay so liberally poured on them.
Without being deeply versed in books, he was shallow in himself.
Johnson's strong character was never known to him. Its breadth and
length, and depth and height were far beyond his measure. With his
writings even he shows few signs of being familiar. Boswell's genius, a
genius which even to Lord Macaulay was foolishness, was altogether
hidden from his dull eye. No one surely but a 'blockhead,' a 'barren
rascal[40],' could with scissors and paste-pot have mangled the
biography which of all others is the delight and the boast of the
English-speaking world. He is careless in small matters, and his
blunders are numerous. These I have only noticed in the more
important cases, remembering what Johnson somewhere points out,
that the triumphs of one critic over another only fatigue and disgust the
reader. Yet he has added considerably to our knowledge of Johnson. He
knew men who had intimately known both the hero and his biographer,
and he gathered much that but for his care would have been lost for
ever. He was