13825570500068109

7/17/2019 13825570500068109

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/13825570500068109 1/16

This article was downloaded by: [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC]On: 23 January 2015, At: 10:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of English StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/neje20

‘Sam of Streatham Park’Anni Sairio

Published online: 16 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Anni Sairio (2005) ‘Sam of Streatham Park’, European Journal of English

Studies, 9:1, 21-35, DOI: 10.1080/13825570500068109

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13825570500068109

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13825570500068109



http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13825570500068109

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13825570500068109

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/neje20

7/17/2019 13825570500068109


Anni Sairio

‘SAM OF STREATHAM PARK’

A linguistic study of Dr. Johnson’smembership in the Thrale family

This paper discusses Samuel Johnson’s membership in the Thrale family circle from the perspective of his language use. The focus of the study is on the degree of linguisticinvolvement that is revealed in Johnson’s personal letters to his correspondents. The

hypothesis is that the more involved the communication situation is, the more such markersas evidential verbs, degree adverbs and first- and second-person singular pronouns areused. The results are compared with Randy C. Bax’s (2000) study on the network strengthscale of the Streathamites. The results suggest that involvement can serve as a relevantindicator of the closeness of the relationship between two people.

Keywords historical sociolinguistics; social network analysis;correspondence; involvement

The Sam of Streatham Park was a different being from the Samuel of Bolt Courtand the taverns of Fleet Street. The latter was a personage who welcomedintellectual stimulation in the company of men who recognised his genius, andwho, on rare occasions, could best him in combat; the former, one content towallow in the capricious sunlight of a woman’s affections.

(Beryl Bainbridge, According to Queeney, 92)

Introduction

For over fifteen years, the celebrated lexicographer and author Samuel Johnson(1709 – 1784) lived in the Thrale household in Streatham Park, occupying anapartment of his own but enjoying the constant company of the family. This paperdiscusses Dr. Johnson’s membership in the Thrale family circle from the perspectiveof his language use, specifically the degree of linguistic involvement revealed inpersonal letters. Johnson’s personal letters serve as a source of material in which thecasual language of past times is well captured. I compare the evidence from the Thralecorrespondence to letters written by Johnson to his stepdaughter Lucy Porter and anold Lichfield friend, Elizabeth Aston.

European Journal of English Studies Vol. 9, No. 1 April 2005, pp. 21 – 35

ISSN 1382-5577 print/ISSN 1744-4243 online ª 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/13825570500068109

7/17/2019 13825570500068109


Personal letters are closer to spoken language than other written types of language are (Biber and Finegan, 1989: 116); and as Palander-Collin (2002: 132) putsit, ‘letters from past centuries provide genuine communication between individualsand show various communicative patterns through which the correspondents

linguistically establish and express their relationships’. Johnson’s letters offer arelatively direct view of his character. For him, correspondence was a necessary formof communication, but he wrote letters only when he had something to say (Daghlian,1968: 109).

I compare these results with Randy C. Bax’s (2000) study on the networkstrength scale of the Streathamites. Social network analysis is based on the notion thatthe patterning of people’s interaction provides important information about the livesof network members. My research suggests that Mrs. Thrale was perhaps not

Johnson’s most significant network contact, as Johnson’s letters to her reveal lessinvolvement than letters to her husband, or, indeed, to either Lucy Porter or to

Elizabeth Aston. In addition, Johnson’s level of linguistic involvement with Mrs.Thrale and Lucy Porter dropped over the years. These linguistic changes may reflectchanges in their relationships, but may also reflect changes in Johnson himself as heaged.

The Thrale family and Lichfield contacts

After Samuel Johnson’s nervous breakdown in 1766, Henry Thrale (1728 – 81),head of a great brewery house, suggested that he quit London and come to live

with the Thrales at Streatham Park in order to recover (Quennell, 1972: 47). Fromthen on Johnson was very much a part of their household. Hester Lynch Thrale(1741 – 1821) took Johnson under her care, and their relationship grew to be veryclose; in 1767 or 1768 Johnson even entrusted her with his secret and humiliatingbelief that he had been insane (Riely, 1984: 64 – 65). Hester Maria Thrale (1764 – 1857), also known as Queeney, was the eldest daughter of the Thrales, a precociousand well-educated young lady of whom Johnson was very fond. Economically, Dr.

Johnson and the Thrale family were unequal, as Johnson was more or lessdependent on their goodwill in having him as a semi-permanent house guest. Froma social point of view, however, the Thrales benefited from being associated with

the celebrated eccentric (Bax, 2002: 19). Johnson accepted the benefits provided byhis association with the Thrales gratefully: ‘while he loved his hostess, he liked andrespected her husband. . . He admired Thrale’s air of quiet authority’ (Quennell,1972: 70). Daghlian states that Johnson’s letters to Mrs. Thrale show him ‘at hiseasiest and happiest, or as close to happiness as he was capable of getting’(Daghlian, 1968: 121).

Included in this study are two network contacts of Dr. Johnson outside theStreatham circle: Lucy Porter (1715 – 86), Dr. Johnson’s stepdaughter and ElizabethAston (1708 – 85) of Stowe Hill, Lichfield, whom Johnson, originally from Lichfield,had known for a long time. Lucy Porter had been the only one of the Porter

children who had not opposed their mother’s marriage to the much younger Johnsonin 1735 (Daghlian, 1968: 114). There is not much information available on ElizabethAston, but she was most probably related to Molly Aston (d. 1762), who had

2 2 E U R O P E A N J O U R N A L O F E N G L I S H S T U D I E S

7/17/2019 13825570500068109


been ‘a star of the Lichfield beau monde’ and a beauty Johnson could apparentlynever quite forget (Quennell, 1972: 142). I include Porter and Aston in order to beable to contrast Johnson’s involvement with people inside and outside the Streathamcircle.

Samuel Johnson’s long association with the Thrales eventually came to an end in1784, when Mrs. Thrale took as her second husband Queeney’s Italian music teacherMr. Gabriel Piozzi against the strong objections of her family and friends. This causedDr. Johnson and Mrs. Thrale to fall out, never to be reconciled.

Social network analysis of eighteenth-century society

Randy C. Bax (2000) has constructed a method for measuring network strength,based on Lesley Milroy’s model (1987: 139 – 43) but adapted to the context of

eighteenth-century English society. Bax’s (2000) Network Strength Scale (NSS)combines a functional component, which relates to network patterns, and anemotional component, which relates to attitudinal factors. The functionalcomponent comprises seven types of relationships or conditions, ranging from a)family ties, b) living in the same household, c) having a professional relationship, d)interacting as members of the same formal club and e) living in the same place andknowing each other to f) voluntary leisure time spent together inside or g) outsidethe group in question (Bax, 2000: 282). ‘Long-term confidential relationship’ couldbe a useful addition to this list of conditions. Based on how network contact Aviews network contact B, points are assigned to B for the emotional component as

follows: close friend 3 points, friend 2 points, acquaintance whom A likes 1 point,acquaintance whom A dislikes – 1 point, and enemy – 2 points. However, theclassification of emotional relationships is complicated, because they are subjectiveand bound to vary and change over the course of time; permanent classificationscannot be made. Absolute categorisation from friend to enemy facilitates theclassification of relationships, but perhaps a continuum from immediacy to distancewould better represent reality.

Bax (2000) calculated the interrelationships of four members of the Streathamcircle during the winter of 1779, these being Mrs. Hester Lynch Thrale, the hostess of Streatham Park; Dr. Samuel Johnson; the famous actor David Garrick; and the

novelist Fanny Burney. He assigned points to each individual according to theirfunctional and emotional relationships with each other, based on information found incontemporary letters, diaries and other records. Bax’s results point to Dr. Johnson asbeing the central network contact. According to his calculations, Johnson has thelargest number of functional, emotional and multiplex relationships with the othernetwork members. He was especially connected to Mrs. Thrale, and vice versa.Another study of Bax’s shows that Johnson and Mrs. Thrale accommodated theirlanguage use to each other’s linguistic tendencies, Johnson more so than Thrale.Thrale adopted Johnson’s device of using literary allusions in her letters. Johnson’sand Thrale’s uses of monosyllables were seen to follow each other in certain periods –

Thrale, however, adapting less than Johnson. Johnson’s style was Latinate and heavy,but he accommodated himself to Thrale’s more colloquial style by preferring parataxisover hypotaxis (Bax, 2002).

DR. JOHNSON’S MEMBERSHIP IN THE THRALE FAMILY 2 3

7/17/2019 13825570500068109


For this paper I have approached the question from another angle, studying how Johnson’s membership in the Thrale household in the late 1770s and early 1780s isreflected in his letters. I have used for contrast his letters to his stepdaughter and toMrs. Aston, who were both members of his Lichfield circle. What do the letters

indicate about his relationship with Mrs. Thrale, always reported to be very close?How does that relationship appear when compared to Johnson’s relationships withother people in his life – Lucy Porter, Elizabeth Aston, Mr. Henry Thrale, andQueeney Thrale? Due to a lack of letter material, I am unable to test Bax’s resultsregarding Fanny Burney and David Garrick, but the key characters of Streatham Parkare represented.

Method and material

The method

The framework of this study is historical sociolinguistics, drawing on social networkanalysis. The theme is involvement, which means the way in which people interactwith each other and participate in the communication situation and how personaland committed their participation is. I suggest that the more involved the letters are,the stronger the writer’s attachment to the recipient is. This may not apply in allcontexts, but here I believe it does apply. Letters that aim strongly to persuade orconvince the recipient to side with the writer (in, for example, a political situation)may contain involvement strategies, and in this context, personal attachment is

irrelevant. On the other hand, personal letters from one friend or a relative toanother, written without an agenda other than to display affection and/or tomaintain the relationship, can be assumed to contain involvement strategies in thesense to which I am referring.

Chafe (1985: 116 – 17) distinguishes between three kinds of involvement inconversation. Ego involvement, or self-involvement of the speaker, is most obviouslyseen in the use of first person pronouns. Interpersonal involvement between thespeaker and the hearer is indicated e.g. by the frequent use of second personpronouns. The speaker’s involvement with the subject matter expresses an ongoingpersonal commitment to what is being talked about. These features typically refer to

spoken language, but can also be applied to personal correspondence.In a later study by Chafe and Danielewicz (1987: 107, 111), personal letters were

seen to show the highest amount of ego involvement when compared withconversations, lectures and academic papers (all produced by twentieth-centuryacademics). Chafe and Danielewicz characterise the language of personal letters astaking ‘some advantage of what the deliberateness of writing allows, but which alsomaintains, and in some respects even surpasses, the casualness and involvement of speech’. Previous studies that discuss conversational characteristics in historical datainclude Culpeper and Kyto (2000: 175 – 99), who showed that first and secondperson pronouns contribute significantly to the interactive dimension of the

communicative act.My hypothesis is that the more involved the communication situation is, the more

such markers as evidential verbs, degree adverbs and first and second person singular


7/17/2019 13825570500068109


pronouns will be used (see e.g. Biber and Finegan, 1989; Biber, 2001: 207). Thesample of material was not quite large enough for a good quantity of evidential verbsand degree adverbs to surface, but the overall frequencies were sufficient forcomparison. The frequencies were normalised in order to allow better comparisons of

the occurrence of different word items. The significance of differences betweenfrequencies was also calculated, the level of significance required being 5%.

The letter material

The material is drawn from two collections of Johnson’s letters: Chapman’s 1952edition and Redford’s edition published in 1992 – 94. I have compiled a letter corpusin two parts, which altogether amounts to 30,108 words (see table 1). The main partof the corpus covers the years 1771 – 84. In order to be able to compare my resultswith Bax’s, I have focused this study as closely as possible on 1779; but because of the

shortage of letters to Mr. Thrale during that period, I have had to include letters fromearlier years as well. The other part of the material comprises Dr. Johnson’s letters toMrs. Thrale and Lucy Porter in the years 1767 – 70 and 1766 – 70 respectively. Thepurpose of this smaller corpus is to serve as supplementary material, from whichchanges in the relationships between Dr. Johnson and Mrs. Thrale and between Dr.

Johnson and his stepdaughter could be detected.

Involvement in Dr. Johnson’s letters

When the evidential verbs in Dr. Johnson’s letters are counted (see table 2), it isapparent that only Queeney Thrale differs from the other recipients – Johnson’sletters to her include far fewer evidentials than his letters to the other addressees. Thechi-square test shows that the difference between Queeney and the others is

TABLE 1 The material

Letters by Samuel Johnson 1771 – 1784: 25,646 words

Hester Thrale Henry Thrale Queeney Thrale Lucy Porter Elizabeth Aston

Letters 39 7 16 14 7

Years 1777 – 83 1771, 73, 77, 79, 80 1777 – 83 1775, 77 – 80, 83, 84 1 777, 79

Words 15,008 1,272 4,759 2,937 1,670

Letters by Samuel Johnson 1766 – 1770: 4,462 words

Hester Thrale Lucy Porter

Letters 19 5

Years 1767 – 70 1766 – 70

Words 3,450 1,012


7/17/2019 13825570500068109


significant (p 5 0.01). Age seems to be the most important separating factor betweenQueeney Thrale and the other addressees: she was 13 to 19 years old when Johnsonwrote her these letters, while all the other recipients were well advanced in years.The general variation in Johnson’s use of evidentials is significant (p 5 0.05), but that

is probably because the letters to Queeney differ so radically from the rest. Thehighest frequency occurs in letters to Lucy Porter, though this frequency is onlymarginally higher than that in letters to Mrs. Thrale. Palander-Collin (1999: 182 – 83)has shown that in seventeenth-century correspondence, the evidential first personphrase I think tends to occur more frequently in letters to close family members. Thisproves to be true in this study also: the frequencies of I think are highest in Dr.

Johnson’s letters to his stepdaughter Lucy Porter. His use of I think is illustrated inexamples (1) and (2):

(1) For some time past, and indeed ever since I left Lichfield last year, I have

abated much of my diet, and am, I think, the better for abstinence.(Dr. Johnson to Lucy Porter, 1780)

(2) Poor Lucy’s ilness has left her very deaf, and I think, very inarticulate. I canscarcely make her understand me and she can hardly make me understand her. Sohere are merry doings.

(Dr. Johnson to Mrs. Thrale, 1781)

There is not much variation in the use of intensifying adverbs, and the differencesbetween the frequencies are probably random (see table 3). The highest frequency

occurs in Johnson’s letters to Elizabeth Aston, but the frequencies are more or lesssimilar in all the letters. Examples (3) and (4) illustrate occurrences of very and so, themost commonly used adverbs:

TABLE 2 Dr. Johnson’s use of evidential verbs

to HT to Mr T to QT to LP to EA

think 24.7 (37) 23.6 (3) 4.2 (2) 27.2 (8) 18.0 (3)

know 16.0 (24) 23.6 (3) 6.3 (3) 13.6 (4) 12.0 (2)believe 6.0 (9) 7.9 (1) 6.3 (3) 6.8 (2) 18.0 (3)

suppose 5.3 (8) 0 8.4 (4) 3.4 (1) 0

you know 6.0 (9) 0 0 3.4 (1) 0

find 3.3 (5) 7.9 (1) 0 10.2 (3) 0

(am) sure 1.3 (2) 0 0 0 6.0 (1)

doubt 2.0 (3) 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 64.6 (97) 62.9 (8) 25.2 (12) 64.7 (19) 53.9 (9)

Frequencies normalised to 10,000 and absolute frequencies (in parenthesis).HT = Hester Thrale, Mr T = Henry Thrale, QT = Queeney Thrale, LP = Lucy Porter, EA = Elizabeth

Aston.


7/17/2019 13825570500068109


(3) Mrs. Gastrel and You are very often in my thoughts, though I do not write sooften as might be expected from so much love and so much respect.

(Dr. Johnson to Elizabeth Aston, 1779)

(4) I am very poorly, and have very restless and oppressive nights, but alwayshope for better. Pray for me.

(Dr. Johnson to Lucy Porter, 1778)

By contrast with intensifying adverbs, Johnson’s use of first and second personpronouns varies significantly (p 5 0.001), as can be seen in figure 1. The total use of pronouns is most frequent in Johnson’s letters to Lucy Porter, and the highestfrequency of first person pronouns also occurs in these letters (see examples (5) and(6)).

(5) My dear LoveSince I heard from you, I sent you a little print, and two barrels of Oysters, and Ishall have some little books to send you soon.


(6) Dear MadamMr. Green has informed me that You are much better. I hope I need not tell Youthat I am glad of it. I cannot boast of being much better, my old nocturnalcomplaint still persues me, and my respiration is difficult, though much easierthan when I left You the summer before last.


The variation between pronouns in letters to Porter and letters to all the others is

highly significant (p 5 0.001), whereas the chi-square test shows that, for example,the variation in letters to Mrs. Thrale compared with letters to the others is merelyrandom. Mr. Thrale’s total frequency is higher than Mrs. Thrale’s; but as the word

TABLE 3 Dr. Johnson’s use of adverbs

to HT to Mr T to QT to LP to EA

very 52.0 (78) 47.2 (6) 50.4 (24) 44.3 (13) 68.9 (11)

so 27.3 (41) 23.6 (3) 16.8 (8) 13.6 (4) 24.0 (4)quite 6.7 (10) 7.9 (1) 4.2 (2) 3.4 (1) 0

pretty 0.7 (1) 0 2.1 (1) 10.2 (3) 0

really 1.3 (2) 7.9 (1) 0 0 0

TOTAL 88.0 (132) 86.5 (11) 73.5 (35) 71.5 (21) 89.9 (15)

Frequencies normalised to 10,000 and absolute frequencies (in parenthesis).

HT = Hester Thrale, Mr T = Henry Thrale, QT= Queeney Thrale, LP = Lucy Porter, EA = Elizabeth

Aston.


7/17/2019 13825570500068109


count of letters to Mr. Thrale does not amount to 2,000 words, these results are notas reliable as one could wish. It does seem that Dr. Johnson’s letters to Mr. Thralewere more ego-involved and recipient-involved than his letters to Mrs. Thrale, if welook at the respective frequencies of first and second person pronouns. However, themajority of letters to Mr. Thrale deal with Mr. Thrale’s illnesses and Johnson’s eagerhopes that he should recover his health, as example (7) illustrates. Mr. Thrale hadbeen struck severely by the death of his only living son Harry in 1776; he regarded

‘gluttony and venery’ as his only solace, and the former vice finally ended his life(Quennell, 1972: 73 – 74).

(7) Though I wrote yesterday to my Mistress, I cannot forbear writingimmediately to you, my sincere congratulation upon your recovery from so muchdisorder, and your escape from so much danger. I should have had a very heavypart in the misfortune of losing you, for it is not likely that I should ever find suchanother friend, and proportionate at least to my Fear must be my pleasure.

(Dr. Johnson to Mr. Thrale, 1779)

Example (8) shows that the same topic occurs also in letters to Mrs. Thrale.In these letters the subject matter is nevertheless more varied, as seen in example(9).

FIGURE 1 Personal pronouns in Dr. Johnson’s letters


7/17/2019 13825570500068109


(8) My Master, I hope, hunts, and walks, and courts the Belles, and shakesBrighthelmston. When he comes back frolick, and active, we will make a feast,and drink his health, and have a noble day.


(9) Every body was an enemy to that Wig. – We will burn it, and get drunk, forwhat is joy without drink. Wagers are laid in the city about our success, which isyet as the French call it, problematical. Well, but seriously I think I shall be gladto see you in your own hair, but do not take too much time in combing, andtwisting, and papering, and unpapering, and curling, and frizzing, and powdering,and getting out the powder, with all the other operations required in thecultivation of a head of hair.


In order to draw reliable conclusions, we would need more material addressed toMr. Thrale. Letters to Elizabeth Aston contain the highest frequency of second personpronouns, as example (10) illustrates. However, here, too, the word count is too lowfor more than tentative conclusions to be made.

(10) My next hope is that you will endeavour to grow well where you are. Icannot help thinking that I saw a visible amendment between the time when I leftyou to go to Ashbourne, and the time when I came back. I hope you will go onmending and mending, to which exercise and cheerfulness will very muchcontribute. Take care therefore, dearest Madam, to be busy and cheerful.

(Dr. Johnson to Elizabeth Aston, 1777)

The letters to Queeney Thrale contain the smallest number of personal pronouns. Johnson’s letters to her are very affectionate but quite advisory, and I would haveexpected a higher frequency of (at least) second person pronouns. It is neverthelessthe first person pronouns that are significantly lower in frequency compared with theletters to other recipients (p 5 0.001). The age difference is the most likely reasonwhy Dr. Johnson would not write as much about himself to Queeney as to the others

– regardless of the amount of affection, an adult most likely chooses not to write to achild about personal issues, such as ill health, which is otherwise often discussed in

Johnson’s letters to his adult correspondents. Note Johnson’s use of first person pluralpronouns to demonstrate the connection between the recipient and himself inexamples (11) – (13).1

(11) You said nothing of Lucy, I suppose she is grown a pretty good scholar, and avery good playfellow; after dinner we shall have good sport playing all together,and we will none of us cry.

(Dr. Johnson to Queeney Thrale, 1772)

(12) I hope you go often to see dear Grandmamma. We must all do what we can

to help her and please her, and take great care now she is so bad, not to make herworse.



7/17/2019 13825570500068109


(13) It is well for me that a Lady so celebrated as Miss Thrale can find time towrite to me. I will recompense your condescension with a maxim. Never treatold friends with neglect however easily you may find new. There is a tendernesswhich seems the meer growth of time, but which is in [\fact\] the effect [\of\]

many combinations; those with whom we have shared enjoyments, we rememberwith pleasure, those with whom we have shared sorrow, we remember withtenderness.


I compared the total frequencies of personal pronouns in letters to all the otherrecipients and to Queeney Thrale, and found the variation to be highly significant (p5 0.001). I also compared the frequencies of personal pronouns in letters to Mrs.Thrale and to her daughter, and came to the same result (p 5 0.001). Despite Dr.

Johnson’s fondness for young Queeney, the level of involvement in his letters to her is

much lower. Also, Johnson’s letters to Mrs. Thrale do not seem to be as involved asare the letters to her husband and the letters to Elizabeth Aston. The relationshipbetween Dr. Johnson and Mr. Thrale has perhaps been of less interest to historiansthan the good doctor’s friendship with Mrs. Thrale; these results suggest that

Johnson’s relationship with the couple may have been less tilted toward the fairer sexthan is often assumed.

When all the frequencies of evidential verbs, degree adverbs and first and secondperson pronouns were added together and the figures normalised, the total levels of involvement surfaced (see figure 2). The most involved letters were written to LucyPorter, but Porter’s, Elizabeth Aston’s and Mr Thrale’s frequencies were basically the

same. Mrs. Thrale’s involvement frequency was not far behind, while QueeneyThrale’s was the lowest. The variation between the levels of involvement in letters to

FIGURE 2 Total involvement in Dr. Johnson’s letters


7/17/2019 13825570500068109


Lucy Porter and to Mrs. Thrale was highly significant (p 5 0.001); the variationbetween letters to Mrs. Thrale and to Mr. Thrale moderately so (p 5 0.025). Thevariation in level of involvement on the whole was highly significant (p 5 0.001),probably because of Queeney.

I also compared Samuel Johnson’s letters to Mrs. Thrale and to Lucy Porter intwo distinct periods of time (see table 4). The results show a tendency for the level of involvement to fall as the years pass. Johnson’s use of evidential verbs is less frequentin the latter period in letters to both recipients, but the differences are not significant.In letters to Mrs. Thrale, Johnson used degree adverbs more commonly in the latterperiod; in letters to Lucy Porter, the frequencies were higher in the first period. Thevariation in use of adverbs between the two time periods is nevertheless random.

However, as can be seen from figure 3, the use of first and second personpronouns in letters to both recipients shows significant change with time. In letters toMrs. Thrale, Dr. Johnson used first person pronouns much more in the earlier period,

and the variation is statistically highly significant (p5

0.01). The variation in use of second person pronouns in letters to Mrs. Thrale is random, but the variation of

TABLE 4 Dr. Johnson’s use of involvement markers in two time periods

to HT 1767 – 7 0 to HT 1777 – 8 3 to LP 1766 – 7 0 to LP 1775 – 8 4

Verbs 81.2 (28) 64.6 (97) 79.1 (8) 64.7 (19)

Adverbs 78.3 (27) 88.0 (132) 79.1 (8) 71.5 (21)

Pronouns 991.3 (342) 868.2 (1303) 1432.8 (145) 1147.4 (337)

TOTAL 1150.7 (397) 1020.8 (1532) 1590.1 (161) 1283.6 (377)

Frequencies normalised to 10,000 and absolute frequencies (in parenthesis).

HT = Hester Thrale, LP = Lucy Porter.

FIGURE 3 Dr. Johnson’s pronouns in two time periods


7/17/2019 13825570500068109


personal pronouns in total is significant (p 5 0.05), the total frequencies in the earlierperiod being higher than the frequencies in the latter period. In other words Johnson’sego involvement was greater in the earlier letters to Mrs. Thrale than in the laterones.

The situation is reversed in the letters to Lucy Porter: there are no particulardifferences in the use of first person pronouns, but the second person pronouns showsignificant variation (p 5 0.01). In this case, too, Johnson uses the pronounssignificantly more often in the earlier period (p 5 0.025). Here there was nosignificant change in the level of Johnson’s ego involvement between the two periods.But during the latter period his involvement with the recipient seems to havedeclined, Johnson referring to Porter much less often than previously. Nevertheless,the tenor of the letters remains basically the same. Johnson addresses his stepdaughterin terms such as Dearest Love and My Dear Love, using also the more formal Madam orDear Madam all through both time periods.

The personal pronouns used show significant changes between the two timeperiods. Johnson’s level of involvement was clearly greater in the earlier period, butpronouns in themselves are not sufficient to justify claims about possible changes inthe relationships. Other factors (such as age, life situation or attacks of depression)may also have caused the change.

Discussion

Bax (2000) concludes that Dr. Johnson is the central network contact of the

Streathamites; my results indicate that in this selection of people, Mrs. Thrale wasperhaps not his central network contact. Linguistically he seems somewhat closer toPorter and Aston, who are out of that circle, and also to Mr. Thrale. Henry Thralewould score high points on Bax’s network strength scale, since he basically fulfils thesame conditions as his wife in relation to Johnson (for details, see Bax, 2000: 286 – 88).The hypothetical score is supported by the linguistic evidence that places Mr. Thraleinvolvement-wise on a slightly higher level than Mrs. Thrale. But Bax’s NSS shouldtake into account the time factor, especially concerning individuals such as LucyPorter. There was a time when Johnson and Porter, being of immediate family, lived inthe same household, but apparently that was not the case in 1779 – this would cost

Porter one point in Bax’s account, perhaps unnecessarily. As for Queeney Thrale, Ithink her hypothetical position on the NSS and the linguistic evidence provided by

Johnson’s letters support each other. Her point score would be lower than her parents’for both emotional and functional relationship components, and my results show that

Johnson’s letters to her were a lot less involved than those to her parents. The letters toQueeney are very affectionate, using address terms such as My Dear Charmer, My Dear Sweeting and My Dearest Love, as illustrated by examples (14) and (15), but address termsalone are not the most reliable indicator of the nature of a relationship.

(14) My sweet, dear, pretty, little Miss,

Please to tell little Mama, that I am glad to hear that she is well, and that I amgoing to Lichfield, and shall come soon to London.



7/17/2019 13825570500068109


(15) Dear SweetingYour pretty letter was too short. If Lucy is not good, you must try to mend herby good advice, and good example, for all the little girls will try to be like you.


I will not make any hypotheses about Elizabeth Aston’s position on the networkstrength scale, as I do not know enough about Johnson’s relationship with her.

Bax (2000: 283 – 86) recognises the problems in making reliable classifications of emotional relationships. He assumes that A’s diary is the most reliable source availablefor evidence of A’s true opinion of B, and moves on through five other methods to theseventh, least reliable, method, which is copying unclear classifications from otherresearchers. Diaries are often probably the best source of information, but individualstyles of writing may distort the evidence they produce, even when the diarist is ableto write freely. Although Bax differentiates between the reliability of sources and that

of methods, the differences in reliability are not indicated in the points he assigns. Itmight be reasonable for the information produced by various methods to beconsidered in total; sometimes other researchers’ results can be more reliable thane.g. contemporary opinions of people’s relationships. All in all, Bax’s model seems towork, though the reliability of sources and methods, and some other issues such as thetime factor, should still be considered further.

Conclusion

I cannot but think on your kindness and my Masters. Life has upon the wholefallen short, very short, of my early expectation, but the acquisition of such aFriendship, at an age when new Friendships are seldom acquired, is somethingbetter than the general course of things gives Man a right to expect. I think on itwith great delight, I am not very apt to be delighted.


The purpose of this study was to test how Samuel Johnson’s membership in the Thralehousehold is reflected in his letters, and how his involvement there compares with hisletters to his stepdaughter and a friend from his Lichfield circle. Although the amount

of material to Mr. Thrale is rather insufficient, I suggest that Johnson’s relationshipswith the husband and the wife were basically equal in terms of involvement, while heryoung age kept their daughter Queeney from receiving his more highly involved,personal letters.

The results also suggest that linguistic involvement is a relevant indicator of thecloseness of the relationship between two people. As was seen, Dr. Johnson’srelationship with Lucy Porter proved the most involved. This is not surprising: shehad been his stepdaughter since 1735, and was apparently his last living close relationin the 1770s and 1780s. There does not seem to be much information about therelationship that existed between Johnson and Porter; but e.g. Daghlian (1968: 113 –

14) states that she was truly a relative to Johnson, helping his mother with thebookselling business for many years and remaining a link to Lichfield and therefore tohis past. In 1759, after the deaths of his mother and wife (and before he had met the


7/17/2019 13825570500068109


Thrales), Johnson wrote to Lucy Porter that she was the only person left in the worldwith whom he thought himself connected (Chapman, 1952: I, 120).

On the other hand, it has also been claimed that Johnson’s ‘middle-aged step-daughter [. . .] was neither intelligent nor entertaining’ (Quennell, 1972: 253) and

gave the unwell Johnson little relief when he visited Lichfield in 1784. Mrs. Thralemust have been intellectually and emotionally more stimulating company. In 1767, Johnson wrote to Mrs. Thrale that ‘Miss Lucy is more kind and civil than I expected,and has raised my esteem by many excellencies very noble and resplendent, though alittle discoloured by hoary virginity’ (Chapman, 1952: I, 198). As a member of

Johnson’s family, Porter does not represent the Lichfield circle on equal terms withElizabeth Aston, and therefore a relevant sequel to this study would be to gathermaterial from other non-family members of the Lichfield circle and the Streathamitesin order to make comparisons between the two groups.

Over the years, the level of involvement in Johnson’s letters decreased. Johnson’s

final years were increasingly filled with illness and loneliness (Daghlian, 1968: 125),probably due to his poor health, the bitter severance from Mrs. Thrale and histendency to depression, the tone of his letters in the latter years became rathermelancholic, as example (16) shows:

(16) You may perhaps think me negligent that I have not written to You againupon the loss of your Brother, but condolences and consolations are suchcommon and such useless things, that the omission of them is no great crime, andmy own diseases occupy my mind and engage my care. My nights are miserablyrestless, and my days therefore are heavy. I try however, to hold up my head as

high as I can.(Dr. Johnson to Lucy Porter, 1783)

The question of the writer’s inner world and mental state should also beconsidered. A lower level of involvement can indicate the writer’s reducedenthusiasm for taking part in a discussion in a personal and committed way. This doesnot necessarily mean that the writer does not consider the recipient as close to him aspreviously. Perhaps it reflects the weakening state of Samuel Johnson’s health, bothmental and physical.

Acknowledgement

The writer would like to thank Dr. Nely Keinanen for her useful comments on anearlier version of this article.

Notes

1 As in Palander-Collin (1999), plural pronouns were not included in this study; but

they could be relevant, especially in Queeney’s case.


7/17/2019 13825570500068109


References

Bax, Randy C. ‘A Network Strength Scale for the Study of Eighteenth-century English.’EJES 4/3 (2000): 277 – 89.

Bax, Randy C. ‘Linguistic Accommodation: The Correspondence between Samuel Johnson and Hester Lynch Thrale.’ Sounds, Words, Texts and Change. Selected Papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7 – 11 September 2000. Vol. 2. Eds TeresaFanego, Belen Mendez-Naya and Elena Seoane. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins, 2002.

Biber, Douglas. ‘Dimensions of Variation among Eighteenth-century Speech-based andWritten Registers.’ Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies. Eds Susan Conradand Douglas Biber. Harlow: Longman, 2001. 200 – 14.

Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. ‘Styles of Stance in English: Lexical andGrammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect.’ Text 9/1 (1989): 93 – 124.

Chafe, Wallace. ‘Linguistic Differences produced by Differences between Speaking and

Writing.’ Literacy, Language, and Learning. Eds David R. Olson, Nancy Torrance andAngela Hildyard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. 105 – 23.

Chafe, Wallace and Danielewicz, Jane. ‘Properties of Spoken and Written Language.’Comprehending Oral and Written Language. Eds Rosalind Horowitz and S. Jay Samuels.San Diego: Academic Press, 1987. 83 – 113.

Chapman, R.W. (ed.) The Letters of Samuel Johnson, with Mrs. Thrale’s Genuine Letters to Him.Vols. I – III. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952.

Culpeper, Jonathan and Kyto, Merja. ‘Data in Historical Pragmatics: Spoken Interaction(Re)cast as Writing.’ Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1/2 (2000): 175 – 99.

Daghlian, Philip B. ‘Dr. Johnson in His Letters: The Public Guise of Private Matter.’ The

Familiar Letter in the Eighteenth Century . Eds Howard Anderson, Philip B. Daghlianand Irvin Ehrenpreis. Lawrence and London: The University of Kansas Press, 1968.108–29.

Milroy, Lesley. Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987.Palander-Collin, Minna. Grammaticalization and Social Embedding. I THINK and METHINKS

in Middle and Early Modern English. Helsinki: Societe Neophilologique, 1999.Palander-Collin, Minna. ‘Tracing Patterns of Interaction in Historical Data.’ Variation Past

and Present. VARIENG Studies on English for Terttu Nevalainen. Eds Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi and Matti Rissanen. (Memoires de la SocieteNeophilologique de Helsinki 61. Helsinki: Societe Neophilologique, 2002.

Quennell, Peter. Samuel Johnson: His Friends and Enemies. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson,1972.Redford, Bruce (ed.) The Letters of Samuel Johnson. Vols. III – IV. Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1992 – 94.Riely, John. ‘Johnson and Mrs Thrale: the Beginning and the End.’ Johnson and His Age.

Ed. James Engell. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1984.

Anni Sairio is a doctorate student at the University of Helsinki. She is working on the

social networks and correspondence of Bluestockings, particularly Elizabeth Montagu.

Address: Research Unit for Variation and Change in English, P.O. Box 24 (Unioninkatu

40), FIN-00014 Helsinki. [email: [email protected]]


Documents

13825570500068109