Addison Exchanged

These are my notes from the seminar discussing Joseph Addison. Of the 2 texts we read in preparation, the first we looked at was the Spectator article. Addison begins by comparing his 2 writing styles, those that are written with "regularity and method" (which to me, speak of newspaper styles), and the more meandering, wild compositions which are his essays (these put me in mind of an archaic version of a blog). He compares the styles as, one being in plantation, with several centres and many paths; and one, a wood with many interesting thoughts and ideas though they are all in disarray.

Addison writes that a methodical approach to writing appeals to both the reader and the writer. For the writer, he may find that as he writes, new thoughts come to him that wouldn't have else. For the reader, it is an easier read as the subject is more intelligible and better explained when thoughts are "placed in their proper light, and follow one another in a regular series".

On the subject of works that show irregularities and may be unordered, Addison argues that this is only excusable in "men of great learning or genius, who are too full to be exact, and therefore choose to throw down their pearls in heaps, rather than be at pains of stringing them". What I think he means by this is that intelligent men, such as philosophers, have so many good ideas that it would be next to impossible for them to explain how they link together. Therefore they display them all separately for others to make of them what they will.

Addison goes on to give examples of the 2 styles, this time using 2 people (perhaps real, probably not) that demonstrate the fallibilities of the one, and the virtues of the other. He presents Tom Puzzle as his example of the unmethodical. He is the worst of the 2 extremes of learning. He knows enough to raise questions, but not enough to answer them. He is looked up to by those with less learning than him, and looked down upon by those with more. Puzzle's antithesis is a man called Will Dry, who, knowing the way that Tom thinks, is able to destroy his arguments by stopping him waffling and telling him to simply answer the topic at hand. Indeed Addison writes: "I have known Tom eloquent half an hour together, and triumphing, as he thought, in the superiority of the argument, when he has been non-plus'd on a sudden by Mr. Dry's desiring him to tell the company what it was that he endeavoured to prove". Thus demonstrating the preference of a clear methodical approach, to cluttered, incoherent blather. Personally I am a great fan of good laconic wit, which I think all journalism students should endeavour towards. However, I fear I am currently a more proactive Puzzler. I shall have to gain more learning.

The second text, The Royal Exchange, discusses the exchange as a symbol of the international trading of countries, and the various benefits that all gain from it. He describes how, when in the exchange, he feels at one with everyone from all the different countries. In many ways the Royal exchange seems to be a review of politics in england, masked by the talk of trade. He often mentions the various things traded with other countries and have made the world a better place, "food often grows in one country, and the sauce in another. The fruits of Portugal are corrected by the products of Barbados". He goes into great deal explaining how countries help one another. How through foreign trading, prosperity is gained. England would have completely relied on foreign trade at this time, and while this is not ignored, I could not help but get the feeling that addison was somewhat smug about the arrangement. "my friend Sir Andrew calls the vineyards of France our gardens; the spice-islands our hot-beds; the Persians our silk-weavers" etc.

He seems amused by the fact that "while we enjoy the remotest products of the north and south, we are free from those extremities of weather that give them birth". I feel that while he is obviously appreciative of other countries, and of this trade which links them all together; as indicated in the first paragraphs when he calls himself a "citizen of the world". There are times other than than those I have mentioned where he seems to think of England as being a first among equals, if even equals, as though everything came to England first. Not to mention that though we do export certain products: tin, wool. We are traded back with much superior items: gold, rubies. As though english merchants are far superior to all others.

I may have digressed there for a time, but I think that as a whole, The Royal Exchange is a piece talking about the international language of trade as a way for countries to mediate with each other as well as benefit. That, as a whole, all countries are better off united than they are alone.