Another notable death - Paul Johnson

As it happens, it occurred to me just a day or two ago to check whether Paul Johnson was still alive, and saw that he was.   (Seems he might have been on his death bed at the time, though.)  Here's his obituary from the New York Times. 

I've read at least three of his early history books, as well as at least one collection of essays, and yes, he was influential on my views.  I think the first I read was his History of Christianity, which really served to enlighten me about how absurd (to the point of comical) some purportedly religiously motivated behaviour could be; and what a (let's say), obviously human enterprise the development of the religion had been.  (I found his history of the Jews heavier going, and much less of that has stuck with me.)    I think it might have been from Modern Times that I credit him with bringing to my attention the idea that capitalism and markets are basically an organic and natural feature of how humans like to organise themselves; and the contrary, high flalutin' theories of how the world ought to be, like Marxist economics, fail because they don't accord with this aspect of human nature.   This still seems true to me, even though I have learnt to deeply regret that free markets types can love money so much that they actively deny science for the sake of continuing profit.   (You know what I'm talking about, and it gets a mention below.) 

I think it obvious that in his swing from Leftism to Conservatism, he swung too far to the Right, especially when the American Republicans started idolising him.   (There is also, of course, the loss of face suffered when he was exposed as a long term adulterer, after often criticising that behaviour in others and writing a whole book - as entertaining as it is - about hypocrisy in the personal life of famous Leftists.)  

But I think in at least one respect, his Catholicism, he perhaps did become more progressive as he aged:  I remember being surprised in his book of essays that he opined that women being allowed into the Catholic priesthood was inevitable.  Now that I think of it, I think it might also be in that book that he made a comment about how the Church would have to deal with the fact that gay relationships can be as loving as straight ones, making their complete condemnation difficult.  (For some reason, I also remember how he wrote that he increasingly gave all living creatures a chance - preferring, for example, to open a window and try to chase a fly out of the room rather than immediately try to kill it.)  

Generally speaking, though, I have the impression from reviews that the quality of his historical works never really recovered after A History of the American People (which is discussed in this interesting article from 1998.)   On that great indicator of whether a person has retained reasonable judgement or not - his attitude to climate change - I still don't know whether he ever expressed an opinion.  I would be happy to know that he did accept the science on that, but it would not be at all surprising if he didn't.  (Or if he took a Thatcherite path of believing it initially, and then turning against it as being a Leftish plot.)

The above article about him indicates other personal faults beyond (hypocritical) adultery - heavy drinking, for one, but also having views on politicians seemingly determined by whether they had ever met, or praised, him.   Jacob Weisberg, who wrote the article, concludes this:

...it is hard to avoid the impression that he is a misunderstood man, at least in America. Johnson is much less a bitter ultraconservative than a professional provocateur, a controversialist. Creating outrages, he has learned, can be a good business.

That may be true, although I don't think it a feature of his earlier works, which will remain worth reading for a long time yet.