Page images
PDF
EPUB

'Sir, they would have dissensions enough, though of another kind. One would choose to go a-hunting in this wood, the other in that; one would choose to go a-fishing in this lake, the other in that; or perhaps one would choose to go a-hunting when the other would choose to go a-fishing; and so they would part. Besides, sir, a savage man and a savage woman meet by chance; and when the man sees another woman that pleases him better, he will leave the first.'

We then fell into a disquisition whether there is any beauty independent of utility. The General maintained there was not. Dr. Johnson maintained that there was; and he instanced a coffee-cup which he held in his hand, the painting of which was of no real use, as the cup could hold the coffee equally well if plain; yet the painting was beautiful.

We talked of the strange custom of swearing in conversation. The General said that all barbarous nations swore, from a certain violence of temper that could not be confined to earth, but was always reaching at the powers above. He said, too, that there was greater variety of swearing in proportion as there was a greater variety of religious ceremonies.

we hear so much, was in an uncommercial country, when men, being idle, were glad to be entertained at rich men's tables. But in a commercial country, a busy country, time becomes precious, and therefore hospitality is not so much valued. No doubt there is still room for a certain degree of it; and a man has a satisfaction in seeing his friends eating and drinking around him. But promiscuous hospitality is not the way to gain real influence. You must help some people at table before others; you must ask some people how they like their wine oftener than others. You therefore offend more people than you please. You are like the French statesman,' who said, when he granted a favour, "J'ai fait dix mécontents et un ingrat." Besides, sir, being entertained ever so well at a man's table impresses no lasting regard or esteem. No, sir, the way to make sure of power and influence is by lending money confidentially to your neighbours at a small interest, or perhaps at no interest at all, and having their bonds in your possession.' BosWELL: May not a man, sir, employ his riches to advantage in educating young men of merit?' JOHNSON: 'Yes, sir, if they fall in your way; but if it be understood that you patronize

Dr. Johnson went home with me to my lodg-young men of merit, you will be harassed with ings in Conduit Street and drank tea, previous to our going to the Pantheon, which neither of us had seen before.

He said, Goldsmith's Life of Parnell is poor; not that it is poorly written, but that he had poor materials: for nobody can write the life of a man but those who have ate and drunk and lived in social intercourse with him.'

I said that if it was not troublesome and presuming too much, I would request him to tell me all the little circumstances of his life; what schools he attended, when he came to Oxford, when he came to London, etc. etc. He did not disapprove of my curiosity as to these particulars; but said, 'They'll come out by degrees, as we talk together.'

He censured Ruffhead's Life of Pope, and said, 'he knew nothing of Pope, and nothing of poetry.' He praised Dr. Joseph Warton's Essay on Pope; but said, 'he supposed we should have no more of it, as the author had not been able to persuade the world to think of Pope as he did.' BOSWELL: Why, sir, should that prevent him from continuing his work? He is an ingenious counsel, who has made the most of his cause: he is not obliged to gain it.' JOHNSON: 'But, sir, there is a difference when the cause is of a man's own making.'

We talked of the proper use of riches. JOHNSON: If I were a man of a great estate, I would drive all the rascals whom I did not like out of the county at an election.'

I asked him how far he thought wealth should be employed in hospitality. JOHNSON: 'You are to consider that ancient hospitality, of which

solicitations. You will have numbers forced upon you who have no merit: some will force them upon you from mistaken partiality; and some from downright interested motives with; out scruple; and you will be disgraced.'

'Were I a rich man, I would propagate all kinds of trees that will grow in the open air. A greenhouse is childish. I would introduce foreign animals into the country: for instance, the reindeer.' 2

The conversation now turned on critical subjects. JOHNSON: 'Bayes, in The Rehearsal, is a mighty silly character. If it was intended to be like a particular man, it could only be diverting while that man was remembered. But I question whether it was meant for Dryden, as has been reported; for we know some of the passages said to be ridiculed were written since The Rehearsal; at least a passage mentioned in the Preface3 is of a later date.' I maintained

1 Louis XIV.

2 This project has since been realized. Sir Henry Liddell, who made a spirited tour into Lapland, brought two reindeer to his estate in Northumberland, where they bred; but the race has unfortunately perished.--BoS WELL.

3 There is no preface to The Rehearsal, as originally published. Dr. Johnson seems to have meant the address to the Reader, with a Key subjoined to it, which have been prefixed to the modern editions of that play. He did not know, it appears, that several additions were made to The Rehearsal after the first edition. The ridicule on the passages here alluded to is found among those additions. They therefore turnish no ground for the doubts here suggested. Unquestionably Bayes was meant to be the representative

that it had merit as a general satire on the 'self-importance of dramatic authors. But even in this light he held it very cheap.

We then walked to the Pantheon. The first view of it did not strike us so much as Ranelagh, of which he said the coup d'œil was the finest thing he had ever seen. The truth is, Ranelagh is of a more beautiful form; more of it, or rather indeed the whole rotunda, appear at once, and it is better lighted. However, as Johnson observed, we saw the Pantheon in time of mourning, when there was a dull uniformity; whereas we had seen Ranelagh when the view was enlivened with a gay profusion of colours. Mrs. Bosville, of Gunthwait, in Yorkshire, joined us, and entered into conversation with us. son said to me afterwards, 'Sir, this is a mighty intelligent lady."

John

I said there was not half a guinea's worth of pleasure in seeing this place. JOHNSON: But, sir, there is half a guinea's worth of inferiority to other people in not having seen it.' BosWELL: I doubt, sir, whether there are many happy people here.' JOHNSON: 'Yes, sir, there are many happy people here. There are many people here who are watching hundreds, and who think hundreds are watching them.'

Happening to meet Sir Adam Ferguson, I presented him to Dr. Johnson. Sir Adam expressed some apprehension that the Pantheon would encourage luxury. Sir,' said Johnson, I am a great friend to public amusements; for they keep people from vice. You, now (addressing himself to me), would have been with a wench had you not been here. Oh! I forgot you were married.'

Sir Adam suggested that luxury corrupts a people, and destroys the spirit of liberty. JOHNSON: Sir, that is all visionary. I would not give half a guinea to live under one form of government rather than another. It is of no moment to the happiness of an individual. Sir, the danger of the abuse of power is nothing to a private man. What Frenchman is prevented from passing his life as he pleases?' SIR ADAM : 'But, sir, in the British Constitution it is surely of importance to keep up a spirit in the people, so as to preserve a balance against the Crown.' JOHNSON: Sir, I perceive you are a vile Whig. Why all this childish jealousy of the power of the Crown? The Crown has not power enough. When I say that all governments are alike, I consider that in no government can power be abused long. Mankind will not bear it. If a sovereign oppresses his people to a great degree, they will rise and cut off his head. There is a remedy in human nature against tyranny, that will keep us safe under every form of government. Had not the people of France thought themselves honoured in sharing in the brilliant actions of

of Dryden, whose familiar phrases in his ordinary conversation are frequently introduced in this piece.MALONE

Louis XIV., they would not have endured him; and we may say the same of the King of Prussia's people.' Sir Adam introduced the ancient Greeks and Romans. JOHNSON: 'Sir, the mass of both of them were barbarians. The mass of every people must be barbarous where there is no printing, and consequently knowledge is not generally diffused. Knowledge is diffused among our people by the newspapers.' Sir Adam mentioned the orators, poets, and artists of Greece. JOHNSON: 'Sir, I am talking of the mass of the people. We see even what the boasted Athenians were. The little effect which Demosthenes' orations had upon them shows that they were barbarians.'

Sir Adam was unlucky in his topics: for he suggested a doubt of the propriety of bishops having seats in the House of Lords. JOHNSON : 'How so, sir? Who is more proper for having the dignity of a peer than a bishop, provided a bishop be what he ought to be; and if improper bishops be made, that is not the fault of the bishops, but of those who make them.'

On Sunday, April 5, after attending divine service at St. Paul's Church, I found him alone. Of a schoolmaster of his acquaintance, a native of Scotland, he said, 'He has a great deal of good about him; but he is also very defective in some respects. His inner part is good, but his outer part is mighty awkward. You in Scotland do not attain that nice critical skill in languages which we get in our schools in England. I would not put a boy to him whom I intended for a man of learning. But for the sons of citizens, who are to learn a little, get good morals, and then go to trade, he may do very well.'

I mentioned a cause in which I had appeared as counsel at the bar of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, where a probationer (as one licensed to preach, but not yet ordained, is called) was opposed in his application to be inducted, because it was alleged that he had been guilty of fornication five years before. JOHNSON: Why, sir, if he has repented, it is not a sufficient objection. A man who is good enough to go to heaven, is good enough to be a clergyman.' This was a humane and liberal sentiment. But the character of a clergyman is more sacred than that of an ordinary Christian. As he is to instruct with authority, he should be regarded with reverence, as one upon whom divine truth has had the effect to set him above such transgressions as men less exalted by spiritual habits, and yet upon the whole not to be excluded from heaven, have been betrayed into by the predominance of passion. That clergymen may be considered as sinners in general, as all men are, cannot be denied; but this reflection will not counteract their good precepts so much as the absolute knowledge of their having been guilty of certain specific immoral acts. I told him, that by the rules of the Church of Scotland, in their Book of Discipline,

if a scandal, as it is called, is not prosecuted for five years, it cannot afterwards be proceeded upon, "unless it be of a heinous nature, or again become flagrant:" and that hence a question arose whether fornication was a sin of a heinous nature; and that I had maintained that it did not deserve that epithet, inasmuch as it was not one of those sins which argue very great depravity of heart; in short, was not, in the general acceptation of mankind, a heinous sin.' JOHNSON: No, sir, it is not a heinous sin. A heinous sin is that for which a man is punished with death or banishment.' BOSWELL: 'But, sir, after I had argued that it was not a heinous sin, an old clergyman rose up, and repeated the text of Scripture denouncing judgment against whoremongers, asked whether, considering this, there could be any doubt of fornication being a heinous sin.' JOHNSON: 'Why, sir, observe the word whoremonger. Every sin, if persisted in, would become heinous. Whoremonger is a dealer in whores, as ironmonger is a dealer in iron. But as you don't call a man an ironmonger for buying and selling a penknife, so you don't call a man a whoremonger for getting one wench with child.'1

I spoke of the inequality of the livings of the clergy in England, and the scanty provisions of some of the curates. JOHNSON: 'Why, yes, sir; but it cannot be helped. You must consider that the revenues of the clergy are not at the disposal of the State, like the pay of the army. Different men have founded different churches; and some are better endowed, some worse. The State cannot interfere, and make an equal division of what has been particularly appropriated. Now, when a clergyman has but a small living, or even two small livings, he can afford very little to the curate.'

He said he went more frequently to church when there were prayers only, than when there was also a sermon, as the people required more an example for the one than the other; it being much easier for them to hear a sermon than to fix their minds on prayer.

On Monday, April 6, I dined with him at Sir Alexander Macdonald's, where was a young officer in the regimentals of the Scots Royal, who talked with a vivacity, fluency, and precision so uncommon, that he attracted particular attention. He proved to be the Honourable Thomas Erskine," youngest brother to the Earl of Buchan, who has since risen into such brilliant reputation at the bar in Westminster Hall. Fielding being mentioned, Johnson exclaimed, 'He was a blockhead ;' and upon my expressing my astonishment at so strange an assertion, he

1 It must not be presumed that Dr. Johnson meant to give any countenance to licentiousness, though in the character of an advocate he made a just and subtle distinction between occasional and habitual transgression.-BoSWELL.

2 In 1806 he became Lord Chancellor of England.

[ocr errors]

said, 'What I mean by his being a blockhead is, that he was a barren rascal.' BOSWELL: Will you not allow, sir, that he draws very natural pictures of human life?' JOHNSON: 'Why, sir, it is of very low life. Richardson used to say that, had he not known who Fielding was, he should have believed he was an ostler. Sir, there is more knowledge of the heart in one letter of Richardson's than in all Tom Jones.1 I, indeed, never read Joseph Andrews.' ERSKINE: 'Surely, sir, Richardson is very tedious.' JOHNsoN: 'Why, sir, if you were to read Richardson for the story, your impatience would be so much fretted that you would hang yourself. But you must read him for the sentiment, and consider the story as only giving occasion to the sentiment.'-I have already given my opinion of Fielding; but I cannot refrain from repeating here my wonder at Johnson's excessive and unaccountable depreciation of one of the best writers that England has produced. Tom Jones has stood the test of public opinion with such success as to have established its great merit, both for the story, the sentiments, and the manners, and also the varieties of diction, so as to leave no doubt of its having an animated truth of execution throughout.

The book of travels lately published under the title of Coriat Junior, and written by Mr. Paterson,2 was mentioned. Johnson said this book was in imitation of Sterne, and not of Coriat, whose name Paterson had chosen as a whimsical one, 'Tom Coriat,' said he, 'was a humorist about the court of James I. He had a mixture of learning, of wit, and of buffoonery. He first travelled through Europe, and published his travels. He afterwards travelled on foot through Asia, and had made many remarks; but he died at Mandoa, and his remarks were lost.'

We talked of gaming, and animadverted on it with severity. JOHNSON: 'Nay, gentlemen, let us not aggravate the matter. It is not roguery to play with a man who is ignorant of the game, while you are master of it, and so win his money: for he thinks he can play better than you, as you think you can play better than he; and the superior skill carries it.' ERSKINE: 'He is a fool, but you are not a rogue.' JOHNSON: "That's much about the truth, sir. It must be considered that a man who only does what every one of the

Johnson's severity against Fielding did not arise from any viciousness in his style, but from his loose life, and the profligacy of almost all his male characters. Who would venture to read one of his novels aloud to modest women? His novels are male amusements,

and very amusing they certainly are. Fielding's conversation was coarse, and so tinctured with the rank weeds of the garden, that it would now be thought only fit for a brothel.-BURNEY.

2 Mr. Samuel Paterson, eminent for his knowledge of books. BOSWELL.

3 Mr. Paterson, in a pamphlet, produced some evidence to show that his work was written before Sterne's Sentimental Journey appeared.-BOSWELL.

N

by degrees, that too goes off, as having become unnecessary, and there being few opportunities of intercourse. One brother is a merchant in the City, and another is an officer in the Guards; how little intercourse can these two have!'

I argued warmly for the old feudal system. Sir Alexander opposed it, and talked of the

society to which he belongs would do, is not a dishonest man. In the republic of Sparta it was agreed that stealing was not dishonourable if not discovered. I do not commend a society where there is an agreement that what would not otherwise be fair shall be fair; but I maintain, that an individual of any society who practises what is allowed, is not a dishonest man.' Bos-pleasure of seeing all men free and independent. WELL: 'So then, sir, you do not think ill of a man who wins perhaps forty thousand pounds in a winter?' JOHNSON: Sir, I do not call a gamester a dishonest man; but I call him an unsocial man, an unprofitable man. Gaming is a mode of transferring property without producing any intermediate good. Trade gives employment to numbers, and so produces intermediate good.'

Mr. Erskine told us that when he was in the island of Minorca, he not only read prayers, but preached two sermons to the regiment. He seemed to object to the passage in Scripture, where we are told that the angel of the Lord smote, in one night, forty thousand Assyrians.1 'Sir,' said Johnson, 'you should recollect that there was a supernatural interposition; they were destroyed by pestilence. You are not to suppose that the angel of the Lord went about and stabbed each of them with a dagger, or knocked them on the head, man by man.'

Dr.

After Mr. Erskine was gone, a discussion took place, whether the present Earl of Buchan, when Lord Cardross, did right to refuse to go Secretary of the Embassy to Spain, when Sir James Gray, a man of inferior rank, went Ambassador. Johnson said that perhaps in point of interest he did wrong; but in point of dignity he did well. Sir Alexander insisted that he was wrong, and said that Mr. Pitt intended it as an advantageous thing for him. Why, sir,' said Johnson, Mr. Pitt might think it an advantageous thing for him to make him a vintner, and get him all the Portugal trade; but he would have demeaned himself strangely had he accepted of such a situation. Sir, had he gone Secretary while his inferior was Ambassador, he would have been a traitor to his rank and family.'

I talked of the little attachment which subsisted between near relations in London. 'Sir,' said Johnson, 'in a country so commercial as ours, where every man can do for himself, there is not so much occasion for that attachment. No man is thought the worse of here whose brother was hanged. In uncommercial countries many of the branches of a family must depend on the stock; so, in order to make the head of the family take care of them, they are represented as connected with his reputation, that, self-love being interested, he may exert himself to promote their interest. You have first large circles, or clans; as commerce increases, the connection is confined to families;

One hundred and eighty-five thousand. See Isa. xxxvii. 36 and 2 Kings xix. 35.—MALONE.

JOHNSON: 'I agree with Mr. Boswell that there must be a high satisfaction in being a feudal lord; but we are to consider that we ought not to wish to have a number of men unhappy for the satisfaction of one.' I maintained that numbers, namely the vassals or followers, were not unhappy; for that there was a reciprocal satisfaction between the lord and them: he being kind in his authority over them; they being respectful and faithful to him.

On Thursday, April 9, I called on him to beg he would go and dine with me at the Mitre tavern. He had resolved not to dine at all this day, I know not for what reason; and I was so unwilling to be deprived of his company, that I was content to submit to suffer a want which was at first somewhat painful, but he soon made me forget it; and a man is always pleased with himself when he finds his intellectual inclinations predominate.

He observed, that to reason philosophically on the nature of prayer was very unprofitable.

Talking of ghosts, he said he knew one friend, who was an honest man, and a sensible man, who told him he had seen a ghost; old Mr. Edward Cave, the printer at St. John's Gate. He said Mr. Cave did not like to talk of it, and seemed to be in great horror whenever it was mentioned. BOSWELL: 'Pray, sir, what did he say was the appearance?' JOHNSON: 'Why, sir, something of a shadowy being.' I mentioned witches, and asked him what they properly meant. JOHNSON: Why, sir, they properly mean those who make use of the aid of evil spirits.' BOSWELL: There is no doubt, sir, a general report and belief of their having existed.' JOHNSON: You have not only the general report and belief, but you have many voluntary solemn confessions.' He did not affirm anything positively upon a subject which it is the fashion of the times to laugh at as a matter of absurd credulity. He only seemed willing, as a candid inquirer after truth, however strange and inexplicable, to show that he understood what might be urged for it.1

CHAPTER XXV.

1772-1773.

ON Friday, April 10, I dined with Johnson at General Oglethorpe's, where we found Dr. Goldsmith.

1 See this curious question treated by him with most acute ability, Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides, 3d edit. p. 33.-BOSWELL.

Armorial bearings having been mentioned, Johnson said they were as ancient as the siege of Thebes, which he proved by a passage in one of the tragedies of Euripides.1

character upon the young soldier; to have taken no notice of it might have been considered as cowardice. Oglethorpe, therefore, keeping his eye upon the Prince, and smiling all the time, as if he took what his Highness had done in jest, said, 'Mon Prince-' (I forget the French words he used; the purport, however, was), 'That's a good joke; but we do it much better in England;' and threw a whole glass of wine in the Prince's face. An old General, who sat by, said, 'Il a bien fait, mon Prince, vous l'avez commencé :' and thus all ended in good humour.

Dr. Johnson said, 'Pray, General, give us an account of the siege of Belgrade.' Upon which the General, pouring a little wine upon the table, described everything with a wet finger: 'Here we were, here were the Turks,' etc. etc. Johnson listened with the closest attention.

A question was started how far people who disagree in a capital point can live in friendship together. Johnson said they might. Goldsmith said they could not, as they had not the idem velle atque idem nolle-the same likings and the same aversions. JOHNSON: 'Why, sir, you must shun the subject as to which you disagree. For instance, I can live very well with Burke; I love his knowledge, his genius, his diffusion, and affluence of conversation; but I would not talk to him of the Rockingham party." GOLDSMITH: 'But, sir, when people live to

I started the question whether duelling was consistent with moral duty. The brave old General fired at this, and said, with a lofty air, 'Undoubtedly a man has a right to defend his honour.' GOLDSMITH (turning to me): 'I ask you first, sir, what would you do if you were affronted?' I answered I should think it necessary to fight. Why, then,' replied Goldsmith, 'that solves the question.' JOHNSON: 'No, sir, it does not solve the question. It does not follow that what a man would do is therefore right.' I said, I wished to have it settled whether duelling was contrary to the laws of Christianity. Johnson immediately entered on the subject, and treated it in a masterly manner; and, so far as I have been able to recollect, his thoughts were these: 'Sir, as men become in a high degree refined, various causes of offence arise, which are considered to be of such importance, that life must be staked to atone for them, though in reality they are not so. A body that has received a very fine polish may be easily hurt. Before men arrive at this artificial refinement, if one tells his neighbour he lies, his neighbour tells him he lies; if one gives his neighbour a blow, his neighbour gives him a blow; but in a state of highly polished society,gether who have something as to which they an affront is held to be a serious injury. It must therefore be resented, or rather a duel must be fought upon it; as men have agreed to banish from their society one who puts up with an affront without fighting a duel. Now, sir, it is never unlawful to fight in self-defence. He, then, who fights a duel, does not fight from passion against his antagonist, but out of selfdefence; to avert the stigma of the world, and to prevent himself from being driven out of society. I could wish there was not that superfluity of refinement; but while such notions prevail, no doubt a man may lawfully fight a duel.'

Let it be remembered that this justification is applicable only to the person who receives an affront. All mankind must condemn the

aggressor.

The General told us that when he was a very young man, I think only fifteen, serving under Prince Eugene of Savoy, he was sitting in a company at table with a Prince of Wirtemberg. The Prince took up a glass of wine, and by a fillip made some of it fly in Oglethorpe's face. Here was a nice dilemma. To have challenged him instantly might have fixed a quarrelsome

The passage to which Johnson alluded is to be
found (as I conjecture) in the Phænissa, l. 1104.
Καὶ πρῶτα μὲν προσήγε, κ.τ.λ.

Ο τῆς κυνηγοῦ Παρθενοπαῖος ἔκγονος,
ΕΠΙΣΗΜ' έχων ΟΙΚΕΙΟΝ ἐν μέσῳ σάκει.

-J. BOSWELL, jun.

disagree, and which they want to shun, they will be in the situation mentioned in the story of Bluebeard: "You may look into all the chambers but one." But we should have the greatest inclination to look into that chamber, to talk of that subject.' JOHNSON (with a loud voice): 'Sir, I am not saying that you could live in friendship with a man from whom you differ as to some point: I am only saying that I could do it. You put me in mind of Sappho in Ovid."

Goldsmith told us that he was now busy in writing a Natural History; and that he might

1 Mr. Boswell's note here being rather short, as taken at the time (with a view perhaps to future revision), Johnson's remark is obscure, and requires to be a little opened. What he said probably was, 'You seem to think that two friends, to live well together, must be in perfect harmony with each other; that each should be to the other what Sappho boasts she was to her lover, and uniformly agree in every particular: but this is by no means necessary,' etc. The words of 'omnique à parte placebam.' Ovid. Epist. Sapp. ad Phaonem. 1. 51.-MALONE. I should rather conjecture that the passage which Johnson had in view was the following, 1. 45:

Sappho alluded to are:

'Si, nisi quæ facie poterit te digna videri Nulla futura tua est; nulla futura tua est.' His reasoning and its illustration I take to be this. If you are determined to associate with no one whose sentiments do not universally coincide with your own, you will, by such a resolution, exclude yourself from all society; for no two men can be found who, on all points, invariably think alike. So Sappho in Ovid

« PreviousContinue »