Life of Samuel Johnson, Vol. II — 1772 part 2

On Saturday, March 27, I introduced to him Sir Alexander Macdonald[462], with whom he had expressed a wish to be acquainted.

He received him very courteously.

Sir Alexander observed, that the Chancellors in England are chosen from views much inferiour to the office, being chosen from temporary political views.

JOHNSON.

'Why, Sir, in such a government as ours, no man is appointed to an office because he is the fittest for it, nor hardly in any other government; because there are so many connections and dependencies to be studied[463].

A despotick prince may choose a man to an office, merely because he is the fittest for it.

The King of Prussia may do it.'

SIR A.

'I think, Sir, almost all great lawyers, such at least as have written upon law, have known only law, and nothing else.'

JOHNSON.

'Why no, Sir; Judge Hale was a great lawyer, and wrote upon law; and yet he knew a great many other things, and has written upon other things.

Selden too.'

SIR A.

'Very true, Sir; and Lord Bacon.

But was not Lord Coke a mere lawyer?'

JOHNSON.

'Why, I am afraid he was;

but he would have taken it very ill if you had told him so.

He would have prosecuted you for scandal.'

BOSWELL.

'Lord Mansfield is not a mere lawyer.'

JOHNSON.

'No, Sir.

I never was in Lord Mansfield's company; but Lord Mansfield was distinguished at the University.

Lord Mansfield, when he first came to town, "drank champagne with the wits," as Prior says[464].

He was the friend of Pope[465].'

SIR A.

'Barristers, I believe, are not so abusive now as they were formerly.

I fancy they had less law long ago, and so were obliged to take to abuse, to fill up the time.

Now they have such a number of precedents, they have no occasion for abuse.'

JOHNSON.

'Nay, Sir, they had more law long ago than they have now.

As to precedents, to be sure they will increase in course of time; but the more precedents there are, the less occasion is there for law; that is to say, the less occasion is there for investigating principles.'

SIR A.

'I have been correcting several Scotch accents[466] in my friend Boswell.

I doubt, Sir, if any Scotchman ever attains to a perfect English pronunciation.'

JOHNSON.

'Why, Sir, few of them do, because they do not persevere after acquiring a certain degree of it.

But, Sir, there can be no doubt that they may attain to a perfect English pronunciation, if they will.

We find how near they come to it; and certainly, a man who conquers nineteen parts of the Scottish accent, may conquer the twentieth.

But, Sir, when a man has got the better of nine tenths he grows weary, he relaxes his diligence, he finds he has corrected his accent so far as not to be disagreeable, and he no longer desires his friends to tell him when he is wrong; nor does he choose to be told.

Sir, when people watch me narrowly, and I do not watch myself, they will find me out to be of a particular county[467].

In the same manner, Dunning[468] may be found out to be a Devonshire man.

So most Scotchmen may be found out.

But, Sir, little aberrations are of no disadvantage.

I

never catched Mallet in a Scotch accent[469]; and yet Mallet, I suppose, was past five-and-twenty before he came to London.'

Upon another occasion I talked to him on this subject, having myself taken some pains to improve my pronunciation, by the aid of the late Mr. Love[470], of Drury-lane theatre, when he was a player at Edinburgh, and also of old Mr. Sheridan.

Johnson said to me, 'Sir, your pronunciation is not offensive.'

With this concession I was pretty well satisfied; and let me give my countrymen of North-Britain an advice not to aim at absolute perfection in this respect; not to speak _High English_, as we are apt to call what is far removed from the _Scotch_, but which is by no means _good English_, and makes, 'the fools who use it[471],' truly ridiculous[472].

Good English is plain, easy, and smooth in the mouth of an unaffected English Gentleman.

A studied and factitious pronunciation, which requires perpetual attention and imposes perpetual constraint, is exceedingly disgusting.

A small intermixture of provincial peculiarities may, perhaps, have an agreeable effect, as the notes of different birds concur in the harmony of the grove, and please more than if they were all exactly alike.

I could name some gentlemen of Ireland, to whom a slight proportion of the accent and recitative of that country is an advantage.

The same observation will apply to the gentlemen of Scotland.

I do not mean that we should speak as broad as a certain prosperous member of Parliament from that country[473]; though it has been well observed, that 'it has been of no small use to him; as it rouses the attention of the House by its uncommonness; and is equal to tropes and figures in a good English speaker.'

I would give as an instance of what I mean to recommend to my countrymen, the pronunciation of the late Sir Gilbert Elliot[474]; and may I presume to add that of the present Earl of Marchmont[475], who told me, with great good humour, that the master of a shop in London, where he was not known, said to him, 'I suppose, Sir, you are an American.'

'Why so, Sir?'

(said his Lordship.

) 'Because, Sir, (replied the shopkeeper,) you speak neither English nor Scotch, but something different from both, which I conclude is the language of America.'

BOSWELL.

'It may be of use, Sir, to have a Dictionary to ascertain the pronunciation.'

JOHNSON.

'Why, Sir, my Dictionary shows you the accents of words, if you can but remember them.'

BOSWELL.

'But, Sir, we want marks to ascertain the pronunciation of the vowels.

Sheridan, I believe, has finished such a work.'

JOHNSON.

'Why, Sir, consider how much easier it is to learn a language by the ear, than by any marks.

Sheridan's Dictionary may do very well; but you cannot always carry it about with you: and, when you want the word, you have not the Dictionary.

It is like a man who has a sword that will not draw.

It is an admirable sword, to be sure: but while your enemy is cutting your throat, you are unable to use it.

Besides, Sir, what entitles Sheridan to fix the pronunciation of English?

He has, in the first place, the disadvantage of being an Irishman: and if he says he will fix it after the example of the best company, why they differ among themselves.

I remember an instance: when I published the Plan for my Dictionary, Lord Chesterfield told me that the word _great_ should be pronounced so as to rhyme to _state_; and Sir William Yonge sent me word that it should be pronounced so as to rhyme to _seat_, and that none but an Irishman would pronounce it _grait_[476].

Now here were two men of the highest rank, the one, the best speaker in the House of Lords, the other, the best speaker in the House of Commons, differing entirely.'

I again visited him at night.

Finding him in a very good humour, I ventured to lead him to the subject of our situation in a future state, having much curiosity to know his notions on that point.

JOHNSON.

'Why, Sir, the happiness of an unembodied spirit will consist in a consciousness of the favour of GOD, in the contemplation of truth, and in the possession of felicitating ideas.'

BOSWELL.

'But, Sir, is there any harm in our forming to ourselves conjectures as to the particulars of our happiness, though the scripture has said but very little on the subject?

"We know not what we shall be."

' JOHNSON.

'Sir, there is no harm.

What philosophy suggests to us on this topick is probable: what scripture tells us is certain.

Dr. Henry More[477] has carried it as far as philosophy can.

You may buy both his theological and philosophical works in two volumes folio, for about eight shillings.'

BOSWELL.

'One of the most pleasing thoughts is, that we shall see our friends again.'

JOHNSON.

'Yes, Sir; but you must consider, that when we are become purely rational, many of our friendships will be cut off.

Many friendships are formed by a community of sensual pleasures: all these will be cut off.

We form many friendships with bad men, because they have agreeable qualities, and they can be useful to us; but, after death, they can no longer be of use to us.

We form many friendships by mistake, imagining people to be different from what they really are.

After death, we shall see every one in a true light.

Then, Sir, they talk of our meeting our relations: but then all relationship is dissolved; and we shall have no regard for one person more than another, but for their real value.

However, we shall either have the satisfaction of meeting our friends, or be satisfied without meeting them[478].'

BOSWELL.

'Yet, Sir, we see in scripture, that Dives still retained an anxious concern about his brethren.'

JOHNSON.

'Why, Sir, we must either suppose that passage to be metaphorical, or hold with many divines, and all the Purgatorians that departed souls do not all at once arrive at the utmost perfection of which they are capable.'

BOSWELL.

'I think, Sir, that is a very rational supposition.'

JOHNSON.

'Why, yes, Sir; but we do not know it is a true one.

There is no harm in believing it: but you must not compel others to make it an article of faith; for it is not revealed.'

BOSWELL.

'Do you think, Sir, it is wrong in a man who holds the doctrine of purgatory, to pray for the souls of his deceased friends?'

JOHNSON.

'Why, no, Sir[479].'

BOSWELL.

'I have been told, that in the Liturgy of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, there was a form of prayer for the dead.'

JOHNSON.

'Sir, it is not in the liturgy which Laud framed for the Episcopal Church of Scotland: if there is a liturgy older than that, I should be glad to see it.'

BOSWELL.

'As to our employment in a future state, the sacred writings say little.

The Revelation, however, of St. John gives us many ideas, and particularly mentions musick[480].'

JOHNSON.

'Why, Sir, ideas must be given you by means of something which you know[481]: and as to musick there are some philosophers and divines who have maintained that we shall not be spiritualized to such a degree, but that something of matter, very much refined, will remain.

In that case, musick may make a part of our future felicity.'

BOSWELL.

'I do not know whether there are any well-attested stories of the appearance of ghosts.

You know there is a famous story of the appearance of Mrs. Veal, prefixed to _Drelincourt on Death_.'

JOHNSON.

'I believe, Sir, that is given up.

I believe the woman declared upon her death-bed that it was a lie[482].'

BOSWELL.

'This objection is made against the truth of ghosts appearing: that if they are in a state of happiness, it would be a punishment to them to return to this world; and if they are in a state of misery, it would be giving them a respite.'

JOHNSON.

'Why, Sir, as the happiness or misery of embodied spirits does not depend upon place, but is intellectual, we cannot say that they are less happy or less miserable by appearing upon earth.'

We went down between twelve and one to Mrs. Williams's room, and drank tea.

I mentioned that we were to have the remains of Mr. Gray, in prose and verse, published by Mr. Mason[483].

JOHNSON.

'I think we have had enough of Gray.

I see they have published a splendid edition of Akenside's works.

One bad ode may be suffered; but a number of them together makes one sick[484].'

BOSWELL.

'Akenside's distinguished poem is his _Pleasures of Imagination_: but for my part, I never could admire it so much as most people do.'

JOHNSON.

'Sir, I could not read it through.'

BOSWELL.

'I have read it through; but I did not find any great power in it.'

I mentioned Elwal, the heretick, whose trial Sir John Pringle[485] had given me to read.

JOHNSON.

'Sir, Mr. Elwal was, I think, an ironmonger at Wolverhampton; and he had a mind to make himself famous, by being the founder of a new sect, which he wished much should be called _Elwallians_.

He held, that every thing in the Old Testament that was not typical, was to be of perpetual observance; and so he wore a ribband in the plaits of his coat, and he also wore a beard.

I remember I had the honour of dining in company with Mr. Elwal.

There was one Barter, a miller, who wrote against him; and you had the controversy between Mr. ELWAL and Mr. BARTER.

To try to make himself distinguished, he wrote a letter to King George the Second, challenging him to dispute with him, in which he said, "George, if you be afraid to come by yourself, to dispute with a poor old man, you may bring a thousand of your _black_-guards with you; and if you should still be afraid, you may bring a thousand of your _red_-guards."

The letter had something of the impudence of Junius to our present King.

But the men of Wolverhampton were not so inflammable as the Common-Council of London[486]; so Mr. Elwal failed in his scheme of making himself a man of great consequence[487].'

On Tuesday, March 31, he and I dined at General Paoli's. A question was started, whether the state of marriage was natural to man.

JOHNSON.

'Sir, it is so far from being natural for a man and woman to live in a state of marriage, that we find all the motives which they have for remaining in that connection, and the restraints which civilized society imposes to prevent separation, are hardly sufficient to keep them together.'

The General said, that in a state of nature a man and woman uniting together, would form a strong and constant affection, by the mutual pleasure each would receive; and that the same causes of dissention would not arise between them, as occur between husband and wife in a civilized state.

JOHNSON.

'Sir, they would have dissentions 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 would hold the coffee equally well if plain; yet the painting was beautiful.

We talked of the strange custom of swearing in conversation[488].

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.

Dr. Johnson went home with me to my lodgings 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_[489] 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 eat 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, &c. &c. He did not disapprove of my curiosity as to these particulars; but said, 'They'll come out by degrees as we talk together[490].'

He censured Ruffhead's _Life of Pope_[491]; and said, 'he knew nothing of Pope, and nothing of poetry.'

He praised Dr. Joseph Warton's Essay on Pope[492]; but said, he supposed we should have no more of it, as the authour 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[493].'

I asked him how far he thought wealth should be employed in hospitality.

JOHNSON.

'You are to consider that ancient hospitality, of which 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 mecontents et un ingrat_[494].'

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[495].'

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 young men of merit, you will be harassed with 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, without 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[496].'

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 Preface[497] is of a later date.'

I maintained that it had merit as a general satire on the self-importance of dramatick authours.

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'oeil_ 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_, appears 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[498].

Mrs. Bosville[499], of Gunthwait, in Yorkshire, joined us, and entered into conversation with us.

Johnson said to me afterwards, 'Sir, this is a mighty intelligent lady.'

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[500].'

Happening to meet Sir Adam Fergusson[501], 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 publick amusements;

for they keep people from vice.

You now (addressing himself to me,) would have been with a wench, had you not been here.

--O!

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[502].

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 power can 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[503].

Had not the people of France thought themselves honoured as sharing in the brilliant actions of Lewis 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 news-papers[504].'

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's orations had upon them, shews that they were barbarians[505].'

Sir Adam was unlucky in his topicks; 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[506] 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 aukward.

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_[507], (as one licensed to preach, but not yet ordained, is called,) was opposed in his application to be inducted, because it was alledged 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 specifick 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, in as much 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[508].'

BOSWELL.

'But, Sir, after I had argued that it was not an heinous sin, an old clergyman rose up, and repeating the text of scripture denouncing judgement against whoremongers[509], 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, will become heinous.

Whoremonger is a dealer in whores[510], as ironmonger is a dealer in iron.

But as you don't call a man an ironmonger for buying and selling a pen-knife; so you don't call a man a whoremonger for getting one wench with child[511].'

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 a 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[512].

Fielding being mentioned, Johnson exclaimed, 'he was a blockhead[513];'

and upon my expressing my astonishment at so strange an assertion, he 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?'