Читать книгу The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. - James Boswell - Страница 190

[496] Johnson’s Works, viii. 98.

[497] The story on which Mr. Cust so much relies, that Savage was a supposititious child, not the son of Lord Rivers and Lady Macclesfield, but the offspring of a shoemaker, introduced in consequence of her real son’s death, was, without doubt, grounded on the circumstance of Lady Macclesfield having, in 1696, previously to the birth of Savage, had a daughter by the Earl Rivers, who died in her infancy; a fact which was proved in the course of the proceedings on Lord Macclesfield’s Bill of Divorce. Most fictions of this kind have some admixture of truth in them. MALONE. From The Earl of Macclesfield’s Case, it appears that ‘Anne, Countess of Macclesfield, under the name of Madam Smith, in Fox Court, near Brook Street, Holborn, was delivered of a male child on the 16th of January, 1696-7, who was baptized on the Monday following, the 18th, and registered by the name of Richard, the son of John Smith, by Mr. Burbridge; and, from the privacy, was supposed by Mr. Burbridge to be “a by-blow or bastard.”’ It also appears, that during her delivery, the lady wore a mask; and that Mary Pegler, on the next day after the baptism, took a male child, whose mother was called Madam Smith, from the house of Mrs. Pheasant, in Fox Court [running from Brook Street in Gray’s Inn Lane], who went by the name of Mrs. Lee.

Conformable to this statement is the entry in the register of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, which is as follows, and which unquestionably records the baptism of Richard Savage, to whom Lord Rivers gave his own Christian name, prefixed to the assumed surname of his mother:—‘Jan. 1696-7. Richard, son of John Smith and Mary, in Fox Court, in Gray’s Inn Lane, baptized the 18th.’ BINDLEY. According to Johnson’s account Savage did not learn who his parents were till the death of his nurse, who had always treated him as her son. Among her papers he found some letters written by Lady Macclesfield’s mother proving his origin. Johnson’s Works, viii. 102. Why these letters were not laid before the public is not stated. Johnson was one of the least credulous of men, and he was convinced by Savage’s story. Horace Walpole, too, does not seem to have doubted it. Walpole’s Letters, i. cv.

[498] Johnson’s Works, viii. 97.

[499] Ib. p. 142.

[500] Johnson’s Works, p. 101.

[501] According to Johnson’s account (Johnson’s Works, viii. 102), the shoemaker under whom Savage was placed on trial as an apprentice was not the husband of his nurse.

[502] He was in his tenth year when she died. ‘He had none to prosecute his claim, to shelter him from oppression, or call in law to the assistance of justice.’ Ib. p. 99.

[503] Johnson’s companion appears to have persuaded that lofty-minded man, that he resembled him in having a noble pride; for Johnson, after painting in strong colours the quarrel between Lord Tyrconnel and Savage, asserts that ‘the spirit of Mr. Savage, indeed, never suffered him to solicit a reconciliation: he returned reproach for reproach, and insult for insult.’ [Ib. p. 141.] But the respectable gentleman to whom I have alluded, has in his possession a letter, from Savage, after Lord Tyrconnel had discarded him, addressed to the Reverend Mr. Gilbert, his Lordship’s Chaplain, in which he requests him, in the humblest manner, to represent his case to the Viscount. BOSWELL.

[504] ‘How loved, how honoured once avails thee not, To whom related, or by whom begot.’

POPE’S Elegy to the Memory of an Unfortunate Lady.

[505] Trusting to Savage’s information, Johnson represents this unhappy man’s being received as a companion by Lord Tyrconnel, and pensioned by his Lordship, as if posteriour to Savage’s conviction and pardon. But I am assured, that Savage had received the voluntary bounty of Lord Tyrconnel, and had been dismissed by him, long before the murder was committed, and that his Lordship was very instrumental in procuring Savage’s pardon, by his intercession with the Queen, through Lady Hertford. If, therefore, he had been desirous of preventing the publication by Savage, he would have left him to his fate. Indeed I must observe, that although Johnson mentions that Lord Tyrconnel’s patronage of Savage was ‘upon his promise to lay aside his design of exposing the cruelty of his mother,’ [Johnson’s Works, viii. 124], the great biographer has forgotten that he himself has mentioned, that Savage’s story had been told several years before in The Plain Dealer; from which he quotes this strong saying of the generous Sir Richard Steele, that ‘the inhumanity of his mother had given him a right to find every good man his father.’ [Ib. p. 104.] At the same time it must be acknowledged, that Lady Macclesfield and her relations might still wish that her story should not be brought into more conspicuous notice by the satirical pen of Savage. BOSWELL.

[506] According to Johnson, she was at Bath when Savage’s poem of The Bastard was published. ‘She could not,’ he wrote, ‘enter the assembly-rooms or cross the walks without being saluted with some lines from The Bastard. This was perhaps the first time that she ever discovered a sense of shame, and on this occasion the power of wit was very conspicuous; the wretch who had without scruple proclaimed herself an adulteress, and who had first endeavoured to starve her son, then to transport him, and afterwards to hang him, was not able to bear the representation of her own conduct; but fled from reproach, though she felt no pain from guilt, and left Bath with the utmost haste to shelter herself among the crowds of London.’ Johnson’s Works, viii. 141.

[507] Miss Mason, after having forfeited the title of Lady Macclesfield by divorce, was married to Colonel Brett, and, it is said, was well known in all the polite circles. Colley Cibber, I am informed, had so high an opinion of her taste and judgement as to genteel life, and manners, that he submitted every scene of his Careless Husband to Mrs. Brett’s revisal and correction. Colonel Brett was reported to be too free in his gallantry with his Lady’s maid. Mrs. Brett came into a room one day in her own house, and found the Colonel and her maid both fast asleep in two chairs. She tied a white handkerchief round her husband’s neck, which was a sufficient proof that she had discovered his intrigue; but she never at any time took notice of it to him. This incident, as I am told, gave occasion to the well-wrought scene of Sir Charles and Lady Easy and Edging. BOSWELL. Lady Macclesfield died 1753, aged above 80. Her eldest daughter, by Col. Brett, was, for the few last months of his life, the mistress of George I, (Walpole’s Reminiscences, cv.) Her marriage ten years after her royal lover’s death is thus announced in the Gent. Mag., 1737:—‘Sept. 17. Sir W. Leman, of Northall, Bart., to Miss Brett [Britt] of Bond Street, an heiress;’ and again next month—‘Oct. 8. Sir William Leman, of Northall, Baronet, to Miss Brett, half sister to Mr. Savage, son to the late Earl Rivers;’ for the difference of date I know not how to account; but the second insertion was, no doubt, made by Savage to countenance his own pretensions. CROKER.

[508] ‘Among the names of subscribers to the Harleian Miscellany there occurs that of “Sarah Johnson, bookseller in Lichfield.”’ Johnsoniana, p. 466.

[509] A brief account of Oldys is given in the Gent. Mag. liv. 161, 260. Like so many of his fellows he was thrown into the Fleet. ‘After poor Oldys’s release, such was his affection for the place that he constantly spent his evenings there.’

[510] In the Feb. number of the Gent. Mag. for this year (p. 112) is the following advertisement:—‘Speedily will be published (price 1s.) Miscellaneous Observations on the Tragedy of Macbeth, with remarks on Sir T.H.‘s edition of Shakespear; to which is affix’d proposals for a new edition of Shakespear, with a specimen. Printed for J. Roberts in Warwick Lane.’ In the March number (p. 114), under the date of March 31, it is announced that it will be published on April 6. In spite of the two advertisements, and the titlepage which agrees with the advertisements, I believe that the Proposals were not published till eleven years later (see post, end of 1756). I cannot hear of any copy of the Miscellaneous Observations which contains them. The advertisement is a third time repeated in the April number of the Gent. Mag. for 1745 (p. 224), but the Proposals are not this time mentioned. Tom Davies the bookseller gives 1756 as the date of their publication (Misc. and Fugitive Pieces, ii. 87). Perhaps Johnson or the booksellers were discouraged by Hanmer’s Shakespeare as well as by Warburton’s. Johnson at the end of the Miscellaneous Observations says:—‘After the foregoing pages were printed, the late edition of Shakespeare ascribed to Sir T. H. fell into my hands.’

[511] ‘The excellence of the edition proved to be by no means proportionate to the arrogance of the editor.’ Cambridge Shakespeare, i. xxxiv.

[512] ‘When you see Mr. Johnson pray [give] my compliments, and tell him I esteem him as a great genius—quite lost both to himself and the world.’ Gilbert Walmesley to Garrick, Nov. 3, 1746. Garrick Correspondence, i. 45. Mr. Walmesley’s letter does not shew that Johnson was idle. The old man had expected great things from him. ‘I have great hopes,’ he had written in 1737 (see ante, p. 102), ‘that he will turn out a fine tragedy writer.’ In the nine years in which Johnson had been in town he had done, no doubt, much admirable work; but by his poem of London only was he known to the public. His Life of Savage did not bear his name. His Observations on Macbeth were published in April, 1745; his Plan of the Dictionary in 1747 [Transcriber’s note: Originally 1774, corrected in Errata.]. What was Johnson doing meanwhile? Boswell conjectures that he was engaged on his Shakespeare and his Dictionary. That he went on working at his Shakespeare when the prospect of publishing was so remote that he could not issue his proposals is very unlikely. That he had been for some time engaged on his Dictionary before he addressed Lord Chesterfield is shewn by the opening sentences of the Plan. Mr. Croker’s conjecture that he was absent or concealed on account of some difficulties which had arisen through the rebellion of 1745 is absurd. At no time of his life had he been an ardent Jacobite. ‘I have heard him declare,’ writes Boswell, ‘that if holding up his right hand would have secured victory at Culloden to Prince Charles’s army, he was not sure he would have held it up;’ post, July 14, 1763. ‘He had never in his life been in a nonjuring meeting-house;’ post, June 9, 1784.

For the fact that he wrote very little, if indeed anything, in the Gent. Mag. during these years more than one reason may be given. In the first place, public affairs take up an unusual amount of room in its columns. Thus in the number for Dec. 1745 we read:—‘Our readers being too much alarmed by the present rebellion to relish with their usual delight the Debates in the Senate of Lilliput we shall postpone them for a season, that we may be able to furnish out a fuller entertainment of what we find to be more suitable to their present taste.’ In the Preface it is stated:—‘We have sold more of our books than we desire for several months past, and are heartily sorry for the occasion of it, the present troubles.’ During these years then much less space was given to literature. But besides this, Johnson likely enough refused to write for the Magazine when it shewed itself strongly Hanoverian. He would highly disapprove of A New Protestant Litany, which was written after the following fashion:—

‘May Spaniards, or French, all who join with a Highland,

In disturbing the peace of this our bless’d island,

Meet tempests on sea and halters on dry land.

We beseech Thee to hear us, good Lord.’

Gent. Mag. xv. 551.

He would be disgusted the following year at seeing the Duke of Cumberland praised as ‘the greatest man alive’ (Gent. Mag. xvi. 235), and sung in verse that would have almost disgraced Cibber (p. 36). It is remarkable that there is no mention of Johnson’s Plan of a Dictionary in the Magazine. Perhaps some coolness had risen between him and Cave.

[513] Boswell proceeds to mention six.

[514] In Mrs. Williams’s Miscellanies, in which this paraphrase is inserted, it is stated that the Latin epitaph was written by Dr. Freind. I do not think that the English version is by Johnson. I should be sorry to ascribe to him such lines as:—

‘Illustrious age! how bright thy glories shone,

When Hanmer filled the chair—and Anne the throne.’

[515] In the Observations, Johnson, writing of Hanmer, says:—‘Surely the weapons of criticism ought not to be blunted against an editor who can imagine that he is restoring poetry while he is amusing himself with alterations like these:—

For,—This is the sergeant

Who like a good and hardy soldier fought;

—This is the sergeant who

Like a right good and hardy soldier fought.

Such harmless industry may surely be forgiven, if it cannot be praised; may he therefore never want a monosyllable who can use it with such wonderful dexterity.’ Johnson’s Works, v. 93. In his Preface to Shakespeare published eighteen years later, he describes Hanmer as ‘A man, in my opinion, eminently qualified by nature for such studies.’ Ib. p. 139. The editors of the Cambridge Shakespeare (i. xxxii) thus write of Hanmer:—

‘A country gentleman of great ingenuity and lively fancy, but with no knowledge of older literature, no taste for research, and no ear for the rhythm of earlier English verse, amused his leisure hours by scribbling down his own and his friend’s guesses in Pope’s Shakespeare.’

[516] In the Universal Visiter, to which Johnson contributed, the mark which is affixed to some pieces unquestionably his, is also found subjoined to others, of which he certainly was not the author. The mark therefore will not ascertain the poems in question to have been written by him. They were probably the productions of Hawkesworth, who, it is believed, was afflicted with the gout. MALONE.

It is most unlikely that Johnson wrote such poor poems as these. I shall not easily be persuaded that the following lines are his:—

‘Love warbles in the vocal groves,

And vegetation paints the plain.’

‘And love and hate alike implore

The skies—“That Stella mourn no more.”’

‘The Winter’s Walk’ has two good lines, but these may have been supplied by Johnson. The lines to ‘Lyce, an elderly Lady,’ would, if written by him, have been taken as a satire on his wife.

[517] See post under Sept. 18, 1783.

[518] See Johnson’s Works, vii. 4, 34.

[519] Boswell italicises conceits to shew that he is using it in the sense in which Johnson uses it in his criticism of Cowley:—‘These conceits Addison calls mixed wit; that is, wit which consists of thoughts true in one sense of the expression and false in the other.’ Ib. vii 35.

[520] Namby Pamby was the name given to Ambrose Philips by Pope Ib. viii. 395

[521] Malone most likely is meant. Mr. Croker says:—‘Johnson has “indifferently” in the sense of “without concern” in his Dictionary, with this example from Shakespeare, “And I will look on death indifferently.”’ Johnson however here defines indifferently as in a neutral state; without wish or aversion; which is not the same as without concern. The passage, which is from Julius Caesar, i. 2, is not correctly given. It is—

‘Set honour in one eye and death i’ the other And I will look on both indifferently.’

We may compare Johnson’s use of indifferent in his Letter to Chesterfield, post, Feb. 7, 1755:—‘The notice which you have been pleased to take of my labours … has been delayed till I am indifferent, and cannot enjoy it.’

[522] ‘Radcliffe, when quite a boy, had been engaged in the rebellion of 1715, and being attainted had escaped from Newgate…. During the insurrection [of 1745], having been captured on board a French vessel bound for Scotland, he was arraigned on his original sentence which had slumbered so long. The only trial now conceded to him was confined to his identity. For such a course there was no precedent, except in the case of Sir Walter Raleigh, which had brought shame upon the reign of James I.’ Campbell’s Chancellors (edit. 1846), v. 108. Campbell adds, ‘his execution, I think, reflects great disgrace upon Lord Hardwicke [the Lord Chancellor].’

[523] In the original end.

[524] “These verses are somewhat too severe on the extraordinary person who is the chief figure in them, for he was undoubtedly brave. His pleasantry during his solemn trial (in which, by the way, I have heard Mr. David Hume observe, that we have one of the very few speeches of Mr. Murray, now Earl of Mansfield, authentically given) was very remarkable. When asked if he had any questions to put to Sir Everard Fawkener, who was one of the strongest witnesses against him, he answered, ‘I only wish him joy of his young wife.’ And after sentence of death, in the horrible terms in cases of treason, was pronounced upon him, and he was retiring from the bar, he said, ‘Fare you well, my Lords, we shall not all meet again in one place.’ He behaved with perfect composure at his execution, and called out ‘Dulce et decorum est pro patriâ mori?’

‘What joys, what glories round him wait,

Who bravely for his country dies!”

FRANCIS. Horace, Odes, iii.2. 13.