Читать книгу The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. - James Boswell - Страница 202

‘Your father’s inexorability not only grieves but amazes me[1038]: he is your father; he was always accounted a wise man; nor do I remember any thing to the disadvantage of his good-nature; but in his refusal to assist you there is neither good-nature, fatherhood, nor wisdom. It is the practice of good-nature to overlook faults which have already, by the consequences, punished the delinquent. It is natural for a father to think more favourably than others of his children; and it is always wise to give assistance while a little help will prevent the necessity of greater.

[1038] In the Rambler, No. 148, entitled ‘The cruelty of parental tyranny,’ Johnson, after noticing the oppression inflicted by the perversion of legal authority, says:—‘Equally dangerous and equally detestable are the cruelties often exercised in private families, under the venerable sanction of parental authority.’ He continues:—‘Even though no consideration should be paid to the great law of social beings, by which every individual is commanded to consult the happiness of others, yet the harsh parent is less to be vindicated than any other criminal, because he less provides for the happiness of himself.’ See also post, March 29, 1779. A passage in one of Boswell’s Letters to Temple (p. 111) may also be quoted here:—‘The time was when such a letter from my father as the one I enclose would have depressed; but I am now firm, and, as my revered friend, Mr. Samuel Johnson, used to say, I feel the privileges of an independent human being; however, it is hard that I cannot have the pious satisfaction of being well with my father.’

[1039] Perhaps ‘Van,’ for Vansittart.

[1040] Lord Stowell informs me that Johnson prided himself in being, during his visits to Oxford, accurately academic in all points: and he wore his gown almost ostentatiously. CROKER.

[1041] Dr. Robert Vansittart, of the ancient and respectable family of that name in Berkshire. He was eminent for learning and worth, and much esteemed by Dr. Johnson. BOSWELL. Johnson perhaps proposed climbing over the wall on the day on which ‘University College witnessed him drink three bottles of port without being the worse for it.’ Post, April 7, 1778.

[1042] Gentleman’s Magazine, April, 1785. BOSWELL. The speech was made on July 7, 1759, the last day of ‘the solemnity of the installment’ of the Earl of Westmoreland as Chancellor of the University. On the 3rd ‘the ceremony began with a grand procession of noblemen, doctors, &c., in their proper habits, which passed through St. Mary’s, and was there joined by the Masters of Arts in their proper habits; and from thence proceeded to the great gate of the Sheldonian Theatre, in which the most numerous and brilliant assembly of persons of quality and distinction was seated, that had ever been seen there on any occasion.’ Gent. Mag. xxix. 342. Would that we had some description of Johnson, as, in his new and handsome gown, he joined the procession among the Masters! See ante, p. 281.

[1043] Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides, 3d edit. p. 126 [Aug. 31]. BOSWELL. The chance of death from disease would seem also to have been greater on the ship than in a jail. In The Idler (No. 38) Johnson estimates that one in four of the prisoners dies every year. In his Review of Hanway’s Essay on Tea (Works, vi. 31) he states that he is told that ‘of the five or six hundred seamen sent to China, sometimes half, commonly a third part, perish in the voyage.’ See post, April 10, 1778.

[1044] Ibid. p. 251 [Sept. 23]. BOSWELL.

[1045] In my first edition this word was printed Chum, as it appears, in one of Mr. Wilkes’s Miscellanies, and I animadverted on Dr. Smollet’s ignorance; for which let me propitiate the manes of that ingenious and benevolent gentleman. CHUM was certainly a mistaken reading for Cham, the title of the Sovereign of Tartary, which is well applied to Johnson, the Monarch of Literature; and was an epithet familiar to Smollet. See Roderick Random, chap. 56. For this correction I am indebted to Lord Palmerston, whose talents and literary acquirements accord well with his respectable pedigree of TEMPLE BOSWELL.

After the publication of the second edition of this work, the author was furnished by Mr. Abercrombie, of Philadelphia, with the copy of a letter written by Dr. John Armstrong, the poet, to Dr. Smollet at Leghorne, containing the following paragraph:—‘As to the K. Bench patriot, it is hard to say from what motive he published a letter of yours asking some triffling favour of him in behalf of somebody, for whom the great CHAM of literature, Mr. Johnson, had interested himself.’ MALONE. In the first edition Boswell had said:—‘Had Dr. Smollet been bred at an English University, he would have know that a chum is a student who lives with another in a chamber common to them both. A chum of literature is nonsense.’

[1046] In a note to that piece of bad book-making, Almon’s Memoirs of Wilkes (i. 47), this allusion is thus explained:-‘A pleasantry of Mr. Wilkes on that passage in Johnson’s Grammar of the English Tongue, prefixed to the Dictionary—”H seldom, perhaps never, begins any but the first syllable.”’ For this ‘pleasantry’ see ante, p. 300.

[1047] Mr. Croker says that he was not discharged till June 1760. Had he been discharged at once he would have found Johnson moving from Gough Square to Staple Inn; for in a letter to Miss Porter, dated March 23, 1739, given in the Appendix, Johnson said:-‘I have this day moved my things, and you are now to direct to me at Staple Inn.’

[1048] Prayers and Meditations , pp. 30 [39] and 40. BOSWELL.

[1049] ‘I have left off housekeeping’ wrote Johnson to Langton on Jan. 9, 1759. Murphy (Life, p. 90), writing of the beginning of the year 1759, says:—‘Johnson now found it necessary to retrench his expenses. He gave up his house in Gough Square. Mrs. Williams went into lodgings [See post, July 1, 1763]. He retired to Gray’s-Inn, [he had first moved to Staple Inn], and soon removed to chambers in the Inner Temple-lane, where he lived in poverty, total idleness, and the pride of literature, Magni stat nominis umbra. Mr. Fitzherbert used to say that he paid a morning visit to Johnson, intending from his chambers to send a letter into the city; but, to his great surprise, he found an authour by profession without pen, ink, or paper.’ (It was Mr. Fitzherbert, who sent Johnson some wine. See ante, p. 305, note 2. See also post, Sept. 15, 1777). The following documents confirm Murphy’s statement of Johnson’s poverty at this time:

‘May 19, 1759.

‘I promise to pay to Mr. Newbery the sum of forty-two pounds, nineteen shillings, and ten pence on demand, value received. £42 19 10.

‘Sam. Johnson.’

‘March 20, 1760.

‘I promise to pay to Mr. Newbery the sum of thirty pounds upon demand., £30 0 0.

‘Sam. Johnson.’

In 1751 he had thrice borrowed money of Newbery, but the total amount of the loans was only four guineas. Prior’s Goldsmith, i. 340. With Johnson’s want of pen, ink, and paper we may compare the account that he gives of Savage’s destitution (Works, viii. 3):—‘Nor had he any other conveniences for study than the fields or the streets allowed him; there he used to walk and form his speeches, and afterwards step into a shop, beg for a few moments the use of the pen and ink, and write down what he had composed upon paper which he had picked up by accident.’ Hawkins (Life, p. 383) says that Johnson’s chambers were two doors down the Inner Temple Lane. ‘I have been told,’ he continues, ‘by his neighbour at the corner, that during the time he dwelt there, more inquiries were made at his shop for Mr. Johnson, than for all the inhabitants put together of both the Inner and Middle Temple.’ In a court opening out of Fleet Street, Goldsmith at this very time was still more miserably lodged. In the beginning of March 1759, Percy found him ‘employed in writing his Enquiry into Polite Learning in a wretched dirty room, in which there was but one chair, and when he from civility offered it to his visitant, himself was obliged to sit in the window.’ Goldsmith’s Misc. Works, i. 61.

[1050] Sir John Hawkins (Life, p. 373) has given a long detail of it, in that manner vulgarly, but significantly, called rigmarole; in which, amidst an ostentatious exhibition of arts and artists, he talks of ‘proportions of a column being taken from that of the human figure, and adjusted by Nature—masculine and feminine—in a man, sesquioctave of the head, and in a woman sesquinonal;’ nor has he failed to introduce a jargon of musical terms, which do not seem much to correspond with the subject, but serve to make up the heterogeneous mass. To follow the Knight through all this, would be an useless fatigue to myself, and not a little disgusting to my readers. I shall, therefore, only make a few remarks upon his statement.—He seems to exult in having detected Johnson in procuring ‘from a person eminently skilled in Mathematicks and the principles of architecture, answers to a string of questions drawn up by himself, touching the comparative strength of semicircular and elliptical arches.’ Now I cannot conceive how Johnson could have acted more wisely. Sir John complains that the opinion of that excellent mathematician, Mr. Thomas Simpson, did not preponderate in favour of the semicircular arch. But he should have known, that however eminent Mr. Simpson was in the higher parts of abstract mathematical science, he was little versed in mixed and practical mechanicks. Mr. Muller, of Woolwich Academy, the scholastick father of all the great engineers which this country has employed for forty years, decided the question by declaring clearly in favour of the elliptical arch.

It is ungraciously suggested, that Johnson’s motive for opposing Mr. Mylne’s scheme may have been his prejudice against him as a native of North Britain; when, in truth, as has been stated, he gave the aid of his able pen to a friend, who was one of the candidates; and so far was he from having any illiberal antipathy to Mr. Mylne, that he afterwards lived with that gentleman upon very agreeable terms of acquaintance, and dined with him at his house. Sir John Hawkins, indeed, gives full vent to his own prejudice in abusing Blackfriars bridge, calling it ‘an edifice, in which beauty and symmetry are in vain sought for; by which the citizens of London have perpetuated study their own disgrace, and subjected a whole nation to the reproach of foreigners.’ Whoever has contemplated, placido lumine [Horace, Odes, iv. 3, 2], this stately, elegant, and airy structure, which has so fine an effect, especially on approaching the capital on that quarter, must wonder at such unjust and ill-tempered censure; and I appeal to all foreigners of good taste, whether this bridge be not one of the most distinguished ornaments of London. As to the stability of the fabrick, it is certain that the City of London took every precaution to have the best Portland stone for it; but as this is to be found in the quarries belonging to the publick, under the direction of the Lords of the Treasury, it so happened that parliamentary interest, which is often the bane of fair pursuits, thwarted their endeavours. Notwithstanding this disadvantage, it is well known that not only has Blackfriars-bridge never sunk either in its foundation or in its arches, which were so much the subject of contest, but any injuries which it has suffered from the effects of severe frosts have been already, in some measure, repaired with sounder stone, and every necessary renewal can be completed at a moderate expence. BOSWELL. Horace Walpole mentions an ineffectual application made by the City to Parliament in 1764 ‘for more money for their new bridge at Blackfriars,’ when Dr. Hay, one of the Lords of the Admiralty, ‘abused the Common Council, whose late behaviour, he said, entitled them to no favour.’ Walpole’s Memoirs of the Reign of George III, i. 390. The late behaviour was the part taken by the City in Wilkes’s case. It was the same love of liberty no doubt that lost the City the Portland stone. Smollett goes out of the way to praise his brother-Scot, Mr. Mylne, in Humphry Clinker—‘a party novel written,’ says Horace Walpole, ‘to vindicate the Scots’ (Reign of George III, iv. 328). In the letter dated May 29, he makes Mr. Bramble say:—‘The Bridge at Blackfriars is a noble monument of taste and public spirit—I wonder how they stumbled upon a work of such magnificence and utility.’

[1051] Juvenal, Sat. i. 85.

[1052] ‘Born and educated in this country, I glory in the name of Briton.’—George III’s first speech to his parliament. It appears from the Hardwicke Papers, writes the editor of the _Parl. Hist. (xv. 982), that after the draft of the speech had been settled by the cabinet, these words and those that came next were added by the King’s own hand. Wilkes in his Dedication of Mortimer (see post, May 15, 1776) asserted that ‘these endearing words, “Born,&c.,” were permitted to be seen in the royal orthography of Britain for Briton,’ Almon’s Works, i. 84.

[1053] In this Introduction (Works, vi. 148) Johnson answers objections that had been raised against the relief. ‘We know that for the prisoners of war there is no legal provision; we see their distress and are certain of its cause; we know that they are poor and naked, and poor and naked without a crime…. The opponents of this charity must allow it to be good, and will not easily prove it not to be the best. That charity is best of which the consequences are most extensive; the relief of enemies has a tendency to unite mankind in fraternal affection.’ The Committee for which Johnson’s paper was written began its work in Dec. 1759. In the previous month of October Wesley records in his _Journal (ii. 461):—‘I walked up to Knowle, a mile from Bristol, to see the French prisoners. Above eleven hundred of them, we were informed, were confined in that little place, without anything to lie on but a little dirty straw, or anything to cover them but a few foul thin rags, either by day or by night, so that they died like rotten sheep. I was much affected, and preached in the evening on Exodus xxiii. 9.’ Money was at once contributed, and clothing bought. ‘It was not long before contributions were set on foot in various parts of the Kingdom.’ On Oct. 24 of the following year, he records:—‘I visited the French prisoners at Knowle, and found many of them almost naked again.’ Ib. iii. 23. ‘The prisoners,’ wrote Hume (Private Corres. p. 55), ‘received food from the public, but it was thought that their own friends would supply them with clothes, which, however, was found after some time to be neglected.’ The cry arose that the brave and gallant men, though enemies, were perishing with cold in prison; a subscription was set on foot; great sums were given by all ranks of people; and, notwithstanding the national foolish prejudices against the French, a remarkable zeal everywhere appeared for this charity. I am afraid that M. Rousseau could not have produced many parallel instances among his heroes, the Greeks; and still fewer among the Romans. Baretti, in his Journey from London to Genoa (i. 62, 66), after telling how on all foreigners, even on a Turk wearing a turban, ‘the pretty appellation of French dog was liberally bestowed by the London rabble,’ continues:—‘I have seen the populace of England contribute as many shillings as they could spare towards the maintenance of the French prisoners; and I have heard a universal shout of joy when their parliament voted £100,000 to the Portuguese on hearing of the tremendous earthquake.’

[1054] Johnson’s Works, vi. 81. See Boswell’s Hebrides, Aug. 16, 1773, where Johnson describes Mary as ‘such a Queen as every man of any gallantry of spirit would have sacrificed his life for.’ ‘There are,’ wrote Hume, ‘three events in our history which may be regarded as touchstones of party-men. An English Whig who asserts the reality of the popish plot, an Irish Catholic who denies the massacre in 1641, and a Scotch Jacobite who maintains the innocence of Queen Mary, must be considered as men beyond the reach of argument or reason, and must be left to their prejudices.’ History of England, ed. 1802, v. 504.

[1055] Prayers and Meditations, p. 42. BOSWELL. The following is his entry on this day:—

‘1760, Sept. 18. Resolved D[eo]j[uvante]’

To combat notions of obligation.

To apply to study.

To reclaim imagination.

To consult the resolves on Tetty’s coffin.

To rise early.

To study religion.

To go to church.

To drink less strong liquors.

To keep a journal.

To oppose laziness, by doing what is to be done tomorrow.

Rise as early as I can.

Send for books for Hist. of War.

Put books in order.

Scheme of life.’

[1056] See post, Oct. 19, 1769, and May 15, 1783, for Johnson’s measure of emotion, by eating.

[1057] Mr. Croker points out that Murphy’s Epistle was an imitation of Boileau’s Epître à Molière.

[1058] The paper mentioned in the text is No. 38 of the second series of the Grays Inn Journal, published on June 15, 1754; which is a translation from the French version of Johnson’s Rambler, No. 190. MALONE. Mrs. Piozzi relates how Murphy, used to tell before Johnson of the first time they met. He found our friend all covered with soot, like a chimney-sweeper, in a little room, with an intolerable heat and strange smell, as if he had been acting Lungs in the Alchymist, making aether. ‘Come, come,’ says Dr. Johnson, ‘dear Murphy, the story is black enough now; and it was a very happy day for me that brought you first to my house, and a very happy mistake about the Ramblers.’ Piozzi’s Anec. p. 235. Murphy quotes her account, Murphy’s Johnson, p. 79. See also post, 1770, where Dr. Maxwell records in his Collectanea how Johnson ‘very much loved Arthur Murphy.’ Miss Burney thus describes him:—‘He is tall and well-made, has a very gentlemanlike appearance, and a quietness of manner upon his first address that to me is very pleasing. His face looks sensible, and his deportment is perfectly easy and polite.’ A few days later she records:—‘Mr. Murphy was the life of the party; he was in good spirits, and extremely entertaining; he told a million of stories admirably well.’ Mme. D’Arblay’s Diary, i. 195, 210. Rogers, who knew Murphy well, says that ‘towards the close of his life, till he received a pension of £200 from the King, he was in great pecuniary difficulties. He had eaten himself out of every tavern from the other side of Temple-Bar to the west end of the town.’ He owed Rogers a large sum of money, which he never repaid. ‘He assigned over to me the whole of his works; and I soon found that he had already disposed of them to a bookseller. One thing,’ Rogers continues, ‘ought to be remembered to his honour; an actress with whom he had lived bequeathed to him all her property, but he gave up every farthing of it to her relations.’ He was pensioned in 1803, and he died in 1805. Rogers’s Table-Talk, p. 106.

[1059] Topham Beauclerk, Esq. BOSWELL.

[1060] Essays with that title, written about this time by Mr. Langton, but not published. BOSWELL.

[1061] Thomas Sheridan, born 1721, died 1788. He was the son of Swift’s friend, and the father of R. B. Sheridan (who was born in 1751), and the great-great-grandfather of the present Earl of Dufferin.

[1062] Sheridan was acting in Garrick’s Company, generally on the nights on which Garrick did not appear. Davies’s Garrick, i. 299. Johnson criticises his reading, post, April 18, 1783.

[1063] Mrs. Sheridan was authour of Memoirs of Miss Sydney Biddulph, a novel of great merit, and of some other pieces.—See her character, post, beginning of 1763. BOSWELL.

[1064] Prayers and Meditations, p. 44. BOSWELL. ‘1761. Easter Eve. Since the communion of last Easter I have led a life so dissipated and useless, and my terrours and perplexities have so much increased, that I am under great depression and discouragement.’

[1065] See post, April 6, 1775.

[1066] I have had inquiry made in Ireland as to this story, but do not find it recollected there. I give it on the authority of Dr. Johnson, to which may be added that of the biographical Dictionary, and Biographia Dramatica; in both of which it has stood many years. Mr. Malone observes, that the truth probably is, not that an edition was published with Rolt’s name in the title-page, but, that the poem being then anonymous, Rolt acquiesced in its being attributed to him in conversation. BOSWELL.

[1067] I have both the books. Innes was the clergyman who brought Psalmanazar to England, and was an accomplice in his extraordinary fiction. BOSWELL. It was in 1728 that Innes, who was a Doctor of Divinity and Preacher-Assistant at St. Margaret’s Westminster, published this book. In his impudent Dedication to Lord Chancellor King he says that ‘were matters once brought to the melancholy pass that mankind should become proselytes to such impious delusions’ as Mandeville taught, ‘punishments must be annexed to virtue and rewards to vice.’ It was not till 1730 that Dr. Campbell ‘laid open this imposture.’ Preface, p. xxxi. Though he was Professor of Ecclesiastical History in St. Andrews, yet he had not, it should seem, heard of the fraud till then: so remote was Scotland from London in those days. It was not till 1733 that he published his own edition. For Psalmanazar, see post, April 18, 1778.

[1068] ‘Died, the Rev. Mr. Eccles, at Bath. In attempting to save a boy, whom he saw sinking in the Avon, he, together with the youth, were both drowned.’ Gent. Mag. Aug. 15, 1777. And in the magazine for the next month are some verses on this event, with an epitaph, of which the first line is,

‘Beneath this stone the “Man of Feeling” lies.’