Life Of Johnson, Vol. 1 by Boswell, Edited by Birkbeck Hill

B >> Boswell, Edited by Birkbeck Hill >> Life Of Johnson, Vol. 1

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58

[Page 169: A review in THE CHAMPION. AEtat 35.]

His _Life of Savage_ was no sooner published, than the following liberal
praise was given to it, in _The Champion_, a periodical paper: 'This
pamphlet is, without flattery to its authour, as just and well written a
piece as of its kind I ever saw; so that at the same time that it highly
deserves, it certainly stands very little in need of this
recommendation. As to the history of the unfortunate person, whose
memoirs compose this work, it is certainly penned with equal accuracy
and spirit, of which I am so much the better judge, as I know many of
the facts mentioned to be strictly true, and very fairly related.
Besides, it is not only the story of Mr. Savage, but innumerable
incidents relating to other persons, and other affairs, which renders
this a very amusing, and, withal, a very instructive and valuable
performance. The author's observations are short, significant, and just,
as his narrative is remarkably smooth, and well disposed. His
reflections open to all the recesses of the human heart; and, in a word,
a more just or pleasant, a more engaging or a more improving treatise,
on all the excellencies and defects of human nature, is scarce to be
found in our own, or, perhaps, any other language[492].'

[Page 170: Parentage of Richard Savage. A.D. 1744.]

Johnson's partiality for Savage made him entertain no doubt of his
story, however extraordinary and improbable. It never occurred to him to
question his being the son of the Countess of Macclesfield, of whose
unrelenting barbarity he so loudly complained, and the particulars of
which are related in so strong and affecting a manner in Johnson's life
of him. Johnson was certainly well warranted in publishing his
narrative, however offensive it might be to the lady and her relations,
because her alledged unnatural and cruel conduct to her son, and
shameful avowal of guilt, were stated in a _Life of Savage_ now lying
before me, which came out so early as 1727, and no attempt had been made
to confute it, or to punish the authour or printer as a libeller: but
for the honour of human nature, we should be glad to find the shocking
tale not true; and, from a respectable gentleman[493] connected with the
lady's family, I have received such information and remarks, as joined
to my own inquiries, will, I think, render it at least somewhat
doubtful, especially when we consider that it must have originated from
the person himself who went by the name of Richard Savage.

If the maxim _falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus_, were to be received
without qualification, the credit of Savage's narrative, as conveyed to
us, would be annihilated; for it contains some assertions which, beyond
a question, are not true[494].

1. In order to induce a belief that Earl Rivers, on account of a
criminal connection with whom, Lady Macclesfield is said to have been
divorced from her husband, by Act of Parliament[495], had a peculiar
anxiety about the child which she bore to him, it is alledged, that his
Lordship gave him his own name, and had it duly recorded in the register
of St. Andrew's, Holborn[496]. I have carefully inspected that register,
but no such entry is to be found[497].

[Page 171: Lady Macclesfield's divorce. AEtat 35.]

2. It is stated, that 'Lady Macclesfield having lived for some time upon
very uneasy terms with her husband, thought a publick confession of
adultery the most obvious and expeditious method of obtaining her
liberty[498];' and Johnson, assuming this to be true, stigmatises her with
indignation, as 'the wretch who had, without scruple, proclaimed herself
an adulteress[499].' But I have perused the Journals of both houses of
Parliament at the period of her divorce, and there find it authentically
ascertained, that so far from voluntarily submitting to the ignominious
charge of adultery, she made a strenuous defence by her Counsel; the
bill having been first moved 15th January, 1697, in the House of Lords,
and proceeded on, (with various applications for time to bring up
witnesses at a distance, &c.) at intervals, till the 3d of March, when
it passed. It was brought to the Commons, by a message from the Lords,
the 5th of March, proceeded on the 7th, 10th, 11th, 14th, and 15th, on
which day, after a full examination of witnesses on both sides, and
hearing of Counsel, it was reported without amendments, passed, and
carried to the Lords.

[Page 172: Lady Macclesfield's alleged cruelty. A.D. 1744.]

That Lady Macclesfield was convicted of the crime of which she was
accused, cannot be denied; but the question now is, whether the person
calling himself Richard Savage was her son.

It has been said[500], that when Earl Rivers was dying, and anxious to
provide for all his natural children, he was informed by Lady
Macclesfield that her son by him was dead. Whether, then, shall we
believe that this was a malignant lie, invented by a mother to prevent
her own child from receiving the bounty of his father, which was
accordingly the consequence, if the person whose life Johnson wrote, was
her son; or shall we not rather believe that the person who then assumed
the name of Richard Savage was an impostor, being in reality the son of
the shoemaker, under whose wife's care[501] Lady Macclesfield's child was
placed; that after the death of the real Richard Savage, he attempted to
personate him; and that the fraud being known to Lady Macclesfield, he
was therefore repulsed by her with just resentment?

There is a strong circumstance in support of the last supposition,
though it has been mentioned as an aggravation of Lady Macclesfield's
unnatural conduct, and that is, her having prevented him from obtaining
the benefit of a legacy left to him by Mrs. Lloyd his god-mother. For if
there was such a legacy left, his not being able to obtain payment of
it, must be imputed to his consciousness that he was not the real
person. The just inference should be, that by the death of Lady
Macclesfield's child before its god-mother, the legacy became lapsed,
and therefore that Johnson's Richard Savage was an impostor. If he had a
title to the legacy, he could not have found any difficulty in
recovering it; for had the executors resisted his claim, the whole
costs, as well as the legacy, must have been paid by them, if he had
been the child to whom it was given[502].

[Page 173: Lord Tyrconnel. AEtat 35.]

The talents of Savage, and the mingled fire, rudeness, pride, meanness,
and ferocity of his character[503], concur in making it credible that he
was fit to plan and carry on an ambitious and daring scheme of
imposture, similar instances of which have not been wanting in higher
spheres, in the history of different countries, and have had a
considerable degree of success.

Yet, on the other hand, to the companion of Johnson, (who through
whatever medium he was conveyed into this world,--be it ever so doubtful
'To whom related, or by whom begot[504],' was, unquestionably, a man of no
common endowments,) we must allow the weight of general repute as to his
_Status_ or parentage, though illicit; and supposing him to be an
impostor, it seems strange that Lord Tyrconnel, the nephew of Lady
Macclesfield, should patronise him, and even admit him as a guest in his
family[505]. Lastly, it must ever appear very suspicious, that three
different accounts of the Life of Richard Savage, one published in _The
Plain Dealer_, in 1724, another in 1727, and another by the powerful pen
of Johnson, in 1744, and all of them while Lady Macclesfield was alive,
should, notwithstanding the severe attacks upon her[506], have been
suffered to pass without any publick and effectual contradiction.

[Page 174: Lady Macclesfield's latter career. A.D. 1744.]

I have thus endeavoured to sum up the evidence upon the case, as fairly
as I can; and the result seems to be, that the world must vibrate in a
state of uncertainty as to what was the truth.

This digression, I trust, will not be censured, as it relates to a
matter exceedingly curious, and very intimately connected with Johnson,
both as a man and an authour[507].

[Page 175: Observations of Shakespeare. AEtat 38.]

He this year wrote the _Preface to the Harleian Miscellany_[508][*] The
selection of the pamphlets of which it was composed was made by Mr.
Oldys[509], a man of eager curiosity and indefatigable diligence, who
first exerted that spirit of inquiry into the literature of the old
English writers, by which the works of our great dramatick poet have of
late been so signally illustrated.

In 1745 he published a pamphlet entitled _Miscellaneous Observations on
the Tragedy of Macbeth, with remarks on Sir T.H.'s (Sir Thomas Hammer's)
Edition of Shakspeare_.[*] To which he affixed, proposals for a new
edition of that poet[510].

As we do not trace any thing else published by him during the course of
this year, we may conjecture that he was occupied entirely with that
work. But the little encouragement which was given by the publick to his
anonymous proposals for the execution of a task which Warburton was
known to have undertaken, probably damped his ardour. His pamphlet,
however, was highly esteemed, and was fortunate enough to obtain the
approbation even of the supercilious Warburton himself, who, in the
Preface to his _Shakspeare_ published two years afterwards, thus
mentioned it: 'As to all those things which have been published under
the titles of _Essays, Remarks, Observations_, &c. on Shakspeare, if you
except some critical notes on _Macbeth_, given as a specimen of a
projected edition, and written, as appears, by a man of parts and
genius, the rest are absolutely below a serious notice.'

Of this flattering distinction shewn to him by Warburton, a very
grateful remembrance was ever entertained by Johnson, who said, 'He
praised me at a time when praise was of value to me.'

[Page 176: The Rebellion of 1745. A.D. 1746.]

1746: AETAT. 37.--In 1746 it is probable that he was still employed
upon his _Shakspeare_, which perhaps he laid aside for a time, upon
account of the high expectations which were formed of Warburton's
edition of that great poet[511]. It is somewhat curious, that his literary
career appears to have been almost totally suspended in the years 1745
and 1746, those years which were marked by a civil war in Great-Britain,
when a rash attempt was made to restore the House of Stuart to the
throne. That he had a tenderness for that unfortunate House, is well
known; and some may fancifully imagine, that a sympathetick anxiety
impeded the exertion of his intellectual powers: but I am inclined to
think, that he was, during this time, sketching the outlines of his
great philological work[512].

[Page 177: Johnson not an ardent Jacobite. AEtat 38.]

None of his letters during those years are extant, so far as I can
discover. This is much to be regretted. It might afford some
entertainment to see how he then expressed himself to his private
friends, concerning State affairs. Dr. Adams informs me, that 'at this
time a favourite object which he had in contemplation was _The Life of
Alfred_; in which, from the warmth with which he spoke about it, he
would, I believe, had he been master of his own will, have engaged
himself, rather than on any other subject.'

[Page 178: Poems wrongly assigned to Johnson. A.D. 1747.]

1747: AETAT. 38.--In 1747 it is supposed that the _Gentleman's
Magazine_ for May was enriched by him with five[513] short poetical
pieces, distinguished by three asterisks. The first is a translation, or
rather a paraphrase, of a Latin Epitaph on Sir Thomas Hanmer. Whether
the Latin was his, or not, I have never heard, though I should think it
probably was, if it be certain that he wrote the English[514]; as to which
my only cause of doubt is, that his slighting character of Hanmer as an
editor, in his _Observations on Macbeth_, is very different from that in
the 'Epitaph.' It may be said, that there is the same contrariety
between the character in the _Observations_, and that in his own Preface
to Shakspeare[515]; but a considerable time elapsed between the one
publication and the other, whereas the _Observations_ and the 'Epitaph'
came close together. The others are 'To Miss----, on her giving the
Authour a gold and silk net-work Purse of her own weaving;' 'Stella in
Mourning;' 'The Winter's Walk;' 'An Ode;' and, 'To Lyce, an elderly
Lady.' I am not positive that all these were his productions[516]; but as
'The Winter's Walk' has never been controverted to be his, and all of
them have the same mark, it is reasonable to conclude that they are all
written by the same hand. Yet to the Ode, in which we find a passage
very characteristick of him, being a learned description of the gout,

'Unhappy, whom to beds of pain
_Arthritick_ tyranny consigns;'

there is the following note: 'The authour being ill of the gout:' but
Johnson was not attacked with that distemper till at a very late period
of his life[517]. May not this, however, be a poetical fiction? Why may
not a poet suppose himself to have the gout, as well as suppose himself
to be in love, of which we have innumerable instances, and which has
been admirably ridiculed by Johnson in his _Life of Cowley_[518]? I have
also some difficulty to believe that he could produce such a group of
_conceits_[519] as appear in the verses to Lyce, in which he claims for
this ancient personage as good a right to be assimilated to _heaven_, as
nymphs whom other poets have flattered; he therefore ironically ascribes
to her the attributes of the _sky_, in such stanzas as this:

'Her teeth the _night_ with _darkness_ dies,
She's _starr'd_ with pimples o'er;
Her tongue like nimble _lightning_ plies,
And can with _thunder roar_.'

But as at a very advanced age he could condescend to trifle in
_namby-pamby_[520] rhymes, to please Mrs. Thrale and her daughter, he may
have, in his earlier years, composed such a piece as this.

It is remarkable, that in this first edition of _The Winters Walk_, the
concluding line is much more Johnsonian than it was afterwards printed;
for in subsequent editions, after praying Stella to 'snatch him to her
arms,' he says,

'And _shield_ me from the _ills_ of life.'

[Page 180: Verses on Lord Lovat. A.D. 1747.]

Whereas in the first edition it is

'And hide me from the _sight_ of life.'

A horrour at life in general is more consonant with Johnson's habitual
gloomy cast of thought.

I have heard him repeat with great energy the following verses, which
appeared in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ for April this year; but I have
no authority to say they were his own. Indeed one of the best criticks
of our age[521] suggests to me, that 'the word _indifferently_ being used
in the sense of _without concern_' and being also very unpoetical,
renders it improbable that they should have been his composition.

'On Lord LOVAT'S _Execution_.

'Pity'd by _gentle minds_ KILMARNOCK died;
The _brave_, BALMERINO, were on thy side;
RADCLIFFE, unhappy in his crimes of youth[522],
Steady in what he still mistook for truth,
Beheld his death so decently unmov'd,
The _soft_ lamented, and the _brave_ approv'd.
But LOVAT'S fate[523] indifferently we view,
True to no King, to no _religion_ true:
No _fair_ forgets the _ruin_ he has done;
No _child_ laments the _tyrant_ of his _son_;
No _tory_ pities, thinking what he was;
No _whig_ compassions, _for he left the cause_;
The _brave_ regret not, for he was not brave;
The _honest_ mourn not, knowing him a knave[524]!'

[Page 181: A Prologue by Johnson. AEtat 38.]

This year his old pupil and friend, David Garrick, having become joint
patentee and manager of Drury-lane theatre, Johnson honoured his opening
of it with a Prologue[525],[*] which for just and manly dramatick
criticism, on the whole range of the English stage, as well as for
poetical excellence[526], is unrivalled. Like the celebrated Epilogue to
the _Distressed Mother_,[527] it was, during the season, often called for
by the audience. The most striking and brilliant passages of it have
been so often repeated, and are so well recollected by all the lovers of
the drama and of poetry, that it would be superfluous to point them out.
In the _Gentleman's Magazine_ for December this year, he inserted an
'Ode on Winter,' which is, I think, an admirable specimen of his genius
for lyrick poetry[528].

[Page 182: The Plan of the Dictionary. A.D. 1747.]

But the year 1747 is distinguished as the epoch, when Johnson's arduous
and important work, his DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, was
announced to the world, by the publication of its Plan or _Prospectus_.

How long this immense undertaking had been the object of his
contemplation, I do not know. I once asked him by what means he had
attained to that astonishing knowledge of our language, by which he was
enabled to realise a design of such extent, and accumulated difficulty.
He told me, that 'it was not the effect of particular study; but that it
had grown up in his mind insensibly.' I have been informed by Mr. James
Dodsley, that several years before this period, when Johnson was one day
sitting in his brother Robert's shop, he heard his brother suggest to
him, that a Dictionary of the English Language would be a work that
would be well received by the publick[529]; that Johnson seemed at first
to catch at the proposition, but, after a pause, said, in his abrupt
decisive manner, 'I believe I shall not undertake it.' That he, however,
had bestowed much thought upon the subject, before he published his
_Plan_, is evident from the enlarged, clear, and accurate views which it
exhibits; and we find him mentioning in that tract, that many of the
writers whose testimonies were to be produced as authorities, were
selected by Pope[530]; which proves that he had been furnished, probably
by Mr. Robert Dodsley, with whatever hints that eminent poet had
contributed towards a great literary project, that had been the subject
of important consideration in a former reign.

[Page 183: Address of the Earl of Chesterfield. AEtat 38.]

The booksellers who contracted with Johnson, single and unaided, for the
execution of a work, which in other countries has not been effected but
by the co-operating exertions of many, were Mr. Robert Dodsley, Mr.
Charles Hitch[531], Mr. Andrew Millar, the two Messieurs Longman, and the
two Messieurs Knapton. The price stipulated was fifteen hundred and
seventy-five pounds[532].

The _Plan_ was addressed to Philip Dormer, Earl of Chesterfield, then
one of his Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State[533]; a nobleman who
was very ambitious of literary distinction, and who, upon being informed
of the design, had expressed himself in terms very favourable to its
success. There is, perhaps in every thing of any consequence, a secret
history which it would be amusing to know, could we have it
authentically communicated. Johnson told me[534], 'Sir, the way in which
the _Plan_ of my _Dictionary_ came to be inscribed to Lord Chesterfield,
was this: I had neglected to write it by the time appointed. Dodsley
suggested a desire to have it addressed to Lord Chesterfield. I laid
hold of this as a pretext for delay, that it might be better done, and
let Dodsley have his desire. I said to my friend, Dr. Bathurst, "Now if
any good comes of my addressing to Lord Chesterfield, it will be
ascribed to deep policy, when, in fact, it was only a casual excuse for
laziness."'

[Page 184: The style of the PLAN. A.D. 1747.]

It is worthy of observation, that the _Plan_ has not only the
substantial merit of comprehension, perspicuity, and precision, but that
the language of it is unexceptionably excellent; it being altogether
free from that inflation of style, and those uncommon but apt and
energetick words[535], which in some of his writings have been censured,
with more petulance than justice; and never was there a more dignified
strain of compliment than that in which he courts the attention of one
who, he had been persuaded to believe, would be a respectable patron.

'With regard to questions of purity or propriety, (says he) I was once
in doubt whether I should not attribute to myself too much in attempting
to decide them, and whether my province was to extend beyond the
proposition of the question, and the display of the suffrages on each
side; but I have been since determined by your Lordship's opinion, to
interpose my own judgement, and shall therefore endeavour to support
what appears to me most consonant to grammar and reason. Ausonius
thought that modesty forbade him to plead inability for a task to which
Caesar had judged him equal:

Cur me pesse negem posse quod ille putat[536]?

'And I may hope, my Lord, that since you, whose authority in our
language is so generally acknowledged, have commissioned me to declare
my own opinion, I shall be considered as exercising a kind of vicarious
jurisdiction; and that the power which might have been denied to my own
claim, will be readily allowed me as the delegate of your Lordship.'

[Page 185: The Earl of Orrery. AEtat 38.]

This passage proves, that Johnson's addressing his _Plan_ to Lord
Chesterfield was not merely in consequence of the result of a report by
means of Dodsley, that the Earl favoured the design; but that there had
been a particular communication with his Lordship concerning it. Dr.
Taylor told me, that Johnson sent his _Plan_ to him in manuscript, for
his perusal; and that when it was lying upon his table, Mr. William
Whitehead[537] happened to pay him a visit, and being shewn it, was highly
pleased with such parts of it as he had time to read, and begged to take
it home with him, which he was allowed to do; that from him it got into
the hands of a noble Lord, who carried it to Lord Chesterfield[538]. When
Taylor observed this might be an advantage, Johnson replied, 'No, Sir;
it would have come out with more bloom, if it had not been seen before
by any body.'

The opinion conceived of it by another noble authour, appears from the
following extract of a letter from the Earl of Orrery to Dr. Birch:

'Caledon, Dec. 30, 1747.

'I have just now seen the specimen of Mr. Johnson's Dictionary,
addressed to Lord Chesterfield. I am much pleased with the plan, and I
think the specimen is one of the best that I have ever read. Most
specimens disgust, rather than prejudice us in favour of the work to
follow; but the language of Mr. Johnson's is good, and the arguments are
properly and modestly expressed. However, some expressions may be
cavilled at, but they are trifles. I'll mention one. The _barren_
Laurel. The laurel is not barren, in any sense whatever; it bears fruits
and flowers[539]. _Sed hae sunt nugae_, and I have great expectation from
the performance[540].'

That he was fully aware of the arduous nature of the undertaking, he
acknowledges; and shews himself perfectly sensible of it in the
conclusion of his _Plan_[541]; but he had a noble consciousness of his own
abilities, which enabled him to go on with undaunted spirit[542].

[Page 186: The Dictionary of the French Academy. A.D. 1748.]

Dr. Adams found him one day busy at his _Dictionary_, when the following
dialogue ensued. 'ADAMS. This is a great work, Sir. How are you to get
all the etymologies? JOHNSON. Why, Sir, here is a shelf with Junius, and
Skinner[543], and others; and there is a Welch gentleman who has published
a collection of Welch proverbs, who will help me with the Welch[544].
ADAMS. But, Sir, how can you do this in three years? JOHNSON. Sir, I
have no doubt that I can do it in three years. ADAMS. But the French
Academy, which consists of forty members, took forty years to compile
their Dictionary. JOHNSON. Sir, thus it is. This is the proportion. Let
me see; forty times forty is sixteen hundred. As three to sixteen
hundred, so is the proportion of an Englishman to a Frenchman.' With so
much ease and pleasantry could he talk of that prodigious labour which
he had undertaken to execute.

The publick has had, from another pen[545], a long detail of what had been
done in this country by prior Lexicographers; and no doubt Johnson was
wise to avail himself of them, so far as they went: but the learned, yet
judicious research of etymology[546], the various, yet accurate display of
definition, and the rich collection of authorities, were reserved for
the superior mind of our great philologist[547]. For the mechanical part
he employed, as he told me, six amanuenses; and let it be remembered by
the natives of North-Britain, to whom he is supposed to have been so
hostile, that five of them were of that country. There were two
Messieurs Macbean; Mr. Shiels, who we shall hereafter see partly wrote
the _Lives of the Poets_ to which the name of Cibber is affixed[548]; Mr.
Stewart, son of Mr. George Stewart, bookseller at Edinburgh; and a Mr.
Maitland. The sixth of these humble assistants was Mr. Peyton, who, I
believe, taught French, and published some elementary tracts.

[Page 187: Johnson's amanuenses. AEtat 38.]

To all these painful labourers, Johnson shewed a never-ceasing kindness,
so far as they stood in need of it. The elder Mr. Macbean had afterwards
the honour of being Librarian to Archibald, Duke of Argyle, for many
years, but was left without a shilling. Johnson wrote for him a Preface
to _A System of Ancient Geography_; and, by the favour of Lord Thurlow,
got him admitted a poor brother of the Charterhouse[549]. For Shiels, who
died, of a consumption, he had much tenderness; and it has been thought
that some choice sentences in the _Lives of the Poets_ were supplied by
him[550]. Peyton, when reduced to penury, had frequent aid from the bounty
of Johnson, who at last was at the expense of burying both him and his
wife[551].