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 492: A new system of gentility. A.D. 1765.]

There may be some who think that a new system of gentility[1438] might be
established, upon principles totally different from what have hitherto
prevailed. Our present heraldry, it may be said, is suited to the
barbarous times in which it had its origin. It is chiefly founded upon
ferocious merit, upon military excellence. Why, in civilised times, we
may be asked, should there not be rank and honours, upon principles,
which, independent of long custom, are certainly not less worthy, and
which, when once allowed to be connected with elevation and precedency,
would obtain the same dignity in our imagination? Why should not the
knowledge, the skill, the expertness, the assiduity, and the spirited
hazards of trade and commerce, when crowned with success, be entitled to
give those flattering distinctions by which mankind are so universally
captivated?

Such are the specious, but false arguments for a proposition which
always will find numerous advocates, in a nation where men are every day
starting up from obscurity to wealth. To refute them is needless. The
general sense of mankind cries out, with irresistible force, 'Un
gentilhomme est toujours gentilhomme'[1439].

[Page 493: A new home for Johnson. AEtat 56.]

Mr. Thrale had married Miss Hesther Lynch Salusbury, of good Welsh
extraction[1440], a lady of lively talents, improved by education. That
Johnson's introduction into Mr. Thrale's family, which contributed so
much to the happiness of his life, was owing to her desire for his
conversation, is very probable and a general supposition: but it is not
the truth. Mr. Murphy, who was intimate with Mr. Thrale[1441], having
spoken very highly of Dr. Johnson, he was requested to make them
acquainted[1442]. This being mentioned to Johnson, he accepted of an
invitation to dinner at Thrale's, and was so much pleased with his
reception, both by Mr. and Mrs. Thrale, and they so much pleased with
him, that his invitations to their house were more and more frequent,
till at last he became one of the family, and an apartment was
appropriated to him, both in their house in Southwark, and in their
villa at Streatham[1443].

[Page 494: Mr. Thrale. A.D. 1765.]

Johnson had a very sincere esteem for Mr. Thrale, as a man of excellent
principles, a good scholar, well skilled in trade, of a sound
understanding, and of manners such as presented the character of a plain
independent English 'Squire[1444]. As this family will frequently be
mentioned in the course of the following pages, and as a false notion
has prevailed that Mr. Thrale was inferiour, and in some degree
insignificant, compared with Mrs. Thrale, it may be proper to give a
true state of the case from the authority of Johnson himself in his own
words.

[Page 495: Mrs. Thrale. AEtat 56.]

'I know no man, (said he,) who is more master of his wife and family
than Thrale. If he but holds up a finger, he is obeyed. It is a great
mistake to suppose that she is above him in literary attainments[1445]. She
is more flippant; but he has ten times her learning: he is a regular
scholar; but her learning is that of a school-boy in one of the lower
forms.' My readers may naturally wish for some representation of the
figures of this couple. Mr. Thrale was tall, well proportioned, and
stately. As for Madam, or my Mistress[1446], by which epithets Johnson used
to mention Mrs. Thrale, she was short, plump, and brisk[1447]. She has
herself given us a lively view of the idea which Johnson had of her
person, on her appearing before him in a dark-coloured gown; 'You little
creatures should never wear those sort of clothes, however; they are
unsuitable in every way. What! have not all insects gay colours[1448]?' Mr.
Thrale gave his wife a liberal indulgence, both in the choice of their
company, and in the mode of entertaining them. He understood and valued
Johnson, without remission, from their first acquaintance to the day of
his death. Mrs. Thrale was enchanted with Johnson's conversation, for
its own sake, and had also a very allowable vanity in appearing to be
honoured with the attention of so celebrated a man.

[Page 496: Johnson's SHAKSPEARE published. A.D. 1765.]

Nothing could be more fortunate for Johnson than this connection[1449]. He
had at Mr. Thrale's all the comforts and even luxuries of life; his
melancholy was diverted, and his irregular habits lessened[1450] by
association with an agreeable and well-ordered family. He was treated
with the utmost respect, and even affection. The vivacity of Mrs.
Thrale's literary talk roused him to cheerfulness and exertion, even
when they were alone. But this was not often the case; for he found here
a constant succession of what gave him the highest enjoyment: the
society of the learned, the witty, and the eminent in every way, who
were assembled in numerous companies[1451], called forth his wonderful
powers, and gratified him with admiration, to which no man could be
insensible.

[Page 497: Dr. Kenrick. AEtat 56.]

In the October of this year[1452] he at length gave to the world his
edition of _Shakspeare_[1453], which, if it had no other merit but that of
producing his Preface[1454], in which the excellencies and defects of that
immortal bard are displayed with a masterly hand, the nation would have
had no reason to complain. A blind indiscriminate admiration of
Shakspeare had exposed the British nation to the ridicule of
foreigners[1455]. Johnson, by candidly admitting the faults of his poet,
had the more credit in bestowing on him deserved and indisputable
praise; and doubtless none of all his panegyrists have done him half so
much honour. Their praise was, like that of a counsel, upon his own side
of the cause: Johnson's was like the grave, well-considered, and
impartial opinion of the judge, which falls from his lips with weight,
and is received with reverence. What he did as a commentator has no
small share of merit, though his researches were not so ample, and his
investigations so acute as they might have been, which we now certainly
know from the labours of other able and ingenious criticks who have
followed him[1456]. He has enriched his edition with a concise account of
each play, and of its characteristick excellence. Many of his notes have
illustrated obscurities in the text, and placed passages eminent for
beauty in a more conspicuous light; and he has in general exhibited such
a mode of annotation, as may be beneficial to all subsequent editors[1457].

[Page 498: Johnson's attack on Voltaire. A.D. 1785.]

His _Shakespeare_ was virulently attacked by Mr. William Kenrick, who
obtained the degree of LL.D. from a Scotch University, and wrote for the
booksellers in a great variety of branches. Though he certainly was not
without considerable merit, he wrote with so little regard to decency
and principles, and decorum[1458], and in so hasty a manner, that his
reputation was neither extensive nor lasting. I remember one evening,
when some of his works were mentioned, Dr. Goldsmith said, he had never
heard of them; upon which Dr. Johnson observed, 'Sir, he is one of the
many who have made themselves _publick_, without making themselves
_known_[1459].'

A young student of Oxford, of the name of Barclay, wrote an answer to
Kenrick's review of Johnson's _Shakspeare_. Johnson was at first angry
that Kenrick's attack should have the credit of an answer. But
afterwards, considering the young man's good intention, he kindly
noticed him, and probably would have done more, had not the young man
died[1460].

[Page 499: Voltaire's reply. AEtat 56.]

In his Preface to _Shakspeare_, Johnson treated Voltaire very
contemptuously, observing, upon some of his remarks, 'These are the
petty criticisms of petty wits[1461].' Voltaire, in revenge, made an attack
upon Johnson, in one of his numerous literary sallies, which I remember
to have read; but there being no general index to his voluminous works,
have searched in vain, and therefore cannot quote it[1462].

Voltaire was an antagonist with whom I thought Johnson should not
disdain to contend. I pressed him to answer. He said, he perhaps might;
but he never did.

Mr. Burney having occasion to write to Johnson for some receipts for
subscriptions to his Shakspeare, which Johnson had omitted to deliver
when the money was paid[1463], he availed himself of that opportunity of
thanking Johnson for the great pleasure which he had received from the
perusal of his Preface to _Shakspeare_; which, although it excited much
clamour against him at first, is now justly ranked among the most
excellent of his writings. To this letter Johnson returned the following
answer:--

[Page 500: Resolutions at church.]

'To CHARLES BURNEY ESQ. IN POLAND-STREET.

'SIR,

'I am sorry that your kindness to me has brought upon you so much
trouble, though you have taken care to abate that sorrow, by the
pleasure which I receive from your approbation. I defend my criticism in
the same manner with you. We must confess the faults of our favourite,
to gain credit to our praise of his excellencies. He that claims, either
in himself or for another, the honours of perfection, will surely injure
the reputation which he designs to assist.

'Be pleased to make my compliments to your family.

'I am, Sir,

'Your most obliged

'And most humble servant,

'Sam. Johnson.'

'Oct. 16, 1765.[1464]'

From one of his journals I transcribed what follows:

'At church, Oct. --65.

'To avoid all singularity; _Bonaventura_[1465].

'To come in before service, and compose my mind by meditation, or by
reading some portions of scriptures. _Tetty_.

'If I can hear the sermon, to attend it, unless attention be more
troublesome than useful.

'To consider the act of prayer as a reposal of myself upon God, and a
resignation of 'all into his holy hand.'

APPENDIX A

JOHNSON'S DEBATES IN PARLIAMENT.

(_Pages_ 118 _and_ 150.)

The publication of the 'Debates' in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ began in
July 1732. The names of the speakers were not printed in full; Sir
Robert Walpole was disguised--if a disguise it can be called--as Sir
R----t W----le, and Mr. Pelham as Mr. P--lh--m. Otherwise the report was
open and avowed. During the first few years, however, it often happened
that no attempt was made to preserve the individuality of the members.
Thus in a debate on the number of seamen (_Gent. Mag_. v. 507), the
speeches of the 'eight chief speakers' were so combined as to form but
three. First come 'the arguments made use of for 30,000 men;' next, 'an
answer to the following effect;' and lastly, 'a reply that was in
substance as follows.' Each of these three speeches is in the first
person, though each is formed of the arguments of two members at least,
perhaps of many. In the report of a two days' debate in 1737, in which
there were fourteen chief speakers, the substance of thirteen of the
speeches was given in three (_ib_. vii. 746, 775). In July 1736 (_ib_.
vi. 363) we find the beginning of a great change. 'To satisfy the
impatience of his readers,' the publisher promises 'to give them
occasionally some entire speeches.' He prints one which likely enough
had been sent to him by the member who had spoken it, and adds that he
shall be 'grateful for any authentic intelligence in matters of such
importance and _tenderness_ as the speeches in Parliament' (_ib_. p.
365). Cave, in his examination before the House of Lords on April 30,
1747, on a charge of having printed in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ an
account of the trial of Lord Lovat, owned that 'he had had speeches sent
him by the members themselves, and had had assistance from some members
who have taken notes of other members' speeches' (_Parl. Hist_. xiv.
60).

It was chiefly in the numbers of the _Magazine_ for the latter half of
each year that the publication took place. The parliamentary recess was
the busy time for reporters and printers. It was commonly believed that
the resolution on the Journals of the House of Commons against
publishing any of its proceedings was only in force while parliament was
sitting. But on April 13, 1738, it was unanimously resolved 'that it is
an high indignity to, and a notorious breach of the privilege of this
House to give any account of the debates, as well during the recess as
the sitting of parliament' (_Parl. Hist_. x. 812). It was admitted that
this privilege expired at the end of every parliament. When the
dissolution had come every one might publish what he pleased. With the
House of Lords it was far otherwise, for 'it is a Court of Record, and
as such its rights and privileges never die. It may punish a printer for
printing any part of its proceedings for thirty or forty years back'
(_ib_. p. 807). Mr. Winnington, when speaking to this resolution of
April 13, said that if they did not put a speedy stop to this practice
of reporting 'they will have every word that is spoken here by
_gentlemen_ misrepresented by _fellows_ who thrust themselves into our
gallery' (_ib_. p. 806). Walpole complained 'that he had been made to
speak the very reverse of what he meant. He had read debates wherein all
the wit, the learning, and the argument had been thrown into one side,
and on the other nothing but what was low, mean, and ridiculous' (_ib_.
p. 809). Later on, Johnson in his reports 'saved appearances tolerably
well; but took care that the WHIG DOGS should not have the best of it'
(Murphy's _Johnson_, p. 45).

It was but a few days after he became a contributor to the _Magazine_
that this resolution was passed. Parliament rose on May 20, and in the
June number the reports of the debates of the Senate of Lilliput began.
To his fertile mind was very likely due this humorous expedient by which
the resolution of the House was mocked. That he wrote the introduction
in which is narrated the voyage of Captain Gulliver's grandson to
Lilliputia can scarcely be doubted. It bears all the marks of his early
style. The Lords become Hurgoes, and the Commons Clinabs, Walpole
becomes Walelop, Pulteney Pulnub, and Pitt Ptit; otherwise the report is
much as it had been. At the end of the volume for 1739 was given a key
to all the names. The _London Magazine_ had boldly taken the lead. In
the May number, which was published at the close of the month, and
therefore after parliament had risen, began the report of the
proceedings and debates of a political and learned club of young
noblemen and gentlemen, who hoped one day to enter parliament, and who
therefore, the better to qualify themselves for their high position,
only debated questions that were there discussed. To the speakers were
given the names of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Thus we find the Hon.
Marcus Cato and the Right Hon. M. Tullius Cicero. By the key that was
published in 1742 Cicero was seen to be Walpole, and Cato, Pulteney.
What risks the publishers and writers ran was very soon shown. In
December 1740 the ministers proposed to lay an embargo on various
articles of food. As the members entered the House a printed paper was
handed to each, entitled _Considerations upon the Embargo_. Adam Smith
had just gone up as a young student to the University of Oxford. There
are 'considerations' suggested in this paper which the great authority
of the author of the _Wealth of Nations_ has not yet made pass current
as truths. The paper contained, moreover, charges of jobbery against
'great men,' though no one was named. It was at once voted a malicious
and scandalous libel, and the author, William Cooley, a scrivener, was
committed to Newgate. With him was sent the printer of the _Daily Post_,
in which part of the _Considerations_ had been published. After seven
weeks' imprisonment in the depth of winter in that miserable den,
'without sufficient sustenance to support life,' Cooley was discharged
on paying his fees. He was in knowledge more than a hundred years before
his time, and had been made to suffer accordingly. The printer would
have been discharged also, but the fees were more than he could pay. Two
months later he petitioned for mercy. The fees by that time were L121.
His petition was not received, and he was kept in prison till the close
of the session (_Parl. Hist_. xi. 867-894).

Such were the risks run by Cave and Johnson and their fellow-workers.
That no prosecution followed was due perhaps to that dread of ridicule
which has often tempered the severity of the law. 'The Hurgolen Branard,
who in the former session was Pretor of Mildendo,' might well have been
unwilling to prove that he was Sir John Barnard, late Lord Mayor of
London.

Johnson, it should seem, revised some of the earliest _Debates_. In a
letter to Cave which cannot have been written later than September 1738,
he mentions the alterations that he had made (_ante_, p. 136). The more
they were written by him, the less authentic did they become, for he was
not one of those 'fellows who thrust themselves into the gallery of the
House.' His employer, Cave, if we can trust his own evidence, had been
in the habit of going there and taking notes with a pencil (_Parl.
Hist_. xiv. 60). But Johnson, Hawkins says (_Life_, p. 122), 'never was
within the walls of either House.' According to Murphy (_Life_, p. 44),
he had been inside the House of Commons once. Be this as it may, in the
end the _Debates_ were composed by him alone (_ante_, p. 118). From that
time they must no longer be looked upon as authentic records, in spite
of the assertions of the Editor of the _Parl. Hist_. (xi. Preface).
Johnson told Boswell (_ante_, p. 118) 'that sometimes he had nothing
more communicated to him than the names of the several speakers, and the
part which they had taken in the debate;' sometimes 'he had scanty notes
furnished by persons employed to attend in both Houses of Parliament.'
Often, his Debates were written 'from no materials at all--the mere
coinage of his own imagination' (_post_, under Dec. 9, 1784).

'He never wrote any part of his works with equal velocity. Three columns
of the _Magazine_ in an hour was no uncommon effort, which was faster
than most persons could have transcribed that quantity' (_ib_.).
According to Hawkins (_Life_, p. 99), 'His practice was to shut himself
up in a room assigned to him at St. John's Gate, to which he would not
suffer any one to approach, except the compositor or Cave's boy for
matter, which, as fast as he composed it, he tumbled out at the door.'

From Murphy we get the following curious story:--

'That Johnson was the author of the debates during that period [Nov,
1740 to Feb. 1743] was not generally known; but the secret transpired
several years afterwards, and was avowed by himself on the following
occasion:--Mr. Wedderburne (now Lord Loughborough), Dr. Johnson, Dr.
Francis (the translator of _Horace_), the present writer, and others
dined with the late Mr. Foote. An important debate towards the end of
Sir Robert Walpole's administration being mentioned, Dr. Francis
observed, "that Mr. Pitt's speech on that occasion was the best he had
ever read." He added, "that he had employed eight years of his life in
the study of Demosthenes, and finished a translation of that celebrated
orator, with all the decorations of style and language within the reach
of his capacity; but he had met with nothing equal to the speech above
mentioned." Many of the company remembered the debate; and some passages
were cited with the approbation and applause of all present. During the
ardour of conversation, Johnson remained silent. As soon as the warmth
of praise subsided, he opened with these words:--"That speech I wrote in
a garret in Exeter Street." The company was struck with astonishment.
After staring at each other in silent amaze, Dr. Francis asked how that
speech could be written by him? "Sir," said Johnson, "I wrote it in
Exeter Street. I never had been in the gallery of the House of Commons
but once. Cave had interest with the door-keepers. He, and the persons
employed under him, gained admittance: they brought away the subject of
discussion, the names of the speakers, the side they took, and the order
in which they rose, together with notes of the arguments advanced in the
course of the debate. The whole was afterwards communicated to me, and I
composed the speeches in the form which they now have in the
Parliamentary Debates." To this discovery Dr. Francis made
answer:--"Then, sir, you have exceeded Demosthenes himself, for to say
that you have exceeded Francis's _Demosthenes_, would be saying
nothing." The rest of the company bestowed lavish encomiums on Johnson:
one, in particular, praised his impartiality; observing, that he dealt
out reason and eloquence with an equal hand to both parties. "That is
not quite true," said Johnson; "I saved appearances tolerably well, but
I took care that the WHIG DOGS should not have the best of it."'
Murphy's _Life of Johnson_, p. 343.

Murphy, we must not forget, wrote from memory, for there is no reason to
think that he kept notes. That his memory cannot altogether be trusted
has been shown by Boswell (_ante_, p. 391, note 4). This dinner with
Foote must have taken place at least nineteen years before this account
was published, for so many years had Dr. Francis been dead. At the time
when Johnson was living in Exeter-street he was not engaged on the
magazine. Nevertheless the main facts may be true enough. Johnson
himself told Boswell (_post_, May 13, 1778) that in Lord Chesterfield's
_Miscellaneous Works_ (ii. 319) there were two speeches ascribed to
Chesterfield which he had himself entirely written. Horace Walpole
(_Letters_, i. 147) complained that the published report of his own
first speech 'did not contain one sentence of the true one.' Johnson, in
his preface to the _Literary Magazine_ of 1756, seems to confess what he
had done, unless, indeed, he was altogether making himself the mere
mouth-piece of the publisher. He says:--'We shall not attempt to give
any regular series of debates, or to amuse our readers with senatorial
rhetorick. The speeches inserted in other papers have been long known to
be fictitious, and produced sometimes by men who never heard the debate,
nor had any authentick information. We have no design to impose thus
grossly on our readers.' (_Works_, v. 363.)

The secret that Johnson wrote these _Debates_ was indeed well kept. He
seems to be aimed at in a question that was put to Cave in his
examination before the House of Lords in 1747. 'Being asked "if he ever
had any person whom he kept in pay to make speeches for him," he said,
"he never had."' (_Parl. Hist_. xiv. 60.) Herein he lied in order, no
doubt, to screen Johnson. Forty-four years later Horace Walpole wrote
(_Letters_, ix. 319), 'I never knew Johnson wrote the speeches in the
_Gentleman's Magazine_ till he died.' Johnson told Boswell 'that as soon
as he found that they were thought genuine he determined that he would
write no more of them, "for he would not be accessory to the propagation
of falsehood."' (_Ante_, p. 152.) One of his _Debates_ was translated
into French, German, and Spanish (_Gent. Mag_. xiii. 59), and, no doubt,
was accepted abroad as authentic. When he learnt this his conscience
might well have received a shock. That it did receive a shock seems
almost capable of proof. It was in the number of the _Magazine_ for
February, 1743--at the beginning of March, that is to say--that the fact
of these foreign translations was made known. The last Debate that
Johnson wrote was for the 22nd day of February in that year. In 1740,
1741, and 1742, he had worked steadily at his _Debates_. The beginning
of 1743 found him no less busy. His task suddenly came to an end. Among
foreign nations his speeches were read as the very words of English
statesmen. To the propagation of such a falsehood as this he would no
longer be accessory. Fifteen years later Smollett quoted them as if they
were genuine (_History of England_, iii. 73). Here, however, Johnson's
conscience was void of offence; for 'he had cautioned him not to rely on
them, for that they were not authentic.' (Hawkins, _Life_, p. 129.)

That they should generally have passed current shews how unacquainted
people at that time were with real debating. Even if we had not
Johnson's own statement, both from external and internal evidence we
could have known that they were for the most part 'the mere coinage of
his imagination.' They do not read like speeches that had ever been
spoken. 'None of them,' Mr. Flood said, 'were at all like real debates'
(_post_, under March 30, 1771). They are commonly formed of general
statements which suit any one speaker just as well as any other. The
scantier were the notes that were given him by those who had heard the
debate, the more he had to draw on his imagination. But his was an
imagination which supplied him with what was general much more readily
than with what was particular. Had De Foe been the composer he would
have scattered over each speech the most ingenious and probable matters
of detail, but De Foe and Johnson were wide as the poles asunder.
Neither had Johnson any dramatic power. His parliamentary speakers have
scarcely more variety than the characters in _Irene_. Unless he had been
a constant frequenter of the galleries of the two Houses, he could not
have acquired any knowledge of the style and the peculiarities of the
different members. Nay, even of their modes of thinking and their
sentiments he could have gained but the most general notions. Of
debating he knew nothing. It was the set speeches in _Livy_ and the old
historians that he took as his models. In his orations there is very
little of 'the tart reply;' there is, indeed, scarcely any examination
of an adversary's arguments. So general are the speeches that the order
in which they are given might very often without inconvenience be
changed. They are like a series of leading articles on both sides of the
question, but all written by one man. Johnson is constantly shifting his
character, and, like Falstaff and the Prince, playing first his own part
and then his opponent's. It is wonderful how well he preserves his
impartiality, though he does 'take care that the Whig dogs should not
have the best of it.'