Complete Works of Samuel Johnson

by Samuel Johnson

  At the inn where we stopped he was exceedingly dissatisfied with some roast mutton which we had for dinner. The ladies I saw wondered to see the great philosopher, whose wisdom and wit they had been admiring all the way, get into ill-humour from such a cause. He scolded the waiter, saying, ‘It is as bad as bad can be: it is ill-fed, ill-killed, ill-kept, and ill-drest.’

  He bore the journey very well, and seemed to feel himself elevated as he approached Oxford, that magnificent and venerable seat of learning, Orthodoxy, and Toryism. Frank came in the heavy coach, in readiness to attend him; and we were received with the most polite hospitality at the house of his old friend Dr. Adams, Master of Pembroke College, who had given us a kind invitation. Before we were set down, I communicated to Johnson, my having engaged to return to London directly, for the reason I have mentioned, but that I would hasten back to him again. He was pleased that I had made this journey merely to keep him company. He was easy and placid, with Dr. Adams, Mrs. and Miss Adams, and Mrs. Kennicot, widow of the learned Hebraean, who was here on a visit. He soon dispatched the inquiries which were made about his illness and recovery, by a short and distinct narrative; and then assuming a gay air, repeated from Swift, —

  ‘Nor think on our approaching ills,

  And talk of spectacles and pills880.’

  Dr. Newton, the Bishop of Bristol, having been mentioned, Johnson, recollecting the manner in which he had been censured by that Prelate, thus retaliated:-’ Tom knew he should be dead before what he has said of me would appear. He durst not have printed it while he was alive.’ DR. ADAMS. ‘I believe his Dissertations on the Prophecies is his great work.’ JOHNSON. ‘Why, Sir, it is Tom’s great work; but how far it is great, or how much of it is Tom’s, are other questions. I fancy a considerable part of it was borrowed.’ DR. ADAMS. ‘He was a very successful man.’ JOHNSON. ‘I don’t think so, Sir. He did not get very high. He was late in getting what he did get; and he did not get it by the best means. I believe he was a gross flatterer.’

  I fulfilled my intention by going to London, and returned to Oxford on Wednesday the 9th of June, when I was happy to find myself again in the same agreeable circle at Pembroke College, with the comfortable prospect of making some stay. Johnson welcomed my return with more than ordinary glee.

  He talked with great regard of the Honourable Archibald Campbell, whose character he had given at the Duke of Argyll’s table, when we were at Inverary; and at this time wrote out for me, in his own hand, a fuller account of that learned and venerable writer, which I have published in its proper place. Johnson made a remark this evening which struck me a good deal. ‘I never (said he) knew a non-juror who could reason.’ Surely he did not mean to deny that faculty to many of their writers; to Hickes, Brett, and other eminent divines of that persuasion; and did not recollect that the seven Bishops, so justly celebrated for their magnanimous resistance of arbitrary power, were yet Nonjurors to the new Government. The nonjuring clergy of Scotland, indeed, who, excepting a few, have lately, by a sudden stroke, cut off all ties of allegiance to the house of Stuart, and resolved to pray for our present lawful Sovereign by name, may be thought to have confirmed this remark; as it may be said, that the divine indefeasible hereditary right which they professed to believe, if ever true, must be equally true still. Many of my readers will be surprized when I mention, that Johnson assured me he had never in his life been in a nonjuring meeting-house.

  Next morning at breakfast, he pointed out a passage in Savage’s Wanderer, saying, ‘These are fine verses.’ ‘If (said he) I had written with hostility of Warburton in my Shakspeare, I should have quoted this couplet: —

  “Here Learning, blinded first and then beguil’d,

  Looks dark as Ignorance, as Fancy wild888.”

  You see they’d have fitted him to a T,’ (smiling.) DR. ADAMS. ‘But you did not write against Warburton.’ JOHNSON. ‘No, Sir, I treated him with great respect both in my Preface and in my Notes.’

  Mrs. Kennicot spoke of her brother, the Reverend Mr. Chamberlayne, who had given up great prospects in the Church of England on his conversion to the Roman Catholick faith. Johnson, who warmly admired every man who acted from a conscientious regard to principle, erroneous or not, exclaimed fervently, ‘GOD bless him.’

  Mrs. Kennicot, in confirmation of Dr. Johnson’s opinion, that the present was not worse than former ages, mentioned that her brother assured her, there was now less infidelity on the Continent than there had been; Voltaire and Rousseau were less read. I asserted, from good authority, that Hume’s infidelity was certainly less read. JOHNSON. ‘All infidel writers drop into oblivion, when personal connections and the floridness of novelty are gone; though now and then a foolish fellow, who thinks he can be witty upon them, may bring them again into notice. There will sometimes start up a College joker, who does not consider that what is a joke in a College will not do in the world. To such defenders of Religion I would apply a stanza of a poem which I remember to have seen in some old collection: —

  “Henceforth be quiet and agree,

  Each kiss his empty brother;

  Religion scorns a foe like thee,

  But dreads a friend like t’other.”

  The point is well, though the expression is not correct; one, and not thee, should be opposed to t’other.’

  On the Roman Catholick religion he said, ‘If you join the Papists externally, they will not interrogate you strictly as to your belief in their tenets. No reasoning Papist believes every article of their faith. There is one side on which a good man might be persuaded to embrace it. A good man of a timorous disposition, in great doubt of his acceptance with GOD, and pretty credulous, might be glad to be of a church where there, are so many helps to get to Heaven. I would be a Papist if I could. I have fear enough; but an obstinate rationality prevents me. I shall never be a Papist, unless on the near approach of death, of which I have a very great terrour. I wonder that women are not all Papists.’ BOSWELL. ‘They are not more afraid of death than men are.’ JOHNSON. ‘Because they are less wicked.’ DR. ADAMS. ‘They are more pious.’ JOHNSON. ‘No, hang ‘em, they are not more pious. A wicked fellow is the most pious when he takes to it. He’ll beat you all at piety.’

  He argued in defence of some of the peculiar tenets of the Church of Rome. As to the giving the bread only to the laity, he said, ‘They may think, that in what is merely ritual, deviations from the primitive mode may be admitted on the ground of convenience, and I think they are as well warranted to make this alteration, as we are to substitute sprinkling in the room of the ancient baptism.’ As to the invocation of saints, he said, ‘Though I do not think it authorised, it appears to me, that “the communion of saints” in the Creed means the communion with the saints in Heaven, as connected with “The holy Catholick Church.”’ He admitted the influence of evil spirits upon our minds, and said, ‘Nobody who believes the New Testament can deny it.’

  I brought a volume of Dr. Hurd the Bishop of Worcester’s Sermons, and read to the company some passages from one of them, upon this text, ‘Resist the Devil, and he will fly from you.’ James, iv. 7. I was happy to produce so judicious and elegant a supporter of a doctrine, which, I know not why, should, in this world of imperfect knowledge, and, therefore, of wonder and mystery in a thousand instances, be contested by some with an unthinking assurance and flippancy.

  After dinner, when one of us talked of there being a great enmity between Whig and Tory; — JOHNSON. ‘Why not so much, I think, unless when they come into competition with each other. There is none when they are only common acquaintance, none when they are of different sexes. A Tory will marry into a Whig family, and a Whig into a Tory family, without any reluctance. But indeed, in a matter of much more concern than political tenets, and that is religion, men and women do not concern themselves much about difference of opinion; and ladies set no value on the moral character of men who pay their addresses to them; the greatest profligate will be as well received as the man of the greatest v
irtue, and this by a very good woman, by a woman who says her prayers three times a day.’ Our ladies endeavoured to defend their sex from this charge; but he roared them down! ‘No, no, a lady will take Jonathan Wild as readily as St. Austin, if he has three-pence more; and, what is worse, her parents will give her to him. Women have a perpetual envy of our vices; they are less vicious than we, not from choice, but because we restrict them; they are the slaves of order and fashion; their virtue is of more consequence to us than our own, so far as concerns this world.’

  Miss Adams mentioned a gentleman of licentious character, and said, ‘Suppose I had a mind to marry that gentleman, would my parents consent?’ JOHNSON. ‘Yes, they’d consent, and you’d go. You’d go though they did not consent.’ MISS ADAMS. ‘Perhaps their opposing might make me go.’ JOHNSON. ‘O, very well; you’d take one whom you think a bad man, to have the pleasure of vexing your parents. You put me in mind of Dr. Barrowby, the physician, who was very fond of swine’s flesh. One day, when he was eating it, he said, ‘I wish I was a Jew.’ ‘Why so? (said somebody); the Jews are not allowed to eat your favourite meat.’ ‘Because, (said he,) I should then have the gust of eating it, with the pleasure of sinning.’ Johnson then proceeded in his declamation.

  Miss Adams soon afterwards made an observation that I do not recollect, which pleased him much: he said with a good-humoured smile, ‘That there should be so much excellence united with so much depravity, is strange.’

  Indeed, this lady’s good qualities, merit, and accomplishments, and her constant attention to Dr. Johnson, were not lost upon him. She happened to tell him that a little coffee-pot, in which she had made his coffee, was the only thing she could call her own. He turned to her with a complacent gallantry, ‘Don’t say so, my dear; I hope you don’t reckon my heart as nothing.’

  I asked him if it was true as reported, that he had said lately, ‘I am for the King against Fox; but I am for Fox against Pitt.’ JOHNSON. ‘Yes, Sir; the King is my master; but I do not know Pitt; and Fox is my friend.’

  ‘Fox, (added he,) is a most extraordinary man; here is a man (describing him in strong terms of objection in some respects according as he apprehended, but which exalted his abilities the more) who has divided the Kingdom with Caesar; so that it, was a doubt whether the nation should be ruled by the sceptre of George the Third, or the tongue of Fox.’

  Dr. Wall, physician at Oxford, drank tea with us. Johnson had in general a peculiar pleasure in the company of physicians, which was certainly not abated by the conversation of this learned, ingenious, and pleasing gentleman. Johnson said, ‘It is wonderful how little good Radcliffe’s travelling fellowships have done. I know nothing that has been imported by them; yet many additions to our medical knowledge might be got in foreign countries. Inoculation, for instance, has saved more lives than war destroys: and the cures performed by the Peruvian-bark are innumerable. But it is in vain to send our travelling physicians to France, and Italy, and Germany, for all that is known there is known here; I’d send them out of Christendom; I’d send them among barbarous nations.’

  On Friday, June 11, we talked at breakfast, of forms of prayer. JOHNSON. ‘I know of no good prayers but those in the Book of Common Prayer.’ DR. ADAMS, (in a very earnest manner): ‘I wish, Sir, you would compose some family prayers.’ JOHNSON. ‘I will not compose prayers for you, Sir, because you can do it for yourself. But I have thought of getting together all the books of prayers which I could, selecting those which should appear to me the best, putting out some, inserting others, adding some prayers of my own, and prefixing a discourse on prayer.’ We all now gathered about him, and two or three of us at a time joined in pressing him to execute this plan. He seemed to be a little displeased at the manner of our importunity, and in great agitation called out, ‘Do not talk thus of what is so aweful. I know not what time GOD will allow me in this world. There are many things which I wish to do.’ Some of us persisted, and Dr. Adams said, ‘I never was more serious about any thing in my life.’ JOHNSON. ‘Let me alone, let me alone; I am overpowered.’ And then he put his hands before his face, and reclined for some time upon the table.

  I mentioned Jeremy Taylor’s using, in his forms of prayer, ‘I am the chief of sinners,’ and other such self-condemning expressions. ‘Now, (said I) this cannot be said with truth by every man, and therefore is improper for a general printed form. I myself cannot say that I am the worst of men; I will not say so.’ JOHNSON. ‘A man may know, that physically, that is, in the real state of things, he is not the worst man; but that morally he may be so. Law observes that “Every man knows something worse of himself, than he is sure of in others.” You may not have committed such crimes as some men have done; but you do not know against what degree of light they have sinned. Besides, Sir, “the chief of sinners” is a mode of expression for “I am a great sinner.” So St. Paul, speaking of our SAVIOUR’S having died to save sinners, says, “of whom I am the chief;” yet he certainly did not think himself so bad as Judas Iscariot.’ BOSWELL. ‘But, Sir, Taylor means it literally, for he founds a conceit upon it. When praying for the conversion of sinners, and of himself in particular, he says, “LORD, thou wilt not leave thy chief work undone.” JOHNSON. ‘I do not approve of figurative expressions in addressing the Supreme Being; and I never use them. Taylor gives a very good advice: “Never lie in your prayers; never confess more than you really believe; never promise more than you mean to perform.” I recollected this precept in his Golden Grove; but his example for prayer contradicts his precept.’

  Dr. Johnson and I went in Dr. Adams’s coach to dine with Dr. Nowell, Principal of St. Mary Hall, at his beautiful villa at Iffley, on the banks of the Isis, about two miles from Oxford. While we were upon the road, I had the resolution to ask Johnson whether he thought that the roughness of his manner had been an advantage or not, and if he would not have done more good if he had been more gentle. I proceeded to answer myself thus: ‘Perhaps it has been of advantage, as it has given weight to what you said: you could not, perhaps, have talked with such authority without it.’ JOHNSON. ‘No, Sir; I have done more good as I am. Obscenity and Impiety have always been repressed in my company.’ BOSWELL. ‘True, Sir; and that is more than can be said of every Bishop. Greater liberties have been taken in the presence of a Bishop, though a very good man, from his being milder, and therefore not commanding such awe. Yet, Sir, many people who might have been benefited by your conversation, have been frightened away. A worthy friend of ours has told me, that he has often been afraid to talk to you.’ JOHNSON. ‘Sir, he need not have been afraid, if he had any thing rational to say. If he had not, it was better he did not talk.

  Dr. Nowell is celebrated for having preached a sermon before the House of Commons, on the 3Oth of January, 1773, full of high Tory sentiments, for which he was thanked as usual, and printed it at their request; but, in the midst of that turbulence and faction which disgraced a part of the present reign, the thanks were afterwards ordered to be expunged. This strange conduct sufficiently exposes itself; and Dr. Nowell will ever have the honour which is due to a lofty friend of our monarchical constitution. Dr. Johnson said to me, ‘Sir, the Court will be very much to blame, if he is not promoted.’ I told this to Dr. Nowell, and asserting my humbler, though not less zealous exertions in the same cause, I suggested that whatever return we might receive, we should still have the consolation of being like Butler’s steady and generous Royalist,

  ‘True as the dial to the sun,

  Although it be not shone upon912.’

  We were well entertained and very happy at Dr. Nowell’s, where was a very agreeable company, and we drank ‘Church and King’ after dinner, with true Tory cordiality.

  We talked of a certain clergyman of extraordinary character, who by exerting his talents in writing on temporary topicks, and displaying uncommon intrepidity, had raised himself to affluence. I maintained that we ought not to be indignant at his success; for merit of every sort was entitled to reward. JOHNSON. ‘Sir,
I will not allow this man to have merit. No, Sir; what he has is rather the contrary; I will, indeed, allow him courage, and on this account we so far give him credit. We have more respect for a man who robs boldly on the highway, than for a fellow who jumps out of a ditch, and knocks you down behind your back. Courage is a quality so necessary for maintaining virtue, that it is always respected, even when it is associated with vice.

  I censured the coarse invectives which were become fashionable in the House of Commons, and said that if members of parliament must attack each other personally in the heat of debate, it should be done more genteely. JOHNSON. ‘No, Sir; that would be much worse. Abuse is not so dangerous when there is no vehicle of wit or delicacy, no subtle conveyance. The difference between coarse and refined abuse is as the difference between being bruised by a club, and wounded by a poisoned arrow.’ I have since observed his position elegantly expressed by Dr. Young: —

  ‘As the soft plume gives swiftness to the dart,

  Good breeding sends the satire to the heart916.’

  On Saturday, June 12, there drank tea with us at Dr. Adams’s, Mr. John Henderson, student of Pembroke-College, celebrated for his wonderful acquirements in Alchymy, Judicial Astrology, and other abstruse and curious learning; and the Reverend Herbert Croft, who, I am afraid, was somewhat mortified by Dr. Johnson’s not being highly pleased with some Family Discourses, which he had printed; they were in too familiar a style to be approved of by so manly a mind. I have no note of this evening’s conversation, except a single fragment. When I mentioned Thomas Lord Lyttelton’s vision, the prediction of the time of his death, and its exact fulfilment; — JOHNSON. ‘It is the most extraordinary thing that has happened in my day. I heard it with my own ears, from his uncle, Lord Westcote. I am so glad to have every evidence of the spiritual world, that I am willing to believe it.’ DR. ADAMS. ‘You have evidence enough; good evidence, which needs not such support.’ JOHNSON. ‘I like to have more.’