I record this minute detail, which some may think trifling, in order to shew clearly how this great man, whose mind could grasp such large and extensive subjects, as he has shewn in his literary labours, was yet well-informed in the common affairs of life, and loved to illustrate them.
Talking of the origin of language; JOHNSON. ‘It must have come by inspiration. A thousand, nay, a million of children could not invent a language. While the organs are pliable, there is not understanding enough to form a language; by the time that there is understanding enough, the organs are become stiff. We know that after a certain age we cannot learn to pronounce a new language. No foreigner, who comes to England when advanced in life, ever pronounces English tolerably well; at least such instances are very rare. When I maintain that language must have come by inspiration, I do not mean that inspiration is required for rhetorick, and all the beauties of language; for when once man has language, we can conceive that he may gradually form modifications of it. I mean only that inspiration seems to me to be necessary to give man the faculty of speech; to inform him that he may have speech; which I think he could no more find out without inspiration, than cows or hogs would think of such a faculty.’ WALKER. ‘Do you think, Sir, that there are any perfect synonimes in any language?’ JOHNSON. ‘Originally there were not; but by using words negligently, or in poetry, one word comes to be confounded with another.’
He talked of Dr. Dodd. ‘A friend of mine, (said he,) came to me and told me, that a lady wished to have Dr. Dodd’s picture in a bracelet, and asked me for a motto. I said, I could think of no better than Currat Lex. I was very willing to have him pardoned, that is, to have the sentence changed to transportation: but, when he was once hanged, I did not wish he should be made a saint.’
Mrs. Burney, wife of his friend Dr. Burney, came in, and he seemed to be entertained with her conversation.
Garrick’s funeral was talked of as extravagantly expensive. Johnson, from his dislike to exaggeration, would not allow that it was distinguished by any extraordinary pomp. ‘Were there not six horses to each coach?’ said Mrs. Burney. JOHNSON. ‘Madam, there were no more six horses than six phoenixes.’
Time passed on in conversation till it was too late for the service of the church at three o’clock. I took a walk, and left him alone for some time; then returned, and we had coffee and conversation again by ourselves.
We went to evening prayers at St. Clement’s, at seven, and then parted.
On Sunday, April 20, being Easter-day, after attending solemn service at St. Paul’s, I came to Dr. Johnson, and found Mr. Lowe, the painter, sitting with him. Mr. Lowe mentioned the great number of new buildings of late in London, yet that Dr. Johnson had observed, that the number of inhabitants was not increased. JOHNSON. Why, Sir, the bills of mortality prove that no more people die now than formerly; so it is plain no more live. The register of births proves nothing, for not one tenth of the people of London are born there.’ BOSWELL. ‘I believe, Sir, a great many of the children born in London die early.’ JOHNSON. ‘Why, yes, Sir.’ BOSWELL. ‘But those who do live, are as stout and strong people as any: Dr. Price says, they must be naturally stronger to get through.’ JOHNSON. ‘That is system, Sir. A great traveller observes, that it is said there are no weak or deformed people among the Indians; but he with much sagacity assigns the reason of this, which is, that the hardship of their life as hunters and fishers does not allow weak or diseased children to grow up. Now had I been an Indian, I must have died early; my eyes would not have served me to get food. I indeed now could fish, give me English tackle; but had I been an Indian I must have starved, or they would have knocked me on the head, when they saw I could do nothing.’ BOSWELL. ‘Perhaps they would have taken care of you: we are told they are fond of oratory, you would have talked to them.’ JOHNSON. Nay, Sir, I should not have lived long enough to be fit to talk; I should have been dead before I was ten years old. Depend upon it, Sir, a savage, when he is hungry, will not carry about with him a looby of nine years old, who cannot help himself. They have no affection, Sir.’ BOSWELL. ‘I believe natural affection, of which we hear so much, is very small.’ JOHNSON. ‘Sir, natural affection is nothing: but affection from principle and established duty is sometimes wonderfully strong.’ LOWE. ‘A hen, Sir, will feed her chickens in preference to herself.’ JOHNSON. ‘But we don’t know that the hen is hungry; let the hen be fairly hungry, and I’ll warrant she’ll peck the corn herself. A cock, I believe, will feed hens instead of himself; but we don’t know that the cock is hungry.’ BOSWELL. ‘And that, Sir, is not from affection but gallantry. But some of the Indians have affection.’ JOHNSON. ‘Sir, that they help some of their children is plain; for some of them live, which they could not do without being helped.’
I dined with him; the company were, Mrs. Williams, Mrs. Desmoulins, and Mr. Lowe. He seemed not to be well, talked little, grew drowsy soon after dinner, and retired, upon which I went away.
Having next day gone to Mr. Burke’s seat in the country, from whence I was recalled by an express, that a near relation of mine had killed his antagonist in a duel, and was himself dangerously wounded, I saw little of Dr. Johnson till Monday, April 28, when I spent a considerable part of the day with him, and introduced the subject, which then chiefly occupied my mind. JOHNSON. ‘I do not see, Sir, that fighting is absolutely forbidden in Scripture; I see revenge forbidden, but not self-defence.’ BOSWELL. ‘The Quakers say it is; “Unto him that smiteth thee on one cheek, offer him also the other.”’ JOHNSON. ‘But stay, Sir; the text is meant only to have the effect of moderating passion; it is plain that we are not to take it in a literal sense. We see this from the context, where there are other recommendations, which I warrant you the Quaker will not take literally; as, for instance, “From him that would borrow of thee, turn thou not away.” Let a man whose credit is bad, come to a Quaker, and say, “Well, Sir, lend me a hundred pounds;” he’ll find him as unwilling as any other man. No, Sir, a man may shoot the man who invades his character, as he may shoot him who attempts to break into his house.* So in 1745, my friend, Tom Gumming, the Quaker, said, he would not fight, but he would drive an ammunition cart; and we know that the Quakers have sent flannel waistcoats to our soldiers, to enable them to fight better.’ BOSWELL. ‘When a man is the aggressor, and by ill-usage forces on a duel in which he is killed, have we not little ground to hope that he is gone into a state of happiness?’ JOHNSON. ‘Sir, we are not to judge determinately of the state in which a man leaves this life. He may in a moment have repented effectually, and it is possible may have been accepted by GOD.’
* I think it necessary to caution my readers against
concluding that in this or any other conversation of Dr.
Johnson, they have his serious and deliberate opinion on the
subject of duelling. In my Journal of a Tour to the
Hebrides, 3rd edit. p. 386 [p. 366, Oct. 24], it appears
that he made this frank confession:— ‘Nobody at times, talks
more laxly than I do;’ and, ib., p. 231 [Sept. 19, 1773],
‘He fairly owned he could not explain the rationality of
duelling.’ We may, therefore, infer, that he could not
think that justifiable, which seems so inconsistent with the
spirit of the Gospel. — BOSWELL.
Upon being told that old Mr. Sheridan, indignant at the neglect of his oratorical plans, had threatened to go to America; JOHNSON. ‘I hope he will go to America.’ BOSWELL. ‘The Americans don’t want oratory.’ JOHNSON. ‘But we can want Sheridan.’
On Monday, April 29, I found him at home in the forenoon, and Mr. Seward with him. Horace having been mentioned; BOSWELL. ‘There is a great deal of thinking in his works. One finds there almost every thing but religion.’ SEWARD. ‘He speaks of his returning to it, in his Ode Parcus Deorum cultor et infrequens.’ JOHNSON. ‘Sir, he was not in earnest: this was merely poetical.’ BOSWELL. ‘There are, I am afraid, many people who have no religion at
all.’ SEWARD. ‘And sensible people too.’ JOHNSON. ‘Why, Sir, not sensible in that respect. There must be either a natural or a moral stupidity, if one lives in a total neglect of so very important a concern. SEWARD. ‘I wonder that there should be people without religion.’ JOHNSON. ‘Sir, you need not wonder at this, when you consider how large a proportion of almost every man’s life is passed without thinking of it. I myself was for some years totally regardless of religion. It had dropped out of my mind. It was at an early part of my life. Sickness brought it back, and I hope I have never lost it since.’ BOSWELL. ‘My dear Sir, what a man must you have been without religion! Why you must have gone on drinking, and swearing, and— ‘ JOHNSON (with a smile,) ‘I drank enough and swore enough, to be sure.’ SEWARD. ‘One should think that sickness and the view of death would make more men religious.’ JOHNSON. ‘Sir, they do not know how to go about it: they have not the first notion. A man who has never had religion before, no more grows religious when he is sick, than a man who has never learnt figures can count when he has need of calculation.’
I mentioned Dr. Johnson’s excellent distinction between liberty of conscience and liberty of teaching. JOHNSON. ‘Consider, Sir; if you have children whom you wish to educate in the principles of the Church of England, and there comes a Quaker who tries to pervert them to his principles, you would drive away the Quaker. You would not trust to the predomination of right, which you believe is in your opinions; you would keep wrong out of their heads. Now the vulgar are the children of the State. If any one attempts to teach them doctrines contrary to what the State approves, the magistrate may and ought to restrain him.’ SEWARD. ‘Would you restrain private conversation, Sir?’ JOHNSON. ‘Why, Sir, it is difficult to say where private conversation begins, and where it ends. If we three should discuss even the great question concerning the existence of a Supreme Being by ourselves, we should not be restrained; for that would be to put an end to all improvement. But if we should discuss it in the presence of ten boarding-school girls, and as many boys, I think the magistrate would do well to put us in the stocks, to finish the debate there.’
‘How false (said he,) is all this, to say that in ancient times learning was not a disgrace to a Peer as it is now. In ancient times a Peer was as ignorant as any one else. He would have been angry to have it thought he could write his name. Men in ancient times dared to stand forth with a degree of ignorance with which nobody would dare now to stand forth. I am always angry when I hear ancient times praised at the expence of modern times. There is now a great deal more learning in the world than there was formerly; for it is universally diffused. You have, perhaps, no man who knows as much Greek and Latin as Bentley; no man who knows as much mathematicks as Newton: but you have many more men who know Greek and Latin, and who know mathematicks.’
On Thursday, May 1, I visited him in the evening along with young Mr. Burke. He said, ‘It is strange that there should be so little reading in the world, and so much writing. People in general do not willingly read, if they can have any thing else to amuse them. There must be an external impulse; emulation, or vanity, or avarice. The progress which the understanding makes through a book, has more pain than pleasure in it. Language is scanty, and inadequate to express the nice gradations and mixtures of our feelings. No man reads a book of science from pure inclination. The books that we do read with pleasure are light compositions, which contain a quick succession of events. However, I have this year read all Virgil through. I read a book of the Aeneid every night, so it was done in twelve nights, and I had great delight in it. The Georgicks did not give me so much pleasure, except the fourth book. The Eclogues I have almost all by heart. I do not think the story of the Aeneid interesting. I like the story of the Odyssey much better; and this not on account of the wonderful things which it contains; for there are wonderful things enough in the Aeneid; — the ships of the Trojans turned to sea-nymphs, — the tree at Polydorus’s tomb dropping blood. The story of the Odyssey is interesting, as a great part of it is domestick. It has been said, there is pleasure in writing, particularly in writing verses. I allow you may have pleasure from writing, after it is over, if you have written well; but you don’t go willingly to it again. I know when I have been writing verses, I have run my finger down the margin, to see how many I had made, and how few I had to make.’
He seemed to be in a very placid humour, and although I have no note of the particulars of young Mr. Burke’s conversation, it is but justice to mention in general, that it was such that Dr. Johnson said to me afterwards, ‘He did very well indeed; I have a mind to tell his father.’
I have no minute of any interview with Johnson till Thursday, May 15, when I find what follows: — BOSWELL. ‘I wish much to be in Parliament, Sir.’ JOHNSON. ‘Why, Sir, unless you come resolved to support any administration, you would be the worse for being in Parliament, because you would be obliged to live more expensively.’ BOSWELL. ‘Perhaps, Sir, I should be the less happy for being in Parliament. I never would sell my vote, and I should be vexed if things went wrong.’ JOHNSON. ‘That’s cant, Sir. It would not vex you more in the house, than in the gallery: publick affairs vex no man.’ BOSWELL. ‘Have not they vexed yourself a little, Sir? Have not you been vexed by all the turbulence of this reign, and by that absurd vote of the house of Commons, “That the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished?”’ Johnson. ‘Sir, I have never slept an hour less, nor eat an ounce less meat. I would have knocked the factious dogs on the head, to be sure; but I was not VEXED.’ BOSWELL. ‘I declare, Sir, upon my honour, I did imagine I was vexed, and took a pride in it; but it WAS, perhaps, cant; for I own I neither ate less, nor slept less.’ JOHNSON. ‘My dear friend, clear your MIND of cant. You may TALK as other people do: you may say to a man, “Sir, I am your most humble servant.” You are not his most humble servant. You may say, “These are bad times; it is a melancholy thing to be reserved to such times.” You don’t mind the times. You tell a man, “I am sorry you had such bad weather the last day of your journey, and were so much wet.” You don’t care six-pence whether he is wet or dry. You may TALK in this manner; it is a mode of talking in Society: but don’t THINK foolishly.’
Here he discovered a notion common enough in persons not much accustomed to entertain company, that there must be a degree of elaborate attention, otherwise company will think themselves neglected; and such attention is no doubt very fatiguing. He proceeded: ‘I would not, however, be a stranger in my own county; I would visit my neighbours, and receive their visits; but I would not be in haste to return visits. If a gentleman comes to see me, I tell him he does me a great deal of honour. I do not go to see him perhaps for ten weeks; then we are very complaisant to each other. No, Sir, you will have much more influence by giving or lending money where it is wanted, than by hospitality.’
On Saturday, May 17, I saw him for a short time. Having mentioned that I had that morning been with old Mr. Sheridan, he remembered their former intimacy with a cordial warmth, and said to me, ‘Tell Mr. Sheridan, I shall be glad to see him, and shake hands with him.’ BOSWELL. ‘It is to me very wonderful that resentment should be kept up so long.’ JOHNSON. ‘Why, Sir, it is not altogether resentment that he does not visit me; it is partly falling out of the habit, — partly disgust, as one has at a drug that has made him sick. Besides, he knows that I laugh at his oratory.’
Another day I spoke of one of our friends, of whom he, as well as I, had a very high opinion. He expatiated in his praise; but added, ‘Sir, he is a cursed Whig, a BOTTOMLESS Whig, as they all are now.’
On Monday, May 26, I found him at tea, and the celebrated Miss Burney, the authour of Evelina and Cecilia, with him. I asked if there would be any speakers in Parliament, if there were no places to be obtained. JOHNSON. ‘Yes, Sir. Why do you speak here? Either to instruct and entertain, which is a benevolent motive; or for distinction, which is a selfish motive.’ I mentioned Cecilia. JOHNSON. (with an air of animated satisfaction,) ‘S
ir, if you talk of Cecilia, talk on.’
We talked of Mr. Barry’s exhibition of his pictures. JOHNSON. ‘Whatever the hand may have done, the mind has done its part. There is a grasp of mind there which you find nowhere else.’
I asked whether a man naturally virtuous, or one who has overcome wicked inclinations, is the best. JOHNSON. ‘Sir, to YOU, the man who has overcome wicked inclinations is not the best. He has more merit to HIMSELF: I would rather trust my money to a man who has no hands, and so a physical impossibility to steal, than to a man of the most honest principles. There is a witty satirical story of Foote. He had a small bust of Garrick placed upon his bureau. “You may be surprized (said he,) that I allow him to be so near my gold; — but you will observe he has no hands.”’
On Friday, May 29, being to set out for Scotland next morning, I passed a part of the day with him in more than usual earnestness; as his health was in a more precarious state than at any time when I had parted from him. He, however, was quick and lively, and critical as usual. I mentioned one who was a very learned man. JOHNSON. ‘Yes, Sir, he has a great deal of learning; but it never lies straight. There is never one idea by the side of another; ’tis all entangled: and their he drives it so aukwardly upon conversation.’
Complete Works of Samuel Johnson Page 954