The Life of Samuel Johnson

by James Boswell

  a Lord Macartney, who with his other distinguished qualities, is remarkable also for an elegant pleasantry, told me, that he met Johnson at Lady Craven’s, and that he seemed jealous of any interference: ‘So, (said his Lordship, smiling,) I kept back.’

  b There is an account of him in Sir John Hawkins’s Life of Johnson.

  c I have in vain endeavoured to find out what parts Johnson wrote for Dr. James. Perhaps medical men may.

  a Patrick, Lord Elibank, who died in 1778.

  a ‘Nunquam enim nisi navi plena tollo vectorem.’590 Lib. ii. c. vi.

  a In the Monthly Review for May, 1792, there is such a correction of the above passage, as I should think myself very culpable not to subjoin. ‘This account is very inaccurate. The following statement of facts we know to be true, in every material circumstance: – Shiels was the principal collector and digester of the materials for the work: but as he was very raw in authourship, an indifferent writer in prose, and his language full of Scotticisms, Cibber, who was a clever, lively fellow, and then soliciting employment among the booksellers, was engaged to correct the style and diction of the whole work, then intended to make only four volumes, with power to alter, expunge, or add, as he liked. He was also to supply notes, occasionally, especially concerning those dramatick poets with whom he had been chiefly conversant. He also engaged to write several of the Lives; which, (as we are told,) he, accordingly, performed. He was farther useful in striking out the Jacobitical and Tory sentiments, which Shiels had industriously interspersed wherever he could bring them in: – and, as the success of the work appeared, after all, very doubtful, he was content with twenty-one pounds for his labour beside a few sets of the books, to disperse among his friends. – Shiels had nearly seventy pounds, beside the advantage of many of the best Lives in the work being communicated by friends to the undertaking; and for which Mr. Shiels had the same consideration as for the rest, being paid by the sheet, for the whole. He was, however, so angry with his Whiggish supervisor, (Theo., like his father, being a violent stickler for the political principles which prevailed in the Reign of George the Second,) for so unmercifully mutilating his copy, and scouting his politicks, that he wrote Cibber a challenge: but was prevented from sending it, by the publisher, who fairly laughed him out of his fury. The proprietors, too, were discontented, in the end, on account of Mr. Cibber’s unexpected industry; for his corrections and alterations in the proof-sheets were so numerous and considerable, that the printer made for them a grievous addition to his bill; and, in fine, all parties were dissatisfied. On the whole, the work was productive of no profit to the undertakers, who had agreed, in case of success, to make Cibber a present of some addition to the twenty guineas which he had received, and for which his receipt is now in the booksellers’ hands. We are farther assured, that he actually obtained an additional sum; when he, soon after, (in the year 1758,) unfortunately embarked for Dublin, on an engagement for one of the theatres there: but the ship was cast away, and every person on board perished. There were about sixty passengers, among whom was the Earl of Drogheda, with many other persons of consequence and property.

  ‘As to the alledged design of making the compilement pass for the work of old Mr. Cibber, the charges seem to have been founded on a somewhat uncharitable construction. We are assured that the thought was not harboured by some of the proprietors, who are still living; and we hope that it did not occur to the first designer of the work, who was also the printer of it, and who bore a respectable character.

  ‘We have been induced to enter thus Circumstantially into the foregoing detail of facts relating to The Lives of the Poets, compiled by Messrs. Cibber and Shiels, from a sincere regard to that sacred principle of Truth, to which Dr. Johnson so rigidly adhered, according to the best of his knowledge; and which we believed, no consideration would have prevailed on him to violate. In regard to the matter, which we now dismiss, he had, no doubt, been misled by partial and wrong information: Shiels was the Doctor’s amanuensis; he had quarrelled with Cibber; it is natural to suppose that he told his story in his own way; and it is certain that he was not “a very sturdy moralist”.’ This explanation appears to me very satisfactory. It is, however, to be observed, that the story told by Johnson does not rest solely upon my record of his conversation; for he himself has published it in his Life of Hammond, where he says, ‘the manuscript of Shiels is now in my possession.’ Very probably he had trusted to Shiels’s word, and never looked at it so as to compare it with The Lives of the Poets, as published under Mr. Cibber’s name. What became of that manuscript I know not. I should have liked much to examine it. I suppose it was thrown into the fire in that impetuous combustion of papers, which Johnson I think rashly executed, when moribundus.594

  a Sir Edward Barry, Baronet.

  a See ante, note, p. 534.

  b A noted highwayman, who after having been several times tried and acquitted, was at last hanged. He was remarkable for foppery in his dress, and particularly for wearing a bunch of sixteen strings at the knees of his breeches.

  c See an ingenious Essay on this subject by the late Dr. Moor, Greek Professor at Glasgow.

  a We have here an involuntary testimony to the excellence of this admirable writer, to whom we have seen that Dr. Johnson directly allowed so little merit.

  b Mr. Romney, the painter, who has now deservedly established a high reputation.

  c See ante, p. 535.

  a I am sorry that there are no memoirs of the Reverend Robert Blair, the authour of this poem. He was the representative of the ancient family of Blair, of Blair, in Ayrshire, but the estate had descended to a female, and afterwards passed to the son of her husband by another marriage. He was minister of the parish of Athelstanford, where Mr. John Home was his successor; so that it may truely be called classick ground. His son, who is of the same name, and a man eminent for talents and learning, is now, with universal approbation, Solicitor-General of Scotland.

  a Mr. Tyrwhitt, Mr. Warton, Mr. Malone.

  a It may be observed, that Mr. Malone, in his very valuable edition of Shakspeare, has fully vindicated Dr. Johnson from the idle censures which the first of these notes has given rise to. The interpretation of the other passage, which Dr. Johnson allows to be disputable, he has clearly shown to be erroneous.

  a As a proof of Dr. Johnson’s extraordinary powers of composition, it appears from the original manuscript of this excellent dissertation, of which he dictated the first eight paragraphs on the 10th of May, and the remainder on the 13th, that there are in the whole only seven corrections, or rather variations, and those not considerable. Such were at once the vigorous and accurate emanations of his mind.

  a It is curious to observe that Lord Thurlow has here, perhaps in compliment to North Britain, made use of a term of the Scotch Law, which to an English reader may require explanation. To qualify a wrong, is to point out and establish it.

  a this has been circulated as if actually said by johnson; when the truth is, it was only supposed by me.

  a See p. 522.

  a Johnson’s London, a poem, v. 145.

  a Foote told me that Johnson said of him, ‘For loud obstreperous broad-faced mirth, I know not his equal.’

  a See ante, p. 213.

  a My very pleasant friend himself, as well as others who remember old stories, will no doubt be surprized, when I observe that John Wilkes here shews himself to be of the Warburtonian School. It is nevertheless true, as appears from Dr. Hurd the Bishop of Worcester’s very elegant commentary and notes on the ‘Epistola ad Pisones.‘643

  It is necessary to a fair consideration of the question, that the whole passage in which the words occur should be kept in view:

  ‘Si quid inexpertum scence committis, et audes

  Personam formare novam, servetur ad imum

  Qualis ab incepto processerit, et sibi constet.

  Difficile est proprie communia dicere: tuque

  Rectius lliacum carmen deducts in actus,

  Qu
äm siproferres ignota indictaque primus.

  Publica materies privati juris erit, si

  Non circa vilem patulumque moraberis orbem,

  Nee verbum verbo curabis reddere fidus

  Interpres; nee desilies imitator in artum

  Unde pedem proferre pudor vetet aut opens lex.’644

  The ‘Commentary’ thus illustrates it: ‘But the formation of quite new characters is a work of great difficulty and hazard. For here there is no generally received and fixed archetype to work after, but every one judges of common right, according to the extent and comprehension of his own idea; therefore he advises to labour and refit old characters and subjects, particularly those made known and authorised by the practice of Homer and the Epick writers.’

  The ‘Note’ is,

  ‘Difficile est proprie communia dicere.’ Lambin’s Comment is ‘Communia hoc loco appellat Horatius argumenta fabularum a nullo adhuc tractata: et ita, quce cuivis exposita sunt et in medio quodammodo posita, quasi vacua et ä nemine occupata.’645 And that this is the true meaning of communia is evidently fixed by the words ignota indictaque,646 which are explanatory of it; so that the sense given it in the commentary is unquestionably the right one. Yet, notwithstanding the clearness of the case, a late critick has this strange passage: ‘Difficile quidem esse proprie communia dicere, hoc est, materiam vulgärem, notam et e medio petitam, ita immutare atque exornare, ut nova et scriptori propria videatur, ultro concedimus; et maximi procul dubio ponderis ista est observatio. Sed omnibus utrinque collatis, et turn difficilis, turn venusti, tarn judicii quam ingenii ratione habitä, major videtur esse gloria fabulam formare penitus novam, quäm veterem, uteunque mutatam, de

  novo exhibere.’ (Poet. Prael. v. ii. p. 164.)647 Where, having first put a wrong construction on the word communia, he employs it to introduce an impertinent criticism. For where does the poet prefer the glory of refitting old subjects to that of inventing new ones? The contrary is implied in what he urges about the superiour difficulty of the latter, from which he dissuades his countrymen, only in respect of their abilities and inexperience in these matters; and in order to cultivate in them, which is the main view of the Epistle, a spirit of correctness, by sending them to the old subjects, treated by the Greek writers.

  For my own part (with all deference for Dr. Hurd, who thinks the case clear,) I consider the passage, ‘Difficile est proprie communia dicere,’ to be a crux for the criticks on Horace.

  The explication which My Lord of Worcester treats with so much contempt, is nevertheless countenanced by authority which I find quoted by the learned Baxter in his edition of Horace: ‘Difficile est proprie communia dicere, h. e. res vulgares disertis verbis enarrare, vel humile thema cum dignitate tractare. Difficile est communes res propriis explicare verbis. Vet. Schol.’648I was much disappointed to find that the great critick, Dr. Bentley, has no note upon this very difficult passage, as from his vigorous and illuminated mind I should have expected to receive more satisfaction than I have yet had.

  Sanadon thus treats of it: ‘Proprie communia dicere; c’est a dire, qu’il n’est pas aise de former Ü ces personnages d’imagination, des caracteres particuliers et cependant vraisemblables. Comme Von a ete le maitre de les former tels qu’on a voulu, les fautes que Von fait en cela sont moins pardonnables. C’est pourquoi Horace conseille de prendre toujours des sujets connus tels que sont par exemple ceux que Von peut tirer des poemes d‘Homere.’649

  And Dacier observes upon it, ‘Apres avoir marque les deux qualites qu’il faut donner aux personnages qu’on invente, il conseille aux Poetes tragiques, de n’user pas trop facilement de cette liberte quils ont d’en inventer, car il est tres difficile de reussir dans ces nouveaux caracteres. Il est mal aise, dit Horace, de traiter propre-ment, c’est Ü dire convenablement, des sujets communs; c’est Ü dire, des sujets inventes, et qui n’ont aucun fondement ni dans V Histoire ni dans la Fable; et il les appelle communs, parce qu’ils sont en disposition ä tout le monde, et que tout le monde a le droit de les inventer, et qu’ils sont, comme on dit, au premier occupant.’650 See his observations at large on this expression and the following.

  After all, I cannot help entertaining some doubt whether the words, Difficile est proprie communia dicere, may not have been thrown in by Horace to form a separate article in a ‘choice of difficulties’ which a poet has to encounter, who chooses a new subject; in which case it must be uncertain which of the various explanations is the true one, and every reader has a right to decide as it may strike his own fancy. And even should the words be understood as they generally are, to be connected both with what goes before and what comes after, the exact sense cannot be absolutely ascertained; for instance, whether proprie is meant to signify in an appropriated manner, as Dr. Johnson here understands it, or, as it is often used by Cicero, with propriety, or elegantly. In short, it is a rare instance of a defect in perspicuity in an admirable writer, who with almost every species of excellence, is peculiarly remarkable for that quality. The length of this note perhaps requires an apology. Many of my readers, I doubt not, will admit that a critical discussion of a passage in a favourite classick is very engaging.

  a It would not become me to expatiate on this strong and pointed remark, in which a very great deal of meaning is condensed.

  a These words must have been in the other copy. They are not in that which was preferred.

  a He however, upon seeing Dr. Warton’s name to the suggestion, that the Epitaph should be in English, observed to Sir Joshua, ‘I wonder that Joe Warton, a scholar by profession, should be such a fool.’ He said too, ‘I should have thought Mund Burke would have had more sense.’ Mr. Langton, who was one of the company at Sir Joshua’s, like a sturdy scholar, resolutely refused to sign the Round Robin. The Epitaph is engraved upon Dr. Goldsmith’s monument without any alteration. At another time, when somebody657 endeavoured to argue in favour of its being in English, Johnson said, ‘The language of the country of which a learned man was a native, is not the language fit for his epitaph, which should be in ancient and permanent language. Consider, Sir; how you should feel, were you to find at Rotterdam an epitaph upon Erasmus in Dutch!’ For my own part I think it would be best to have Epitaphs written both in a learned language, and in the language of the country; so that they might have the advantage of being more universally understood, and at the same time be secured of classical stability. I cannot, however, but be of opinion, that it is not sufficiently discriminative. Applying to Goldsmith equally the epithets of ‘Poetæ, Historici, Physici,’ is surely not right; for as to his claim to the last of those epithets, I have heard Johnson himself say, ‘Goldsmith, Sir, will give us a very fine book upon the subject; but if he can distinguish a cow from a horse, that, I believe, may be the extent of his knowledge of natural history.’ His book is indeed an excellent performance, though in some instances he appears to have trusted too much to Buffon, who, with all his theoretical ingenuity and extraordinary eloquence, I suspect had little actual information in the science on which he wrote so admirably. For instance, he tells us that the cow sheds her horns every two years; a most palpable errour, which Goldsmith has faithfully transferred into his book. It is wonderful that Buffon, who lived so much in the country, at his noble seat, should have fallen into such a blunder. I suppose he has confounded the cow with the deer.

  a Beside this Latin Epitaph, Johnson honoured the memory of his friend Goldsmith with a short one in Greek. See ante, July 5, 1774.

  b Upon a settlement of our account of expences on a Tour to the Hebrides, there was a balance due to me, which Dr. Johnson chose to discharge by sending books.

  c Baretti told me that Johnson complained of my writing very long letters to him when I was upon the continent; which was most certainly true; but it seems my friend did not remember it.

  a The son of Johnson’s old friend, Mr. William Drummond. (See pp. 279–81.) He was a young man of such distinguished merit, that he was nominated to one of the medical professorships in th
e College of Edinburgh without solicitation while he was at Naples. Having other views, he did not accept of the honour, and soon afterwards died.

  a A Florentine nobleman, mentioned by Johnson in his Notes of his Tour in France. I had the pleasure of becoming acquainted with him in London, in the spring of this year.

  a Why his Lordship uses the epithet pleasantly, when speaking of a grave piece of reasoning, I cannot conceive. But different men have different notions of pleasantry. I happened to sit by a gentleman one evening at the Opera-house in London, who, at the moment when Medea appeared to be in great agony at the thought of killing her children, turned to me with a smile, and said, ‘funny enough.’

  b Dr. Johnson afterwards told me, that he was of opinion that a clergyman had this right.

  a For this and Dr. Johnson’s other letters to Mr. Levett, I am indebted to my old acquaintance Mr. Nathaniel Thomas, whose worth and ingenuity have been long known to a respectable, though not a wide circle; and whose collection of medals would do credit to persons of greater opulence.

  a Pr. and Med. p. 155.

  b Ib. p. 158.

  a For a character of this very amiable man, see Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides, 3rd edit. p. 36 {17 Aug.}.