Pepys, who visited him, while I was with him said, 'If you were
_tractable_, Sir, I should prescribe for you.'
I related to him a remark which a respectable friend had made to me,
upon the then state of Government, when those who had been long in
opposition had attained to power, as it was supposed, against the
inclination of the Sovereign[526]. 'You need not be uneasy (said this
gentleman) about the King. He laughs at them all; he plays them one
against another.' JOHNSON. 'Don't think so, Sir. The King is as much
oppressed as a man can be. If he plays them one against another, he
_wins_ nothing.'
I had paid a visit to General Oglethorpe in the morning, and was told by
him that Dr. Johnson saw company on Saturday evenings, and he would meet
me at Johnson's that night. When I mentioned this to Johnson, not
doubting that it would please him, as he had a great value for
Oglethorpe, the fretfulness of his disease unexpectedly shewed itself;
his anger suddenly kindled, and he said, with vehemence, 'Did not you
tell him not to come? Am I to be _hunted_ in this manner?' I satisfied
him that I could not divine that the visit would not be convenient, and
that I certainly could not take it upon me of my own accord to forbid
the General.
I found Dr. Johnson in the evening in Mrs. Williams's room, at tea and
coffee with her and Mrs. Desmoulins, who were also both ill; it was a
sad scene, and he was not in very good humour. He said of a performance
that had lately come out, 'Sir, if you should search all the madhouses
in England, you would not find ten men who would write so, and think
it sense.'
I was glad when General Oglethorpe's arrival was announced, and we left
the ladies. Dr. Johnson attended him in the parlour, and was as
courteous as ever. The General said he was busy reading the writers of
the middle age. Johnson said they were very curious. OGLETHORPE. 'The
House of Commons has usurped the power of the nation's money, and used
it tyrannically. Government is now carried on by corrupt influence,
instead of the inherent right in the King.' JOHNSON. 'Sir, the want of
inherent right in the King occasions all this disturbance. What we did
at the Revolution was necessary: but it broke our constitution[527].'
OGLETHORPE. 'My father did not think it necessary.'
On Sunday, March 23, I breakfasted with Dr. Johnson, who seemed much
relieved, having taken opium the night before. He however protested
against it, as a remedy that should be given with the utmost reluctance,
and only in extreme necessity. I mentioned how commonly it was used in
Turkey, and that therefore it could not be so pernicious as he
apprehended. He grew warm and said, 'Turks take opium, and Christians
take opium; but Russel, in his _Account of Aleppo_[528], tells us, that
it is as disgraceful in Turkey to take too much opium, as it is with us
to get drunk. Sir, it is amazing how things are exaggerated. A gentleman
was lately telling in a company where I was present, that in France as
soon as a man of fashion marries, he takes an opera girl into keeping;
and this he mentioned as a general custom. 'Pray, Sir, (said I,) how
many opera girls may there be?' He answered, 'About fourscore.' Well
then, Sir, (said I,) you see there can be no more than fourscore men of
fashion who can do this[529].'
Mrs. Desmoulins made tea; and she and I talked before him upon a topick
which he had once borne patiently from me when we were by
ourselves[530],--his not complaining of the world, because he was not
called to some great office, nor had attained to great wealth. He flew
into a violent passion, I confess with some justice, and commanded us to
have done. 'Nobody, (said he) has a right to talk in this manner, to
bring before a man his own character, and the events of his life, when
he does not choose it should be done. I never have sought the world;
the world was not to seek me. It is rather wonderful that so much has
been done for me. All the complaints which are made of the world are
unjust[531]. I never knew a man of merit neglected[532]: it was
generally by his own fault that he failed of success. A man may hide his
head in a hole: he may go into the country, and publish a book now and
then, which nobody reads, and then complain he is neglected[533]. There
is no reason why any person should exert himself for a man who has
written a good book: he has not written it for any individual. I may as
well make a present to the postman who brings me a letter. When
patronage was limited, an authour expected to find a Maecenas, and
complained if he did not find one. Why should he complain? This Maecenas
has others as good as he, or others who have got the start of him.'
BOSWELL. 'But surely, Sir, you will allow that there are men of merit at
the bar, who never get practice.' JOHNSON. 'Sir, you are sure that
practice is got from an opinion that the person employed deserves it
best; so that if a man of merit at the bar does not get practice, it is
from errour, not from injustice. He is not neglected. A horse that is
brought to market may not be bought, though he is a very good horse: but
that is from ignorance, not from intention[534].'
There was in this discourse much novelty, ingenuity, and discrimination,
such as is seldom to be found. Yet I cannot help thinking that men of
merit, who have no success in life, may be forgiven for _lamenting_, if
they are not allowed to _complain_. They may consider it as _hard_ that
their merit should not have its suitable distinction. Though there is no
intentional injustice towards them on the part of the world, their merit
not having been perceived, they may yet repine against _fortune_, or
_fate_, or by whatever name they choose to call the supposed
mythological power of _Destiny_. It has, however, occurred to me, as a
consolatory thought, that men of merit should consider thus:-How much
harder would it be if the same persons had both all the merit and all
the prosperity. Would not this be a miserable distribution for the poor
dunces? Would men of merit exchange their intellectual superiority, and
the enjoyments arising from it, for external distinction and the
pleasures of wealth? If they would not, let them not envy others, who
are poor where they are rich, a compensation which is made to them. Let
them look inwards and be satisfied; recollecting with conscious pride
what Virgil finely says of the _Corycius Senex_, and which I have, in
another place[535], with truth and sincerity applied to Mr. Burke:--
'_Regum aequabat opes animis[536].'_
On the subject of the right employment of wealth, Johnson observed, 'A
man cannot make a bad use of his money, so far as regards Society, if he
does not hoard it; for if he either spends it or lends it out, Society
has the benefit. It is in general better to spend money than to give it
away; for industry is more promoted by spending money than by giving it
away. A man who spends his money is sure he is doing good with it: he is
not so sure when he gives it away. A man who spends ten thousand a year
will do more good than a man who spends two thousand and gives away
eight[537].'
In the evening I came to him again. He was somewhat fretful from his
illness. A gentleman[538] asked him, whether he had been abroad to-day.
'Don't talk so childishly, (said he.) You may as well ask if I hanged
myself to-day.' I mentioned politicks. JOHNSON. 'Sir, I'd as soon have a
man to break my bones as talk to me of publick affairs, internal or
external. I have lived to see things all as bad as they can be.'
Having mentioned his friend the second Lord Southwell, he said, 'Lord
Southwell was the highest-bred man without insolence that I ever was in
company with; the most _qualified_ I ever saw. Lord Orrery[539] was not
dignified: Lord Chesterfield was, but he was insolent[540]. Lord
----[541] is a man of coarse manners, but a man of abilities and
information. I don't say he is a man I would set at the head of a
nation, though perhaps he may be as good as the next Prime Minister that
comes; but he is a man to be at the head of a Club; I don't say _our_
CLUB; for there's no such Club.' BOSWELL. 'But, Sir, was he not once a
factious man?' JOHNSON. 'O yes, Sir; as factious a fellow as could be
found: one who was for sinking us all into the mob[542].' BOSWELL. 'How
then, Sir, did he get into favour with the King?' JOHNSON. 'Because,
Sir, I suppose he promised the King to do whatever the King pleased.'
He said, 'Goldsmith's blundering speech to Lord Shelburne, which has
been so often mentioned, and which he really did make to him, was only a
blunder in emphasis: "I wonder they should call your Lordship
_Malagrida_[543], for Malagrida was a very good man;" meant, I wonder
they should use _Malagrida_ as a term of reproach[544].'
Soon after this time I had an opportunity of seeing, by means of one of
his friends[545], a proof that his talents, as well as his obliging
service to authours, were ready as ever. He had revised _The Village_,
an admirable poem, by the Reverend Mr. Crabbe. Its sentiments as to the
false notions of rustick happiness and rustick virtue were quite
congenial with his own[546]; and he had taken the trouble not only to
suggest slight corrections and variations, but to furnish some lines,
when he thought he could give the writer's meaning better than in the
words of the manuscript[547].
On Sunday, March 30, I found him at home in the evening, and had the
pleasure to meet with Dr. Brocklesby[548], whose reading, and knowledge
of life, and good spirits, supply him with a never-failing source of
conversation. He mentioned a respectable gentleman, who became extremely
penurious near the close of his life. Johnson said there must have been
a degree of madness about him. 'Not at all, Sir, (said Dr. Brocklesby,)
his judgement was entire.' Unluckily, however, he mentioned that
although he had a fortune of twenty-seven thousand pounds, he denied
himself many comforts, from an apprehension that he could not afford
them. 'Nay, Sir, (cried Johnson,) when the judgement is so disturbed
that a man cannot count, that is pretty well.'
I shall here insert a few of Johnson's sayings, without the formality of
dates, as they have no reference to any particular time or place.
'The more a man extends and varies his acquaintance the better.' This,
however, was meant with a just restriction; for, he on another occasion
said to me, 'Sir, a man may be so much of every thing, that he is
nothing of any thing.'
'Raising the wages of day-labourers is wrong[549]; for it does not make
them live better, but only makes them idler, and idleness is a very bad
thing for human nature.'
'It is a very good custom to keep a journal[550] for a man's own use; he
may write upon a card a day all that is necessary to be written, after
he has had experience of life. At first there is a great deal to be
written, because there is a great deal of novelty; but when once a man
has settled his opinions, there is seldom much to be set down.'
'There is nothing wonderful in the journal which we see Swift kept in
London, for it contains slight topicks, and it might soon be
written[551].'
I praised the accuracy of an account-book of a lady whom I mentioned.
JOHNSON. 'Keeping accounts, Sir, is of no use when a man is spending his
own money, and has nobody to whom he is to account. You won't eat less
beef to-day, because you have written down what it cost yesterday.' I
mentioned another lady who thought as he did, so that her husband could
not get her to keep an account of the expence of the family, as she
thought it enough that she never exceeded the sum allowed her. JOHNSON.
'Sir, it is fit she should keep an account, because her husband wishes
it; but I do not see its use[552].' I maintained that keeping an account
has this advantage, that it satisfies a man that his money has not been
lost or stolen, which he might sometimes be apt to imagine, were there
no written state of his expence; and beside, a calculation of oeconomy
so as not to exceed one's income, cannot be made without a view of the
different articles in figures, that one may see how to retrench in some
particulars less necessary than others. This he did not attempt
to answer.
Talking of an acquaintance of ours[553], whose narratives, which
abounded in curious and interesting topicks, were unhappily found to be
very fabulous; I mentioned Lord Mansfield's having said to me, 'Suppose
we believe one _half_ of what he tells.' JOHNSON. 'Ay; but we don't know
_which_ half to believe. By his lying we lose not only our reverence for
him, but all comfort in his conversation.' BOSWELL. 'May we not take it
as amusing fiction?' JOHNSON. 'Sir, the misfortune is, that you will
insensibly believe as much of it as you incline to believe.'
It is remarkable, that notwithstanding their congeniality in politicks,
he never was acquainted with a late eminent noble judge[554], whom I
have heard speak of him as a writer, with great respect[555]. Johnson, I
know not upon what degree of investigation, entertained no exalted
opinion of his Lordship's intellectual character[556]. Talking of him to
me one day, he said, 'It is wonderful, Sir, with how little real
superiority of mind men can make an eminent figure in publick life.' He
expressed himself to the same purpose concerning another law-Lord, who,
it seems, once took a fancy to associate with the wits of London; but
with so little success, that Foote said, 'What can he mean by coming
among us? He is not only dull himself, but the cause of dullness in
others[557].' Trying him by the test of his colloquial powers, Johnson
had found him very defective. He once said to Sir Joshua Reynolds, 'This
man now has been ten years about town, and has made nothing of it;'
meaning as a companion[558]. He said to me, 'I never heard any thing
from him in company that was at all striking; and depend upon it, Sir,
it is when you come close to a man in conversation, that you discover
what his real abilities are; to make a speech in a publick assembly is a
knack. Now I honour Thurlow, Sir; Thurlow is a fine fellow; he fairly
puts his mind to yours[559].'
After repeating to him some of his pointed, lively sayings, I said, 'It
is a pity, Sir, you don't always remember your own good things, that you
may have a laugh when you will.' JOHNSON. 'Nay, Sir, it is better that I
forget them, that I may be reminded of them, and have a laugh on their
being brought to my recollection.'
When I recalled to him his having said as we sailed up Loch-lomond[560],
'That if he wore any thing fine, it should be _very_ fine;' I observed
that all his thoughts were upon a great scale. JOHNSON. 'Depend upon it,
Sir, every man will have as fine a thing as he can get; as a large
diamond for his ring.' BOSWELL. 'Pardon me, Sir: a man of a narrow mind
will not think of it, a slight trinket will satisfy him:
"_Nee sufferre queat majoris pondera gemmae_[561]."'
I told him I should send him some Essays which I had written[562], which
I hoped he would be so good as to read, and pick out the good ones.
JOHNSON. 'Nay, Sir, send me only the good ones; don't make _me_
pick them.'
I heard him once say, 'Though the proverb _Nullum numen abest, si sit
prudentia[563], does not always prove true, we may be certain of the
converse of it, _Nullum numen adest, si sit imprudentia_.'
Once, when Mr. Seward was going to Bath, and asked his commands, he
said, 'Tell Dr. Harrington that I wish he would publish another volume
of the _Nugae antiquae_[564]; it is a very pretty book[565].' Mr. Seward
seconded this wish, and recommended to Dr. Harrington to dedicate it to
Johnson, and take for his motto, what Catullus says to Cornelius Nepos:--
'----_namque tu solebas,
Meas esse aliquid putare_ NUGAS[566].'
As a small proof of his kindliness and delicacy of feeling, the
following circumstance may be mentioned: One evening when we were in the
street together, and I told him I was going to sup at Mr. Beauclerk's,
he said, 'I'll go with you.' After having walked part of the way,
seeming to recollect something, he suddenly stopped and said, 'I cannot
go,--but _I do not love Beauclerk the less_.'
On the frame of his portrait, Mr. Beauclerk had inscribed,--
'----_Ingenium ingens
Inculto latet hoc sub corpore_[567].'
After Mr. Beauclerk's death, when it became Mr. Langton's property, he
made the inscription be defaced. Johnson said complacently, 'It was kind
in you to take it off;' and then after a short pause, added, 'and not
unkind in him to put it on.'
He said, 'How few of his friends' houses would a man choose to be at
when he is sick.' He mentioned one or two. I recollect only
Thrale's[568].
He observed, 'There is a wicked inclination in most people to suppose an
old man decayed in his intellects. If a young or middle-aged man, when
leaving a company, does not recollect where he laid his hat, it is
nothing; but if the same inattention is discovered in an old man, people
will shrug up their shoulders, and say, 'His memory is going[569].'
When I once talked to him of some of the sayings which every body
repeats, but nobody knows where to find, such as _Quos DEUS vult
perdere, prius dementat_[570]; he told me that he was once offered ten
guineas to point out from whence _Semel insanivimus omnes_ was taken. He
could not do it; but many years afterwards met with it by chance in
_Johannes Baptista Mantuanus_[571].
I am very sorry that I did not take a note of an eloquent argument in
which he maintained that the situation of Prince of Wales was the
happiest of any person's in the kingdom, even beyond that of the
Sovereign. I recollect only--the enjoyment of hope[572],--the high
superiority of rank, without the anxious cares of government,--and a
great degree of power, both from natural influence wisely used, and from
the sanguine expectations of those who look forward to the chance of
future favour.
Sir Joshua Reynolds communicated to me the following particulars:--
Johnson thought the poems published as translations from Ossian had so
little merit, that he said, 'Sir, a man might write such stuff for ever,
if he would _abandon_ his mind to it[573].'
He said, 'A man should pass a part of his time with _the laughers_, by
which means any thing ridiculous or particular about him might be
presented to his view, and corrected.' I observed, he must have been a
bold laugher who would have ventured to tell Dr. Johnson of any of his
particularities[574].
Having observed the vain ostentatious importance of many people in
quoting the authority of Dukes and Lords, as having been in their
company, he said, he went to the other extreme, and did not mention his
authority when he should have done it, had it not been that of a Duke or
a Lord[575].
Dr. Goldsmith said once to Dr. Johnson, that he wished for some
additional members to the LITERARY CLUB, to give it an agreeable
variety; for (said he,) there can now be nothing new among us: we have
travelled over one another's minds. Johnson seemed a little angry, and
said, 'Sir, you have not travelled over _my_ mind, I promise you.' Sir
Joshua, however, thought Goldsmith right; observing, that 'when people
have lived a great deal together, they know what each of them will say
on every subject. A new understanding, therefore, is desirable; because
though it may only furnish the same sense upon a question which would
have been furnished by those with whom we are accustomed to live, yet
this sense will have a different colouring; and colouring is of much
effect in every thing else as well as in painting.'
Johnson used to say that he made it a constant rule to talk as well as
he could both as to sentiment and expression, by which means, what had
been originally effort became familiar and easy[576]. The consequence of
this, Sir Joshua observed, was, that his common conversation in all
companies was such as to secure him universal attention, as something
above the usual colloquial style was expected[577].
Yet, though Johnson had this habit in company, when another mode was
necessary, in order to investigate truth, he could descend to a language
intelligible to the meanest capacity. An instance of this was witnessed
by Sir Joshua Reynolds, when they were present at an examination of a
little blackguard boy, by Mr. Saunders Welch[578], the late Westminster
Justice. Welch, who imagined that he was exalting himself in Dr.
Johnson's eyes by using big words, spoke in a manner that was utterly
unintelligible to the boy; Dr. Johnson perceiving it, addressed himself
to the boy, and changed the pompous phraseology into colloquial
language. Sir Joshua Reynolds, who was much amused by this procedure,
which seemed a kind of reversing of what might have been expected from
the two men, took notice of it to Dr. Johnson, as they walked away by
themselves. Johnson said, that it was continually the case; and that he
was always obliged to _translate_ the Justice's swelling diction,
(smiling,) so as that his meaning might be understood by the vulgar,
from whom information was to be obtained[579].
Sir Joshua once observed to him, that he had talked above the capacity
of some people with whom they had been in company together. 'No matter,
Sir, (said Johnson); they consider it as a compliment to be talked to,
as if they were wiser than they are. So true is this, Sir, that Baxter
made it a rule in every sermon that he preached, to say something that
was above the capacity of his audience[580].'
Johnson's dexterity in retort, when he seemed to be driven to an
extremity by his adversary, was very remarkable. Of his power in this
respect, our common friend, Mr. Windham, of Norfolk, has been pleased to
furnish me with an eminent instance. However unfavourable to Scotland,
he uniformly gave liberal praise to George Buchanan[581], as a writer.
In a conversation concerning the literary merits of the two countries,
in which Buchanan was introduced, a Scotchman, imagining that on this
ground he should have an undoubted triumph over him, exclaimed, 'Ah, Dr.
Johnson, what would you have said of Buchanan, had he been an
Englishman?' 'Why, Sir, (said Johnson, after a little pause,) I should
_not_ have said of Buchanan, had he been an _Englishman_, what I will
now say of him as a _Scotchman_,--that he was the only man of genius
his country ever produced.'
And this brings to my recollection another instance of the same nature.
I once reminded him that when Dr. Adam Smith was expatiating on the
beauty of Glasgow, he had cut him short by saying, 'Pray, Sir, have you
ever seen Brentford?' and I took the liberty to add, 'My dear Sir,
surely that was _shocking_.' 'Why, then, Sir, (he replied,) YOU have
never seen Brentford.'
Though his usual phrase for conversation was _talk_[582], yet he made a
distinction; for when he once told me that he dined the day before at a
friend's house, with 'a very pretty company;' and I asked him if there
was good conversation, he answered, 'No, Sir; we had _talk_ enough, but
no _conversation_; there was nothing _discussed_.'
