One of his objections to the authenticity of _Fingal_, during the
conversation at Ulinish,[1063] is omitted in my _Journal_, but I
perfectly recollect it. 'Why is not the original deposited in some
publick library, instead of exhibiting attestations of its
existence?[1064] Suppose there were a question in a court of justice,
whether a man be dead or alive: You aver he is alive, and you bring
fifty witnesses to swear it: I answer, "Why do you not produce the
man?"' This is an argument founded upon one of the first principles of
the _law of evidence_, which _Gilbert_[1065] would have held to be
irrefragable.
I do not think it incumbent on me to give any precise decided opinion
upon this question, as to which I believe more than some, and less than
others.[1066]
The subject appears to have now become very uninteresting to the
publick. That _Fingal_ is not from beginning to end a translation from
the Gallick, but that _some_ passages have been supplied by the editor
to connect the whole, I have heard admitted by very warm advocates for
its authenticity. If this be the case, why are not these distinctly
ascertained? Antiquaries, and admirers of the work, may complain, that
they are in a situation similar to that of the unhappy gentleman, whose
wife informed him, on her death-bed, that one of their reputed children
was not his; and, when he eagerly begged her to declare which of them it
was, she answered, '_That_ you shall never know;' and expired, leaving
him in irremediable doubt as to them all.
I beg leave now to say something upon _second sight_, of which I have
related two instances,[1067] as they impressed my mind at the time. I
own, I returned from the Hebrides with a considerable degree of faith in
the many stories of that kind which I heard with a too easy
acquiescence, without any close examination of the evidence: but, since
that time, my belief in those stories has been much weakened,[1068] by
reflecting on the careless inaccuracy of narrative in common matters,
from which we may certainly conclude that there may be the same in what
is more extraordinary. It is but just, however, to add, that the belief
in second sight is not peculiar to the Highlands and Isles.[1069]
Some years after our Tour, a cause[1070] was tried in the Court of
Session, where the principal fact to be ascertained was, whether a
ship-master, who used to frequent the Western Highlands and Isles, was
drowned in one particular year, or in the year after. A great number of
witnesses from those parts were examined on each side, and swore
directly contrary to each other, upon this simple question. One of them,
a very respectable Chieftain, who told me a story of second sight, which
I have not mentioned, but which I too implicitly believed, had in this
case, previous to this publick examination, not only said, but attested
under his hand, that he had seen the ship-master in the year subsequent
to that in which the court was finally satisfied he was drowned. When
interrogated with the strictness of judicial inquiry, and under the awe
of an oath, he recollected himself better, and retracted what he had
formerly asserted, apologising for his inaccuracy, by telling the
judges, 'A man will _say_ what he will not _swear_.' By many he was much
censured, and it was maintained that every gentleman would be as
attentive to truth without the sanction of an oath, as with it. Dr.
Johnson, though he himself was distinguished at all times by a
scrupulous adherence to truth, controverted this proposition; and as a
proof that this was not, though it ought to be, the case, urged the very
different decisions of elections under Mr. Grenville's Act,[1071] from
those formerly made. 'Gentlemen will not pronounce upon oath what they
would have said, and voted in the house, without that sanction.'
However difficult it may be for men who believe in preternatural
communications, in modern times, to satisfy those who are of a different
opinion, they may easily refute the doctrine of their opponents, who
impute a belief in _second sight_ to _superstition_. To entertain a
visionary notion that one sees a distant or future event, may be called
_superstition_: but the correspondence of the fact or event with such an
impression on the fancy, though certainly very wonderful, _if proved_,
has no more connection with superstition, than magnetism or electricity.
After dinner, various topicks were discussed; but I recollect only one
particular. Dr. Johnson compared the different talents of Garrick and
Foote,[1072] as companions, and gave Garrick greatly the preference for
elegance, though he allowed Foote extraordinary powers of entertainment.
He said, 'Garrick is restrained by some principle; but Foote has the
advantage of an unlimited range. Garrick has some delicacy of feeling;
it is possible to put him out; you may get the better of him; but Foote
is the most incompressible fellow that I ever knew; when you have driven
him into a corner, and think you are sure of him, he runs through
between your legs, or jumps over your head, and makes his escape.'
Dr. Erskine[1073] and Mr. Robert Walker, two very respectable ministers
of Edinburgh, supped with us, as did the Reverend Dr. Webster.[1074] The
conversation turned on the Moravian missions, and on the Methodists. Dr.
Johnson observed in general, that missionaries were too sanguine in
their accounts of their success among savages, and that much of what
they tell is not to be believed. He owned that the Methodists had done
good; had spread religious impressions among the vulgar part of
mankind:[1075] but, he said, they had great bitterness against other
Christians, and that he never could get a Methodist to explain in what
he excelled others; that it always ended in the indispensible necessity
of hearing one of their preachers.[1076]
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 11.
Principal Robertson came to us as we sat at breakfast, he advanced to
Dr. Johnson, repeating a line of Virgil, which I forget. I
suppose, either
Post varios casus, per tot discrimina rerum[1077]--
or
--multum ille et terris jactatus, et alto[1078].
Every body had accosted us with some studied compliment on our return.
Dr. Johnson said, 'I am really ashamed of the congratulations which we
receive. We are addressed as if we had made a voyage to Nova Zembla, and
suffered five persecutions in Japan[1079].' And he afterwards remarked,
that, 'to see a man come up with a formal air and a Latin line, when we
had no fatigue and no danger, was provoking[1080].' I told him, he was
not sensible of the danger, having lain under cover in the boat during
the storm[1081]: he was like the chicken, that hides its head under its
wing, and then thinks itself safe.
Lord Elibank came to us, as did Sir William Forbes. The rash attempt in
1745 being mentioned, I observed, that it would make a fine piece of
History. Dr. Johnson said it would.[1082] Lord Elibank doubted whether
any man of this age could give it impartially. JOHNSON. 'A man, by
talking with those of different sides, who were actors in it, and
putting down all that he hears, may in time collect the materials of a
good narrative. You are to consider, all history was at first oral. I
suppose Voltaire was fifty years[1083] in collecting his _Louis XIV_.
which he did in the way that I am proposing.' ROBERTSON. 'He did so. He
lived much with all the great people who were concerned in that reign,
and heard them talk of everything: and then either took Mr. Boswell's
way, of writing down what he heard, or, which is as good, preserved it
in his memory; for he has a wonderful memory.' With the leave, however,
of this elegant historian, no man's memory can preserve facts or sayings
with such fidelity as may be done by writing them down when they are
recent. Dr. Robertson said, 'it was now full time to make such a
collection as Dr. Johnson suggested; for many of the people who were
then in arms, were dropping off; and both Whigs and Jacobites were now
come to talk with moderation.' Lord Elibank said to him, 'Mr. Robertson,
the first thing that gave me a high opinion of you, was your saying in
the _Select Society_[1084], while parties ran high, soon after the year
1745, that you did not think worse of a man's moral character for his
having been in rebellion. This was venturing to utter a liberal
sentiment, while both sides had a detestation of each other.' Dr.
Johnson observed, that being in rebellion from a notion of another's
right, was not connected with depravity; and that we had this proof of
it, that all mankind applauded the pardoning of rebels; which they would
not do in the case of robbers and murderers. He said, with a smile, that
'he wondered that the phrase of _unnatural_ rebellion should be so much
used, for that all rebellion was natural to man.'
* * * * *
As I kept no Journal of anything that passed after this morning, I
shall, from memory, group together this and the other days, till that on
which Dr. Johnson departed for London. They were in all nine days; on
which he dined at Lady Colvill's, Lord Hailes's, Sir Adolphus Oughton's,
Sir Alexander Dick's, Principal Robertson's, Mr. M'Laurin's[1085], and
thrice at Lord Elibank's seat in the country, where we also passed two
nights[1086]. He supped at the Honourable Alexander Gordon's[1087], now
one of our judges, by the title of Lord Rockville; at Mr. Nairne's, now
also one of our judges, by the title of Lord Dunsinan; at Dr. Blair's,
and Mr. Tytler's; and at my house thrice, one evening with a numerous
company, chiefly gentlemen of the law; another with Mr. Menzies of
Culdares, and Lord Monboddo, who disengaged himself on purpose to meet
him; and the evening on which we returned from Lord Elibank's, he supped
with my wife and me by ourselves[1088].
He breakfasted at Dr. Webster's, at old Mr. Drummond's, and at Dr.
Blacklock's; and spent one forenoon at my uncle Dr. Boswell's[1089], who
shewed him his curious museum; and, as he was an elegant scholar, and a
physician bred in the school of Boerhaave[1090], Dr. Johnson was pleased
with his company. On the mornings when he breakfasted at my house, he
had, from ten o'clock till one or two, a constant levee of various
persons, of very different characters and descriptions. I could not
attend him, being obliged to be in the Court of Session; but my wife was
so good as to devote the greater part of the morning to the endless task
of pouring out tea for my friend and his visitors.
Such was the disposition of his time at Edinburgh. He said one evening
to me, in a fit of languor, 'Sir, we have been harassed by invitations.'
I acquiesced. 'Ay, Sir,' he replied; but how much worse would it have
been, if we had been neglected[1091]?'
From what has been recorded in this _Journal_, it may well be supposed
that a variety of admirable conversation has been lost, by my neglect to
preserve it. I shall endeavour to recollect some of it, as well as
I can.
At Lady Colvill's, to whom I am proud to introduce any stranger of
eminence, that he may see what dignity and grace is to be found in
Scotland, an officer observed, that he had heard Lord Mansfield was not
a great English lawyer. JOHNSON. 'Why, Sir, supposing Lord Mansfield not
to have the splendid talents which he possesses, he must be a great
English lawyer, from having been so long at the bar, and having passed
through so many of the great offices of the law. Sir, you may as well
maintain that a carrier, who has driven a packhorse between Edinburgh
and Berwick for thirty years, does not know the road, as that Lord
Mansfield does not know the law of England[1092].'
At Mr. Nairne's, he drew the character of Richardson, the authour of
_Clarissa_, with a strong yet delicate pencil. I lament much that I have
not preserved it; I only remember that he expressed a high opinion of
his talents and virtues; but observed, that 'his perpetual study was to
ward off petty inconveniences, and procure petty pleasures; that his
love of continual superiority was such, that he took care to be always
surrounded by women[1093], who listened to him implicitly, and did not
venture to controvert his opinions; and that his desire of distinction
was so great, that he used to give large vails to the Speaker Onslow's
servants, that they might treat him with respect.'
On the same evening, he would not allow that the private life of a
Judge, in England, was required to be so strictly decorous as I
supposed. 'Why then, Sir, (said I,) according to your account, an
English judge may just live like a gentleman.' JOHNSON. 'Yes,
Sir[1094],--if he _can_.'
At Mr. Tytler's, I happened to tell that one evening, a great many years
ago, when Dr. Hugh Blair and I were sitting together in the pit of
Drury-lane play-house, in a wild freak of youthful extravagance, I
entertained the audience _prodigiously_[1095], by imitating the lowing
of a cow. A little while after I had told this story, I differed from
Dr. Johnson, I suppose too confidently, upon some point, which I now
forget. He did not spare me. 'Nay, Sir, (said he,) if you cannot talk
better as a man, I'd have you bellow like a cow[1096].'
At Dr. Webster's, he said, that he believed hardly any man died without
affectation. This remark appears to me to be well founded, and will
account for many of the celebrated death-bed sayings which are
recorded[1097].
On one of the evenings at my house, when he told that Lord Lovat boasted
to an English nobleman, that though he had not his wealth, he had two
thousand men whom he could at any time call into the field, the
Honourable Alexander Gordon observed, that those two thousand men
brought him to the block. 'True, Sir, (said Dr. Johnson:) but you may
just as well argue, concerning a man who has fallen over a precipice to
which he has walked too near,--"His two legs brought him to that," is he
not the better for having two legs?'
At Dr. Blair's I left him, in order to attend a consultation, during
which he and his amiable host were by themselves. I returned to supper,
at which were Principal Robertson, Mr. Nairne, and some other gentlemen.
Dr. Robertson and Dr. Blair, I remember, talked well upon
subordination[1098] and government; and, as my friend and I were walking
home, he said to me, 'Sir, these two doctors are good men, and wise
men[1099].' I begged of Dr. Blair to recollect what he could of the long
conversation that passed between Dr. Johnson and him alone, this
evening, and he obligingly wrote to me as follows:--
'_March_ 3, 1785.
'DEAR SIR,
'--As so many years have intervened, since I chanced to have that
conversation with Dr. Johnson in my house, to which you refer, I have
forgotten most of what then passed, but remember that I was both
instructed and entertained by it. Among other subjects, the discourse
happening to turn on modern Latin poets, the Dr. expressed a very
favourable opinion of Buchanan, and instantly repeated, from beginning
to end, an ode of his, intituled _Calendae Maiae_, (the eleventh in his
_Miscellaneorum Liber_), beginning with these words, '_Salvete sacris
deliciis sacrae_,' with which I had formerly been unacquainted; but upon
perusing it, the praise which he bestowed upon it, as one of the
happiest of Buchanan's poetical compositions, appeared to me very just.
He also repeated to me a Latin ode he had composed in one of the western
islands, from which he had lately returned. We had much discourse
concerning his excursion to those islands, with which he expressed
himself as having been highly pleased; talked in a favourable manner of
the hospitality of the inhabitants; and particularly spoke much of his
happiness in having you for his companion; and said, that the longer he
knew you, he loved and esteemed you the more. This conversation passed
in the interval between tea and supper, when we were by ourselves. You,
and the rest of the company who were with us at supper, have often taken
notice that he was uncommonly bland and gay that evening, and gave much
pleasure to all who were present. This is all that I can recollect
distinctly of that long conversation.
'Your's sincerely,
'HUGH BLAIR.'
At Lord Hailes's, we spent a most agreeable day; but again I must lament
that I was so indolent as to let almost all that passed evaporate into
oblivion. Dr. Johnson observed there, that 'it is wonderful how ignorant
many officers of the army are, considering how much leisure they have
for study, and the acquisition of knowledge[1100].' I hope he was
mistaken; for he maintained that many of them were ignorant of things
belonging immediately to their own profession; 'for instance, many
cannot tell how far a musket will carry a bullet;' in proof of which, I
suppose, he mentioned some particular person, for Lord Hailes, from whom
I solicited what he could recollect of that day, writes to me as
follows:--
'As to Dr. Johnson's observation about the ignorance of officers, in the
length that a musket will carry, my brother, Colonel Dalrymple, was
present, and he thought that the doctor was either mistaken, by putting
the question wrong, or that he had conversed on the subject with some
person out of service.
'Was it upon that occasion that he expressed no curiosity to see the
room at Dumfermline, where Charles I. was born? "I know that he was
born, (said he;) no matter where."--Did he envy us the birth-place of
the king?'
Near the end of his _Journey_, Dr. Johnson has given liberal praise to
Mr. Braidwood's academy for the deaf and dumb[1101]. When he visited it,
a circumstance occurred which was truly characteristical of our great
Lexicographer. 'Pray, (said he,) can they pronounce any _long_ words?'
Mr. Braidwood informed him they could. Upon which Dr. Johnson wrote one
of his _sesquipedalia verba_[1102], which was pronounced by the
scholars, and he was satisfied. My readers may perhaps wish to know what
the word was; but I cannot gratify their curiosity. Mr. Braidwood told
me, it remained long in his school, but had been lost before I made my
inquiry[1103].
Dr. Johnson one day visited the Court of Session[1104]. He thought the
mode of pleading there too vehement, and too much addressed to the
passions of the judges. 'This (said he) is not the Areopagus.'
At old Mr. Drummond's, Sir John Dalrymple quaintly said, the two noblest
animals in the world were, a Scotch Highlander and an English
sailor[1105]. 'Why, Sir, (said Dr. Johnson,) I shall say nothing as to
the Scotch Highlander; but as to the English Sailor, I cannot agree with
you.' Sir John said, he was generous in giving away his money.' JOHNSON.
'Sir, he throws away his money, without thought, and without merit. I do
not call a tree generous, that sheds its fruit at every breeze.' Sir
John having affected to complain of the attacks made upon his
_Memoirs_[1106], Dr. Johnson said, 'Nay, Sir, do not complain. It is
advantageous to an authour, that his book should be attacked as well as
praised. Fame is a shuttlecock. If it be struck only at one end of the
room, it will soon fall to the ground. To keep it up, it must be struck
at both ends[1107].' Often have I reflected on this since; and, instead
of being angry at many of those who have written against me, have smiled
to think that they were unintentionally subservient to my fame, by using
a battledoor to make me _virum volitare per ora_[1108].
At Sir Alexander Dick's, from that absence of mind to which every man is
at times subject, I told, in a blundering manner, Lady Eglingtoune's
complimentary adoption of Dr. Johnson as her son; for I unfortunately
stated that her ladyship adopted him as her son, in consequence of her
having been married the year _after_ he was born. Dr. Johnson instantly
corrected me. 'Sir, don't you perceive that you are defaming the
countess? For, supposing me to be her son, and that she was not married
till the year after my birth, I must have been her _natural_ son.' A
young lady of quality, who was present, very handsomely said, 'Might not
the son have justified the fault?' My friend was much flattered by this
compliment, which he never forgot. When in more than ordinary spirits,
and talking of his journey in Scotland, he has called to me, 'Boswell,
what was it that the young lady of quality said of me at Sir Alexander
Dick's ?' Nobody will doubt that I was happy in repeating it.
My illustrious friend, being now desirous to be again in the great
theatre of life and animated exertion, took a place in the coach, which
was to set out for London on Monday the 22nd of November[1109]. Sir John
Dalrymple pressed him to come on the Saturday before, to his house at
Cranston, which being twelve miles from Edinburgh, upon the middle road
to Newcastle, (Dr. Johnson had come to Edinburgh by Berwick, and along
the naked coast[1110],) it would make his journey easier, as the coach
would take him up at a more seasonable hour than that at which it sets
out. Sir John, I perceived, was ambitious of having such a guest; but,
as I was well assured, that at this very time he had joined with some of
his prejudiced countrymen in railing at Dr. Johnson[1111], and had said,
he 'wondered how any gentleman of Scotland could keep company with him,'
I thought he did not deserve the honour: yet, as it might be a
convenience to Dr. Johnson, I contrived that he should accept the
invitation, and engaged to conduct him. I resolved that, on our way to
Sir John's, we should make a little circuit by Roslin Castle, and
Hawthornden, and wished to set out soon after breakfast; but young Mr.
Tytler came to shew Dr. Johnson some essays which he had written; and my
great friend, who was exceedingly obliging when thus consulted[1112],
was detained so long, that it was, I believe, one o'clock before we got
into our post-chaise. I found that we should be too late for dinner at
Sir John Dalrymple's, to which we were engaged: but I would by no means
lose the pleasure of seeing my friend at Hawthornden,--of seeing _Sam
Johnson_ at the very spot where _Ben Jonson_ visited the learned and
poetical Drummond[1113].
We surveyed Roslin Castle, the romantick scene around it, and the
beautiful Gothick chapel[1114], and dined and drank tea at the inn;
after which we proceeded to Hawthornden, and viewed the caves; and I
all the while had _Rare Ben_[1115] in my mind, and was pleased to think
that this place was now visited by another celebrated wit of England.
By this time 'the waning night was growing old,' and we were yet several
miles from Sir John Dalrymple's. Dr. Johnson did not seem much troubled
at our having treated the baronet with so little attention to
politeness; but when I talked of the grievous disappointment it must
have been to him that we did not come to the _feast_ that he had
prepared for us, (for he told us he had killed a seven-year old sheep on
purpose,) my friend got into a merry mood, and jocularly said, 'I dare
say, Sir, he has been very sadly distressed: Nay, we do not know but the
consequence may have been fatal. Let me try to describe his situation in
his own historical style, I have as good a right to make him think and
talk, as he has to tell us how people thought and talked a hundred years
ago, of which he has no evidence. All history, so far as it is not
supported by contemporary evidence, is romance[1116]--Stay now.--Let us
consider!' He then (heartily laughing all the while) proceeded in his
imitation, I am sure to the following effect, though now, at the
distance of almost twelve years, I cannot pretend to recollect all the
precise words:--
