Complete Works of Samuel Johnson, page 661
As ethics or figures, or metaphysical reasoning, was the sort of talk he most delighted in, so no kind of conversation pleased him less, I think, than when the subject was historical fact or general polity. “What shall we learn from that stuff?” said he. “Let us not fancy, like Swift, that we are exalting a woman’s character by telling how she
“‘Could name the ancient heroes round,
Explain for what they were renowned,’ etc.”
I must not, however, lead my readers to suppose that he meant to reserve such talk for men’s company as a proof of pre-eminence. “He never,” as he expressed it, “desired to hear of the Punic War while he lived; such conversation was lost time,” he said, “and carried one away from common life, leaving no ideas behind which could serve living wight as warning or direction.”
“How I should act is not the case,
But how would Brutus in my place.”
“And now,” cries Mr. Johnson, laughing with obstreperous violence, “if these two foolish lines can be equalled in folly, except by the two succeeding ones — show them me.”
I asked him once concerning the conversation powers of a gentleman with whom I was myself unacquainted. “He talked to me at club one day,” replies our Doctor, “concerning Catiline’s conspiracy, so I withdrew my attention, and thought about Tom Thumb.”
Modern politics fared no better. I was one time extolling the character of a statesman, and expatiating on the skill required to direct the different currents, reconcile the jarring interests, etc. “Thus,” replies he, “a mill is a complicated piece of mechanism enough, but the water is no part of the workmanship.” On another occasion, when some one lamented the weakness of a then present minister, and complained that he was dull and tardy, and knew little of affairs: “You may as well complain, sir,” says Johnson, “that the accounts of time are kept by the clock; for he certainly does stand still upon the stair-head — and we all know that he is no great chronologer.” In the year 1777, or thereabouts, when all the talk was of an invasion, he said most pathetically one afternoon, “Alas! alas! how this unmeaning stuff spoils all my comfort in my friends’ conversation! Will the people have done with it; and shall I never hear a sentence again without the French in it? Here is no invasion coming, and you know there is none. Let the vexatious and frivolous talk alone, or suffer it at least to teach you one truth; and learn by this perpetual echo of even unapprehended distress how historians magnify events expected or calamities endured; when you know they are at this very moment collecting all the big words they can find, in which to describe a consternation never felt, for a misfortune which never happened. Among all your lamentations, who eats the less — who sleeps the worse, for one general’s ill-success, or another’s capitulation? Oh, pray let us hear no more of it!” No man, however, was more zealously attached to his party; he not only loved a Tory himself, but he loved a man the better if he heard he hated a Whig. “Dear Bathurst,” said he to me one day, “was a man to my very heart’s content: he hated a fool, and he hated a rogue, and he hated a Whig; he was a very good hater.”
Some one mentioned a gentleman of that party for having behaved oddly on an occasion where faction was not concerned: “Is he not a citizen of London, a native of North America, and a Whig?” says Johnson. “Let him be absurd, I beg you of you; when a monkey is too like a man, it shocks one.”
Severity towards the poor was, in Dr. Johnson’s opinion (as is visible in his “Life of Addison” particularly), an undoubted and constant attendant or consequence upon Whiggism; and he was not contented with giving them relief, he wished to add also indulgence. He loved the poor as I never yet saw any one else do, with an earnest desire to make them happy. “What signifies,” says some one, “giving halfpence to common beggars? they only lay it out in gin or tobacco.” “And why should they be denied such sweeteners of their existence?” says Johnson; “it is surely very savage to refuse them every possible avenue to pleasure, reckoned too coarse for our own acceptance. Life is a pill which none of us can bear to swallow without gilding; yet for the poor we delight in stripping it still barer, and are not ashamed to show even visible displeasure if ever the bitter taste is taken from their mouths.” In consequence of these principles he nursed whole nests of people in his house, where the lame, the blind, the sick, and the sorrowful found a sure retreat from all the evils whence his little income could secure them: and commonly spending the middle of the week at our house, he kept his numerous family in Fleet Street upon a settled allowance; but returned to them every Saturday, to give them three good dinners, and his company, before he came back to us on the Monday night — treating them with the same, or perhaps more ceremonious civility than he would have done by as many people of fashion — making the Holy Scriptures thus the rule of his conduct, and only expecting salvation as he was able to obey its precepts.
While Dr. Johnson possessed, however, the strongest compassion for poverty or illness, he did not even pretend to feel for those who lamented the loss of a child, a parent, or a friend. “These are the distresses of sentiment,” he would reply, “which a man who is really to be pitied has no leisure to feel. The sight of people who want food and raiment is so common in great cities, that a surly fellow like me has no compassion to spare for wounds given only to vanity or softness.” No man, therefore, who smarted from the ingratitude of his friends, found any sympathy from our philosopher. “Let him do good on higher motives next time,” would be the answer; “he will then be sure of his reward.” It is easy to observe that the justice of such sentences made them offensive; but we must be careful how we condemn a man for saying what we know to be true, only because it is so. I hope that the reason our hearts rebelled a little against his severity was chiefly because it came from a living mouth. Books were invented to take off the odium of immediate superiority, and soften the rigour of duties prescribed by the teachers and censors of human kind — setting at least those who are acknowledged wiser than ourselves at a distance. When we recollect, however, that for this very reason they are seldom consulted and little obeyed, how much cause shall his contemporaries have to rejoice that their living Johnson forced them to feel there proofs due to vice and folly, while Seneca and Tillotson were no longer able to make impression — except on our shelves! Few things, indeed, which pass well enough with others would do with him: he had been a great reader of Mandeville, and was ever on the watch to spy out those stains of original corruption so easily discovered by a penetrating observer even in the purest minds. I mentioned an event, which if it had happened would greatly have injured Mr. Thrale and his family— “and then, dear sir,” said I, “how sorry you would have been!” “I hope,” replied he, after a long pause, “I should have been very sorry; but remember Rochefoucault’s maxim.”
“I would rather,” answered I, “remember Prior’s verses, and ask —
‘What need of books these truths to tell,
Which folks perceive that cannot spell?
And must we spectacles apply,
To see what hurts our naked eye?’
Will anybody’s mind bear this eternal microscope that you place upon your own so?” “I never,” replied he, “saw one that would, except that of my dear Miss Reynolds — and hers is very near to purity itself.” Of slighter evils, and friends more distant than our own household, he spoke less cautiously. An acquaintance lost the almost certain hope of a good estate that had been long expected. “Such a one will grieve,” said I, “at her friend’s disappointment.” “She will suffer as much, perhaps,” said he, “as your horse did when your cow miscarried.” I professed myself sincerely grieved when accumulated distresses crushed Sir George Colebrook’s family; and I was so. “Your own prosperity,” said he, “may possibly have so far increased the natural tenderness of your heart, that for aught I know you may be a little sorry; but it is sufficient for a plain man if he does not laugh when he sees a fine new house tumble down all on a sudden, and a snug cottage stand by ready to receive the owner, whose birth entitled him to nothing better, and whose limbs are left him to go to work again with.”
I tried to tell him in jest that his morality was easily contented, and when I have said something as if the wickedness of the world gave me concern, he would cry out aloud against canting, and protest that he thought there was very little gross wickedness in the world, and still less of extraordinary virtue. Nothing, indeed, more surely disgusted Dr. Johnson than hyperbole; he loved not to be told of sallies of excellence, which he said were seldom valuable, and seldom true. “Heroic virtues,” said he, “are the bons mots of life; they do not appear often, and when they do appear are too much prized, I think, like the aloe-tree, which shoots and flowers once in a hundred years. But life is made up of little things; and that character is the best which does little but repeated acts of beneficence; as that conversation is the best which consists in elegant and pleasing thoughts expressed in natural and pleasing terms. With regard to my own notions of moral virtue,” continued he, “I hope I have not lost my sensibility of wrong; but I hope, likewise, that I have lived long enough in the world to prevent me from expecting to find any action of which both the original motive and all the parts were good.”
The piety of Dr. Johnson was exemplary and edifying; he was punctiliously exact to perform every public duty enjoined by the Church, and his spirit of devotion had an energy that affected all who ever saw him pray in private. The coldest and most languid hearer of the Word must have felt themselves animated by his manner of reading the Holy Scriptures; and to pray by his sick-bed required strength of body as well as of mind, so vehement were his manners, and his tones of voice so pathetic. I have many times made it my request to Heaven that I might be spared the sight of his death; and I was spared it.
Mr. Johnson, though in general a gross feeder, kept fast in Lent, particularly the Holy Week, with a rigour very dangerous to his general health; but though he had left off wine (for religious motives, as I always believed, though he did not own it), yet he did not hold the commutation of offences by voluntary penance, or encourage others to practise severity upon themselves. He even once said “that he thought it an error to endeavour at pleasing God by taking the rod of reproof out of His hands.” And when we talked of convents, and the hardships suffered in them: “Remember always,” said he, “that a convent is an idle place, and where there is nothing to be done something must be endured: mustard has a bad taste per se, you may observe, but very insipid food cannot be eaten without it.”
His respect, however, for places of religious retirement was carried to the greatest degree of earthly veneration; the Benedictine convent at Paris paid him all possible honours in return, and the Prior and he parted with tears of tenderness. Two of that college being sent to England on the mission some years after, spent much of their time with him at Bolt Court, I know, and he was ever earnest to retain their friendship; but though beloved by all his Roman Catholic acquaintance, particularly Dr. Nugent, for whose esteem he had a singular value, yet was Mr. Johnson a most unshaken Church of England man; and I think, or at least I once did think, that a letter written by him to Mr. Barnard, the King’s Librarian, when he was in Italy collecting books, contained some very particular advice to his friend to be on his guard against the seductions of the Church of Rome.
The settled aversion Dr. Johnson felt towards an infidel he expressed to all ranks, and at all times, without the smallest reserve; for though on common occasions he paid great deference to birth or title, yet his regard for truth and virtue never gave way to meaner considerations. We talked of a dead wit one evening, and somebody praised him. “Let us never praise talents so ill employed, sir; we foul our mouths by commending such infidels,” said he. “Allow him the lumieres at least,” entreated one of the company. “I do allow him, sir,” replied Johnson, “just enough to light him to hell.” Of a Jamaica gentleman, then lately dead: “He will not, whither he is now gone,” said Johnson, “find much difference, I believe, either in the climate or the company.” The Abbe Reynal probably remembers that, being at the house of a common friend in London, the master of it approached Johnson with that gentleman so much celebrated in his hand, and this speech in his mouth: “Will you permit me, sir, to present to you the Abbe Reynal?” “No, sir,” replied the Doctor very loud, and suddenly turned away from them both.
Though Mr. Johnson had but little reverence either for talents or fortune when he found them unsupported by virtue, yet it was sufficient to tell him a man was very pious, or very charitable, and he would at least begin with him on good terms, however the conversation might end. He would sometimes, too, good-naturedly enter into a long chat for the instruction or entertainment of people he despised. I perfectly recollect his condescending to delight my daughter’s dancing-master with a long argument about his art, which the man protested, at the close of the discourse, the Doctor knew more of than himself, who remained astonished, enlightened, and amused by the talk of a person little likely to make a good disquisition upon dancing. I have sometimes, indeed, been rather pleased than vexed when Mr. Johnson has given a rough answer to a man who perhaps deserved one only half as rough, because I knew he would repent of his hasty reproof, and make us all amends by some conversation at once instructive and entertaining, as in the following cases. A young fellow asked him abruptly one day, “Pray, sir, what and where is Palmyra? I heard somebody talk last night of the ruins of Palmyra.” “’Tis a hill in Ireland,” replies Johnson, “with palms growing on the top, and a bog at the bottom, and so they call it Palm-mira.” Seeing, however, that the lad thought him serious, and thanked him for the information, he undeceived him very gently indeed: told him the history, geography, and chronology of Tadmor in the wilderness, with every incident that literature could furnish, I think, or eloquence express, from the building of Solomon’s palace to the voyage of Dawkins and Wood.
On another occasion, when he was musing over the fire in our drawing-room at Streatham, a young gentleman called to him suddenly, and I suppose he thought disrespectfully, in these words: “Mr. Johnson, would you advise me to marry?” “I would advise no man to marry, sir,” returns for answer in a very angry tone Dr. Johnson, “who is not likely to propagate understanding,” and so left the room. Our companion looked confounded, and I believe had scarce recovered the consciousness of his own existence, when Johnson came back, and drawing his chair among us, with altered looks and a softened voice, joined in the general chat, insensibly led the conversation to the subject of marriage, where he laid himself out in a dissertation so useful, so elegant, so founded on the true knowledge of human life, and so adorned with beauty of sentiment, that no one ever recollected the offence, except to rejoice in its consequences. He repented just as certainly, however, if he had been led to praise any person or thing by accident more than he thought it deserved; and was on such occasions comically earnest to destroy the praise or pleasure he had unintentionally given.
Sir Joshua Reynolds mentioned some picture as excellent. “It has often grieved me, sir,” said Mr. Johnson, “to see so much mind as the science of painting requires laid out upon such perishable materials. Why do not you oftener make use of copper? I could wish your superiority in the art you profess to be preserved in stuff more durable than canvas.” Sir Joshua urged the difficulty of procuring a plate large enough for historical subjects, and was going to raise further observations. “What foppish obstacles are these!” exclaims on a sudden Dr. Johnson. “Here is Thrale has a thousand tun of copper; you may paint it all round if you will, I suppose; it will serve him to brew in afterwards. Will it not, sir?” (to my husband, who sat by). Indeed, Dr. Johnson’s utter scorn of painting was such that I have heard him say that he should sit very quietly in a room hung round with the works of the greatest masters, and never feel the slightest disposition to turn them if their backs were outermost, unless it might be for the sake of telling Sir Joshua that he had turned them. Such speeches may appear offensive to many, but those who knew he was too blind to discern the perfections of an art which applies itself immediately to our eyesight must acknowledge he was not in the wrong.
He delighted no more in music than in painting; he was almost as deaf as he was blind; travelling with Dr. Johnson was for these reasons tiresome enough. Mr. Thrale loved prospects, and was mortified that his friend could not enjoy the sight of those different dispositions of wood and water, hill and valley, that travelling through England and France affords a man. But when he wished to point them out to his companion: “Never heed such nonsense,” would be the reply; “a blade of grass is always a blade of grass, whether in one country or another. Let us, if we do talk, talk about something; men and women are my subjects of inquiry; let us see how these differ from those we have left behind.”
