Sir William Forbes came to breakfast, and brought with him Dr.
Blacklock[127], whom he introduced to Dr. Johnson, who received him with
a most humane complacency; 'Dear Dr. Blacklock, I am glad to see you!'
Blacklock seemed to be much surprized, when Dr. Johnson said, 'it was
easier to him to write poetry than to compose his _Dictionary_[128]. His
mind was less on the stretch in doing the one than the other. Besides;
composing a _Dictionary_ requires books and a desk: you can make a poem
walking in the fields, or lying in bed. Dr. Blacklock spoke of
scepticism in morals and religion, with apparent uneasiness, as if he
wished for more certainty[129]. Dr. Johnson, who had thought it all
over, and whose vigorous understanding was fortified by much experience,
thus encouraged the blind Bard to apply to higher speculations what we
all willingly submit to in common life: in short, he gave him more
familiarly the able and fair reasoning of Butler's _Analogy_: 'Why, Sir,
the greatest concern we have in this world, the choice of our
profession, must be determined without demonstrative reasoning. Human
life is not yet so well known, as that we can have it. And take the case
of a man who is ill. I call two physicians: they differ in opinion. I am
not to lie down, and die between them: I must do something.' The
conversation then turned on Atheism; on that horrible book, _Système de
la Nature_[130]; and on the supposition of an eternal necessity, without
design, without a governing mind. JOHNSON. 'If it were so, why has it
ceased? Why don't we see men thus produced around us now? Why, at least,
does it not keep pace, in some measure, with the progress of time? If
it stops because there is now no need of it, then it is plain there is,
and ever has been, an all powerful intelligence. But stay! (said he,
with one of his satyrick laughs[131].) Ha! ha! ha! I shall suppose
Scotchmen made necessarily, and Englishmen by choice.'
At dinner this day, we had Sir Alexander Dick, whose amiable character,
and ingenious and cultivated mind, are so generally known; (he was then
on the verge of seventy, and is now (1785) eighty-one, with his
faculties entire, his heart warm, and his temper gay;) Sir David
Dalrymple, Lord Hailes; Mr. Maclaurin[132], advocate; Dr. Gregory, who
now worthily fills his father's medical chair[133]; and my uncle, Dr.
Boswell. This was one of Dr. Johnson's best days. He was quite in his
element. All was literature and taste, without any interruption. Lord
Hailes, who is one of the best philologists in Great Britain, who has
written papers in _The World_[134], and a variety of other works in
prose and in verse, both Latin and English, pleased him highly. He told
him, he had discovered the life of _Cheynel_, in _The Student_[135], to
be his. JOHNSON. 'No one else knows it.' Dr. Johnson had, before this,
dictated to me a law-paper, upon a question purely in the law of
Scotland, concerning _vicious intromission_[136], that is to say,
intermeddling with the effects of a deceased person, without a regular
title; which formerly was understood to subject the intermeddler to
payment of all the defunct's debts. The principle has of late been
relaxed. Dr. Johnson's argument was, for a renewal of its strictness.
The paper was printed, with additions by me, and given into the Court of
Session. Lord Hailes knew Dr. Johnson's part not to be mine, and pointed
out exactly where it began, and where it ended. Dr. Johnson said, 'It is
much, now, that his lordship can distinguish so.' In Dr. Johnson's
_Vanity of Human Wishes_, there is the following passage:--
'The teeming mother, anxious for her race,
Begs, for each birth, the fortune of a face:
Yet _Vane_ could tell, what ills from beauty spring,
And _Sedley_ curs'd the charms which pleas'd a king[137].'
Lord Hailes told him, he was mistaken in the instances he had given of
unfortunate fair ones; for neither _Vane_ nor _Sedley_ had a title to
that description. His Lordship has since been so obliging as to send me
a note of this, for the communication of which I am sure my readers
will thank me.
'The lines in the tenth Satire of Juvenal, according to my alteration,
should have run thus:--
'Yet _Shore_[138] could tell-----;
And _Valiere_[139] curs'd------.'
'The first was a penitent by compulsion, the second by sentiment; though
the truth is, Mademoiselle de la Valiere threw herself (but still from
sentiment) in the King's way.
'Our friend chose _Vane_[140], who was far from being well-looked; and
_Sedley_, who was so ugly, that Charles II. said, his brother had her by
way of penance[141].'
Mr. Maclaurin's learning and talents enabled him to do his part very
well in Dr. Johnson's company. He produced two epitaphs upon his
father, the celebrated mathematician[142]. One was in English, of which
Dr. Johnson did not change one word. In the other, which was in Latin,
he made several alterations. In place of the very words of _Virgil_,
'_Ubi luctus et pavor et plurima mortis imago_[143],' he wrote '_Ubi
luctus regnant et pavor_.' He introduced the word _prorsus_ into the
line '_Mortalibus prorsus non absit solatium_,' and after '_Hujus enim
scripta evolve_,' he added '_Mentemque tantarum rerum capacem corpori
caduco superstitem crede_;' which is quite applicable to Dr. Johnson
himself[144].
Mr. Murray, advocate, who married a niece of Lord Mansfield's, and is
now one of the judges of Scotland, by the title of Lord _Henderland_,
sat with us a part of the evening; but did not venture to say any thing,
that I remember, though he is certainly possessed of talents which would
have enabled him to have shewn himself to advantage, if too great
anxiety had not prevented him.
At supper we had Dr. Alexander Webster, who, though not, learned, had
such a knowledge of mankind, such a fund of information and
entertainment, so clear a head and such accommodating manners, that Dr.
Johnson found him a very agreeable companion.
When Dr. Johnson and I were left by ourselves, I read to him my notes of
the Opinions of our Judges upon the questions of Literary Property[145].
He did not like them; and said, 'they make me think of your Judges not
with that respect which I should wish to do.' To the argument of one of
them, that there can be no property in blasphemy or nonsense, he
answered, 'then your rotten sheep are mine! By that rule, when a man's
house falls into decay, he must lose it.' I mentioned an argument of
mine, that literary performances are not taxed. As _Churchill_ says,
'No statesman yet has thought it worth his pains
To tax our labours, or excise our brains[146];'
and therefore they are not property. 'Yet, (said he,) we hang a man for
stealing a horse, and horses are not taxed.' Mr. Pitt has since put an
end to that argument[147].