Last night much care was taken of Dr. Johnson, who was still distressed
by his cold. He had hitherto most strangely slept without a night-cap.
Miss M'Leod made him a large flannel one, and he was prevailed with to
drink a little brandy when he was going to bed. He has great virtue in
not drinking wine or any fermented liquor, because, as he acknowledged
to us, he could not do it in moderation[601]. Lady M'Leod would hardly
believe him, and said, 'I am sure, Sir, you would not carry it too far.'
JOHNSON. 'Nay, madam, it carried me. I took the opportunity of a long
illness to leave it off. It was then prescribed to me not to drink wine;
and, having broken off the habit, I have never returned to it[602].'
In the argument on Tuesday night, about natural goodness, Dr. Johnson
denied that any child was better than another, but by difference of
instruction; though, in consequence of greater attention being paid to
instruction by one child than another, and of a variety of imperceptible
causes, such as instruction being counteracted by servants, a notion was
conceived, that of two children, equally well educated, one was
naturally much worse than another. He owned, this morning, that one
might have a greater aptitude to learn than another, and that we
inherit dispositions from our parents[603]. 'I inherited, (said he,) a
vile melancholy from my father, which has made me mad all my life, at
least not sober[604].' Lady M'Leod wondered he should tell this. 'Madam,
(said I,) he knows that with that madness he is superior to other men.'
I have often been astonished with what exactness and perspicuity he will
explain the process of any art. He this morning explained to us all the
operation of coining, and, at night, all the operation of brewing, so
very clearly, that Mr. M'Queen said, when he heard the first, he thought
he had been bred in the Mint; when he heard the second, that he had been
bred a brewer.
I was elated by the thought of having been able to entice such a man to
this remote part of the world. A ludicrous, yet just image presented
itself to my mind, which I expressed to the company. I compared myself
to a dog who has got hold of a large piece of meat, and runs away with
it to a corner, where he may devour it in peace, without any fear of
others taking it from him. 'In London, Reynolds, Beauclerk, and all of
them, are contending who shall enjoy Dr. Johnson's conversation. We are
feasting upon it, undisturbed, at Dunvegan.'
It was still a storm of wind and rain. Dr. Johnson however walked out
with M'Leod, and saw Rorie More's cascade in full perfection. Colonel
M'Leod, instead of being all life and gaiety, as I have seen him, was at
present grave, and somewhat depressed by his anxious concern about
M'Leod's affairs, and by finding some gentlemen of the clan by no means
disposed to act a generous or affectionate part to their Chief in his
distress, but bargaining with him as with a stranger. However, he was
agreeable and polite, and Dr. Johnson said, he was a very pleasing man.
My fellow-traveller and I talked of going to Sweden[605]; and, while we
were settling our plan, I expressed a pleasure in the prospect of seeing
the king. JOHNSON. 'I doubt, Sir, if he would speak to us.' Colonel
M'Leod said, 'I am sure Mr. Boswell would speak to _him_.' But, seeing
me a little disconcerted by his remark, he politely added, 'and with
great propriety.' Here let me offer a short defence of that propensity
in my disposition, to which this gentleman alluded. It has procured me
much happiness. I hope it does not deserve so hard a name as either
forwardness or impudence. If I know myself, it is nothing more than an
eagerness to share the society of men distinguished either by their rank
or their talents, and a diligence to attain what I desire[606]. If a man
is praised for seeking knowledge, though mountains and seas are in his
way, may he not be pardoned, whose ardour, in the pursuit of the same
object, leads him to encounter difficulties as great, though of a
different kind?
After the ladies were gone from table, we talked of the Highlanders not
having sheets; and this led us to consider the advantage of wearing
linen. JOHNSON. 'All animal substances are less cleanly than vegetable.
Wool, of which flannel is made, is an animal substance; flannel
therefore is not so cleanly as linen. I remember I used to think tar
dirty; but when I knew it to be only a preparation of the juice of the
pine, I thought so no longer. It is not disagreeable to have the gum
that oozes from a plum-tree upon your fingers, because it is vegetable;
but if you have any candle-grease, any tallow upon your fingers, you are
uneasy till you rub it off. I have often thought, that if I kept a
seraglio, the ladies should all wear linen gowns,--or cotton; I mean
stuffs made of vegetable substances. I would have no silk; you cannot
tell when it is clean: It will be very nasty before it is perceived to
be so. Linen detects its own dirtiness.'
To hear the grave Dr. Samuel Johnson, 'that majestick teacher of moral
and religious wisdom,' while sitting solemn in an armchair in the Isle
of Sky, talk, _ex cathedra_, of his keeping a seraglio[607], and
acknowledge that the supposition had _often_ been in his thoughts,
struck me so forcibly with ludicrous contrast, that I could not but
laugh immoderately. He was too proud to submit, even for a moment, to be
the object of ridicule, and instantly retaliated with such keen
sarcastick wit, and such a variety of degrading images, of every one of
which I was the object, that, though I can bear such attacks as well as
most men, I yet found myself so much the sport of all the company, that
I would gladly expunge from my mind every trace of this severe retort.
Talking of our friend Langton's house in Lincolnshire, he said, 'the old
house of the family was burnt. A temporary building was erected in its
room; and to this day they have been always adding as the family
increased. It is like a shirt made for a man when he was a child, and
enlarged always as he grows older.'
We talked to-night of Luther's allowing the Landgrave of Hesse two
wives, and that it was with the consent of the wife to whom he was first
married. JOHNSON. 'There was no harm in this, so far as she was only
concerned, because _volenti non fit injuria_. But it was an offence
against the general order of society, and against the law of the Gospel,
by which one man and one woman are to be united. No man can have two
wives, but by preventing somebody else from having one.'