Produced by Jon Ingram, Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:
A number of alterations have been made with the aim of correcting
printing errors, while changing the text as little as possible.
No attempt has been made to alter spellings, or to modernise
punctuation or grammar. The complete list of all such changes
appear at the end of this text.
THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY
DEFORMITIES
OF
DR SAMUEL JOHNSON.
SELECTED FROM HIS WORKS.
(1782)
_Introduction by_
GWIN J. KOLB AND J. E. CONGLETON
PUBLICATION NUMBERS 147-148
WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
1971
GENERAL EDITORS
William E. Conway, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_
George Robert Guffey, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Maximillian E. Novak, _University of California, Los Angeles_
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
David S. Rodes, _University of California, Los Angeles_
ADVISORY EDITORS
Richard C. Boys, _University of Michigan_
James L. Clifford, _Columbia University_
Ralph Cohen, _University of Virginia_
Vinton A. Dearing, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Arthur Friedman, _University of Chicago_
Louis A. Landa, _Princeton University_
Earl Miner, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Samuel H. Monk, _University of Minnesota_
Everett T. Moore, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Lawrence Clark Powell, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_
James Sutherland, _University College, London_
H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., _University of California, Los Angeles_
Robert Vosper, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_
Curt A. Zimansky, _State University of Iowa_
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY
Edna C. Davis, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_
EDITORIAL ASSISTANT
Lilly Kurahashi, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_
INTRODUCTION
During the early part of his literary career, James Thomson Callender
(1758-1803)[1] belittled Samuel Johnson; during the later, he denigrated
Thomas Jefferson. Thus his reputation as a Scots master of scurrility
and a vicious scandalmonger was earned on both sides of the Atlantic.
Probably because his anonymous pamphlets about Johnson's writings--the
_Deformities of Dr. Samuel Johnson, Selected from his Works_ (1782) and
_A Critical Review of the Works of Dr. Samuel Johnson_ (1783)--were not
both ascribed to him until 1940, Callender first came into public notice
in 1792, when in Scotland he published _The Political Progress of
Britain, or An Impartial Account of the Principal Abuses in the
Government of this Country from the Revolution in 1688_. For these
intemperate remarks, though anonymous, he was indicted in 1793 for
sedition. He fled from Edinburgh and made his way, "with some
difficulty," soon thereafter to Philadelphia.
During the first several years in Philadelphia, he was reporter of the
Congressional debates for the Philadelphia _Gazette_ and did some
editorial hackwork. He also published the third edition of the
_Political Progress_, which was favorably noticed by Jefferson. In 1797
he published _The History of the United States for 1796: Including a
Variety of Particulars Relative to the Federal Government Previous to
that Period_, which brought the charge against Alexander Hamilton of "a
connection with one James Reynolds for purpose of improper pecuniary
speculation." Hamilton, after making preliminary preparations for a
duel, came to the conclusion that he would have to sacrifice his private
reputation to clear his public actions. So he calmly wrote, "My real
crime is an amorous connection with his [Reynolds'] wife for a
considerable time, with his privity and connivance, if not originally
brought on by a combination between the husband and wife with the design
to extort money from me."[2]
In _The Prospect before Us_ (1800), written under the secret patronage
of Jefferson, Callender assailed John Adams and lashed through Adams at
his predecessor, Washington. Ending his diatribe, he said, "Take your
choice, between Adams, war and beggery and Jefferson, peace and
competency." Because of his remarks about Adams, he was tried under the
Sedition Law, fined $200, and sent to prison for nine months. While in
prison he wrote two fiery anti-Federalist pamphlets, for which Jefferson
advanced money under ambiguous terms. When Jefferson became President in
1801, he pardoned Callender (and all others convicted under the unwise
Sedition Law), and Callender's fine was remitted. But Callender was not
satisfied; he wanted Jefferson to appoint him postmaster of Richmond,
Virginia. Jefferson refused, in spite of the tone of blackmail which now
pervaded Callender's importunities. Soon he turned his political coat
and began editing the most scurrilous anti-Jefferson paper in the
country, the Richmond _Recorder_, to the infinite delight of the
Federalists, who immediately circulated the periodical far and wide.
Callender accused Jefferson of dishonesty and cowardice, but pure malice
inspired his most injurious charges.
It is well known that the man, _whom it delighted the people to
honor_, keeps ... as his concubine, one of his own slaves. Her
name is Sally. The name of her eldest son is Tom. His features
are said to bear a striking resemblance to those of the president
himself.... By this wench Sally, our President has had several
children. There is not an individual in the neighborhood of
Charlottesville who does not believe the story; and not a few
who _know it_.... Behold the favorite! the first born of
republicanism! the pinnacle of all that is good and great! If the
friends of Mr. Jefferson are convinced of his innocence, they will
make an appeal.... If they rest in silence, or if they content
themselves with resting upon a _general denial_, they cannot hope
for credit. The allegation is of a nature too _black_ to be
suffered to remain in suspense. We should be glad to hear of its
refutation. We give it to the world under the firmest belief that
such a refutation _never can be made_. The AFRICAN VENUS is said
to officiate as housekeeper at Montecello. When Mr. Jefferson has
read this article, he will find leisure to estimate how much has
been lost or gained by so many unprovoked attacks upon J. T.
Callender![3]
Callender's ignominious end came on 17 July 1803. The _Gentleman's
Magazine_ declared (LXXIII [September 1803], 882) that he, "after
experiencing many varieties of fortune as Iscariot Hackney ... drowned
himself ... in James River": the coroner's jury, however, declared that
his death was accidental, following intoxication.
There can be scant doubt that the _Deformities_ and _A Critical
Review_[4] have a common origin. The paper, type, and makeup of the
title-pages indicate that they were issued from the same press. In the
"Introduction" to _A Critical Review_, the statement is made that "The
author of the present trifle was last year induced to publish a few
remarks on the writings of Dr. Samuel Johnson.... Like the former essay,
these pages will endeavour to ascertain the genuine importance of Dr.
Johnson's literary character" (pp. iii, v). In the text on page 50, the
_Deformities_ is cited in proprietary tones; and it is also mentioned in
notes on pages 19, 37, 55, and 63. Moreover, the tell-tale words
"deformities" and "deformity" appear (pp. 31, 43) in the text, and there
is an advertisement for the _Deformities_ on page 72.
An attempt to identify the author of the _Deformities_ was made by
George Steevens when it appeared. In a letter to William Cole dated 14
May 1782, he says that it was "written by a Club of Caledonian Wits."[5]
The _Critical Review_ for August 1782 (LIV, 140) surmised that "the
pamphlet ... is apparently written by some angry Caledonian, who, warmed
with the deepest resentment for some real or supposed injury, gives vent
to his indignation, and treats every part of Dr. Johnson's character
with the utmost asperity." A month later, the _Gentleman's Magazine_
(LII [September 1782], 439), "reciting the circumstance" of the origin
of the _Deformities_, contended that it was a revenge pamphlet inspired
by an anti-Ossian publication by William Shaw ("Nadir" Shaw, in the
_Deformities_), who "'denied the existence of Gaelic poetry....'" "Dr.
Johnson was his patron; and THEREFORE this Essayist, 'by fair and
copious quotations from Dr. Johnson's ponderous performances, has
attempted to illustrate'" his extraordinary defects. And in February
1783 (LXVIII, 185-186), the _Monthly Review_ briefly noted:
This seems to be the production of some ingenious but angry
Scotchman, who has taken great pains to prove, what all the world
knows, that there are many exceptionable passages in the writings
of Dr. Johnson. There are, however, few spots in this literary
luminary now pointed out that have not been discovered before.
So that the present map must be considered rather as a monument of
the delineator's malignity, than of his wit.--His _personalities_
seem to indicate personal provocation; though perhaps it may be
all pure _nationality_.
Though Boswell mentions the pamphlet and quotes a letter in which
Johnson comments on it,[6] neither he nor any of his editors before L.
F. Powell try to identify the incensed author. In 1815 Robert Anderson
said that the _Deformities_, "an invidious contrast to 'The Beauties of
Johnson,'" is "the production of Mr. Thomson Callender, nephew of
Thomson the poet."[7]
When the _Deformities_ was catalogued in the Bodleian Library in
1834,[8] it was attributed to John Callander of Craigforth. In _A
Critical Review of the Works of Dr. Samuel Johnson_, the statement is
made (p. 4) that "Mr. Callander of Craigforth ... observes" that "'Had
the laborious Johnson been better acquainted with the oriental tongues,
or had he even understood the first rudiments of the northern languages
from which the English and Scots derive their origin, his bulky volumes
had not presented to us the melancholy truth, that unwearied industry,
_devoid of settled principles_, avails only to add one error to
another.'" This latter blast, taken from the "Introduction" to
Callander's _Two Ancient Scottish Poems, The Gaberlunzie Man and
Christ's Kirk on the Green_ (Edinburgh, 1782), may well have been the
evidence that caused _A Critical Review_ to be attributed to John
Callander of Craigforth; then, because of the interconnections between
it and the _Deformities_ and because of their convincing similarity, the
_Deformities_ was also assigned to him. On the other hand, one is
puzzled by the Bodleian's failure to accept the passage from John
Callander in _A Critical Review_ as conclusive evidence that he was not
the author of that work.[9]
When the _Deformities_ and _A Critical Review_ were catalogued in the
British Museum, in 1854 and 1862, they were likewise attributed to John
Callander of Craigforth. In 1915 Courtney and Smith seemed to doubt that
John Callander wrote them; for, they noticed, "strangely enough no
mention of them is made by Robert Chambers in his memoir of
Callander."[10] The _Catalogue of Printed Books in the Edinburgh
Library_ (1918) assigns _A Critical Review_ to John Callander; it does
not list the _Deformities_. Arthur G. Kennedy, in _A Bibliography of
Writings on the English Language_ (1927), attributes the _Deformities_
to John Callander; he lists the 1787 issue of _A Critical Review_ as
anonymous. In their _Dictionary of Anonymous and Pseudonymous English
Literature_ (1926-1932), Halkett and Laing assign _A Critical Review_ to
John Callander on the authority of the British Museum; the _Deformities_
is also assigned to him on the authority of a note by Chalmers in 1782.
Finally, L. F. Powell, _primus editorum_, in his revision of G. B.
Hill's edition of Boswell's _Life_ (1934-1950), quoted from a letter by
James Thomson Callender to John Stockdale, dated 4 October 1783, which
says: "I will be greatly obliged to you, for delivering the remaining
Copies of Deformities of Johnson to the bearer, and sending me his
Receipt for them." Dr. Powell thinks--rightly, we believe, when all the
other evidence is taken into account--that this letter "shows" that
Callender "was the author of the book."[11]
Then in 1940, D. Nichol Smith, no doubt having followed the suspicion he
and W. P. Courtney expressed in 1915, and having available the proof
unearthed by Dr. Powell, attributed both items to J. T. Callender in the
_CBEL_ (II, 627), listing two editions of the _Deformities_ in 1782 and
two of _A Critical Review_ in 1783. The British Museum _Catalogue_ also
now credits the same Scotsman with both works.
The information in Callender's letter to Stockdale, Anderson's
identification, a fairly plausible reason that the _Deformities_ was so
long attributed to John Callander, the similarity of the styles and
contents of the two pamphlets, the parallel circumstances of
publication, the virtual acknowledgement of the _Deformities_ in _A
Critical Review_--all point to a safe conclusion that the two works were
the creations of James Thomson Callender.
Though students of Johnson have frequently noticed the bitter ridicule
in the _Deformities_ and _A Critical Review_, they (since the author of
the pamphlets was unknown) have seldom,[12] if ever, detailed
Callender's turbulent career in America. Similarly, students of American
history have studied Callender's attacks on early American statesmen;
but they have been completely unaware, it seems, that the pamphleteer
who wrote them began his career by making fun of Samuel Johnson. Now
that the authorship of these two early productions has been established,
a study of them provides details that illuminate the foreground of
Callender's career in America. Likewise, of course, the particulars of
his activities in America illuminate the background of his career in
Great Britain.
Near the conclusion of the _Deformities_, Callender relates the
"circumstances which," as he says, "gave ... birth" to the work.
In 1778, Mr William Shaw published an Analysis of the Gaelic
language. He quoted specimens of Gaelic poetry, and harangued on
its beauties.... A few months ago, he printed a pamphlet. He
traduced decent characters. He denied the existence of Gaelic
poetry, and his name was echoed in the newspapers as a miracle of
candour. Is there in the annals of Grubaean impudence any parallel
to this?... This incomparable bookbuilder, who writes a
dictionary before he can write grammar, had previously boasted
what a harvest he would reap from English credulity. He was not
deceived. The bait was caught.... Mr Shaw wants only money....
But better things might have been expected from the moral and
majestic author of the Rambler. He must have seen the Analysis of
the Gaelic language, for Shaw mentions him as the patron of that
work. He must have seen the specimens of Celtic poetry there
inserted. That he is likewise the patron of this poor scribble,
no man, I suppose, will offer to deny. From this single
circumstance, Dr Johnson stands convicted of _an illiberal
intention to deceive_. Candour can hardly hesitate to sum up his
character in the vulgar but expressive pollysyllable [pp. 86-87].
Readily available facts support some of the central assertions in this
rather heated description of the inception of the _Deformities_.
Specifically, as readers of Boswell's _Life_ may recall, Johnson must be
considered a--if not the--principal patron of the Scotsman William
Shaw's _Analysis of the Gaelic Language_: he wrote the official
proposals for the work, he solicited subscribers to it, and he received
from the grateful author a public acknowledgement (in the
"Introduction") that "To the advice and encouragement of Dr. Johnson,
the friend of letters and humanity, the public is indebted for these
sheets."[13] It is probable, too, that he examined the book at least
cursorily[14] and that in doing so he caught sight of one or more of the
references to Ossian's poetry, perhaps including the "specimen" on pages
145-149. Moreover, in the pamphlet Callender mentions, entitled _An
Enquiry into the Authenticity of the Poems Ascribed to Ossian_ (1781),
Shaw, setting out to demolish the arguments favoring the ostensible
origins of the purported translations, accords (p. 2) Johnson pride of
place in starting "objections" to the poems and quotes (pp. 6-12)
approvingly first a lengthy passage from _A Journey to the Western
Islands of Scotland_ (1775) and then Johnson's famous letter to James
Macpherson. In addition, Boswell records Johnson's later assistance to
Shaw in composing a reply to John Clark's pro-Ossian _Answer to Mr.
Shaw's Inquiry_ (1781).[15] But to admit all this is scarcely to
"convict" Johnson of a deliberate "_intention to deceive_." On the
contrary, since by 1778 his scepticism regarding the Ossianic writings
was widely known, his _Journey_ having appeared three years earlier, it
could be argued that his patronage of Shaw's _Analysis_ revealed a
degree of understanding and tolerance not always associated with his
name.
For the irate Callender, however, such "shameful" conduct demanded
countermeasures--even by "a private individual, without interest or
connections." The self-appointed champion both of "virtue" and also of
"a world ... weary of" the culprit's "arrogant pedantry" and "officious
malice," he hoped "to humble and reform" Johnson by "glean[ing] the
tithe of" his "absurdities," which, Callender declares, illustrate,
among other defects, Johnson's "prolixity," "corruptions of our
language," "want of general learning," "antipathy to rival merit,"
"paralytick reasoning," "adherence to contradictions," "defiance of
decency," and "contempt of truth" (pp. 87-88).
After garnering the supposed proofs of these multitudinous
"deformities," Callender published his book at Edinburgh (where it was
sold by "W. Creech") in the early part of 1782.[16] The pamphlet, priced
at a shilling and consisting of a two-page introduction and sixty-three
pages of text, was also sold at London by "T. Longman, and J.
Stockdale."[17] Towards the end of the same year (probably in
December),[18] encouraged by the initial "reception," he brought out a
second, enlarged edition of the work, which he had "perused ... with
honest attention, from the first line to the last, that he might
endeavour to supply its deficiencies, and to correct its errors" (p.
vi). Selling for "eighteen pence"[19] and appearing at both Edinburgh
and London, this edition includes a separate preface and comes to a
total of eighty-nine pages. We have chosen it as the text for the
present reproduction of the _Deformities_.
Callender's very limited powers of ridicule and exposure reside largely
in his amassment of material, not in his ability to arrange and
synthesize that material. Indeed, one looks in vain at the work for
anything more than the most obvious and elementary form of organization.
The Preface begins with brief general remarks on "man's" incapacity to
"reform" his "follies" and the "prejudice" and "good nature" of the
"public" respecting this human frailty, offers "Dr. Samuel Johnson" as a
capital example of the general observation, proceeds to "enquire" how
"such a man crawled to the summit of classical reputation," and
concludes, rather abruptly, with a short postcript on the second edition
of the _Deformities_ itself. The Introduction stresses the enormous
differences that, according to Callender, often exist between a man's
words and deeds--particularly, so the reader is told repeatedly if a bit
obliquely, between Johnson's writings (especially the _Dictionary_) and
actions.
The body of the pamphlet may be divided into five unequal parts. In the
first (pp. 11-15), Callender launches a freewheeling attack on Johnson,
accusing him of "ill-nature," a revengeful spirit, peevishness, and
insolence (among other lamentable traits), and announces his chosen mode
of chastisement: "From the Doctor's volumes I am to select some
passages, illustrate them with a few observations, and submit them to
the reader's opinion." In the second (pp. 15-47), he presents a
disconnected string of quotations drawn from a number of Johnson's
works and embellished with caustic strictures on their creator's
presumed moral, intellectual, and literary shortcomings. In the third
and longest section (pp. 47-82), separated from the second by a small
printer's device, Callender, after "quoting [pp. 47-51] the remarks
already made by a judicious friend,[20] on this subject," begins a
series of disjointed, angry comments on the supposed weaknesses of "the
Doctor's English Dictionary." Thirty-one pages later, having vented his
ire on the choice and definitions of hundreds of words in the
_Dictionary_, he "take[s] leave" of the "enormous compilation,"
stigmatized as "perhaps ... the strangest farrago which pedantry ever
produced," and "return[s]" briefly, in part four (pp. 82-86; set off
from part three by another small device), "to the rest of" Johnson's
publications, extracts from which he again employs as a means of
exhibiting his subject's supposed faults. Finally, he brings the
rambling essay to a close (pp. 86-89) by recounting its origins,
repeating his principal charges against Johnson, and reasserting his
hopes for the Doctor's "reformation."
Although it contains some lively reading (with the author himself being
the center of our interest about as often as his subject) and should
certainly be readily accessible to students of eighteenth-century
literature, the _Deformities_ merits only restricted attention as a
valid critique of Johnson's character and writings. Ostensibly
employing, by and large, an inductive argument, it professes to
demonstrate the pronounced ethical and mental flaws of the Great Cham,
who enjoys, so Callender freely confesses, an unrivalled reputation
among his contemporaries for his achievements in letters and
lexicography. Besides the deplorable qualities mentioned above and
excluding for the moment a consideration of those most evident in the
_Dictionary_, Johnson's faults are alleged to include dishonesty, pride,
vulgarity, slovenliness, dullness, contempt for other persons, prejudice
(especially against the Scots), ingratitude, "gross expressions," turgid
language, and, above all, ignorance, "nonsense," and countless
inconsistencies. To this sweeping broadside of invective, the modern
reader must respond with steady, sometimes amused, sometimes annoyed
disbelief. He recognizes, to be sure, certain points of likeness between
Callender's abusive imputations and (say) Boswell's highly laudatory
portrait. But the former's accusations are so irresponsible and
intemperate, so obviously the outburst of a quivering Scotsman's intense
indignation, and the evidence adduced is so often wrenched from its
context and misapplied, that the reader inevitably finds himself a
partisan of Johnson even when he might be occasionally inclined to admit
the tenability of Callender's criticism.
Among Johnson's works, the _Dictionary_, as already indicated, bears the
brunt of Callender's heaviest, most sustained assault. Its principal
"deformities," to judge from the amount of space devoted to them, occur
in its definitions and word-list. In Callender's opinion, "most of the
definitions ... may be divided into three classes; the erroneous,
oenigmatical, and superfluous" (p. 58); many of them explicate
"indecent," "blackguard" expressions (pp. 54, 74); and some,
exemplifying the lexicographer's "political tenets," are downright
"seditious and impudent" (p. 13). Of the word-list itself, probably "two
thousand" members, comprising a "profusion of trash," are "not to be
found at all in any other book" (p. 70).
A short introduction is scarcely the place to examine the presumed
existence of these defects in the _Dictionary_. Nevertheless, a few
facts, based on a random sampling of passages in the _Deformities_, may
provide a partial historical perspective for Callender's censures. Of
the group of 210 words on pages 71-72 whose real currency he doubts or
denies, 190 also appear in the second edition (1736) of Nathan Bailey's
_Dictionarium Britannicum_, a copy of which Johnson interleaved and used
as he compiled his own _Dictionary_. Equally revealing, the _OED_
includes 204 of the 210, the second edition of _Webster's International_
158, and the third edition 108. Again, of the 65 words on pages 51-53
whose definitions Callender objects to, 48 also appear, with comparable
explanations, in Bailey's dictionary. Finally, an unsystematic
comparison of Bailey's and Johnson's works reveals a much higher
incidence of so-called "indecent"--at least sexual--terms in the former
than in the latter. The author of the _Deformities_, it is quite
obvious, knew what he disliked about the _Dictionary_; when pressing his
strictures against the book, however, as when mounting his other attacks
on Johnson, his violent passions rode roughshod over his faint
pretensions to fairness and objectivity.
University of Chicago
Findlay College
NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION
1. The _DNB_ and the _DAB_ both contain accounts of Callender
(complete, of course, with lists of their primary sources) to which we
are indebted for various details in our own sketch of his life. However,
neither mentions his pamphlets on Johnson.
2. Quoted from Hamilton by David Loth in _Alexander Hamilton: Portrait
of a Prodigy_ (New York, 1939), p. 249.
3. From the Richmond _Recorder_ as printed in the New York _Evening
Post_, 10 September 1802; quoted from _Jefferson Reader_, ed. Francis
Coleman Rosenberger (New York, 1953), pp. 109-111.
4. There were apparently three editions of _A Critical Review_: (1)
Edinburgh: Printed for J. Dickson, and W. Creech, 1783. (2) Second
Edition. London. Printed for the Author, and sold by T. Cadell and J.
Stockdale; at Edinburgh, by J. Dickson and W. Creech, 1783. (3) London.
Printed for R. Rusted, 1787. We are indebted to the Pierpont Morgan
Library for a photographic reproduction of its copy of the first edition
of the pamphlet.
5. Brit. Mus. Addit. MS 6401, f. 175 b. Part of this letter is quoted
by L. F. Powell in Boswell's _Life of Johnson_, IV, 499 (cited hereafter
as _Life_).
6. Writing to Boswell on 28 March 1782, Johnson remarks: "The Beauties
of Johnson are said to have got money to the collector; if the
'Deformities' have the same success, I shall be still a more extensive
benefactor" (_The Letters of Samuel Johnson_, ed. R. W. Chapman [Oxford,
1952], II, 475).
7. _Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. With Critical Observations on His
Works_ (3rd ed.; Edinburgh, 1815), p. 231. Anderson is apparently
incorrect in saying that Callender was Thomson's nephew.
8. There is apparently no copy of _A Critical Review_ in the Bodleian.
9. In his Introduction to a recent reprint (New York, 1965) of John
Rae's _Life of Adam Smith_ (1895), Jacob Viner (who expresses his
indebtedness to "Herman W. Liebert for bringing _A Critical Review_ to
my attention and for warning me that J. T. Callender, its author, was
probably also the author of _Deformities of Dr. Samuel Johnson_")
concludes that the quotation from John Callander in _A Critical Review_
is sufficient "to acquit John Callander of any responsibility for
authorship of either _Deformities of Samuel Johnson_ or _A Critical
Review_" (p. 68; see also pp. 62-69).
10. William P. Courtney and D. Nichol Smith, _A Bibliography of Samuel
Johnson_ (Oxford, 1915; reissued with facsimiles, 1925), p. 136.
11. _Life_, IV, 499. Callender's letter itself, reproduced in the _R.
B. Adam Library_ (III, 48), is now in the Hyde Collection. Dr. Powell,
like Robert Anderson, says that James Thomson Callender was a nephew of
the poet James Thomson, and gives the _DNB_ as the source of his
information.
12. In 1962, one of the present writers, J. E. Congleton, published an
article on "James Thomson Callender, Johnson and Jefferson" (_Johnsonian
Studies_ [Cairo, 1962], pp. 161-172) which forms the basis of a part of
the present introduction.
13. _Life_, III, 106, 107, 214, 488.
14. _Ibid._, III, 106.
15. _Ibid._, IV, 252-253, 526.
16. The work appeared well before 28 March 1782 when Johnson referred
to it in the letter of Boswell cited above in note 6. In the _Life_ (IV,
148), Boswell remarks that he had previously "informed" Johnson "that as
'The Beauties of Johnson' had been published in London, some obscure
scribbler had published at Edinburgh, what he called 'The Deformities of
Johnson.'"
17. On p. 63, Callender calls the work "a shilling pamphlet." We are
grateful to the Pierpont Morgan Library for a photographic reproduction
of its copy of the first edition of the _Deformities_.
18. Since its Preface is dated 21 November 1782, the second edition was
presumably published after that time but before the beginning of 1783.
19. At the end of the second edition, Callender declares: "To collect
every particle of _inanity_ which may be found in our _patriot's_ works
is infinitely beyond the limits of an eighteen-pence pamphlet" (p. 88).
20. In a footnote on p. 51, Callender tells us that the "remarks" of
the "judicious friend" appear in No. 12 of the _Weekly Mirror_, a
periodical which, according to the _CBEL_ (II, 665, 685), was published
at Edinburgh from 22 September 1780 through 23 March 1781, for a total
of 26 numbers; the editor was apparently James Tytler, the publisher J.
Mennons.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
The text of this facsimile reprint of the second edition of Callender's
_Deformities_ (1782) is published with the kind permission of the
University of Chicago Library.
DEFORMITIES
OF
DR SAMUEL JOHNSON.
SELECTED FROM HIS WORKS.
_Nihil rerum mortalium tam instabile ac fluxum est, quam fama_--TACITUS.
The diversion of _baiting_ an AUTHOR has the sanction of all ages and
nations, and is more lawful than the sport of teizing other _animals_
because for the most part HE comes voluntarily to the stake.
RAMBLER, No. 176.
SECOND EDITION.
LONDON:
Printed for the AUTHOR; and sold by J. STOCKDALE;
AND
W. CREECH, Edinburgh.
M.DCC.LXXXII.
PREFACE
TO THE SECOND EDITION.
Man is endowed with sagacity sufficient to discover his errors, but
seldom has fortitude to forsake them. Hence it arises that even the
weakest of the species can point out the follies of his companions, and
fancies that he can reform his own. We are amazed that a being like
ourselves should thus deliberately act below the dignity of reason, but
we forget that our own conduct may also be reviewed with contempt and
pity.
The world is buried in prejudice: Every department of knowledge is
deeply infected by its fatal poison. Thus we frequently respect or
reprobate a book without a perusal, merely on account of the Author's
name. Not one in ten thousand of his panegyrists hath ever comprehended
the system of Newton.--What then is the value of _their_ approbation?
The public have long heard that a late English Dictionary is a most
masterly performance; but is there a single man in England who ever read
it half through? No. The school-boy imagines that it is above his
capacity: The man of letters feels it to be below his; but being
considered as a fashionable decoration in a closet of books, it is
bought without the least chance of being perused, and WE (for the
_first_ time to be sure) have been admiring we know not what.
However as the variety of our sentiments is without end, it often
happens, that while a philosopher is celebrated by one part of his
readers, he is despised by some of the rest. Almost all the great
authors of the present age have been more bitterly reviled than any
other subjects of England, the Ministry excepted. But in a matter so
frivolous as the merit of a book, the public are seldom guilty of gross
injustice. Indeed, when an acute historian continues, in contempt of his
own conviction, to persist in a falsehood, merely because he hath once
affirmed it--when an elegant poet, in search of sublimity, soars, or
rather sinks beyond the kenn of common sense[1]--when an astronomer
treats his antagonist like a felon--when an advocate of piety
impregnates his pages with slander, scurrility, and treason--then the
world may be pardoned though they abate something of their veneration
for the dignity of the learned.
We can hardly produce a stronger evidence of the prejudice, and the good
nature of the public, than their indulgence to the foibles of Dr Samuel
Johnson; nor a stronger evidence of the force of self-conceit, than that
disdain of admonition which forms the capital feature in his character.
He seems to fancy that his opinions cannot be disputed; and many of his
admirers acquiesce in his idea; yet his volumes are of no great value;
his personal appearance cannot much recommend him; his conversation
would shock the rudest savage. His ignorance, his misconduct, and his
success, are a striking proof that the race is not always to the swift,
nor the battle to the strong. Let us enquire by what singular series of
accidents, such a man crawled to the summit of classical reputation?
Most of his verses were among his early productions, and they merit
abundant praise. His account of Savage compelled our approbation, and
discovered a species of excellence but very little known in the annals
of English literature. The force of language and of thought which he
displayed in the Rambler, extended his reputation, and atoned for his
numerous imperfections. He had by this time engaged to write an English
Dictionary. Wise men are known by their work, says the Proverb. After
many years he produced a performance of which I shall only say what can
easily be proved, that few books are so unworthy of the title which they
bear, and so void of every thing intellectual.
But Dr Johnson's credit was supported by something very different from
intrinsic merit. As he was not worth a shilling, his work was printed
and patronized by a phalanx of booksellers; and we can have no doubt
that much of his success was owing to their vigorous but interested
exertions. He had likewise other assistance, which would have been more
than sufficient to support the reputation of an ordinary writer. He was
protected by Mr. Garrick, the darling of mankind. England herself never
produced a more generous friend: And though he seldom wrote lessons of
morality, nothing could exceed the clearness of his understanding, but
the benevolence of his heart. By him, it is probable, Dr Johnson was
introduced to the late Earl of Chesterfield; a Minister, a man of
letters, and a friend to merit. His Lordship was persuaded to celebrate,
by anticipation, the merits of the Doctor's Dictionary[2], and his
condescension is said to have been repaid by the most ungrateful
insolence. Of these two illustrious men it may almost be affirmed that
their influence was universal, and when supported by the weight of the
booksellers, opposition sunk before it. The Doctor soon after received a
pension from the most unfortunate of all Statesmen, a Statesman whom
North Britons ought to mention as seldom as possible, and his name
acquired additional splendour from the dignity of Independence.
Since that period his reputation, or at least his popularity, has been
rather on the decline. His edition of Shakespeare was with difficulty
forced upon the world by every artifice of trade. His political pieces
have long since insured the detestation of his countrymen, a few
individuals excepted. His Tour, considered as a whole, is a ridiculous
performance. His lives of English Poets abound with judicious
observations; but the great misfortune is, that our historian can very
seldom conceal the narrowness of his soul.
Of the present trifle the Author has very little to say. The reception
which it at first met with has induced him to risk a second edition. He
has perused it with honest attention, from the first line to the last,
that he might endeavour to supply its deficiencies, and to correct its
errors. In the execution of this task, he has frequently had occasion to
remark, that it is more easy to demolish a palace than to erect a
cottage.
EDINBURGH, }
_Nov. 21, 1782_. }
INTRODUCTION.
When a boy peruses a book with pleasure, his admiration riseth
immediately from the work to its author. His fancy fondly ranks his
favourite with the wise, and the virtuous. He glows with a lover's
impatience, to reach the presence of this _superior being_, to drink of
science at the fountain-head, to complete his ideas at once, and riot in
all the luxuries of learning.
The novice unhappily presumes, that men who command the passions of
others cannot be slaves to their own: That a historian must feel the
worth of justice and tenderness, while he tells us, how kings and
conquerors are commonly the burden and the curse of society: That an
assertor of public freedom will never become the dupe of flattery, and
the pimp of oppression: That the founder of a system cannot want words
to explain it: _That_ the compiler of a _dictionary_ has at least a
common degree of knowledge: _That_ an inventor of _new_ terms can tell
what they mean: _That_ he, who refines and fixes the language of
empires, is able to converse, without the pertness of a pedant, or the
vulgarity of a porter: _That_ a preacher of morality will blush to
persist in vindictive, deliberate, and detected falsehoods: _That_ he
who totters on the brink of eternity will speak with caution and
humanity of the dead: And _that_ a traveller, who pretends to veracity,
dares not avow contradictions.
But in learning, as in life, much of our happiness flows from deception.
Ignorance, the parent of wonder, is often the parent of esteem and love.
While devouring Horace we venerate the Deserter of Brutus, and the
Slave of Caesar. Transported by his sublime eloquence, the reader of
Cicero forgets that Cicero himself was a plagiarist and a coward: That
Rome was but a den of robbers: That Cataline resembled the rest; and
that this rebel was only revenging the blood of butchered nations, of
Samnium, of Epirus, of Carthage, and of--HANNIBAL.
'The laurels which human praise confers are withered and blasted by the
unworthiness of those who wear them.' There is often a curious contrast
between an author and his books. The mildest, the politest, the wisest,
and the most _worthy_ man alive, pens five hundred pages to display the
pleasures of friendship and the beauties of benevolence; but alas! he is
a theorist only, for his sympathy never cost him a shilling. A
party-tool talks of public spirit. A pedant commands our tears. A
pensioner inveighs against pensions; and a bankrupt preaches public
oeconomy. The philosopher quotes Horace, while he defrauds his valet.
A mimick of Richardson, is a domestic tyrant: A Sydenham, the rendezvous
of diseases: A declaimer against envy, of all men the most invidious.
The satirist has not a reformer's virtues. The poet of love and
friendship is without a mistress, or a friend; while a time-server
celebrates the valour of heroes, and exults in the _freedom_ of England.
Like Penelope, most writers employ part of their time to undo the
labours of the rest. Judging by their lives one would think it were
their chief study to render learning ridiculous. We lose all respect for
teachers, who, when the lesson is ended, are 'no wiser or better than
common men.' To be convinced that books are trifles, let us only remark
how little good they do, and how little those, who love them, love each
other. The monopolists of literary fame, for the most part, regard a
rival as an enemy. Their mutual hostilities, like those of aquatick
animals, are unavoidable and constant; and their voracity differs from
that of the shark, but as a half-devoured carcase, from a murdered
reputation. The existence of many books depends on the ruin of some of
the rest; yet, with our _English Dictionary_, a few _immortal_
compositions are to live unwounded by the shafts of envy, and to descend
in a torrent of applause from one century to another. A thousand of
their critics will exist and be forgotten; a thousand of their imitators
will sink into contempt; but THEY shall defy the force of time; continue
to flourish thro' every _fashion_ of philosophy, and, like Egyptian
pyramids, perish but in the ruins of the globe.
DEFORMITIES, &c.
In the number of men who dishonour their own genius, ought to be ranked
Dr Samuel Johnson; for his abilities and learning are not accompanied by
candour and generosity. His life of Pomfret concludes with this maxim,
that 'he who pleases many, must have merit;' yet, in defiance of his own
rule, the Doctor has, a thousand times, attempted to prove, that they
who please many, have _no_ merit. His invidious and revengeful remark on
Chesterfield, would have disgraced any other man. He said, and nobody
but himself would have said it, that Churchill was a shallow fellow. And
he once told some of his admirers, that SWIFT was a _shallow_, a _very
shallow_ fellow: reminding us of the Lilliputian who drew _his_ bow to
Gulliver[3]. For the memory of this man, who may be classed with Cato
and Phocion, the Doctor feels no tenderness or respect. And for that[4],
and other critical blasphemies, he has undergone innumerable floggings.
No writer of this nation has made more noise. None has discovered more
contempt for other men's reputations, or more confidence in his own. I
would humbly submit a few hints for his improvement, if he be not 'too
old to learn.' And, whatever freedoms I take, the Doctor himself may be
quoted as a precedent for insolent invective, and brutal reproach. He
has told us[5], that 'the two lowest of all human beings are, a
scribbler for a party, and a commissioner of excise.' This very man was
himself the hired scribbler of a party; and why should a commissioner of
excise be one of the meanest of mankind? In the preface to his octavo
Dictionary, the Doctor affirms, that, 'by the labours of all his
predecessors, not even the _lowest_ expectation can be gratified.' The
author of a revisal of Shakespeare[6] attacks (he says) with '_gloomy
malignity_, as if he were dragging to justice an assassin or incendiary.
He bites like a viper, and would be glad to leave inflammations and
gangrene behind him.' For this shocking language, which could have been
answered by nothing but a blow, the _primum mobile_, perhaps, was, that
the critic had dedicated his book to Lord Kaims, (a Scotsman, and
another very _shallow_ fellow) 'as the truest judge, and most
intelligent admirer of Shakespeare.'
His treatment of Colley Cibber is, if possible, worse. That great
ornament of the stage was a man of genius, at least equal to Dr
Johnson--but they had a quarrel, and though Cibber has been more than
twenty years buried, the Doctor, in his life of Pope, studies to revenge
it. His expressions are gross. 'In the Dunciad, among other _worthless_
scribblers he (Pope) had mentioned _Cibber_. The dishonour of being
shewn as _Cibber's_ antagonist could never be compensated by the
victory. _Cibber_ had nothing to lose--The shafts of satire were
directed in vain against _Cibber_, being repelled by the impenetrable
impudence,' &c.[7] We have been deafened about the Doctor's private
virtues; of which these passages are a very poor evidence.
It is believed by some, that Dr Johnson's _admirable_ Dictionary is the
most capital monument of human genius; that the studies of Archimedes
and Newton are but like a feather in the scale with this amazing work;
that he has given our language a stability, which, without him, it had
never known; that he has performed alone, what, in other nations, whole
academies fail to perform; and that as the fruit of _his_ learning and
sagacity, our compositions will be classical and immortal. This may be
true; but the book displays many proofs or his _ill-nature_, and evinces
what I want to insist on, viz. that _he who despises politeness cannot
deserve it_. For his seditious and impudent definitions[8] he would, in
Queen Anne's reign, have had a fair chance of mounting the pillory.
Hume, Smith, and Chesterfield may be quoted to prove, that Walpole and
Excise were improper objects of execration; but an _emanation_ of royal
munificence has, of late, relaxed the Doctor's _frigorific_ virtue; and,
in his _False Alarm_, he affirms, that our government approaches nearer
to perfection, _than any other that fiction has feigned, or history
recorded_. This is going pretty far; but the peevish, though
_incorruptible_ patriot, proceeds a great deal farther. His political
pieces have great elegance and wit; yet, if the tenth part of what he
advances in them be true, his countrymen are a mob of ignorant,
ungrateful, rebellious ruffians. Every member in Opposition is a fool, a
firebrand, a monster; worse, if that were possible, than Ravillac,
Hambden, or Milton[9]. Here is a short specimen:
'On the original contrivers of mischief let an insulted nation pour out
its vengeance. With whatever design they have inflamed this pernicious
contest, they are themselves equally detestable. If they wish success to
the colonies, they are TRAITORS to this country; if they wish their
defeat, they are TRAITORS at once to America and England. To them
(Mess. Burke & Co.) and them only, must be imputed the interruption of
commerce, and the miseries of war, the sorrow of those who shall be
ruined, and the blood of those that shall fall[10].'
From the Doctor's volumes I am to select some passages, illustrate them
with a few observations, and submit them to the reader's opinion. These
pages aim at _perspicacity_. They are ambitious to record TRUTH.
'He that writes the life of another, is either his friend or his enemy,
and wishes either to exalt his praise, or aggravate his infamy[11].' The
Doctor betrays a degree of inconsistency incompatible with his reputed
abilities. After such a confession, what have we to hope for in _his_
lives of English poets?
Having thus denied veracity both to Plutarch and _himself_, this Idler,
in the very next page, leaps at once from the wildest scepticism to the
wildest credulity. The paragraph is too long for insertion; but the
tenor of it is, that 'a man's account of himself, left behind him
unpublished, may be _depended on_;' because, 'by self-love all have been
so often betrayed, _that_ (now for the strangest flight of nonsense) all
are on the watch against its artifices.'
In his Dictionary, _temperance_ is defined to be '_moderation opposed to
gluttony and drunkenness_.' And he has since defined 'sobriety or
temperance' to be '_nothing_ but the forbearance of _pleasure_[12].'
This maxim needs no comment.
'A man will, in the hour of darkness and fatigue, be content to leave
behind him every thing but _himself_[13].' Here the Doctor supposes,
that a person can leave _himself_ behind _himself_. When the reader
examines the passage in the original, he will be convinced, that this
cannot be an error of the press only. Had the Rambler, when he crossed
Tweed, left behind him his pride, his indolence, and his vulgarity, he
would have returned a much wiser, better, and happier man than he did.
_Form_, he explains to be, 'the external appearance of any thing,
shape;' but, when speaking of hills in the North of Scotland, he says,
'the appearance is that of matter incapable of FORM[14]!' He has seen
_matter_, not only destitute, but incapable of _shape_. He has seen an
_appearance_ which is incapable of _external_ appearance. And yet, in
the same book, he seems to regret the weakness of his vision.