CHAPTER XXV

SMITH INTERVIEWED

In his letter to Cadell Smith reproaches himself with his idleness

during his first few years in Edinburgh. He had bought a good many new

books in London, or new editions of old ones, and, says he, "The

amusement I found in reading and diverting myself with them debauched

me from my proper business, the preparing a new edition of the _Wealth

of Nations_." While he was engaged in this dissipation of

miscellaneous reading a young interviewer from Glasgow, who happened

to be much in his company in connection with business in the year

1780, elicited his opinions on most of the famous authors of the

world, noted them down, and gave them to the public after Smith's

death in the pages of the _Bee_ for 1791. In introducing these

recollections the editor of the _Bee_, Dr. James Anderson--author of

Ricardo's rent theory--says that even if they had not been sent to him

with the strongest assurances of authenticity, he could entertain no

doubt on that point after their perusal from the coincidence of the

opinions reported in them with those he himself had heard Smith

express. The writer, who takes the name Amicus, describes himself as

"young, inquisitive, and full of respect" for Smith, and says their

conversation, after they finished their business, always took a

literary turn, and Smith was "extremely communicative, and delivered

himself with a freedom and even boldness quite opposite to the

apparent reserve of his appearance."

The first author Amicus mentions is Dr. Johnson, of whom he thought

Smith had a "very contemptuous opinion." "I have seen that creature,"

said Smith, "bolt up in the midst of a mixed company, and without any

previous notice fall upon his knees behind a chair, repeat the Lord's

Prayer, and then resume his seat at table. He has played this trick

over and over, perhaps five or six times in the course of an evening.

It is not hypocrisy but madness. Though an honest sort of man himself,

he is always patronising scoundrels. Savage, for example, whom he so

loudly praises, was but a worthless fellow; his pension of £50 never

lasted him longer than a few days. As a sample of his economy you may

take a circumstance that Johnson himself once told me. It was at that

period fashionable to wear scarlet cloaks trimmed with gold lace, and

the Doctor met him one day just after he had got his pension with one

of those cloaks on his back, while at the same time his naked toes

were sticking through his shoes." He spoke highly, however, of

Johnson's political pamphlets on the American question, in spite of

his disapproval of their opinions, and he was especially charmed with

the pamphlet about the Falkland Islands, because it presented in such

forcible language the madness of modern wars.

"Contemptuous opinion" is too strong an expression for Smith's view of

Johnson, but it is certain he never rated him so high as the world did

then or does now. He told Samuel Rogers that he was astonished at

Johnson's immense reputation, but, on the other hand, he frequently

praised some of the Doctor's individual writings very highly, as he

did to this young gentleman of Glasgow. He once said to Seward that

Johnson's preface to Shakespeare was "the most manly piece of

criticism that was ever published in any country."[316]

Amicus then inquired of Smith his opinion of his countryman Dr.

Campbell, author of the _Political Survey_, and Smith replied that he

had never met him but once, but that he was one of those authors who

wrote on from one end of the week to the other, and had therefore with

his own hand produced almost a library of books. A gentleman who met

Campbell out at dinner said he would be glad to have a complete set of

his works, and next morning a cart-load came to his door, and the

driver's bill was £70. He used to get a few copies of each of his

works from the printers, and keep them for such chances as that. A

visitor one day, casting his eye on these books, asked Campbell, "Have

you read all these books?" "Nay," said the other, "I have written

them."

Smith often praised Swift, and praised him highly, saying he wanted

nothing but inclination to have become one of the greatest of all

poets. "But in place of that he is only a gossiper, writing merely for

the entertainment of a private circle." He regarded Swift, however, as

a pattern of correctness both in style and sentiment, and he read to

his young friend some of the short poetical addresses to _Stella_.

Amicus says Smith expressed particular pleasure with one couplet--

Say, Stella, feel you no content,

Reflecting on a life well spent?

But it was more probably not so much of these two lines as of the

whole passage of which they are the opening that Smith was thinking.

He thought Swift a great master of the poetic art, because he produced

an impression of ease and simplicity, though the work of composition

was to him a work of much difficulty, a verse coming from him, as

Swift himself said, like a guinea. The Dean's masterpiece was, in

Smith's opinion, the lines on his own death, and his poetry was on the

whole more correct after he settled in Ireland, and was surrounded, as

he himself said, "only by humble friends."

Among historians Smith rated Livy first either in the ancient or the

modern world. He knew of no other who had even a pretence to rival

him, unless David Hume perhaps could claim that honour.

When asked about Shakespeare Smith quoted with apparent approval

Voltaire's remarks that _Hamlet_ was the dream of a drunken savage,

and that Shakespeare had good scenes but not a good play; but Amicus

gathered that he would not permit anybody else to pass such a verdict

with impunity, for when he himself once ventured to say something

derogatory of _Hamlet_, Smith replied, "Yes, but still _Hamlet_ is

full of fine passages." This opinion of Shakespeare was of course

common to most of the great men of last century. They were not so much

insensible to the poet's genius as perplexed by it. His plays were

full of imagination, dramatic power, natural gifts of every kind--that

was admitted; but then they seemed wild, unregulated, savage--even

"drunken savage," to use Voltaire's expression; they were magnificent,

but they were not poetry, for they broke every rule of the art, and

poetry after all was an art. And so we find Addison at the beginning

of last century writing on the greatest English poets and leaving the

name of Shakespeare out; and we find Charles James Fox, a true lover

of letters, telling Reynolds at the close of the century that

Shakespeare's reputation would have stood higher if he had never

written _Hamlet_. Smith thought Shakespeare had more than ten times

the dramatic genius of Dryden, but Dryden had more of the poetic art.

He praised Dryden for rhyming his plays, and said--as Pope and

Voltaire used also to say--that it was nothing but laziness that

prevented our tragic poets from writing in rhyme like those of France.

"Dryden," said he, "had he possessed but a tenth part of Shakespeare's

dramatic genius, would have brought rhyming tragedies into fashion

here as they were in France, and then the mob would have admired them

just as much as they then pretended to despise them." Beattie's

_Minstrel_ he would not allow to be called a poem at all, because it

had no plan, no beginning, middle, or end. It was only a series of

verses, some of them, however, he admitted, very happy. As for Pope's

translation of the _Iliad_, he said, "They do well to call it Pope's

_Iliad_, for it is not Homer's _Iliad_. It has no resemblance to the

majesty and simplicity of the Greek."

He read over to Amicus Milton's _L'Allegro_ and _Il Penseroso_, and

explained the respective beauties of each; but he added that all the

rest of Milton's short poems were trash. He could not imagine what

made Johnson praise the poem on the death of Mrs. Killigrew, and

compare it with _Alexander's Feast_. Johnson's praise of it had

induced him to read the poem over and with attention twice, but he

could not discover even a spark of merit in it. On the other hand,

Smith considered Gray's _Odes_, which Johnson had damned, to be the

standard of lyric excellence.

_The Gentle Shepherd_ he did not admire much. He preferred the _Pastor

Fido_, of which, says Amicus, he "spoke with rapture," and the

_Eclogues_ of Virgil. Amicus put in a word in favour of the poet of

his own country, but Smith would not yield a point. "It is the duty of

a poet," he said, "to write like a gentleman. I dislike that homely

style which some think fit to call the language of nature and

simplicity and so forth. In Percy's _Reliques_ too a few tolerable

pieces are buried under a heap of rubbish. You have read perhaps _Adam

Bell, Clym of the Cleugh, and William of Cloudesley_." "Yes," said

Amicus. "Well then," continued Smith, "do you think that was worth

printing?"

Of Goldsmith Smith spoke somewhat severely--of Goldsmith as a man

apparently, not as a writer--relating some anecdotes of his easy

morals, which Amicus does not repeat. But when Amicus mentioned some

story about Burke seducing a young lady, Smith at once declared it an

invention. "I imagine," said he, "that you have got that fine story

out of some of the Magazines. If anything can be lower than the

Reviews, they are so. They once had the impudence to publish a story

of a gentleman having debauched his own sister, and on inquiry it came

out that the gentleman never had a sister. As to Mr. Burke, he is a

worthy, honest man, who married an accomplished girl without a

shilling of fortune." Of the Reviews Smith never spoke but with

ridicule and detestation. Amicus tried to get the _Gentleman's

Magazine_ exempted from the general condemnation, but Smith would not

hear of that, and said that for his part he never looked at a Review,

nor even at the names of the publishers.

Pope was a great favourite with him as a poet, and he knew by heart

many passages from his poems, though he disliked Pope's personal

character as a man, saying he was all affectation, and speaking of his

letter to Arbuthnot when the latter was dying as a consummate piece of

canting. Dryden was another of his favourite poets, and when he was

speaking one day in high praise of Dryden's fables, Amicus mentioned

Hume's objections, and was told, "You will learn more as to poetry by

reading one good poem than by a thousand volumes of criticism." Smith

regarded the French theatre as the standard of dramatic excellence.

Amicus concludes his reminiscences by quoting one of Smith's

observations on a political subject. He said that at the beginning of

the reign of George the Third the dissenting ministers used to receive

£2000 a year from Government, but that the Earl of Bute had most

improperly deprived them of this allowance, and that he supposed this

to be the real motive of their virulent opposition to Government.

These recollections of Amicus provoked a letter in a succeeding number

of the _Bee_ from Ascanius (the Earl of Buchan) complaining of their

publication, not as in any way misrepresenting any of Smith's views,

but as obtruding the trifles of the ordinary social hour upon the

learned world in a way Smith himself would have extremely disliked.

Smith, he says, would rather have had his body injected by Hunter and

Monro, and exhibited in Fleet Street or in Weir's Museum. That may

very possibly be so; but though Smith, if he were to give his views on

literary topics to the public, might prefer putting them in more

elaborate dress, yet the opinions he expressed were, it must be

remembered, mature opinions on subjects on which he had long thought

and even lectured, and if neither Dr. Anderson nor the Earl of Buchan

has any fault to find with the correctness of Amicus's report of them,

Smith cannot be considered to be any way wronged. The Earl complains

too of the matter of the letter being "such frivolous matter"; but it

is not so frivolous, and, if it were, is it not Smith himself who used

to say to his class at Glasgow, as we are informed by Boswell, that

there was nothing too frivolous to be learnt about a great man, and

that, for his own part, he was always glad to know that Milton wore

latchets to his shoes and not buckles?

In 1781 Gibbon seems to have been in doubt as to continuing his

_History_, and desired Robertson, who happened to be up in London at

the time, to talk the matter over with Smith after his return to

Edinburgh. The result of this consultation is communicated in a letter

from Robertson to Gibbon on 6th November 1781. "Soon after my return,"

says Robertson, "I had a long conversation with our friend Mr. Smith,

in which I stated to him every particular you mentioned to me with

respect to the propriety of going on with your work. I was happy to

find that his opinion coincided perfectly with that which I had

ventured to give you. His decisions, you know, are both prompt and

vigorous, and he could not allow that you ought to hesitate a moment

in your choice. He promised to write his sentiments to you very fully,

but as he may have neglected to do this, for it is not willingly he

puts pen to paper, I thought it might be agreeable to you to know his

opinion, though I imagine you could hardly entertain any doubt

concerning it."[317]

Professor B. Faujas Saint Fond, Professor of Geology in the Museum of

Natural History at Paris and member of the National Institute of

France, paid a visit to Edinburgh in October or November 1782 in the

course of a tour he made through Scotland, and received many

civilities from Adam Smith, as he mentions in the account of his

travels which he published in 1783. Saint Fond says there was nobody

in Edinburgh he visited more frequently than Smith, and nobody

received him more kindly or studied more to procure for him every

information and amusement Edinburgh could afford. He was struck with

Smith's numerous and, as he says, excellently chosen library. "The

best French authors occupied a distinguished place in his library, for

he was fond of our language." "Though advanced in years, he still

possessed a fine figure; the animation of his countenance was striking

when he spoke of Voltaire." I have already quoted the remark he made

(p. 190).

One evening when the geologist was at tea with him, Smith spoke about

Rousseau also, and spoke of him "with a kind of religious respect."

"Voltaire," he said, "set himself to correct the vices and follies of

mankind by laughing at them, and sometimes by treating them with

severity, but Rousseau conducts the reader to reason and truth by the

attractions of sentiment and the force of conviction. His 'Social

Compact' will one day avenge all the persecutions he suffered."

Smith asked the Professor if he loved music, and on being told that it

was one of his chief delights whenever it was well executed, rejoined,

"I am very glad of it; I shall put you to a proof which will be very

interesting for me, for I shall take you to hear a kind of music of

which it is impossible you can have formed any idea, and it will

afford me great pleasure to know the impression it makes upon you."

The annual bagpipe competition was to take place next day, and

accordingly in the morning Smith came to the Professor's lodgings at

nine o'clock, and they proceeded at ten to a spacious concert-room,

plainly but neatly decorated, which they found already filled with a

numerous assembly of ladies and gentlemen. A large space was reserved

in the middle of the room and occupied by gentlemen only, who, Smith

said, were the judges of the performances that were to take place, and

who were all inhabitants of the Highlands or Islands. The prize was

for the best execution of some favourite piece of Highland music, and

the same air was to be played successively by all the competitors. In

about half an hour a folding door opened at the bottom of the hall,

and the Professor was surprised to see a Highlander advance playing on

a bagpipe, and dressed in the ancient kilt and plaid of his country.

"He walked up and down the vacant space in the middle of the hall with

rapid steps and a martial air playing his noisy instrument, the

discordant sounds of which were sufficient to rend the ear. The tune

was a kind of sonata divided into three periods. Smith requested me to

pay my whole attention to the music, and to explain to him afterwards

the impression it made upon me. But I confess that at first I could

not distinguish either air or design in the music. I was only struck

with a piper marching backward and forward with great rapidity, and

still presenting the same warlike countenance, he made incredible

efforts with his body and his fingers to bring into play the different

reeds of his instrument, which emitted sounds that were to me almost

insupportable. He received, however, great praise." Then came a second

piper, who seemed to excel the first, judging from the clapping of

hands and cries of bravo that greeted him from every side; and then a

third and a fourth, till eight were heard successively; and the

Professor began at length to realise that the first part of the music

was meant to represent the clash and din and fury of war, and the last

part the wailing for the slain,--and this last part, he observed,

always drew tears from the eyes of a number of "the beautiful Scotch

ladies" in the audience. After the music came a "lively and animated

dance," in which some of the pipers engaged, and the rest all played

together "suitable airs possessing expression and character, though

the union of so many bagpipes produced a most hideous noise." He does

not say whether his verdict was satisfactory to Smith, but the verdict

was that it seemed to him like a bear's dancing, and that "the

impression the wild instrument made on the greater part of the

audience was so different from the impression it made on himself, that

he could not help thinking that the lively emotion of the persons

around him was not occasioned by the musical effect of the air itself,

but by some association of ideas which connected the discordant sounds

of the pipe with historical events brought forcibly to their

recollection."[318]

Nor were these annual competitions the only local institutions in

which Smith took a more or less active interest. One of the duties of

a citizen which he undertook will perhaps occasion surprise--he became

a Captain of the City Guard. He was made Honorary Captain of the

Trained Bands of Edinburgh--the City Guard--on the 4th of June 1781,

"with the usual solemnity," the minutes state, "and after spending the

evening with grate joy, the whole corps retired, but in distinct

divisions and good order, to quarters."[319]

The business of this body, according to its minutes, seems practically

to have been mostly of a convivial character, and we can sympathise

with the honest pride of the clerk in recording in what a condition of

good order they were able to retire after celebrating that auspicious

occasion with the joy it deserved. Smith no doubt attended their

periodical festivities, or paid his fine of eight magnums of claret

for absence. But their business was not all claret and punch. On the

8th September 1784, for example, the captains, lieutenants, and

ensigns of the Trained Bands were called out, in consequence of an

order from the Lord Provost, "to attend the wheeping of Paull and

Anderson, actors in the late riots at Cannonmills." A rescue riot was

apprehended, and the Trained Bands met in the old Justiciary

Court-room, and were armed there with "stowt oaken sticks." Marching

forth in regular order, they acted as guard to the magistrates during

the day, and "by their formidable and respectable appearance had the

good effect of detering the multitude so that they became only

peaceable spectators." Whether an honorary captain could be called

upon for active service in an emergency I cannot say, but Smith's name

is not mentioned in the list of absentee captains upon this occasion.

In 1783 Smith joined Robertson and others in founding the Royal

Society of Edinburgh. Robertson had long entertained the idea of

establishing a society on the model of the foreign academies for the

cultivation of every branch of science, learning, and taste, and he

was at length moved into action by the steps taken in 1782 by the Earl

of Buchan and others to obtain a royal charter for the Society of

Antiquaries of Scotland, founded two years before. Robertson was very

anxious to have only one learned society in Edinburgh, of which

antiquities might be made a branch subject, and he even induced the

University authorities to petition Parliament against granting a

charter of incorporation to the Antiquarian Society. In this strong

step the University was seconded by the Faculty of Advocates and the

old Philosophical Society, founded by Colin Maclaurin in 1739, but

their efforts failed. Out of the agitation, however, the Royal Society

came into being. Whether Smith actively supported Robertson, or

supported him at all, in his exertions against the Antiquarian

Society, I do not know. He was not, as Robertson was, a member of the

Society of Antiquaries. But he was one of the original members of the

Royal Society. The society was divided into two branches,--a physical

branch or class devoted to science; and a literary branch or class

devoted to history and polite letters,--and Smith was one of the four

presidents of the literary class. The Duke of Buccleugh was President

of the whole society; and Smith's colleagues in the presidency of the

literary class were Robertson, Blair, and Baron Gordon (Cosmo Gordon

of Cluny, a Baron of Exchequer and most accomplished man).

Smith never read a paper to this society, nor does he ever seem to

have spoken in it except once or twice on a matter of business which

had been entrusted to him. The only mention of his name in the printed

_Transactions_ is in connection with two prizes of 1000 ducats and 500

ducats respectively, which were offered to all the world in 1785 by

Count J.N. de Windischgraetz for the two most successful inventions of

such legal terminology for every sort of deed as, without imposing any

new restraints on natural liberty, would yet leave no possible room

for doubt or litigation, and would thereby diminish the number of

lawsuits. The Count wished the prizes to be decided by three of the

most distinguished literary academies in Europe, and had chosen for

that purpose the Royal Academy of Science in Paris, which had already

consented to undertake the duty; the Royal Society of Edinburgh, whose

consent the Count now sought; and one of the academies of Germany or

Switzerland which he was afterwards to name. He addressed his

communication to the society through Adam Smith, who must therefore be

assumed to have had some private acquaintance or connection with him;

and on the 9th of July Smith laid the proposal before the Council of

the society, and, as is reported in the _Transactions_, "signified to

the meeting that although he entertained great doubt whether the

problem of the Count de Windischgraetz admitted of any complete and

rational solution, yet the views of the proposer being so highly

laudable, and the object itself being of that nature that even an

approximation to its attainment would be of importance to mankind, he

was therefore of opinion that the society ought to agree to the

request that was made to them. He added that it was his intention to

communicate his sentiments on the subject to the Count by a letter

which he would lay before the Council at a subsequent meeting."[320]

This letter was read to the Council on the 13th of December, and after

being approved, a copy of it was requested for preservation among

their papers, as the author "did not incline that it should be

published in the Transactions of the society."

Nothing further is heard of this business till the 6th of August 1787,

when "Mr. Commissioner Smith acquainted the society that the Count de

Windischgraetz had transmitted to him three dissertations offered as

solutions of his problem, and had desired the judgment of the society

upon their merits. The society referred the consideration of these

papers to Mr. Smith, Mr. Henry Mackenzie of the Exchequer, and Mr.

William Craig, advocate, as a committee to appraise and consider them,

and to report their opinion to the society at a subsequent meeting."

At length, on the 21st January 1788, Mr. Commissioner Smith reported

that this committee thought none of the three dissertations amounted

either to a solution or an approximation to a solution of the Count's

problem, but that one of them was a work of great merit, and the

society asked Mr. A. Fraser Tytler, one of their secretaries, to send

on this opinion to the Count as their verdict.[321]

FOOTNOTES:

[316] Seward's _Anecdotes_, ii. 464.

[317] Gibbon's _Miscellaneous Works_, ii. 255.

[318] Saint Fond, _Travels in England, Scotland, and the Hebrides_,

ii. 241.

[319] Skinner's _Society of Trained Bands of Edinburgh_, p. 99.

[320] _Transactions_, R.S.E., i. 39.

[321] _Ibid._, R.S.E., ii. 24.

Life of Adam Smith · 第 25 / 32 章