When James Boswell, Esq., wrote _The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D._, he
not only achieved his purpose of giving the world “a rich intellectual
treasure,” but also succeeded in making himself a subject of permanent
literary interest.
Among the good things which the year 1922 has brought to us I count the
_Boswell redivivus_ from the industrious and skilful hand of Professor
Chauncey Brewster Tinker of Yale. He calls his excellent book, which is
largely enriched with new material in the way of hitherto unpublished
letters, _Young Boswell_. This does not mean that he deals only with the
early years, amatory episodes, and first literary ventures of Johnson’s
inimitable biographer, but that he sees in the man a certain persistent
youngness which accounts for the exuberance of his faults and follies as
well as for the enthusiasm of his hero-worship.
Mr. Tinker does not attempt to camouflage the incorrigible absurdities
of Boswell’s disposition, nor the excesses of his conduct, but finds
an explanation if not an excuse for them in the fact that he had a
juvenile temperament which inclined him all through life to self-esteem
and self-indulgence, and kept him “very much a boy” until he died of
it. Whether this is quite consistent with his being “in fullest truth a
genius,” as Mr. Tinker claims, may be doubted; for genius in the high
sense is something that ripens if time be given it. But what is certain
beyond a question is that this vain and vagarious little Scotch laird
had in him a gift of observation, a talent of narration, and above all
a power of generous admiration, which enabled him to become, by dint of
hard work, what Macaulay entitled him, “the first of biographers.”
Ever since it appeared in 1791, Boswell’s _Life of Johnson_ has been a
most companionable book. Reprinted again and again, it finds a perennial
welcome. To see it in a new edition is no more remarkable nowadays than
it once was to see Dr. Oliver Goldsmith in a new and vivid waistcoat.
For my own part I prefer it handsomely drest, with large type, liberal
margins, and a-plenty of illustrations. For it is not a book in which
economy of bulk is needful; it is less suitable for company on a journey
or a fishing-trip, than for a meditative hour in the library after
dinner, or a pleasant wakeful hour in bed, when the reading-lamp glows
clear and steady, and all the rest of the family are asleep or similarly
engaged in recumbent reading.
There are some books with which we can never become intimate. However
long we may know them they keep us on the cold threshold of acquaintance.
Others boisterously grasp our hand and drag us in, only to bore us and
make us regret the day of our introduction. But if there ever was a
book which invited genially to friendship and delight it is this of
Boswell’s. The man who does not know it is ignorant of some of the best
cheer that can enliven a solitary fireside. The man who does not enjoy
it is insensible alike to the attractions of a noble character vividly
depicted, and to the amusement afforded by the sight of a great genius
in company with an adoring follower capable, at times, of acting like an
engaging ass.
Yet after all, I have always had my doubts about the supposed
“asininity” of Boswell. As his Great Friend said, “A man who talks
nonsense so well must know that he is talking nonsense.” It is only
fair to accept his own explanation and allow that when he said or did
ridiculous things it was, partly at least, in order to draw out his
Tremendous Companion. Thus we may think with pleasure of Boswell taking
a rise out of Johnson. But we do not need to imagine Johnson taking a
rise out of Boswell; it was not necessary; he rose of his own accord.
He made a candid record of these diverting incidents because, though
self-complacent, he was not touchy, and he had sense enough to see that
the sure way to be entirely entertaining is to be quite frank.
Boswell threw a stone at one bird and brought down two. His triumphant
effort to write the life of his Immense Hero just as it was, with all its
surroundings, appurtenances, and eccentricities, has won for himself a
singular honour: his proper name has become a common noun. It is hardly
necessary to use a capital letter when we allude to a boswell. His pious
boast that he had “Johnsonized the land,” is no more correct than it
would be to say, (and if he were alive he would certainly say it,) that
he had boswellized biography.
The success of the book appears the more remarkable when we remember
that of the seventy-five years of Samuel Johnson’s life not more than
two years and two months were passed in the society of James Boswell.
Yet one would almost think that they had been rocked in the same cradle,
or, (if this figure of speech seem irreverent,) that the Laird of
Auchinleck had slept in a little trundle-bed beside the couch of the
Mighty Lexicographer. I do not mean by this that the record is trivial
and cubicular, but simply that Boswell has put into his book as much of
Johnson as it will hold.
Let no one imagine, however, that a like success can be secured by
following the same recipe with any chance subject. The exact portraiture
of an insignificant person confers information where there is no
curiosity, and becomes tedious in proportion as it is precise.[19] The
first thing needful is to catch a giant for your hero; and in this
little world it is seldom that one like Johnson comes to the net.
What a man he was,—this “old struggler,” as he called himself,—how
uncouth and noble and genuine and profound,—“a labouring, working mind;
an indolent, reposing body”! What a heart of fortitude in the bosom of
his melancholy, what a kernel of human kindness within the shell of his
rough manner! He was proud but not vain, sometimes rude but never cruel.
His prejudices were insular, but his intellect was continental. There was
enough of contradiction in his character to give it variety, and enough
of sturdy faith to give it unity. It was not easy for him to be good, but
it was impossible for him to be false; and he fought the battle of life
through along his chosen line even to the last skirmish of mortality.
[Illustration: SAMUEL JOHNSON.
Painted by Reynolds.
_From a photograph, copyright by Hollyer, London._]
I suppose we Americans might harbour a grudge against him on the score
of his opinion of our forefathers. It is on record that he said of
them, during their little controversy with King George III, that they
were “a race of convicts.” (How exciting it would have been to hear him
say a thing like that to the face of George Washington or Benjamin
Franklin! He was quite capable of it.) But we can afford to laugh at
such an _obiter dictum_ now. And upon my honesty it offends me less at
the present time than Lionel Lispingly Nutt’s condescending advice on
poetry and politics, or Stutterworth Bummell’s patronizing half-praise.
Let a man smite us fairly on one cheek, and we can manage to turn the
other,—out of his reach. But if he deals superciliously with us as “poor
relations,” we can hardly help looking for a convenient and not too
dangerous flight of stairs for his speedy descent.
Johnson may be rightly claimed as a Tory-Democrat on the strength of his
serious saying that “the interest of millions must ever prevail over that
of thousands,” and the temper of his pungent letter to Lord Chesterfield.
And when we consider also his side remark in defense of card-playing
on the ground that it “generates kindness and consolidates society,”
we may differ from him in our estimate of the game, but we cannot deny
that in small things as well as in great he spoke as a liberal friend of
humanity.
His literary taste was not infallible; in some instances, (for example
his extreme laudation of Sir John Denham’s poem _Cooper’s Hill_, and his
adverse criticism of Milton’s verse,) it was very bad. In general you may
say that it was based upon theories and rules which are not really of
universal application, though he conceived them to be so. But his style
was much more the product of his own personality and genius. Ponderous it
often was, but seldom clumsy. He had the art of saying what he meant in a
deliberate, clear, forceful way. Words arrayed themselves at his command
and moved forward in serried phalanx. He had the praiseworthy habit of
completing his sentences and building his paragraphs firmly. It will not
do us any good to belittle his merit as a writer, particularly in this
age of slipper-shod and dressing-gowned English.
His diction was much more varied than people usually suppose. He could
suit his manner to almost any kind of subject, except possibly the very
lightest. He had a keen sense of the shading of synonyms and rarely
picked the wrong word. Of antithesis and the balanced sentence he was
over-fond; and this device, intended originally to give a sharpened
emphasis, being used too often, lends an air of monotony to his writing.
Yet it has its merits too, as may be seen in these extracts from the
fiftieth number of _The Rambler_,—extracts which, by the way, have some
relation to a controversy still raging:
“Every old man complains of the growing depravity of the world, of
the petulance and insolence of the rising generation. He recounts the
decency and regularity of former times, and celebrates the discipline and
sobriety of the age in which his youth was passed; a happy age, which is
now no more to be expected, since confusion has broken in upon the world
and thrown down all the boundaries of civility and reverence.... It may,
therefore, very reasonably be suspected that the old draw upon themselves
the greatest part of those insults which they so much lament, and that
age is rarely despised but when it is contemptible.... He that would
pass the latter part of his life with honour and decency, must, when he
is young, consider that he shall one day be old; and remember, when he
is old, that he has once been young. In youth, he must lay up knowledge
for his support, when his powers of action shall forsake him; and in age
forbear to animadvert with rigour on faults which experience only can
correct.”
In meaning this is very much the same as Sir James Barrie’s recent
admirable discourse on “Courage” at the University of St. Andrew’s; but
in manner there is quite a difference.
It is commonly supposed that Dr. Johnson did a great deal to overload
and oppress the English language by introducing new and awkward words of
monstrous length. His opportunities in that way were large, but he always
claimed that he had used them with moderation and had not coined above
four or five words. When we note that “peregrinity” was one of them,
we are grateful that he refrained so much; but when we remember that
“clubbable” was another, we are glad that he did not refrain altogether.
For there is no quality more easy to recognize and difficult to define
than that which makes a man acceptable in a club; and of this Dr. Johnson
has given us a fine example in his life and an appropriate name in his
word.
I think one reason why he got on so well with people who differed from
him, and why most of the sensible ones so readily put up with his
downright and often brusque way of expressing his sentiments, was because
they came so evidently from his sincere and unshakeable conviction
that certain things are true, that they can not be changed, and that
they should not be forgotten. Not only in politics, but also and more
significantly in religion, Samuel Johnson stands out as a sturdy believer.
This seems the more noteworthy when we consider the conditions of his
life. There is hardly one among the great men of history who can be
called so distinctively “a man of letters,” undoubtedly none who has
won as high a position and as large a contemporary influence by sheer
strength of pen. Now the literary life is not generally considered to
be especially favourable to the cultivation of religion; and Johnson’s
peculiar circumstances were not of a kind to make it more favourable in
his case than usual. He was poor and neglected, struggling during a great
part of his career against the heaviest odds. His natural disposition was
by no means such as to predispose him to faith. He was afflicted from
childhood with a hypochondriac and irritable humour; a high, domineering
spirit, housed in an unwieldy and disordered body; plagued by inordinate
physical appetites; inclined naturally to rely with over-confidence
upon the strength and accuracy of his reasoning powers; driven by his
impetuous temper into violent assertion and controversy; deeply depressed
by his long years of obscurity and highly elated by his final success,—he
was certainly not one whom we would select as likely to be a remarkably
religious man. Carlyle had less to embitter him. Goethe had no more to
excuse self-idolatry. And yet, beyond a doubt, Johnson was a sincere,
humble, and, in the main, a consistent Christian.
Of course, we cannot help seeing that his peculiarities and faults
affected his religion. He was intolerant in his expression of theological
views to a degree which seems almost ludicrous. We may, perhaps, keep a
straight face and a respectful attitude when we see him turning his back
on the Abbé Raynal, and refusing to “shake hands with an infidel.” But
when he exclaims in regard to a young lady who had left the Church of
England to become a Quaker, “I hate the wench and shall ever hate her; I
hate all impudence of a chit; apostasy I nauseate”; and when he answers
the gently expressed hope of a friend that he and the girl would meet,
after all, in a blessed eternity, by saying, “Madam, I am not fond of
_meeting fools anywhere_,” we cannot help joining in the general laughter
of the company to whom he speaks; and as the Doctor himself finally
laughs and becomes cheerful and entertaining, we feel that it was only
the bear in him that growled,—an honest beast, but sometimes very surly.
As for his remarkable strictures upon Presbyterianism, his declaration
that he preferred the Roman Catholic Church, his expressed hope that John
Knox was buried in the highway, and his wish that a dangerous steeple in
Edinburgh might not be taken down because if it were let alone it might
fall on some of the posterity of John Knox, which, he said, would be
“no great matter,”—if when we read these things we remember that he was
talking to his Scotch friend Boswell, we get a new idea of the audacity
of the great man’s humour. I believe he even stirred up his natural
high-churchism to rise rampant and roar vigourously, for the pleasure of
seeing Boswell’s eyes stand out, and his neat little pigtail vibrate in
dismay.
There are many other sayings of Johnson’s which disclose a deeper vein of
tolerance; such as that remark about the essential agreement and trivial
differences of all Christians, and his warm commendation, on his dying
bed, of the sermons of Dr. Samuel Clarke, a Dissenting minister.
But even suppose we are forced to admit that Dr. Johnson was lacking in
that polished liberality, that willingness to admit that every other
man’s opinions are as good as his own, which we have come nowadays to
regard as the chief of the theological virtues; even suppose we must call
him “narrow,” we must admit at the same time that he was “deep”; he had
a profundity of conviction, a sincerity of utterance which made of his
religion something, as the Germans say, “to take hold of with your hands.”
He had need of a sturdy belief. With that tempestuous, unruly
disposition of his boiling all the time within him, living in the age
of Chesterfield and Bolingbroke, fighting his way through the world amid
a thousand difficulties and temptations, he had great need to get a firm
grip upon some realities of religion and hold fast to them as things that
were settled. His first conviction of the truth of Christianity came to
him while he was at Oxford, through a casual reading of Law’s _Call to
the Unconverted_. There were some years after that, he tells us, when he
was totally regardless of religion. But sickness and trouble brought it
back, “and I hope,” says he, “that I have never lost it since.”
He was not unwilling to converse with friends at fitting opportunities
in regard to religious subjects, and no one who heard him could have
remained long in doubt as to the nature of his views. There was one
conversation in particular, on the subject of the sacrifice of Christ, at
the close of which he solemnly dictated to his friend a brief statement
of his belief, saying finally, “The peculiar doctrine of Christianity
is that of an universal sacrifice and a perpetual propitiation. Other
prophets only proclaimed the will and the threatenings of God. Christ
satisfied his justice.” Again, one calm, bright Sunday afternoon, when he
was in a boat with some friends upon the sea (I think it was during his
journey to the Hebrides,) he fell into discourse with Boswell about the
fear of death, which was often very terrible to his mind. He would not
admit that the close of life ought to be regarded with cheerfulness or
indifference, or that a rational man should be as willing to leave the
world as to go out of a show-room after he has seen it. “No, sir,” said
he, “there is no rational principle by which a man can die contented, but
a trust in the mercy of God through the merits of Jesus Christ.” He was
not ashamed to say that he was afraid to die. He assumed no braggadocio
before the grave. He was honest with himself, and he felt that he needed
all the fortitude of a religious faith to meet the hour of dissolution
and the prospect of divine judgment without flinching. He could never
have understood the attitude of men who saunter as unconcernedly and
airily towards the day of judgment as if they were going to the play.
But Johnson was by no means given to unseasonable or unreasonable
religious discourse. He had a holy horror of cant, and of unprofitable
controversy. He once said of a friend who was more loquacious than
discreet, “Why, yes, sir; he will introduce religious discourse without
seeing whether it will end in instruction and improvement, or produce
some profane jest. He would introduce it in the company of Wilkes, and
twenty more _such_.”
It was Dr. Johnson’s custom to keep a book of _Prayers and Meditations_
for his own private use. These were printed after his death, and they
reveal to us the sincerity of his inner life as nothing else could do.
Think of the old man kneeling down in his room before he began the
painful labours of a studious day, and repeating this prayer:—
“_Against inquisitive and perplexing thoughts_: O Lord, my Maker and
Protector, who hast graciously sent me into this world to work out my
salvation, enable me to drive from me all such unquiet and perplexing
thoughts as may mislead or hinder me in the practice of those duties
which Thou hast required. When I behold the works of thy hands, and
consider the course of thy providence, give me grace always to remember
that thy thoughts are not my thoughts, nor thy ways my ways. And while
it shall please Thee to continue me in this world, where much is to be
done and little to be known, teach me by thy Holy Spirit to withdraw my
mind from unprofitable and dangerous inquiries, from difficulties vainly
curious, and doubts impossible to be solved. Let me rejoice in the light
which Thou hast imparted; let me serve Thee with active zeal and humble
confidence, and wait with patient expectation for the time in which the
soul Thou receivest shall be satisfied with knowledge. Grant this, O
Lord, for Jesus Christ’s sake. Amen.”
These are honest and sensible petitions. And the more a man knows, the
more devoted he is to serious and difficult studies, the more he ought to
feel the need of just such a divine defense and guidance. It is good to
be kept on the track. It is wise to mistrust your own doubts. It is happy
to be delivered from them.
The fundamental quality of Dr. Johnson’s religion was the sense of
reverence. He was never “known to utter the name of God but on proper
occasions and with due respect.” He approached the consideration of
divine things with genuine solemnity, and could not tolerate sacred
trifling or pious profanity. He was not ashamed to kneel where men could
see him, although he never courted their notice; or to pray where men
could hear him, although he did not desire their approbation any more
than he feared their ridicule.
There were grave faults and errors in his conduct. But no one had so
keen a sense of their unworthiness as the man himself, who was bravely
fighting against them, and sincerely lamenting their recurrence. They
often tripped him and humiliated him, but they never got him completely
down. He righted himself and went lumbering on. He never sold his heart
to a lie, never confused the evil and the good. When he sinned he knew
it and repented. It gives us confidence in his sincerity when we see him
denying himself the use of wine because he was naturally prone to excess,
and yet allowing it to his friends who were able to use it temperately.
He was no puritan; and, on the other hand, he was no slipshod condoner of
vice or suave preacher of moral indifference. He was a big, honest soul,
trying hard to live straight along the line of duty and to do good as he
found opportunity.
The kindness and generosity of his heart were known to few save his
intimate friends, and not always appreciated even by those who had most
cause to be grateful to him. The poor broken-down pensioners with whom
he filled his house in later years, and to whom he alluded playfully
as his _seraglio_, were a constant source of annoyance. They grumbled
perpetually and fought like so many cats. But he would not cast them off
any more than he would turn out his favourite mouser, Hodge, for whom he
used to “go out and buy oysters, lest the servants having that trouble
should take a dislike to the poor creature.” He gave away a large part
of his income in charity; and, what was still more generous, he devoted
a considerable portion of his time to counseling young and unsuccessful
authors and, (note this,) _reading their manuscripts_.
I suppose if one had been a poverty-stricken beginner at literature, in
London of the eighteenth century, the best thing one could have done
would have been to find the way to Dr. Johnson’s house and tell him
how the case stood. If he himself had no money to lend, he would have
borrowed it from some of his friends. And if he could not say anything
encouraging about the manuscripts, he would have been honest and kind
enough to advise the unhappy aspirant to fame to prefer the life of a
competent shoemaker to that of an incompetent scribbler.
Much of what was best in the character of Johnson came out in his
friendships. He was as good a lover as he was a hater. He was loyal to a
fault, and sincere, though never extravagant, in his admirations.
The picture of the old man in his last illness, surrounded by the friends
whom he had cherished so faithfully, and who now delighted to testify
their respect and affection for him, and brighten his lingering days with
every attention, has little of the customary horror of a death-bed. It
is strange indeed that he who had always been subject to such a dread of
dying should have found it possible to meet the hour of dissolution with
such composure. His old friend Sir Joshua Reynolds comes in to bid him
farewell, and Johnson makes three requests of him,—to forgive him thirty
pounds which he had borrowed from him, to read the Bible, and never to
use his pencil on a Sunday. Good petitions, which Sir Joshua readily
granted, although we cannot help fearing that he occasionally forgot the
last.
“Tell me,” says the sick man to his physician, “can I possibly recover?
Give me a direct answer.” Being hard pressed, Dr. Brocklesby confesses
that in his opinion recovery is out of the question. “Then,” says
Johnson, “I will take no more physick, not even my opiates: for I have
prayed that I may render up my soul to God unclouded.”
And so with kind and thoughtful words to his servant, and a “God bless
you, my dear” to the young daughter of a friend who stood lingering at
the door of his room, this sturdy old believer went out to meet the God
whom he had tried so honestly to serve. His life was an amazing victory
over poverty, sickness, and sin. Greatness alone could not have insured,
nor could perseverance alone have commanded, three of his good fortunes
in this world: that Sir Joshua Reynolds painted his portrait; that
Boswell wrote his biography; and that HIS WIFE said of him that “he was
the most sensible man she had ever met.”