I took Fingal down to the parlour in the morning, and tried a test
proposed by Mr Roderick M'Leod, son to Ulinish. Mr M'Queen had said he
had some of the poem in the original. I desired him to mention any
passage in the printed book, of which he could repeat the original. He
pointed out one in page 50 of the quarto edition, and read the Erse,
while Mr Roderick M'Leod and I looked on the English; and Mr M'Leod
said, that it was pretty like what Mr M'Queen had recited. But when Mr
M'Queen read a description of Cuchullin's sword in Erse, together with
a translation of it in English verse, by Sir James Foulis, Mr M'Leod
said, that was much more like than Mr M'Pherson's translation of the
former passage. Mr M'Queen then repeated in Erse a description of one
of the horses in Cuchillin's car. Mr M'Leod said, Mr M'Pherson's
English was nothing like it.
When Dr Johnson came down, I told him that I had now obtained some
evidence concerning Fingal; for that Mr M'Queen had repeated a passage
in the original Erse, which Mr M'Pherson's translation was pretty
like; and reminded him that he himself had once said, he did not
require Mr M'Pherson's Ossian to be more like the original than Pope's
Homer. JOHNSON. 'Well, sir, this is just what I always maintained. He
has found names, and stories, and phrases, nay passages in old songs,
and with them has blended his own compositions, and so made what he
gives to the world as the translation of an ancient poem.' If this was
the case, I observed, it was wrong to publish it as a poem in six
books. JOHNSON. 'Yes, sir; and to ascribe it to a time too when the
Highlanders knew nothing of BOOKS, and nothing of SIX; or perhaps were
got the length of counting six. We have been told, by Condamine, of a
nation that could count no more than four. This should be told to
Monboddo; it would help him. There is as much charity in helping a man
down-hill, as in helping him up-hill.' BOSWELL. 'I don't think there
is as much charity.' JOHNSON. 'Yes, sir, if his TENDENCY be downwards.
Till he is at the bottom, he flounders; get him once there, and he is
quiet. Swift tells, that Stella had a trick, which she learned from
Addison, of encouraging a man in absurdity, instead of endeavouring to
extricate him.'
Mr M'Queen's answers to the inquiries concerning Ossian were so
unsatisfactory, that I could not help observing, that, were he
examined in a court of justice, he would find himself under a
necessity of being more explicit. JOHNSON. 'Sir, he has told Blair a
little too much, which is published; and he sticks to it. He is so
much at the head of things here, that he has never been accustomed to
be closely examined; and so he goes on quite smoothly.' BOSWELL. 'He
has never had any body to work him.' JOHNSON. 'No, sir; and a man is
seldom disposed to work himself; though he ought to work himself, to
be sure.' Mr M'Queen made no reply. [Footnote: I think it but justice
to say, that I believe Dr Johnson meant to ascribe Mr M'Queen's
conduct to inaccuracy and enthusiasm, and did not mean any severe
imputation against him.]
Having talked of the strictness with which witnesses are examined in
courts of justice, Dr Johnson told us, that Garrick, though accustomed
to face multitudes, when produced as a witness in Westminster Hall,
was so disconcerted by a new mode of publick appearance, that he could
not understand what was asked. It was a cause where an actor claimed a
free benefit; that is to say, a benefit without paying the expence of
the house; but the meaning of the term was disputed. Garrick was
asked, 'Sir, have you a free benefit?' 'Yes.' 'Upon what terms have
you it?' 'Upon...the terms...of ...a FREE BENEFIT.' He was dismissed
as one from whom no information could be obtained. Dr Johnson is often
too hard on our friend Mr Garrick. When I asked him, why he did not
mention him in the Preface to his Shakspeare, he said, 'Garrick has
been liberally paid for any thing he has done for Shakspeare. If I
should praise him, I should much more praise the nation who paid him.
He has not made Shakspeare better known; [Footnote: It has been
triumphantly asked, 'Had not the plays of Shakspeare lain dormant for
many years before the appearance of Mr Garrick? Did he not exhibit the
most excellent of them frequently for thirty years together, and
render them extremely popular by his own inimitable performance?' He
undoubtedly did. But Dr Johnson's assertion has been misunderstood.
Knowing as well as the objectors what has been just stated, he must
necessarily have meant, that 'Mr Garrick did not as A CRITICK make
Shakspeare better known; he did not ILLUSTRATE any one PASSAGE in any
of his plays by acuteness of disquisition, sagacity of conjecture:'
and what had been done with any degree of excellence in THAT way was
the proper and immediate subject of his preface. I may add in support
of this explanation the following anecdote, related to me by one of
the ablest commentators on Shakspeare, who knew much of Dr Johnson:
'Now I have quitted the theatre,' cries Garrick, 'I will sit down and
read Shakspeare.' ''Tis time you should,' exclaimed Johnson, 'for I
much doubt if you ever examined one of his plays from the first scene
to the last.'] he cannot illustrate Shakspeare: So I have reasons
enough against mentioning him, were reasons necessary. There should be
reasons FOR it.' I spoke of Mrs Montague's very high praises of
Garrick. JOHNSON. 'Sir, it is fit she should say so much, and I should
say nothing. Reynolds is fond of her book, and I wonder at it; for
neither I, nor Beauclerk, nor Mrs Thrale, could get through it.'
[Footnote: No man has less inclination to controversy than I have,
particularly with a lady. But as I have claimed, and am conscious of
being entitled to, credit, for the strictest fidelity, my respect for
the publick obliges me to take notice of an insinuation which tends to
impeach it.
Mrs Piozzi (late Mrs Thrale), to her Anecdotes of Dr Johnson, added
the following postscript:
Naples, Feb. 10, 1786.
Since the foregoing went to the press, having seen a passage from Mr
Boswell's Tour to the Hebrides, in which it is said, that I could not
get through Mrs Montague's Essay on Shakspeare, I do not delay a
moment to declare, that, on the contrary, I have always commended it
myself, and heard it commended by every one else; and few things would
give me more concern than to be thought incapable of tasting, or
unwilling to testify my opinion of its excellence.
It is remarkable that this postscript is so expressed, as not to point
out the person who said that Mrs Thrale could not get through Mrs
Montague's book; and therefore I think it necessary to remind Mrs
Piozzi, that the assertion concerning her was Dr Johnson's, and not
mine. The second observation that I shall make on this postscript is,
that it does not deny the fact asserted, though I must acknowledge
from the praise it bestows on Mrs Montague's book, it may have been
designed to convey that meaning.
What Mrs Thrale's opinion is or was, or what she may or may not have
said to Dr Johnson concerning Mrs Montague's book, it is not necessary
for me to inquire. It is only incumbent on me to ascertain what Dr
Johnson said to me. I shall therefore confine myself to a very short
state of the fact.
The unfavourable opinion of Mrs Montague's book, which Dr Johnson is
here reported to have given, is known to have been that which is
uniformly expressed, as many of his friends well remember. So much for
the authenticity of the paragraph, as far as it relates to his own
sentiments. The words containing the assertion, to which Mrs Piozzi
objects, are printed from my manuscript Journal, and were taken down
at the time. The Journal was read by Dr Johnson, who pointed out some
inaccuracies, which I corrected, but did not mention any inaccuracy in
the paragraph in question: and what is still more material, and very
flattering to me, a considerable part of my Journal, containing this
paragraph, WAS READ SEVERAL YEARS AGO BY MRS THRALE HERSELF, who had
it for some time in her possession, and returned it to me, without
intimating that Dr Johnson had mistaken her sentiments.
When the first edition of my Journal was passing through the press, it
occurred to me, that a peculiar delicacy was necessary to be observed
in reporting the opinion of one literary lady concerning the
performance of another; and I had such scruples on that head, that in
the proof sheet I struck out the name of Mrs Thrale from the above
paragraph, and two or three hundred copies of my book were actually
printed and published without it; of these Sir Joshua Reynolds's copy
happened to be one. But while the sheet was working off, a friend, for
whose opinion I have great respect, suggested that I had no right to
deprive Mrs Thrale of the high honour which Dr Johnson had done her,
by stating her opinion along with that of Mr Beauclerk, as coinciding
with, and, as it were, sanctioning his own. The observation appeared
to me so weighty and conclusive, that I hastened to the printing
house, and, as a piece of justice, restored Mrs Thrale to that place
from which a too scrupulous delicacy had excluded her.