University of Cambridge, with his friend Mr. Beauclerk. There is a
lively picturesque account of his behaviour on this visit, in _The
Gentleman's Magazine_ for March 1785, being an extract of a letter from
the late Dr. John Sharp. The two following sentences are very
characteristical:--
'He drank his large potations of tea with me, interrupted by many an
indignant contradiction, and many a noble sentiment,'--'Several persons
got into his company the last evening at Trinity, where, about twelve,
he began to be very great; stripped poor Mrs. Macaulay to the very skin,
then gave her for his toast, and drank her in two bumpers[1424].'
The strictness of his self-examination and scrupulous Christian humility
appear in his pious meditation on Easter-day this year.
'I purpose again to partake of the blessed sacrament; yet when I
consider how vainly I have hitherto resolved at this annual
commemoration of my Saviour's death, to regulate my life by his laws, I
am almost afraid to renew my resolutions.'
The concluding words are very remarkable, and shew that he laboured
under a severe depression of spirits.
'Since the last Easter I have reformed no evil habit, my time has been
unprofitably spent, and seems as a dream that has left nothing behind.
_My memory grows confused, and I know not how the days pass over me_.
Good Lord deliver me[1425]!'
[Page 488: Trinity College, Dublin. A.D. 1765.]
No man was more gratefully sensible of any kindness done to him than
Johnson. There is a little circumstance in his diary this year, which
shews him in a very amiable light.
'July 2.--I paid Mr. Simpson ten guineas, which he had formerly lent me
in my necessity and for which Tetty expressed her gratitude.'
'July 8.--I lent Mr. Simpson ten guineas more[1426].'
Here he had a pleasing opportunity of doing the same kindness to an old
friend, which he had formerly received from him. Indeed his liberality
as to money was very remarkable. The next article in his diary is,
'July 16.--I received seventy-five pounds[1427]. Lent Mr. Davis
twenty-five.'
Trinity College, Dublin, at this time surprised Johnson with a
spontaneous compliment of the highest academical honours, by creating
him Doctor of Laws[1428]. The diploma, which is in my possession, is as
follows:
[Page 489: Johnson created Doctor of Laws. Ætat 56.]
'_OMNIBUS ad quos præsentes literae pervenerint, salutem. Nos Præpositus
et Socii seniores Collegii sacrosanctæ et individuæ Trinitatis Reginæ
Elizabethæ juxta Dublin, testamur_, Samueli Johnson, _Armigero[1429], ob
egregiam scriptorum elegantiam et utilitatem, gratiam concessam fuisse
pro gradu Doctoratus in utroque Jure, octavo die Julii, Anno Domini
millesimo septingentesimo sexagesimo-quinto. In cujus rei testimonium
singulorum manus et sigillum quo in hisce utimur apposuimus; vicesimo
tertio die Julii, Anno Domini millesimo septingentesimo
sexagesimo-quinto.
'GUL. CLEMENT. FRAN. ANDREWS. R. MURRAY.
'THO. WILSON. Præps. ROBtus LAW.
'THO. LELAND. MICH. KEARNEY.'
This unsolicited mark of distinction, conferred on so great a literary
character, did much honour to the judgement and liberal spirit of that
learned body. Johnson acknowledged the favour in a letter to Dr. Leland,
one of their number; but I have not been able to obtain a copy of it.
[1430]
He appears this year to have been seized with a temporary fit of
ambition, for he had thoughts both of studying law and of engaging in
politics. His 'Prayer before the Study of Law' is truly admirable:--
'Sept. 26, 1765.
'Almighty GOD, the giver of wisdom, without whose help resolutions are
vain, without whose blessing study is ineffectual; enable me, if it be
thy will, to attain such knowledge as may qualify me to direct the
doubtful, and instruct the ignorant; to prevent wrongs and terminate
contentions; and grant that I may use that knowledge which I shall
attain, to thy glory and my own salvation, for JESUS CHRIST'S sake.
Amen[1431].'
[Page 490: Johnson's introduction to the Thrales. A.D. 1765.]
His prayer in the view of becoming a politician is entitled, 'Engaging
in POLITICKS with H----n,' no doubt his friend, the Right Honourable
William Gerard Hamilton[1432], for whom, during a long acquaintance, he had
a great esteem, and to whose conversation he once paid this high
compliment: 'I am very unwilling to be left alone, Sir, and therefore I
go with my company down the first pair of stairs, in some hopes that
they may, perhaps, return again. I go with you, Sir, as far as the
street-door.' In what particular department he intended to engage does
not appear, nor can Mr. Hamilton explain[1433]. His prayer is in general
terms:--
'Enlighten my understanding with knowledge of right, and govern my will
by thy laws, that no deceit may mislead me, nor temptation corrupt me;
that I may always endeavour to do good, and hinder evil[1434].'
There is nothing upon the subject in his diary.
[Page 491: Old Thrale. Ætat 56.]
This year[1435] was distinguished by his being introduced into the family
of Mr. Thrale, one of the most eminent brewers in England, and Member of
Parliament for the borough of Southwark. Foreigners are not a little
amazed when they hear of brewers, distillers, and men in similar
departments of trade, held forth as persons of considerable consequence.
In this great commercial country it is natural that a situation which
produces much wealth should be considered as very respectable; and, no
doubt, honest industry is entitled to esteem. But, perhaps, the too
rapid advance of men of low extraction tends to lessen the value of that
distinction by birth and gentility, which has ever been found beneficial
to the grand scheme of subordination. Johnson used to give this account
of the rise of Mr. Thrale's father: 'He worked at six shillings a week
for twenty years in the great brewery, which afterwards was his own. The
proprietor of it had an only daughter, who was married to a nobleman. It
was not fit that a peer should continue the business. On the old man's
death, therefore, the brewery was to be sold. To find a purchaser for so
large a property was a difficult matter; and, after some time, it was
suggested, that it would be adviseable to treat with Thrale, a sensible,
active, honest man, who had been employed in the house, and to transfer
the whole to him for thirty thousand pounds, security being taken upon
the property. This was accordingly settled. In eleven years Thrale paid
the purchase-money[1436]. He acquired a large fortune, and lived to be
Member of Parliament for Southwark. But what was most remarkable was the
liberality with which he used his riches. He gave his son and daughters
the best education. The esteem which his good conduct procured him from
the nobleman who had married his master's daughter, made him be treated
with much attention; and his son, both at school and at the University
of Oxford, associated with young men of the first rank. His allowance
from his father, after he left college, was splendid; no less than a
thousand a year. This, in a man who had risen as old Thrale did, was a
very extraordinary instance of generosity. He used to say, 'If this
young dog does not find so much after I am gone as he expects, let him
remember that he has had a great deal in my own time.'
The son, though in affluent circumstances, had good sense enough to
carry on his father's trade, which was of such extent, that I remember
he once told me, he would not quit it for an annuity of ten thousand a
year; 'Not (said he,) that I get ten thousand a year by it, but it is an
estate to a family.' Having left daughters only, the property was sold
for the immense sum of one hundred and thirty-five thousand pounds[1437]; a
magnificent proof of what may be done by fair trade in no long period of
time.
[Page 492: A new system of gentility. A.D. 1765.]
There may be some who think that a new system of gentility[1438] might be
established, upon principles totally different from what have hitherto
prevailed. Our present heraldry, it may be said, is suited to the
barbarous times in which it had its origin. It is chiefly founded upon
ferocious merit, upon military excellence. Why, in civilised times, we
may be asked, should there not be rank and honours, upon principles,
which, independent of long custom, are certainly not less worthy, and
which, when once allowed to be connected with elevation and precedency,
would obtain the same dignity in our imagination? Why should not the
knowledge, the skill, the expertness, the assiduity, and the spirited
hazards of trade and commerce, when crowned with success, be entitled to
give those flattering distinctions by which mankind are so universally
captivated?
Such are the specious, but false arguments for a proposition which
always will find numerous advocates, in a nation where men are every day
starting up from obscurity to wealth. To refute them is needless. The
general sense of mankind cries out, with irresistible force, 'Un
gentilhomme est toujours gentilhomme'[1439].
[Page 493: A new home for Johnson. Ætat 56.]
Mr. Thrale had married Miss Hesther Lynch Salusbury, of good Welsh
extraction[1440], a lady of lively talents, improved by education. That
Johnson's introduction into Mr. Thrale's family, which contributed so
much to the happiness of his life, was owing to her desire for his
conversation, is very probable and a general supposition: but it is not
the truth. Mr. Murphy, who was intimate with Mr. Thrale[1441], having
spoken very highly of Dr. Johnson, he was requested to make them
acquainted[1442]. This being mentioned to Johnson, he accepted of an
invitation to dinner at Thrale's, and was so much pleased with his
reception, both by Mr. and Mrs. Thrale, and they so much pleased with
him, that his invitations to their house were more and more frequent,
till at last he became one of the family, and an apartment was
appropriated to him, both in their house in Southwark, and in their
villa at Streatham[1443].
[Page 494: Mr. Thrale. A.D. 1765.]
Johnson had a very sincere esteem for Mr. Thrale, as a man of excellent
principles, a good scholar, well skilled in trade, of a sound
understanding, and of manners such as presented the character of a plain
independent English 'Squire[1444]. As this family will frequently be
mentioned in the course of the following pages, and as a false notion
has prevailed that Mr. Thrale was inferiour, and in some degree
insignificant, compared with Mrs. Thrale, it may be proper to give a
true state of the case from the authority of Johnson himself in his own
words.
[Page 495: Mrs. Thrale. Ætat 56.]
'I know no man, (said he,) who is more master of his wife and family
than Thrale. If he but holds up a finger, he is obeyed. It is a great
mistake to suppose that she is above him in literary attainments[1445]. She
is more flippant; but he has ten times her learning: he is a regular
scholar; but her learning is that of a school-boy in one of the lower
forms.' My readers may naturally wish for some representation of the
figures of this couple. Mr. Thrale was tall, well proportioned, and
stately. As for Madam, or my Mistress[1446], by which epithets Johnson used
to mention Mrs. Thrale, she was short, plump, and brisk[1447]. She has
herself given us a lively view of the idea which Johnson had of her
person, on her appearing before him in a dark-coloured gown; 'You little
creatures should never wear those sort of clothes, however; they are
unsuitable in every way. What! have not all insects gay colours[1448]?' Mr.
Thrale gave his wife a liberal indulgence, both in the choice of their
company, and in the mode of entertaining them. He understood and valued
Johnson, without remission, from their first acquaintance to the day of
his death. Mrs. Thrale was enchanted with Johnson's conversation, for
its own sake, and had also a very allowable vanity in appearing to be
honoured with the attention of so celebrated a man.
[Page 496: Johnson's SHAKSPEARE published. A.D. 1765.]
Nothing could be more fortunate for Johnson than this connection[1449]. He
had at Mr. Thrale's all the comforts and even luxuries of life; his
melancholy was diverted, and his irregular habits lessened[1450] by
association with an agreeable and well-ordered family. He was treated
with the utmost respect, and even affection. The vivacity of Mrs.
Thrale's literary talk roused him to cheerfulness and exertion, even
when they were alone. But this was not often the case; for he found here
a constant succession of what gave him the highest enjoyment: the
society of the learned, the witty, and the eminent in every way, who
were assembled in numerous companies[1451], called forth his wonderful
powers, and gratified him with admiration, to which no man could be
insensible.
[Page 497: Dr. Kenrick. Ætat 56.]
In the October of this year[1452] he at length gave to the world his
edition of _Shakspeare_[1453], which, if it had no other merit but that of
producing his Preface[1454], in which the excellencies and defects of that
immortal bard are displayed with a masterly hand, the nation would have
had no reason to complain. A blind indiscriminate admiration of
Shakspeare had exposed the British nation to the ridicule of
foreigners[1455]. Johnson, by candidly admitting the faults of his poet,
had the more credit in bestowing on him deserved and indisputable
praise; and doubtless none of all his panegyrists have done him half so
much honour. Their praise was, like that of a counsel, upon his own side
of the cause: Johnson's was like the grave, well-considered, and
impartial opinion of the judge, which falls from his lips with weight,
and is received with reverence. What he did as a commentator has no
small share of merit, though his researches were not so ample, and his
investigations so acute as they might have been, which we now certainly
know from the labours of other able and ingenious criticks who have
followed him[1456]. He has enriched his edition with a concise account of
each play, and of its characteristick excellence. Many of his notes have
illustrated obscurities in the text, and placed passages eminent for
beauty in a more conspicuous light; and he has in general exhibited such
a mode of annotation, as may be beneficial to all subsequent editors[1457].
[Page 498: Johnson's attack on Voltaire. A.D. 1785.]
His _Shakespeare_ was virulently attacked by Mr. William Kenrick, who
obtained the degree of LL.D. from a Scotch University, and wrote for the
booksellers in a great variety of branches. Though he certainly was not
without considerable merit, he wrote with so little regard to decency
and principles, and decorum[1458], and in so hasty a manner, that his
reputation was neither extensive nor lasting. I remember one evening,
when some of his works were mentioned, Dr. Goldsmith said, he had never
heard of them; upon which Dr. Johnson observed, 'Sir, he is one of the
many who have made themselves _publick_, without making themselves
_known_[1459].'
A young student of Oxford, of the name of Barclay, wrote an answer to
Kenrick's review of Johnson's _Shakspeare_. Johnson was at first angry
that Kenrick's attack should have the credit of an answer. But
afterwards, considering the young man's good intention, he kindly
noticed him, and probably would have done more, had not the young man
died[1460].
[Page 499: Voltaire's reply. Ætat 56.]
In his Preface to _Shakspeare_, Johnson treated Voltaire very
contemptuously, observing, upon some of his remarks, 'These are the
petty criticisms of petty wits[1461].' Voltaire, in revenge, made an attack
upon Johnson, in one of his numerous literary sallies, which I remember
to have read; but there being no general index to his voluminous works,
have searched in vain, and therefore cannot quote it[1462].
Voltaire was an antagonist with whom I thought Johnson should not
disdain to contend. I pressed him to answer. He said, he perhaps might;
but he never did.
Mr. Burney having occasion to write to Johnson for some receipts for
subscriptions to his Shakspeare, which Johnson had omitted to deliver
when the money was paid[1463], he availed himself of that opportunity of
thanking Johnson for the great pleasure which he had received from the
perusal of his Preface to _Shakspeare_; which, although it excited much
clamour against him at first, is now justly ranked among the most
excellent of his writings. To this letter Johnson returned the following
answer:--
[Page 500: Resolutions at church.]
'To CHARLES BURNEY ESQ. IN POLAND-STREET.
'SIR,
'I am sorry that your kindness to me has brought upon you so much
trouble, though you have taken care to abate that sorrow, by the
pleasure which I receive from your approbation. I defend my criticism in
the same manner with you. We must confess the faults of our favourite,
to gain credit to our praise of his excellencies. He that claims, either
in himself or for another, the honours of perfection, will surely injure
the reputation which he designs to assist.
'Be pleased to make my compliments to your family.
'I am, Sir,
'Your most obliged
'And most humble servant,
'Sam. Johnson.'
'Oct. 16, 1765.[1464]'
From one of his journals I transcribed what follows:
'At church, Oct. --65.
'To avoid all singularity; _Bonaventura_[1465].
'To come in before service, and compose my mind by meditation, or by
reading some portions of scriptures. _Tetty_.
'If I can hear the sermon, to attend it, unless attention be more
troublesome than useful.
'To consider the act of prayer as a reposal of myself upon God, and a
resignation of 'all into his holy hand.'
APPENDIX A
JOHNSON'S DEBATES IN PARLIAMENT.
(_Pages_ 118 _and_ 150.)
The publication of the 'Debates' in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ began in
July 1732. The names of the speakers were not printed in full; Sir
Robert Walpole was disguised--if a disguise it can be called--as Sir
R----t W----le, and Mr. Pelham as Mr. P--lh--m. Otherwise the report was
open and avowed. During the first few years, however, it often happened
that no attempt was made to preserve the individuality of the members.
Thus in a debate on the number of seamen (_Gent. Mag_. v. 507), the
speeches of the 'eight chief speakers' were so combined as to form but
three. First come 'the arguments made use of for 30,000 men;' next, 'an
answer to the following effect;' and lastly, 'a reply that was in
substance as follows.' Each of these three speeches is in the first
person, though each is formed of the arguments of two members at least,
perhaps of many. In the report of a two days' debate in 1737, in which
there were fourteen chief speakers, the substance of thirteen of the
speeches was given in three (_ib_. vii. 746, 775). In July 1736 (_ib_.
vi. 363) we find the beginning of a great change. 'To satisfy the
impatience of his readers,' the publisher promises 'to give them
occasionally some entire speeches.' He prints one which likely enough
had been sent to him by the member who had spoken it, and adds that he
shall be 'grateful for any authentic intelligence in matters of such
importance and _tenderness_ as the speeches in Parliament' (_ib_. p.
365). Cave, in his examination before the House of Lords on April 30,
1747, on a charge of having printed in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ an
account of the trial of Lord Lovat, owned that 'he had had speeches sent
him by the members themselves, and had had assistance from some members
who have taken notes of other members' speeches' (_Parl. Hist_. xiv.
60).
It was chiefly in the numbers of the _Magazine_ for the latter half of
each year that the publication took place. The parliamentary recess was
the busy time for reporters and printers. It was commonly believed that
the resolution on the Journals of the House of Commons against
publishing any of its proceedings was only in force while parliament was
sitting. But on April 13, 1738, it was unanimously resolved 'that it is
an high indignity to, and a notorious breach of the privilege of this
House to give any account of the debates, as well during the recess as
the sitting of parliament' (_Parl. Hist_. x. 812). It was admitted that
this privilege expired at the end of every parliament. When the
dissolution had come every one might publish what he pleased. With the
House of Lords it was far otherwise, for 'it is a Court of Record, and
as such its rights and privileges never die. It may punish a printer for
printing any part of its proceedings for thirty or forty years back'
(_ib_. p. 807). Mr. Winnington, when speaking to this resolution of
April 13, said that if they did not put a speedy stop to this practice
of reporting 'they will have every word that is spoken here by
_gentlemen_ misrepresented by _fellows_ who thrust themselves into our
gallery' (_ib_. p. 806). Walpole complained 'that he had been made to
speak the very reverse of what he meant. He had read debates wherein all
the wit, the learning, and the argument had been thrown into one side,
and on the other nothing but what was low, mean, and ridiculous' (_ib_.
p. 809). Later on, Johnson in his reports 'saved appearances tolerably
well; but took care that the WHIG DOGS should not have the best of it'
(Murphy's _Johnson_, p. 45).
It was but a few days after he became a contributor to the _Magazine_
that this resolution was passed. Parliament rose on May 20, and in the
June number the reports of the debates of the Senate of Lilliput began.
To his fertile mind was very likely due this humorous expedient by which
the resolution of the House was mocked. That he wrote the introduction
in which is narrated the voyage of Captain Gulliver's grandson to
Lilliputia can scarcely be doubted. It bears all the marks of his early
style. The Lords become Hurgoes, and the Commons Clinabs, Walpole
becomes Walelop, Pulteney Pulnub, and Pitt Ptit; otherwise the report is
much as it had been. At the end of the volume for 1739 was given a key
to all the names. The _London Magazine_ had boldly taken the lead. In
the May number, which was published at the close of the month, and
therefore after parliament had risen, began the report of the
proceedings and debates of a political and learned club of young
noblemen and gentlemen, who hoped one day to enter parliament, and who
therefore, the better to qualify themselves for their high position,
only debated questions that were there discussed. To the speakers were
given the names of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Thus we find the Hon.
Marcus Cato and the Right Hon. M. Tullius Cicero. By the key that was
published in 1742 Cicero was seen to be Walpole, and Cato, Pulteney.
What risks the publishers and writers ran was very soon shown. In
December 1740 the ministers proposed to lay an embargo on various
articles of food. As the members entered the House a printed paper was
handed to each, entitled _Considerations upon the Embargo_. Adam Smith
had just gone up as a young student to the University of Oxford. There
are 'considerations' suggested in this paper which the great authority
of the author of the _Wealth of Nations_ has not yet made pass current
as truths. The paper contained, moreover, charges of jobbery against
'great men,' though no one was named. It was at once voted a malicious
and scandalous libel, and the author, William Cooley, a scrivener, was
committed to Newgate. With him was sent the printer of the _Daily Post_,
in which part of the _Considerations_ had been published. After seven
weeks' imprisonment in the depth of winter in that miserable den,
'without sufficient sustenance to support life,' Cooley was discharged
on paying his fees. He was in knowledge more than a hundred years before
his time, and had been made to suffer accordingly. The printer would
have been discharged also, but the fees were more than he could pay. Two
months later he petitioned for mercy. The fees by that time were £121.
His petition was not received, and he was kept in prison till the close
of the session (_Parl. Hist_. xi. 867-894).