'Who drives fat oxen should himself be fat."" He was pleased with the kindness of Mr. Cator, who was joined with him in Mr. Thrale's important trust, and thus describes him := "There is much good in his character, and much usefulness in his knowledge." He found a cordial solace at that gentleman's seat of Beckenham, in Kent, which is indeed one of the finest places at which I ever was a guest. b Johnson seldom encouraged general censure of any profession; but he was willing to allow a due share of merit to the various departments necessary in civilized life. In a splenetick, sarcastical, or jocular frame, however, he would sometimes utter a pointed saying of that nature. One instance has been mentioned, where he gave a sudden satirical stroke to the character of an attorney. The too indiscriminate admission to that employment, which requires both abilities and integrity, has given rise to injurious reflections, which are totally inapplicable to many very respectable men who exercise it with reputation and honour. Johnson having argued for some time with a pertinacious gentleman; his opponent, who had talked in a very puzzling manner, happened to say, "I don't understand you, Sir:" upon which Johnson observed, "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding." Talking to me of Horry Walpole, (as the Honourable Horace Walpole is often called,) Johnson allowed that he got together a great many curious little things, and told them in an elegant manner. Mr. Walpole thought Johnson a more amiable character after reading his Letters to Mrs. Thrale; but never was one of the true admirers of that great man. We may suppose a prejudice conceived, if he ever heard Johnson's account to Sir George Staunton, that when he made the speeches in Parliament for the Gentleman's Magazine, "he always took care to put Sir Robert Walpole in the wrong, and to say everything he could against the electorate of Hanover." The celebrated Heroick Epistle, in which Johnson is satyrically introduced, has been ascribed both to Mr. Walpole and Mr. Mason. One day at Mr. Courtenay's, when a gentleman expressed his opinion that there was more energy in that poem than could be expected from Mr. Walpole; Mr. Warton, the late Laureat observed, "It may have been written by Walpole, and buckram'd by Mason." a "Letters to Mrs. Thrale, " Vol. II. p. 284. Yet see a curious story of him in the Maloniana, where he is described as a b See Vol. I. p. 396. money-lender. He disapproved of Lord Hailes for having modernised the language of the ever-memorable John Hailes of Eton, in an edition which his Lordship published of that writer's works. "An authour's language, Sir, (said he,) is a characteristical part of his composition, and is also characteristical of the age in which he writes. Besides, Sir, when the language is changed we not sure that the sense is the same. No, Sir; I am sorry Lord Hailes has done this." are Here it may be observed, that his frequent use of the expression, No, Sir, was not always to intimate contradiction; for he would say so, when he was about to enforce an affirmative proposition which had not been denied, as in the instance last mentioned. I used to consider it as a kind of flag of defiance; as if he had said, "Any argument you may offer against this is not just. No, Sir, it is not." It was like Falstaff's "I deny your Major." 1 66 66 1 Mr. Croker also heard, from Sir J. Mackintosh, that Burke had described Johnson as using this familiar Why no, Sir," as preface to an assent." Both Boswell and Burke seem to have misunderstood the matter. 66 'Boswell," writes Mr. Elwin, "reports these phrases with scrupulous fidelity, and we have the same materials upon which to found our judgment as he had himself. Now in all the instances, so far as I can remember, in which Johnson prefaces his assent with a 'No, Sir,' he and the person with whom he agrees are negativing some proposition, and the 'No, Sir' is a negative applied to the thing of which they are talking. At p. 491, (Croker) for example, Boswell says, "When you get to them [the Thrales] the pain will be so far abated that they will be capable of being consoled by you, which in the first violence of it, I believe, would not be the case.' Johnson replies, "No, Sir; violent pain of mind, like violent pain of body, must be severely felt,' where the meaning evidently is 'No, as you justly remark, they would not be consoled in the first violence of grief.' Boswell continues, I own, Sir, I have not so much feeling for the distress of others as some people have, or pretend to have, but I know this, that I would do all in my power to relieve them.' 'Sir,' said Johnson, assenting, 'it is affectation to pretend to feel the distress of others as much as they do themselves. No, Sir; you have expressed the rational and just nature of sympathy.' Here the 'No, Sir,' simply means, 'No; people have It not the feeling they often pretend to have.' So in the instance of the antiquated language which Lord Hailes had modernised in his reprint, and which was the occasion for what I think is Boswell's erroneous view of Johnson's phrase, the 'No, Sir,' signifies No, the language ought not to have been changed.' appears to remove all doubt on the point that Boswell has recorded numerous cases in which Johnson assents to an affirmative proposition, and then his phrase, I believe, is invariably Yes, Sir.' His 'No, Sir,' is confined to his concurrence in negative propositions. Take one or two examples out of many of the affirmative kind. At p. 229, (ibid.) Boswell says that respect for old families is one more incitement to do well, and Johnson replies, 'Yes, Sir, and it is a matter of opinion very necessary to keep society together.' At p. 263, Boswell observes that Goldsmith had a great deal of gold in his cabinet, but, not content with that, was always taking out his purse,' and Johnson answers, 'Yes, Sir, and that so often an empty purse.' 285, Boswell says, 'We have all observed how one man dresses himself slowly, and another fast,' and Johnson says, 'Yes, Sir, it is wonderful how much time some people will consume in dressing.' In the very next paragraph to that which contains Boswell's view of the 'No, Sir,' (p. 768), we are told that Reynolds, having remarked that the character of a man was found out by his amusements,' Johnson rejoined, 'Yes, Sir, no man is a hypocrite in his pleasures.' If Johnson At P : ing how full of knowledge, of sense, of sentiment. You get him with difficulty to your supper; and after having delighted every body and himself for a few hours, he is obliged to return home ;he is finishing his treatise, to prove that unhappiness is the portion of man." On Sunday, June 13, our philosopher was calm at breakfast. There was something exceedingly pleasing in our leading a College life, without restraint, and with superiour elegance, in consequence of our living in the Master's house, and having the company of ladies. Mrs. Kennicot related, in his presence, a lively saying of Dr. Johnson to Miss Hannah More, who had expressed a wonder that the poet who had written "Paradise Lost," should write such poor Sonnets:-"Milton, Madam, was a genius that could cut a Colossus from a rock; but could not carve heads upon cherrystones." 66 We talked of the casuistical question, Whether it was allowable at any time to depart from Truth? JOHNSON. "The general rule is, that Truth should never be violated, because it is of the utmost importance to the comfort of life, that we should have a full security by mutual faith; and occasional inconveniences should be willingly suffered that we may preserve it. There must, however, be some exceptions. If, for instance, a murderer should ask you which way a man is gone, you may tell him what is not true, because you are under a previous obligation not to betray a man to a murderer." BOSWELL. Supposing the person who wrote Junius were asked whether he was the authour, might he deny it?" JOHNSON. "I don't know what to say to this. If you were sure that he wrote Junius, would you, if he denied it, think as well of him afterwards? Yet it may be urged, that what a man has no right to ask, you may refuse to communicate; and there is no other effectual mode of preserving a secret, and an important secret, the discovery of which may be very hurtful to you, but a flat denial; for if you are silent, or hesitate, or evade, it will be held equivalent to a confession. But stay, Sir; here is another case. Supposing the authour had told me confidentially that he had written Junius, and I were asked if he had, I should hold myself at liberty to deny it, as being under a previous promise, express or implied, to conceal it. Now what I ought to do for the authour, may I not do for myself? But I deny the lawfulness of telling a lie to a sick man for fear of alarming him. You have no business with consequences: you are to tell the truth. Besides, you are not sure what effect your telling him that he is in danger may have. It may bring his distemper to a crisis, and that may cure him. Of all lying I have the greatest abhorrence at this, because I believe it has been frequently practised on myself." I cannot help thinking, that there is much weight in the opinion of those who have held, that Truth, as an eternal and immutable principle, ought, upon no account whatever, to be violated, from supposed previous or superiour obligations, of which every man being the judge for himself, there is great danger that we may too often, from partial motives, persuade ourselves that they exist; and probably whatever extraordinary instances may sometimes occur, where some evil may be prevented by violating this noble principle, it would be found that human happiness would, upon the whole, be more perfect were Truth universally preserved. In the Notes to the "Dunciad" we find the following elegant and pathetick verses, addressed to Pope: " "While malice, Pope, denies thy page Its own celestial fire; While criticks, and while bards in rage "While wayward pens thy worth assail, These times, though many a friend bewail, "But when the world's loud praise is thine, "When none shall rail, and every lay That day (for come it will) that day Shall I lament to see." It is surely not a little remarkable, that they should appear withove a name. Miss Seward, knowing Dr. Johnson's almost universal and minute literary information, signified a desire that I should ask him who was the authour. He was prompt with his answer :"Why, Sir, they were written by one Lewis, an under-master or usher of Westminster school, who published a miscellany, in which 'Grongar Hill' first came out." Johnson praised them highly The annotator calls them "amiable verses.' 29 Sir Joshua Reynolds having said that he took the altitude of a man's taste by his stories and his wit, and of his understanding by the remarks which he repeated; being always sure that he must be a weak man who quotes common things with an emphasis as if they were oracles. Johnson agreed with him; and Sir Joshua having also observed that the real character of a man was found out by his amusements-JOHNSON. "Yes, Sir; no man is a hypocrite in his pleasures." Had Johnson treated at large De Claris Oratoribus, he might have given us an admirable work. When the Duke of Bedford attacked the ministry as vehemently as he could, for having taken upon them to extend the time for the importation of corn, Lord Chatham, in his first speech in the House of Lords, boldly avowed himself to be an adviser of that measure. "My colleagues, (said he,) as I was confined by indisposition, did me the signal honour of coming to the bed-side of a sick man, to ask his opinion. But, had they not thus condescended, I should have taken up my bed and walked, in order to have delivered that opinion at the Council Board." Mr. Langton, who was present, mentioned this to Johnson, who observed, "Now, Sir, we see that he took these words as he found them; without considering, that though the expression in Scripture, take up thy bed and walk, strictly suited the instance of the sick man restored to health and strength, who would of course be supposed to carry his bed with him, it could not be proper in the case of a man who was lying in a state of feebleness, and who certainly would not add to the difficulty of moving at all, that of carrying his bed." When I pointed out to him in the news-paper one of Mr. Grattan's animated and glowing speeches, in favour of the freedom of Ireland, in which this expression occurred, (I know not if accurately taken): "We will persevere, till there is not one link of the English chain left to clank upon the rags of the meanest beggar in Ireland.” Cor. et Ad.—After line 8 read :—“I have mentioned Johnson's general aversion to a pun. He once, however, endured one of mine. When we were talking of a numerous company in which he had distinguished himself highly, I said, 'Sir, you were a COD surrounded by smelts. Is not this enough for you? at a time too when you were not fishing for a compliment?' He laughed at this with a complacent approbation. Old Mr. Sheridan observed, upon my mentioning it to him, 'He liked your compliment so well, he was willing to take it with pun sauce.' For my own part I think no innocent species of wit or pleasantry should be suppressed: and that a good pun may be admitted among the smaller excellencies of lively conver sation." always said Yes, Sir,' when assenting to affirmative propositions, and 'No, sir,' when he concurred in negativing propositions, nothing seems clearer than that the 'No, Sir' was applied by him to the proposition he concurred in negativing."-Letter of Rev. W. Elwin to the Author. |