After Mr. Erskine was gone, a discussion took place, whether the present Earl of Buchan, when Lord Cardross, did right to refuse to go secretary of the embassy to Spain, when Sir James Gray, a man of inferior rank, went ambassador. Dr. Johnson said, that perhaps in point of interest he did wrong; but in point of dignity he did well. Sir Alexander insisted that he was wrong; and said that Mr. Pitt intended it as an advantageous thing for him. "Why, Sir," said Johnson, "Mr. Pitt might think it an advantageous thing for him to make him a vintner, and get him all the Portugal trade: but he would have demeaned himself strangely, had he accepted of such a situation. Sir, had he gone secretary while his inferior was ambassador, he would have been a traitor to his rank and family." I talked of the little attachment which subsisted between near relations in London. "Sir," said Johnson, " in a country so commercial as ours, where every man can do for himself, there is not so much occasion for that attachment. No man is thought the worse of here, whose brother was hanged. In uncommercial countries, many of the branches of a family must depend on the stock; so, in order to make the head of the family take care of them, they are represented as connected with his reputation, that, self-love being interested, he may exert himself to promote their interest. You have, first, large circles, or clans; as commerce increases, the connection, is confined to families; by degrees, that too goes off, as having become unnecessary, and there being few opportunities of intercourse. One brother is a merchant in the city, and another is an officer in the guards: how little intercourse can these two have!" I argued warmly for the old feudal system. Sir Alexander opposed it, and talked of the pleasure of seeing all men free and independent. JOHNSON. "I agree with Mr. Boswell, that there must be high satisfaction in being a feudal lord; but we are to consider, that we ought not to wish to have a number of men unhappy for the satisfaction of one." I maintained that numbers, namely, the vassals or followers, were not un happy; for that there was a reciprocal satisfaction between the lord and them, he being kind in his authority over them, they being respectful and faithful to him. On Thursday, April 9, I called on him to beg he would go and dine with me at the Mitre tavern. He had resolved not to dine at all this day. I know not for what reason; and I was so unwilling to be deprived of his company, that I was content to submit to suffer a want, which was at first somewhat painful; but he soon made me forget it: and a man is always pleased with himself when he finds his intellectual inclinations predominate. He observed, that to reason philosophically on the nature of prayer, was very unprofitable. Talking of ghosts, he said, he knew one friend, who was an honest man and a sensible man, who told him he had seen a ghost; old Mr. Edward Cave, the printer at St. John's Gate. He said, Mr. Cave did not like to talk of it, and seemed to be in great horror whenever it was mentioned. BosWELL. "Pray, Sir, what did he say was the appearance?" JOHNSON. "Why, Sir, something of a shadowy being." I mentioned witches, and asked him what they properly meant. JOHNSON. "Why, Sir, they properly mean those who make use of the aid of evil spirits." BoSWELL. "There is no doubt, Sir, a general report and belief of their having existed." JOHNSON. "You have not only the general report and belief, but you have many voluntary solemn confessions." He did not affirm anything positively upon a subject which it is the fashion of the times to laugh at as a matter of absurd credulity. He only seemed willing, as a candid inquirer after truth, however strange and inexplicable, to show that he understood what might be urged for it.' On Friday, April 10, I dined with him at General Oglethorpe's, where we found Dr. Goldsmith. 1 See this curious question treated by him with most acute ability, Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides, 3rd ed., p. 33. James Edward Oglethorpe, the fourth son of Sir Theophilus Oglethorpe, of Godalming, Surrey, was born 1698, and after a life of varied Armorial bearings having been mentioned, Johnson said, they were as ancient as the siege of Thebes, which he proved by a passage in one of the tragedies of Euripides.' I started the question, whether duelling was consistent with moral duty. The brave old general fired at this, and said, with a lofty air, "Undoubtedly a man has a right to defend his honour." GOLDSMITH (turning to me). "I ask you first, Sir, what would you do if you were affronted ?" I answered, I should think it necessary to fight. "Why then," replied Goldsmith, "that solves the question." JOHNSON. "No, Sir, it does not solve the question. It does not follow, that what a man would do is therefore right." I said, I wished to have it settled, whether duelling was contrary to the laws of Christianity. Johnson immediately entered on the subject, and treated it in a masterly manner; and, so far as I have been able to recollect, his thoughts were these: "Sir, as men become in a high degree refined, various causes of offence arise; which are considered to be of such importance, that life must be staked to atone for them, though in reality they are not so. A body that has received a very fine polish may be easily hurt. Before men arrive at this artificial refinement, if one tells his neighbour-he lies, his neighbour tells him-he lies; if one gives his neighbour a blow, his neighbour gives him a blow; but in a state of highly polished society, an affront is held to be a serious injury. It must, therefore, be resented, or rather experience died, the oldest general officer in the British Army, June 30, 1785. No adequate life of this remarkable man has ever been written. At a dinner at Oglethorpe's house, Monday, April 10, 1775, Johnson. urged the General to write his own life. He said, "I know no man whose life would be more interesting. If I were furnished with the materials I should be very glad to write it." It would seem also as if Boswell had made collections for this purpose: see post, note under date.—Editor. 1 The passage to which Johnson alluded is to be found (as I conjecture) in the Phænissæ, l. 1120. Καὶ πρῶτα μὲν προσῆγε, κ. τ. λ. F. Boswell, jun. a duel must be fought upon it; as men have agreed to banish from society one who puts up with an affront without fighting a duel. Now, Sir, it is never unlawful to fight in self-defence. He, then, who fights a duel, does not fight from passion against his antagonist, but out of self-defence; to avert the stigma of the world, and to prevent himself from being driven out of society. I could wish there was not that superfluity of refinement; but while such notions prevail, no doubt a man may lawfully fight a duel." "Let it be remembered, that this justification is applicable only to the person who receives an affront. All mankind must condemn the aggressor." The General told us, that, when he was a very young man, I think only fifteen, serving under Prince Eugene of Savoy, he was sitting in a company at table with a prince of Wirtemberg. The prince took up a glass of wine, and, by a fillip, made some of it fly in Oglethorpe's face. Here was a nice dilemma. To have challenged him instantly, might have fixed a quarrelsome character upon the young soldier: to have taken no notice of it, might have been considered as cowardice. Oglethorpe, therefore, keeping his eye upon the prince, and smiling all the time, as if he took what his highness had done in jest, said "Mon Prince," (I forget the French words he used; the purport however was) "That's a good joke; but we do it much better in England;" and threw a whole glass of wine in the prince's face. An old general, who sat by, said, "Il a bien fait, mon prince, vous l'avez commencé :" and thus all ended in good humour. Dr. Johnson said, "Pray, General, give us an account of the siege of Belgrade." Upon which the general, pouring a little 2 'The frequent disquisitions on this subject bring painfully to recollection the death of Mr. Boswell's eldest son, Sir Alexander, who was killed in a duel, arising from a political dispute, on the 26th of March, 1822, by Mr. Stuart, of Dunearn.-Croker. This conversation on duelling was quoted on Mr. Stuart's trial by his counsel, Mr. Jeffrey, afterwards Lord Jeffrey.-Lockhart. 2 Oglethorpe, when a young man, was a volunteer in the army of Prince Eugene, and was present with Eugene's army at the operations against wine upon the table, described every thing with a wet finger : "Here we were; here were the Turks," &c. &c. Johnson listened with the closest attention. A question was started, how far people who disagree in a capital point can live in friendship together. Johnson said they might. Goldsmith said they could not, as they had not the idem velle atque idem nolle-the same likings and the same aversions. JOHNSON. "Why, Sir, you must shun the subject as to which you disagree, For instance, I can live very well with Burke: I love his knowledge, his genius, his diffusion and affluence of conversation; but I would not talk to him of the Rockingham party." GOLDSMITH. "But, Sir, when people live together who have something as to which they disagree, and which they want to shun, they will be in the situation mentioned in the story of Bluebeard: 'You may look into all the chambers but one.' But we should have the greatest inclination to look into that chamber, to talk of that subject." JOHNSON (with a loud voice). "Sir, I am not saying that you could live in friendship with a man from whom you differ as to some point; I am only saying that I could do it. You put me in mind of Sappho in Ovid." " Goldsmith told us, that he was now busy in writing a Natural History; and, that he might have full leisure for it, he had taken lodgings at a farmer's house, near to the six mile-stone, on the Edgeware-road, and had càrried down his books in two the Turks, which resulted (1717) in the capitulation of Belgrade. — Editor. 1 Mr. Boswell's note being here rather short, as taken at the time, with a view, perhaps, to future revision, Johnson's remark is obscure, and requires to be a little opened. What he said probably was, You seem to think that two friends, to live well together, must be in perfect harmony with each other; that each should be to the other what Sappho boasts she was to her lover, and uniformly agree in every particular; but this is by no means necessary, &c. The words of Sappho alluded to are "Omnique a parte placebam." Ovid. Epist. Sapph. ad Phaonem, 1. 45.—Malone. 2 Published, in 1774, in eight volumes, 8vo., under the title of a History of the Earth and Animated Nature. Printed for J. Nourse.-Editor. |