a

1

1

1776. -ranean.” The General observed, that “ The MedITERRANEAN would be a

noble subject for a poem.” Ætat. 67.

We talked of transation. I Said, I could not define it, nor could I think of a similitude to illustrate it; but that it appeared to me the translation of poetry could be only imitation. Johnson. “ You may translate books of science exactly. You may also translate history, in so far as it is not embellished with oratory, which is poetical. Poetry, indeed, cannot be transated; and, therefore, it is the poets that preserve languages; for we would not be at the trouble to learn a language, if we could have all that is written in it just as well in a translation. But as the beauties of poetry cannot be preserved in any language except that in which it was originally written, we learn the language.”

A gentleman maintained that the art of printing had hurt real learning, by
disseminating idle writings.-Johnson. "Sir, if it had not been for the art
of printing, we should now have no learning at all ; for books would have
perished faster than they could have been transcribed.” This observation
seems not just, considering for how many ages books were preserved by
writing alone.

The same gentleman maintained, that a general diffusion of knowledge
among a people was a disadvantage ; for it made the vulgar rise above their
humble sphere. Johnson. “ Sir, while knowledge is a distinction, those who
are possessed of it will naturally rise above those who are not. Merely to read
and write was a distinction at first; but we see when reading and writing have
become general, the cornmon people keep their stations. And so, were
higher attainments to become general, the effect would be the same.”
« Goldsmith (he said,) referred every thing to vanity; his virtues, and his

li
vices too, were from that motive. He was not a social man.

He never
exchanged mind with you.”

We spent the evening at Mr. Hoole's. Mr. Mickle, the excellent transator of “ The Lusiad,” was there. I have preserved little of the conversation of this evening. Dr. Johnson said, “ Thomson had a true poetical genius, the power of viewing every thing in a poetical light. His fault is such a cloud of words sometimes, that the sense can hardly peep through. Shiels, who compiled · Cibber's Lives of the Poets,' was one day sitting with me. I took down Thomson, and read aloud a large portion of him, and then asked, -Is not this fine? Shiels having expressed the highest admiration. Well, Sir, (faid I,) I have omitted every other line.”

I related

a

I related a dispute between Goldsmith and Mr. Robert Dodsley, one day 1776. when they and I were dining at Tom Davies's, in 1762. Goldsmith asserted, Ærat. 67. that there was no poetry produced in this

this age. Dodsley appealed to his own Collection, and maintained, that though you could not find a Palace like Dryden's “ Ode on St. Cecilia's Day,” you had villages composed of very pretty houses; and he mentioned particularly “ The Spleen.” Johnson. “I think DodNey gave up the question. He and Goldsmith said the same thing; only he said it in a softer manner than Goldsmith did : for he acknowledged that there was no poetry, nothing that towered above the common mark. You may find wit and humour in verse, and yet no poetry. 'Hudibras' has a profusion of these ; yet it is not to be reckoned a poem. “The Spleen,' in Dodsey's collection, on which you say he chiefly rested, is not poetry.” Boswell. “Does not Gray's poetry, Sir, tower above the common mark ?” Johnson. “ Yes, Sir; but we must attend to the difference between what men in general cannot do if they would, and what every man may do if he would. Sixteen-string Jack towered above the common mark.” Boswell. “ Then, Sir, what is poetry?” Johnson. “Why, Sir, it is much easier to say what it is not. We all know what light is; but it is not easy to tell what it is.”

On Friday, April 12, I dined with him at our friend Tom Davies's, where
we met Mr. Cradock, a Leicestershire gentleman, authour of “ Zobeide,” a
tragedy; and Dr. Harwood, who has written and published various works.

I introduced Aristotle's doctrine in his “Art of Poetry,” of “ the xxbxpois
TWú a&Ompe ałw, the purging of the passions," as the purpose of tragedy.
how are the passions to be purged by terrour and pity ?” (said I, with an
assumed air of ignorance, to incite him to talk, for which it was often necef-
sary to employ some address). Johnson. “ Why, Sir, you are to consider
what is the meaning of purging in the original sense. It is to expel impuri-
ties from the human body. The mind is subject to the same imperfection.,
The passions are the great movers of human actions ; but they are mixed with
fuch impurities, that it is necessary they should be purged or refined by means
of terrour and pity. For instance, ambition is a noble pasion ; but by fee-
ing upon the stage, that a man who is so excessively ambitious as to raise
himself by injustice, is punished, we are terrified at the fatal consequences of
such a passion. In the same manner a certain degree of resentment is necef-
fary; but if we see that a man carries it too far, we pity the object of it, and
are taught to moderate that passion.” My record upon this occasion does
great injustice to Johnson's expression, which was fo forcible and brilliant, that.
Mr. Cradock whispered me, « that his words were written in a book !"

I observed

" But

1776. I observed the great defect of the tragedy of “Othello” was, that it had
Etat. 65. not a moral, for that no man could resist the circumstances of suspicion which
67

were artfully suggested to Othello's mind. Johnson. “ In the first place,
Sir, we learn from Othello this very useful moral, not to make an unequal
match; in the second place, we learn not to yield too readily to suspicion.
The handkerchief is merely a trick, though a very pretty trick; but there are
no other circumstances of reasonable suspicion, except what is related by Iago
of Cassio's warm expressions concerning Desdemona in his neep; and that
depended entirely upon the assertion of one man. No, Sir, I think Othello
has more moral than almost any play.”

Talking of a penurious gentleman of our acquaintance, Johnson said,
“ Sir, he is narrow, not so much from avarice, as from impotence to spend his
money. He cannot find in his heart to pour out a bottle of wine ; but he
would not much care if it should four."

He said, he wished to see “ John Dennis's Critical Works” collected.
Davies said they would not sell. Dr. Johnson seemed to think otherwise.

Davies said of a well known dramatick authour, that “ he lived upon
potted stories, and that he made his way as Hannibal did, by vinegar;
having begun by attacking people; particularly the players.”

He reminded Dr. Johnson of Mr. Murphy's having paid him the highest
compliment that ever was paid to a layman, by asking his pardon for repeat-
ing some oaths in the course of telling a story.

Johnson and I supt this evening at the Crown and Anchor tavern, in com-
pany with Sir Joshua Reynolds, Mr. Langton, Mr. Nairne, now one of the
Scotch Judges, with the title of Lord Dunsinan, and my very worthy friend,
Sir William Forbes, of Pitsigo.

We discussed the question whether drinking improved conversation and
benevolence. Sir Joshua maintained it did. Johnson. “ No, Sir: before

,
dinner men meet with great inequality of understanding; and those who are
conscious of their inferiority, have the modesty not to talk. When they
have drunk wine, every man feels himself happy, and loses that modesty,
and grows impudent and vociferous : but he is not improved; he is only
not sensible of his defects.” Sir Joshua said that the Doctor was talking of
the effects of excess in wine; but that a moderate glass enlivened the mind,
by giving a proper circulation to the blood. “ I am (said he,) in very good
{pirits when I get up in the morning. By dinner-time I am exhausted; wine
puts me in the same state as when I got up; and I am sure that moderate

are rotten.

i

drinking makes people talk better.” Johnson. “No, Sir; wine gives not 1776. light, gay, ideal hilarity; but tumultuous, noisy, clamourous merriment. I

Ætat. 67. have heard none of those drunken,-nay, drunken is a coarse word, -none of those vinous Aights.” Sir Joshua. “ Because you have fat by, quite sober, and felt an envy of the happiness of those who were drinking.” Johnson.

. “ Perhaps, contempt.-And, Sir, it is not necessary to be drunk one's self, to relish the wit of drunkenness. Do we not judge of the drunken wit of the dialogue between Iago and Cassio, the most excellent in its kind, when we are quite fober? Wit is wit, by whatever means it is produced ; and, if good, will appear fo at all times. I admit that the spirits are raised by drinking, as by the common participation of any pleasure ; cock-fighting, or bear-baiting, will raise the spirits of a company as drinking does, though surely they will not improve conversation. I also admit, that there are some Nuggish men who are improved by drinking, as there are fruits which are not good till they

There are such men, but they are medlars. I indeed allow that
there have been a very few men of talents who were improved by drinking;
but I maintain that I am right as to the effects of drinking in general : and
let it be considered, that there is no position, however false in its universality,
which is not true of some particular man.” Sir William Forbes said, “Might
not a man warmed with wine be like a bottle of beer, which is made brisker by
being set before the fire?”—“ Nay, (faid Johnson, laughing,) I cannot answer
that : that is too much for me."

I observed, that wine did some people harm, by inflaming, confusing, and
irritating their minds; but that the experience of mankind had declared in
favour of moderate drinking. Johnson. “ Sir, I do not say it is wrong to
produce felf-complacency by drinking; I only deny that it improves the mind.
When I drank wine, I scorned to drink it when in company. I have
drunk many a bottle by myself: in the first place, because I had need of it
to raise my spirits ; in the second place, because I would have nobody to
witness its effects upon me.”
He told us, “almost all his Ramblers were written just as they were wanted

,
for the press; that he fent a certain portion of the copy of an eslay, and wrote
the remainder, while the former part of it was printing. When it was wanted,
and he had fairly sat down to it, he was sure it would be done."

He said, that for general improvement, a man should read whatever his im-
mediate inclination prompts him to; though, to be sure, if a man has a science
to learn, he must regularly and resolutely advance. He added, " what we
read with inclination makes a much stronger impression. If we read without
Vol. 11.
K

a

1776.

Ætat. 67.

inclination, half the mind is employed in fixing the attention ; so there is but

l one half to be employed on what we read.” He told us, he read Fielding's “ Amelia” through without stopping. He said, “ if a man begins to read in the middle of a book, and feels an inclination to go on, let him not quit it, to go to the beginning. He may, perhaps, not feel again the inclination.”

Sir Joshua mentioned Mr. Cumberland's Odes, which were just published. Johnson. “Why, Sir, they would have been thought as good as Odes commonly are, if Cumberland had not put his name to them; but a name immediately draws censure, unless it be a name that bears down every thing before it. Nay, Cumberland has made his Odes subsidiary to the fame of another man'. They might have run well enough by themselves; but he has not only loaded them with a name, but has made them carry double.”

” We talked of the Reviews, and Dr. Johnson spoke of them as he did at Thrale’s 4. Sir Joshua said, what I have often thought, that he wondered to find so much good writing employed in them, when the authours were to remain unknown, and so could not have the motive of fame. Johnson. “Nay, Sir, those who write in them, write well, in order to be paid well.”

Soon after this day, he went to Bath with Mr. and Mrs. Thrale. I had never seen that beautiful city, and wilhed to take the opportunity of visiting it, while Johnson was there. Having written to him, I received the following answer :

TO JAMES BOSWELL, Esq. « DEAR SIR,

“ WHY do you talk of neglect ? When did I neglect you? If you will come to Bath, we shall all be glad to see you. Come, therefore, as soon as you can.

" But I have a little business for you at London. Bid Francis look in the paper-drawer of the chest of drawers in my bed-chamber, for two cases; one for the Attorney-General, and one for the Solicitor-General. They lie, I think, at the top of my papers; otherwise they are somewhere else, and will

,
give me more trouble.

2

We have here an involuntary testimony to the excellence of this admirable writer, to whom we have seen that Dr. Johnson directly allowed so little merit.

Mr. Romney the painter, who has now deservedly established a high reputation, * Page 60 of this volume.

« Please