Boswell's Life of Johnson, 1753
Previous -- Contents -- Next
Edited, from the two-volume Oxford edition of 1904, by Jack Lynch.
He entered upon this year 1753 with his usual piety, as appears
following prayer, which I transcribed from that part of his
diary which he burnt a few days before his death:
“Jan. 1, 1753, N.S. which I shall use for the future.
“Almighty God, who has continued my life to this day, grant
that, by the assistance of thy Holy Spirit, I may improve the
time that thou shalt grant me, to my eternal salvation. Make me
to remember, to thy glory, thy judgements and thy mercies. Make
me so to consider the loss of my wife, whom thou hast taken from
me, that it may dispose me, by thy grace, to lead the residue of
my life in thy fear. Grant this, O Lord, for JESUS CHRIST'S
sake. Amen.”
He now relieved the drudgery of his Dictionary, and the
melancholy of his grief, by taking an active part in the
composition of “The Adventurer,” in which he began to write,
April 10, marking his essays with the signature T, by which most
of his papers in that collection are distinguished: those,
however, which have that signature and also that of
Mysargyrus, were not written by him, but, as I suppose,
by Dr. Bathurst. Indeed, Johnson's energy of thought and
richness of language, are still more decisive marks than any
signature. As a proof of this, my readers, I imagine, will not
doubt that number 39, on sleep, is his; for it not only has the
general texture and colour of his style, but the authours with
whom he was peculiarly conversant are readily introduced in it
in cursory allusion. The translation of a passage in Statius1 quoted in that paper, and marked C.B. has been
erroneously ascribed to Dr. Bathurst, whose Christian name was
Richard. How much this amiable man actually contributed to “The
Adventurer,” cannot be known. Let me add, that Hawkesworth's
imitations of Johnson are sometimes so happy, that it is
extremely difficult to distinguish them, with certainty, from
the compositions of his great archetype. Hawkesworth was his
closest imitator, a circumstance of which that writer would once
have been proud to be told; though, when he had become elated by
having risen into some degree of consequence, he, in a
conversation with me, had the provoking effrontery to say he was
not sensible of it.
Johnson was truly zealous for the success of “The Adventurer”;
and very soon after his engaging in it, he wrote the following
letter:
“TO THE REVEREND DR. JOSEPH WARTON.
“DEAR SIR,
“I OUGHT to have written to you before now, but I ought to do
many things which I do not; nor can I, indeed, claim any merit
from this letter; for being desired by the authours and
proprietor of the Adventurer to look out for another hand, my
thoughts necessarily fixed upon you, whose fund of literature
will enable you to assist them, with very little interruption of
your studies.
“They desire you to engage to furnish one paper a month, at two
guineas a paper, which you may very readily perform. We have
considered that a paper should consist of pieces of imagination,
pictures of life, and disquisitions of literature. The part
which depends on the imagination is very well supplied, as you
will find when you read the paper; for descriptions of life,
there is now a treaty almost made with an authour and an
authouress;2 and the province of criticism and
literature they are very desirous to assign to the commentator
on Virgil.
“I hope this proposal will not be rejected, and that the next
post will bring us your compliance. I speak as one of the
fraternity, though I have no part in the paper, beyond now and
then a motto; but two of the writers are my particular friends,
and I hope the pleasure of seeing a third united to them, will
not be denied to, dear Sir,
“Your most obedient,
“And most humble servant,
“SAM. JOHNSON.”
“March 8, 1753.”
The consequence of this letter was, Dr. Warton's enriching the
collection with several admirable essays.
Johnson's saying “I have no part in the paper, beyond now and
then a motto,” may seem inconsistent with his being the authour
of the papers marked T. But he had, at this time, written only
one number;3 and besides, even at any after
period, he might have used the same expression, considering it
as a point of honour not to own them; for Mrs. Williams told me
that, as he had given those Essays to Dr. Bathurst, who
sold them at two guineas each, he never would own them; nay, he
used to say, he did not write them; but the fact was,
that he dictated them, while Bathurst wrote.” I read to
him Mrs. Williams' account; he smiled, and said nothing.
I am not quite satisfied with the casuistry by which the
productions of one person are thus passed upon the world for the
productions of another. I allow that not only knowledge, but
powers and qualities of mind may be communicated; but the actual
effect of individual exertion never can be transferred, with
truth, to any other than its own original cause. One person's
child may be made the child of another person by adoption, as
among the Romans, or by the ancient Jewish mode of a wife having
children borne to her upon her knees, by her handmaid. But these
were children in a different sense from that of nature. It was
clearly understood that they were not of the blood of their
nominal parents. So in literary children, an authour may give
the profits and fame of his composition to another man, but
cannot make that other the real authour. A Highland gentleman, a
younger branch of a family, once consulted me if he could not
validly purchase the Chieftainship of his family from the Chief,
who was willing to sell it. I told him it was impossible for him
to acquire, by purchase, a right to be a different person from
what he really was; for that the right of Chieftainship attached
to the blood of primogeniture, and, therefore, was incapable of
being transferred. I added, that though Esau sold his
birth-right, or the advantages belonging to it, he still
remained the first-born of his parents; and that whatever
agreement a Chief might make with any of the clan, the
Heralds-Office could not admit of the metamorphosis, or with any
decency attest that the younger was the elder; but I did not
convince the worthy gentleman.
Johnson's papers in the Adventurer are very similar to those of
the Rambler; but being rather more varied in their subjects,4 and being mixed with essays by other writers,
upon topicks more generally attractive than even the most
elegant ethical discourses, the sale of the work, at first, was
more extensive. Without meaning, however, to depreciate the
Adventurer, I must observe, that as the value of the Rambler
came, in the progress of time, to be better known, it grew upon
the publick estimation, and that its sale has far exceeded that
of any other periodical papers since the reign of Queen Anne.
In one of the books of his diary I find the following entry:
“Apr. 3, 1753. I began the second vol. of my Dictionary, room
being left in the first for Preface, Grammar, and History none
of them yet begun.
“O God, who hast hitherto supported me, enable me to proceed in
this labour, and in the whole task of my present state; that
when I shall render up, at the last day, an account of the
talent committed to me, I may receive pardon, for the sake of
JESUS CHRIST. Amen.”
He this year favoured Mrs. Lennox with a Dedication * to the
Earl of Orrery, of her “Shakspeare illustrated.5
Notes
1. [This is a slight inaccuracy. The Latin
Sapphicks translated by C.B. in that paper were written by
Cowley, and are in his fourth book on Plants. -- M.]
2. [It is not improbable, that the “authour and
authouress, with whom a treaty was almost made, -- for
descriptions of life,” and who are mentioned in a manner that
seems to indicate some connexion between them, were Henry, and
his sister Sally, Fielding, as she was then popularly called.
Fielding had previously been a periodical essayist, and
certainly was well acquainted with life in all its varieties,
more especially within the precincts of London; and his sister
was a lively and ingenious writer. To this notion perhaps it may
be objected, that no papers in THE ADVENTURER are known to be
their productions. But it should be remembered, that of several
of the Essays in that work the authours are unknown; and some of
these may have been written by the persons here supposed to be
alluded to. Nor would the objection be decisive, even if it were
ascertained that neither of them contributed any thing to THE
ADVENTURER; for the treaty above-mentioned might afterwards have
been broken off. The negotiator, doubtless, was Hawkesworth, and
not Johnson. -- Fielding was at this time in the highest
reputation; having, in 1751, produced his AMELIA, of which the
whole impression was sold off on the day of its publication. --
M.]
3. [The authour, I conceive, is here in an
errour. He had before stated, that Johnson began to write in
“the Adventurer” on April 10th (when No. 45 was published,)
above a month after the date of his letter to Dr. Warton. The
two papers published previously, with the signature T, and
subscribed MYSARGYRUS, (No. 34 and 41,) were written, I believe,
by Bonnell Thornton, who contributed also all the papers signed
A. This information I received several years ago; but do not
precisely remember from whom I derived it. I believe, however,
my informer was Dr. Warton.
With respect to No. 39, on Sleep, which our authour has ascribed
to Johnson, (see earlier in this section,) even if it were
written by him, it would not be unconsistent with his statement
to Dr. Warton; for it appeared on March 20th, near a fortnight
after the date of Johnson's letter to that gentleman. -- But on
considering it attentively, though the style bears a strong
resemblance to that of Johnson, I believe it was written by his
friend, Dr. Bathurst, and perhaps touched in a few places by
Johnson. Mr. Boswell has observed, that “this paper not only has
the general texture and colour of his style, but the authours
with whom he was peculiarly conversant are readily introduced in
it, in cursory allusion.” Now the authours mentioned in that
paper are, Fontenelle, Milton, Ramazzini, Madlle. de Scuderi,
Swift, Homer, Barretier, Statius, Cowley, and Sir Thomas
Browne. With many of these, doubtless, Johnson was particularly
conversant; but I doubt whether he would have characterised the
expression quoted from Swift, as elegant; and with the
works of RAMAZZINI it is very improbable that he should have
been acquainted. Ramazzini was a celebrated physician, who died
at Padua, in 1714, at the age of 81; with whose writings Dr.
Bathurst may be supposed to have been conversant. So also with
respect to Cowley: Johnson, without doubt, had read his Latin
poem on Plants; but Bathurst's profession probably led him to
read it with more attention than his friend had given to it; and
Cowley's eulogy on the Poppy would more readily occur to the
Naturalist and the Physician, than to a more general reader. I
believe, however, that the last paragraph of the paper on Sleep,
in which Sir Thomas Browne is quoted, to shew the propriety of
prayer, before we lie down to rest, was added by Johnson. --
M.]
4. [Dr. Johnson lowered and somewhat disguised
his style, in writing the Adventurers, in order that his Papers
might pass for those of Dr. Bathurst, to whom he consigned the
profits. This was Hawkesworth's opinion. -- BURNEY.]
5. [Two of Johnson's Letters, addressed to
Samuel Richardson, authour of CLARRISSA, &c. the former
dated March 9, 1750-1, the other September 26, 1753, are
preserved in Richardson's CORRESPONDENCE, 8vo. 1804, vol. v. pp.
281-284. In the latter of these letters Johnson suggested to
Richardson, the propriety of making an Index to his three works:
“but while I am writing, (he adds) an objection arises; such an
index to the three would look like the preclusion of a fourth,
to which I will never contribute; for if I cannot benefit
mankind, I hope never to injure them.” Richardson, however,
adopted the hint; for in 1755 he published in octavo, “A
collection of the Moral and Instructive Sentiments, Maxims,
Cautions, and Reflections, contained in the Histories of Pamela,
Clarissa, and Sir Charles Grandison, digested under proper
heads.”
It is remarkable, that both to this book, and to the first two
volumes of Clarissa, is prefixed a Preface, by a friend.
The “friend,” in this latter instance, was the celebrated Dr.
Warburton. -- M.]