THE LIFE OF SAMUEL JOHNSON, LL.D. EARLY in 1764, Johnson paid a visit to the Langton family, at their seat of Langton in Lincolnshire, where he passed some time much to his satisfaction. His friend Bennet Langton, it will not be doubted, did every thing in his power to make the place agreeable to so illustrious a guest; and the elder Mr. Langton and his lady, being fully capable of understanding his value, were not wanting in attention. He, however, told me, that old Mr. Langton, though a man of considerable learning, had so little allowance to make for his occasional "laxity of talk," that because in the course of discussion he sometimes mentioned what might be said in favour of the peculiar tenets of the Romish church, he went to his grave believing him to be of that communion. Johnson, during his stay at Langton, had the advantage of a good library, and saw several gentlemen of the neighbourhood. I have obtained from Mr. Langton the following particulars of this period. He was now fully convinced that he could not have been satisfied with a country living; for, talking of a respectable clergyman in Lincolnshire, he observed, "This man, Sir, fills up the duties of his life well. I approve of him, but could not imitate him." To a lady who endeavoured to vindicate herself from blame for neglecting social attention to worthy neighbours, by saying "I would go to them if it would do them any good;" he said, "What good, Madam, do you expect to have in your power to do them? It is showing them respect, and that is doing them good." So socially accommodating was he, that once, when Mr. Langton and he were driving together in a coach, and Mr. Langton complained of being sick, he insisted that they should go out, and sit on the back of it in the open air, which they did. And being sensible how strange the appearance must be, observed, that a countryman whom they saw in a field would probably be thinking, "If these two madmen should come down, what would become of me?" Soon after his return to London, which was in February, was founded that CLUB which existed long without a name, but at Mr. Garrick's funeral became distinguished by the title of THE LITERARY CLUB. Sir Joshua Reynolds had the merit of being the first proposer of it; to which Johnson acceded, and the original members were, Sir Joshua Reynolds, Dr. Johnson, Mr. Edmund Burke, Dr. Nugent, Mr. Beauclerk, Mr. Langton, Dr. Goldsmith, Mr. Chamier, and Sir John Hawkins. They met at the Turk's Head, in Gerrard Street, Soho, one evening in every week, at seven, and generally continued their conversation till a pretty late hour. This club has been gradually increased to its present [1791] number, thirty-five. After about ten years, instead of supping weekly, it was resolved to dine together once a fortnight during the meeting of Parliament. Their original tavern having been converted into a private house, they moved first to Prince's in Sackville Street, then to Le Telier's in Dover Street, and now meet at Parsloe's, St. James's Street. Between the time of its formation, and the time at which this work is passing through the press (June, 1792), the following persons, now dead, were members of it: Mr. Dunning (afterwards Lord Ashburton), Mr. Samuel Dyer, Mr. Garrick, Dr. Shipley, Bishop of St. Asaph; Mr. Vesey, Mr. Thomas Warton, and Dr. Adam Smith. The present members are, Mr. Burke, Mr. Langton, Lord Charlemont, Sir Robert Chambers, Dr. Percy, Bishop 2 1 See Appendix to this volume on the Club.-Editor. of Dromore; Dr. Barnard, Bishop of Killaloe; Dr. Marlay, Bishop of Clonfert; Mr. Fox, Dr. George Fordyce, Sir William Scott, Sir Joseph Banks, Sir Charles Bunbury, Mr. Windham, of Norfolk; Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Gibbon, Sir William Jones, Mr. Colman, Mr. Steevens, Dr. Burney, Dr. Joseph Warton, Mr. Malone, Lord Ossory, Lord Spencer, Lord Lucan, Lord Palmerston, Lord Eliot, Lord Macartney, Mr. Richard Burke, junior, Sir William Hamilton, Dr. Warren, Mr. Courtenay, Dr. Hinchliffe, Bishop of Peterborough; the Duke of Leeds, Dr. Douglas, Bishop of Salisbury; and the writer of this account. 1 "seceder Sir John Hawkins represents himself as a from this society, and assigns as the reason of his “withdrawing" himself from it, that its late hours were inconsistent with his domestic arrangements. In this he is not accurate; for the fact was, that he one evening attacked Mr. Burke in so rude a manner, that all the company testified their displeasure; and at their next meeting their reception was such that he never came again.2 He is equally inaccurate with respect to Mr. Garrick, of whom he says, "he trusted that the least intimation of a desire to come among us, would procure him a ready admission; but in this he was mistaken. Johnson consulted me upon it; and when I could find no objection to receiving him, exclaimed, He will disturb us by his buffoonery;' and afterwards so managed matters, that he was never formally proposed, and, by consequence, nevei admitted." 993 In justice both to Mr. Garrick and Dr. Johnson, I think it necessary to rectify this mis-statement. The truth is, that not very long after the institution of our club, Sir Joshua Reynolds was speaking of it to Garrick. 'I like it much," said he; "I think I shall be of you." When Sir 1 Life of Johnson, p. 425 (note). 2 From Sir Joshua Reynolds. 66 The knight having refused to pay his portion of the reckoning for supper, because he usually ate no supper at home, Johnson observed, "Sir John, Sir, is a very unclubable man."-Burney. Hawkins was not knighted till October, 1772, long after he had left the club. Burney, in relating the story, puts the nunc pro tunc.Croker. 3 Life of Johnson, p. 425. 66 Joshua mentioned this to Dr. Johnson, he was much displeased with the actor's conceit. He'll be of us,” said Johnson, "how does he know we will permit him? the first duke in England has no right to hold such language.' However, when Garrick was regularly proposed some time afterwards, Johnson, though he had taken a momentary offence at his arrogance, warmly and kindly supported him, and he was accordingly elected,2 was a most agreeable member, and continued to attend our meetings to the time of his death. Mrs. Piozzi' has also given a similar misrepresentation of Johnson's treatment of Garrick in this particular, as if he had used these contemptuous expressions: "If Garrick does apply, I'll blackball him.-Surely, one ought to sit in a society like ours, 'Unelbow'd by a gamester, pimp, or player.'" I am happy to be enabled by such unquestionable authority as that of Sir Joshua Reynolds, as well as from my own knowledge, to vindicate at once the heart of Johnson and the social merit of Garrick. In this year, except what he may have done in revising Shakspeare, we do not find that he laboured much in literature. He wrote a review of Grainger's "Sugar Cane," a poem, in the "London Chronicle." He told me that Dr. Percy wrote the greatest part of this review; but, I 1 Malone says: I mentioned this anecdote to Mr. Boswell, and he has introduced it into his Life of Johnson." (Maloniana.)-Prior's Life of Malone, 1860.-Editor. 2 Mr. Garrick was elected in March, 1773.-Note in Third Edition, vol. i., p. 436.-Editor. 3 Letters to and from Dr. Johnson, vol. ii., p. 387. 6 The anecdote as given in the passage only partially quoted by Boswell, seems to exonerate Mrs. Piozzi from deliberate misrepresentation, and also exhibits Johnson's conduct in a more amiable light. "When Garrick was talked of as a candidate for admission into the Literary Club- If he does apply,' says our Doctor to Mr. Thrale, I'll blackball him.' 'Who, Sir? Mr. Garrick, your friend, your companionblack-ball him!' 'Why, Sir, I love my little David dearly, better than all or any of his flatterers do; but surely one ought to sit in a society like ours, -Editor. "Unelbow'd by a gamester, pimp, or player.'" imagine, he did not recollect it distinctly, for it appears to be mostly, if not altogether, his own. He also wrote, in the "Critical Review," an account † of Goldsmith's excellent poem, "The Traveller." The ease and independence to which he had at last attained by royal munificence, increased his natural indolence. In his " Meditations," [p. 53] he thus accuses himself:- "GOOD FRIDAY, April 20, 1764.—I have made no reformation; I have lived totally useless, more sensual in thought, and more addicted to wine and meat." And next morning he thus feelingly complains : "My indolence, since my last reception of the sacrament, has sunk into grosser sluggishness, and my dissipation spread into wilder negligence. My thoughts have been clouded with sensuality; and, except that from the beginning of this year I have, in some measure, foreborne excess of strong drink, my appetites have predominated over my reason. A kind of strange oblivion has overspread me, so that I know not what has become of the last year; and perceive that incidents and intelligence pass over me without leaving any impression." He then solemnly says, "This is not the life to which heaven is promised;" and he earnestly resolves an amend ment. It was his custom to observe certain days with a pious abstraction: viz., New Year's Day, the day of his wife's death, Good Friday, Easter Day, and his own birthday. He this year says, "I have now spent fifty-five years in resolving; having, from the earliest time almost that I can remember, been forming schemes of a better life. I have done nothing. The need of doing, therefore, is pressing, since the time of doing is short. O God, grant me to resolve aright, and to keep my resolutions, for Jesus Christ's sake. Amen." Such a tenderness of conscience, such a fervent desire of improvement, will rarely be found. It is, surely, not |