The Life of Samuel Johnson - James Boswell [186]
Sir John Hawkinsb represents himself as a ‘seceder’ from this society, and assigns as the reason of his ‘withdrawing’ himself from it, that its late hours were inconsistent with his domestick 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 his reception was such, that he never came again.c
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, never admitted.’d
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 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, was a most agreeable member, and continued to attend our meetings to the time of his death.
Mrs. Piozzia 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 black-ball him. Surely, one ought to sit in a society like ours,
“Unelbow’d by a gamester, pimp, or player.” ‘214
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 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 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:b – ‘My indolence, since my last reception of the sacrament, has sunk into grosser sluggishness,