of mind, such a swarm of thoughts, so much of nature, and art, and life." I wondered to hear him say of "Gulliver's Travels," "When once you have thought of big men and little men, it is very easy to do all the rest." I endeavoured to make a stand for Swift, and tried to rouse those who were much more able to defend him; but in vain. Johnson at last, of his own accord, allowed very great merit to the inventory of articles found in the pocket of "the Man Mountain," particularly the description of his watch, which it was conjectured was his God, as he consulted it upon all occasions. He observed, that Swift put his name to but two things (after he had a name to put), "The Plan for the Improvement of the English Language," and the last" Drapier's Letter."

From Swift, there was an easy transition to Mr. Thomas Sheridan. JOHNSON. "Sheridan is a wonderful admirer of the tragedy of Douglas, and

A

resented its author with a gold medal. Some years ago, at a coffee-house in Oxford, I called to him, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Sheridan, how came you to give a gold medal to Home, for writing that foolish play?' This, you see, was wanton and insolent; but I meant to be wanton and insolent. medal has no value but as a stamp of merit. And was Sheridan to assume to himself the right of giving that stamp? If Sheridan was magnificent enough to bestow a gold medal as an honorary reward of dramatic excellence, he should have requested one of the Universities to choose the person on whom it should be conferred. Sheridan

had no right to give a stamp of merit: it was counterfeiting Apollo's coin." (1)

On Monday, March 27., I breakfasted with him at Mr. Strahan's. He told us, that he was engaged to go that evening to Mrs. Abington's benefit." She was visiting some ladies whom I was visiting, and begged that I would come to her benefit. I told her I could not hear: but she insisted so much on my coming, that it would have been brutal to have refused her." This was a speech quite characteristical. He loved to bring forward his having been in the gay circles of life; and he was, perhaps, a little vain of the solicitations of this elegant and fashionable actress. He told us, the play was to be "The Hypocrite," altered from Cibber's "Nonjuror," so as to satirise the Methodists. "I do not think," said he, "the character of the Hypocrite justly applicable to the Methodists, but it is very applicable to the Nonjurors. I once said to Dr. Madan (2), a clergyman of Ireland, who was a

(1) The medal was presented in 1757, and as it does not appear that Johnson and Sheridan ever met after the affair of the pension (antè, 1762), this fact occurred probably in Johnson's visit to Oxford, in 1759. It seems, therefore, that Johnson had begun to be "wanton and insolent" towards Sheridan before the pension had caused the cup of gall to overflow. Mr. Whyte, the friend of Sheridan, gives the history of the medal thus: "When Sheridan undertook to play Douglas in Dublin, he had liberally written to Home, promising him the profits of the third night. It happened, however, that these profits fell very short, and Sheridan was rather perplexed what to do. first, he thought of offering the author a piece of plate, but, on the suggestion of Mr. Whyte, the idea of a medal was adopted." When Johnson called Douglas "a foolish play," he was not only "wanton and insolent," as he admits, but showed very bad taste, and very violent prejudice. — C.

At

(2) No doubt a mistake for Dr. Madden. See antè, Vol. II.P. 73.-C.

great Whig, that perhaps a Nonjuror would have been less criminal in taking the oaths imposed by the ruling power, than refusing them; because refusing them necessarily laid him under almost an irresistible temptation to be more criminal; for a man must live, and if he precludes himself from the support furnished by the establishment will probably be reduced to very wicked shifts to maintain himself." () Boswell. "I should think, Sir, that a man who took the oaths contrary to his principles was a determined wicked man, because he was sure he was committing perjury: whereas a Nonjuror might be insensibly led to do what was wrong, without being so directly conscious of it." JOHN

(1) This was not merely a cursory remark; for, in his Life of Fenton, he observes, "With many other wise and virtuous men, who, at that time of discord and debate (about the begin. ing of this century), consulted conscience, well or ill formed, more than interest, he doubted the legality of the government; and refusing to qualify himself for public employment, by taking the oaths required, left the University without a degree." This conduct Johnson calls "perverseness of integrity." The question concerning the morality of taking oaths, of whatever kind, imposed by the prevailing power at the time, rather than to be excluded from all consequence, or even any considerable usefulness in society, has been agitated with all the acuteness of casuistry. It is related, that he who devised the oath of abjuration profligately boasted, that he had framed a test which should "damn one half of the nation, and starve the other." Upon minds not exalted to inflexible rectitude, or minds in which zeal for a party is predominant to excess, taking that oath against conviction may have been palliated under the plea of necessity, or ventured upon in heat, as upon the whole producing more good than evil. At a county election in Scotland, many years ago, when there was a warm contest between the friends of the Hanoverian succession, and those against it, the oath of abjuration having been demanded, the freeholders upon one side rose to go away. Upon which a very sanguine gentleman, one of their number, ran to the door to stop them calling out with much earnestness, "Stay, stay, my friends, and let us swear the rogues out of it!"

"Did the nonjuring

ON. Why, Sir, a man who goes to bed to his patron's wife is pretty sure that he is committing wickedness." BOSWELL. clergyman do so, Sir?" many of them did.” (')

JOHNSON. "I am afraid

I was startled at this argument, and could by no means think it convincing. Had not his own father complied with the requisition of government (), (as to which he once observed to me, when I pressed him upon it," That, Sir, he was to settle with himself,") he would probably have thought more unfavourably of a Jacobite who took the oaths:

Mr. Strahan talked of launching into the grea ocean of London, in order to have a chance for rising into eminence; and observing that many men were kept back from trying their fortunes there, because they were born to a competency, said, "Small certainties are the bane of men of talents;" which Johnson confirmed. Mr. Strahan put John

(1) What evidence is there of this being the prevailing sin of the nonjuring clergy beyond Cibber's comedy, which, slight evidence as a comedy would be in any such case, is next to none at all on this occasion, for Cibber's play was a mere adaptation of Molière's Tartuffe? - C.

(2) Extract from the book containing the proceedings of the corporation of Lichfield: "19th July, 1712, Agreed that Mr. Michael Johnson be, and he is hereby elected a magistrate and brother of their incorporation; a day is given him to Thursday next to take the oath of fidelity and allegiance, and the oath of a magistrate. Signed, &c.". "25th July, 1712. Mr. Johnson took the oath of allegiance, and that he believed there was no transubstantiation in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, before, &c."- HARWOOD.