a Johnson being asked his opinion of this Essay, answered, ‘Why, Sir, we shall have the man come forth again; and as he has proved Falstaff to be no coward, he may prove Iago to be a very good character.’
a What the great TWALMLEY was so proud of having invented, was neither more nor less than a kind of box-iron for smoothing linen.
a Bar.
b Nard.
c Barnard.
a [Written by John, Earl of Egmont.]
b [The real authour… was I. P. Marana, a Genoese, who died at Paris in 1693. John Dunton in his Life says, that Mr. William Bradshaw received from Dr. Midgeley forty shillings a sheet for writing part of the Turkish Spy; but I do not find that he any where mentions Sault as engaged in that work.]
a We accordingly carried our scheme into execution, in October, 1792; but whether from that uniformity which has in modern times, in a great degree, spread through every part of the Metropolis, or from our want of sufficient exertion, we were disappointed.
a It is suggested to me by an anonymous Annotator on my Work, that the reason why Dr. Johnson collected the peels of squeezed oranges may be found in the 558th {358th} Letter in Mrs. Piozzi’s Collection, where it appears that he recommended ‘dried orange-peel, finely powdered,’ as a medicine.
a I think it necessary to caution my readers against concluding that in this or any other conversation of Dr. Johnson, they have his serious and deliberate opinion on the subject of duelling. In my Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides, 3rd edit. p. 386 {p. 366, 24 Oct.}, it appears that he made this frank confession: – ‘Nobody at times, talks more laxly than I do;’ and, ib., p. 231 {19 Sept.}, ‘He fairly owned he could not explain the rationality of duelling.’ We may, therefore, infer, that he could not think that justifiable, which seems so inconsistent with the spirit of the Gospel. At the same time it must be confessed, that from the prevalent notions of honour, a gentleman who receives a challenge is reduced to a dreadful alternative. A remarkable instance of this is furnished by a clause in the will of the late Colonel Thomas, of the Guards, written the night before he fell in a duel, Sept. 3,1783: – ‘In the firstplace, I commit my soul to Almighty God, in hopes of his mercy and pardon for the irreligious step I now (in compliance with the unwarrantable customs of this wicked world) put myself under the necessity of taking.’
b Upon this objection the Reverend Mr. Ralph Churton, Fellow of Brazen-nose College, Oxford, has favoured me with the following satisfactory observation: – ‘The passage in the Burial-service does not mean the resurrection of the person interred, but the general resurrection; it is in sure and certain hope of the resurrection; not his resurrection. Where the deceased is really spoken of, the expression is very different, “as our hope is this our brother doth” {rest in Christ}; a mode of speech consistent with every thing but absolute certainty that the person departed doth not rest in Christ, which no one can be assured of, without immediate revelation from Heaven. In the first of these places also, “eternal life” does not necessarily mean eternity of bliss, but merely the eternity of the state, whether in happiness or in misery, to ensue upon the resurrection; which is probably the sense of “the life everlasting,” in the Apostles’ Creed. See Wheatly and Bennet on the Common Prayer.’
a [Malloch continued to write his name thus, after he came to London. His verses prefixed to the second edition of Thomson’s Winter are so subscribed.]
a Let it be remembered by those who accuse Dr. Johnson of illiberality that both were Scotchmen.
a In Mr. Barry’s printed analysis, or description of these pictures, he speaks of Johnson’s character in the highest terms.
a Now the celebrated Mrs. Crouch.
b Mr. Windham was at this time in Dublin, Secretary to the Earl of Northington, then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
c Son of Mr. Samuel Paterson.
a Vol. ii. p. 268, of Mrs. Thrale’s Collection.
a Poor Derrick, however, though he did not himself introduce me to Dr. Johnson as he promised, had the merit of introducing me to Davies, the immediate introductor.
a His Lordship was soon after chosen, and is now a member of the Club.
a Pr. and Med. p. 226.
a Mr. Malone observes, ‘This, however, was certainly a mistake, as appears from the Memoirs published by Mr. Noble. Had Johnson been furnished with the materials which the industry of that gentleman has procured, and with others which, it is believed, are yet preserved in manuscript, he would, without doubt, have produced a most valuable and curious history of Cromwell’s life.’
a I do not wonder at Johnson’s displeasure when the name of Dr. Priestley was mentioned; for I know no writer who has been suffered to publish more pernicious doctrines. I shall instance only three. First, Materialism; by which mind is denied to human nature; which, if believed, must deprive us of every elevated principle. Secondly, Necessity; or the doctrine that every action, whether good or bad, is included in an unchangeable and unavoidable system; a notion utterly subversive of moral government. Thirdly, that we have no reason to think that the future world, (which, as he is pleased to inform us, will be adapted to our merely improved nature,) will be materially different from this; which, if believed, would sink wretched mortals into despair, as they could no longer hope for the ‘rest that remaineth for the people of GOD’,1141 or for that happiness which is revealed to us as something beyond our present conceptions; but would feel themselves doomed to a continuation of the uneasy state under which they now groan. I say nothing of the petulant intemperance with which he dares to insult the venerable establishments of his country.
As a specimen of his writings, I shall quote the following passage, which appears to me equally absurd and impious, and which might have been retorted upon him by the men who were prosecuted for burning his house. ‘I cannot, (says he,) as a necessarian, [meaning necessitarian,] hate any man; because I consider him as being, in all respects, just what God has made him to be; and also as doing with respect to me, nothing but what he was expressly designed and appointed to do; God being the only cause, and men nothing more than the instruments in his hands to execute all his pleasure.’ – Illustrations of Philosophical Necessity, p. in.
The Reverend Dr. Parr, in a late tract, appears to suppose that Dr. Johnson not only endured, but almost solicited, an interview with Dr. Priestley. Injustice to Dr. Johnson, I declare my firm belief that he never did. My illustrious friend was particularly resolute in not giving countenance to men whose writings he considered as pernicious to society. I was present at Oxford when Dr. Price, even before he had rendered himself so generally obnoxious by his zeal for the French Revolution, came into a company where Johnson was, who instantly left the room. Much more would he have reprobated Dr. Priestley.