[730] Rousseau went further than Johnson in this. About eleven years earlier he had, in his Contract Social, iv. 8, laid down certain 'simple dogmas,' such as the belief in a God and a future state, and said:--'Sans pouvoir obliger personne a les croire, il [le Souverain] peut bannir de l'Etat quiconque ne les croit pas: ... Que si quelquiun, apres avoir reconne publiquement ces memes dogmes, se conduit comme ne les croyant pas, qu'il soit puni de mort; il a commis le plus grand des crimes, il a menti devant les lois.'
[731] See post, 1780, in Mr. Langton's Collection.
[732] Boswell calls Elwal Johnson's countryman, because they both came from the same county. See ante, ii.
[733] Baretti, in a MS. note on Piozzi Letters, i. 219, says:--'Johnson would have made an excellent Spanish inquisitor. To his shame be it said, he always was tooth and nail against toleration.'
[734] Dr. Mayo's calm temper and steady perseverance, rendered him an admirable subject for the exercise of Dr. Johnson's powerful abilities. He never flinched; but, after reiterated blows, remained seemingly unmoved as at the first. The scintillations of Johnson's genius flashed every time he was struck, without his receiving any injury. Hence he obtained the epithet of The Literary Anvil. BOSWELL. See post, April 15, 1778, for an account of another dinner at Mr. Dilly's, where Johnson and Mayo met.
[735] The Young Pretender, Charles Edward.
[736] Mr. Croker, quoting Johnson's letter of May 20, 1775 (Piozzi Letters, i. 219), where he says, 'I dined in a large company at a dissenting bookseller's yesterday, and disputed against toleration with one Doctor Meyer,' continues:--'This must have been the dinner noted in the text; but I cannot reconcile the date, and the mention of the death of the Queen of Denmark, which happened on May 10, 1775, ascertains that the date of the letter is correct. Boswell ... must, I think, have misdated and misplaced his note of the conversation.' That the dinner did not take place in May, 1775, is, however, quite clear. By that date Goldsmith had been dead more than a year, and Goldsmith bore a large part in the talk at the Dilly's table. On the other hand, there can be no question about the correctness of the date of the letter. Wesley, in his Journal for 1757 (ii. 349), mentions 'Mr. Meier, chaplain to one of the Hanoverian regiments.' Perhaps he is the man whom Johnson met in 1775.
[737] See ante, i. 423, note 2.
[738] 'It is very possible he had to call at Covent-garden on his way, and that for this, and not for Boswell's reason, he had taken his hat early. The actor who so assisted him in Young Marlow was taking his benefit this seventh of May; and for an additional attraction Goldsmith had written him an epilogue.' Forster's Goldsmith, ii. 376.
[739] Johnson was not given to interrupting a speaker. Hawkins (Life, p. 164), describing his conversation, says:--'For the pleasure he communicated to his hearers he expected not the tribute of silence; on the contrary, he encouraged others, particularly young men, to speak, and paid a due attention to what they said.' See post, under April 29, 1776, note.
[740] That this was Langton can be seen from Boswell's Hebrides, Aug. 22, 1773, and from Johnson's letters of July 5, 1773, July 5, 1774, and Jan. 21, 1775.
[741] See post, April 28, 1783.
[742] Pr. and Med. p. 40. Boswell.
[743] See ante, i. 489.
[744] 'In England,' wrote Burke, 'the Roman Catholics are a sect; in Ireland they are a nation.' Burke's Corres. iv. 89.
[745] 'The celebrated number of ten persecutions has been determined by the ecclesiastical writers of the fifth century, who possessed a more distinct view of the prosperous or adverse fortunes of the church, from the age of Nero to that of Diocletian. The ingenious parallels of the ten plagues of Egypt, and of the ten horns of the Apocalypse, first suggested this calculation to their minds.' Gibbon's Decline and Fall, ch. xvi, ed. 1807, ii. 370.
[746] See ante, ii. 121, 130.
[747] See ante, ii. 105.
[748] Reynolds said:--'Johnson had one virtue which I hold one of the most difficult to practise. After the heat of contest was over, if he had been informed that his antagonist resented his rudeness, he was the first to seek after a reconciliation.' Taylor's Reynolds, ii. 457. He wrote to Dr. Taylor in 1756:--'When I am musing alone, I feel a pang for every moment that any human being has by my peevishness or obstinacy spent in uneasiness.' Notes and Queries, 6th S., v. 324. More than twenty years later he said in Miss Burney's hearing:--'I am always sorry when I make bitter speeches, and I never do it but when I am insufferably vexed.' Mme. D'Arblay's Diary, i. 131. 'When the fray was over,' writes Murphy (Life, p. 140), 'he generally softened into repentance, and, by conciliating measures, took care that no animosity should be left rankling in the breast of the antagonist.' See ante, ii. 109.
[749] Johnson had offended Langton as well as Goldsmith this day, yet of Goldsmith only did he ask pardon.