We accuse him of having undertaken a work which, if not performed with strict accuracy, must be very much worse than useless, and of having performed it as if the difference between an accurate and an inaccurate statement was not worth the trouble of looking into the most common book of reference.
But we must proceed.These volumes contain mistakes more gross, if possible, than any that we have yet mentioned.Boswell has recorded some observations made by Johnson on the changes which had taken place in Gibbon's religious opinions.That Gibbon when a lad at Oxford turned Catholic is well known."It is said,"cried Johnson, laughing, "that he has been a Mahommedan." "This sarca**," says the editor, "probably alludes to the tenderness with which Gibbon's malevolence to Christianity induced him to treat Mahommedanism in his history." Now the sarca** was uttered in 1776; and that part of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire which relates to Mahommedanism was not published till 1788, twelve years after the date of this conversation, and near four years after the death of Johnson.
[A defence of this blunder was attempted.That the celebrated chapters in which Gibbon has traced the progress of Mahommedanism were not written in 1776 could not be denied.But it was confidently asserted that his partiality to Mahommedanism appeared in his first volume.This assertion is untrue.No passage which can by any art be construed into the faintest indication of the faintest partiality for Mahommedanism has ever been quoted or ever will be quoted from the first volume of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
To what, then, it has been asked, could Johnson allude? Possibly to some anecdote or some conversation of which all trace is lost.
One conjecture may be offered, though with diffidence.Gibbon tells us in his Memoirs, that at Oxford he took a fancy for studying Arabic, and was prevented from doing so by the remonstrances of his tutor.Soon after this, the young man fell in with Bossuet's controversial writings, and was speedily converted by them to the Roman Catholic faith.The apostasy of a gentleman commoner would of course be for a time the chief subject of conversation in the common room of Magdalene.His whim about Arabic learning would naturally be mentioned, and would give occasion to some jokes about the probability of his turning Mussulman.If such jokes were made, Johnson, who frequently visited Oxford, was very likely to hear of them.]
"It was in the year 1761," says Mr.Croker, "that Goldsmith published his Vicar of Wakefield.This leads the editor to observe a more serious inaccuracy of Mrs.Piozzi, than Mr.
Boswell notices, when he says Johnson left her table to go and sell the Vicar of Wakefield for Goldsmith.Now Dr.Johnson was not acquainted with the Thrales till 1765, four years after the book had been published." [Vol.v.409] Mr.Croker, in reprehending the fancied inaccuracy of Mrs.Thrale, has himself shown a degree of inaccuracy, or, to speak more properly, a degree of ignorance, hardly credible.In the first place, Johnson became acquainted with the Thrales, not in 1765, but in 1764, and during the last weeks of 1764 dined with them every Thursday, as is written in Mrs.Piozzi's anecdotes.In the second place, Goldsmith published the Vicar of Wakefield, not in 1761, but in 1766.Mrs.Thrale does not pretend to remember the precise date of the summons which called Johnson from her table to the help of his friend.She says only that it was near the beginning of her acquaintance with Johnson, and certainly not later than 1766.Her accuracy is therefore completely vindicated.It was probably after one of her Thursday dinners in 1764 that the celebrated scene of the landlady, the sheriff's officer, and the bottle of Madeira, took place.[This paragraph has been altered; and a slight inaccuracy immaterial to the argument, has been removed.]
The very page which contains this monstrous blunder, contains another blunder, if possible, more monstrous still.Sir Joseph Mawbey, a foolish member of Parliament, at whose speeches and whose pig-styes the wits of Brookes's were, fifty years ago, in the habit of laughing most unmercifully, stated, on the authority of Garrick, that Johnson, while sitting in a coffee-house at Oxford, about the time of his doctor's degree, used some contemptuous expressions respecting Home's play and Macpherson's Ossian."Many men," he said, "many women, and many children, might have written Douglas." Mr.Croker conceives that he has detected an inaccuracy, and glories over poor Sir Joseph in a most characteristic manner.I have quoted this anecdote solely with the view of showing to how little credit hearsay anecdotes are in general entitled.Here is a story published by Sir Joseph Mawbey, a member of the House of Commons, and a person every way worthy of credit, who says he had it from Garrick.Now mark:
