"Campbell," said he, "is a good man, a pious man.I am afraid he has not been in the inside of a church for many years: but he never passes a church without pulling off his hat; this shows hehas good principles." Spain and Sicily must surely contain many pious robbers and well-principled assassins.Johnson could easily see that a Roundhead who named all his children after Solomon's singers, and talked in the House of Commons about seeking the Lord, might be an unprincipled villain, whose religious mummeries only aggravated his guilt.But a man who took off his hat when he passed a church episcopally consecrated must be a good man, a pious man, a man of good principles.Johnson could easily see that those persons who looked on a dance or a laced waistcoat as sinful, deemed most ignobly of the attributes of God and of the ends of revelation.But with what a storm of invective he would have overwhelmed any man who had blamed him for celebrating the redemption of mankind with sugarless tea and butterless buns.
Nobody spoke more contemptuously of the cant of patriotism.
Nobody saw more clearly the error of those who regarded liberty, not as a means, but as an end, and who proposed to themselves, as the object of their pursuit, the prosperity of the State: as distinct from the prosperity of the individuals who compose the State.His calm and settled opinion seems to have been that forms of government have little or no influence on the happiness of society.This opinion, erroneous as it is, ought at least to have preserved him from all intemperance on political questions.It did not, however, preserve him from the lowest, fiercest, and most absurd extravagances of party spirit, from rants which, in everything but the diction, resembled those of Squire Western.He was, as a politician, half ice and half fire.On the side of his intellect he was a mere Pococurante, far too apathetic about public affairs, far too sceptical as to the good or evil tendency of any form of polity.His passions, on the contrary, were violent even to slaying against all who leaned to Whiggish principles.The well-known lines which he inserted in Goldsmith's Traveller express what seems to have been his deliberate judgment:
How small, of all that human hearts endure, That part which kings or laws can cause or cure!
He had previously put expressions very similar into the mouth of Rasselas.It is amusing to contrast these passages with the torrents of raving abuse which he poured forth against the Long Parliament and the American Congress.In one of the conversations reported by Boswell this inconsistency displays itself in the most ludicrous manner.
"Sir Adam Ferguson," says Boswell, "suggested that luxury corrupts a people, and destroys the spirit of liberty.JOHNSON:
'Sir, that is all visionary.I would not give half a guinea to live under one form of government rather than another.It is of no moment to the happiness of an individual.Sir, the danger of the abuse of power is nothing to a private man.What Frenchman is prevented passing his life as he pleases?' SIR ADAM: 'But, sir, in the British constitution it is surely of importance to keep up a spirit in the people, so as to preserve a balance against the Crown.' JOHNSON: 'Sir, I perceive you are a vile Whig.Why all this childish jealousy of the power of the Crown? The Crown has not power enough.'"One of the old philosophers, Lord Bacon tells us, used to say that life and death were just the same to him."Why, then," said an objector, "do you not kill yourself?" The philosopher answered, "Because it is just the same." If the difference between two forms of government be not worth half a guinea, it is not easy to see how Whiggism can be viler than Toryism, or how the Crown can have too little power.If the happiness of individuals is not affected by political abuses, zeal for liberty is doubtless ridiculous.But zeal for monarchy must he equally so.No person could have been more quick-sighted than Johnson to such a contradiction as this in the logic of an antagonist.
The judgments which Johnson passed on books were, in his own time, regarded with superstitious veneration, and, in our time, are generally treated with indiscriminate contempt.They are the judgments of a strong but enslaved understanding.The mind of the critic was hedged round by an uninterrupted fence of prejudices and superstitions.Within his narrow limits, he displayed a vigour and an activity which ought to have enabled him to clear the barrier that confined him.
