The Life of Samuel Johnson, vol 3 | Page 4

his behaviour, and accounted for it thus: 'Sir, he
had passed his time, while in England, only in the best company; so
that all that he had acquired of our manners was genteel. As a proof of
this, Sir, Lord Mulgrave and he dined one day at Streatham; they sat
with their backs to the light fronting me, so that I could not see
distinctly; and there was so little of the savage in Omai, that I was
afraid to speak to either, lest I should mistake one for the other[27].'
We agreed to dine to-day at the Mitre-tavern, after the rising of the
House of Lords, where a branch of the litigation concerning the
Douglas Estate[28], in which I was one of the counsel, was to come on.
I brought with me Mr. Murray, Solicitor-General of Scotland, now one
of the Judges of the Court of Session, with the title of Lord Henderland.
I mentioned Mr. Solicitor's relation, Lord Charles Hay[29], with whom
I knew Dr. Johnson had been acquainted. JOHNSON. 'I wrote
something[30] for Lord Charles; and I thought he had nothing to fear
from a court-martial. I suffered a great loss when he died; he was a

mighty pleasing man in conversation, and a reading man. The character
of a soldier is high. They who stand forth the foremost in danger, for
the community, have the respect of mankind. An officer is much more
respected than any other man who has as little money. In a commercial
country, money will always purchase respect. But you find, an officer,
who has, properly speaking, no money, is every where well received
and treated with attention. The character of a soldier always stands him
in stead[31].' BOSWELL. 'Yet, Sir, I think that common soldiers are
worse thought of than other men in the same rank of life; such as
labourers.' JOHNSON. 'Why, Sir, a common soldier is usually a very
gross man[32], and any quality which procures respect may be
overwhelmed by grossness. A man of learning may be so vicious or so
ridiculous that you cannot respect him. A common soldier too,
generally eats more than he can pay for. But when a common soldier is
civil in his quarters, his red coat procures him a degree of respect[33].'
The peculiar respect paid to the military character in France was
mentioned. BOSWELL. 'I should think that where military men are so
numerous, they would be less valued as not being rare.' JOHNSON.
'Nay, Sir, wherever a particular character or profession is high in the
estimation of a people, those who are of it will be valued above other
men. We value an Englishman highly in this country, and yet
Englishmen are not rare in it.'
Mr. Murray praised the ancient philosophers for the candour and good
humour with which those of different sects disputed with each other.
JOHNSON. 'Sir, they disputed with good humour, because they were
not in earnest as to religion. Had the ancients been serious in their
belief, we should not have had their Gods exhibited in the manner we
find them represented in the Poets. The people would not have suffered
it. They disputed with good humour upon their fanciful theories,
because they were not interested in the truth of them: when a man has
nothing to lose, he may be in good humour with his opponent.
Accordingly you see in Lucian, the Epicurean, who argues only
negatively, keeps his temper; the Stoick, who has something positive to
preserve, grows angry[34]. Being angry with one who controverts an
opinion which you value, is a necessary consequence of the uneasiness
which you feel. Every man who attacks my belief, diminishes in some

degree my confidence in it, and therefore makes me uneasy; and I am
angry with him who makes me uneasy[35]. Those only who believed in
revelation have been angry at having their faith called in question;
because they only had something upon which they could rest as matter
of fact.' MURRAY. 'It seems to me that we are not angry at a man for
controverting an opinion which we believe and value; we rather pity
him.' JOHNSON. 'Why, Sir; to be sure when you wish a man to have
that belief which you think is of infinite advantage, you wish well to
him; but your primary consideration is your own quiet. If a madman
were to come into this room with a stick in his hand, no doubt we
should pity the state of his mind; but our primary consideration would
be to take care of ourselves. We should knock him down first, and pity
him afterwards. No, Sir; every man will dispute with great good
humour upon a subject in which he is not interested. I will dispute very
calmly upon the probability of another