The Life of Samuel Johnson, vol 3 | Page 6

James Boswell
Mr. Murray maintained there should be
reparation, unless the author could justify himself by proving the fact.
JOHNSON. 'Sir, it is of so much more consequence that truth should be
told, than that individuals should not be made uneasy, that it is much
better that the law does not restrain writing freely concerning the
characters of the dead. Damages will be given to a man who is
calumniated in his life-time, because he may be hurt in his worldly
interest, or at least hurt in his mind: but the law does not regard that
uneasiness which a man feels on having his ancestor calumniated[46].
That is too nice. Let him deny what is said, and let the matter have a
fair chance by discussion. But, if a man could say nothing against a
character but what he can prove, history could not be written; for a
great deal is known of men of which proof cannot be brought. A
minister may be notoriously known to take bribes, and yet you may not
be able to prove it.' Mr. Murray suggested, that the authour should be
obliged to shew some sort of evidence, though he would not require a
strict legal proof: but Johnson firmly and resolutely opposed any
restraint whatever, as adverse to a free investigation of the characters of
mankind[47].
On Thursday, April 4, having called on Dr. Johnson, I said, it was a
pity that truth was not so firm as to bid defiance to all attacks, so that it
might be shot at as much as people chose to attempt, and yet remain
unhurt. JOHNSON. 'Then, Sir, it would not be shot at. Nobody[48]
attempts to dispute that two and two make four: but with contests
concerning moral truth, human passions are generally mixed, and

therefore it must ever be liable to assault and misrepresentation.'
On Friday, April 5, being Good Friday, after having attended the
morning service at St. Clement's Church[49], I walked home with
Johnson. We talked of the Roman Catholick religion. JOHNSON. 'In
the barbarous ages, Sir, priests and people were equally deceived; but
afterwards there were gross corruptions introduced by the clergy, such
as indulgences to priests to have concubines, and the worship of images,
not, indeed, inculcated, but knowingly permitted.' He strongly censured
the licensed stews at Rome. BOSWELL. 'So then, Sir, you would allow
of no irregular intercourse whatever between the sexes?' JOHNSON.
'To be sure I would not, Sir. I would punish it much more than it is
done, and so restrain it. In all countries there has been fornication, as in
all countries there has been theft; but there may be more or less of the
one, as well as of the other, in proportion to the force of law. All men
will naturally commit fornication, as all men will naturally steal. And,
Sir, it is very absurd to argue, as has been often done, that prostitutes
are necessary to prevent the violent effects of appetite from violating
the decent order of life; nay, should be permitted, in order to preserve
the chastity of our wives and daughters. Depend upon it, Sir, severe
laws, steadily enforced, would be sufficient against those evils, and
would promote marriage.'
I stated to him this case:--'Suppose a man has a daughter, who he
knows has been seduced, but her misfortune is concealed from the
world? should he keep her in his house? Would he not, by doing so, be
accessory to imposition? And, perhaps, a worthy, unsuspecting man
might come and marry this woman, unless the father inform him of the
truth.' JOHNSON. 'Sir, he is accessory to no imposition. His daughter
is in his house; and if a man courts her, he takes his chance. If a friend,
or, indeed, if any man asks his opinion whether he should marry her, he
ought to advise him against it, without telling why, because his real
opinion is then required. Or, if he has other daughters who know of her
frailty, he ought not to keep her in his house. You are to consider the
state of life is this; we are to judge of one another's characters as well
as we can; and a man is not bound, in honesty or honour, to tell us the
faults of his daughter or of himself. A man who has debauched his

friend's daughter is not obliged to say to every body--"Take care of me;
don't let me into your houses without suspicion. I once debauched a
friend's daughter. I may debauch yours."'
Mr. Thrale called upon him, and appeared to bear the loss of his son
with a manly composure. There was no affectation about him; and he
talked, as usual, upon indifferent subjects.[50] He seemed to me to
hesitate as to the intended Italian tour, on
Continue reading on your phone by scaning this QR Code

 / 265
Tip: The current page has been bookmarked automatically. If you wish to continue reading later, just open the Dertz Homepage, and click on the 'continue reading' link at the bottom of the page.