Chapter I: Part 1

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:

A number of alterations have been made with the aim of correcting
printing errors, while changing the text as little as possible.
No attempt has been made to alter spellings, or to modernise
punctuation or grammar. The complete list of all such changes
appear at the end of this text.

THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY

DEFORMITIES
OF
DR SAMUEL JOHNSON.

SELECTED FROM HIS WORKS.

(1782)

_Introduction by_
GWIN J. KOLB AND J. E. CONGLETON

PUBLICATION NUMBERS 147-148

WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
1971

GENERAL EDITORS

William E. Conway, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_
George Robert Guffey, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Maximillian E. Novak, _University of California, Los Angeles_

ASSOCIATE EDITOR

David S. Rodes, _University of California, Los Angeles_

ADVISORY EDITORS

Richard C. Boys, _University of Michigan_
James L. Clifford, _Columbia University_
Ralph Cohen, _University of Virginia_
Vinton A. Dearing, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Arthur Friedman, _University of Chicago_
Louis A. Landa, _Princeton University_
Earl Miner, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Samuel H. Monk, _University of Minnesota_
Everett T. Moore, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Lawrence Clark Powell, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_
James Sutherland, _University College, London_
H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., _University of California, Los Angeles_
Robert Vosper, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_
Curt A. Zimansky, _State University of Iowa_

CORRESPONDING SECRETARY

Edna C. Davis, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Lilly Kurahashi, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_

INTRODUCTION

During the early part of his literary career, James Thomson Callender (1758-1803)[1] belittled Samuel Johnson; during the later, he denigrated Thomas Jefferson. Thus his reputation as a Scots master of scurrility and a vicious scandalmonger was earned on both sides of the Atlantic.

Probably because his anonymous pamphlets about Johnson's writings--the _Deformities of Dr. Samuel Johnson, Selected from his Works_ (1782) and _A Critical Review of the Works of Dr. Samuel Johnson_ (1783)--were not both ascribed to him until 1940, Callender first came into public notice in 1792, when in Scotland he published _The Political Progress of Britain, or An Impartial Account of the Principal Abuses in the Government of this Country from the Revolution in 1688_. For these intemperate remarks, though anonymous, he was indicted in 1793 for sedition. He fled from Edinburgh and made his way, "with some difficulty," soon thereafter to Philadelphia.

During the first several years in Philadelphia, he was reporter of the Congressional debates for the Philadelphia _Gazette_ and did some editorial hackwork. He also published the third edition of the _Political Progress_, which was favorably noticed by Jefferson. In 1797 he published _The History of the United States for 1796: Including a Variety of Particulars Relative to the Federal Government Previous to that Period_, which brought the charge against Alexander Hamilton of "a connection with one James Reynolds for purpose of improper pecuniary speculation." Hamilton, after making preliminary preparations for a duel, came to the conclusion that he would have to sacrifice his private reputation to clear his public actions. So he calmly wrote, "My real crime is an amorous connection with his [Reynolds'] wife for a considerable time, with his privity and connivance, if not originally brought on by a combination between the husband and wife with the design to extort money from me."[2]

In _The Prospect before Us_ (1800), written under the secret patronage of Jefferson, Callender assailed John Adams and lashed through Adams at his predecessor, Washington. Ending his diatribe, he said, "Take your choice, between Adams, war and beggery and Jefferson, peace and competency." Because of his remarks about Adams, he was tried under the Sedition Law, fined $200, and sent to prison for nine months. While in prison he wrote two fiery anti-Federalist pamphlets, for which Jefferson advanced money under ambiguous terms. When Jefferson became President in 1801, he pardoned Callender (and all others convicted under the unwise Sedition Law), and Callender's fine was remitted. But Callender was not satisfied; he wanted Jefferson to appoint him postmaster of Richmond, Virginia. Jefferson refused, in spite of the tone of blackmail which now pervaded Callender's importunities. Soon he turned his political coat and began editing the most scurrilous anti-Jefferson paper in the country, the Richmond _Recorder_, to the infinite delight of the Federalists, who immediately circulated the periodical far and wide. Callender accused Jefferson of dishonesty and cowardice, but pure malice inspired his most injurious charges.

It is well known that the man, _whom it delighted the people to
honor_, keeps ... as his concubine, one of his own slaves. Her
name is Sally. The name of her eldest son is Tom. His features
are said to bear a striking resemblance to those of the president
himself.... By this wench Sally, our President has had several
children. There is not an individual in the neighborhood of
Charlottesville who does not believe the story; and not a few
who _know it_.... Behold the favorite! the first born of
republicanism! the pinnacle of all that is good and great! If the
friends of Mr. Jefferson are convinced of his innocence, they will
make an appeal.... If they rest in silence, or if they content
themselves with resting upon a _general denial_, they cannot hope
for credit. The allegation is of a nature too _black_ to be
suffered to remain in suspense. We should be glad to hear of its
refutation. We give it to the world under the firmest belief that
such a refutation _never can be made_. The AFRICAN VENUS is said
to officiate as housekeeper at Montecello. When Mr. Jefferson has
read this article, he will find leisure to estimate how much has
been lost or gained by so many unprovoked attacks upon J. T.
Callender![3]

Callender's ignominious end came on 17 July 1803. The _Gentleman's Magazine_ declared (LXXIII [September 1803], 882) that he, "after experiencing many varieties of fortune as Iscariot Hackney ... drowned himself ... in James River": the coroner's jury, however, declared that his death was accidental, following intoxication.

There can be scant doubt that the _Deformities_ and _A Critical Review_[4] have a common origin. The paper, type, and makeup of the title-pages indicate that they were issued from the same press. In the "Introduction" to _A Critical Review_, the statement is made that "The author of the present trifle was last year induced to publish a few remarks on the writings of Dr. Samuel Johnson.... Like the former essay, these pages will endeavour to ascertain the genuine importance of Dr. Johnson's literary character" (pp. iii, v). In the text on page 50, the _Deformities_ is cited in proprietary tones; and it is also mentioned in notes on pages 19, 37, 55, and 63. Moreover, the tell-tale words "deformities" and "deformity" appear (pp. 31, 43) in the text, and there is an advertisement for the _Deformities_ on page 72.

An attempt to identify the author of the _Deformities_ was made by George Steevens when it appeared. In a letter to William Cole dated 14 May 1782, he says that it was "written by a Club of Caledonian Wits."[5] The _Critical Review_ for August 1782 (LIV, 140) surmised that "the pamphlet ... is apparently written by some angry Caledonian, who, warmed with the deepest resentment for some real or supposed injury, gives vent to his indignation, and treats every part of Dr. Johnson's character with the utmost asperity." A month later, the _Gentleman's Magazine_ (LII [September 1782], 439), "reciting the circumstance" of the origin of the _Deformities_, contended that it was a revenge pamphlet inspired by an anti-Ossian publication by William Shaw ("Nadir" Shaw, in the _Deformities_), who "'denied the existence of Gaelic poetry....'" "Dr. Johnson was his patron; and THEREFORE this Essayist, 'by fair and copious quotations from Dr. Johnson's ponderous performances, has attempted to illustrate'" his extraordinary defects. And in February 1783 (LXVIII, 185-186), the _Monthly Review_ briefly noted:

This seems to be the production of some ingenious but angry
Scotchman, who has taken great pains to prove, what all the world
knows, that there are many exceptionable passages in the writings
of Dr. Johnson. There are, however, few spots in this literary
luminary now pointed out that have not been discovered before.
So that the present map must be considered rather as a monument of
the delineator's malignity, than of his wit.--His _personalities_
seem to indicate personal provocation; though perhaps it may be
all pure _nationality_.

Though Boswell mentions the pamphlet and quotes a letter in which Johnson comments on it,[6] neither he nor any of his editors before L. F. Powell try to identify the incensed author. In 1815 Robert Anderson said that the _Deformities_, "an invidious contrast to 'The Beauties of Johnson,'" is "the production of Mr. Thomson Callender, nephew of Thomson the poet."[7]

When the _Deformities_ was catalogued in the Bodleian Library in 1834,[8] it was attributed to John Callander of Craigforth. In _A Critical Review of the Works of Dr. Samuel Johnson_, the statement is made (p. 4) that "Mr. Callander of Craigforth ... observes" that "'Had the laborious Johnson been better acquainted with the oriental tongues, or had he even understood the first rudiments of the northern languages from which the English and Scots derive their origin, his bulky volumes had not presented to us the melancholy truth, that unwearied industry, _devoid of settled principles_, avails only to add one error to another.'" This latter blast, taken from the "Introduction" to Callander's _Two Ancient Scottish Poems, The Gaberlunzie Man and Christ's Kirk on the Green_ (Edinburgh, 1782), may well have been the evidence that caused _A Critical Review_ to be attributed to John Callander of Craigforth; then, because of the interconnections between it and the _Deformities_ and because of their convincing similarity, the _Deformities_ was also assigned to him. On the other hand, one is puzzled by the Bodleian's failure to accept the passage from John Callander in _A Critical Review_ as conclusive evidence that he was not the author of that work.[9]

When the _Deformities_ and _A Critical Review_ were catalogued in the British Museum, in 1854 and 1862, they were likewise attributed to John Callander of Craigforth. In 1915 Courtney and Smith seemed to doubt that John Callander wrote them; for, they noticed, "strangely enough no mention of them is made by Robert Chambers in his memoir of Callander."[10] The _Catalogue of Printed Books in the Edinburgh Library_ (1918) assigns _A Critical Review_ to John Callander; it does not list the _Deformities_. Arthur G. Kennedy, in _A Bibliography of Writings on the English Language_ (1927), attributes the _Deformities_ to John Callander; he lists the 1787 issue of _A Critical Review_ as anonymous. In their _Dictionary of Anonymous and Pseudonymous English Literature_ (1926-1932), Halkett and Laing assign _A Critical Review_ to John Callander on the authority of the British Museum; the _Deformities_ is also assigned to him on the authority of a note by Chalmers in 1782.

Finally, L. F. Powell, _primus editorum_, in his revision of G. B. Hill's edition of Boswell's _Life_ (1934-1950), quoted from a letter by James Thomson Callender to John Stockdale, dated 4 October 1783, which says: "I will be greatly obliged to you, for delivering the remaining Copies of Deformities of Johnson to the bearer, and sending me his Receipt for them." Dr. Powell thinks--rightly, we believe, when all the other evidence is taken into account--that this letter "shows" that Callender "was the author of the book."[11]

Then in 1940, D. Nichol Smith, no doubt having followed the suspicion he and W. P. Courtney expressed in 1915, and having available the proof unearthed by Dr. Powell, attributed both items to J. T. Callender in the _CBEL_ (II, 627), listing two editions of the _Deformities_ in 1782 and two of _A Critical Review_ in 1783. The British Museum _Catalogue_ also now credits the same Scotsman with both works.

The information in Callender's letter to Stockdale, Anderson's identification, a fairly plausible reason that the _Deformities_ was so long attributed to John Callander, the similarity of the styles and contents of the two pamphlets, the parallel circumstances of publication, the virtual acknowledgement of the _Deformities_ in _A Critical Review_--all point to a safe conclusion that the two works were the creations of James Thomson Callender.

Though students of Johnson have frequently noticed the bitter ridicule in the _Deformities_ and _A Critical Review_, they (since the author of the pamphlets was unknown) have seldom,[12] if ever, detailed Callender's turbulent career in America. Similarly, students of American history have studied Callender's attacks on early American statesmen; but they have been completely unaware, it seems, that the pamphleteer who wrote them began his career by making fun of Samuel Johnson. Now that the authorship of these two early productions has been established, a study of them provides details that illuminate the foreground of Callender's career in America. Likewise, of course, the particulars of his activities in America illuminate the background of his career in Great Britain.

Near the conclusion of the _Deformities_, Callender relates the "circumstances which," as he says, "gave ... birth" to the work.

In 1778, Mr William Shaw published an Analysis of the Gaelic
language. He quoted specimens of Gaelic poetry, and harangued on
its beauties.... A few months ago, he printed a pamphlet. He
traduced decent characters. He denied the existence of Gaelic
poetry, and his name was echoed in the newspapers as a miracle of
candour. Is there in the annals of Grubaean impudence any parallel
to this?... This incomparable bookbuilder, who writes a
dictionary before he can write grammar, had previously boasted
what a harvest he would reap from English credulity. He was not
deceived. The bait was caught.... Mr Shaw wants only money....
But better things might have been expected from the moral and
majestic author of the Rambler. He must have seen the Analysis of
the Gaelic language, for Shaw mentions him as the patron of that
work. He must have seen the specimens of Celtic poetry there
inserted. That he is likewise the patron of this poor scribble,
no man, I suppose, will offer to deny. From this single
circumstance, Dr Johnson stands convicted of _an illiberal
intention to deceive_. Candour can hardly hesitate to sum up his
character in the vulgar but expressive pollysyllable [pp. 86-87].

Readily available facts support some of the central assertions in this rather heated description of the inception of the _Deformities_. Specifically, as readers of Boswell's _Life_ may recall, Johnson must be considered a--if not the--principal patron of the Scotsman William Shaw's _Analysis of the Gaelic Language_: he wrote the official proposals for the work, he solicited subscribers to it, and he received from the grateful author a public acknowledgement (in the "Introduction") that "To the advice and encouragement of Dr. Johnson, the friend of letters and humanity, the public is indebted for these sheets."[13] It is probable, too, that he examined the book at least cursorily[14] and that in doing so he caught sight of one or more of the references to Ossian's poetry, perhaps including the "specimen" on pages 145-149. Moreover, in the pamphlet Callender mentions, entitled _An Enquiry into the Authenticity of the Poems Ascribed to Ossian_ (1781), Shaw, setting out to demolish the arguments favoring the ostensible origins of the purported translations, accords (p. 2) Johnson pride of place in starting "objections" to the poems and quotes (pp. 6-12) approvingly first a lengthy passage from _A Journey to the Western Islands of Scotland_ (1775) and then Johnson's famous letter to James Macpherson. In addition, Boswell records Johnson's later assistance to Shaw in composing a reply to John Clark's pro-Ossian _Answer to Mr. Shaw's Inquiry_ (1781).[15] But to admit all this is scarcely to "convict" Johnson of a deliberate "_intention to deceive_." On the contrary, since by 1778 his scepticism regarding the Ossianic writings was widely known, his _Journey_ having appeared three years earlier, it could be argued that his patronage of Shaw's _Analysis_ revealed a degree of understanding and tolerance not always associated with his name.

For the irate Callender, however, such "shameful" conduct demanded countermeasures--even by "a private individual, without interest or connections." The self-appointed champion both of "virtue" and also of "a world ... weary of" the culprit's "arrogant pedantry" and "officious malice," he hoped "to humble and reform" Johnson by "glean[ing] the tithe of" his "absurdities," which, Callender declares, illustrate, among other defects, Johnson's "prolixity," "corruptions of our language," "want of general learning," "antipathy to rival merit," "paralytick reasoning," "adherence to contradictions," "defiance of decency," and "contempt of truth" (pp. 87-88).

After garnering the supposed proofs of these multitudinous "deformities," Callender published his book at Edinburgh (where it was sold by "W. Creech") in the early part of 1782.[16] The pamphlet, priced at a shilling and consisting of a two-page introduction and sixty-three pages of text, was also sold at London by "T. Longman, and J. Stockdale."[17] Towards the end of the same year (probably in December),[18] encouraged by the initial "reception," he brought out a second, enlarged edition of the work, which he had "perused ... with honest attention, from the first line to the last, that he might endeavour to supply its deficiencies, and to correct its errors" (p. vi). Selling for "eighteen pence"[19] and appearing at both Edinburgh and London, this edition includes a separate preface and comes to a total of eighty-nine pages. We have chosen it as the text for the present reproduction of the _Deformities_.

Callender's very limited powers of ridicule and exposure reside largely in his amassment of material, not in his ability to arrange and synthesize that material. Indeed, one looks in vain at the work for anything more than the most obvious and elementary form of organization. The Preface begins with brief general remarks on "man's" incapacity to "reform" his "follies" and the "prejudice" and "good nature" of the "public" respecting this human frailty, offers "Dr. Samuel Johnson" as a capital example of the general observation, proceeds to "enquire" how "such a man crawled to the summit of classical reputation," and concludes, rather abruptly, with a short postcript on the second edition of the _Deformities_ itself. The Introduction stresses the enormous differences that, according to Callender, often exist between a man's words and deeds--particularly, so the reader is told repeatedly if a bit obliquely, between Johnson's writings (especially the _Dictionary_) and actions.

The body of the pamphlet may be divided into five unequal parts. In the first (pp. 11-15), Callender launches a freewheeling attack on Johnson, accusing him of "ill-nature," a revengeful spirit, peevishness, and insolence (among other lamentable traits), and announces his chosen mode of chastisement: "From the Doctor's volumes I am to select some passages, illustrate them with a few observations, and submit them to the reader's opinion." In the second (pp. 15-47), he presents a disconnected string of quotations drawn from a number of Johnson's works and embellished with caustic strictures on their creator's presumed moral, intellectual, and literary shortcomings. In the third and longest section (pp. 47-82), separated from the second by a small printer's device, Callender, after "quoting [pp. 47-51] the remarks already made by a judicious friend,[20] on this subject," begins a series of disjointed, angry comments on the supposed weaknesses of "the Doctor's English Dictionary." Thirty-one pages later, having vented his ire on the choice and definitions of hundreds of words in the _Dictionary_, he "take[s] leave" of the "enormous compilation," stigmatized as "perhaps ... the strangest farrago which pedantry ever produced," and "return[s]" briefly, in part four (pp. 82-86; set off from part three by another small device), "to the rest of" Johnson's publications, extracts from which he again employs as a means of exhibiting his subject's supposed faults. Finally, he brings the rambling essay to a close (pp. 86-89) by recounting its origins, repeating his principal charges against Johnson, and reasserting his hopes for the Doctor's "reformation."

Although it contains some lively reading (with the author himself being the center of our interest about as often as his subject) and should certainly be readily accessible to students of eighteenth-century literature, the _Deformities_ merits only restricted attention as a valid critique of Johnson's character and writings. Ostensibly employing, by and large, an inductive argument, it professes to demonstrate the pronounced ethical and mental flaws of the Great Cham, who enjoys, so Callender freely confesses, an unrivalled reputation among his contemporaries for his achievements in letters and lexicography. Besides the deplorable qualities mentioned above and excluding for the moment a consideration of those most evident in the _Dictionary_, Johnson's faults are alleged to include dishonesty, pride, vulgarity, slovenliness, dullness, contempt for other persons, prejudice (especially against the Scots), ingratitude, "gross expressions," turgid language, and, above all, ignorance, "nonsense," and countless inconsistencies. To this sweeping broadside of invective, the modern reader must respond with steady, sometimes amused, sometimes annoyed disbelief. He recognizes, to be sure, certain points of likeness between Callender's abusive imputations and (say) Boswell's highly laudatory portrait. But the former's accusations are so irresponsible and intemperate, so obviously the outburst of a quivering Scotsman's intense indignation, and the evidence adduced is so often wrenched from its context and misapplied, that the reader inevitably finds himself a partisan of Johnson even when he might be occasionally inclined to admit the tenability of Callender's criticism.

Among Johnson's works, the _Dictionary_, as already indicated, bears the brunt of Callender's heaviest, most sustained assault. Its principal "deformities," to judge from the amount of space devoted to them, occur in its definitions and word-list. In Callender's opinion, "most of the definitions ... may be divided into three classes; the erroneous, oenigmatical, and superfluous" (p. 58); many of them explicate "indecent," "blackguard" expressions (pp. 54, 74); and some, exemplifying the lexicographer's "political tenets," are downright "seditious and impudent" (p. 13). Of the word-list itself, probably "two thousand" members, comprising a "profusion of trash," are "not to be found at all in any other book" (p. 70).

A short introduction is scarcely the place to examine the presumed existence of these defects in the _Dictionary_. Nevertheless, a few facts, based on a random sampling of passages in the _Deformities_, may provide a partial historical perspective for Callender's censures. Of the group of 210 words on pages 71-72 whose real currency he doubts or denies, 190 also appear in the second edition (1736) of Nathan Bailey's _Dictionarium Britannicum_, a copy of which Johnson interleaved and used as he compiled his own _Dictionary_. Equally revealing, the _OED_ includes 204 of the 210, the second edition of _Webster's International_ 158, and the third edition 108. Again, of the 65 words on pages 51-53 whose definitions Callender objects to, 48 also appear, with comparable explanations, in Bailey's dictionary. Finally, an unsystematic comparison of Bailey's and Johnson's works reveals a much higher incidence of so-called "indecent"--at least sexual--terms in the former than in the latter. The author of the _Deformities_, it is quite obvious, knew what he disliked about the _Dictionary_; when pressing his strictures against the book, however, as when mounting his other attacks on Johnson, his violent passions rode roughshod over his faint pretensions to fairness and objectivity.

University of Chicago
Findlay College

NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION

1. The _DNB_ and the _DAB_ both contain accounts of Callender (complete, of course, with lists of their primary sources) to which we are indebted for various details in our own sketch of his life. However, neither mentions his pamphlets on Johnson.

2. Quoted from Hamilton by David Loth in _Alexander Hamilton: Portrait of a Prodigy_ (New York, 1939), p. 249.

3. From the Richmond _Recorder_ as printed in the New York _Evening Post_, 10 September 1802; quoted from _Jefferson Reader_, ed. Francis Coleman Rosenberger (New York, 1953), pp. 109-111.

4. There were apparently three editions of _A Critical Review_: (1) Edinburgh: Printed for J. Dickson, and W. Creech, 1783. (2) Second Edition. London. Printed for the Author, and sold by T. Cadell and J. Stockdale; at Edinburgh, by J. Dickson and W. Creech, 1783. (3) London. Printed for R. Rusted, 1787. We are indebted to the Pierpont Morgan Library for a photographic reproduction of its copy of the first edition of the pamphlet.

5. Brit. Mus. Addit. MS 6401, f. 175 b. Part of this letter is quoted by L. F. Powell in Boswell's _Life of Johnson_, IV, 499 (cited hereafter as _Life_).

6. Writing to Boswell on 28 March 1782, Johnson remarks: "The Beauties of Johnson are said to have got money to the collector; if the 'Deformities' have the same success, I shall be still a more extensive benefactor" (_The Letters of Samuel Johnson_, ed. R. W. Chapman [Oxford, 1952], II, 475).

7. _Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. With Critical Observations on His Works_ (3rd ed.; Edinburgh, 1815), p. 231. Anderson is apparently incorrect in saying that Callender was Thomson's nephew.

8. There is apparently no copy of _A Critical Review_ in the Bodleian.

9. In his Introduction to a recent reprint (New York, 1965) of John Rae's _Life of Adam Smith_ (1895), Jacob Viner (who expresses his indebtedness to "Herman W. Liebert for bringing _A Critical Review_ to my attention and for warning me that J. T. Callender, its author, was probably also the author of _Deformities of Dr. Samuel Johnson_") concludes that the quotation from John Callander in _A Critical Review_ is sufficient "to acquit John Callander of any responsibility for authorship of either _Deformities of Samuel Johnson_ or _A Critical Review_" (p. 68; see also pp. 62-69).

10. William P. Courtney and D. Nichol Smith, _A Bibliography of Samuel Johnson_ (Oxford, 1915; reissued with facsimiles, 1925), p. 136.

11. _Life_, IV, 499. Callender's letter itself, reproduced in the _R. B. Adam Library_ (III, 48), is now in the Hyde Collection. Dr. Powell, like Robert Anderson, says that James Thomson Callender was a nephew of the poet James Thomson, and gives the _DNB_ as the source of his information.

12. In 1962, one of the present writers, J. E. Congleton, published an article on "James Thomson Callender, Johnson and Jefferson" (_Johnsonian Studies_ [Cairo, 1962], pp. 161-172) which forms the basis of a part of the present introduction.

13. _Life_, III, 106, 107, 214, 488.

14. _Ibid._, III, 106.

15. _Ibid._, IV, 252-253, 526.

16. The work appeared well before 28 March 1782 when Johnson referred to it in the letter of Boswell cited above in note 6. In the _Life_ (IV, 148), Boswell remarks that he had previously "informed" Johnson "that as 'The Beauties of Johnson' had been published in London, some obscure scribbler had published at Edinburgh, what he called 'The Deformities of Johnson.'"

17. On p. 63, Callender calls the work "a shilling pamphlet." We are grateful to the Pierpont Morgan Library for a photographic reproduction of its copy of the first edition of the _Deformities_.

18. Since its Preface is dated 21 November 1782, the second edition was presumably published after that time but before the beginning of 1783.

19. At the end of the second edition, Callender declares: "To collect every particle of _inanity_ which may be found in our _patriot's_ works is infinitely beyond the limits of an eighteen-pence pamphlet" (p. 88).

20. In a footnote on p. 51, Callender tells us that the "remarks" of the "judicious friend" appear in No. 12 of the _Weekly Mirror_, a periodical which, according to the _CBEL_ (II, 665, 685), was published at Edinburgh from 22 September 1780 through 23 March 1781, for a total of 26 numbers; the editor was apparently James Tytler, the publisher J. Mennons.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

The text of this facsimile reprint of the second edition of Callender's _Deformities_ (1782) is published with the kind permission of the University of Chicago Library.

DEFORMITIES

OF

DR SAMUEL JOHNSON.

SELECTED FROM HIS WORKS.

_Nihil rerum mortalium tam instabile ac fluxum est, quam fama_--TACITUS.

The diversion of _baiting_ an AUTHOR has the sanction of all ages and nations, and is more lawful than the sport of teizing other _animals_ because for the most part HE comes voluntarily to the stake.

RAMBLER, No. 176.

SECOND EDITION.

LONDON:

Printed for the AUTHOR; and sold by J. STOCKDALE;

AND

W. CREECH, Edinburgh.

M.DCC.LXXXII.

PREFACE

TO THE SECOND EDITION.

Man is endowed with sagacity sufficient to discover his errors, but seldom has fortitude to forsake them. Hence it arises that even the weakest of the species can point out the follies of his companions, and fancies that he can reform his own. We are amazed that a being like ourselves should thus deliberately act below the dignity of reason, but we forget that our own conduct may also be reviewed with contempt and pity.

The world is buried in prejudice: Every department of knowledge is deeply infected by its fatal poison. Thus we frequently respect or reprobate a book without a perusal, merely on account of the Author's name. Not one in ten thousand of his panegyrists hath ever comprehended the system of Newton.--What then is the value of _their_ approbation? The public have long heard that a late English Dictionary is a most masterly performance; but is there a single man in England who ever read it half through? No. The school-boy imagines that it is above his capacity: The man of letters feels it to be below his; but being considered as a fashionable decoration in a closet of books, it is bought without the least chance of being perused, and WE (for the _first_ time to be sure) have been admiring we know not what.

However as the variety of our sentiments is without end, it often happens, that while a philosopher is celebrated by one part of his readers, he is despised by some of the rest. Almost all the great authors of the present age have been more bitterly reviled than any other subjects of England, the Ministry excepted. But in a matter so frivolous as the merit of a book, the public are seldom guilty of gross injustice. Indeed, when an acute historian continues, in contempt of his own conviction, to persist in a falsehood, merely because he hath once affirmed it--when an elegant poet, in search of sublimity, soars, or rather sinks beyond the kenn of common sense[1]--when an astronomer treats his antagonist like a felon--when an advocate of piety impregnates his pages with slander, scurrility, and treason--then the world may be pardoned though they abate something of their veneration for the dignity of the learned.

We can hardly produce a stronger evidence of the prejudice, and the good nature of the public, than their indulgence to the foibles of Dr Samuel Johnson; nor a stronger evidence of the force of self-conceit, than that disdain of admonition which forms the capital feature in his character. He seems to fancy that his opinions cannot be disputed; and many of his admirers acquiesce in his idea; yet his volumes are of no great value; his personal appearance cannot much recommend him; his conversation would shock the rudest savage. His ignorance, his misconduct, and his success, are a striking proof that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. Let us enquire by what singular series of accidents, such a man crawled to the summit of classical reputation?

Most of his verses were among his early productions, and they merit abundant praise. His account of Savage compelled our approbation, and discovered a species of excellence but very little known in the annals of English literature. The force of language and of thought which he displayed in the Rambler, extended his reputation, and atoned for his numerous imperfections. He had by this time engaged to write an English Dictionary. Wise men are known by their work, says the Proverb. After many years he produced a performance of which I shall only say what can easily be proved, that few books are so unworthy of the title which they bear, and so void of every thing intellectual.

But Dr Johnson's credit was supported by something very different from intrinsic merit. As he was not worth a shilling, his work was printed and patronized by a phalanx of booksellers; and we can have no doubt that much of his success was owing to their vigorous but interested exertions. He had likewise other assistance, which would have been more than sufficient to support the reputation of an ordinary writer. He was protected by Mr. Garrick, the darling of mankind. England herself never produced a more generous friend: And though he seldom wrote lessons of morality, nothing could exceed the clearness of his understanding, but the benevolence of his heart. By him, it is probable, Dr Johnson was introduced to the late Earl of Chesterfield; a Minister, a man of letters, and a friend to merit. His Lordship was persuaded to celebrate, by anticipation, the merits of the Doctor's Dictionary[2], and his condescension is said to have been repaid by the most ungrateful insolence. Of these two illustrious men it may almost be affirmed that their influence was universal, and when supported by the weight of the booksellers, opposition sunk before it. The Doctor soon after received a pension from the most unfortunate of all Statesmen, a Statesman whom North Britons ought to mention as seldom as possible, and his name acquired additional splendour from the dignity of Independence.

Since that period his reputation, or at least his popularity, has been rather on the decline. His edition of Shakespeare was with difficulty forced upon the world by every artifice of trade. His political pieces have long since insured the detestation of his countrymen, a few individuals excepted. His Tour, considered as a whole, is a ridiculous performance. His lives of English Poets abound with judicious observations; but the great misfortune is, that our historian can very seldom conceal the narrowness of his soul.

Of the present trifle the Author has very little to say. The reception which it at first met with has induced him to risk a second edition. He has perused it with honest attention, from the first line to the last, that he might endeavour to supply its deficiencies, and to correct its errors. In the execution of this task, he has frequently had occasion to remark, that it is more easy to demolish a palace than to erect a cottage.

EDINBURGH, }
_Nov. 21, 1782_. }

INTRODUCTION.

When a boy peruses a book with pleasure, his admiration riseth immediately from the work to its author. His fancy fondly ranks his favourite with the wise, and the virtuous. He glows with a lover's impatience, to reach the presence of this _superior being_, to drink of science at the fountain-head, to complete his ideas at once, and riot in all the luxuries of learning.

The novice unhappily presumes, that men who command the passions of others cannot be slaves to their own: That a historian must feel the worth of justice and tenderness, while he tells us, how kings and conquerors are commonly the burden and the curse of society: That an assertor of public freedom will never become the dupe of flattery, and the pimp of oppression: That the founder of a system cannot want words to explain it: _That_ the compiler of a _dictionary_ has at least a common degree of knowledge: _That_ an inventor of _new_ terms can tell what they mean: _That_ he, who refines and fixes the language of empires, is able to converse, without the pertness of a pedant, or the vulgarity of a porter: _That_ a preacher of morality will blush to persist in vindictive, deliberate, and detected falsehoods: _That_ he who totters on the brink of eternity will speak with caution and humanity of the dead: And _that_ a traveller, who pretends to veracity, dares not avow contradictions.

But in learning, as in life, much of our happiness flows from deception. Ignorance, the parent of wonder, is often the parent of esteem and love. While devouring Horace we venerate the Deserter of Brutus, and the Slave of Caesar. Transported by his sublime eloquence, the reader of Cicero forgets that Cicero himself was a plagiarist and a coward: That Rome was but a den of robbers: That Cataline resembled the rest; and that this rebel was only revenging the blood of butchered nations, of Samnium, of Epirus, of Carthage, and of--HANNIBAL.

'The laurels which human praise confers are withered and blasted by the unworthiness of those who wear them.' There is often a curious contrast between an author and his books. The mildest, the politest, the wisest, and the most _worthy_ man alive, pens five hundred pages to display the pleasures of friendship and the beauties of benevolence; but alas! he is a theorist only, for his sympathy never cost him a shilling. A party-tool talks of public spirit. A pedant commands our tears. A pensioner inveighs against pensions; and a bankrupt preaches public oeconomy. The philosopher quotes Horace, while he defrauds his valet. A mimick of Richardson, is a domestic tyrant: A Sydenham, the rendezvous of diseases: A declaimer against envy, of all men the most invidious. The satirist has not a reformer's virtues. The poet of love and friendship is without a mistress, or a friend; while a time-server celebrates the valour of heroes, and exults in the _freedom_ of England. Like Penelope, most writers employ part of their time to undo the labours of the rest. Judging by their lives one would think it were their chief study to render learning ridiculous. We lose all respect for teachers, who, when the lesson is ended, are 'no wiser or better than common men.' To be convinced that books are trifles, let us only remark how little good they do, and how little those, who love them, love each other. The monopolists of literary fame, for the most part, regard a rival as an enemy. Their mutual hostilities, like those of aquatick animals, are unavoidable and constant; and their voracity differs from that of the shark, but as a half-devoured carcase, from a murdered reputation. The existence of many books depends on the ruin of some of the rest; yet, with our _English Dictionary_, a few _immortal_ compositions are to live unwounded by the shafts of envy, and to descend in a torrent of applause from one century to another. A thousand of their critics will exist and be forgotten; a thousand of their imitators will sink into contempt; but THEY shall defy the force of time; continue to flourish thro' every _fashion_ of philosophy, and, like Egyptian pyramids, perish but in the ruins of the globe.

DEFORMITIES, &c.

In the number of men who dishonour their own genius, ought to be ranked Dr Samuel Johnson; for his abilities and learning are not accompanied by candour and generosity. His life of Pomfret concludes with this maxim, that 'he who pleases many, must have merit;' yet, in defiance of his own rule, the Doctor has, a thousand times, attempted to prove, that they who please many, have _no_ merit. His invidious and revengeful remark on Chesterfield, would have disgraced any other man. He said, and nobody but himself would have said it, that Churchill was a shallow fellow. And he once told some of his admirers, that SWIFT was a _shallow_, a _very shallow_ fellow: reminding us of the Lilliputian who drew _his_ bow to Gulliver[3]. For the memory of this man, who may be classed with Cato and Phocion, the Doctor feels no tenderness or respect. And for that[4], and other critical blasphemies, he has undergone innumerable floggings. No writer of this nation has made more noise. None has discovered more contempt for other men's reputations, or more confidence in his own. I would humbly submit a few hints for his improvement, if he be not 'too old to learn.' And, whatever freedoms I take, the Doctor himself may be quoted as a precedent for insolent invective, and brutal reproach. He has told us[5], that 'the two lowest of all human beings are, a scribbler for a party, and a commissioner of excise.' This very man was himself the hired scribbler of a party; and why should a commissioner of excise be one of the meanest of mankind? In the preface to his octavo Dictionary, the Doctor affirms, that, 'by the labours of all his predecessors, not even the _lowest_ expectation can be gratified.' The author of a revisal of Shakespeare[6] attacks (he says) with '_gloomy malignity_, as if he were dragging to justice an assassin or incendiary. He bites like a viper, and would be glad to leave inflammations and gangrene behind him.' For this shocking language, which could have been answered by nothing but a blow, the _primum mobile_, perhaps, was, that the critic had dedicated his book to Lord Kaims, (a Scotsman, and another very _shallow_ fellow) 'as the truest judge, and most intelligent admirer of Shakespeare.'

His treatment of Colley Cibber is, if possible, worse. That great ornament of the stage was a man of genius, at least equal to Dr Johnson--but they had a quarrel, and though Cibber has been more than twenty years buried, the Doctor, in his life of Pope, studies to revenge it. His expressions are gross. 'In the Dunciad, among other _worthless_ scribblers he (Pope) had mentioned _Cibber_. The dishonour of being shewn as _Cibber's_ antagonist could never be compensated by the victory. _Cibber_ had nothing to lose--The shafts of satire were directed in vain against _Cibber_, being repelled by the impenetrable impudence,' &c.[7] We have been deafened about the Doctor's private virtues; of which these passages are a very poor evidence.

It is believed by some, that Dr Johnson's _admirable_ Dictionary is the most capital monument of human genius; that the studies of Archimedes and Newton are but like a feather in the scale with this amazing work; that he has given our language a stability, which, without him, it had never known; that he has performed alone, what, in other nations, whole academies fail to perform; and that as the fruit of _his_ learning and sagacity, our compositions will be classical and immortal. This may be true; but the book displays many proofs or his _ill-nature_, and evinces what I want to insist on, viz. that _he who despises politeness cannot deserve it_. For his seditious and impudent definitions[8] he would, in Queen Anne's reign, have had a fair chance of mounting the pillory. Hume, Smith, and Chesterfield may be quoted to prove, that Walpole and Excise were improper objects of execration; but an _emanation_ of royal munificence has, of late, relaxed the Doctor's _frigorific_ virtue; and, in his _False Alarm_, he affirms, that our government approaches nearer to perfection, _than any other that fiction has feigned, or history recorded_. This is going pretty far; but the peevish, though _incorruptible_ patriot, proceeds a great deal farther. His political pieces have great elegance and wit; yet, if the tenth part of what he advances in them be true, his countrymen are a mob of ignorant, ungrateful, rebellious ruffians. Every member in Opposition is a fool, a firebrand, a monster; worse, if that were possible, than Ravillac, Hambden, or Milton[9]. Here is a short specimen:

'On the original contrivers of mischief let an insulted nation pour out its vengeance. With whatever design they have inflamed this pernicious contest, they are themselves equally detestable. If they wish success to the colonies, they are TRAITORS to this country; if they wish their defeat, they are TRAITORS at once to America and England. To them (Mess. Burke & Co.) and them only, must be imputed the interruption of commerce, and the miseries of war, the sorrow of those who shall be ruined, and the blood of those that shall fall[10].'

From the Doctor's volumes I am to select some passages, illustrate them with a few observations, and submit them to the reader's opinion. These pages aim at _perspicacity_. They are ambitious to record TRUTH.

'He that writes the life of another, is either his friend or his enemy, and wishes either to exalt his praise, or aggravate his infamy[11].' The Doctor betrays a degree of inconsistency incompatible with his reputed abilities. After such a confession, what have we to hope for in _his_ lives of English poets?

Having thus denied veracity both to Plutarch and _himself_, this Idler, in the very next page, leaps at once from the wildest scepticism to the wildest credulity. The paragraph is too long for insertion; but the tenor of it is, that 'a man's account of himself, left behind him unpublished, may be _depended on_;' because, 'by self-love all have been so often betrayed, _that_ (now for the strangest flight of nonsense) all are on the watch against its artifices.'

In his Dictionary, _temperance_ is defined to be '_moderation opposed to gluttony and drunkenness_.' And he has since defined 'sobriety or temperance' to be '_nothing_ but the forbearance of _pleasure_[12].' This maxim needs no comment.

'A man will, in the hour of darkness and fatigue, be content to leave behind him every thing but _himself_[13].' Here the Doctor supposes, that a person can leave _himself_ behind _himself_. When the reader examines the passage in the original, he will be convinced, that this cannot be an error of the press only. Had the Rambler, when he crossed Tweed, left behind him his pride, his indolence, and his vulgarity, he would have returned a much wiser, better, and happier man than he did.

_Form_, he explains to be, 'the external appearance of any thing, shape;' but, when speaking of hills in the North of Scotland, he says, 'the appearance is that of matter incapable of FORM[14]!' He has seen _matter_, not only destitute, but incapable of _shape_. He has seen an _appearance_ which is incapable of _external_ appearance. And yet, in the same book, he seems to regret the weakness of his vision.

Beauty is 'that assemblage of graces which pleases the eye.' But, in the Idler[15], he displays his true idea of beauty; and it is a very lame piece of philosophy. Judge from a few samples: 'If a man, born blind, was to recover his sight, and the most beautiful woman was to be brought before him, he could not determine whether she was handsome or not. Nor if the most handsome and most deformed were produced, could he any better determine to which he should give the preference, having seen only these two.' And again, 'as we are then more accustomed to beauty than deformity, we may conclude _that_ to be the reason why we approve and admire it.' Moreover, 'though habit and custom cannot be said to be the cause[16] of beauty, IT is certainly the cause of our liking it[17]. I have no doubt, but that, if we were more used to deformity than beauty, deformity would then lose the idea now annexed to it, and take that of beauty; as if the whole world should agree that _yes_ and _no_ should change their meanings, _yes_ would then deny, and _no_ would affirm.' This is such a perfection of nonsense, that the reader will, perhaps, think it a forgery; but he will find it _verbatim et literatim_, and the whole number is in the same stile.

'Swift in his _petty_ treatise on the English language, allows that new words _must_ sometimes be introduced, but proposes that _none_ should be suffered to become obsolete[18].' The Doctor has not given a fair quotation from Swift. One would imagine that Swift had proposed to retain every word which is to be found in any of our popular authors, but he neither said nor meant any such thing. His words are these: 'They' (the members of the proposed society) 'will find many words _that deserve to be utterly thrown out of our language_!' And the Dean says nothing afterwards which infers a contradiction[19].

In his account of Lyttleton, the Doctor's good nature is evident. He speaks not a word as to the merit of the history of Henry II. but--'It was published with such anxiety as only _vanity_ can dictate.' We are next entertained with a page of dirty anecdotes concerning its publication, which the Doctor seems to have picked up from some printer's journeyman. 'The Persian Letters have something of that indistinct and headstrong ardour for liberty which a man of genius _always_ catches when he enters the world, and _always_ suffers to cool as he passes forward.' Of the admired monody to the memory of Lady Lyttleton, we are told only that it is _long_. 'His dialogues of the dead were very eagerly read, tho' the production rather, as it seems of leisure than of study, rather effusions than compositions. The names of his persons too often enable the reader to anticipate their conversation; and when they have met, they too often part without a conclusion.' These remarks apply with peculiar justice to Dr Johnson's dictionary, for that work is an _effusion_ rather than a _composition_. His reader is for the most part able to anticipate his definitions, and they generally end without conclusion. Lord Lyttleton's poems 'have _nothing_ to be _despised_ and _little_ to be _admired_.' But here, as usual, the Doctor contradicts himself, and in the very next line 'of his Progress of Love, _it is sufficient blame to say_ that it is pastoral. His blank verse in Blenheim has neither much force, nor much elegance. His little performances, whether songs or epigrams, are sometimes spritely, and sometimes _insipid_'--and of course _despicable_. The candid and accurate author of the Rambler has forgot the existence of that beautiful blossom of sensibility, that pure effusion of friendship, the prologue to Coriolanus.

The life of Dr Young has been written by a lawyer, who conveys the meanest thoughts in the meanest language. His stile is dry, stiff, grovelling, and impure. His anecdotes and ideas, are evidently the cud of Dr Johnson's conversation. He continues in the same fretful tone from the first line to the last. He is at once most contemptuous and contemptible. Whatever he says is insipid or disgusting. He is the bad imitator of a bad original; and an honest man cannot peruse his libel without indignation. He steps out of his way to remind us of Milton's _corporal correction_, a story fabricated, as is well known, by his Employer. His ignorance has already been illustrated in a periodical pamphlet. Johnson himself, with all his imperfections, is often as far superior to this unhappy penman, as the author of the Night-Thoughts is superior to Johnson. And yet this critical assassin, this literary jackall, is celebrated by the Doctor[20]. _Pares cum paribus facile congregantur._

'Dryden's poem on the death of Mrs Killigrew is undoubtedly the noblest ode that our language ever has produced. The first part flows with a torrent of enthusiasm. All the stanzas, indeed, are not equal.' He proceeds to compare it with an imperial crown, &c. But, a little after, 'the ode on St Cecilia's day is allowed _to stand without a rival_[21].' These are his identical words; and his admirers may reconcile them if they can. Indeed, he seems ashamed of his own inconsistency, and is ready to relapse; but thinks, upon the whole, that Alexander's Feast 'may, _perhaps_, be pronounced superior to the ode on Killigrew.' Dr Johnson is said to be the greatest critic of his age; yet the verses on Mrs Killigrew are beneath all criticism; and, perhaps, no person ever read them through, except their author, and himself.

Dryden's fable 'of the Cock and Fox seems hardly worth the labour of _rejuvenescence_[22].' Some _narcotic_ seems to have _refrigerated_ the red liquor which circulates in the Doctor's veins[23], and to have _hebetated_ and _obtunded_ his powers of _excogitation_[24], for elegance and wit never met more happily than here. Peruse only the first page of this poem, and then judge. The nonsense which has been written by critics is, in quantity and absurdity, beyond all conception. Perhaps his admirers may answer, that my remark is but the _ramification_ of envy, the _intumescence_ of ill-nature, the _exacerbation_ of 'gloomy malignity.' However, it would not be amiss to commit that page of _inanity_ to the power of _cremation_; and let not his fondest idolaters confide in its _indiscerptibility_. In painting the sentiments and the scenes of common life, to write English which Englishmen cannot read, is a degree of insolence hardly known till now, and seems to be nothing but the poor refuge of pedantic dullness.

His Abyssinian tale hath many beauties, yet the characters are insipid, the narrative ridiculous, the moral invisible, and the reader disappointed. '_Intercepting interruptions_ and _volant_ animals' are above common comprehension. The Newtonian system had reached the happy valley; for its inhabitants talk of the earth's _attraction_ and the body's _gravity_[25]. To tell a tale is not the Doctor's most happy talent; he can hardly be proud of his success in _that_ species of fiction.

Speaking of Scotland, he says, 'The variety of sun and shade is here[26] utterly unknown. There is no tree for either shelter or timber. The oak and the thorn _is_ equally a stranger. They have neither wood for palisades, nor thorns for hedges. A tree may be shown in Scotland as a horse in Venice[27].' An _English_ reader may, perhaps, require to be told, that there are thousands of trees of all ages and dimensions, within a mile of Edinburgh; that there are numerous and thriving plantations in Fife; and that, as some of them overshadow part of the post-road to St Andrew's, the Doctor must have been blinder than darkness, if he did not see them. But why would any man travel at all, who is determined to believe nothing which he _hears_, and who, at the same time, cannot _see_ six inches beyond his nose?