Johnson's visit to Oxford, about the time of his doctor's degree, was in 1754, the first time he had been there since he left the university.But Douglas was not acted till 1756, and Ossian not published till 1760.All, therefore, that is new in Sir Joseph Mawbey's story is false." [Vol.v.409.] Assuredly we need not go far to find ample proof that a member of the House of Commons may commit a very gross error.Now mark, say we, in the language of Mr.Croker.The fact is, that Johnson took his Master's degree in 1754, [i.262.] and his Doctor's degree in 1775.[iii.205.] In the spring of 1776, [iii.326.] he paid a visit to Oxford, and at this visit a conversation respecting the works on Home and Macpherson might have taken place, and, in all probability, did take place.The only real objection to the story Mr.Croker has missed.Boswell states, apparently on the best authority, that, as early at least as the year 1763, Johnson, in conversation with Blair, used the same expressions respecting Ossian, which Sir Joseph represents him as having used respecting Douglas.[i.
405.] Sir Joseph, or Garrick, confounded, we suspect, the two stories.But their error is venial, compared with that of Mr.
Croker.
We will not multiply instances of this scandalous inaccuracy.It is clear that a writer who, even when warned by the text on which he is commenting, falls into such mistakes as these, is entitled to no confidence whatever.Mr.Croker has committed an error of five years with respect to the publication of Goldsmith's novel, an error of twelve years with respect to the publication of part of Gibbon's History, an error of twenty-one years with respect to an event in Johnson's life so important as the taking of the doctoral degree.Two of these three errors he has committed, while ostentatiously displaying his own accuracy, and correcting what he represents as the loose assertions of others.How can his readers take on trust his statements concerning the births, marriages, divorces, and deaths of a crowd of people, whose names are scarcely known to this generation? It is not likely that a person who is ignorant of what almost everybody knows can know that of which almost everybody is ignorant.We did not open this book with any wish to find blemishes in it.We have made no curious researches.The work itself, and a very common knowledge of literary and political history, have enabled us to detect the mistakes which we have pointed out, and many other mistakes of the same kind.We must say, and we say it with regret, that we do not consider the authority of Mr.Croker, unsupported by other evidence, as sufficient to justify any writer who may follow him in relating a single anecdote or in assigning a date to a single event.
Mr.Croker shows almost as much ignorance and heedlessness in his criticisms as in his statements concerning facts.Dr.Johnson said, very reasonably as it appears to us, that some of the satires of Juvenal are too gross for imitation.Mr.Croker, who, by the way, is angry with Johnson for defending Prior's tales against the charge of indecency, resents this aspersion on Juvenal, and indeed refuses to believe that the doctor can have said anything so absurd."He probably said--some passages of them--for there are none of Juvenal's satires to which the same objection may be made as to one of Horace's, that it is altogether gross and licentious." [Vol.i.167.] Surely Mr.
Croker can never have read the second and ninth satires of Juvenal.
Indeed the decisions of this editor on points of classical learning, though pronounced in a very authoritative tone, are generally such that, if a schoolboy under our care were to utter them, our soul assuredly should not spare for his crying.It is no disgrace to a gentleman who has been engaged during near thirty years in political life that he has forgotten his Greek and Latin.But he becomes justly ridiculous if, when no longer able to construe a plain sentence, he affects to sit in judgment on the most delicate questions of style and metre.From one blunder, a blunder which no good scholar would have made, Mr.
Croker was saved, as he informs us, by Sir Robert Peel, who quoted a passage exactly in point from Horace.We heartily wish that Sir Robert, whose classical attainments are well known, had been more frequently consulted.Unhappily he was not always at his friend's elbow; and we have therefore a rich abundance of the strangest errors.Boswell has preserved a poor epigram by Johnson, inscribed "Ad Lauram parituram." Mr.Croker censures the poet for applying the word puella to a lady in Laura's situation, and for talking of the beauty of Lucina."Lucina," he says, "was never famed for her beauty." [i.133.] If Sir Robert Peel had seen this note, he probably would have again refuted Mr.Croker's criticisms by an appeal to Horace.In the secular ode, Lucina is used as one of the names of Diana, and the beauty of Diana is extolled by all the most orthodox doctors of the ancient mythology, from Homer in his Odyssey, to Claudian in his Rape of Proserpine.In another ode, Horace describes Diana as the goddess who assists the "laborantes utero puellas." But we are ashamed to detain our readers with this fourth-form learning.
Boswell found, in his tour to the Hebrides, an inscription written by a Scotch minister.It runs thus: "Joannes Macleod, etc.gentis suae Philarchus, etc Florae Macdonald matrimoniali vinculo conjugatus turrem hanc Beganodunensem proaevorum habitaculum longe vetustissimum, diu penitus labefactatam anno aerae vulgaris MDCLXXXVI.instauravit."--"The minister," says Mr.
