CHAPTER VIII. 1772-1773. Dinner at General Oglethorpe's. — Armoria. Bearings. - Duelling. - Prince Eugene. - Siege of Belgrade. Friendships. — Goldsmith's Natural History. — Story of Prendergast. Expulsion of Methodists from Oxford. -"In Vino Veritas." - Education of the People.-Sense of Touch in the Blind. - Theory of Sounds.- Taste in the Arts. Francis Osborne's Works. Country Gentlemen. - Long Stories. — Beattie and Robertson. — Advice to Authors. Climate. Walpole and Pitt. - Vicious Intromission. Beattie's Essay. Visit to Lichfield and Ashbourne. On Friday, April 10., I dined with him at General Oglethorpe's, where we found Dr. Goldsmith. Armorial bearings having been mentioned, Johnson said they were as ancient as the siege of Thebes, which he proved by a passage in one of the tragedies of Euripides. (1) (1) The passage to which Johnson alluded is to be found (as I conjecture) in the "Phoenissæ," 1. 1120. Καὶ πρῶτα μὲν προσῆγε, κ. τ. λ. Ο τῆς κυναγοῦ Παρθενοπαῖος ἔκγονος, ΕΠΙΣΗΜ ̓ ἐχῶν ΟΙΚΕΙΟΝ ἐν μεσῷ σωκεί. — J. BOSWELL, Jun. The meaning is that "Parthenopaus had, in the centre of his shield, the domestic sign- Atalanta killing the Etolian boar: but this, admitting that the story of Atalanta was the "armorial bearing" of Parthenopaus, would only prove them to be as I started the question, whether duelling was consistent with moral duty. The brave old general fired at this, and said, with a lofty air, "Undoubtedly a man has a right to defend his honour." GOLDSMITH (turning to me). "I ask you first, Sir, what would you do if you were affronted?" I answered, I should think it necessary to fight. "Why then,” replied Goldsmith, "that solves the question." JOHNSON. "No, Sir, it does not solve the question. It does not follow, that what a man would do is therefore right.” I said, I wished to have it settled, whether duelling was contrary to the laws of Christianity. Johnson immediately entered on the subject, and treated it in a masterly manner; and, so far as I have been able to recollect, his thoughts were these:-" Sir, as men become in a high degree refined, various causes of offence arise; which are considered to be of such importance, that life must be staked to atone for them, though in reality they are not so. A body that has received a very fine polish may be easily hurt. Before men arrive at this artificial refinement, if one tells his neighbour ancient as Euripides, who flourished (442 A. C.) near 800 years after the siege of Thebes (1225 A. C.). Homer, whom the chronologists place 500 years before Euripides, describes a sculptured shield; and there can be little doubt that very soon after ingenuity had made a shield, taste would begin to decorate it. The words "domestic sign" are certainly very curious, yet probably mean no more than that he bore on his shield the representation of a family story. The better opinion seems to be, that it was not till the visor concealed the face of the warrior, that the ornaments of the shields and crests became distinctive of individuals and families in that peculiar manner which we understand by the terms "armorial bearings." — C. ETAT. 63. DUELLING. PRINCE EUGENE. 217 he lies, his neighbour tells him-he lies; if one gives his neighbour a blow, his neighbour gives him a blow but in a state of highly polished society, an affront is held to be a serious injury. It must, therefore, be resented, or rather a duel must be fought upon it; as men have agreed to banish from society one who puts up with an affront without fighting a duel. Now, Sir, it is never unlawful to fight in self-defence. He, then, who fights a duel, does not fight from passion against his antagonist, but out of self-defence; to avert the stigma of the world, and to prevent himself from being driven out of society. I could wish there was not that superfluity of refinement; but while such notions prevail, no doubt a man may lawfully fight a duel.” "Let it be remembered, that this justification is applicable only to the person who receives an affront. All mankind must condemn the aggressor." (1) The General told us, that, when he was a very young man, I think only fifteen, serving under Prince Eugene of Savoy, he was sitting in a company at table with a prince of Wirtemberg. The prince took up a glass of wine, and, by a fillip, made some of it fly in Oglethorpe's face. Here was a nice dilemma. To have challenged him instantly, might have fixed a quarrelsome character upon the young soldier to have taken no notice of it, might have (1) The frequent disquisitions on this subject bring painfully to recollection the death of Mr. Boswell's eldest son, Sir Alexander, who was killed in a duel, at Auchterpool, arising from a political dispute, on the 26th of March, 1822, by Mr. Stuart, of Dunearn.-C. [This conversation on duelling was quoted by Mr. Jeffrey, the counsel for Mr. Stuart.] been considered as cowardice. Oglethorpe, therefore, keeping his eye upon the prince, and smiling all the time, as if he took what his highness had done in jest, said "Mon Prince,-" (I forget the French words he used; the purport however was), "that's a good joke; but we do it much better in England;" and threw a whole glass of wine in the prince's face. An old general, who sat by, said, "Il a bien fait, mon prince, vous l'avez commencé : and thus all ended in good humour." Dr. Johnson said, "Pray, general, give us an account of the siege of Belgrade." Upon which the general, pouring a little wine upon the table, described every thing with a wet finger: "Here we were; here were the Turks," &c. &c. Johnson listened with the closest attention. A question was started, how far people who disagree in a capital point can live in friendship together. Johnson said they might. Goldsmith said they could not, as they had not the idem velle atque idem nolle—the same likings and the same aversions. JOHNSON. "Why, Sir, you must shun the subject as to which you disagree. For instance, I can live very well with Burke: I love his knowledge, his genius, his diffusion, and affluence of conversation; but I would not talk to him of the Rockingham party." (1) GOLDSMITH. "But, Sir, when people live together who have something as to which they disagree, and which they want to shun, they will be in the situation mentioned in the story of Bluebeard: You may (1) Of which Mr. Burke was a leading member. |