Anecdotes of the Learned Pig. James Boswell

“He was not at all offended, when, comparing all our acquaintance to ſome animal or other, we pitched upon the elephant for his reſemblance, adding, that the proboſcis of that creature was like his mind moſt exactly, ſtrong to buffet even the tyger, and pliable to pick up even the pin.” – Piozzi, p. 205. – N.B. For elephant our author probably read pig.

We have ſought for information concerning this fact, that the gentleman deſignated in the text was born in Moorfields, or that his father was a bookſeller there, which, however, we confeſs to have heard, but when or where we can by no means remember.

Cloath ſpice, line trunks, or flutt’ring in a row,

Befringe the rails of Bedlam or Soho.

POPE’S IM. OF HORACE, Ep. I. B. 2.

“When in company where he was not free, or when engaged earneſtly in converſation, he never gave way to ſuch habits, which proves that they were not involuntary.” I ſtill, however, think, that theſe geſtures were involuntary; for ſurely had not that been the caſe, he would have reſtrained them in the public ſtreets. – Boſwell’s Tour, p. 9.

The pretence of a miraculous power in the cure of the evil was the moſt extraordinary ſtrain of that King-craft of which James the Firſt ſo loudly boaſted. No manly man, under the circumſtances of the caſe, would have ſet up this pretence, or have expected any effect from it but that of public deriſion and contempt; but weak and credulous men take, perhaps, the beſt meaſure of human weakneſs and credulity, and ſo deep did this fraud ſtrike its roots, that, authenticated as it was by the clergy, and annually certified by the ſurgeons and phyſicians of the royal houſehold, it ſurvived the civil war, was reſtored with Charles the Second, extended beyond the revolution, and was only extinguiſhed by the act of ſettlement, which, taking the principles of the Britiſh government out of the clouds, placed them on the firm baſis of the earth. The pretenſions of Alexander were of a bolder and more rational ſort, and held to be ſo important, that his ſucceſſors, who had no kindred intereſt in the horns of Ammon, yet mingled them in their crowns and tiaras, till at laſt the Roman Titans tumbled from their ſeats one after another theſe fictitious gods. The moſt deceitful glimmer of divine claim ſeems to have had more influence on the mind of the perſon who ſeems to have been deſignated in the text, than the moſt ſolid principles of political right.

“I mentioned Lord Hailes as a man of anecdote – He was not pleaſed with him for publiſhing only ſuch memorials as were unfavourable for the Stuart family.” – Boſwell’s Tour, p. 312.

Tantony pigs were pigs who belonged formerly to the Convent of St. Anthony in the city. Collars were placed about their necks, inſcribed St. Anthony. They fed all over the town, and out of reſpect to the fathers of that convent, it was uſual for the paſſengers to give them biſcuits, and other things carried for that purpoſe in their pockets. The pigs of courſe followed the paſſengers in this expectation; and hence came the expreſſion of one perſon’s following another like a Tantony pig.

The perſon here deſigned is allowed by the courteſy of the times to poſſeſs a nervous and elegant ſtile; but ſo unhappy is the writer of this note, that he can by no means concur in the general praiſe. He has a notion of Saxon ſimplicity, from which all departure, not enforced by neceſſity, and regulated by taſte, aſſimilating, as much as may be, foreign words to the genius of the Saxon tongue, is to him intolerable. But the writer here ſpoken of was wholly deficient in taſte, and appears to refer his Engliſh to ſome foreign ſtandard chanting forth polyſyllables, and tiring the ear with dull returns of the ſame cadences, for ever advancing like a poſt horſe, two up and two down, and incapable of changing his pace, without throwing both himſelf and his rider in the dirt. But hack writers, like hack horſes, find it for their eaſe to practiſe an uniform rate.

There is, ſays a remarker on the life of Milton, a high degree of prepollent probability that the letter in the Gentleman’s Magazine for the month of Auguſt 1747, page 363 and 364, ſigned William Lauder, came from the amicable hand of the writer of that life. I do not, however, believe that the writer of Milton’s life was in the ſecret of Lauder’s forgeries, the fact itſelf being of ſo extraordinary a nature, that it is not probable that any two perſons, ſeparately capable of committing it, ſhould ſo fortuitouſly meet together; yet ſuch was his malevolence towards Milton, that we muſt admit it to have greatly clouded his underſtanding. He undoubtedly wrote the preface and the poſtſcript to Lauder’s publication: in alluſion to which, Doctor Douglas ſays, that ’tis hoped, nay ’tis expected, that the the elegant and nervous writer, whoſe judicious ſentiments and inimitable ſtyle point out author of Lauder’s preface and poſtſcript, will no longer allow one to plume himſelf with his feathers, who appears ſo little to have deſerved his aſſiſtance. Lauder confeſſes his guilt in a letter to Doctor Douglas, and takes all the obloquy on himſelf; but in a ſubſequent letter he declares, that the penitential one was written for him by that very gentleman, who has ſince written the life of Milton, and makes ſome complaints of a breach of friendſhip, in which he had placed the moſt implicit and unlimited confidence; but as he never charged, that I know of, the writer of Milton’s life with any participation in the forgery, we impute to him nothing but a ſtrange malignity which darkened his underſtanding. It muſt be owned, however, that he cut off the wreck of Lauder with great management, as well as competent ſucceſs. I remember that he boaſts in his life of Milton of his having written a prologue to the Comus of Milton, for the benefit of one of his grand daughters. This, I ſuppoſe, he would paſs for his benevolence; but he muſt excuſe me; I am not ſo much the dupe of charity as to believe, that he who ſo brutally calumniates Milton, his father, mother, uncles, wives, and children, and all unfortunate ſouls that trace him in his line, would be moved by any charitable diſpoſition towards any deſcendant of Milton’s, as being ſuch. The fact, I believe, is, that, finding Milton reduced by the labours of his friend Lauder to a level with his wiſhes, he practiſed, in concurrence with Mr. Lauder, one further act of malice, and endeavoured to fix an obligation on Milton in the perſon of his granddaughter, conferred by his moſt inveterate foes as the effect of ſatiated vengeance, converted into mingled pity and contempt. If there is any harſhneſs in this note, let it be remembered, that it ſpeaks of a man who, in the inſtance mentioned, let looſe the moſt outrageous malignity againſt one, who, whatever political errors he might have imbibed in common with a great majority of the nation, was, however, as a private man, of ſo exemplary a virtue, as to do the higheſt honour to literary purſuit, and whoſe genius, as a poet, conferred celebrity on the nation itſelf, and in whoſe protection therefore we ought to have taken a greater ſhare.

The hiſtory of this knocking is curious; it forms ſuch a drama of comedy, tragedy, and farce, from its firſt commencement in Cock Lane, paſſing through the ſolemn vaults of Clerkenwell, and then to Weſtminſter Hall, as, I believe, never was exhibited in any other country; a drama wherein childiſhneſs and age, gravity, dignities, folly, fraud, ſuperſtition, and credulity, were all largely and confuſedly thrown in to thicken the plot. That the perſon here deſignated ſhould carry out of this ſcene any reſpectability of character, is a proof that either he muſt have poſſeſſed great intrinſic worth, who could bear ſuch large deductions, or that public opinion has ceaſed to be the teſt of merit, if any baſe metal can in this manner paſs current for gold.

Our biographer ſhould have told us alſo, that once he joined the train of fancy, and paſſing the limits of fact, entered by the Shakeſpearean gate into fairy land. But in an evil hour, “No favouring Sybil marked the devious way.” Never was man or pig ſo aſtounded! and no wonder. He had ſtumbled unaccountably on the creations of ſenſibility, and found no correſponding emotions within; yet, unconſcious of defect, he pretended a knowledge of the country, and even offered himſelf as an unerring guide; but not long; for, tired with the maze, he gave way, at length, to new adventurers, and fled as another Gulliver out of Lilliput, where he had only encumbered the land.

“No man, however, was more jealouſly attached to his party; he not only loved a man the better, if he hated a Whig. Dear Bathurſt, ſaid he to me one day, was a man to my very heart’s content; he hated a fool, and he hated a rogue, and he hated a Whig; he was a very good hater.” – Piozzi’s Memoirs, p. 83.

“Pulteney was as paltry a fellow as could be. He was a Whig, who pretended to be honeſt; and you know it is ridiculous for a Whig to pretend to be honeſt.” Boſwell’s Journal, p. 424.

Talking of Granger – “The dog is a Whig: I do not like much to ſee a Whig in any dreſs; but I hate to ſee a Whig in a parſon’s gown.” —Ibid. p. 312.

Our author daſhes away from thing to thing with very little method or order. He might, however, have touched on the occupation of a ſchoolmaſter, ſo honourable for a pig; in proof of which, we could have furniſhed him with the following document:

“At Edial, near Litchfield, in Staffordſhire, young gentlemen are boarded and taught the Latin and Greek languages by Samuel Johnſon.”

ADVERTISEMENT IN THE GENT. MAG. 1736, p. 428.

“He ſeemed to me to have an unaccountable prejudice againſt Swift; for I once took the liberty to aſk him, if Swift had perſonally offended him; and he told me, he had not.” – Boſwell’s Tour, p. 38.