Keeping
Company With Notorious Infidels
On
Tuesday, October 12, 1779, Boswell reports that he and Johnson dined in London
at Mr. Ramsay’s. Present were Lord Newhaven and “a beautiful Miss Graham,”
a relative of “His Lordship’s.” Indeed, His Lordship asked Johnson to “hob
or nob with her.” This expression “hob or nob,” however suspicious sounding,
means to drink and toast wine alternately to each other. Johnson told the
charming young lady that he “did not drink wine” but was willing to exchange
water toasts with her. Boswell noted that Johnson was “flattered by such pleasing
attention.” When the two glasses of water were served, “smiling placidly at
the lady, he (Johnson) said, ‘Madam, let us reciprocate.’”
Later, Boswell recalled a conversation with “a celebrated
friend”—celebrated but unnamed. He (Boswell) “objected to keeping company
with a notorious infidel.” Today, of course, it is positively against “natural
rights” to refuse such company with infidels or anyone else. Boswell’s celebrated
friend, however, aware of Boswell’s own loose living in London, replied, “I
do not think that men who live laxly in the world, as you and I do, can with
propriety assume such an authority.” If one does not live perfectly, he can,
on this hypothesis, say nothing about those who likewise indulge in unedifying
activities. However, the celebrated friend thought, “Dr. Johnson may, who
is uniformly exemplary in his conduct. But it is not very consistent to shun
an infidel to-day, and get drunk to-morrow.” Thus, if we get drunk, we cannot
criticize anyone. Evidently, the word “infidel” here simply means someone
who disbelieves and practices a way of life described as “notorious.” We can
leave the details of such “infidelity,” I suppose, to our imaginations.
Listening to this conversation, however, was the great
Dr. Johnson himself. He was not in agreement with their celebrated friend’s
theory that no one but the perfect can criticize anyone. “Nay, Sir, that is
sad reasoning,” Johnson responded. But why “sad”? “Because a man cannot be
right in all things, is he to be right in nothing? Because a man sometimes
gets drunk, is he therefore to steal? This doctrine would very soon bring
a man to the gallows.”
We can have one vice without having others. A man may
well be a thief, but that does not mean he is a drunkard. Drunks, to use an
antiquated term, may be men of integrity in all but their problem. Johnson’s
sentence is trenchant: “Because a man cannot be right in all things, is he
to be right in nothing?” The implied logic in the gallows reference is, “Because
a man sometimes steals, is he therefore a murderer?” If the logic is valid,
the gallows is the fate of thieves.
Much is at stake in the validity of Johnson’s caveat
about our dealings with infidels. But is it therefore all right to deal with
a notorious infidel? Boswell evidently recognized that there was danger in
company with those who might corrupt our souls. The celebrated friend figured
that one sin in any area meant that we are lost in all areas.
Virtue, it is true, is a whole. We cannot be “good”
men and still have one “notorious” vice. In this sense, virtue means being
right in all areas. Yet, it is better to have one vice rather than two or
three. There are degrees of good and evil, hence the word “notorious.” There
is also a wisdom that cautions patience in ridding ourselves of vices or acquiring
virtues. We need first to will to change our ways. Next, step by step, we
improve. St. Thomas Aquinas warned us about expecting too much virtue from
the majority. If we have to pass from vice to virtue instantly, most, like
the celebrated friend, would become discouraged and give up.
Christ was criticized for keeping company with notorious
sinners. Certainly such a thing as “bad company,” as it used to be called,
can be dangerous to our faith or our morals. Christ was sent to save sinners—the
robbers, adulterers, the drunks, and the unbelievers. The first step is seeing
that someone who has a vice in one area may not have it in another. Boswell
was right to worry about consorting with his infidel friends. Our celebrated
friend would reduce us to silence if we were not perfect. Johnson, the man
who hobs or nobs with Miss Graham, is closer to the truth. “Because a man
sometimes steals, is he therefore a murderer?” The answer to that question
is, normally, no. Yet, the fact is that once we steel ourselves in the practice
of one vice, the others can easily follow. When it comes to the vices, it
is, alas, rather easy to reciprocate. Whether we hob or nob, we do well to
beware of notorious infidels.
Rev. James V. Schall, S.J., teaches political science
at Georgetown University.