in the place of acknowledging that “ such particular passages only were in“ terpolated, he gave up the whole essay “ against Milton as delufion and misrea “ presentation, and therefore imposed “ more grievously on the public than I « had done ; and that too in terms much “ more submissive and abject than the

nature of the offence required *.”

The amanuenfis here gained two con fiderable points. 1. It was at his option to mention or not the aflistance that Lauder had in composing his essay; and consequently to conceal in what degree

the fraud was communicated to him ! from the beginning. 2. He effectually answered Mr. Douglas's expectations who * Vindication of King Charles I. p. 46


would naturally conclude that Lauder had no accomplices in his villany, except the jesuits.

But they who read Lauder's complaints of this confidential friend in the pamphlet just quoted, must fuperabound both in faith and charity, if they can believe that the composer of the letter to Mr. Douglas was unconscious of Lauder's forgery, previoufly to Dr. Douglas's detection of it.

A postscript to a second edition of Dr. Douglas's Vindication, dated May 17, 1756, finished the controversy. Lauder was disgraced with the public, and discarded by his amanuensis, who turned a deaf ear to all his reproaches, and abandoned him to his fate, with a cool pbilo


sophical apathy, void of all ambition to Thare with him the bluthing honours himself had fo generously contributed to thicken upon Lauder's devoted head. —

The effeats of his journey-work, in defaming Milton, being thus disappointed by the laudable diligence of Dr.Douglas, and the unmanageable petulance of Lauder, common prudence suggested to our biographer the expedience of fupprefling his impatience for another opportunity of leffening the public vene, ration for Milton's merit. Accordingly he laid by his project for about two years, when he might reasonably hope his ma næuvres, under the hide of Lauder,

would be forgotten, or laid afleep by'a j succession of that variety of entertainment Ghich the press is always providing, før thie public on all forts of fubjects. o In Fantáry: 1758 he released himself froin his quarentine, and appeared in the Literary Magazine for that month, holding forth to the public his poeTI

CALSCALE, the particuřars of which, fave what relates to-Milton; we feave to the critics by profeffion. This is what he says of Milton

sI am sensible that in the calculations it I have here exhibited I have, in many *c instances, strong prejudices against me! **The friends of Milton will not yield

to Shakespeare the fuperiority of ge

nius, which, I think, lieş on the side *c of Shakespeare: Both of them have ** faults. But the faults of Shakespeare


* were those of Genius; those of Milton “ of the MAN OF GENIUS. The former “ arises from imagination getting the “ better of judgment; the latter from, habit getting the better of imagination., * Shakespeare's faults were tlrose of a great poet, ;; those of Milton of a little. " pedant, When Shakespeare is execrable he is so exquisitely so, that he is:

inimitable in his blemishes as in his 5 beauties. The puns of Milton betray, " a narrownefs of education, and a dege. * neracy of babit.:. .: iis

Thus fari Dr. Johnson's exhibition of Milton in the scale of poetical merit, which perhaps at the bottom may amount to no more than that Milton could not make a faddle,, or, dance upon


[ocr errors]
« VorigeDoorgaan »