were I to name him, would stamp a reverence on the opinion. p. 271. [That Johnson owed his excellence as a writer to Hawk. the divines and others of the last century, Sir John Hawkins attests, from having been the witness of his course of reading, and heard him declare his sentiments of their works. Hooker he admired for his logical precision, Sanderson for his acuteness, and Taylor for his amazing erudition; Sir Thomas Browne for his penetration, and Cowley for the ease and unaffected structure of his periods. The tinsel of Sprat disgusted him, and he could but just endure the smooth verbosity of Tillotson. Hammond and Barrow he thought involved; and of the latter that he was unnecessarily prolix1.] We may, with the utmost propriety, apply to his learned style that passage of Horace, a part of which he has taken as the motto to his Dictionary: "Cum tabulis animum censoris sumet honesti ; friend, the Bishop of Ferns, writes to me, "State that this Great Personage was his late majesty, George the Third. Every one knows it now, but who will know it fifty years hence ?" No doubt the generality of readers have understood Mr. Boswell to refer to the late king; but, although the Editor has made very extensive inquiries amongst those who were most likely to know, he has not been able to discover any precise authority on this point, nor has he obtained even a conjecture as to the person to whom, or the occasion on which, his majesty used this happy expression. The Editor had formerly heard, but he does not recollect from whom, that when, on some occasion, the great divines of the 17th century were mentioned in the king's presence, his majesty said, "Yes-there were GIANTS in those days,"-in allusion to Genesis, vi. 4. It is to be observed, that Mr. Boswell, in his first edition, attributed this anecdote to "one whose authority, &c. :" in subsequent editions he changed "one" into "GREAT PERSONAGE.' -En.] 1 [The editor has thought it right to preserve the foregoing, as the evidence of an eye-witness to Johnson's course of reading; though it may be well doubted whether Sir J. Hawkins has preserved exactly the characteristic qualities which he attributed to these illustrious men. It is not easy to conceive how the erudition of Taylor or the penetration of Browne could have improved Johnson's style; nor is it likely that Johnson would have celebrated the eloquent and subtile Taylor for erudition alone, or the pious and learned Browne for mere penetration. Johnson's friend, Mr. Fitzherbert, said (see post, 8th April, 1775), that “it was not every man who could carry a bon mot," certainly Hawkins was not a man likely to convey adequately Doctor Johnson's critical opinion of Jeremy Taylor.—ED.] Epist. Epist. De Arte Poetica. Et versentur adhuc intra penetralia Vestæ. To so great a master of thinking, to one of such vast and various knowledge as Johnson, might have been allowed a liberal indulgence of that licence which Horace claims in another place: Yet Johnson assured me, that he had not taken upon him to add more than four or five words to the English language, of his own formation; and he was very much offended at the general licence by no means "modestly taken" in his time, not only to coin new words, but to use many words in senses quite different from their established meaning, and those frequently very fantastical. Sir Thomas Browne, whose Life Johnson wrote, was remarkably fond of Anglo-Latin diction; and to his example we are to ascribe Johnson's sometimes indulging himself in this kind of phraseology 1. 1 The observation of his having imitated Sir Thomas Browne has been made by many people; and lately it has been insisted on, and illustrated by a variety of quotations from Browne, in one of the popular Essays written by the Rev. Mr. Knox, master of Tunbridge-school, whom I have set down in my list of those who have sometimes not unsuccessfully imitated Dr. Johnson's style. Johnson's comprehension of mind was the mould for his language. Had his conceptions been narrower, his expression would have been easier. His sentences have a dignified march; and it is certain, that his example has given a general elevation to the language of his country, for many of our best writers have approached very near to him; and, from the influence which he has had upon our composition, scarcely any thing is written now that is not better expressed than was usual before he appeared to lead the national taste. This circumstance, the truth of which must strike every critical reader, has been so happily enforced by Mr. Courtenay, in his " Moral and Literary Character of Dr. Johnson," that I cannot prevail on myself to withhold it, notwithstanding his, perhaps, too great partiality for one of his friends: "By nature's gifts ordain'd mankind to rule, Amid these names can Boswell be forgot, To friends around his philosophick throne; Johnson's language, however, must be allowed to be too masculine for the delicate gentleness of female writing. His ladies, therefore, seem strangely formal, even to ridicule; and are well denominated by the names which he has given them, as Misella, Zozima, Properantia, Rhodoclia. It has of late been the fashion to compare the style of Addison and Johnson, and to depreciate3, I think, very unjustly, the style of Addison as nerveless and feeble, because it has not the strength and energy of The following observation in Mr. Boswell's Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides may sufficiently account for that gentleman's being "now scarcely esteemed a Scot" by many of his countrymen : "If he (Dr. Johnson) was particularly prejudiced against the Scots, it was because they were more in his way; because he thought their success in England rather exceeded the due proportion of their real merit; and because he could not but see in them that nationality, which, I believe, no liberal-minded Scotchman will deny." Mr. Boswell, indeed, is so free from national prejudices, that he might with equal propriety have been described as "Scarce by South Britons now esteem'd a Scot." COURTENAY. [Mr. Burke said pleasantly, that "his ladies were all Johnsons in petticoats." Mr. Murphy (Life, p. 159) seems to pass somewhat of the same censure on the letter in the 12th Rambler, from a young woman that wants a place : yetsuch is the uncertainty of criticism-this is the paper quoted by Mr. Chalmers, as an example of such ease and familiarity of style, which made him almost doubt whether it was Johnson's. Brit. Ess. vol. xix. p. 44.-ED.] 3 [Where did Mr. Boswell discover this, except in Sir J. Hawkins, who says (p. 270), with more than usual absurdity and bad taste, "I find an opinion gaining ground, not much to the advantage of Mr. Addison's style, the characteristics of which are feebleness and inanity-I speak of that alone, for his sentiments are excellent and his humour exquisite." What the worthy knight meant by inanity, as applied to Addison's style, is not worth inquiring. ED.] that of Johnson. Their prose may be balanced like the poetry of Dryden and Pope. Both are excellent, though in different ways. Addison writes with the ease of a gentleman. His readers fancy that a wise and accomplished companion is talking to them; so that he insinuates his sentiments and taste into their minds by an imperceptible influence. Johnson writes like a teacher. He dictates to his readers as if from an academical chair. They attend with awe and admiration; and his precepts are impressed upon them by his commanding eloquence. Addison's style, like a light wine, pleases every body from the first. Johnson's, like a liquor of more body, seems too strong at first, but, by degrees, is highly relished; and such is the melody of his periods, so much do they captivate the ear, and seize upon the attention, that there is scarcely any writer, however inconsiderable, who does not aim, in some degree, at the same species of excellence. But let us not ungratefully undervalue that beautiful style, which has pleasingly conveyed to us much instruction and entertainment. Though comparatively weak, opposed to Johnson's Herculean vigour, let us not call it positively feeble. Let us remember the character of his style, as given by Johnson himself: "What he attempted, he performed; he is never feeble, and he did not wish to be energetick; he is never rapid, and he never stagnates. His sentences have neither studied amplitude, nor affected brevity; his periods, though not diligently rounded, are voluble and easy1. Whoever wishes to attain an When Johnson showed me a proof-sheet of the character of Addison, in which he so highly extols his style, I could not help observing, that it had not been his own model, as no two styles could differ more from each other. "Sir, Addison had his style, and I have mine." When I ventured to ask him, whether the difference did not consist in this, that Addison's style was full of idioms, colloquial phrases, and proverbs; and his own more strictly grammatical and free from such phraseology and modes of speech as can never be literally translated or understood by foreigners; he allowed the discrimination to be just. Let any one who doubts it, try to translate one of Addison's Spectators into Latin, |