had ever seen. He denied that military men were always the best bred men. Perfect good breeding, he observed, consists in having no particular mark of any profession, but a general elegance of manners: whereas in a military man you can commonly distinguish the brand of a soldier, l'homme d'epee. Dr. Johnson shunned to-night any discussion of the perplexed question of fate and free will, which I attempted to agitate: "Sir, (said he,) we know our will is free, and there's an end of't." He honoured me with his company at dinner on the 16th of October, at my lodgings in Old Bond-street, with Sir Joshua Reynolds, Mr. Garrick, Dr. Goldsmith, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Bickerstaff, and Mr. Thomas Davies. Garrick played round him with a fond vivacity, taking hold of the breasts of his coat, and, looking "up in his face with a lively archness, complimented him on the good health which he seemed then to enjoy; while the sage, shaking his head, beheld him with a gentle complacency. One of the company not being come at the appointed hour, I proposed, as usual upon such occasions, to order dinner to be served; adding, "Ought six people to be kept waiting for one?" "Why, yes, (answered Johnson, with a delicate humanity,) if the one will suffer more by your sitting down, than the six will do by waiting." Goldsmith, to divert the tedious minutes, strutted about, bragging of his dress, and I believe was seriously vain of it, for his mind was wonderfully prone to such impressions. "Come, come, (said Garrick,) talk no more of that. You are, perhaps, the worst-eheh!"-Goldsmith was eagerly attempting to interrupt him, when Garrick went on, laughing ironically, "Nay, you will always look like a gentleman; but I am talking of being well or ill drest." "Well, let me tell you, (said Goldsmith), when my tailor brought home my bloomcoloured coat, he said Sir, I have a favour to beg of you. When any body asks you who made your clothes, be pleased to mention John Phielby, at the Harrow, in Water-lane." JOHNSON. "Why, Sir, that was because he knew the strange colour would attract Mr. John Taylor, who met him in society, and heard his praises from Boswell, was much disappointed at his reserve and silence. He thought him like Herschell, the astronomer. Walpole was so struck by his "decent deportment," that, being asked who he was, he replied in his sarcastic way that he was some Scotch officer-" for he was sandy complexioned and in regimentalswho was cautiously awaiting the moment of promotion." He lived to meet Mr. Croker. 2 William Filby, not John Phielby, was the tailor's name. The clothes had come home that very day, Mr. Forster quotes a whole leaf from the Filby ledger, in which a pair of "bloomcoloured breeches" and a "half-dress suit of ratteen, lined with satin," are charged. crouds to gaze at it, and thus they might hear of him, and see how well he could make a coat, even of so absurd a colour." After dinner, our conversation first turned upon Pope. Johnson said, his characters of men were admirably drawn, those of women not so well. He repeated to us, in his forcible melodious manner, the concluding lines of the Dunciad.' While he was talking loudly in praise of those lines, one of the company ventured to say, "Too fine for such a poem :-a poem on what?" JOHNSON. (with a disdainful look,) "Why, on dunces. It was worth while being a dunce then. Ah, Sir, hadst thou lived in those days! It is not worth while being a dunce now, when there are no wits." Bickerstaff observed, as a peculiar circumstance, that Pope's fame was higher when he was alive than it was then. Johnson said, his Pastorals were poor things, though the versification was fine. He told us, with high satisfaction, the anecdote of Pope's inquiring who was the authour of his London, and saying he will be soon deterré. He observed, that in Dryden's poetry there were passages drawn from a profundity which Pope could never reach. He repeated some fine lines on love, by the former, (which I have now forgotten,) and gave great applause to the character of Zimri. Goldsmith said, that Pope's character of Addison showed a deep knowledge of the human heart. Johnson said, that the description of the temple, in the "Mourning Bride," was the finest poetical passage he had ever read; he recollected none in Shakspeare equal to it.2— "But, (said Garrick, all alarmed for the god of his idolatry,') we know not the extent and variety of his powers. We are to suppose there are such passages in his works. Shakspeare must not suffer from the badness of our memories." Johnson, diverted by this enthusiastic jealousy, went on with greater ardour: No, Sir; Congreve has nature," (smiling on the tragick eagerness of Garrick ;) but composing himself, he added, "Sir, this is not comparing Congreve on the whole with Shakspeare on the whole; but only maintaining that Congreve has one finer passage than any that can The passage ending "Lo! thy dread empire, Chaos! is restored; Light dies before thy uncreating word; Thy hand, great Anarch! lets the curtain fall; And universal darkness buries all." 2 How reverend is the face of this tall pile, Whose ancient pillars rear their marble heads, To bear aloft its arch'd and pond'rous roof, By its own weight made stedfast and unmovable, Looking tranquillity!-it strikes an awe And terror on my aching sight. The tombs And monumental caves of death look cold, And shoot a chilness to my trembling heart!" be found in Shakspeare. Sir, a man may have no more than ten guineas in the world, but he may have those ten guineas in one piece; and so may have a finer piece than a man who has ten thousand pounds: but then he has only one ten-guinea piece.— What I mean is, that you can shew me no passage where there is simply a description of material objects, without any intermixture of moral notions, which produces such an effect." Mr. Murphy mentioned Shakspeare's description of the night before the battle of Agincourt; but it was observed, it had men in it. Mr. Davies suggested the speech of Juliet, in which she figures herself awaking in the tomb of her ancestors. Some one mentioned the description of Dover Cliff. JOHNSON. "No, Sir; it should be all precipice,-all vacuum. The crows impede your fall. The diminished appearance of the boats, and other circumstances, are all very good description : but do not impress the mind at once with the horrible idea of immense height. The impression is divided; you pass on by computation from one stage of the tremendous space to another. Had the girl in The Mourning Bride' said, she could not cast her shoe to the top of one of the pillars in the temple, it would not have aided the idea, but weakened it." Talking of a Barrister who had a bad utterance, some one, (to rouse Johnson), wickedly said, that he was unfortunate in not having been taught oratory by Sheridan. JOHNSON. "Nay, sir, if he had been taught by Sheridan, he would have cleared the room." GARRICK. “Sheridan has too much vanity to be a good man." We shall now see Johnson's mode of defending a man; taking him into his own hands, and discriminating. JOHNSON. "No, Sir. There is, to be sure, in Sheridan something to reprehend, and everything to laugh at; but, Sir, he is not a bad man. No, Sir; were mankind to be divided into good and bad, he would stand considerably within the ranks of good. And, Sir, it must be allowed that Sheridan excels in plain declamation, though he can exhibit no character." I should, perhaps, have suppressed this disquisition concerning a person of whose merit and worth I think with respect, had he not attacked Johnson so outrageously in his Life of Swift, and, at the same time, treated us his admirers as a set of pigmies. He who has provoked the lash of wit, cannot complain that he smarts from it. Mrs. Montague, a lady distinguished for having written an Essay on Shakspeare, being mentioned ;-REYNOLDS. "I think that essay does her honour." JOHNSON. "Yes, Sir; it does her honour, but it would do nobody else honour. I have, indeed, not read it all. But when I take up the end of a web, and find it packthread, I do not expect, by looking further, to find embroidery. Sir, I will venture to say there is not one sentence of true criticism in her book." GARRICK. "But, Sir, surely it shows how much Voltaire has mistaken Shakspeare, which nobody else has done." JOHNSON. "Sir, nobody else has thought it worth while. And what merit is there in that? You may as well praise a schoolmaster for whipping a boy who has construed ill. No, Sir, there is no real criticism in it; none showing the beauty of thought, as formed on the workings of the human heart." The admirers of this Essay may be offended at the slighting Of whom I acknowledge myself to be one, considering it as a piece of the secondary or comparative species of criticism, and not of that profound species which alone Dr. Johnson would allow to be "real criticism." It is, besides, clearly and elegantly expressed, and has done effectually what it professed to do, namely, vindicated Shakspeare from the misrepresentations of Voltaire; and considering how many young people were misled by his witty, though false observations, Mrs. Montague's Essay was of service to Shakspeare with a certain class of readers, and is, therefore, entitled to praise. Johnson, I am assured, allowed the merit which I have stated, saying, (with reference to Voltaire,) "it is conclusive ad hominem." "April 17, 1786. "No man has less inclination to controversy than I have, particularly with a lady; but as in my Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides' I have claimed, and am conscious of being entitled to credit, to the strictest fidelity, my respect for the public obliges me to take notice of an insinuation which tends to impeach it. Mrs. Piozzi (late Mrs. Thrale), to her Anecdotes of Dr. Johnson,' has added the following postscript:'Naples, Feb. 10, 1786.-Since the foregoing went to press, having seen a passage from Mr. Boswell's "Tour to the Hebrides," in which it is said that I could not get through Mrs. Montague's "Essay on Shakspeare," I do not delay a moment to declare that, on the contrary, I have always commended it myself, and heard it commended by everyone else, and few things would give me more concern than to be thought incapable of tasting, or unwilling to testify my opinion of, its excellence.' I might perhaps with propriety have waited till I should have had an opportunity of answering this postscript in a future publication; but being sensible that impressions once made are not easily effaced, I think it better thus early to ascertain a fact which seems to be denied. The fact reported in my Journal,' to which Mrs. Piozzi alludes, is stated in these words (p. 299):-'I spoke of Mrs. Montague's very high praises of Garrick. JOHNSON. "Sir, it is fit she should say so much, and I should say nothing. Reynolds is fond of her book, and I wonder at it; for neither I, nor Beauclerk, nor Mrs. Thrale could get through it."' It is remarkable that this postscript is so expressed as not to point out the person who said that Mrs. Thrale could not get through Mrs. Montague's book; and therefore I think it necessary to remind Mrs. Piozzi that the assertion concerning her is Dr. Johnson's, and not mine. The second observation that I shall make on this postscript is, that it does not deny the fact asserted, though I must acknowledge, from the praise it bestows on Mrs. Montague's book, it may have been designed to convey that meaning. What Mrs. Thrale's opinion is or was, or what she may or may not have said to Dr. Johnson concerning Mrs. Montague s book, it is not necessary for me to inquire. It is only incumbent on me to manner in which Johnson spoke of it; but let it be remembered, that he gave his honest opinion, unbiassed by any prejudice, or any proud jealousy of a woman intruding herself into the chair of criticism; for Sir Joshua Reynolds has told me that when the Essay first came out, and it was not known who had written it, Johnson wondered how Sir Joshua could like it. At this time Sir Joshua himself had received no information concerning the authour, except being assured by one of our most eminent literati, that it was clear its authour did not know the Greek tragedies in the original. One day at Sir Joshua's table, when it was related that Mrs. Montague, in an excess of compliment to the authour of a modern tragedy, had exclaimed, "I tremble for Shakspeare;" Johnson said, "When Shakspeare has got for his rival, and Mrs. Mon tague for his defender, he is in a poor state indeed.” Johnson proceeded: "The Scotchman has taken the right method in his Elements of Criticism.' I do not mean that he has taught us anything: but he has told us old things in a new way." MURPHY. "He seems to have read a great deal of French criticism, and wants to make it his own; as if he had been for years anato ascertain what Dr. Johnson said to me. I shall therefore confine myself to a very short statement of fact. The unfavourable opinion of Mrs. Montague's book which Dr. Johnson is here reputed to have given is known to have been that which he uniformly expressed, as many of his friends well remember. So much for the authority of the paragraph, as far as it relates to his own sentiments. The words containing the assertion to which Mrs. Piozzi objects are printed from my MS. journal, and were taken down at the time. The journal was read by Dr. Johnson, who pointed out some inaccuracies, which I corrected, but did not mention any inaccuracy in the paragraph in question; and what is still more material, and very flattering to me, considerable part of my journal, containing this paragraph, was read several years ago by Mrs. Thrale herself, who had it for some time in her possession, and returned it to me without intimating that Dr. Johnson had mistaken her sentiments. When my journal was passing through the press, it occurred to me that a peculiar delicacy was necessary to be observed in repeating the opinion of one literary lady concerning the performance of another; and I had such scruples on that head, that in the proof-sheet I struck out the name of Mrs. Thrale from the paragraph in question, and two or Baretti notices the quarrel in his Mar- |
