Deformities of Samuel Johnson, Selected from his Works Part 6

Of these words about forty only are proper, yet though they are so, and though they are frequently to be found in the best authors, yet the Doctor has not given any authority for them. His reading therefore must have been very circ.u.mscribed, or his negligence very great. Is the word _Avowee_, for instance, one of those which 'are however, to be yet considered as resting only upon the credit of former dictionaries[143].'

Besides these forty, there are under letter A, some hundreds of the most common words, for which no author's name is quoted. A gross omission according to the plan which he lays down.

Let us put the case, that a foreigner sits down to compose a page of English, by the help of Dr Johnson's work. The strange combinations of letters (for I dare not call them words) which swell his book to its present bloated size, are not marked with an asterisk, to distinguish them as barbarous: The novice would therefore adopt a stile unknown to any native of England. Here is a short specimen of what he would say.

'An _Admurmuration_ has long wandered about the world, that the pensioner's political principles are _anfractuous_. Their _anfractuousness_, their _insipience_, and their _turpitude_, are no longer _amphibological_. His _nefarious repercussion_ of _obloquy_ must _contaminate_, and _ob.u.mbrate_, and who can tell but it may even _aberuncate_ his _feculent_ and _excrement.i.tious celebrity_. His _perspicacity_ will see without _comity_, or _hilarity_, that his character as an author and a gentleman, requires _resuscitation_, for it is neither _immane_ nor _immarcessible_. This is a _h.o.m.ogeneous_ truth[144]. Let him distend, like the _flaccid_ sides of a football[145], his _sal_, his _sapience_, and his powers of _ratiocination_. The _mellifluous_ and _numerose cadence_ of _equiponderant_ periods cannot ensure him from a _luxation_, a _laceration_, and a _resiliency_ of his _adminicular concatenation_ with the _rugged mercantile_ race[146]. The loss of this _adscit.i.tious adminicle_ would make the sage's _impeccable_, but _lugubrious_ bosom vibrate with the horrors of _dilution_ and _dereliction_. His organs of vision would gush with _salsamentarious_ torrents of spherical particles, of equal diameters, and of equal specific gravities, as Dr Cheyne observes--their smoothness--their sphericity--their frictions, and their hardness,'[147] &c.

To the last edition (the 4th) of the folio dictionary, there is prefixed an advertis.e.m.e.nt, from which I have extracted a few lines: 'Finding my dictionary about to be reprinted, I have endeavoured by a revisal to make it less reprehensible. I will not deny that I found _many parts requiring emendation_, and _many more capable of improvement_. _Many faults_ I have corrected, some superfluities I have taken away, and some deficiencies I have supplied. I have methodised some parts that were _disordered_, and illuminated some that were _obscure_. Yet the changes or additions bear a very small proportion to the whole.' That his improvements, bear a very small proportion to the quant.i.ty of errors still in his book is true, for after a long and painful search, I have only been able to trace out ONE alteration. The word _Gazetteer_ is now defined without that insolent scurrility formerly quoted. But in this correct edition, thunder continues to be a _most bright flame_. Whig is still the name of a faction; and a Tory is said to be an adherent to the antient const.i.tution of England. Oats, Excise, _Monarch_, &c. are all in the same stile. Nowise, _n. s._ '(_no_ and _wise_: this is commonly spoken and written by IGNORANT BARBARIANS, _noways_). Not in any manner, or degree.' Theorem, _n. s._ 'A position laid down as an acknowledged truth.'

Here a schoolboy can detect the Doctor's ignorance, for every body knows that this word has the _opposite_ meaning, which is indeed evident from the quotations that are intended to exemplify it.

'Having found this the head _theorem_ of all their discourses, we hold it necessary that the _proofs_ thereof be weighed.' _Hooker._ 'Here are three _theorems_, that from thence we may draw some conclusions[148].'

_Dryden._ No words can paint the Doctor's want of attention.

To p.i.s.s, _v. n._ (p.i.s.ser Fr. p.i.s.sen Dutch) 'To make water. I charge the _p.i.s.sing_ conduit run nothing but claret. _Shakespeare._ One a.s.s p.i.s.ses, the rest _p.i.s.s_ for company. _L'Estrange._ The wanton boys _p.i.s.s_ upon your grave. _Dryden._' Wh.o.r.edom, _n. s._ (from _wh.o.r.e_) 'Fornication.

Some let go _wh.o.r.edom_ as an indifferent matter. _Hale._' Whorish, _a._ (from wh.o.r.e) 'Unchaste, incontinent. By means of a _whorish_ woman a man is brought to a piece of bread. _Proverbs._ I had as lief you should tell me of a mess of _porridge_[149].'

The reader has seen what a profusion of low, and even blackguard expressions are to be met with in the Doctor's celebrated work. I shall now give an additional specimen of his _great_ work; and if, like some American savages, we cannot count our fingers, Dr Johnson himself will teach us how to do it; for he tells us, on _Shakespeare's_ authority, that two is, 'one and one,' Pope and Creech are quoted to prove, that three is, 'two and one.' Four is, 'two and two;' and, if you have the least doubt that 'four and one' make five, or that five is, 'the half of ten,' you will be silenced by the name of Dryden. Six is, 'twice three, one more than five.' Seven is, 'four and three, one more than six.'

Eight is, 'twice four, a word of number.' Nine is, 'one more than eight.' Ninth is, 'that which precedes the tenth.' Ten is, 'the decimal number, twice five.' Tenth is, 'first after the ninth, the ordinal of ten.' Eleven is, 'ten and one.' Eleventh is, 'the next in order to the tenth, and is derived from eleven.' Twelve is, 'two and ten;' and twelfth, 'second after the tenth, the ordinal of twelve.' Thirteen is, 'ten and three.' Fourteen is, 'four and ten.' Fifteen is, 'five and ten.' Fifteen, 'the ordinal of fifteen, the fifth after the tenth;' and, if you entertain any suspicion as to the verity of these definitions, read over Boyle, Brown, Dryden, Moses, Raleigh, Sandys, Shakespeare, and Bacon. Thirdly is, in the 'third place.' Thrice, 'three times,'

threefold, 'thrice repeated, consisting of three.' Threepence, (_three_ and _pence_) 'a small silver coin, valued at thrice a penny.'

Threescore, a. (_three_ and _score_) 'thrice twenty, sixty.' Pope, Raleigh, Wiseman, Shakespeare, Brown, Dryden, and Spencer, are cited to convince you, that these explanations are accurate. And the other articles of numeration, with all their derivations, definitions, and the pa.s.sages which are quoted to support them, would fill a sixpenny pamphlet. And this is one recipe for making a book worth four guineas!

A farthing is, 'the fourth part of a penny, and a penny is, _a small coin_[150], of which twelve make a s.h.i.+lling.' A s.h.i.+lling is 'now twelve pence.' A Pound is, 'the sum of twenty s.h.i.+llings;' and, if thou hast forgot the worth of a Guinea, know that it is 'a gold coin, valued at one and twenty s.h.i.+llings;' for Dryden, Locke, and c.o.c.ker, have said all this. A Punk is, 'a wh.o.r.e, a common prost.i.tute;' and a Puppy is, 'a whelp, the progeny of a b.i.t.c.h, a name of contemptuous reproach to a man.' To _Mew_ is, 'to cry as a cat.' To Kaw is, 'to cry as a Raven, Crow, or Rook; and the cry of a Raven or Crow (and he might have added, of a Jack Daw too) is kaw.'

'There are men (says Dr Johnson) who claim the name of authors, merely to disgrace it, and fill the world with volumes, only to bury letters in their own rubbish. The traveller who tells, in a pompous Folio, that he saw the _Pantheon_ at _Rome_, and the _Medicean Venus_ at _Florence_; the natural historian, who, describing the productions of a narrow island, recounts all that it has in common with every other part of the world; the collector of antiquities, that accounts every thing a curiosity, which the ruins of Herculaneum happen to emit, though an instrument already shown in a thousand repositories, or a cup common to the antients, the moderns, and all mankind, may be justly censured as the persecutors of students, and the _thieves_ of that time, which never can be restored[151].'

The traveller who visits Rome and Florence, and gives an account of what he saw to the world, without describing the Pantheon and the Medicean Venus, will, very properly, be censured as an ignorant and tasteless wanderer. The historian who describes an island, whether wide or narrow, ought to begin by telling if it produces water, gra.s.s, wood, and corn. A sword, a bow, and a dagger, are common to the antients, the moderns, and almost all mankind; yet, if any Roman military weapon were discovered in the ruins of Herculaneum, it would deservedly be the object of curiosity, and a collector of antiquities might describe it without being censured, in Dr Johnson's polite style, as a _thief of time_. Of this pa.s.sage, however, the leading idea is just; and, had the Doctor been able to express himself with precision, it would have served, in an admirable manner, to delineate the character of the author of those pa.s.sages which we have just now been reading from his Dictionary.

A Puppy is said to be, 'the progeny of a b.i.t.c.h,' but so is the b.i.t.c.h herself. Repleviable is, 'what may be _replevined_.' Repair is, 'reparation;' and reparation is, 'the act of repairing.' A Republican is, 'one who thinks a commonwealth, without monarchy, the best government.' But this is only half a definition; for every subject of a republic, is a republican, whether he think it the best government or not. Republican, a. (from republic) is, 'placing the government in the people.' Is Venice under the government of the people? It is curious enough to hear such an author as Ben Johnson cited to prove what a republic is. The reader will compute what t.i.tle the Doctor has to the character given him by a late writer, viz. that 'his great learning and genius render him one of the most _s.h.i.+ning_ ornaments of the present age.' A Looking-gla.s.s is, 'a gla.s.s which shews forms reflected;' but so will a common gla.s.s bottle; though we never term it a looking-gla.s.s. He says it is compounded of _look_ and _gla.s.s_; but, if the reader happens to think it is derived from _looking_ and _gla.s.s_, the Doctor cannot confute him. A knave is, 'a petty rascal, a scoundrel.' A _Loon_ is, 'a sorry fellow, a scoundrel.' A _Looby_ is, 'a lubber, a clumsy clown.' A _Lubber_ is, 'a st.u.r.dy drone, an idle, fat, bulky _losel_, a b.o.o.by.' A _Losel_ is, 'a scoundrel, a sorry worthless fellow.' A _Lubbard_ is, 'a lazy st.u.r.dy fellow.' A _b.o.o.by_ is--but you must know what it is, while you read, in these elegant definitions, the taste and genius of Dr Johnson. He says, that Bone is, 'the solid parts of the body of an animal.' Are not the fat and the muscles also solid? A Volume is, 'something rolled or convolved;' and so is a barrel, a foot-ball, and a blanket. But a volume is likewise '_as much as seems convolved at once_;' an expression hardly intelligible; and it is a book. A Book, we are told, is, 'a volume, in which we read or write;' and whether we read and write in it or not.

'V has two powers expressed in English by two characters, v, consonant, and u, vowel.' One would think these were two different letters, as much as any others in the alphabet. The same remark applies to letters I and J, which the Doctor has blended. It is remarkable that this _English_ Dictionary begins with a _Latin_ word; and the Doctor has inserted it without giving an authority.

A Ketch is, 'a _heavy_ s.h.i.+p;' and a Junk is, 'a _small_ s.h.i.+p of China.' A Sloop is, 'a small s.h.i.+p;' and a Brigantine is, 'a light vessel;' but, it would have required little learning or ingenuity to have said, that, in our marine, a sloop has only one mast, except sloops of war, which have three; and, that a brigantine is a merchant s.h.i.+p with two. A brig, a lugger, a hooker, a schooner, a galliot, a galleon, a proa, a punt, a xebeque, and a snow, are not inserted in this _compleat_ English Dictionary; but a Cutter is, 'a nimble boat that _cuts_ the water.' Did we ever hear of a boat that did not cut the water? This explanation, like that of at least twenty thousand others, is defective; because, besides a man of war's boat, the word Cutter is applied to a small vessel with one mast, rigged as a sloop, that sails very near the _wind_; from which peculiarity, its appellation is derived.

A Cannon is, 'a gun larger than can be managed by the hand.' Cannon-ball and Cannon shot are, 'the b.a.l.l.s which are shot from great guns.' Mr Locke is cited to shew, that _cannot_ is compounded of _can_ and _not_.

Menstruous is, 'having the catamenia;' and this last word is wanting, a frequent mode of _definition_ in this book. The Eye is, 'the organ of vision.' Eye-drop, (_eye_ and _drop_) 'tear.' See also Eye-ball, Eye-brow, Eye-glance, Eye-gla.s.s, Eyeless, Eye-lid, Eye-sight, Eye-sore, Eye-tooth, Eye-wink, Eye-witness. Eye-string is, 'the string of the eye[152].' The following names are cited to support the explanations: Dryden, Spencer, Newton, Milton, Garth, Bacon, Samuel, Peter, and Shakespeare four times. The man who can make such a pedantic parade of erudition, must be a mere quack in the business of book-building; and the reader who thinks himself edified by hearing, that an eye-wink is, 'a wink as a hint or token,' must be an object of pity. But there is no such reader. _Quere._ Do we never wink but as a hint or token? Achor is, 'a species of the _Herpes_;' and Hey, 'an expression of joy.' A Mocker is,'one who mocks;' and a Laughing-stock, (_laugh_ and _stock_) a 'b.u.t.t, an object of ridicule.' Iron, a. is, 'made of iron;' and Iron, s. is said to be, 'a metal common to all parts of the world;' which is not the fact.

Numskull, _s._ (_numb_ and _skull_) 'a _Dullard_; a dunce; a dolt; a blockhead.' Numskulled, _a._ (from _Numskull_) 'dull; stupid; doltish.'

Nun, _s._ 'a woman dedicated to the severer duties of religion, secluded in a cloister from the world.' The Nuns of London were _not_ employed in the severer duties of religion, which has nothing to do with severity.

The inst.i.tution of nunneries is the most atrocious insult upon human feelings, that ever disgraced the selfish and brutal policy of the Roman priesthood, and its consequences are the most shocking and criminal. The man who would palliate such an outrage on Christianity, deserves no quarter[153]. From this sample of his good sense and piety, one would hardly rank the Rambler above 'a domestic animal, that catches mice.'

Jack is, '1. The diminutive of John. 2. The name of _instruments_, which supply the place of a boy, _as an instrument_ to pull off boots.'

Bronchocele, _s._ 'a tumor of that part of the _aspera tertia_, called the _Bronchos_,' and this last word is wanting. Broom is 'a shrub;' and Brogue 'a kind of shoe.' See also Broomstaff, Broomy, Broth, Brothel, and Brothelhouse. Bubo, 'the groin from the bending of the thigh to the _s.c.r.o.t.u.m_;' but the _s.c.r.o.t.u.m_ is not explained.

Snot. 'The mucus of the nose.' Nose. 'The prominence on the face, which is the organ of _scent_, and the emunctory of the brain.'

He should have said the organ of _smell_, for we do not say the sense of _scenting_. But from what he says of them, it appears that he is ignorant of the distinction between these two words. If the nose were the emunctory of the brain (which every surgeon's apprentice knows that it is _not_), in that case snot could not be the mucus of the nose, but the mucus of the brain. It belongs to neither. It is entirely, or princ.i.p.ally formed in the glands of the throat, as we see every day in coughing. To contradict such inconsistencies, would be below the dignity of any writer, if they were found in a book less famous than the English Dictionary.

Rust. 'The red _Desquamation_ of old iron.' Desquamation. 'The act of scaling foul bones.' Sinew. '1. A tendon; the ligaments by which the joints are moved. 2. _Muscle_ or _nerve_!' Other metals rust as well as iron, and rust is not always red; that of copper for instance is blue or green. It is not quite clear why the word _Desquamation_ is introduced.

But his account of _sinew_ exceeds every thing of the kind.

Highflier. 'One that carries his opinion to extravagance.' The word relates to a particular set of men in this country, and to them only. A Dervise, a Friar, and a Bramin, profess extravagant opinions; but an English writer would not call them _Highfliers_, nor would he be understood if he did.

Chervill. 'An _umbelliferous_ plant.' Periwig. '_Adscit.i.tious_ hair.'

Chemist, and Chemistry are omitted, but Chymistry is, 'philosophy by FIRE;' and Chymist, 'a philosopher by FIRE!' With what inexpressible contempt would the youngest of Dr Black's audience hear these definitions? The folly of the man, who can scribble such jargon is eclipsed by the superlative ignorance of those who vindicate and admire him. Dr Johnson a.s.serts, that Shakespeare 'has corrupted language by every mode of depravation[154].' The remark applies to himself. And his advocates must allow, that 'they endure in _him_ what they should in another loath and despise[155].' Indeed I can very well believe the Doctor, when he says, that his book was composed while he was in a state of DISTRACTION[156]. For the honour of his veracity, we may hope, that he was likewise _distracted_ when he observed of the social, facetious, and celebrated John Wilkes, Esq; that 'Lampoon would disdain to speak ill of him, of whom no man speaks well[157].'

Part of his book has merit; but take it altogether, and perhaps it is the strangest farrago which pedantry ever produced. It will be said that these are partial specimens, but we have traced him through various _ramifications_ of learning, and found his ignorance extreme. A sensible reader will try his own abilities, in judging of the Doctor's _great_ performance. Nor will he throw down this pamphlet without a candid perusal, because, by some unaccountable infatuation, the dictionary has for twenty seven years been admired by thousands and ten thousands, who have never _seen_ it. Let us exert that courage of thought, and that contempt of quackery, which to feel, and to display, is the privilege and the pride of a Briton. In a country where no man fears his king, can any man fear the sound of a celebrated name, or crouch behind the the banner of Dullness, because it is born by SAMUEL JOHNSON, A.M. & LL.D.?

I shall now take leave of this enormous compilation, and return, for a few pages, to the rest of his works.

Speaking of Pope's edition of Shakespeare, Dr Johnson observes, 'That on this undertaking, to which Pope was induced by a reward of two hundred and seventeen pounds, twelve s.h.i.+llings, he seems never to have reflected afterwards _without vexation_[158].' The Doctor ought never to reflect 'without vexation' on his own edition of Shakespeare. He published his proposals in 1756, but the work itself did not appear till 1768, and then, though the world was warmly prejudiced in his favour, and tho' he had plundered every thing which he thought valuable, from all his predecessors, yet his performance was received with general disregard.

His preface was the particular b.u.t.t of censure; his deficiencies were detected 'with all the insolence of victory;' and the public were, for once, inclined to say of him, what he says of Mr Theobald, viz. that he was 'a man of heavy diligence, with very slender powers[159].'

Indeed the Doctor persecutes the name of Theobald with the most rancorous spirit of revenge. In his proposals for printing Shakespeare, he tells us, 'that Mr Theobald, if fame be just to his memory, considered his learning only as an instrument of gain, and made no farther enquiry after his authour's meaning, when once he had notes sufficient to embellish his page with the expected decorations.' If Theobald was poor, he was certainly prudent in considering his learning as an instrument of gain. In this point, he has been exactly copied by no less a personage than Dr Johnson himself. But the Doctor has not ventured to say that Theobald was a venal prost.i.tuted dabbler in politics; that he insulted his King, till he received a pension; and that when he had received his pension, he insulted his country. No. 'The old books, the cold pedantry, and sluggish pertinacity of Theobald,'

never excited the serious contempt or indignation of mankind. Dr Johnson a.s.serts, 'That when Theobald published Shakespeare in opposition to Pope, the _best_ notes were supplied by Warburton[160].' This is an a.s.sertion without a proof, and merits no regard; for his veracity keeps pace with his candour.

The admirers of Pope will be sensible of the good nature and honesty of Dr Johnson, from the following unqualified a.s.sertion: 'The great object of his (Pope's) ridicule is _poverty_; the crimes with which he reproaches his antagonists are their debts, their habitation in the mint, and their want of a dinner. He seems to be of an opinion, not very uncommon in the world, that to want money is to want every thing[161].'

The crimes with which Pope reproaches the Duncenian heroes are slander and _forgery_[162], most of them were not only bad writers, but bad men; and it is only in the latter point of view, that the poet considered them as fair objects of ridicule. Had Pope been capable of insulting honest indigence, his reputation and his glory must have been for ever blasted. The humanity of Englishmen would have rejected, with horror, such impious wit. The last part of this malicious paragraph is, after a few pages, contradicted by Dr Johnson himself. Had Pope been of opinion, that _to want money is to want every thing_, he would not have a.s.sisted Dodsley 'with a hundred pounds that he might open a shop--of the subscription of forty pounds a-year that he raised for Savage, TWENTY were paid by himself. He was accused of loving money, but his love was eagerness to gain, not solicitude to keep it. In the duties of friends.h.i.+p, he was zealous and constant. It does not appear that he lost a _single_ friend by coldness, or by injury; those who loved him once, continued their kindness[163].' This cannot be the picture of a man who insulted innocent misery.

The Doctor is perpetually giving us strokes of his own character. Thus, of Mr Thomson we are informed, 'that he was "more fat than bard beseems," of a _dull_ countenance, and a _gross, unanimated, uninviting_ appearance.' This is the Rambler's portrait, but when applied to the author of the Seasons, it is not true, for Mr Murdoch a.s.sures us, 'that his worst appearance was, when you saw him walking alone, in a thoughtful mood; but let a friend accost him, and enter into conversation, he would instantly brighten into a most amiable aspect, his features no longer the same, and his eye darting a peculiar animated fire. His looks always announced, and half expressed what he was about to say[164].'

The Doctor fills up several pages with blotted variations from Pope's ma.n.u.script translation of the Iliad. He exults in this precious production, and foresees that the wisest of his readers will wish for more. Having perused a few lines of it only, I cannot pretend to rate the value of this commodity: But a plain reader will be apt to suspect that the Doctor has on this, as on former occasions, adopted the prudent proverb,_ multum scribere, multum solvere_. If Lexiphanes _overflows with Greek_, he may, by comparing Pope with Homer, afford much entertainment.

'Wives and husbands are, indeed, incessantly complaining of each other[165].'--Not unless both are fools, nor always then. For the credit of its author, I suppress the sequel of this unhappy period.

Dr Johnson observes, that Mr Addison, 'by a serious display of the beauties of Chevy Chace, exposed himself to the ridicule of Wagstaff.--In Chevy Chace there is _not much_ of either bombast or affectation, but there is chill and lifeless imbecility. The story cannot possibly be told in a manner that shall make _less_ impression on the mind[166].' This is a most scandalous criticism; no man who ever heard the ballad, will hear it with patience. The Doctor's pious intention seems to have been to lessen the reputation of Addison. Let him who falsifies without shame, be chastised without mercy[167].

Though Dr Johnson long acted as Reviewer of books for the Gentleman's Magazine, and though he often exercised his pen in that capacity with the most grovelling insolence, yet he cannot speak with patience of his rivals in that branch of trade. 'We have now,' says he, 'among other disturbers of human quiet, a numerous body of Reviewers and Remarkers[168].' He is angry with Lord Lyttleton, for having once condescended to correspond with the Critical Reviewers. He observes, that the CRITICAL REVIEWERS, 'can satisfy their hunger only by devouring their brethren. I am far from imagining that they are naturally more ravenous or blood-thirsty, than those on whom they fall with so much violence and fury; but they are _hungry_, and _hunger_ must be satisfied; and these SAVAGES, when their bellies are full, will fawn on those whom they now bite[169].' They have lately[170] celebrated the Doctor's great candour, of which this pa.s.sage is the best evidence that 'will easily be found.'

I finish this essay by reciting the circ.u.mstance which gave it birth.

In 1778, Mr William Shaw published an a.n.a.lysis of the Gaelic language.

He quoted specimens of Gaelic poetry, and harangued on its beauties, with the aukward elocution of one who did not understand them. A few months ago, he printed a pamphlet. He traduced decent characters. He denied the existence of Gaelic poetry, and his name was echoed in the newspapers as a miracle of candour. Is there in the annals of Grubaean impudence any parallel to this? Is there any nation in the world except _one_, perpetually deluded by a succession of impostors? Are these the blessed fruits of that freedom which patriots perish to defend? If there be no pillory, no whipping post for such acc.u.mulated guilt, we may truly say with Shakespeare, that 'Liberty plucks Justice by the nose.' This incomparable bookbuilder, who writes a dictionary before he can write grammar, had previously boasted what a harvest he would reap from English credulity. He was not deceived. The bait was caught; and the voice of truth was for some time drowned in the clamours of the rabble.

Mr Shaw wants only money. He thinks only how to get it, and with a courage that is respectable, avowed his intentions. But better things might have been expected from the moral and majestic author of the Rambler. He must have seen the a.n.a.lysis of the Gaelic language, for Shaw mentions him as the patron of that work. He must have seen the specimens of Celtic poetry there inserted. That he is likewise the patron of this poor scribble, no man, I suppose, will offer to deny. From this single circ.u.mstance, Dr Johnson stands convicted of _an illiberal intention to deceive_. Candour can hardly hesitate to sum up his character in the vulgar but expressive pollysyllable.

It will be demanded, why a private individual, without interest or connections, presumes to interfere in the quarrels of the learned? But when the most shameless of mankind, is _hired_ to abuse the characters of his countrymen, to blast the reputations of the living and the dead; when _such_ a tool is employed for _such_ a purpose, that those who are insulted cannot with propriety stoop to a reply,--THEN the highest degree of goodness may degenerate into the lowest degree of weakness, silence becomes approbation, and tenderness and delicacy deserve different names. He is unfit to be the friend of virtue who cannot defend her dignity; who dares not execute her vengeance. In this shameful affair, one circ.u.mstance does honour to Dr Johnson. _His friends.h.i.+p is not exhausted in a compliment._ He does not excite expectation merely to disappoint it. He resembles not some perfidious wretches, whom his intrepid eloquence hath so properly pointed out to public indignation. Exerting the generosity which often enn.o.bles the character of an Englishman, he engages not his dependant in a performance for which he scruples to pay.

To glean the t.i.the of this man's absurdities cannot be of peculiar consequence to me: But the world is long since weary of his arrogant pedantry, his officious malice, his detested a.s.siduity to undermine his superiors, and overbear his equals. Reformation is never quite hopeless, and by submitting to make a catalogue of his errors, there is a chance to humble and reform him. Perhaps indeed, like '_The drudges of sedition_, HE will hear in sullen silence, HE will feel conviction without shame, and be confounded, but not abashed[171].' I have not arrested a few careless expressions, which, in the glow of composition, will sometimes escape, but by fair, and copious quotations from Dr Johnson's ponderous abortions, have attempted to ill.u.s.trate his covetous and shameless prolixity; his corruptions of our language; his very limited literature; his entire want of general learning; his antipathy to rival merit; his paralytick reasoning; his solemn trifling pedantry; his narrow views of human life; his adherence to contradictions; his defiance of decency; and his contempt of truth. I have not been sporting in the mere wantonness of a.s.sertion. I have produced such various, such invincible, such d.a.m.ning proofs, that the Doctor himself must feel a burst of conviction. To collect every particle of _inanity_ which may be found in our _patriot's_ works is infinitely beyond the limits of an eighteen-pence pamphlet. I stop at present here, but the subject seems _inexhaustible_[172]!

_FINIS._

FOOTNOTES: