scarcer than any "liber rarissimus " which tantalizes the "belluo librorum" in the "choice catalogue of Thomas Thorpe."

"THE LITERARY MAGAZINE, OR UNIVERSAL REVIEW" made its first appearance May, 1756, and its last, July, 1758. For this periodical Johnson wrote five essays and some twenty-five reviews. We have adverted, heretofore, to the temptation under which a reviewer lies, to abuse his position to personal, and often unworthy, ends. Candor compels us to admit that, even our stern moralist was not proof against what has so often seduced the fidelity of smaller men.

66

Jonas Hanway, a man with more than ordinary pretensions to the character of a philanthropist, as his introduction of umbrellas into Britain demonstrates,-a man who had heretofore ranked as a decent, well-deserving, "highly respectable" citizen, actually had the hardihood, malignity and effrontery, to publish a violent attack upon-what think you, gentle reader? public morality, or private character? neither, but an attack upon “ TeaDrinking." Whether he forgot the Doctor's propensity, or was ignorant of his being a reviewer, or was determined to brave the matter out in his zeal for the public good, does not appear. To suppose that our Doctor would tamely bear this terrific attack upon his favorite beverage, was reckoning without his host. came down with such sledge-hammer blows upon Jonas, that the latter realized that, now, at least, if never when in Russia, he had "caught a Tartar." Johnson describes himself as "a hardened and shameless tea-drinker; who for many years diluted his meals only with the infusion of this fascinating plant; whose kettle has hardly time to cool; who with tea amuses the evening, with tea solaces the midnight; and with tea welcomes the morning." Tyens parodied the last phrase

He

te veniente die-te decedente." Imagine the stupefaction of horror into which the zealous Jonas was thrown, by this unblushing avowal of unrepented profligacy! He girded on his sword afresh, and attacked the Tea-monster with all the zeal of a true imitator of Saint George. The great dragon, in this instance, however, held with feline tenacity to life; and continued to toss off his dozen or twenty cups

of "bohea," or young hyson," without caring a rush for Jonas Hanway and his caustic strictures.

The "Monthly Review" for April, 1755, was enlarged "four pages extraordinary," and, even at that, the usual "catalogue" omitted, to make room for a copious no

tice of Johnson's Dictionary. The want of a good dictionary, before Johnson's made its appearance, need not be enlarged upon here. Those who are versed in philology will not need our learning upon the subject; and those who have no taste for it, would vote us a bore. So we resist the temptation of a vast parade of learning, which would be about as profound as much smattering we meet with in this day of universal scholarship. Cooper says, somewhere, that an American would consider himself as ignorant, indeed, if he did not feel competent to talk upon any subject, whatsoever; so our "clever young men," range, at will, from "Shakespeare and the musical glasses," to the Greek particle; and from "Toilette" critiques, to the differential calculus. To show how reviewers worked in those days, although the dictionary was published only on the 15th of the month, the review of thirty-two pages (principally quotations, indeed) was ready for the press by the 24th. It is much to the credit of the "Monthly Review," that, notwithstanding its Whig principles, Johnson was always treated with a marked consideration; which in days of excited party spirit, is not often accorded to political opponents. In regard to lexicography, all literary men, Whig and Tory, were ready to hail with gratitude one who should promise order and certainty where there reigned obscurity and confusion. English scholars had to endure in silence the sarcasm of the Abbé le Blanc, who declares that, such was the passion for the English tongue that the French had made it one of the learned languages, and that even their women studied it; and yet that there was not so much as a good dictionary, or hardly a tolerable grammar. The Reviewer foresees a brighter state of affairs, since the valiant doctor had come to the rescue :-" But these reproaches, we hope, will in a great measure be removed, as well as the acquiring a competent knowledge of the genius of our tongue, facilitated by the work before us; a work that has been much wanted, and no less eagerly expected, especially by those who are acquainted with Mr. Johnson's literary abilities." After copious quotations, the reviewer thus proceeds: "Such is Mr. Johnson's account of what he has endeavored; and barely to say that he has well performed his task, would be too frigid a commendation of a performance that will be received with gratitude, by those who are sincerely zealous for the reputation of English literature: nevertheless, lavish as we might, justly, be in

its praise, we are not blind to its imperfections; for some we have observed, even in the short time allowed us for the inspection of this large work, nor are all of them equally unimportant. Some may, perhaps, expect that we should point out what appear to us defects; but this we decline, because most of them will be obvious to the judicious and inquisitive reader; nor are we inclinable to feed the malevolence of little or lazy critics: besides which, our assiduous and ingenious compiler, has, in a great measure, anticipated all censure by his apologetical acknowledgments. Upon the whole, if the prodigious extent of this undertaking, and the numerous difficulties necessarily attending it, be duly considered; also that it is the labor of one single person (who himself tells us it was written with little assistance of the learned, and without the patronage of the great; not in the soft obscurities of retirement, nor under the shelter of academic bowers, but amidst inconvenience and distraction, in sickness and in sorrow), instead of affording matter for envy or malignancy to prey upon, it must excite wonder and admiration to see how greatly he has succeeded." The reviewer proceeds: His grammar is concise, yet far from being obscure; several of his remarks are uncommon, if not new, and all of them deserving particular attention. The prosody is treated with an accuracy we do not remember to have met with in other grammarians; and the whole appears to us well calculated to serve its professed purpose, which is, that the English language may be learned, if the reader be acquainted with grammatical terms, or taught by a master to those who are more ignorant."

The Doctor, with his usual foresight, had adopted an excellent mode of discouraging all adverse criticism, by admitting in his preface, that, a few wild blunders and risible absurdities might for a time furnish folly with laughter, and harden ignorance into contempt. Now as no reviewer is particularly desirous of being considered either a fool, or an ignoramus, we may suppose that the Jeffreys of the day were contented to praise where they could, and be silent where they disapproved.

Thomas Warton, in a letter to his brother, after admitting that "the preface was noble and the history of the language pretty full," complains that, "strokes of laxity and indolence" were plainly to be perceived. "Laxity and indolence" there will always be in the work of man; but vigor and industry also there were, else

the dictionary had never seen the light. The author commenced with a good stock of confidence. When Dr. Adams started back aghast at the stupendous character of the scheme, exclaiming, "This is a great work, sir. How are you to get all the etymologies?-JOHNSON. Why, sir, here is a shelf with Junius and Skinner, and others; and there is a Welsh gentleman who has published a collection of Welsh proverbs, who will help me with the Welsh.-ADAMS. But, sir, how can you do this in three years?-JOHNSON. Sir, I have no doubt that I can do it in three years.-ADAMS. But the French Academy, which consists of forty members, took forty years to compile their Dictionary.-JOHNSON. Sir, thus it is. This is the proportion. As three to sixteen hundred, so is the proportion of an Englishman to a Frenchman."

The history of Lord Chesterfield's connection with Johnson's first philological aspirations; the tardy patronship, and the severe epistle to his Lordship are well known. Although a bigoted Johnsonite, we consider that the lexicographer was not free from fault in this business. We have no space to spare, however, for any argumentation upon the point. The Earl's suggestions upon the prospectus were all adopted by the author.

The Doctor displayed no little ingenuity in the preliminary arrangement of his material. Bishop Percy tells us: "Boswell's account of the manner in which Johnson compiled his Dictionary, is confused and erroneous. He began his task (as he himself expressly described to me) by devoting his first care to a diligent perusal of all such English writers as were most correct in their language, and under every sentence which he meant to quote, he drew a line, and noted in the margin the first letter of the word under which it was to occur. He then delivered these books to his clerks, who transscribed each sentence on a separate slip of paper, and arranged the same under the word referred to. By these means, he collected the several words and their different significations; and when the whole arrangement was alphabetically formed, he gave the definitions of their meanings, and collected their etymologies from Skinner, Junius, and other writers on the subject."

Andrew Millar's exclamations of delight at the reception of the last sheet, was less reverent than Johnson's pious rejoinder. We do not wonder at Millar's impatience. The "three years," proved to be more than seven; and the copy-right money

(£1575, equal perhaps to $15,000 in our day) had long been in the hands of the lexicographer. Here was an opportunity, in the pages of a work of general reference, too good to be lost, of giving vent to some of the strong prejudices which the Doctor adhered to with a pertinacity worthy of a worthy cause; accordingly we have some curious definitions:

"OATS. A grain which, in England, is generally given to horses, but in Scotland,. supports the people."

"WHIG. The name of a faction."

"PENSION. An allowance made to any one without an equivalent. In England, it is generally understood to mean, pay given to a state hireling, for treason to his country."

We may be sure that the last definition was not forgotten by the lexicographer's friends, or enemies, when a pension of £300 was graciously bestowed upon the author of the "Rambler," by George Third. Nor did Johnson himself forget his unhappy definition; for he consulted Sir Joshua Reynolds, as to the propriety of the author of such a sweeping attack upon pensioners becoming one himself.

The Dictionary sold well; for a second folio edition was published within a year. This was a triumph for the author; who declared that, of all his acquaintances, there were only two who, upon the publication of the work, did not endeavor to depress him with threats of censure from the public, or with objections learned from those who had learned them from his own preface.

He complains, in 1771, that, "my summer wanderings are now over, and I am engaging in a very great work, the revision of my Dictionary; from which, I know not at present how to get loose." In the next year, the work had reached its fourth edition, but was much the same as when first published; for he tells Boswell: "A new edition of my great Dictionary is printed from a copy which I was persuaded to revise; but having made no preparation, I was able to do very little. Some superfluities I have expunged, and some faults I have corrected, and here and there have scattered a remark; but the main fabric of the work remains as it was. I had looked very little into it since I

wrote it, and I think, I found it full as often better, as worse, than I expected." "The world," he tells Mr. Bagshaw, "must at present take it as it is."

Mrs. Piozzi tells a curious anecdote upon this point. "As he was walking along the Strand, a gentleman stepped out of some neighboring tavern, with his napkin in his hand, and no hat, and stopping him as civilly as he could,-"I beg your pardon, sir; but you are Dr. Johnson, I believe." "Yes, sir." "We have a wager depending on your reply: pray, sir, is it irréparable or irrepàrable that one should Say?" "The last, I think, sir," answered Dr. Johnson, "for the adverb [adjective] ought to follow the verb; but you had better consult my Dictionary than me; for that was the result of more thought than you will now give me time for." no," replied the gentleman gayly, "the book I have no certainty at all of; but here is the author to whom I referred: I have won my twenty guineas quite fairly, and am much obliged to you, sir," so shaking Dr. Johnson kindly by the hand, he went back to finish his dinner, or dessert.' Croker comments: "The Dictionary gives, and rightly, a contrary decision."

"No,

Robert Dodsley is entitled to our gratitude, for suggesting the publication of a Dictionary to Johnson; although the latter declares that he had long thought of it. Boswell one day ventured one of his usual sapient remarks: "You did not know what you were undertaking." JOHNSON. "Yes, sir, I knew very well what I was undertaking, and very well how to do it, and have done it very well." When Johnson asked Garrick, what people said of the new book, he replied, that it was objected to as citing authorities which were beneath the dignity of such a work; Richardson, for example. "Nay," said the lexicographer, "I have done worse than that I have cited thee, David."

But all did not find fault. Sheridan paid a compliment to the author, in his prologue to Savage's tragedy of "Sir Thomas Overbury," worthy of both the donor and the recipient

"So pleads the tale that gives to future times
The son's misfortunes and the parent's crimes;
There shall his fame (if own'd to-night) survive;
Fix'd by the hand that bids our language live."

Tis not a mere prudential maxim, but an ethical law, that in undertaking to act upon others, we must pay attention to the circumstances under which our attempts are made. These circumstances are nothing else than our relations, which again are determined by the personal character of men and by our influence upon that character. But now every one requires that his personality be respected, and if he admits that it can and must undergo changes, yet he demands that this shall be brought to pass, not in suppressing, but in ennobling and expanding his existing nature. Since this is a universal demand, and since it is a moral law to adjust our demands so that they can consist with the demands of the other party, we are subjected by this law to the duty of respecting their personality; that is, of adapting our mode of procedure to relations and circumstances. For in the effort to put an idea into practice, we assert our own personality; but in order that this may not take place at the expense and through the suppression of the personality of others, we must endeavor by a most thorough adjustment thereto, to extenuate and to make amends for the preponderance we strive to gain. Hence arose the first duty to make our ideas consort with theirs; hence arises now the second duty, in asserting our personality to acknowledge theirs and to approach every thing which belongs to it with the greatest care. Since now, according to our previous position, the highest virtue is also the highest prudence, it follows that this moral propriety or appropriateness in action, will be the surest means and the indispensable condition of success. It is this by which the practical man (in the higher and better sense of the word) distinguishes himself; and if his conduct always exhibits this feature, and he is by that means invariably successful, yet we should not simply ascribe to him prudence and forget the moral power of this quality. There are men of this sort, who inspire confidence at the first look, and for this reason; because while maintaining their own personality with dignity and with emphasis, they do not forget that modesty which yields to the personality of every other individual its fullest rights. Scarcely have these men undertaken to conduct a difficult matter, when difficulties disappear and opposition vanishes, because every one who observes their proceedings is convinced that his own interests will be advanced thereby. These are the men

who guide and govern social life and from such an example as theirs we must take our start, in order to form a lively idea of the distinctive features of the orator. On the contrary there are men enough who are ever ready and anxious to accomplish some good end, but who, because they always bring forward their plans at an unsuitable season, and because they are not capable of adapting them to the peculiarities of those with whom they deal, are perpetually baffled in their plans and undertakings; good men, if you will, yet men who, beyond a doubt, stand in need of a higher moral cultivation. These are the genuine unrhetorical natures, well adapted to illustrate in the clearest manner, what the orator may not be.

As it applies to all moral activity, so does this law of propriety, hold good in rhetoric, and imparts to the rhetoric which is framed in accordance with it, certain characteristics which are of ethical origin, and which, at the same time, may be regarded as the best means of moving the hearer's heart.

In the first place, a discourse constructed in accordance with existing relations, will be so adapted to the capacity of the hearer, that it will neither tax it too severely nor leave it too little employed. For the capacity is dependent upon the knowledge and mental culture of the hearer; forming a very important part of his personality, which the orator is bound to respect, and which he will unpardonably offend if he wearies him with excessive obscurity or excessive simplicity in his discourse. And as a very complete acquaintance with his public is necessary in order to avoid both these errors, it is obligatory upon the orator to use all diligence in acquiring a knowledge of the same. Otherwise he will subject himself to the reproach of one who has undertaken a business, and has neglected to obtain the information necessary in the case. It is true indeed that among the same class of hearers the degree of culture attained will vary in each individual case; yet a middle course is not difficult to be found, and accordingly a fictitious general or normal hearer may be imagined, which may be kept constantly in view, and to which every thing may be addressed; by which device one may escape error in either of the directions adverted to.

When an orator is not in a position rightly to judge of his public, or is incapable of engaging its attention in a suitable