derns: ift, That of Lord SHAFTSBURY, who places virtue in a course of action conformable to the moral fenfe. 2dly, That of WOOLASTON, who calls it, acting in all cafes according to truth, and treating things as they are. 3diy, The fchool of Dr. SAMUEL CLARKE, who places morality in acting agreeably to the relations that fubfift between rational creatures, or the fitness of things' Of these three fyftems, Johnfor, we are told, adopted Dr. Clarke's. He agreed with him in this, and moft of his opinions. Now let Johnson speak for himself. In his review of a Free Enquiry into the Nature and Origin of Evil, Dr. Johnfon fays (Vide his Works, vol. x. page 246.) "the author offers an account of virtue and vice, for which I have often contended, and which must be embraced by all, who are willing to know why they act, or why they forbear, in order to give any reafon of their conduct to themselves or others."

The account, which he admires, is then given at large: we fhall here felect as much of it as will fhew what was Johnson's idea of virtue and vice.

"Various have been the opinions of various authors on the criterion of virtue: fome have placed it in conformity to truth, fome to the FITNESS OF THINGS, and others to the will of God. But all this is merely fuperficial: they refolve us not, why TRUTH, or the FITNESS OF THINGS, are either eligible or obligatory; nor why God fhould require us to act in one manner rather than another. The true reafon can poffibly be no other than this, because some actions produce happiness, and others mifery. They who extol the truth, beauty, and harmony of virtue, exclufive of its confequences, deal but in pompous nonfenfe; and they who would perfuade us, that good and evil are things indifferent, depending wholly on the will of God, do but confound the nature of things, as well as all our notions of God himself. It is the confequence of all human actions that must ftamp their value; fo far as the general practice of any action tends to produce good, and introduce happinefs into the world, fo far we may pronounce it virtuous: fo much evil as it occafions, fuch is the degree of vice it contains. But though the production of happiness is the effence of virtue, it is by no means the end. The great end is the probation of mankind, or the giving them an opportunity of exalting or degrading themfelves in another ftate, by their behaviour in the prefent. And thus it anfwers two moft important purposes, the confervation of our happiness, and the test of our obedience. Nothing could have been fo juftly rewarded with happiness, as the production of happiness, in conformity to the will of God. It is this conformity alone, which adds merit to virtue, and conflitutes the effential difference between morality and religion. Morality induces men to embrace virtue from prudential confiderations; religion from thofe of gratitude and obedience. The Chriftian is the only religious or moral inftitution in the world, that ever fet in a right light thefe two material points, the effence and the end of virtue. So artificially is the nature of all human virtue and vice contrived, that their rewards and punishments are woven, as it REV. July, 1787

F

were,

were, in their very effence; their immediate effects give us a foretaste of their future; and their fruits, in the prefent life, are the proper famples of what they muft unavoidably produce in another. We have reafon given us to diftinguish thefe confequences, and regulate our conduct; and left that should neglect its poft, confcience alfo is appointed as an instinctive kind of monitor, perpetually to remind us both of our intereft and our duty."

The whole paff ge at length deferves to be feriously perufed: we have here contracted it, in order to fhew the idea of virtue for which Johnfon fays he always contended. Doctor Clarke's FITNESS OF THINGS is here pronounced to be merely fuperficial; and after this, are we to be told that the man, who fides with the doctrine here advanced, was a follower of Dr. Clarke? Virtue would, perhaps, be better referred to the MORAL SENSE of Shaftsbury, than to the FITNESS OF THINGS, and for this plain reafon; because few are fpeculative enough to investigate all the relations that fubfift between reasonable beings; and the MORAL SENSE, which, when referred to ourselves, is another word for CONSCIENCE, is planted in all. To Soame Jennings's account of virtue, Johnson subscribes, and always contended for it: it follows, that he did not embrace the fyftem of Dr. Clarke. Under the fanction of Johnfon's opinion, Sir John fancies that he has eftablished a certain criterion of virtue: he is determined, therefore, to combat another fyftem, which, he fays, was introduced by Richardfon, Fielding, and Sterne. Of the firft he fays, "He was the introducer of Jentiment and fentimentality, from which fprung up Sentimental Journies, Sentimental Letters, and a world of trafh, which, but for this filly epithet, would never have attracted notice. The fuccefs of this author occafioned a craving for more of the fame Ruff.'

Fielding is alfo plentifully abufed: TOM JONES was intended to fap the foundations of morality. The author of it refolves virtue into good affections: he was the inventor of the cant phrase, goodness of heart, which means little more than the virtue of a bore or a dog. Let Sir John remember (if he does not already feel it) that Fielding has made the hypocrite drop his mask, and has exhibited to ridicule the plausible formalift, who talks of the FITNESS OF THINGS, without fentiment, and without that virtue which confitts in good affections. Goodness of heart, whatever Sir John may fay, will always be preferred to the cant of him, who talks of morals with rancour and malignity. STERNE alfo wrote Sentimental Journies. Writers of this clafs,' Sir John fays, fuperfede all moral obligation: they are a law to themfelves, and having GOOD HEARTS, are above those confiderations that bind men to that rule of conduct which is founded in a fenfe of duty. Of this new fchool of morality, ROUSSEAU, FIELDING, and STERNE are the principal teachers, and great is the mifchief they have done by their doctrines.'

To these profound obfervations, our answer is, it would be well if Sir John had been their pupil. That root of bitterness, which has put ranccurs in the vessel of his heart, would have been eradicated; and though the impulfe of genius might not have been communica;ed, the man, if not the writer, would have been improved. Good affections are of the effence of virtue: they are the will of God in the heart of man, implanted in our nature to aid and ftrengthen moral obligation they incite to action. A fenfe of benevolence is no lefs neceffary than a fenfe of duty. Good affections are an ornament not only to an author, but to his writings. He who fhews himself upon a cold fcent for opportunities to bark and fnarl, may, if he will, talk of virtue, but GOODNESS OF HEART, or, to ufe Sir John's polite phrase, the virtue of a horse or a dog, would do him more ho

nour.

We are, in the next place, to eftimate Sir John's talents in the office of a critic; for this we fear he is little qualified. An acquaintance with the best authors, and an early tafte, are neceffary; but thofe qualifications are not ufually acquired at an attorney's defk. Ariftotle and Longinus are better preparatives than the Statute Book, or the Inftructor Clericalis. MILTON, the Knight fays, was a political enthufiaft, and, as is evident from his panegyric on Cromwell, a bafe and abject flatterer. He was acquainted chiefly with men of that crack-brained affembly, called the ROTA CLUB, all republicans; and his domestic manners were far from amiable; he was neither a kind husband, nor indulgent parent.' Thus fpeaks the cold phlegm of Sir John Hawkins: But nothing, he fays, can apologize for that harsh and groundless cenfure, which clofes the firft of Johnson's difcourfes on the SAMSON AGONISTES, viz. that it is a tragedy which ignorance has admired, and bigotry applauded.' (Vide Johnson's Works, vol. vi. p. 436) It may be afked, Does Sir John know the effential beauties of a juft and regular tragedy? Johnfon fays, after Ariftotle, and found reafon, "A tragedy hould begin where it may be intelligible without introduction, and end, where the mind is left in repofe, without expectation of any farther event. The intermediate paffages must join the laft effect to the first caufe, by a regular and unbroken concatenation. Nothing must therefore be inferted, which does not apparently arife from fomething foregoing, and properly make way for fomething that fucceeds it. This is required to the perfection of a tragedy, and is equally neceffary to every fpecies of regular compofition." These requifites are not to be found in the Samfan Agonifies. The fcenes follow one another, but are not produced by any thing that preceded. Manoah, Samfon's father, Dalilah, the courtezan, and Harapha, the giant of Gath, enter Lacceffively, without any apparent caufe, and without any confequential

F 2

fequential effect. In all this, nothing paffes that either haftens or delays the death of Samfon. The fable, therefore, is juftly condemned; but it is the fable only that Johnson cenfures. Of the reft, it is exprefsly admitted, that it contains juft fentiments, maxims of wisdom, oracles of piety, and many paffeges written with the ancient fpirit of choral poetry, in which there is a juft and pleafing mixture of Seneca's moral declamation, with the wild enthufiafm of the Greek writers."

Is this the criticism of a malevolent mind? It is fo far otherwife, that it may be ranked among the beft pieces of that kind in the English language.

Of the beauty, refulting from a regular chain of caufes and effects, Sir John does not appear to have an idea. He thinks a play, like the life of an eminent man, may be written without order or connection: how parts relate to parts, and they to the whole, is a confideration beneath the notice of a confused and wild biographer. Can it be expected that he, whofe reading is confined to old homilies and the ftatute-book, should have a true relish for the beauties of compofition? He ventures, notwithstanding, to talk of propriety and elegance of language. He thinks that Johnfon owed the excellencies of his ftyle to the divines and others of the last century, fuch as Hooker, Sanderfen, Taylor, and Sir Thomas Browne. He would, therefore, have us write at this day as if we lived above a century and a half ago. He adds, that Johnfon admired Cowley for the eafe and unaffected ftructure of his fentences. If he did, it is wonderful that he deviated fo widely from that elegant model. Cowley is at the head of thofe who cultivated an eafy, clear, and natural ftyle. Dryden, Tillotson, and Sir W. Temple followed. Aadijon, Suift, Pope (we include the writers of the Spectator), completed the work. Of Addifon, Johnfon ufed to fay, "He is the Raphael of eflay writers. Sir John is of a different opinion: Addifon he thinks deferving of praife, if we make his cold and languid periods the test of elegant compofition. Our critic loves the antiquated phrafe of the ftate papers in the Cabala, and the precatory eloquence of former ages. The characteristics of Addison, he fays, are feebleness and inanity, though his fentiments are excellent, and his humour exquifite. What does Sir John mean? Where there are fentiment and humour, can there be inanity? He allows, with Johnjon, that his profe is the model of the middle Hyle. The misfortune is, he thinks the middle ftyle and a middling flyle fynonimous terms. He does not know, that by the ableft critics ftyle has been diftinguished into three modes, the fublime, the fimple, and the florid, or mixed; and that the laft, hol ing often the qualities of the two others, is called the miad.ee. Because the laft is afcribed to Addijon, the Knight concludes that Johnjon meant to call him a Mediocrift. The

fact is, Johnfon had taste enough to relifh Addison, though he did not copy him. It may be true, that Johnson took an early tincture from the writers of the last century, particularly from Sir Thomas Browne. Hence the peculiarities of his ftyle, new combinations, fentences of an unusual form, and words derived from the learned languages. He did not remember the obfervation of Dryden: "If too many foreign words are poured in upon us, it looks as if they were defigned, not to affift the natives, but to conquer them." It is remarkable that the life of Savage is written with ease. The pomp of diction was affumed in the Rambler, and feems to be difcarded by Johnfon in his latter productions. Sir John moft probably acquired his notions of language at his mafter's defk: he admired the phrafeology of deeds and parchments, whereof, to speak in his own manner, he read fo much, that in confequence thereof, he has been chiefly converfant there. in; and by the help of the parchments aforelaid, he has not much improved thereby, but has entirely miffed the elegance above mentioned, and ufes words, that in them we fometimes meet with, and, being bred an attorney, he caught the language of of the faid trade, whereof he retains fo much, that he is now rendered an incompetent critic thereby, and in confequence thereof.

We must now'confider Sir John in the office of Editor. We fhall pass by the abfurdity of placing firft, that which was written laft. The lives of the poets ought to have closed the volumes. It is more material to obferve, that it is the duty of an editor to know, with precifion, the works of his author. In this the Knight has failed egregioufly. We fhall give a few inftances. In the 11th vol. we are prefented with, The apotheofs of Milton. He who reads the piece, will fee, in the diction and fentiment, not one feature of Johnfon; the truth is, it was written by Guthrie, and was feen in manufcript by an excellent perfon now living, and perhaps by others of that writer's acquaintance. The verfes to Mrs. Montague are well known to be the production of Mr. Jerningham. In the 9th volume we have the Preface to Shakespeare, but without the concluding fentence. The author's words were thefe: "Of what has been performed in this revifal, an account is given in the following pages by Mr. Steevens, who might have spoken both of his own diligence and fagacity in terms of greater felf-approbation, without deviating from modefty or truth." Why is this paragraph, omitted by the editor? Since Mr. Steevens deferved this praife at the hands of Dr. Johnfon, neither the fpleen nor the covered malice of the editor fhould with-hold it from him. Sir John pretends that he printed from the edition of 1765. Why did be fo? It was his duty to give every thing in the form it received from the finishing hand of the writer. Unluckily for the

F 3

Knight,