« ПредишнаНапред »
eluded with begging his Highness's pardon for the liberty I had taken in speaking to him. His answer was, that he did not only pardon but thank me, and should do so as often as I told him of any thing that so much concerned him. He confessed he did believe that there being so many Papists in his family might be ill taken, and ill spoken of in England, and give advantage to the King's enemies and his; but said, that for the present he knew not how to help it, for most of his servants, that were now Papists, were Protestants when they came to him, and what made them turn Papists he knew not, he was sure he gave them no encouragement forit either by word or deed. That he himself did and would continue in profession and practice a Protestant. But he knew not how to turn away those that were Papists, being in the place and condition he now was, and having all his present subsistence from those of that persuasion: and then thanking me again, he gave me his hand to kiss, and so I took my leave of him. All the fruits I expect from this discourse, is but the comfort I shall find in having discharged mine own conscience, which I think I could not have done unless I said something to this purpose. I am,
Apr. 24, 1659. Your Lordship's, lie'
It is impossible to read this account without remarking the extreme duplicity observable in James's conduct; denying, in the strongest terms, his ever having any thoughts of embracing Poperyj and yet he was no sooner seated on the throne, than he took every step in his power to establish that religion in his dominions. The consequence fulfilled Mr. Morley's prophecy (if we may so call it), for it was the means of his being driven from the throne.
To this collection of papers, which comes down to the Restoration, is added a supplement, containing applications of persons of the King's party for rewards for the many signal seivices they had rendered him, and the remonstrances of those who supposed their sufferings not sufficiently recompensed.
Among these, we observe a very remarkable one from Bishop Gauden, which expressly declares the Bishop to have been the Author of the Icon Bafilike We are sorry the length of it will not suffer us to lay it before our Readers; we must therefore refer them to p. xxviii. of the Supplement, where the whole is duly stated, and a minute detail given of every circumstance relative to its writing and publication.
We cannot conclude this article without congratulating the Public on the appearance of so gieat a fund of original authority, by means of which the history of the times is much elucidated, and many facts are related, which, without these records, could never have been known. ^
Art. XIV. Elements of Taffies, and Introduction to Military Evolutions for the Infantry, by a celebrated Prussian General; with. Plates. Translated from the Original in German, by J. Landmann, Professor of Fortification and Artillery to the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich. 8vo. 7s. 6d. Boards. Elmsley, &c. 1787.
THE Translator of this work informs us, in his Preface, that it contains 'the first elements of the science of Tactics; which are so directly laid down, that he does not know of any book now extant, that treats the subject in a more elementary way, or proceeds with so complete and connected a gradation ; the application and reference that may be continually made from any one part of the work, to some former rule or principle, makes it, if one may fay so, the Euclid of the Tactitians.
'The Author leaves off at his entrance into the manœuvres of large corps; and the little he has said on this subject so well illustrates the utility of his principles, that it is much to be regretted he had not pursued the subject further; had he done so, we might then have hoped to have had a system of tactics complete in all its parts. An attentive reader will however observe from what has been by this great master wrote on the subject, with what celerity, compactness, and precision the great essential movements of an army, in all the various operations of war, will be performed, when the officer and soldier have been gradually trained up, and brought forward by such, principles as are laid down in the following treatise.
'The rules and principles here laid down, do not essentially differ from the regulations lately published by royal authority, to establish uniformity amongst the troops of the British army; where they may be found so to do, the regulations will of course be kept to.—'
We are sorry to differ from Mr. Landmann, for whose abilities in his profession we have the highest respect; but our duty to the Public obliges us to declare, that we cannot find the precision to which he alludes; but that on the contrary, there is so much obscurity in many parts of this work, as to require no Inconsiderable knowledge of the subject, in order to comprehend the meaning of the Author. We must likewise observe, that in several instances, the rules and principles here laid down, are incompatible with his Majesty's last regulations.
Many of the terms are not sufficiently defined and illustrated, for an elementary treatise, where the reader is supposed to have no prior knowledge of the subject; the Author frequently makes qfe of technical terms without explaining their meaning; for instance, in the article of the firings, he gives directions for firing by platoons, without having told his readers, what part of a battalion a platoon is, or how a regiment is usually told off. Several of his definitions are far from being clear and intelligible; among others, that of the point eCappui may be mentioned.
On the other hand, justice requires us to declare, tha.t though we think this work, as an elementary treatise, extremely de
£ 4 ficient,
ficicnr, it nevertheless contains many excellent rules and ob-
Art. XV. Sir John Hawkins's Edition of the Works of Samuel John-
IN our Reviews for the months of April and May, we toiled,
To begin with the first, as a biographer; Sir John promised to be the guardian os Johnson's fame, and with that intent undertook to write the life of his deceased friend. It may, therefore, be proper to enquire what figure does Johnson make, as here represented; what was his character, his genius, his tem-^ b** and his conduct in the various incidents of his life. We shall draw into one point of view the several observations, which we find scattered, with wild profusion, through a dull and tedious compilation. According to Sir John Hawkins, Johnson did not write from the impulse of genius:—money was his only motive. He wished to excel his contemporaries in literature, and that, we are told (as if the caution were necessary), does not deserve a worse name than that of emulation. He was Myops, and never saw his wife's face, though Mts. Piozzi fays it was astonishing how he remarked minutenesses of dress, such as the accidental position of a Lady's ribband, hat, or tucker. He was marked by a roughness that approached to ferocity. In his imitation of Juvenal, he was the echo of vulgar complaints. He loved wine,
and a tavern life, and the habits then contracted embittered hit reflections to the end of his days. He was not uniform in his opinions, contending more for victory than truth. He wrote the Rambler, because his mind was grown tumid. He was in religion, an enthusiast; in conversation, captious and dogged. He hated Scotchmen. In the lesser morals, he was always remiss. He slept when he should have studied. A sloven, and in bis appearance disgusting. Bishops he respected: but from motives of envy, having been about three years at Oxford, he despised the inferior clergy, conceiving that they usurped, what with better right belonged to himself. When Hawkesworth was made a Doctor of Laws, Johnson quarrelled with his friend. His grief for his wife was a lesion learned by rote, and practised till it became ridiculous. He believed in preternatural agents, and, in his youth, had been a dabler in dæmnnology. He had noc music in his foul. An habitual sloven, as much as if educated a* the Cape of Good Hope. In eating, which he did greedily, he was more asetisualijl than a pbibsopher. His criticism on the Sampson Agonijlcs was prompted by envy. His Imitations of Juvenal might have been made waste paper; and his Tragedy of Irene might well have been damned the first night. He drank tea with an eagerness that marked effeminacy. RaJJelas, his most applauded work, is by its moral, of little use. He abused the elliptical arches of Blaclcfriars Bridge, because he hated Scotchmen. He talked of good-breeding, but knew nothing of the ritual of behaviour. He recommended persons to credit, who, be knew, neither could nor would pay their debts. He was not a staid man. He envied Garrick's success, and saw with indignation great rewards bestowed on a player. He was unfit for the office of a scholiast. Those who lent him books, never saw them again. The history of the Hebrides is of no use, and most justly condemned for its illiberality. He wrote the Lives of the Poets, in which there is a great deal of found criticism, though •Johnson was not qualified for a critic, not having a true poetic faculty, because he had no eye to roll in a fine phrenzy. His fondness for rhyme was absurd. He had no relish for the music of drums, and pulsatile instruments. He was not a desirable inmate. He punctured his lower limbs; but he was Not Guilty Of SUICIDE.
Such is the picture of the man, as given by the daubing hand of Sir John Hawkins: and it is thus that eminent writer is represented by the guardian of his fame. Could he arise and read this account, where would Sir John hide himself from the indignation of an injured friend?
As an egotlfl, Sir John makes no inconsiderable figure. For this, he prepares us in the outset, observing, that many writers affect to speak in the third person, but for his part, he chuses to
appear in His Own Person, and these little Egotisms he thinks a grace to his composition. He communicates a great deal concerning himself, but forgets to inform us, that he was originally an Attorney's Clerk, and afterwards a Practises, with little business. How a Barrister may rife in his profession, he states without reserve; but the arts by which an Attorney may advance himself, he chuses to conceal. He talks of writing from the impulse of genius, but not a word of the time, when he wrote letters and essays for an evening paper, at the price of half a guinea for every piece that happened to be inserted. He was a member of the chop-house club in Ivy-lane j was in company with Warburton, and dined with Akenfide at Putney Bowling-green. He was Chairman of the Quarter Sessions at Hicks's Hall, and though the Justices of the county were in the commission, every thing was done before Him, and Him Only: he wrote the history of music, and understands the proportions of architecture. He explained to Johnson the profound mystery of proving a will at Doctors Commons. He was acquainted with Garrick, and went to him with a law-cafe, to which Garrick preferred a new pantomime. He has a house at Twickenham, and Garrick often stopped at his door. He had a gardener at Twickenham, who paid no attention to Millar's Dictionary. He kept his own coach, and Johnson was in it several times. Mrs. Cornelys was indicted before him, and if the matter had not been made up, (he might have been tried before him. He actually saw the epitaph on Dr. Goldsmith in Johnson's own hand-writing, and therefore knows (what all the world knew) that Johnson was the author of it. He travelled in a stage-coach with the late Mr. Richardson, as far as Parson's Green. He advised Johnson to abandon a man in a spunging-house to his fate, but Johnson was too good-natured, and paid the debt. Bishop Hoadley talked with him about one Fournier, who had, by a dextrous forgery, converted the Bishop's frank into a note for 8000/.; and in this conversation Hoadley told Sir John, what he had long before told the world *, in a pamphlet upon the subject. He hates Negroes, and thinks they ought not to enjoy the benevolence of their masters, nor be permitted to keep (heir watches, though made residuary legatees: but this dispute with the Black is carefully suppressed.
Such is the account Sir John gives of himself. We will venture to say that P. P. the Parish Clerk in Pope's Miscellany, was not a man of so much self-importance.
As a relator of fails, it will be evident from the following instance, how far Sir John is worthy of credit: The late Mr. Mil
* Vid. Rev. vol. xviii. p. 226. The title of the Bishop's narrative was, "A letter to Clement Chevalier, Esq."