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 Johnfon cenfures. Of the reft, it is exprefsly admitted, that it contains juft fentiments, maxims of wisdom, oracles of piety, and many paff-ges 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 confufed and wild biographer. Can it be expected that he, whofe reading is confined to old homilies and the ftatute-book, fhould have a true relish for the beauties of compofition? He ventures, notwithftanding, to talk of propriety and elegance of language. He thinks that Johnfon owed the excellencies of his style to the divines and others of the laft century, fuch as Hooker, Sanderfon, 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 Aructure 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 easy, clear, and natural ftyle. Dryden, Tillotson, and Sir W. Temple followed. Andijon, Swift, Pope (we include the writers of the Spectator), completed the work Of Addifon, Johnfon ufed to fay," He is the Raphael of effay writers. Sir John is of a different opinion: Addifon he thinks deferving of praife, if we make his cold and languid periods the teft of elegant compofition. Our critic loves the antiquated phrase of the ftate papers in the Cabala, and the precatory eloquence of former ages. The characteristics of Addifon, 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 Johnson, that his prole is the model of the middle Hyle. The misfortune is, he thinks the middle flyle 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 last, hol ng often the qualities of the two others, is called the miadefte. Because the laft is afcribed to Addison, the Knight condudes that Johnjon meant to call num a Mediocrift. The fact is, Johnson had tafte enough to relifh Addifen, though he did not copy him. It may be true, that Johnfon 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 Johnson in his latter productions. Sir John moft probably acquired his notions of language at his mafter's desk: 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 therein; and by the help of the parchments aforesaid, 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 first, that which was written laft. The lives of the poets ought to have closed the volumes. It is more material to observe, that it is the duty of an editor to know, with precision, the works of his author. In this the Knight has failed egregiously. We fhall give a few inftances. In the 11th vol. we are prefented with, The apotheofis 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 sentence. 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 ipoken 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. Johnson, neither the spleen 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 he fo? It was his duty to give every thing in the form it received from the finishing hand of the writer. Unluckily for the Knight, F 3 Knight, it appears to a demonftration that the minute corrections and alterations, which appear in Johnson's laft edition, and were not in that of 1765, are all reprinted in the volume before us. The laft edition was, therefore, followed by Sir John were he to be tried at Hickes's Hall, he would be found guilty of clipping. If he is fore from wounds given to him by Mr. Steevens, Johnson ought not to be mutilated, to gratify the refentment of the editor. There remains another blunder worthy of notice. In Johnfon's Works, vol. 10th, we have a review of a philofophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the fublime and beautiful. This was not written by Johnfon. Whoever peruses it will clearly fee that it neither has Johnson's ftyle, nor manner of thinking. It was written by Mr. Murphy, and given, with many other pieces, to the literary magazine, at the time when Johnfon was the conductor of that publication, and, through ill health, not always able to compass what was expected of him. We have authority to add, that when Mr. Murphy was lately employed in making a collection of his own works, the review of the fublime and beautiful was rejected by him on mature confideration. He did Mr. Burke the juftice to read over again that gentleman's elegant tract, and found it to be a work of fo much profound thinking, that it ought not to be oppofed by the fuperficial remarks of one, who read with much hurry, and criticised with more. This being the state of the cafe, what the author of the piece thought erroneous, ought not, in juftice to fo fine a writer as Mr. Burke, to have the fanction of Dr. Johnson's name. We have now, not without great drudgery, made our way through the Life of Dr. Johnfon, and alfo through the confused mass of matter, with which it is encumbered. We have often cried out with Dr. Swift, "What shall we say to a book, where the blunders and the malignity call for an answer in every page, and the dulnefs will not admit of one?" Such is the work of Sir John Hawkins. Like the late Mr. Millar, we have the grace to thank God that we have done with him, and we hope for ever. M-y. A lift of all the pieces contained in Sir John Hawkins's edition of Dr. Johnfon's works, with notes and references, &c. will be given in our next Review. * For an account of which, fee Review, vol. Ixxv. p. 371. MONTHLY CATALOG U E, For JULY, 1787. POLITICAL. Art. 16. A general View of the Bill prefented to Parliament, during MR 25. R. ANSTIE writes like a good well meaning-man, but we rather doubt how far he is qualified to enter publicly on the difcuffion of a queftion fo arduous as the prefent. We believe that every intelligent perfon will concur in admitting, that where the temptation to fmuggling is great, no laws will prove effectual to prevent it. If this be admitted, would it not feem that the labour of the general meetings must prove vain, and that the devices they would willingly recommend will be equally futile with those which have been devised by others in the fame walk? If smuggling in this article does prevail (which, from the affertions of this worthy gentle-. man, we are little inclined to doubt), let the cause of that fmuggling be removed, by admitting a well regulated exportation of that article, and it will then ftop in courfe. Of two circumstances this writer feems to be, without reafon, afraid, viz. that if exportation were on any terms permitted, the quantity of wool produced in Britain would not be fufficient to employ our own manufacturers, and that if the French could obtain our wool, they would not purchase cloth, &c. of our fabrics.—As to the first, there can be no doubt but the quantity produced would in all cafes, temporary vibrations only excepted, keep pace with the demand. And as to the laft, it is equally certain that a manufacture loaded with freight, commiffion, infurance, and duty on a raw material, can never come into competition, other circumftances being equal, with a home manufacture, where all these are nothing.-The example of Holland with regard to flax proves this to a demonftration.-Though Holland boasts of a linen manufacture, which would cut down that of Britain were it not for the duties on entry, yet she never has been fo ill advised as to ftop the exportation of flax to Britain, as fhe finds this conftitutes a very valuable branch of trade. The time we hope approaches when things of this nature will be viewed on more liberal principles than heretofore, and when, inftead of devifing new restraints to cramp induftry, and thus neceffarily to enhance the price of manufactures, goods of all kinds will be permit ted to circulate more freely than hitherto, and trade be allowed to find out its own natural level. Though we are not convinced, by the arguments of this writer, of the utility of his labours, or the propriety of the measures he recommends, we heartily concur with him in condemning the very illiberal language of those who have oppofed him. Is it not poffible for two men, with the best intentions, to fee the fame object undervery different points of view?-Why should they not, therefore, be allowed F4 allowed to differ in opinion, without being liable to the imputation Art. 17. Political Sketches, infcribed to his Excellency John Adams, 2S. The firft of thefe Sketches contains fome ftrictures on the Abbé Mably's Remarks concerning the Government, &c. of the United States. The Author chiefly confines himself to that part of the Abbé's remarks where the American revolution, her laws, and government, are compared to certain hiftorical events and inftitutions of the ancients. He maintains, that there never was, before the American revolution, an inftance of a nation forming its own government, on the original foundations of human rights, revealed by a study of the laws of nature; and creating every civil organ, agreeably to the three acts which conftitute juft government.' To decide rightly on this matter, the Author ought to have determined what the original foundations of human rights are, and how they might be revealed by a study of the laws of nature. He writes in a lively ftyle, and we with that his reafoning had been founded on a firmer base, or, at least, that he had demonftrated his first principles. To fav, that the governments of America prefent the MOST FINISHED political forms,' page 1. is boid. The affertion ought to have been fupported by fufficient proofs and arguments. How many political writers have called the English conftitution the most finished? In the fecond Sketch, the Author refutes the opinion of Montefquieu, that virtue is the peculiar principle on which the structure of democracy refts. Much strength of reasoning is here difplayed, and the refult is, that liberty, and the completeft complication of laws, and the fulleft difperfion of luxury through every vein of the body politic, are in all degrees and refpects compatible with each other.' As facts are always preferred to ipeculative reafoning, we cannot entirely affent to the foregoing conclufion. What deftroyed the Grecian republics? Luxury. What was the overthrow of the Roman commonwealth? Luxury. Examples are numerous; and if luxury was not the immediate or proximate caufe of the decline of republics, it must furely be allowed to have been the primary and efficient caufe; for if a republic be overturned by the ambition of tyrants, that ambition will be found to arife originally from luxury, or a defire to gratify the predominant appetites. The Author's aim, in the third Sketch, is to fhew, that the democracies of America cannot degenerate into ariftocracies. Here we have almost a repetition of the arguments ufed in the foregoing fketch. * For an account of this work, fee Review, vol. lxxi. p. 373. and vol. lxxii. p. 146. . То |