Rufticius tonfo toga defluit, et male laxus In pede calceus hæret. At eft bonus, ut melior vir His moral and literary character has been delineated by Mifs Seward the poetess of Litchfield, in the "European Magazine" for 1785, with equal accuracy of discrimination and ftrength of colouring, "Dr. Johnson's learning and knowledge were deep and univerfal. His conception was fo clear, and his intellectual stores were marshalled with such precifion, that his ftyle in common converfation equalled that of his moral effays, Whatever charge of pedantic stiffness may have been brought against those essays, by prejudice, or by perfonal refentment, they are certainly not less fuperior to all other English compofitions of that fort, in the happy fertility and efflorefcence of imagination, harmony of period, and luminous arrange t ment of ideas, than they are in ftrength of expreffion, and force of argument. His Latinifms, for which he has been much cenfured, have extended the limits of our native dialect, befides enriching its founds with that fonorous sweetness, which the intermixture of words from a more harmonious language muft neceffarily produce; I mean in general, for it cannot be denied that they fometimes deform the Johnfonian page, though they much oftener adorn it. His London is a very brilliant and nervous fatiric poem, and his Vanity of Human Wishes appears to me a much finer fatire than the beft of Pope's. haps its poetic beauty is not excelled by any compofition in heroic rhyme which this country can boaft, rich as the is in that fpecies of writing. As a moralist, Dr. Johnson was refpectable, fplendid, fublime; but as a critic, the faults of his difpofition have difgraced much of his fine Per writings with frequent paradox, unprincipled mifrepresentation, mean and needless exposure of bodily infirmities (as in the life of Pope), irreconcileable contradictions, and with decifions of the last abfurdity. Dr. Johnfon had ftrong affections where literary envy did not inter-. fere; but that envy was of fuch deadly potency, as to load his conversation, as it has loaded his biographic works, with the rancour of party violence, with national averfion, bitter farcafm, and unchriftianlike invective. It is in vain to defcant upon the improbability that Dr. Johnson, under the consciousness of abilities fo great, and of a fame fo extensive, should envy any man, fince it is more than improbable, it is wholly impoffible, that an imagination fo fublime, and a judgment fo correct, on all abstract subjects, fhould decide as he has decided upon the works of fome who were at least his equals, and upon one who is yet greater than himself. Dr. Johnson was a furious Jacobite, while one hope for the Stuart line remained; and his politics, always leaning towards defpotism, were inimical to liberty, and the natural rights of mankind. He was punctual in his devotions; but his religious faith had much more of bigot-fiercenefs than of that gentleness which the gospel inculcates. To those who had never entered the literary confines, or, entering them, had paid him the tribute of unbounded praise and total fubjection, he was an affectionate and generous friend, foothing in his behaviour to them, and active in promoting their domeftic comforts; though, in fome spleenful moments, he could not help fping difrefpectfully both of their mental powers and of their virtues. His pride was infinite; yet, amidst all the overbearing arrogance it produced, his heart melted at the fight or at the representation of disease and po verty; and, in the hours of affluence, his purse was ever open to relieve them. In feveral instances, his affections feemed unaccountably engaged by people of whofe disposition and abilities he scrupled not to fpeak contemptuously at all times, and in all humours. To fuch he often devoted, and especially of late years, a large portion of that time which might naturally be supposed to have been precious to him, who fo well knew how to employ it. When his attention was called to modern writings, particularly if they were celebrated, and not written by any of his "little fnate," he generally liftened with angrympatience. No, Sir, I fhall not read e book," was his common reply. He turned from the compofitions of rifing genius with a vifible horror, which too plainly proved, that envy was the bofom ferpent of this literary defpot, whofe life had been unpolluted by licentious crimes, |