Imágenes de página

Rusticius tonso toga defluit, et male laxu's
In pede calceus hæret. At est bonus, ut melior vir
Non alius quisquam; at tibi amicus, at ingenium ingens
Inculto latet hoc sub corpore.”—

His moral and literary character has been delineated by Miss Seward the poetess of Litchfield, in the “ European Magazine” for 1785, with equal accuracy of discrimination and strength of colouring:

“ Dr. Johnson's learning and knowledge were deep and universal. His conception was so clear, and his intellectual stores were marshalled with such precision, that his style in common conversation equalled that of his moral essays, Whatever charge of pedantiç stiffness may have been brought against those essays, by prejudice, or by personal resentment, they are certainly not less superior to allother English compositions of that fort, in the happy fertility and efflorescence of imagination, harmony of period, and luminous arranger

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

[ 301 ]
ment of ideas, than they are in strength
of expression, and force of argument. His
Latinisms, for which he has been much
censured, have extended the limits of our
native dialect, besides enriching its founds

with that sonorous sweetness, which the :: intermixture of words from a more har

monious language must necessarily pro-
duce; I mean in general, for it cannot
be denied that they sometimes deform the

Johnsonian page, though they much ofa tener adorn it. His London is a very bril

liant and nervous satiric poem, and his
Vanity of HumanWishes appears to me a much
finer fatire than the best of Pope's. Per-
haps its poetic beauty is not excelled by
any composition in heroic rhyme which
this country can boast, rich as she is in
that species of writing. As a moralist,
Dr. Johnson was respectable, splendid, su-
blime ; but as a critic, the faults of his
disposition have disgraced much of his fine

[ocr errors]

writings with frequent paradox, unprincipled misrepresentation, mean and needless exposure of bodily infirmities (as in the life of Pope), irreconcileable contradictions, and with decisions of the last absurdity. Dr. Johnson had strong affections where literary envy did not inter-,. fere ; but that envy was of such deadly potency, as to load his conversation, as it hás loaded his biographic works, with the rancour of party violence, with national aversion, bitter farcasm, and unchristian like invective. It is in vain to descant upon the improbability that Dr. Johnson, under the consciousness of abilities for great, and of a fame so extensive, should.. envy any man, since it is more than improbable, it is wholly impossible, that an imagination fo fublime, and a judgment so correct, on all abstract subjects, should decide as he has decided upon the works of some 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 despotism, 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-fierceness 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 totał subjection, he was an affectionate and generous friend, soothing in his behaviour to them, and active in promoting their domestic comforts; though, in some spleenful moments, he could not help fping disrespectfully 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 several instances, his affections seemed unaccountably engaged by people of whose disposition and abilities he scrupled not to speak 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 so 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 finate” he generally listened with angry, impatience. “ No, Sir, I shall not reace book,” was his common reply. He turned from the compositions of rising genius with a visible horror, which too plainly proved, that envy was the bosom serpent of this literary deipot, whose life had been unpolluted by licentious crimes,

« AnteriorContinuar »