day, without putting one of them upon paper till they were finished. He received of Dodfley, for the copy, only fifteen guineas. It has been thought to have less of common life, and more of a philofophic dignity than his London. It is characterized by profound reflection, more than pointed fpirit. It has, however, always been held in high esteem, and is certainly as great an effort of ethic poetry as any language can fhow. The inftances of the variety of difappointment are chofen fo judiciously, and painted fo ftrongly, that the moment they are read, they bring conviction to every thinking mind.

On the 8th of February this year, his tragedy of Irene, which had been long kept back for want of encouragement, was brought upon the stage at Drury-Lane, by the kindness of Garrick. A violent difpute arose between him and the manager, relative to the alterations necessary to be

made to fit it for the theatre.

The poet for a long time refused to submit his lines to the critical amputation of the actor, and the latter was obliged to apply to Dr. Taylor to become a mediator in the difpute. Johnson's pride at length gave way to alterations; but whether to the full extent of the manager's wifhes, is not known. Dr. Adams was prefent the first night of the reprefentation, and gave Mr. Bofwell the following account: Before the curtain drew up, there were catcalls whistling, which alarmed Johnson's friends. The prologue, which was written by himself, in a manly ftrain, foothed the audience, and the play went off tolerably till it came to the conclufion, when Mrs. Pritchard, the heroine of the piece, was to be ftrangled upon the ftage, and was to speak two lines with the bow ftring round her neck. The audience cried out, "Murder! Murder!" She feveral times attempt

F

ed to fpeak, but in vain. At last she was obliged to go off the ftage alive." This paffage was afterwards ftruck out, and she was carried off to be put to death behind the scenes, as the play now has it. Mr. Bofwell ascribes the epilogue to Sir William Yonge; but upon no good foundation.

pu

In the unfavourable decifion of the blic upon his tragedy, Johnson acquiefced without a murmur. He was convinced that he had not the talents neceffary to write fuccessfully for the stage, and never made another attempt in that fpecies of compofition.

In December this year, he wrote the Preface and Poftfcript to Lauder's " Effay on Milton's Ufe, and Imitation of the Moderns, in his Paradise Loft," 8vo, a book made up of forgeries, and published to impose upon mankind. Sir John Hawkins tells us, that Johnson affifted Lauder

from motives of enmity to the memory of Milton; but it appears, that while Lauder's work was in the prefs, the proof fheets were fubmitted to the inspection of the Ivy-Lane Club. If Johnfon approved of the defign, it was no longer than while he believed it founded in fact. With the reft of the club, he was in one common error. As foon as Dr. Douglas, now Bifhop of Salisbury, efpoufed the cause of truth, and with ability that will ever do him honour, dragged the impoftor to open daylight, Johnson made ample reparation to the genius of Milton. He not only difclaimed the fraud, but infifted on the impoftor confeffing his offence; and for this purpose drew up a recantation, which Lauder figned and published, intituled, "A letter to the Rev. Mr. Douglas, occafioned by his Vindication of Milton," by William Lauder, M. A. 4to, 1751. The franknefs of this confeffion would

have made fome atonement for the bafeness of the attempt, and its abject humility been deemed a fufficient punishment of the impoftor, if that unhappy man had not had the folly and wickedness afterwards to deny this apology, and reassert his former accufation, in a pamphlet intituled, "King Charles Vindicated from the Charge of Plagiarifm, brought against him by Milton, and Milton himself convicted of Forgery and a grofs impofition on the Public," 8vo, 1755. This effort of spleen and malice was alfo abortive; and Lauder foon afterwards retired to Barbadoes, where he died, as he had lived, an object of general contempt, in 1771.

On the 20th March 1750, he published the first paper of the Rambler, and continued it without interruption every Tuefday and Friday, till the 17th of March 1752, when it closed. In carrying on this periodical publication, he feems neither.