To these profound obfervations, our answer is, it would be well if Sir John had been their pupil. That root of bitterness, which has put rancours in the veffel of his heart, would have been eradicated; and though the impulfe of genius might not have been communicated, the man, if not the writer, would have been improved. Good affections are of the effence of virtue : they are the will of God in the heart of man, implanted in our nature to aid and ftrengthen moral obligation they incite to action. A fenfe of benevolence is no lefs neceffary than a fense of duty. Good affections are an ornament not only to an author, but to his writings. He who fhews himself upon a cold scent for opportunities to bark and snarl, may, if he will, talk of virtue, but GOODNESS OF HEART, or, to ufe Sir John's polite phrase, the virtue of a horfe or a dog, would do him more ho

nour.

We are, in the next place, to eftimate Sir John's talents in the office of a critic; for this we fear he is little qualified. An acquaintance with the best authors, and an early tafte, are neceffary; but thofe qualifications are not ufually acquired at an attorney's desk. Ariftotle and Longinus are better preparatives than the Statute Book, or the Inftructor Clericalis. MILTON, the Knight fays, was a political enthufiaft, and, as is evident from his panegyric on Cromwell, a bafe and abject flatterer. He was acquainted chiefly with men of that crack-brained affembly, called the ROTA CLUB, all republicans; and his domeftic manners were far from amiable; he was neither a kind husband, nor indulgent parent.' Thus fpeaks the cold phlegm of Sir John Hawkins: But nothing, he fays, can apologize for that harsh and groundless cenfure, which clofes the firft of Johnson's difcourses on the SAMSON AGONISTES, viz. that it is a tragedy which ignorance has admired, and bigotry applauded.' (Vide Johnson's Works, vol. vi. p. 436). It may be afked, Does Sir John know the effential beauties of a juft and regular tragedy? Johnfon fays, after Ariftotle, and found reafon, "A tragedy fhould begin where it may be intelligible without introduction, and end, where the mind is left in repofe, without expectation of any farther event. The intermediate paffages must join the last ́ effect to the first caufe, by a regular and unbroken concatenation. Nothing must therefore be inferted, which does not apparently arife from fomething foregoing, and properly make way for fomething that fucceeds it. This is required to the perfection of a tragedy, and is equally neceffary to every fpecies of regular compofition." Thefe requifites are not to be found in the Samfon Agonifies. The fcenes follow one another, but are not produced by any thing that preceded. Manoah, Samfon's father, Dalilah, the courtezan, and Harapha, the giant of Gath, enter fucceffively, without any apparent caufe, and without any con

F 2

fequential

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 Johnson cenfures. Of the reft, it is exprefsly admitted, that it contains juft fentiments, maxims of wisdom, oracles of piety, and many paffages written with the ancient spirit of choral poetry, in which there is a juft and pleafing mixture of Seneca's moral declamation, with the wild enthusiasm of the Greek writers."

Is this the criticism of a malevolent mind? It is fo far otherwife, that it may be ranked among the best 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 ftyle to the divines and others of the laft century, fuch as Hocker, 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 sentences. If he did, it is wonderful that he deviated fo widely from that elegant model. Cowley is at the head of those who cultivated an easy, clear, and natural ftyle. Dryden, Tillotson, and Sir W. Temple followed. Addison, Swift, Pope (we include the writers of the Spectator), completed the work. Of Addison, Johnson used to fay, "He is the Raphael of effay writers. Sir John is of a different opinion: Addison he thinks deferving of praife, if we make his cold and languid periods the teft of elegant compofition. Our critic loves the antiquated phrafe 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 profe is the model of the middle flyle. The misfortune is, he thinks the middle style 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 laft, hol ing often the qualities of the two others, is called the middle ftie. Because the laft is afcribed to Addifon, the Knight concludes that Johnson meant to call him a Mediocrift. The

fact is, Johnson had taste enough to relish Addison, though he did not copy him. It may be true, that Johnson 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 eafe. 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 fpeak 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 aforefaid, 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 precifion, the works of his author. In this the Knight has failed egregiously. We fhall give a few inftances. In the 11th voi. 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 fentence. 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 spoken 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 praise at the hands of Dr. Johnson, neither the fpleen 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

F 3

Knight,

Knight, it appears to a demonftration that the minute corrections and alterations, which appear in Johnfon's laft edition, and were not in that of 1765, are all reprinted in the volume before us. The last 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, Johnfon ought not to be mutilated, to gratify the

refentment of the editor.

There remains another blunder worthy of notice. In Jehnfon's Works, vol. 1oth, we have a review of a philofophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the fublime and beautiful. This was not written by Johnson. Whoever perufes 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 Johnson was the conductor of that publication, and, through ill health, not always able to compaís 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 fate 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 fan&tion of Dr. Johnfon's name.

We have now, not without great drudgery, made our way through the Life of Dr. Johnson, and alfo through the confufed mafs of matter, with which it is encumbered. We have often cried out with Dr. Swift, "What shall we fay 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.

A lift of all the pieces contained in Sir John Hawkins's edition of Dr. Johnson's works, with notes and references, &c. will be given in our next Review.

* For an account of which, fee Review, vol. lxxv. p. 371.

MONTHLY

CATALOGUE,

For JULY, 1787.

POLITICAL.

Art. 16. A general View of the Bill prefented to Parliament, during the laft Seffion, for preventing the illicit Exportation of Wool and live Sheep, &c. &c. Addreffed to the Marquis of Lanidown. By the Chairman of the general Meetings, Mr. John Anftie. 8vo. 25. Dilly. 1787.

MR

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 question so 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 thofe which have been devised by others in the fame walk? If fmuggling in this article does prevail (which, from the affertions of this worthy gentleman, 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 reason, 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 last, 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 fhe 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, instead 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 opposed him. Is it not poffible for two men, with the best intentions, to fee the fame object under very different points of view Why should they not, therefore, be

F 4

allowed