thropy and voluptuousnes), a system in which the two great commandments were, to hate your neighbour, and to love your neighbour's wife. tend to guess. It is certain, that the interest which he excited during his life is without a parallel in literary history. The feeling with which young readers of poetry regarded him can be This affectation has passed away; conceived only by those who have ex- and a few more years will destroy perienced it. To people who are un- whatever yet remains of that magical acquainted with real calamity, “nothing potency which once belonged to the is so dainty sweet as lovely melan- name of Byron. To us he is still a choly." This faint image of sorrow man, young, noble, and unhappy. To has in all ages been considered by our children he will be merely a young gentlemen as an agreeable ex-writer; and their impartial judgment citement. Old gentlemen and mid-will appoint his place among writers; dle-aged gentlemen have so many without regard to his rank or to his real causes of sadness that they are private history. That his poetry will rarely inclined "to be as sad as night undergo a severe sifting, that much only for wantonness." Indeed they of what has been admired by his conwant the power almost as much as the temporaries will be rejected as worthinclination. We know very few persons less, we have little doubt. But we engaged in active life who, even if they have as little doubt that, after the were to procure stools to be melancholy closest scrutiny, there will still remain upon, and were to sit down with all much that can only perish with the the premeditation of Master Stephen, English language. would be able to enjoy much of what somebody calls the "ecstasy of woe." SAMUEL JOHNSON. Among that large class of young persons whose reading is almost entirely confined to works of imagination, the popularity of Lord Byron was unbounded. They bought pictures of him; they treasured up the smallest relics of him; they learned his poems by heart, and did their best to write like him, and to look like him. Many of them practised at the glass in the hope of catching| the curl of the upper lip, and the scowl THIS work has greatly disappointed of the brow, which appear in some of his us. Whatever faults we may have portraits. A few discarded their neck-been prepared to find in it, we fully cloths in imitation of their great leader. expected that it would be a valuable For some years the Minerva press addition to English literature; that it sent forth no novel without a myste- would contain many curious facts, and rious, unhappy, Lara-like peer. The many judicious remarks; that the number of hopeful under-graduates and style of the notes would be neat, clear, medical students who became things and precise; and that the typograof dark imaginings, on whom the fresh-phical execution would be, as in new ness of the heart ceased to fall like dew, editions of classical works it ought to whose passions had consumed them- be, almost faultless. We are sorry to selves to dust, and to whom the relief be obliged to say that the merits of of tears was denied, passes all calcula- Mr. Croker's performance are on a par tion. This was not the worst. There with those of a certain leg of mutton was created in the minds of many of on which Dr. Johnson dined, while these enthusiasts a pernicious and ab- travelling from London to Oxford, and surd association between intellectual which he, with characteristic energy, power and moral depravity. From the pronounced to be "as bad as bad poetry of Lord Byron they drew a could be, ill fed, ill killed, ill kept, and system of ethics, compounded of misan-ill dressed." This cdition is ill com 166 piled, ill arranged, ill written, and ill printed. Nothing in the work has astonished us so much as the ignorance or carelessness of Mr. Croker with respect to facts and dates. Many of his blunders are such as we should be surprised to hear any well educated gentleman commit, even in conversation. The notes absolutely swarm with misstatements, into which the editor never would have fallen, if he had taken the slightest pains to investigate the truth of his assertions, or if he had even been well acquainted with the book on which We will he undertook to comment. give a few instances. Mr. Croker tells us in a note that Derrick, who was master of the ceremonies at Bath, died very poor in 1760. We read on; and, a few pages later, we find Dr. Johnson and Boswell talking of this same Derrick as still living and reigning, as having retrieved his character, as possessing so much power over his subjects at Bath, that his opposition might be fatal to Sheridan's lectures on oratory. † And all this is in 1763. The fact is, that Derrick died in 1769. of Marmion. Every school-girl knows "Scarce had lamented Forbes paid The tribute to his Minstrel's shade; The tale of friendship scarce was told, Ere the narrator's heart was cold: Far may we search before we find A heart so manly and so kind!" In one place, we are told, that Allan Ramsay, the painter, was born in 1709, ; in another, that and died in 1784 * he died in 1784, in the seventy-first year of his age. † In one place, Mr. Croker says, that at the commencement of the intimacy between Dr. Johnson and Mrs. Thrale, in 1765, the lady was twenty-five years old. In other places he says, that Mrs. Thrale's_thirty-fifth year coincided with Johnson's seventieth. § Johnson was born in 1709. If, therefore, Mrs. Thrale's thirty-fifth year coincided with Johnson's seventieth, she could have been only twenty-one years old in 1765. This is not all. Mr. Croker, in another place, assigns the year 1777 as the date of the complimentary lines which Johnson made on Mrs. Thrale's thirty-fifth birth-day. || If this date be correct, Mrs. Thrale In one note we read, that Sir Ier-must have been born in 1742, and could bert Croft, the author of that pompous have been only twenty-three when and foolish account of Young, which her acquaintance with Johnson comMr. Croker therefore gives appears among the Lives of the Poets, died in 1805. Another note in the us three different statements as to her same volume states, that this same Sir age. Two of the three must be incorrect. We will not decide between Herbert Croft died at Paris, after residing abroad for fifteen years, on the them; we will only say, that the reasons which Mr. Croker gives for think27th of April, 1816. § Mr. Croker informs us, that Siring that Mrs. Thrale was exactly thirtyWilliam Forbes of Pitsligo, the author of the Life of Beattie, died in 1816. || A Sir William Forbes undoubtedly died in that year, but not the Sir William Forbes in question, whose death took place in 1806. It is notorious, indeed, that the biographer of Beattie lived just long enough to complete the history of his friend. Eight or nine years before the date which Mr. Croker has assigned for Sir William's death, Sir Walter Scott lamented that event in the introduction to the fourth canto menced. five years old when Johnson was seventy, appear to us utterly frivolous. Again, Mr. Croker informs his readers that "Lord Mansfield survived Johnson full ten years." Lord Mansfield survived Dr. Johnson just eight years and a quarter. Johnson found in the library of a French lady, whom he visited during his short visit to Paris, some works which he regarded with great disdain. "I looked," says he, "into the books in the lady's closet, and, in contempt, showed them to Mr. Thrale. Prince + V. 251. || 111. 463. • IV. 105. I. 510. II. 151 66 Titi, Bibliothèque des Fécs, and other some years after this affair. For this books." "The History of Prince blunder there is, we must acknowledge, Titi," observes Mr. Croker, "was said some excuse; for it certainly seems to be the autobiography of Frederick almost incredible to a person living in Prince of Wales, but was probably our time that any human being should written by Ralph his secretary." A ever have stooped to fight with a more absurd note never was penned. writer in the Morning Post. The history of Prince Titi, to which "James de Duglas," says Mr. Croker, Mr. Croker refers, whether written by was requested by King Robert Bruce, Prince Frederick or by Ralph, was in his last hours, to repair, with his certainly never published. If Mr. heart, to Jerusalem, and humbly to Croker had taken the trouble to read deposit it at the sepulchre of our Lord, with attention that very passage in which he did in 1329."* Now, it is Park's Royal and Noble Authors which well known that he did no such thing, he cites as his authority, he would and for a very sufficient reason, because have seen that the manuscript was he was killed by the way. Nor was it given up to the government. Even in 1329 that he set out. Robert Bruce if this memoir had been printed, it is died in 1329, and the expedition of not very likely to find its way into a Douglas_took place in the following French lady's bookcase. And would year, Quand le printems vint et la any man in his senses speak contemp-saison," says Froissart, in June, 1330, tuously of a French lady, for having in says Lord Hailes, whom Mr. Croker her possession an English work, so cites as the authority for his statement. curious and interesting as a Life of Prince Frederick, whether written by himself or by a confidential secretary, must have been? The history at which Johnson laughed was a very proper companion to the Bibliothèque des Fées, a fairy tale about good Prince Titi and naughty Prince Violent. Mr. Croker may find it in the Magasin des Enfans, the first French book which the little girls of England read to their governesses. 66 Mr. Croker tells us that the great Marquis of Montrose was beheaded at Edinburgh in 1650.† There is not a forward boy at any school in England who does not know that the marquis was hanged. The account of the execution is one of the finest passages in Lord Clarendon's History. We can scarcely suppose that Mr. Croker has never read that passage; and yet we can scarcely suppose that any person who has ever perused so noble and pathetic a story can have utterly forgotten all its most striking circumstances. 66 Mr. Croker states that Mr. Henry Bate, who afterwards assumed the name of Dudley, was proprietor of the Morning Herald, and fought a duel "Lord Townshend," says Mr. Croker, with George Robinson Stoney, in con- was not secretary of state till 1720." sequence of some attacks on Lady Can Mr. Croker possibly be ignorant Strathmore which appeared in that that Lord Townshend was made sepaper. † Now Mr. Bate was then con-cretary of state at the accession of nected, not with the Morning Herald, George I. in 1714, that he continued but with the Morning Post; and the dispute took place before the Morning Herald was in existence. The duel was fought in January, 1777. The Chronicle of the Annual Register for that year contains an account of the transaction, and distinctly states that Mr. Bate was editor of the Morning Post. The Morning Herald, as any person may see by looking at any number of it, was not established till ↑ V.188. • IIL 271 to be secretary of state till he was displaced by the intrigues of Sunderland and Stanhope at the close of 1716, and that he returned to the office of secrctary of state, not in 1720, but in 1721? Mr. Croker, indeed, is generally unfortunate in his statements respecting the Townshend family. He tells us that Charles Townshend, the chancellor of the exchequer, was "nephew of the prime minister, and son of a peer who + II. 526. + IIL 52. • IV. 29. was secretary of state, and leader of surgeons, even when malice and corthe House of Lords."* Charles Towns-ruption are not imputed. We accuse hend was not nephew, but grandnephew, him of having undertaken a work of the Duke of Newcastle, not son, but which, if not performed with strict grandson, of the Lord Townshend who accuracy, must be very much worse was secretary of state, and leader of than useless, and of having performed the House of Lords. it as if the difference between an accurate and an inaccurate statement was not worth the trouble of looking into the most common book of reference. "General Burgoyne surrendered at Saratoga," says Mr. Croker, " in March, 1778." General Burgoyne surrendered on the 17th of October, 1777. in his history." Now the sarcasm was uttered in 1776; and that part of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire which relates to Mahommedanism was not published till 1788, twelve years after the date of this conversation, and near four years after the death of Johnson.* But we must proceed. These vo"Nothing," says Mr. Croker, "can lumes contain mistakes more gross, if be more unfounded than the assertion possible, than any that we have yet that Byng fell a martyr to political mentioned. Boswell has recorded some party. By a strange coincidence of observations made by Johnson on the circumstances, it happened that there changes which had taken place in was a total change of administration Gibbon's religious opinions. That between his condemnation and his Gibbon when a lad at Oxford turned death: so that one party presided at Catholic is well known. "It is said," his trial, and another at his execution: cried Johnson, laughing, "that he has there can be no stronger proof that he been a Mahommedan." "This sarwas not a political martyr." Now casm," says the editor, "probably what will our readers think of this alludes to the tenderness with which writer, when we assure them that this Gibbon's malevolence to Christianity statement, so confidently made, re-induced him to treat Mahommedanism specting events so notorious, is absolutely untrue? One and the same administration was in office when the court-martial on Byng commenced its sittings, through the whole trial, at the condemnation, and at the execution. In the month of November, 1756, the Duke of Newcastle and Lord Hardwicke resigned; the Duke of Devonshire became first lord of the treasury, and Mr. Pitt, secretary of state. This administration lasted till the month of April, 1757. Byng's court-martial began to sit on the 28th of December, 1756. He was shot on the 14th of March, 1757. There is something at once diverting and provoking in the cool and authoritative manner in which Mr. Croker makes these random assertions. We do not suspect him of intentionally falsifying history. But of this high literary misdemeanour we do without hesitation accuse him, that he has no adequate sense of the obligation which a writer, who professes to relate facts, owes to the public. We accuse him of a negligence and an ignorance analogous to that crassa negligentia, and that crassa ignorantia, on which the law animadverts in magistrates and + IV. 222. + I. 298. • III. 36S. A defence of this blunder was attempted. That the celebrated chapters in which Gibbon has traced the progress of Mahommedanism were not written in 1776 could not be denied. But it was confidently as danism appeared in his first volume. This serted that his partiality to Mahommeassertion is untrue. No passage which can by any art be construed into the faintest Mahommedanism has ever been quoted or indication of the faintest partiality for ever will be quoted from the first volume of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. To what, then, it has been asked, could Johnson allude? Possibly to some anecdote or some conversation of which all trace is lost. One conjecture may be offered, though memoirs, that at Oxford he took a fancy for studying Arabic, and was prevented from doing so by the remonstrances of his tutor. Soon after this, the young man fell in with Bossuet's controversial writings, and was speedily converted by them to the Roman Catholic faith. The apostasy of a gentleman commoner would of course be for a time the chief subject of conversation in the common room of Magdalene. His whim about with diffidence. Gibbon tells us in his It was in the year 1761," says Mr. | pressions respecting Home's play and Croker," that Goldsmith published his Macpherson's Ossian. "Many men," Vicar of Wakefield. This leads the he said, "many women, and many editor to observe a more serious inac- children, might have written Douglas." curacy of Mrs. Piozzi, than Mr. Boswell Mr. Croker conceives that he has denotices, when he says Johnson left her tected an inaccuracy, and glories over table to go and sell the Vicar of Wake- poor Sir Joseph in a most characterfield for Goldsmith. Now Dr. Johnson istic manner. "I have quoted this was not acquainted with the Thrales anecdote solely with the view of showing till 1765, four years after the book had to how little credit hearsay anecdotes been published." Mr. Croker, in re- are in general entitled. Here is a story prehending the fancied inaccuracy of published by Sir Joseph Mawbey, a Mrs. Thrale, has himself shown a de- member of the House of Commons, gree of inaccuracy, or, to speak more and a person every way worthy of properly, a degree of ignorance, hardly credit, who says he had it from Garcredible. In the first place, Johnson rick. Now mark: Johnson's visit to became acquainted with the Thrales, Oxford, about the time of his doctor's not in 1765, but in 1764, and during degree, was in 1754, the first time he the last weeks of 1764 dined with them had been there since he left the unievery Thursday, as is written in Mrs. versity. But Douglas was not acted Piozzi's anecdotes. In the second till 1756, and Ossian not published till place, Goldsmith published the Vicar 1760. All, therefore, that is new in of Wakefield, not in 1761, but in 1766. Sir Joseph Mawbey's story is false." Mrs. Thrale does not pretend to re- Assuredly we need not go far to find member the precise date of the sum- ample proof that a member of the mons which called Johnson from her House of Commons may commit a table to the help of his friend. She very gross error. Now mark, say we, says only that it was near the beginning in the language of Mr. Croker. The of her acquaintance with Johnson, and fact is, that Johnson took his Master's certainly not later than 1766. Her ac- degree in 1754 †, and his Doctor's decuracy is therefore completely vindi- gree in 1775. In the spring of 1776 §, cated. It was probably after one of he paid a visit to Oxford, and at this her Thursday dinners in 1764 that the visit a conversation respecting the celebrated scene of the landlady, the works or Home and Macpherson might sheriff's officer, and the bottle of Ma- have taken place, and, in all probadeira, took place.t bility, did take place. The only real objection to the story Mr. Croker has missed. Boswell states, apparently on the best authority, that, as early at least as the year 1763, Johnson, in conversation with Blair, used the same expressions respecting Ossian, which Sir Joseph represents him as having used respecting Douglas. || Sir Joseph, or Garrick, confounded, we suspect, the two stories. But their error is venial, compared with that of Mr. Croker. The very page which contains this monstrous blunder, contains another blunder, if possible, more monstrous still. Sir Joseph Mawbey, a foolish member of Parliament, at whose speeches and whose pig-styes the wits of Brookes's were, fifty years ago, in the habit of laughing most unmercifully, stated, on the authority of Garrick, that Johnson, while sitting in a cofee-house at Oxford, about the time of his doctor's degree, used some contemptuous exArabic learning would naturally be mentioned, and would give occasion to some jokes about the probability of his turning Mussulman. If such jokes were made, Johnson, who frequently visited Oxford, was very likely to hear of them. • V. 409. + This paragraph has been altered; and a slight inaccuracy immaterial to the argument, has been removed. We will not multiply instances of this scandalous inaccuracy. It is clear that a writer who, even when warned by the text on which he is commenting, falls into such mistakes as these, is en+ I, 262. * III. 205. V. 409. § III. 328. UL. 406. |