‘As to the alledged design of making the compilement pass for the work of old Mr. Cibber, the charges seem to have been founded on a somewhat uncharitable construction. We are assured that the thought was not harboured by some of the proprietors, who are still living; and we hope that it did not occur to the first designer of the work, who was also the printer of it, and who bore a respectable character.
‘We have been induced to enter thus Circumstantially into the foregoing detail of facts relating to The Lives of the Poets, compiled by Messrs. Cibber and Shiels, from a sincere regard to that sacred principle of Truth, to which Dr. Johnson so rigidly adhered, according to the best of his knowledge; and which we believed, no consideration would have prevailed on him to violate. In regard to the matter, which we now dismiss, he had, no doubt, been misled by partial and wrong information: Shiels was the Doctor’s amanuensis; he had quarrelled with Cibber; it is natural to suppose that he told his story in his own way; and it is certain that he was not “a very sturdy moralist”.’ This explanation appears to me very satisfactory. It is, however, to be observed, that the story told by Johnson does not rest solely upon my record of his conversation; for he himself has published it in his Life of Hammond, where he says, ‘the manuscript of Shiels is now in my possession.’ Very probably he had trusted to Shiels’s word, and never looked at it so as to compare it with The Lives of the Poets, as published under Mr. Cibber’s name. What became of that manuscript I know not. I should have liked much to examine it. I suppose it was thrown into the fire in that impetuous combustion of papers, which Johnson I think rashly executed, when moribundus.594
a Sir Edward Barry, Baronet.
a See ante, note, p. 534.
b A noted highwayman, who after having been several times tried and acquitted, was at last hanged. He was remarkable for foppery in his dress, and particularly for wearing a bunch of sixteen strings at the knees of his breeches.
c See an ingenious Essay on this subject by the late Dr. Moor, Greek Professor at Glasgow.
a We have here an involuntary testimony to the excellence of this admirable writer, to whom we have seen that Dr. Johnson directly allowed so little merit.
b Mr. Romney, the painter, who has now deservedly established a high reputation.
c See ante, p. 535.
a I am sorry that there are no memoirs of the Reverend Robert Blair, the authour of this poem. He was the representative of the ancient family of Blair, of Blair, in Ayrshire, but the estate had descended to a female, and afterwards passed to the son of her husband by another marriage. He was minister of the parish of Athelstanford, where Mr. John Home was his successor; so that it may truely be called classick ground. His son, who is of the same name, and a man eminent for talents and learning, is now, with universal approbation, Solicitor-General of Scotland.
a Mr. Tyrwhitt, Mr. Warton, Mr. Malone.
a It may be observed, that Mr. Malone, in his very valuable edition of Shakspeare, has fully vindicated Dr. Johnson from the idle censures which the first of these notes has given rise to. The interpretation of the other passage, which Dr. Johnson allows to be disputable, he has clearly shown to be erroneous.
a As a proof of Dr. Johnson’s extraordinary powers of composition, it appears from the original manuscript of this excellent dissertation, of which he dictated the first eight paragraphs on the 10th of May, and the remainder on the 13th, that there are in the whole only seven corrections, or rather variations, and those not considerable. Such were at once the vigorous and accurate emanations of his mind.
a It is curious to observe that Lord Thurlow has here, perhaps in compliment to North Britain, made use of a term of the Scotch Law, which to an English reader may require explanation. To qualify a wrong, is to point out and establish it.
a this has been circulated as if actually said by johnson; when the truth is, it was only supposed by me.
a See p. 522.
a Johnson’s London, a poem, v. 145.
a Foote told me that Johnson said of him, ‘For loud obstreperous broad-faced mirth, I know not his equal.’
a See ante, p. 213.
a My very pleasant friend himself, as well as others who remember old stories, will no doubt be surprized, when I observe that John Wilkes here shews himself to be of the Warburtonian School. It is nevertheless true, as appears from Dr. Hurd the Bishop of Worcester’s very elegant commentary and notes on the ‘Epistola ad Pisones.‘643
It is necessary to a fair consideration of the question, that the whole passage in which the words occur should be kept in view:
‘Si quid inexpertum scence committis, et audes
Personam formare novam, servetur ad imum
Qualis ab incepto processerit, et sibi constet.
Difficile est proprie communia dicere: tuque
Rectius lliacum carmen deducts in actus,
Quäm siproferres ignota indictaque primus.
Publica materies privati juris erit, si
Non circa vilem patulumque moraberis orbem,
Nee verbum verbo curabis reddere fidus
Interpres; nee desilies imitator in artum
Unde pedem proferre pudor vetet aut opens lex.’644
The ‘Commentary’ thus illustrates it: ‘But the formation of quite new characters is a work of great difficulty and hazard. For here there is no generally received and fixed archetype to work after, but every one judges of common right, according to the extent and comprehension of his own idea; therefore he advises to labour and refit old characters and subjects, particularly those made known and authorised by the practice of Homer and the Epick writers.’
The ‘Note’ is,
‘Difficile est proprie communia dicere.’ Lambin’s Comment is ‘Communia hoc loco appellat Horatius argumenta fabularum a nullo adhuc tractata: et ita, quce cuivis exposita sunt et in medio quodammodo posita, quasi vacua et ä nemine occupata.’645 And that this is the true meaning of communia is evidently fixed by the words ignota indictaque,646 which are explanatory of it; so that the sense given it in the commentary is unquestionably the right one. Yet, notwithstanding the clearness of the case, a late critick has this strange passage: ‘Difficile quidem esse proprie communia dicere, hoc est, materiam vulgärem, notam et e medio petitam, ita immutare atque exornare, ut nova et scriptori propria videatur, ultro concedimus; et maximi procul dubio ponderis ista est observatio. Sed omnibus utrinque collatis, et turn difficilis, turn venusti, tarn judicii quam ingenii ratione habitä, major videtur esse gloria fabulam formare penitus novam, quäm veterem, uteunque mutatam, de