1765. crowned with fuccefs, be entitled to give those Etat. 56. flattering diftinctions by which mankind are fo univerfally captivated. Such are the fpecious, but falfe arguments for a propofition which always will find numerous advocates, in a nation where men are every day starting up from obfcurity to wealth. To refute them is needlefs. The general sense of mankind cries out, with irresistible force, "Un gentilhomme eft toujours gentilhomme." Mr. Thrale had married Miss Hefther Lynch Salusbury, of good Welch extraction, a lady of lively talents, improved by education. That Johnson's introduction into Mr. Thrale's family, which contributed fo much to the happiness of his life, was owing to her defire for his conversation, is the most probable and general fuppofition: but it is not the truth. Mr. Murphy, who was intimate with Mr. Thrale, having fpoken very highly of Dr. Johnson, he was requested to make them acquainted. This being mentioned to Johnson, he accepted of an invitation to dinner at Thrale's, and was fo much pleafed with his reception, both by Mr. and Mrs. Thrale, and they so much pleased with him, that his invitations to their houfe were more and more frequent, till at last he became one of the family, and an apartment was appropriated to him, both in their houfe in Southwark, and in their villa at Streatham. Johnson had a very fincere esteem for Mr. Thrale as a man of excellent principles, a good scholar, well skilled in trade, of a found understanding, and of manners fuch as prefented the character of a plain independent English 'Squire. As this family 1765. will frequently be mentioned in the course of the Etat. 56. following pages, and as a falfe notion has prevailed that Mr. Thrale was inferiour, and in fome degree infignificant, compared with Mrs. Thrale, it may be proper to give a true ftate of the cafe from the authority of Johnson himself, in his own words. "I know no man, (faid he,) who is more master of his wife and family than Thrale. If he but holds up a finger, he is obeyed. It is a great miftake to fuppofe that fhe is above him in literary attainments. She is more flippant; but he has ten times her learning: he is a regular fcholar; but her learning is that of a school-boy in one of the lower forms." My readers may naturally wish for fome reprefentation of the figures of this couple. Mr. Thrale was tall, well proportioned, and stately. As for Madam, or my Miftrefs, by which epithets Johnson ufed to mention Mrs. Thrale, fhe was fhort, plump, and brifk. She has herself given us a lively view of the idea which Johnfon had of her perfon, on her appearing before him in a darkcoloured gown: "You little creatures fhould never wear thofe fort of clothes, however; they are unfuitable in every way. What! have not all infects gay colours?" Mr. Thrale gave his wife a liberal indulgence, both in the choice of their company, and in the mode of entertaining them. He understood and valued Johnfon, without remiffion, from their first acquaintance to the day of his death. Mrs. Thrale was enchanted with Johnfon's conver Mrs. Piozzi's Anecdotes, p. 279. 1765. fation for its own fake, and had also a very allowEtat. 56. able vanity in appearing to be honoured with the attention of fo celebrated a man. Nothing could be more fortunate for Johnson than this connection. He had at Mr. Thrale's all the comforts and even luxuries of life; his melancholy was diverted, and his irregular habits lesfened by affociation with an agreeable and well, ordered family. He was treated with the utmoft respect, and even affection. The vivacity of Mrs. Thrale's literary talk roufed him to cheerfulness and exertion, even when they were alone. But this was not often the cafe; for he found here a conftant fucceffion of what gave him the highest enjoyment, the fociety of the learned, the witty, and the eminent in every way, who were affembled in numerous companies, called forth his wonderful powers, and gratified him with admiration, to which no man could be infenfible. In the October of this year he at length gave to the world his edition of Shakspeare, which, if it had no other merit but that of producing his Preface, in which the excellencies and defects of that immortal bard are difplayed with a masterly hand, the nation would have had no reason to complain. A blind indifcriminate admiration of Shakspeare had expofed the British nation to the ridicule of foreigners. Johnson, by candidly admitting the faults of his poet, had the more credit in bestowing on him deferved and indifputable praife; and doubtless none of all his panegyrifts have done him half fo much honour. Their praise was, like that of a counsel, upon his own fide of the caufe: Johnson's Johnson's was like the grave, well confidered, and impartial opinion of the judge, which falls from his lips with weight, and is received with reverence. What he did as a commentator has no small share of merit, though his researches were not fo ample, and his investigations so acute as they might have been, which we now certainly know from the labours of other able and ingenious criticks who have followed him. He has enriched his edition with a concise account of each play, and of its characteriftick excellence. Many of his notes have illustrated obscurities in the text, and placed paffages eminent for beauty in a more confpicuous light; and he has, in general, exhibited fuch a mode of annotation, as may be beneficial to all fubfequent editors. His Shakspeare was virulently attacked by Mr. William Kenrick, who obtained the degree of LL.D. from a Scotch Univerfity, and wrote for the bookfellers in a great variety of branches. Though he certainly was not without confiderable merit, he wrote with fo little regard to decency and principles and decorum, and in so hasty a manner, that his reputation was neither extenfive nor lafting. I remember one evening, when fome of his works were mentioned, Dr. Goldfmith faid, he had never heard of them; upon which Dr. Johnson obferved, “Sir, he is one of the many who have made themselves publick, without making themselves known.” A young student of Oxford, of the name of Barclay, wrote an answer to Kenrick's review of Johnfon's Shakspeare. Johnson was at first angry that Kenrick's attack fhould have the credit of an answer. But 1765. Etat. 56. 1765. But afterwards, confidering the young man's good Etat. 56. intention, he kindly noticed him, and probably would have done more, had not the young man died. In his Preface to Shakspeare, Johnson treated Voltaire very contemptuously, obferving, upon fome of his remarks, "These are the petty criticisms of petty wits." Voltaire, in revenge, made an attack upon Johnson, in one of his numerous literary fallies, which I remember to have read; but there being no general index to his voluminous works, have searched in vain, and therefore cannot quote it. Voltaire was an antagonist with whom I thought Johnson fhould not difdain to contend. I preffed him to answer. He faid, he perhaps might; but he never did. Mr. Burney having occafion to write to Johnson for fome receipts for fubscriptions to his Shakspeare, which Johnson had omitted to deliver, when the money was paid, he availed himself of that opportunity of thanking Johnfon for the great pleasure which he had received from the perufal of his Preface to Shakspeare; which although it excited much clamour against him at first, is now justly ranked among the most excellent of his writings. To this letter, Johnson returned the following answer: To CHARLES BURNEY, Efq. in Poland-street. "SIR, "I AM forry that your kindness to me has brought upon you so much trouble, though you have taken care to abate that forrow, by the plea |