a 1 1 1776. -ranean.” The General observed, that “ The MedITERRANEAN would be a noble subject for a poem.” Ætat. 67. We talked of transation. I Said, I could not define it, nor could I think of a similitude to illustrate it; but that it appeared to me the translation of poetry could be only imitation. Johnson. “ You may translate books of science exactly. You may also translate history, in so far as it is not embellished with oratory, which is poetical. Poetry, indeed, cannot be transated; and, therefore, it is the poets that preserve languages; for we would not be at the trouble to learn a language, if we could have all that is written in it just as well in a translation. But as the beauties of poetry cannot be preserved in any language except that in which it was originally written, we learn the language.” A gentleman maintained that the art of printing had hurt real learning, by The same gentleman maintained, that a general diffusion of knowledge li He never We spent the evening at Mr. Hoole's. Mr. Mickle, the excellent transator of “ The Lusiad,” was there. I have preserved little of the conversation of this evening. Dr. Johnson said, “ Thomson had a true poetical genius, the power of viewing every thing in a poetical light. His fault is such a cloud of words sometimes, that the sense can hardly peep through. Shiels, who compiled · Cibber's Lives of the Poets,' was one day sitting with me. I took down Thomson, and read aloud a large portion of him, and then asked, -Is not this fine? Shiels having expressed the highest admiration. Well, Sir, (faid I,) I have omitted every other line.” I related a I related a dispute between Goldsmith and Mr. Robert Dodsley, one day 1776. when they and I were dining at Tom Davies's, in 1762. Goldsmith asserted, Ærat. 67. that there was no poetry produced in this this age. Dodsley appealed to his own Collection, and maintained, that though you could not find a Palace like Dryden's “ Ode on St. Cecilia's Day,” you had villages composed of very pretty houses; and he mentioned particularly “ The Spleen.” Johnson. “I think DodNey gave up the question. He and Goldsmith said the same thing; only he said it in a softer manner than Goldsmith did : for he acknowledged that there was no poetry, nothing that towered above the common mark. You may find wit and humour in verse, and yet no poetry. 'Hudibras' has a profusion of these ; yet it is not to be reckoned a poem. “The Spleen,' in Dodsey's collection, on which you say he chiefly rested, is not poetry.” Boswell. “Does not Gray's poetry, Sir, tower above the common mark ?” Johnson. “ Yes, Sir; but we must attend to the difference between what men in general cannot do if they would, and what every man may do if he would. Sixteen-string Jack towered above the common mark.” Boswell. “ Then, Sir, what is poetry?” Johnson. “Why, Sir, it is much easier to say what it is not. We all know what light is; but it is not easy to tell what it is.” On Friday, April 12, I dined with him at our friend Tom Davies's, where I introduced Aristotle's doctrine in his “Art of Poetry,” of “ the xxbxpois I observed " But 1776. I observed the great defect of the tragedy of “Othello” was, that it had were artfully suggested to Othello's mind. Johnson. “ In the first place, Talking of a penurious gentleman of our acquaintance, Johnson said, He said, he wished to see “ John Dennis's Critical Works” collected. Davies said of a well known dramatick authour, that “ he lived upon He reminded Dr. Johnson of Mr. Murphy's having paid him the highest Johnson and I supt this evening at the Crown and Anchor tavern, in com- We discussed the question whether drinking improved conversation and , drinking are rotten. i drinking makes people talk better.” Johnson. “No, Sir; wine gives not 1776. light, gay, ideal hilarity; but tumultuous, noisy, clamourous merriment. I Ætat. 67. have heard none of those drunken,-nay, drunken is a coarse word, -none of those vinous Aights.” Sir Joshua. “ Because you have fat by, quite sober, and felt an envy of the happiness of those who were drinking.” Johnson. . “ Perhaps, contempt.-And, Sir, it is not necessary to be drunk one's self, to relish the wit of drunkenness. Do we not judge of the drunken wit of the dialogue between Iago and Cassio, the most excellent in its kind, when we are quite fober? Wit is wit, by whatever means it is produced ; and, if good, will appear fo at all times. I admit that the spirits are raised by drinking, as by the common participation of any pleasure ; cock-fighting, or bear-baiting, will raise the spirits of a company as drinking does, though surely they will not improve conversation. I also admit, that there are some Nuggish men who are improved by drinking, as there are fruits which are not good till they There are such men, but they are medlars. I indeed allow that I observed, that wine did some people harm, by inflaming, confusing, and , He said, that for general improvement, a man should read whatever his im- inclination, a 1776. Ætat. 67. inclination, half the mind is employed in fixing the attention ; so there is but l one half to be employed on what we read.” He told us, he read Fielding's “ Amelia” through without stopping. He said, “ if a man begins to read in the middle of a book, and feels an inclination to go on, let him not quit it, to go to the beginning. He may, perhaps, not feel again the inclination.” Sir Joshua mentioned Mr. Cumberland's Odes, which were just published. Johnson. “Why, Sir, they would have been thought as good as Odes commonly are, if Cumberland had not put his name to them; but a name immediately draws censure, unless it be a name that bears down every thing before it. Nay, Cumberland has made his Odes subsidiary to the fame of another man'. They might have run well enough by themselves; but he has not only loaded them with a name, but has made them carry double.” ” We talked of the Reviews, and Dr. Johnson spoke of them as he did at Thrale’s 4. Sir Joshua said, what I have often thought, that he wondered to find so much good writing employed in them, when the authours were to remain unknown, and so could not have the motive of fame. Johnson. “Nay, Sir, those who write in them, write well, in order to be paid well.” Soon after this day, he went to Bath with Mr. and Mrs. Thrale. I had never seen that beautiful city, and wilhed to take the opportunity of visiting it, while Johnson was there. Having written to him, I received the following answer : TO JAMES BOSWELL, Esq. « DEAR SIR, “ WHY do you talk of neglect ? When did I neglect you? If you will come to Bath, we shall all be glad to see you. Come, therefore, as soon as you can. " But I have a little business for you at London. Bid Francis look in the paper-drawer of the chest of drawers in my bed-chamber, for two cases; one for the Attorney-General, and one for the Solicitor-General. They lie, I think, at the top of my papers; otherwise they are somewhere else, and will , 2 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. Mr. Romney the painter, who has now deservedly established a high reputation, * Page 60 of this volume. « Please |