character of "Sugred Sonnets of the mellifluous and honeytongued Shakspeare, in whom lives the fweet witty foul of Ovid." The paffionate Pilgrim' was firft published in 1599, and The Lover's Complaint' in 1609. Mr. Malone obferves, that these poems feem to have gained Shakspeare more reputation than his plays :—at leaft, they are oftener mentioned or alluded to.' The authenticity of thefe poems is too well established by internal evidence, and by the most circumftantial external proofs, to admit of a difpute. Shakspeare's genius indeed was too ardent and vigorous for poems that dwelt chiefly in relation or narrative. Hence, though ftored with beauties, they become on the whole languid and tiresome. His end feemed to be, to allot a certain number of verses to each story that he undertook to relate; and when this purpofe was accomplished, he did not exert his genius to provide for any thing befides. Permittit numinibus quid conveniat. But it was the faulty tafte of the times; for the old poem of Romeus and Juliet (republished in this Supplement) is equally prolix and tedious, and often as uninteresting as the Rape of Lucrece.' . The merit of that species of poetry adopted by Shakspeare in his Sonnets,' is differently eftimated by Mr. Steevens and Mr. Malone; the former calling it the contrivance of fome literary Procraftes; and the latter, though not its profeffed champion, yet is fo far interested in its credit, as to think it worth his while, to bestow fome little pains in refcuing it from the contempt thrown on it by the former. The Reader, if he will fee how the dispute begins, and how it is carried on, must confult the Work itself. It is left undecided: for though Mr. Malone hath the laft word (being the Editor), we have reafon to think that Mr. Steevens is difpofed to adhere to his own opinion. This is generally the cafe, after anfwers, replies, and rejoinders, where the controverfy turns on fpeculation, taste, or sentiment, and cannot be decided by appeals to facts, and is above fubmitting to any authority. Before we close this fubject, we cannot avoid remarking the Ariking fimilarity between one of Shakspeare's fonnets and that well-known and beautiful paffage in the Paradife Loft, where Adam is reprefented as breathing out the enthufiafin of his paffion for Eve in the following moft elegant lines : "Sweet is the breath of Morn, her rifing fweet, But neither breath of Morn when the afcends Nor Nor grateful evening mild; nor filent night With this her folemn bird; nor walk by noon, Thefe lines are a great improvement on the following from Shakspeare (from whom indeed the original thought feems to have been borrowed): Yet not the lays of birds, nor the sweet smell Of different flowers in odour and in hue, Could make me any fummer's story tell, Or from their proud lap pluck them where they grew: Nor praife the deep vermillion in the rofe; As with your fhadow I with these did play.' } Mr. Steevens hath produced a paffage from the beginning of the 3d book of the Paradife Loft, as in fome degree fimilar to thefe lines; but we do not think the parallel happily chofen and we are surprised that the paffage we have produced did not ftrike him, as having a much nearer affinity both in fentiment and expression. Mr. Steevens's quotation is the following: but not to me returns Day, or the sweet approach of even or morn, ART. III. Remarks on Dr. Samuel Johnson's Journey to the Hebrides ; in which are contained, Obfervations on the Antiquities, Language, Genius and Manners of the Highlanders of Scotland. By the Rev.. Donald M Nicol, A. M. Minifter of Lifmore, Argylefhire. 8vo. 4 s. Boards. Cadell. 1780. N the prefent performance, our young Author hath attacked a most respectable veteran in literature with much ill-nature, and with a degree of petulance ftill more intolerable and difgufting than his acrimony. He hath anxioufly fought for imperfections in a work where perfection was not attainable. He hath magnified errors and mistakes, which a candid mind would fcarcely have perceived; or, if it had perceived, would readily have excufed them. But, as it generally happens when prejudice hath vitiated the judgment, Mr. M'Nicol hath not only made the most of venial mistakes, but he pretends to have discovered them where they do not exist. It is therefore not at all to be. wondered at, that this work fhould have fwelled to its prefent fize, or that its Author, proud of holding a competition with Dr. Johnfon, without a view of pecuniary advantage, or even literary fame (objects above his humility, or beneath his pride!), fhould Thould advance to the charge with all the fancied importance of a formidable antagonist. Impartiality, however, obliges us to acknowledge, that Dr. Johnfon is reprehenfible for many paffages in his work, which favour more of the illiberal partiality of the intolerant churchman, than the freedom and candour of a wife and unbiaffed philofopher. In our Review of the "Journey to the Western Iflands," we noted with diflike fome ill-natured reflections on the ecclefiaftical establishment of Scotland: though (as friends to the univerfal interefts of religion) we were pleafed to find, that even the Doctor's critical-or, as fome would call it " jaundiced eye" could difcover but one ftriking blemish in the character of its minifters and that the very blemish which fo much offended him lay more in the optic feeing than in the object feen.-They were Prefbyterians! Nevertheless, we are by no means difpofed to join with Mr. M'Nicol in afcribing the errors of Dr. Johnfon's Work to a Spirit of wilful mifreprefentation or malignant revenge; nor are we ready to put down the Doctor's averfion to the facrilegious ravages of Knox's reformation, to his predilection for the fuperftitions of Popery; neither can we give any credit to Mr. M'Nicol's affertion-that the Doctor vifited Scotland with a predetermined refolution to abufe the country, and depreciate Highland traditions, in order to gratify his contempt or his refentment. Thefe are charges of a very ferious nature; and we fhould not be forward to admit them, even if they were fupported by more plaufible evidences than this writer hath produced. It is not at all furprifing, that a man who hath a favourite fyftem fhould be peculiarly attentive to thofe circumftances which tend to confirm it, or that any incidental obfervations fhould lead more directly to this point; but it is uncandid to afcribe this effect to a fettled defign, which (as to the main object of it) might have been eafily accomplished without the expence and fatigue of a journey through the rueful and howling deferts of Scotland. We may fee, from a late publi cation refpecting the character of King Charles I. that fuch purposes may be answered with great facility; and that any individual or nation may be covered with a double portion of infamy by a malignant reclufe, at a fmall, a very fmall expence either of application or ingenuity. If Mr. M'Nicol had not been as ftrongly biaffed by prejudice, as he would reprefent Dr. Johnfon to have been, in almoft every reflection which either his wit or his ill nature have thrown on poor Scotland, he would not have been fo much enflamed by fome very innocent and unimportant obfervations, He would not have contended with fo much sturdiness and zeal for the honour of Scotland in one of the loweft articles of diet. He would have allowed, that kail might have been unknown in Scotland before the days of Cromwell :-but Dr. Johnson had unfortunately faid, that Cromwell conquered Scotland! This reflection touched the pride of our Scotchman; and he was determined, not only to rob the Ufurper of the glory of a conqueft, but even to deny him the little praife of adding to the scanty stock of Ca edonian vegetables. He might alfo have acknowledged (for it is strictly true) that many of the inhabitants, even of the metropolis of Scotland, have not afforded them felves pullies for their fafh-windows. But, unfortunately again, Dr. Johnfon is fuppofed by his tefty Remarker to have taken notice of this defect only for the fake of expofing the flovenliness of the Scots. Now as pullies and fafh-windows are imagined to be proofs of elegance and convenience, Mr. M'Nicol was refolved that England should not run away with the honour of their introduction: and with the fame laudable zeal for his country, he contends ftrongly that Scotland was beforehand with England in almoft every article, not only of convenience, but of luxury too! Such trifles as thefe (and the book before us abounds with them) have made Dr, Johnson's mistakes appear fewer, and of lefs confequence than they really are. A more ingenuous antagonift would have had a greater advantage over the Doctor, and, if the honour of Scotland had been the capital object, he would have gained his end more effectually by his candour and moderation. The difpofition which Mr. M'Nicol displays in almost every page of his book, reminds us of a scheme of characterising the feveral nations of Europe in the form of a Newfpaper, containing accounts from every capital. The following from Edinburgh is truly expreffive of that fpirit which dictated four-fifths of the Remarks we are now reviewing, viz. "We are informed from the beft authority, that Duncan M'Gregor, lately executed in the grafs-market for houfe-breaking, was not a Scotchman." We never confidered Dr. Johnfon's work as an attempt to give a perfect idea of Scotland: but only to convey the several remarks which were fuggefted by the objects he furveyed. We were well aware, that from a cynical philofopher we could expect little of that urbanity which is the infeparable companion of an amiable disposition and of polished manners and from a man who had hitherto been only a fpeculative Rambler, we could form no great hopes of a work entirely free from mifreprefentation and partiality. But it is highly petulant and prefuming to charge him with unjuft and ungenerous defigns: it is illiberal to reproach him for not taking an account of trees in a country where we are well affured he faw none; and for not defcribing I defcribing columns, ruins, and houses, which he had no opportunity of examining. This Remarker gives us a very unfavourable idea of his own candour, in the beginning of his book, where he brings a charge against Dr. Johnson for commencing his journey to Scotland on the 18th of Auguft. This the Remarker would reprefent as a feafon too late for the valetudinarian to expect any amendment of his health, or the traveller to fee objects in the faireft view. Thofe, however, who are acquainted with Scotland well know, that easterly winds and rain are very common in the earlier part of fummer, and that little good weather can be depended on till Auguft. No one who knows the country will join with Mr. McNicol in his criticifm, or when they obferve that Dr. Johnson hath remarked, that in many places the corn was not carried in even at the late feafon when he paffed through Scotland. The appearance of the country must be allowed by all impartial travellers to be in general poor, and to indicate the want of cultivation. Inclofures and plantations there are; but they are fo rare, as to be fcarcely an exception to the universal barrenness of the country, especially the Highlands. The inns, even of the metropolis, are well known to be bad; and the accommodations in other places are much more wretched than what we meet with in the common villages in England. These are facts which the partiality of a thorough Scotchman may palliate and glofs over, but he cannot deny-unless he be the very oppofite of a furdy moralift. Inftances of particular plenty and hospitality will not overthrow these general observations. Dr. Johnson had obferved, that the roads in Scotland were little frequented, even near the capital; and his Remarker triumphs in finding, juft after, that he arrived at St. Andrews at two in the morning, at which time this captious writer imagines any English roads would have been equally deferted. But he triumphs without a victory; for as the Doctor must have spent nearly the whole day in his journey, he must have been acquainted with the roads near the capital, to which he chiefly confined his obfervation. Mr. M'Nicol is never fo happy as when he thinks he hath caught Dr. Johnson ftumbling on a contradiction. He is fure to make the most of it: and on fo promifing an occafion he makes the moft of his wit too. In page 3d (fays this Remarker) his [Dr. Johnfon's] account of the island of Inch Keith is trifling and contradictory. He reprefents it as a barren rock, where there formerly was a fort; and yet he tells us again, that it never was intended for a place of ftrength, and that "a herd of cows grazes annually upon it in fummer." But a fort without ftrength is furely fomething new; and grazing for cattle a most uncommon mark of barrennefs.' This remark is equally S 3 ill |