[976] Murphy was far from happy. The play was not produced till April; by the date of Johnson's letter, he had not by any means reached the end of what he calls 'the first, and indeed, the last, disagreeable controversy that he ever had with Mr. Garrick.' Murphy's Garrick, p. 213.
[977] This letter was an answer to one in which was enclosed a draft for the payment of some subscriptions to his Shakspeare. BOSWELL.
[978] In the Preface he says:—(Works, v. 52) 'I have not passed over with affected superiority what is equally difficult to the reader and to myself, but where I could not instruct him, have owned my ignorance.'
[979] Northcote gives the following account of this same garret in describing how Reynolds introduced Roubiliac to Johnson. 'Johnson received him with much civility, and took them up into a garret, which he considered as his library; where, besides his books, all covered with dust, there was an old crazy deal table, and a still worse and older elbow chair, having only three legs. In this chair Johnson seated himself, after having, with considerable dexterity and evident practice, first drawn it up against the wall, which served to support it on that side on which the leg was deficient.' Northcote's Reynolds, i. 75. Miss Reynolds improves on the account. She says that 'before Johnson had the pension he literally dressed like a beggar; and, from what I have been told, he as literally lived as such; at least as to common conveniences in his apartments, wanting even a chair to sit on, particularly in his study, where a gentleman who frequently visited him, whilst writing his Idlers, constantly found him at his desk, sitting on one with three legs; and on rising from it, he remarked that Dr. Johnson never forgot its defect, but would either hold it in his hand, or place it with great composure against some support, taking no notice of its imperfection to his visitor. It was remarkable in Johnson, that no external circumstances ever prompted him to make any apology, or to seem even sensible of their existence.' Croker's Boswell, p. 832. There can be little question that she is describing the same room—a room in a house in which Miss Williams was lodged, and most likely Mr. Levet, and in which Mr. Burney dined; and in which certainly there must have been chairs. Yet Mr. Carlyle, misled by her account, says:—'In his apartments, at one time, there were unfortunately no chairs.' Carlyle's Miscellanies, ed. 1872, iv. 127.
[980] In his Life of Pope (Works, viii. 272) Johnson calls Theobald 'a man of heavy diligence, with very slender powers.' In the Preface to Shakspeare he admits that 'what little he did was commonly right.' Ib. v. 137. The Editors of the Cambridge Shakespeare on the other hand say:—'Theobald, as an Editor, is incomparably superior to his predecessors, and to his immediate successor Warburton, although the latter had the advantage of working on his materials. Many most brilliant emendations are due to him.' On Johnson's statement that 'Warburton would make two-and-fifty Theobalds, cut into slices,' they write:—'From this judgment, whether they be compared as critics or editors, we emphatically dissent.' Cambridge Shakespeare, i., xxxi., xxxiv., note. Among Theobald's 'brilliant emendations' are 'a'babbled of green fields' (Henry V, ii. 3), and 'lackeying the varying tide.' (Antony and Cleopatra, i.4).
[981] 'A familiar epistle [by Lord Bolingbroke] to the most impudent man living, 1749.' Brit. Mus. Catal.
[982] 'Mallet, by address or accident, perhaps by his dependence on the prince [of Wales], found his way to Bolingbroke, a man whose pride and petulance made his kindness difficult to gain or keep, and whom Mallet was content to court by an act, which, I hope, was unwillingly performed. When it was found that Pope had clandestinely printed an unauthorised number of the pamphlet called The Patriot King, Bolingbroke, in a fit of useless fury, resolved to blast his memory, and employed Mallet (1749) as the executioner of his vengeance. Mallet had not virtue, or had not spirit, to refuse the office; and was rewarded not long after with the legacy of Lord Bolingbroke's works.' Johnson's Works, viii. 467. See ante, p. 268, and Walpole's Letters, ii. 159.
[983] A View of Lord Bolingbroke's Philosophy in Four Letters to a Friend, 1754-5.
[984] A paper under this name had been started seven years earlier. See Carter and Talbot Corres., ii. 33.
[985] In the two years in which Johnson wrote for this paper it saw many changes. The first Idler appeared in No. 2 of the Universal Chronicle or Weekly Gazette, which was published not by Newbery, but by J. Payne. On April 29, this paper took the title of Payne's Universal Chronicle, etc. On Jan. 6, 1759, it resumed the old title and was published by R. Stevens. On Jan. 5, 1760, the title was changed to The Universal Chronicle and Westminster Journal, and it was published by W. Faden and R. Stevens. On March 15, 1760, it was published by R. Stevens alone. The paper consisted of eight pages. The Idler, which varied in length, came first, and was printed in larger characters, much like a leading article. The changes in title and ownership seem to show that in spite of Johnson's contributions it was not a successful publication.