[PROSPECTUS TO CIBBER'S "LIVES OF THE POETS."]
(Vol. v., pp. 25. 65.; Vol. vii., p. 341.)
I am obliged to Dr. Rimbault for noticing, what had escaped me, that this Prospectus has been reprinted in the Censura Literaria, vol. vi. p. 352. With respect to my ground for attributing it to Johnson, it will, I think, be obvious enough to any one who reads my remarks, that it was on the internal evidence alone, on which, as every one is aware, many additions have been made to his acknowledged compositions. Your correspondent C., with whom I always regret to differ, is so far at variance with me as to state it as his opinion that "nothing can be less like Johnson's peculiar style," and refers me to a note, with which I was perfectly familiar, to show—but which I must say I cannot see that it does in the slightest degree—"that it is impossible that Johnson could have written this Prospectus." Another correspondent, whose communication I am unable immediately to refer to, likewise recorded his dissent from my conclusion. Next follows Dr. Rimbault, whom I understand to differ from me also, and who says (but where is the authority for the statement?) "Haslewood believed it to have been the production of Messrs. Cibber and Shields." I have every respect for Haslewood as a diligent antiquary, but I confess I do not attach much weight to his opinion on a question of critical taste or nice discrimination of style. I had, as I have observed, assigned the Prospectus to Dr. Johnson on the internal evidence alone; but since it appeared in "N. & Q." I have become aware of an important corroboration of my opinion in a copy of Cibber's Lives which formerly belonged to Isaac Reed, and which I have recently purchased. At the beginning of the first volume he has pasted in the Prospectus, and under it is the following note in his handwriting: "The above advertisement was written or revised by Dr. Johnson.—J. R." Reed's general correctness and capacity of judging in literary matters are too well known to render it necessary for me to enlarge upon them; and with this support I am quite content to leave the point in issue between your correspondents and myself to the decision of that part of your readers who take an interest in similar literary questions.
It will be observed that I have confined myself in my remarks to the Prospectus exclusively. The authorship of the Lives themselves is another question, and a very curious one, and not, by any means, as your correspondent C. appears to think, "settled." Perhaps I may, on a future occasion, trouble you with some remarks upon the Lives in detail, endeavouring to assign the respective portions to the several contributors.
James Crossley.
[PIC-NIC.]
(Vol. vii., p. 23.)
As I consider that the true origin of pic-nic remains yet to be discovered, permit me to try and trace the word through France into Italy, and to endeavour to show that the land with the "fatal gift of beauty" was its birthplace; and that when the Medici married into France, the august ladies probably imported, together with fans, gloves, and poisons, a pastime which, under the name of pique-nique, became, as Leroux says in his Dictionnaire Comique, "un divertissement fort à la mode à Paris."
I will not occupy space by quoting the article "at length" from Leroux, but the substance is this:—Persons of quality, of both sexes, who wished to enjoy themselves, and feast together, either in the open air or in the house of one of the number, imposed upon each one the task of bringing some particular article, or doing some particular duty in connexion with the feast. And to show how stringent was the expression pique-nique in imposing a specific task, Leroux quotes "considérant que chacun avait besoin de ses pièces, prononça un arrêt de pique-nique." (Rec. de Pièc. Com.)