the position of Dr. Johnson be fairly considered, therefore, it will be found that he concedes every thing to this branch of oratory, which any man of common sense and common feeling could require.

But, I will meet this doughty critick in his own field of argument, and examine the doctor's colloquy with Mrs. Thrale. "Action," said he, "can have no effect upon reasonable minds, it may augment noise, but it never can enforce argument." By "reasonable minds," the doctor certainly meant minds capable of comprehending rational or argumentative discussion: to such minds, the investigation of truth, and a conviction of its force, would not be aided by splendor of language or vehemence of gesticulation;-for, as Johnson justly observes," in proportion as men are removed from brutes, action will have less influence upon them," that is, the necessity of an appeal to the senses, to arrest attention and enforce diction, increases in proportion to imbecility of mind or deficiency of understanding. "We, indeed, use action when we speak to a dog," says he; because a dog, not having the powers of speech or ratiocination, can only be influenced by an appeal to his senses; nor can he, or a lion (examples appealed to by our critick) express their wants or their passions in any other way than by external signs. To offer, therefore, a series of syllogisms, in a motionless manner, to a dog or a lion, either to reprove the conduct of the one, or to appease the anger of the other, would be quite as absurd as our sage critick's torpid and ineffectual attack upon Dr. Samuel Johnson. His assertion to Mrs. Thrale," that Demosthenes spoke to an assembly of brutes, to a barbarous people," was very true, meaning under a hyperbolical or figurative expression, that the popular addresses of Demosthenes, directed to the mixed and clamorous assemblies of Grecians, whose passions were to be influenced by the most vociferous and forcible appeals to their passions, required a style of oratory accommodated to their nature or character. But it is well known that Demosthe nes, when he spoke in the court of the Areopagus, justly depended upon strength of argument, unaided by attitude er gesture, and therefore used none, or very little if any.

Our critick declares himself to be at a loss to conceive how "action has a tendency to augment noise." This, one would think, were he in the habit of attending popular assemblies, or even any place of public worship, he might sometimes have an opportunity of fully conceiving: where, in the former, he might often hear sound instead of sense, from many a ranting, thundering demagogue, and in the latter, many a fanatic or gospel trumpeter,

Of this kind of preachers were those of whom Dr. South and Dr. Echard tell us, that "such was their vehemence of action in the pulpit, that they beat it with their fists as if they were beating a drum"-of one it is said, that he had the action of a thrasher, rather than of a divine;" of another, that he "thrashed such a sweating lecture, that he put off his doublet." Certainly such speakers "augment noise" by their action.

Our critick goes on to say, "when propositions of undefinable extent," I suppose he means indefinite extent," are laid down as the basis of argument, we are in danger of combating" (t0 use the phraseology of an apostle) "as one who beateth the air. We are incapable of feeling our antagonist, and our blows are dealt at random." This, our shrewd critick forcibly exemplifies himself, in his next paragraph: "Gesture," says he, "is a language, the spontaneous production of nature; the medium of communicating sensations, not only between man and man, but between men and the lower orders of animals; and between the lower orders of animals and each other. Nature has, for purposes of self-preservation, made all these various orders of existence sensible of this language." Here is a proposition of undefinable (as he calls it) extent; taking in the whole range of animal creation, from a man to an oyster, with all their different genera and species-and for what purpose? Who denies it? I am sure that Dr. Johnson does not; I am sure I do not; nor can any man of common sense and observation deny it. The elaborate

argument in favour of it, and the copious exemplification which follows, is, therefore, an incontestible proof that our critick has enrolled himself in that numerous band of champions, the motto of whose banner is, " vox et præterea nihil," and of course that he is "one who beateth the air." "That he is incapable of feeling his antagonist" (and 'tis a great mercy for him that he is dead)" and that his blows are dealt at random," the perusal of his essay, without any logical reasoning, will sufficiently evince. His next stroke at poor defunct Dr. Johnson, is with the same weapon with which the doctor himself so effectually punished Osbourne, the bookseller, namely, his own dictionary; with this difference, however, that he has as effectually knocked himself down with it.* «Dr. Johnson's laborious dictionary," continues our critick," is itself a comment on the justice of my remarks." How, Mr. Critick? What has Dr. Johnson's laborious dictionary to do with action? except indeed in such a case as that in which the doctor demonstrated the use of action in chastising the impertinence of Osbourne, by knocking him down with the said dictionary. "Demosthenes and Dr. Johnson," continues he, "differ essentially." I think they perfectly agree-though, with submission to your better judgment, Mr. Critick. "The doctor," you say," maintains, that the great language of nature which "is to be found in the great lexicography of nature, is to be su perseded by the use of his ponderous dictionary." Now, if one word about the use of his ponderous dictionary passed in his colloquy with Mrs. Thrale, or is to be found in any of his writings, or sayings upon the subject of action, I will cheerfully give my ponderous head to this ponderous critick for a football. He appears indeed to feel somewhat contrite and foolish upon this point, by the beginning of his next paragraph. "I know it may be thought

* Mrs. Thrale, in her " Anecdotes of Dr. Samuel Johnson" says, "I made one day very minute inquiries about the tale of his knocking down the famous Tom Osbourne with his own dictionary in the man's own house. "And how was that affair in earnest? Do tell me, Mr. Johnson" "There is nothing to tell, dearest lady, but that he was insolent, and I beat him; and that he was a blockhead, and told of it, which I should never have done; so the blows have been multiplying, and the wonder thickening for all these years, as Thomas was never a favourite with the public. I have beat many a fellow, but the rest had the wit to hold their tongues."-Thrale's Anec. p. 233.

that I nave put an invidious interpretation on the doctor's words;" yet, he has afterwards the effrontery to say, " Dr. Johnson seemed to imagine, that the venerable old grand-dame, Nature, did not understand her own language, and was bound, out of reverence to him, to study his dictionary." I think I shall not be justly chargeable with rashness or presumption in saying, that Dr. Johnson never imagined any thing of the kind: and that so far from prescribing the study of his dictionary as a test of truth and propriety to the "venerable old grand-dame Nature," he never recommended it as such to any old woman, man, girl, or boy, in the whole course of his life. How far our critick might be benefited by its perusal, particularly if accompanied with Kaime's Elements of Criticism, I will not pretend to determine.

A.

REMARKS ON MELISH'S TRAVELS.-FOR THE PORT FOLIO.

MR. OLDSCHOOL,

As nothing is further from my design or inclination, than to add to the "calamities of authors," I should suffer the observations in defence of Mr. Melish to pass unnoticed, and his defender, whoever he may be, to remain in the undisturbed enjoyment of his very ingenious verbal criticisms, were it not that I am charged with having censured the travel-writer without cause. It is in substance asserted, that no such thing as has been imputed to him is to be found in his book; and that it contains not a single sentiment calculated to give the smallest offence to any man of any party. A reference to the book itself, I do admit with the vindicator, to be the true test, how far I am warranted in the accusation I have made, and I am not displeased at the concession, that the charge is a serious one, since, if substantiated, it must acquit me of the reproach of being an officious critic of "fastidious caviller."

Being on the affirmative side of the question, I am aware that the burden of proof rests on me; and am not at all apprehensive, that by a recurrence to the Travels, I could not furnish to any candid mind, most satisfactory evidence of the truth of my

allegation; but the fact is, that from my present secluded location, the book is not within my reach. I cheerfully appeal, however, with the pretended friend of the author, to the numerous readers of the work, and can aver, upon my honour, that in the circle in which the topic occurred, previously to the insertion of my remarks in The Port Folio, the impression was general, and I think without an exception, that Mr. Melish had unwarrantably obtruded upon his readers his opinions on party-politics, and most of the members of the company were highly indignant at the circumstance. It is unnecessary to mention to what party these gentlemen belonged. Not to the favoured one, Mr. Melish and his friend (if indeed they are two) may be assured.

Since, however, it seems proper, that some sort of specification of the general charge should be exhibited, I ask, and with confidence anticipate an affirmative answer, whether the Traveller has not somewhere signified his conviction, that the administration of this country, have acted with disinterestedness and the most perfect impartiality, as respects the two great belligerent nations of Europe? If it be admitted that he has, I need no further proof in substantiation of my imputation, as this involves the great cardinal point upon which the parties have long been at issue. But this was not the only ground of my conclusion. The whole tenor of the Traveller's politics have this hue and tendency. And do Mr. Melish and his vindicator now expect to avert or palliate the accusation, by clumsily bringing forward a declaration in the book, that the author had avoided all notice of local politics? How long then is it, since the sly, disguised, insidious assailant became less hurtful and more respectable than the manly, open enemy?

It is not contended that Mr. Melish has not an equal right, with every other citizen of America, to his political opinions. But let them be vented in the proper place: in his friendly circle, in his seat at the coffecroom or the beerhouse, on an election ground, or in the newspapers; but let him not endeavour to give undue weight to his crude predilections by insinuating them under the mask of neutrality, in volumes ostensibly published for purposes wholly different.