The ludicrous imitators of Johnson’s style are innumerable.  Their general method is to accumulate hard words, without considering, that, although he was fond of introducing them occasionally, there is not a single sentence in all his writings where they are crowded together, as in the first verse of the following imaginary Ode by him to Mrs. Thrale[1178], which appeared in the newspapers:—­

     ’Cervisial coctor’s viduate dame,
      Opin’st thou this gigantick frame,
        Procumbing at thy shrine: 
      Shall, catenated by thy charms,
      A captive in thy ambient arms,
        Perennially be thine?’

This, and a thousand other such attempts, are totally unlike the original, which the writers imagined they were turning into ridicule.  There is not similarity enough for burlesque, or even for caricature.

Mr. COLMAN, in his Prose on several occasions, has A Letter from LEXIPHANES[1179]; containing Proposals for a Glossary or Vocabulary of the Vulgar Tongue:  intended as a Supplement to a larger DICTIONARY.  It is evidently meant as a sportive sally of ridicule on Johnson, whose style is thus imitated, without being grossly overcharged:—­

’It is easy to foresee, that the idle and illiterate will complain that I have increased their labours by endeavouring to diminish them; and that I have explained what is more easy by what is more difficult—­ ignotum per ignotius.  I expect, on the other hand, the liberal acknowledgements of the learned.  He who is buried in scholastick retirement, secluded from the assemblies of the gay, and remote from the circles of the polite, will at once comprehend the definitions, and be grateful for such a seasonable and necessary elucidation of his mother-tongue.’

Annexed to this letter is a short specimen of the work, thrown together in a vague and desultory manner, not even adhering to alphabetical concatenation[1180].

The serious imitators of Johnson’s style, whether intentionally or by the imperceptible effect of its strength and animation, are, as I have had already occasion to observe, so many, that I might introduce quotations from a numerous body of writers in our language, since he appeared in the literary world.  I shall point out only the following:—­

WILLIAM ROBERTSON, D.D.[1181]

’In other parts of the globe, man, in his rudest state, appears as lord of the creation, giving law to various tribes of animals which he has tamed and reduced to subjection.  The Tartar follows his prey on the horse which he has reared, or tends his numerous herds, which furnish him both with food and clothing; the Arab has rendered the camel docile, and avails himself of its persevering strength; the Laplander has formed the rein-deer to be subservient to his will; and even the people of Kamschatka have trained their dogs to labour.  This command over the inferiour creatures is one of the noblest prerogatives of man, and among the greatest efforts of his wisdom and power.  Without this, his dominion is incomplete.  He is a monarch who has no subjects; a master without servants; and must perform every operation by the strength of his own arm[1182].’