[139] I have noticed a few words which, to our ears, are more uncommon than at least two of the three that Boswell mentions; as, ’Languages divaricate,’ Works, vii. 309; ‘The mellifluence of Pope’s numbers,’ ib. 337; ‘A subject flux and transitory,’ ib. 389; ’His prose is pure without scrupulosity,’ ib. 472; ’He received and accommodated the ladies’ (said of one serving behind the counter), ib. viii. 62; ’The prevalence of this poem was gradual,’ ib. p. 276; ’His style is sometimes concatenated,’ ib. p. 458.  Boswell, on the next page, supplies one more instance—­’Images such as the superficies of nature readily supplies.’

[140] See ante, iii. 249.

[141] Veracious is perhaps one of the ‘four or five words’ which Johnson added, or thought that he added, to the English language. Ante, i. 221.  He gives it in his Dictionary, but without any authority for it.  It is however older than his time.

[142] See Johnson’s Works, vii. 134, 212, and viii. 386.

[143] Horace Walpole (Letters, vii. 452) writes of Johnson’s ‘Billingsgate on Milton.’  A later letter shows that, like so many of Johnson’s critics, he had not read the Life. Ib. p. 508.

[144] Works, vii. 108.

[145] Thirty years earlier he had written of Milton as ’that poet whose works may possibly be read when every other monument of British greatness shall be obliterated.’ Ante, i. 230.  See ante, ii. 239.

[146] Earl Stanhope (Life of Pitt, ii. 65) describes this Society in 1790, ’as a Club, till then of little note, which had a yearly festival in commemoration of the events of 1688.  It had been new-modelled, and enlarged with a view to the transactions at Paris, but still retained its former name to imply a close connection between the principles of 1688 in England, and the principles of 1789 in France.’  The Earl Stanhope of that day presided at the anniversary meeting on Nov. 4, 1789.  Nov. 4 was the day on which William III. landed.

[147] See An Essay on the Life, Character, and writings of Dr. Samuel Johnson, London, 1787; which is very well written, making a proper allowance for the democratical bigotry of its authour; whom I cannot however but admire for his liberality in speaking thus of my illustrious friend:—­

’He possessed extraordinary powers of understanding, which were much cultivated by study, and still more by meditation and reflection.  His memory was remarkably retentive, his imagination uncommonly vigorous, and his judgement keen and penetrating.  He had a strong sense of the importance of religion; his piety was sincere, and sometimes ardent; and his zeal for the interests of virtue was often manifested in his conversation and in his writings.  The same energy which was displayed in his literary productions was exhibited also in his conversation, which was various, striking, and instructive; and perhaps no man ever equalled him for nervous and pointed repartees.’