[163] In Disraeli’s Curiosities of Literature, ed. 1834, iv. 180, is given ‘a memorandum of Dr. Johnson’s of hints for the Life of Pope.’

[164] Works, viii. 345.

[165] ’Of the last editor [Warburton] it is more difficult to speak.  Respect is due to high place, tenderness to living reputation, and veneration to genius and learning; but he cannot be justly offended at that liberty of which he has himself so frequently given an example, nor very solicitous what is thought of notes which he ought never to have considered as part of his serious employments.’ Works, v. 140.  See post, June 10,1784.

[166] The liberality is certainly measured.  With much praise there is much censure. Works, viii. 288.  See ante, ii. 36, and Boswell’s Hebrides, Aug. 23.

[167] Of Johnson’s conduct towards Warburton, a very honourable notice is taken by the editor of Tracts by Warburton and a Warburtonian, not admitted into the Collection of their respective Works.  After an able and ‘fond, though not undistinguishing,’ consideration of Warburton’s character, he says, ’In two immortal works, Johnson has stood forth in the foremost rank of his admirers.  By the testimony of such a man, impertinence must be abashed, and malignity itself must be softened.  Of literary merit, Johnson, as we all know, was a sagacious but a most severe judge.  Such was his discernment, that he pierced into the most secret springs of human actions; and such was his integrity, that he always weighed the moral characters of his fellow-creatures in the “balance of the sanctuary.”  He was too courageous to propitiate a rival, and too proud to truckle to a superiour.  Warburton he knew, as I know him, and as every man of sense and virtue would wish to be known,—­I mean, both from his own writings, and from the writings of those who dissented from his principles, or who envied his reputation.  But, as to favours, he had never received or asked any from the Bishop of Gloucester; and, if my memory fails me not, he had seen him only once, when they met almost without design, conversed without much effort, and parted without any lasting impressions of hatred or affection.  Yet, with all the ardour of sympathetic genius, Johnson has done that spontaneously and ably, which, by some writers, had been before attempted injudiciously, and which, by others, from whom more successful attempts might have been expected, has not hitherto been done at all.  He spoke well of Warburton, without insulting those whom Warburton despised.  He suppressed not the imperfections of this extraordinary man, while he endeavoured to do justice to his numerous and transcendental excellencies.  He defended him when living, amidst the clamours of his enemies; and praised him when dead, amidst the silence of his friends.’