[575] See ante, ii. 42, note 2, and iii. 324.

[576] Johnson, after stating that some of Milton’s manuscripts prove that ‘in the early part of his life he wrote with much care,’ continues:—­’Such reliques show how excellence is acquired; what we hope ever to do with ease, we must learn first to do with diligence.’ Works, vii. 119.  Lord Chesterfield (Letters, iii. 146) had made the same rule as Johnson:—­’I was,’ he writes, ’early convinced of the importance and powers of eloquence; and from that moment I applied myself to it.  I resolved not to utter one word even in common conversation that should not be the most expressive and the most elegant that the language could supply me with for that purpose; by which means I have acquired such a certain degree of habitual eloquence, that I must now really take some pains if I would express myself very inelegantly.’

[577] ‘Dr. Johnson,’ wrote Malone in 1783, ’is as correct and elegant in his common conversation as in his writings.  He never seems to study either for thoughts or words.  When first introduced I was very young; yet he was as accurate in his conversation as if he had been talking to the first scholar in England.’  Prior’s Malone, p. 92.  See post, under Aug. 29, 1783.

[578] See ante, iii. 216.

[579] See ante, ii. 323.

[580] The justness of this remark is confirmed by the following story, for which I am indebted to Lord Eliot:—­A country parson, who was remarkable for quoting scraps of Latin in his sermons, having died, one of his parishioners was asked how he liked his successor.  ’He is a very good preacher,’ was his answer, ‘but no latiner.’  BOSWELL.  For the original of Lord Eliot’s story see Twells’s Life of Dr. E. Pocock, ed. 1816, p. 94.  Reynolds said that ’Johnson always practised on every occasion the rule of speaking his best, whether the person to whom he addressed himself was or was not capable of comprehending him.  “If,” says he, “I am understood, my labour is not lost.  If it is above their comprehension, there is some gratification, though it is the admiration of ignorance;” and he said those were the most sincere admirers; and quoted Baxter, who made a rule never to preach a sermon without saying something which he knew was beyond the comprehension of his audience, in order to inspire their admiration.’  Taylor’s Reynolds, ii. 456.  Addison, in The Spectator, No. 221, tells of a preacher in a country town who outshone a more ignorant rival, by quoting every now and then a Latin sentence from one of the Fathers.  ’The other finding his congregation mouldering every Sunday, and hearing at length what was the occasion of it, resolved to give his parish a little Latin in his turn; but being unacquainted with any of the Fathers, he digested into his sermons the whole book of Quae Genus, adding, however, such explications to it as he thought might be for the benefit of his people.  He afterwards entered upon As in praesenti, which he converted in the same manner to the use of his parishioners.  This in a very little time thickened his audience, filled his church, and routed his antagonist.’