LORD  BYRON  and  his  TIMES
Documents Biography Criticism

Memoirs of the Rev. Samuel Parr
Ch. XII. 1779-1786

Ch. I. 1747-1752
Ch. II. 1752-1761
Ch. III. 1761-1765
Ch. IV. 1765-1766
Ch. V. 1767-1771
Ch. VI. 1771
Ch. VII. 1771-1776
Ch. VIII. 1771-1776
Ch. IX. 1776-1777
Ch. X. 1779-1786
Ch. XI. 1779-1786
‣ Ch. XII. 1779-1786
Ch. XIII. 1780-1782
Ch. XIV. 1786-1789
Ch. XV. 1786-1790
Ch. XVI. 1776-1790
Ch. XVII. 1787
Ch. XVIII. 1789
Ch. XIX. 1790-1792
Ch. XX. 1791-1792
Ch. XXI. 1791-1796
Ch. XXII. 1794-1795
Ch. XXIII. 1794
Ch. XXIV. 1794-1800
Ch. XXV. 1794-1800
Ch. XXVI. 1800-1803
Ch. XXVII. 1801-1803
Ch. XXVIII. 1800-1807
Vol. II Contents
Ch I. 1800-1807
Ch II. 1807-1810
Ch III. 1809
Ch IV. 1809-1812
Ch V. 1810-1813
Ch VI. 1811-1815
Ch VII. 1812-1815
Ch VIII. 1816-1820
Ch IX. 1816-1820
Ch X. 1816-1820
Ch XI. 1816-1820
Ch XII. 1816-1820
Ch XIII. 1816-1820
Ch XIV. 1819
Ch XV. 1820-1821
Ch XVI. 1816-1820
Ch XVII. 1820-1824
Ch XVIII. 1820-1824
Ch XIX. 1820-1824
Ch XX. 1820-1825
Creative Commons License

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Produced by CATH
Dr. Parr at Norwich—Account concluded—His deep interest in the political events of the times—Termination of Lord North’s administration—The Rockingham—succeeded by the Shelburne administration—Coalition ministry—Commencement of the Pitt administration—Death of Dr. Johnson—Dr. Parr’s friendly intercourse with him—Comparison between them—Interview of Dr. Priestley with Dr. Johnson—Inscription for Dr. Johnson’s monument—Intended memoirs of his life.

The years 1782 and 1783 were distinguished by extraordinary and important events, in the political annals of England. Early in March of the former year, the long and disastrous career of Lord North’s administration terminated in his forced resignation, to the great joy of the whole country: and that joy was raised still higher, by the formation of a Whig ministry under the happy auspices of the Marquis of Rockingham. But so early as the month of July following, the public hopes, which had been greatly excited, suffered a mournful disappointment, by the death of that upright and patriotic nobleman; followed by the disunion of the Whigs, in consequence of the disingenuous conduct of Lord Shelburne, who accepted the premiership without the smallest communication with his colleagues. Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, and their friends resigned; and the Shelburne administration, including the celebrated William Pitt, was formed.


It may easily be supposed that, if Dr. Parr shared in the general exultation which the former of these events created, that exulting joy was changed by the latter into the deepest sorrow. In a well-known and very extraordinary publication,1 which soon afterwards appeared, he thus with sarcastic severity exposes and censures the new minister, to whom he applies the Grecian name of Doson, because more ready to give than to keep promises.

“The anxious and amiable solicitude of Lælius2 had obtained for him the good-will and affection of all parties. Doson was, therefore, aware that the death of this excellent man would leave a clear and unobstructed field before him. All the faculties of his fruitful soul were exerted; and he finally determined, either to enjoy the glorious success of artifice, or to incur certain ruin. Rejecting, therefore, all communication with his former associates, who might develope his projects, or strenuously resist his ambition, he made “a certain one”3 his confederate in the administration of affairs.”4

Under the Shelburne administration, peace was restored; and come from what quarter it might, to a nation degraded, dispirited, and exhausted, peace was a precious boon: of which even the terms were perhaps as good as, under all circumstances, could have been expected. The Commons’ House, however, passed a vote of disapprobation; and the Shelburne administration was at an end.

1 Preface to Bellendenus. 2 Marquis of Rockingham.

3 Mr. Pitt. 4 Præ. ad Bell. p. 49. Beloe’s Trans, p. 106.


Then succeeded that wonderful phenomenon in the political world—the Coalition ministry; which instantly called forth one general, simultaneous, indescribable burst of mingled astonishment and indignation, from one extremity of the kingdom even to the other. “What a monstrous coalition!” was the universal cry. “The friends associated with the oppressors of America!” and, “The lofty assertors of prerogative united with the worshippers of the majesty of the people!”—Yet even that measure, apparently so abhorrent from all principle and so insulting to all decency, with the zeal of a partisan, Dr. Parr thus unreservedly approves and strenuously defends:

“Whatever objection may have been pointed against the coalition, and however frequently echoed by the tongues of unprincipled men, it will never fix an impression either on Fox or North, forcible enough, to make them repent of having buried their former enmities in oblivion. If their sentiments have in some instances submitted to change, they still defy the imputation of inconstancy. When the state had in a manner expired, from the effects of a calamitous and fatal war; they considered with the cool deliberation of reason, not only what was expedient for the public good, but what was most becoming and honourable for themselves. They were of opinion that the wounds of the late war could then only be healed, when a solid consistent union of all the virtuous could be effected, even by violent means, from the various sentiments and prejudices of a divided and distracted nation. They failed in their object,
not from any fault of their own, but from their own ideas of duty, and the peculiar circumstances of the state.”1

Whether or not the praise of pure and patriotic motive be justly attributed to the noble Lord, few will deny it to the illustrious commoner; the whole tenour of whose conduct has amply redeemed this one great error of his political life, by which he lost, so as never completely to regain it, the public confidence. It is needless to add, that an administration, formed in defiance of public opinion, could not stand. The famous India bill was the rock on which it struck; but on which, under other circumstances, it would not have foundered. That bill was chiefly objectionable, in taking away from the East India Company the uncontrolled management of their commercial affairs; in other respects it might challenge a comparison with the rival bill—which owed its success rather to happier fortune than to superior merit. The great plan of Indian policy, proposed by Mr. Fox, is thus approved and defended by Dr. Parr:

“To those who are vehemently angry with Mr. Fox for proposing some novel experiments in an affair, and on an occasion altogether without precedent, I answer in the words of Canuleius—‘Will no circumstances justify innovations? and must those things which have utility for their object not be done, because they have never been done before?’—It is ordained by nature that they, who address themselves to the favour of the

1 Præf. ad Bell. p. 42. Beloe’s Trans, p. 92.

multitude, generally secure it; whilst those, who are endued with greater wisdom, are often listened to with reluctance and disapprobation. In that great change, to which we allude, we cannot but acknowledge that the occasion of exciting odium presented itself. Yet I am well persuaded that they who wished to counteract the dangerous tendency of Asiatic wealth, consulted both for the good and for the glory of their country. We may safely apply to them the words of
Claudius—‘Though they acted in opposition to popular prejudice, neither their words nor their actions were inimical to public utility.’”1

After the defeat of the coalition ministry, commenced that administration which so long afterwards maintained its existence, under the auspices of Mr. Pitt—growing in power and flourishing in vigour during an eventful period; but exerting that power and that vigour, in many important respects, most unfavourably to the dearest rights and best interests of the nation. On this occasion, Dr. Parr thus expresses the deep concern, which penetrated and distressed his mind.

“It is irksome, it is painful, to speak of that mad delusion which, attaching itself to the passions of a restless public, employed the basest means to remove from their rank and station three such great and illustrious characters, as Burke, North, and Fox: a delusion which thus deprived the commonwealth of its truest protection and highest ornament. My mind is at this moment oppressed

1 Præf. ad. Bell. p. 40. Beloe’s Trans, p. 85.

with anguish, to recollect how the undivided care of the government was intrusted, not to such persons as I have been describing, but to men, young, new and inexperienced; who, confiding in their numbers, took violent possession of a citadel erected for the noblest purposes. That a mean and malignant multitude persecuted with such incessant bitterness, citizens of known integrity and senators of distinguished wisdom, cannot fail of exciting the wonder of posterity, as it justifies the ridicule of their opponents.”1

Such were the sentiments of Dr. Parr on the political events, which occurred, during the period of his residence at Norwich. They were not such opinions, he was aware, as would be likely to open before him a path to the honours and rewards of his profession. “It has ever been my rule of conduct,” says he, “to follow the impulse of my judgment and my conscience, without any regard to the praise or the censure of others.”2 This is, indeed, the principle of a great and a good mind; but it is not the maxim which must be adopted by him, who aspires to the high dignities and rich endowments of the church. These, alas! have hitherto been most commonly bestowed, not as the reward of learning or piety and virtue, but as the recompense of past, or the bribe of future, political subserviency.

Among the public events of this period—so strongly was the public feeling excited by it—

1 Præf. ad Bell. p. 15. Beloe’s Trans, p. 33.

2 Præf. ad. Bell. p. 57. Beloe’s Trans, p. 124.

may be placed the death of the celebrated
Dr. Johnson—whose fame for extent and variety of learning was eclipsed only by the superior splendour, which will for ever irradiate his name, from his successful cultivation of the language, and his numerous and important contributions to the literature, of his country. He was deeply impressed, from his youthful days, with a sincere and solemn sense of religion, and was guided in his actions by the strictest rules of moral conduct, though not, it should seem, without some sad deviations from it.1 He was devoted through life to the pursuits of knowledge, and was almost constantly employed in rendering important services to learning and virtue. He was revered, and, to a certain degree, beloved by those whom he admitted into the intimacies of acquaintance or friendship, among whom were many of the most distinguished men of his time; and was courted and caressed by all the great, the wise, and the good, who could in any way obtain access to him. Though he suffered much, in his earlier years, from the inconveniencies of poverty, sometimes almost pining from absolute want; yet he afterwards rose to circumstances of easy and honourable independence. But with all these sources of elevation and enjoyment, it is lamentable to think that, from a certain constitutional melancholy, he was incapable of estimating at its real worth, or of enjoying in its just degree, the happiness, which even this imperfect state affords; and was unable to look for-

1 See Boswell’s Life of Johnson, vol. i. p. 144, and vol. iv. p. 437.

ward, with much cheering hope, to that higher state of being, which reason encourages, and revelation warrants us, to expect. If, however, his views of life were gloomy, and his anticipating views of death and eternity were too often dreadful; it is some relief to be assured that, as the event of dissolution drew near, his terrifying apprehensions gradually gave way to the influence of religious sentiment; and that he submitted, at length, with pious resignation, to the common lot of humanity. He expired, amidst the deep regrets and the grateful remembrances of the nation, Dec. 15, 1784, in the 75th year of his age.

It must have been at an early period of life that Dr. Parr was introduced to the personal acquaintance of Dr. Johnson; and it is probable that, during his residence at Harrow and Stanmore, interviews were not unfrequent between these two extraordinary men; of whom, it has been often said, that they bore a strong resemblance to each other in person, in manner, in strength of intellect, in variety of knowledge, and in powers of conversation.

As to personal resemblance—this probably consisted chiefly in size and figure, though somewhat perhaps also in the air and attitude, and a little too in the bold contour and oblique position of the head; but not at all in the features or the expression of the face. Dr. Johnson is said to have had a cast of countenance like that of an ancient statue; yet it has always been described1 as peculiarly hard

1 Boswell, Piozzi, Malone, &c.

and rugged; uncouthly marked with scars and cramps; almost constantly shaded with gloom, or soured with ill humour; even to the view of familiar acquaintances, displeasing; and to the eye of the stranger, strongly repulsive. But, in
Dr. Parr, the features of countenance, though somewhat broad and harsh, were yet upon the whole agreeable; and the general expression, especially that of his fine grey eyes, thickly overshaded with bushy eyebrows, whilst indicating the energy of powerful intellect, exhibited at the same time much of the soft serenity, and the smiling complacency, which a mind at ease with itself, and a spirit glowing with the warm feelings of benevolence, seldom fail to impart. It was only when he was annoyed by rude intrusion, or when provoked by unreasonable opposition, that his countenance assumed the look of stern severity, or the scowl of angry displeasure, which has been sometimes represented as its natural or usual character.

With respect to the second great point of comparison—beyond all doubt the praise of superiority is due to Dr. Johnson, in native force and gigantic vigour of intellect; and the still higher praise of greater and more successful exertions, directed to the entertainment and instruction of mankind, in all the most pleasing, elegant, and useful departments of literature. But it must be admitted, on the other hand, that for various, extensive, accurate and profound erudition, Dr. Parr is entitled to claim the precedence; and, instead of a comparison, an almost perfect contrast might be drawn, between the low superstition, the weak prejudices, and the
contemptible bigotry, by which the mind of the former was narrowed and degraded, and the large and enlightened views, and the just and generous sentiments, by which the mind of the latter was expanded and exalted.

If it be thought that in both these great men there was too much impetuosity and irritability of temper, and if it be said that both were too dictatorial in delivering their opinions, and too impatient in bearing contradiction from others; yet it must be acknowledged that nothing could be more opposite than the petulance, the moroseness, the intolerance, the arrogance, sometimes approaching to insolence, so frequent in Johnson, and the cheerfulness, the sprightliness, the good humour, the kind and courteous manner so habitual in Parr. It is probable that Johnson was feared more than he was loved, even by his intimate friends; it is certain that Parr possessed, in a wonderful degree, the power of attracting to himself the hearts of others;1 and of blending with the respect which his talents and acquirements commanded, a large portion of that affectionate regard, which pleasing and amiable qualities only can inspire. Johnson has been characterised as a “tremendous companion;” but Parr may be truly described as a kind, condescending, engaging associate, in whose presence every one felt himself easy and happy; whose displeasure nothing could seriously provoke but conceited ignorance, and intolerant bigotry, low cunning and base apostacy.

1 ——καί κεινος έπίστροϕοσ ήν άνθρώπων.—Hom. Od.


Of Dr. Parr’s colloquial powers, let the reader take the account of a celebrated female writer, given in a letter to a friend, after having been honoured by him with a visit of two days at Wellesbourne.

“I was prepared to expect extraordinary powers of conversation, but they exceeded every description I had received of them. He is styled the Johnson of the present day. In strength of thought, in promptness and plenteousness of allusion, in wit and humour, in that high-coloured eloquence, which results from poetic imagination, there is a very striking similarity to the departed despot. That, when irritated, he can chastise, with the same overwhelming force, I can believe; but unprovoked, Dr. Parr is wholly free from the caustic acrimony of that splenetic being. Benign rays of ingenuous urbanity dart in his smile, and from beneath the sable shade of his large and masking eyebrows, and from the fine orbs they overhang. The characters he draws of distinguished people, and of such of his friends whose talents, though not yet emerged, are considerable, are given with a free, discriminating, and masterly power, and with general independence of party prejudices. If he throws into the deepest shade the vices of those, whose heart he thinks corrupt, his spirit luxuriates in placing the virtues and abilities of those he esteems, in the fairest and the fullest lights; a gratification which the gloomy Johnson seldom if ever knew.”1

Another point, rather indeed of contrast than

1 Miss Seward’s Letters.

comparison, is so important, that it ought not to be passed without distinct notice. According to the confession of all his friends and biographers,1
Dr. Johnson too often allowed himself to play the part of the ingenious sophist, or the subtle disputant; taking up all questions indifferently; maintaining the right side and the wrong, with equal warmth and equal pertinacity; so eager for superiority, and so ardent for victory, in every contest, as to bear down his opponent, without the least regard to truth, fairness, or decency. Thus, it was impossible to determine, even when the great moralist appeared most serious in delivering, and most vehement in asserting, an opinion, whether he was speaking from the sincere convictions of his mind, or merely talking for the pleasure of contradicting others, or of exhibiting before them his intellectual prowess and his logical dexterity.

From this lamentable error, into which men of talents and eloquence are too easily betrayed, the writer feels much satisfaction in recording that Dr. Parr was entirely exempt; and though he would sometimes, perhaps improperly, conceal, yet never was he known to belie, his real sentiments. With all his powers of conversation, and all his love of display, he was conscientiously careful to assert no fact, which he did not believe, at the time, and to advance no opinion, which he did not sincerely adopt. The too common practice of embellishing truth with fiction, or of resorting, in the defence of it, to artifice and misrepre-

1 Boswell, Piozzi, Towers, &c.

sentation, he utterly abjured. Even fair advantages he would often forbear to press against a feeble adversary; and he ever regarded with scorn that mode of disputation, which logicians call argumentum ad ignorantiam.

It still remains to be said of the two great intellectual luminaries, so often brought into comparison, that they were both capable, perhaps in an equal degree, of the fond attachments of friendship; that both were deeply touched with compassionate feeling for the distress, and with benevolent sympathy in the happiness of others; and that both were ever delighted in the performance of acts of humanity and kindness towards those, whether friends or strangers, who solicited or needed them.

That Dr. Parr obtained, at an early period, a place in the good opinion of Dr. Johnson, appears from the circumstance, that to his powerful recommendation, Dr. Parr was chiefly indebted for his appointment to the mastership of the Norwich Grammar School. Indeed he has often been heard to speak of their friendly interviews, even before that time; of which one instance occurs to the writer’s recollection. This was in 1777, when Bishop Pearce’sCommentary, with Notes, on the Four Gospels,” was published, to which the well-known “Dedication,” written by Dr. Johnson, was prefixed. Calling soon afterwards upon him, Dr. Parr mentioned that he had been reading, with great delight, his dedication to the king.—“My dedication!” exclaimed Dr. Johnson; “how do you know it is mine?” “For two reasons,”
replied Dr. Parr: “the first, because it is worthy of you; the second, because you only could write it.”

On another occasion, being in private with Dr. Johnson, as he loved to relate, the great principles of civil rights and liberties became the subject of discussion; when the advocate of arbitrary maxims of government avowed sentiments very different from those which he had publicly maintained in his writings—such as are far more worthy of an enlightened philosopher and a free-born Englishman. Alluding to that conversation, Dr. Parr used to say, expressing himself, in his own strong language, “If ever man talked rebelliously, that man was Sam. Johnson.”—“But,” added he, with an arch leer and significant nod, “he was not then writing a book.”

The following is Mr. Boswell’s account, so often referred to, of an interview which took place between Dr. Johnson and Dr. Parr, some time in 1780.

“Having spent an evening at Mr. Langton’s with the Rev. Dr. Parr, he was much pleased with the company of that learned gentleman; and he afterwards said to Mr. Langton, “Sir, I am obliged to you for having asked me this evening. Parr is a fair man. I do not know when I have had an occasion of such free controversy. It is remarkable how much of a man’s life may pass without meeting with any instance of this kind of open discussion.”1

1 Boswell’s account, as Dr. Parr always said, is, in one instance incorrect, and in another imperfect. For this was by no means his first introduction to Dr. Johnson, as the account


“I remember that interview well,” said Dr. Parr—with great vehemence—when once reminded of it; “I gave him no quarter. The subject of our dispute was the liberty of the press. Dr. Johnson was very great. Whilst he was arguing, I observed that he stamped. Upon this, I stamped. Dr. Johnson said, Why did you stamp, Dr. Parr?—I replied, Because you stamped; and I was resolved not to give you the advantage even of a stamp in the argument.”1

The great delight with which, on all occasions that offered, Dr. Parr sought and maintained a friendly intercourse with the dissenting clergy, has already been distinctly noticed. Much clamorous objection having been raised against this part of his conduct, particularly as it respected his personal acquaintance with the highly distinguished, but greatly injured, Dr. Priestley; in a public vin-

seems to represent; and it omits all mention of some expressions which were uttered by Dr. Johnson of dislike to Dr. Parr, as an ardent and inflexible Whig; and which, whilst they discovered the narrow views and the intolerant spirit of the great Tory, bore honourable testimony, as Dr. Parr thought, to the firmness and the intrepidity with which he had asserted his own principles, even in the presence of so fierce and so powerful an opponent. “What pity,” exclaimed Johnson, “that such a man and such a scholar as Parr should be a Whig!” Something like the same littleness of spirit betrays itself, it may be recollected, in the concluding words of Johnson’s life of Watts: “Happy will be the reader, whose mind is disposed by his verses, or his prose, to imitate him in all but his non-conformity, to copy his benevolence to man, and his reverence to God.”

1Dr. Parr is allowed to have been the only man, who brought equal forces with Dr. Johnson into the field of argument, equal strength of native talent, equal learning, equal eloquence, equal wit, and equal effrontery. The day is re-

dication of himself, among other considerations, he stated and asserted the following fact—that “
Dr. Johnson himself endured, and almost solicited, an interview with Dr. Priestley.” The assertion was regarded as a gross imputation upon the character of Dr. Johnson by his biographer, Mr. Boswell, who publicly and peremptorily denied the truth of it. The denial speedily called forth a reply from Dr. Parr, in a letter to the editor of the Gentleman’s Magazine;1 in which he repeated his assertion, and produced the most convincing evidence in its support, principally from the testimony of Mr. Rogers the poet, and Dr. Edward Johnstone of Birmingham. Mr. Boswell, however, remained unconvinced, and threatened a rejoinder; but his intention was frustrated by his death. There are few readers of these pages, it is apprehended, who will not be fully satisfied by the following short and simple statement from Dr. Priestley himself. Referring to the false report, much circulated at that time, that Dr. Johnson, at Oxford, left a company upon Dr. Priestley’s being introduced into it, he says—“We were never, in fact, at Oxford at the same time; and the only interview I ever had with him, was at Mr. Paradise’s, where we dined together, at his own request. He was particularly civil to me; and promised to call upon me the next time he should goto Birmingham.”2

corded, in which they measured their lances as chieftains of the Whig and Tory party. Never, it is said, was known such intellectual gladiatorship.”—Miss Seward’s Letters.

1 Vol. lxv. p. 179.

2 Priestley’sAppeal to the Public,” &c. part 2. p. 103.


When it was determined to erect a monument, in St. Paul’s Cathedral, to the honour of one of the great scholars and the greatest English writer of his age, the task of composing the inscription was assigned, by the public wish and voice, to Dr. Parr; who, however, on its first proposal, shrunk with awe from the arduous undertaking. In writing to a friend, he thus expresses himself: “I must leave this mighty task to some hardier and some abler hand. The variety and the splendour of Johnson’s attainments, the peculiarity of his character, his private virtues, and his literary publications, fill me with confusion and dismay, when I reflect on the confined and difficult species of composition in which alone they can be expressed on his monument.”

Afterwards, however, repeated solicitations prevailed; and the difficult, as well as important task was undertaken by him; though, in the execution of it, he complained that its difficulties were increased, by the improper interference and the unreasonable objections of others. One expression in particular—“poetæ probabili”—though strictly classical, and, as he thought, exactly appropriate, he was obliged to reject, in deference to the opinion of Johnson’s admirers, who deemed it not sufficiently laudatory; and to substitute, instead of it, another more satisfactory to them, but injurious, in the opinion of many critics and in his own, to the effect of the whole composition. “The blockheads,” said he, “made me spoil my epitaph:” appealing, at the same time, in support of his opinion, to the authority of several great scholars; and among others, to Sir Wm. Scott, the present
Lord Stowell, of whose deep learning, sound judgment, and exquisite taste, he held the highest opinion; and whom he has himself characterised in his favourite language, as του βαθύφρονος χαί σώφρονος.1

It is well known, that Dr. Parr, at one time, had formed the serious intention of writing the life of Dr. Johnson; and had not only arranged the plan, but had entered on the execution of the work. Of this he often spoke to his friends. “If I had continued it,” said he, on one occasion, “it would have been the best work I ever wrote. I should have related not only every thing important about Dr. Johnson, but many things about the men who flourished at the same time;” adding, with an expression of sly humour, “taking care to display my own learning.”—“Dr. Johnson,” he said, “was an admirable scholar; and would have had high reputation for mere learning, if his reputation for intellect and eloquence had not overshadowed it: the classical scholar was forgotten in the great original contributor to the literature of his country.”2

On another occasion, speaking on the same subject—“I once intended to write Johnson’s Life; and I had read through three shelves of books to prepare myself for it. It would have contained a view of the literature of Europe:” and—making an apology for the proud consciousness which he felt of his own ability—“if I had written it,” continued he, “it would have been the third most learned work that has ever yet ap-

1 Spital Sermon, notes, p. 111.

2 Blackwood’s Magazine, Oct. 1825. See App. No. II

peared.” To explain himself, he afterwards added, “The most learned work ever published, I consider
Bentleyon the Epistles of Phalaris;” the next, Salmasius on the Hellenistic language.”1

On a third occasion, describing the nature of his intended work, and alluding to Boswell’s Life of Johnson, he said, “Mine should have been, not the droppings of his lips, but the history of his mind.”2

1Salmasii de Hellenistica Commentarius. In point of curious learning, I assign to this book the next place to Bentley upon Phalaris. S. P.”—Bibl. Parr. p. 699.—Being once asked how it could be that Salmasius should appear so great in one of his works, and so little in another—his defence of the Stuarts in answer to Milton?—Dr. Parr replied, “He then wrote as a hireling; he was not interested in the cause.”

2 “The following useful, and some of them scarce, books, from Falster to Colomesius (34 in number), were, many years ago, read, and laid by in a particular part of Dr. Parr’s library, for the special purpose of being used by him, when he intended, upon a very large scale, to write the life of Dr. Johnson. He meant also to employ the letters of learned men to a great extent: the writings of Bembo, Politian, and other Italian scholars; the Parrhasiana of Le Clerc, with the Poggiana, Casauboniana, &c.; the Polyhistor of Mornofius, and one of his critical works; various writings upon criticism, and De Ratione Studiorum; some parts of Scioppius, D. Heinsius, and Salmasius De Lingua Hellenistica; with some critical works of H. Stephens; the Optucula Theologica et Philologica of Ernesti; some Academica Opera of Heyne; Placcius De Scriptoribus Anonymis; and various other works, critical or historical, mentioned in this catalogue. He just now remembers the Aristarchus of Vossius; a work of Maussacus, subjoined to the edition of Harpocration, entitled Historia Rei Criticæ, and Jonsius De Vitis Philosophorum. He will ever have to lament that, amidst his cares, his sorrows, and his wants, he did not write the life of his learned and revered friend.”—Bibl. Parr.