mask in common life, in the intercourse with his friends?"-J. "Why no, Sir; every body knows you are paid for affecting warmth for your client, and it is therefore properly no dissimulation; the moment you come from the bar you resume your usual behaviour. Sir, a man will no more carry the artifice of the bar into the common intercourse of society, than a man who is paid for tumbling upon his hands will continue tumbling upon his hands when he should walk on his feet."

Of entails he said, "They are good because it is good to preserve in a country a succession of men to whom the people are accustomed to look up as to their leaders. But I am for leaving a quantity of land in commerce to excite industry, and keep money in the country; for if no land were to be bought in the country, there would be no encouragement to acquire wealth, because a family could not be founded there; or if it were acquired, it must be carried away to another country where land may be bought. And although the land in every country will remain the same, and be as fertile where there is no money, as where there is, yet all that portion of the happiness of civil life, which is produced by money circulating in a country, would be lost." Mr. Boswell asking whether it would be for the advantage of a country that all its lands were sold at once, Johnson answered, "So far, Sir, as

money produces good, it would be an advantage; for then that country would have as much money circulating in it as it is worth; but to be sure this would be counterbalanced by the disadvantages attending a total change of proprietors."

In

Mr. Boswell expressed his opinion, that the power of entailing should be limited thus: "That there should be one third, or perhaps one half, of the land of a country kept free for commerce; that the proportion allowed to be entailed should be parcelled out so that no family could entail above a certain quantity. Let a family, according to the abilities of its representatives, be richer or poorer in different generations, or always rich if its representatives be always wise; but let its absolute permanency be moderate. this way we should be certain of there being always a number of established roots; and as, in the course of nature, there is in every age an extinction of some families, there would be continual openings for men ambitious of perpetuity, to plant a stock in the entail ground.”—JOHNSON. "Why, Sir, mankind will be better able to regulate the system of entails, when the evil of too much land being locked up by them is felt, than we can do at present when it is not felt,"

153

PLAYERS.

DR. JOHNSON had thought more upon the subject of acting than might be generally supposed. Talking of it one, day to Mr. Kemble, he said, "Are you, Sir, one of those enthusiasts who believe yourself transformed into the very character you represent?" Upon Mr. Kemble's answering that he had never felt so strong a persuasion himself; "To be sure not, Sir (said Johnson); the thing is impossible. And if Garrick really believed himself to be that monster Richard the Third, he deserved to be hanged every time he performed it."

He gave the following as his opinion upon the merits of some of the principal performers whom he remembered to have seen upon the stage: "Mrs. Porter, in the vehemence of rage, and Mrs. Clive in the sprightliness of humour, I have never seen equalled. What Clive did best, she did better than Garrick; but could not do half so many things well; she was a better romp than any I ever saw in nature."

Mrs. Pritchard being mentioned, he said, "Her playing was quite mechanical. It is wonderful how little mind she had. Sir, she had never read the tragedy of Macbeth all through.

She no more thought of the play out of which her part was taken, than a shoemaker thinks of the skin out of which the piece of leather, of which he is making a pair of shoes, is cut. Pritchard, in common life, was a vulgar idiot; she would talk of her gownd; but, when she appeared upon the stage, seemed to be inspired by gentility and understanding." He thought Colley Cibber ignorant of the principles of his art.

6

"Colley Cibber (said he) once consulted me as to one of his birth-day Odes, a long time before it was wanted. I objected very freely to several passages. Cibber lost patience, and would not read his Ode to an end. When we had done with criticism, we walked over to Richardson's, the author of Clarissa,' and I wondered to find Richardson displeased that I did not treat Cibber with more respect.' Now, Sir, to talk of respect for a player!" (smiling disdainfully).—BosWELL. "There, Sir, you are always heretical; you never will allow merit to a player."-JOHNSON. "Merit, Sir; what merit? Do you respect a rope-dancer, or a ballad-singer?"-B." No, Sir; but we respect a great player, as a man whỏ can conceive lofty sentiments, and can express them gracefully."-J." What, Sir, a fellow who claps a hump on his back, and a lump on his leg, and cries, I am Richard the Third?' Nay, Sir, a ballad-singer is a higher man, for he does two

things; he repeats and he sings; there is both recitation and musick in his performance: the player only recites."-B. "My dear Sir! you may turn any thing into ridicule. I allow that a player of farce is not entitled to respect; he does a little thing: but he who can represent exalted characters, and touch the noblest passions, has very respectable powers; and mankind have agreed in admiring great talents for the stage. We must consider, too, that a great player does what very few are capable of doing; his art is a very rare faculty. Who can repeat Hamlet's soliloquy, To be, or not to be,' as Garrick does it?"-J. "Any body may. Jemmy there (a boy about eight years old, who was in the room) will do it as well in a week."-B. "No, no, Sir; and as a proof of the merit of great acting, and of the value which mankind set upon it, Garrick has got a hundred thousand pounds."-J. "Is getting a hundred thousand pounds a proof of excellence? That has been done by a scoundrel commissary. Garrick was no declaimer; there was not one of his own scene-shifters who could not have spoken To be, or not to be,' better than he did; yet he was the only actor I ever saw whom I could call a master both in tragedy and comedy; though I liked him best in comedy. A true conception of character, and natural expression of it, were his distinguishing excellencies." Having expatiated