now." He told Mr. Langton that he had the night before enforced a powerful argument to a powerful objection against

on

Christianity.

He had often thought it might seem strange that the Jews, who refused belief to the doctrine supported by the miracles of our Saviour, should after his death raise a numerous church; but he said that they expected fully a temporal prince, and with this idea the multitude was actuated when they strewed his way with palm-branches on his entry into Jerusalem; but finding their expectations afterwards disappointed, rejected him, till in process of time, comparing all the circumstances and prophecies of the Old Testament, confirmed in the New, many were converted; that the Apostles themselves once believed him to be a temporal prince. He said that he had always been struck with the resemblance of the Jewish passover and the Christian doctrine of redemption. He thanked us all for our attendance, and we left him with Mr. Langton.

Thursday, Dec. 9.—Called in the evening; did not see him, as he was engaged.

Friday, Dec. 10.-Called about eleven in the morning; saw Mr. La Trobe there neither of us saw the Doctor, as we understood he wished not to be visited that day. In the evening I sent him a letter, recommending Dr. Dalloway (an irregular physician) as an extraordinary person for curing the dropsy. He returned me a verbal answer that he was obliged to me, but that it was too late. My son read prayers with him this day.

Saturday, Dec. 11.-Went to Bolt Court about twelve; met there Dr. Burney, Dr. Taylor, Sir John Hawkins, Mr. Sastres, Mr. Paradise, Count Zenobia, and Mr. Langton. Mrs. Hoole called for me there: we both went to him: he received us very kindly; told me he had my letter, but "it was too late for doctors, regular or irregular." His physicians had been with him that day, but prescribed nothing. Mr. Cruikshanks came: the Doctor was rather cheerful with him; he said, "Come, give me your hand," and shook him by the hand, adding, "You shall make no other use of it now;" meaning he should not examine his legs. Mr. Cruikshanks wished to do it, but the Doctor would not let him. Mr. Cruikshanks said he would call in the evening.

Sunday, Dec. 12.-Was not at Bolt Court in the forenoon; at St. Sepulchre's school in the evening with Mrs. Hoole, where we saw Mrs. Gardiner and Lady Rothes; heard that Dr. Johnson was very bad, and had been something delirious. Went to Bolt Court about

nine, and found there Mr. Windham and the Rev. Mr. Strahan. The Doctor was then very bad in bed, which I think he had only taken to that day he had now refused to take any more medicine or food. Mr. Cruikshanks came about eleven: he endeavoured to persuade him to take some nourishment, but in vain. Mr. Windham then went again to him, and, by the advice of Mr. Cruikshanks, put it upon this footing-that by persisting to refuse all sustenance he might probably defeat his own purpose to preserve his mind clear, as his weakness might bring on paralytic complaints that might affect his mental powers. The Doctor, Mr. Windham said, heard him patiently; but when he had heard all, he desired to be troubled no more. He then took a most affectionate leave of Mr. Windham, who reported to us the issue of the conversation, for only Mr. Desmoulins was with them in the chamber. I did not see the Doctor that day, being fearful of disturbing him, and never conversed with him again. I came away about half-past eleven with Mr. Windham.

Monday, Dec. 13.-Went to Bolt Court at eleven o'clock in the morning; met a young lady coming down stairs from the Doctor, whom, upon inquiry, I found to be Miss Morris' (a sister to Miss Morris, formerly on the stage). Mrs. Desmoulins told me that she had seen the Doctor; that by her desire he had been told she came to ask his blessing, and that he said, "God bless you!" I then went up into his chamber, and found him lying very composed in a kind of doze: he spoke to nobody. Sir John Hawkins, Mr. Langton, Mrs. Gardiner, Rev. Mr. Strahan and Mrs. Strahan, Doctors Brocklesby and Butter, Mr. Steevens, and Mr. Nichols the printer, came; but no one chose to disturb him by speaking to him, and he seemed to take no notice of any person. While Mrs. Gardiner and I were there, before the rest came, he took a little warm milk in a cup, when he said something upon its not being properly given into his hand: he breathed very regular, though short, and appeared to be mostly in a calm sleep or dozing. I left him in this state, and never more saw him alive. In the evening I supped with Mrs. Hoole and my son at Mr. Braithwaite's, and at night my servant brought me word that my dearest friend died that evening about seven o'clock: and next morning I went to the house, where I met Mr. Seward; we went together into the chamber, and there saw the most awful sight of Dr. Johnson laid out in his bed, without life!

ON THE PORTRAITS OF JOHNSON.

T will be observed that in the note, p. 493-4, Boswell enumerates

makes mention of several portraits painted by Reynolds, one by his sister, one by Zoffany, and one by Opie. Of those by Reynolds few portraits are better known; and rarely has it been the fortune of an eminent man to have as his friend so consummate an artist to portray his features and his form, and to hand them down to posterity. Not to speak, for the present at least, of another picture which has been attributed to Reynolds, there are four distinct portraits of Johnson by this great artist; and several repetitions of these by the master's hand-in the phraseology of Art, replicas.

1. Boswell's portrait, ie., the portrait which Reynolds gave to Boswell, a three-quarter length, representing Johnson sitting at a table, with his head inclined to the right side; his left hand on a sheet of paper, and his right, supported by the arm of the chair, holding a pen. The Dictionary is on the table; the title distinctly marked. On the admirable engraving of it by Heath, prefixed to the first edition of the Life, there is the subscription which determines the date of the portrait, "Sir Joshua Reynolds, pinxit 1756." It represents Johnson, then, shortly after he had published the Dictionary. This fine portrait seems to have come into the possession of Boswell's second son, James. It was sold at his sale, in 1822, by Christie and Manson, and bought by Mr. J. Graves. This picture was exhibited at the National Portrait Exhibition in 1867. It is now in the possession of Mr. Morrison, 93, Harley Street, where I had the pleasure of seeing it, at the end of October, 1883. No repetition of this portrait seems to have been painted.

2. In the Exhibition of the Academy, 1770, Reynolds had a second portrait, three-quarter length, representing Johnson with a nervous gesticulation of his arms and hands, and with his own hair. After the Exhibition, it seems to have been sent to Lichfield; for Johnson, writing from Ashbourne, July 17th, 1771, to Sir Joshua, tells him, that when he came to Lichfield he found that his portrait-no doubt that exhibited in 1770-had been much visited and much admired.1 This, then, was Lucy Porter's portrait, which Reynolds presented

1 See Life, vol. i., p. 531.

to her.' Mr. Croker, in a note to this letter, asserts that it is now the property of the Duke of Sutherland. How and when it came to Stafford House, I know not. It was exhibited at the British Institution in 1843, and at the National Portrait Exhibition in 1867. Of this picture there is a replica, which is now at Knowle, and was exhibited at the British Institution in 1817. This portrait was finely engraved by Watson, 1770.

3. About the year 1775, Reynolds painted a third portrait of Johnson, in which he is represented as reading a book, holding it with both hands close to his eye. It was originally intended for Mrs. Thrale; but when it was shown to Johnson, he objected to it, and said to Mrs. Thrale, "he would not be known by posterity for his defects only, let Sir Joshua do his worst;" and when Mrs. Thrale pointed to Sir Joshua's own portrait painted by himself, which was hanging in the room in which this conversation took place, representing him with his hand to his ear to catch the sound, Johnson replied: "He may paint himself as deaf if he chooses, but I will not be blinking Sam."" The portrait, therefore, was never finished; but it is admirably characteristic. So intent is his eager gaze on the volume he holds in his hands, that he seems as if he would tear out its very heart. This portrait, rejected and unfinished, Mr. Malone was allowed to buy for his brother, Lord Sunderlin of Baronston in Ireland, with whom it remained till his death in 1816. Eventually it came, through his widow, to her great-nephew the Rev. W. H. Rooper, who sold it in June, 1883, to Mr. Agnew. It was exhibited in the "Old Masters" in the winter of 1883; but as it was an unfinished portrait, the hangers did not give it a place on the line, to the great loss of the public.

4. But a new portrait was shortly after undertaken to supply the place of the rejected "blinking Sam." Writing to Mrs. Thrale, October 15th, 1778,* Johnson says: "I have sat twice to Sir Joshua, and he seems to like his own performance;" and again, in a letter to the same person, October 31, 1778, "Sir Joshua has finished my picture, and it seems to please every body, but I shall wait to see how it pleases you." This was the great portrait-the Peel Por

5

1

See Life, vol. i., p. 531.

2 Anecdotes, Johnsoniana, p. 93.

3 From information most courteously supplied by Mr. Rooper to the

Editor.

Letters to and from Dr. Samuel Johnson, vol. ii., p. 21.

5 Ibid., p. 27.

66

trait, as it is sometimes called-now in the National Gallery. We can scarcely be surprised to learn, from the letters we have just quoted, that Reynolds was pleased with his own handiwork. undoubtedly a superlatively great portrait. Whitwell Elwin told me, that he heard Sir William Boxall declare that he regarded it as the finest in the world, representing intellect and suffering with such consummate art." It remained at Streatham till the dispersion of the Thrale gallery of celebrities in May, 1816, at Mrs. Piozzi's sale, when it was bought by Mr. Watson Taylor; and from his collection it passed into the possession of Sir Robert Peel. When the Peel Gallery was sold, in 1871, to the nation, this noble portrait became national property.

It is not clearly stated in that confused record, Mr. Tom Taylor's "Life of Reynolds," whether this portrait was shown in the Exhibition of the Academy, 1778; but from the price book, quoted by Mr. Taylor,' it would appear that Reynolds executed copies of Johnson and Garrick, from the Thrale pictures, for Topham Beauclerk; and, besides this repetition, we know that he made others for friends of Johnson.

In 1780 Topham Beauclerk died, and his replica of the Thrale picture became the property of Mr. Bennet Langton, whether by gift or purchase I know not. On the frame of this picture-on a kind of tablet evidently prepared to receive it-Beauclerk caused the following passage from Horace (Sat. i. 3, 33) to be inscribed :—

This, Boswell says, Mr. Langton effaced when the portrait became his. I venture to think, as I shall shortly show, that Boswell was mistaken; and that the inscription, with the whole passage of which it forms part, exists to this day and hour on the tablet where it was originally inscribed by Beauclerk.

The story of Bennet Langton's picture is somewhat singular. On the marriage of his son with Miss Massingberd, the heiress of Gunby, the portrait of Johnson would seem to have been transferred thither. But if this were the case, it has disappeared from Gunby in a rather mysterious manner. Neither is it at Langton.3 In a note in Taylor's "Life of Sir Joshua," vol. i., p. 147, it is

1

Life of Reynolds, vol. ii., p. 224.

Life, vol. iii., p. 292.

From private information.-Editor.