t
from his book, and returning to it again, with renewed avidity.'_

This surely conveys a notion of Johnson, as if he had been grossly rude
to Mr. Cholmondeley[1069], a gentleman whom he always loved and
esteemed. If, therefore, there was an absolute necessity for mentioning
the story at all, it might have been thought that her tenderness for Dr.
Johnson's character would have disposed her to state any thing that
could soften it. Why then is there a total silence as to what Mr.
Cholmondeley told her?--that Johnson, who had known him from his
earliest years, having been made sensible of what had doubtless a
strange appearance, took occasion, when he afterwards met him, to make a
very courteous and kind apology. There is another little circumstance
which I cannot but remark. Her book was published in 1785, she had then
in her possession a letter from Dr. Johnson, dated in 1777[1070], which
begins thus:--'Cholmondeley's story shocks me, if it be true, which I
can hardly think, for I am utterly unconscious of it: I am very sorry,
and very much ashamed[1071].' Why then publish the anecdote? Or if she
did, why not add the circumstances, with which she was well acquainted!

In his social intercourse she thus describes him[1072]:--

'_Ever musing till he was called out to converse, and conversing till
the fatigue of his friends, or the promptitude of his own temper to take
offence, consigned him back again to silent meditation_.'

Yet, in the same book[1073], she tells us,--

'_He was, however, seldom inclined to be silent, when any moral or
literary question was started; and it was on such occasions that, like
the Sage in _"Rasselas[1074]," _he spoke, and attention watched his
lips; he reasoned, and conviction closed his periods_.'

His conversation, indeed, was so far from ever _fatiguing_ his friends,
that they regretted when it was interrupted, or ceased, and could
exclaim in Milton's language,--

'With thee conversing, I forget all time[1075].'

I certainly, then, do not claim too much in behalf of my illustrious
friend in saying, that however smart and entertaining Mrs. Thrale's
_Anecdotes_ are, they must not be held as good evidence against him; for
wherever an instance of harshness and severity is told, I beg leave to
doubt its perfect authenticity; for though there may have been _some_
foundation for it, yet, like that of his reproof to the 'very celebrated
lady,' it may be so exhibited in the narration as to