ground for attributing it to Johnson, it
will, I think, be obvious enough to any one who reads my remarks, that
it was on the internal evidence alone, on which, as every one is aware,
many additions have been made to his acknowledged compositions. Your
correspondent C., with whom I always regret to differ, is so far at
variance with me as to state it as his opinion that "nothing can be less
like Johnson's peculiar style," and refers me to a note, with which I
was perfectly familiar, to show--but which I must say I cannot see that
it does in the slightest degree--"that it is impossible that Johnson
could have written this Prospectus." Another correspondent, whose
communication I am unable immediately to refer to, likewise recorded his
dissent from my conclusion. Next follows DR. RIMBAULT, whom I understand
to differ from me also, and who says (but where is the authority for the
statement?) "Haslewood believed it to have been the production of
Messrs. Cibber and Shields." I have every respect for Haslewood as a
diligent antiquary, but I confess I do not attach much weight to his
opinion on a question of critical taste or nice discrimination of style.
I had, as I have observed, assigned the Prospectus to Dr. Johnson on the
internal evidence alone; but since it appeared in "N. & Q." I have
become aware of an important corroboration of my opinion in a copy of
Cibber's _Lives_ which formerly belonged to Isaac Reed, and which I have
recently purchased. At the beginning of the first volume he has pasted
in the Prospectus, and under it is the following note in his {387}
handwriting: "The above advertisement was written or revised by Dr.
Johnson.--J. R." Reed's general correctness and capacity of judging in
literary matters are too well known to render it necessary for me to
enlarge upon them; and with this support I am quite content to leave the
point in issue between your correspondents and myself to the decision of
that part of your readers who take an interest in similar literary
questions.

It will be observed that I have confined myself in my remarks to the
Prospectus exclusively. The authorship of the _Lives_ themselves is
another question, and a very curious one, and not, by any means, as your
correspondent C. appears to think, "settled." Perhaps I may, on a future
occasion, trouble you with some remarks upon the _Lives_ in detail,
endeavouring to assign the respective portions to the several
contributors.

JAMES CROSSL