fully conscious. Sir Joshua Reynolds heard him say, 'There are two
things which I am confident I can do very well: one is an introduction
to any literary work, stating what it is to contain, and how it should
be executed in the most perfect manner; the other is a conclusion,
shewing from various causes why the execution has not been equal to what
the authour promised to himself and to the publick.'

How should puny scribblers be abashed and disappointed, when they find
him displaying a perfect theory of lexicographical excellence, yet at
the same time candidly and modestly allowing that he 'had not satisfied
his own expectations[850].' Here was a fair occasion for the exercise of
Johnson's modesty, when he was called upon to compare his own arduous
performance, not with those of other individuals, (in which case his
inflexible regard to truth would have been violated, had he affected
diffidence,) but with speculative perfection[851]; as he, who can outstrip
all his competitors in the race, may yet be sensible of his deficiency
when he runs against time. Well might he say, that 'the _English
Dictionary_ was written with little assistance of the learned[852],' for
he told me, that the only aid which he received was a paper containing
twenty etymologies, sent to him by a person then unknown, who he was
afterwards informed was Dr. Pearce, Bishop of Rochester[853]. The
etymologies, though they exhibit learning and judgement, are not, I
think, entitled to the first praise amongst the various parts of this
immense work. The definitions have always appeared to me such
astonishing proofs of acuteness of intellect and precision of language,
as indicate a genius of the highest rank[854]. This it is which marks the
superiour excellence of Johnson's _Dictionary_ over others equally or
even more voluminous, and must have made it a work of much greater
mental labour than mere Lexicons, or _Word-books_, as the Dutch call
them. They, who will make the experiment of trying how they can define a