of Gilmour.  I tried him with the opposition between gloria and palma, in the comparison between Gilmour and Nisbet, which Lord Hailes, in his Catalogue of the Lords of Session, thinks difficult to be understood.  The words are, ’penes illum gloria, penes hunc palma[595].’  In a short Account of the Kirk of Scotland, which I published some years ago, I applied these words to the two contending parties, and explained them thus:  ’The popular party has most eloquence; Dr. Robertson’s party most influence.’  I was very desirous to hear Dr. Johnson’s explication.  JOHNSON.  ’I see no difficulty.  Gilmour was admired for his parts; Nisbet carried his cause by his skill in law. Palma is victory.’  I observed, that the character of Nicholson, in this book resembled that of Burke:  for it is said, in one place, ’in omnes lusos & jocos se saepe resolvebat[596];’ and, in another, ’sed accipitris more e conspectu aliquando astantium sublimi se protrahens volatu, in praedam miro impetu descendebat[597]’. JOHNSON.  ’No, Sir; I never heard Burke make a good joke in my life[598].’  BOSWELL.  ‘But, Sir, you will allow he is a hawk.’  Dr. Johnson, thinking that I meant this of his joking, said, ’No, Sir, he is not the hawk there.  He is the beetle in the mire[599].’  I still adhered to my metaphor,—­’But he soars as the hawk.’  JOHNSON.  ’Yes, Sir; but he catches nothing.’  M’Leod asked, what is the particular excellence of Burke’s eloquence?  JOHNSON.  ’Copiousness and fertility of allusion; a power of diversifying his matter, by placing it in various relations.  Burke has great information, and great command of language; though, in my opinion, it has not in every respect the highest elegance.’  BOSWELL.  ‘Do you think, Sir, that Burke has read Cicero much?’ JOHNSON.  ’I don’t believe it, Sir.  Burke has great knowledge, great fluency of words, and great promptness of ideas, so that he can speak with great illustration on any subject that comes before him.  He is neither like Cicero, nor like Demosthenes[600], nor like any one else, but speaks as well as he can.’

In the 65th page of the first volume of Sir George Mackenzie, Dr. Johnson pointed out a paragraph beginning with Aristotle, and told me there was an error in the text, which he bade me try to discover.  I was lucky enough to hit it at once.  As the passage is printed, it is said that the devil answers even in engines.  I corrected it to—­ever in oenigmas.  ’Sir, (said he,) you are a good critick.  This would have been a great thing to do in the text of an ancient authour.’

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16.