Page:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 5.djvu/208

268 the auspices, and with the advice of his friend Laud, which he published at London and Aberdeen, in 1637. No man ever committed a more imprudent act for his own fame; as he was doomed by the nature of his task, not only to equal, but to excel, one of the greatest poets in the world. His fame was not increased by the proceedings of his eccentric countryman Lauder, who many years afterwards endeavoured with a curious pertinacity to raise the fame of Johnston's version far above that of Buchanan. Mr auditor Benson, a man better known for his benevolence than his acuteness, was made the trumpet of Johnston's fame. This gentleman published three editions of Johnston's psalms; one of which, printed in 1741, and dedicated to prince George, afterwards George III., is ornamented with a very fine portrait of the poet by Vertue after Jamesono, and is amply illustrated with notes. The zealous editor received as his reward from the literary world, a couplet in the Dunciad, in which, in allusion to his having procured the erection of the monument to the memory of Milton in Westminster abbey, it is said

Benson has received much ridicule for the direction of his labours; but if the life of Johnston prefixed to the edition of the psalms is from his pen, it does credit to his erudition. Many controversial pamphlets were the consequence of this attempt,—Mr Love answering Lauder, while Benson had to stand a more steady attack from the critical pen of Ruddiman. It would tire our readers here to trace a controversy which we may have occasion to treat in another place. The zeal of these individuals has not furthered the fame of Johnston: and, indeed, the height to which they attempted to raise his merit, has naturally rendered the world blind to its real extent It cannot be said that the version of Buchanan is so eminently superior as to exclude all comparison; and, indeed, we believe the schools in Holland give Johnston the preference, with almost as much decision, as we grant it to Buchanan. The merit of the two, is, indeed, of a different sort, and we can fortunately allow that each is excellent, without bringing them to a too minute comparison. Johnston has been universally allowed to have been the more accurate translator, and few exceptions can be found to the purity of his language, while he certainly has not displayed either the richness, or the majesty of Buchanan. Johnston is considered as having been unfortunate in his method: while Buchanan has luxuriated in an amazing variety of measure, he has adhered to the elegiac couplet of hexameter and pentameter, excepting in the 119th psalm, in which he has indulged in all the varieties of lyrical arrangement which the Latin language admits: an inapt choice, as Hebrew scholars pronounce that psalm to be the most prosaic of the sacred poems.