John Hawkesworth, LL.D., 1715 or ’19–1773, a native of London, is best known as the editor of “The Adventurer,” (published Nov. 7, 1752–March 9, 1754), and the author of 70 or 72 of its 140 numbers. He was also a contributor to the “Gentleman’s Magazine;” published some Tales,—“Edgar and Emmeline,” and “Almoran and Hamet,”—1761; edited Swift’s “Works and Letters, with his Life,” 1765–66; published a translation of Telemachus in 1768; wrote “Zimri,” an excellent oratorio, and other plays; and in 1773 (3 vols. 4to) gave to the world, an “Account of the Voyages of Byron, Wallis, Cartaret, and Cook.” By this last publication, for which he was engaged by the Government, he gained £6000,—not unalloyed by severe censure for moral improprieties in his description of savage life, for alleged nautical errors and scientific defects.

Personal

  Hawkesworth was a man of fine parts, but no learning: his reading had been irregular and desultory: the knowledge he had acquired, he, by the help of a good memory retained, so that it was ready at every call, but on no subject had he ever formed any system. All of ethics that he knew, he had got from Pope’s “Essay on Man,” and Epistles; he had read the modern French writers, and more particularly the poets, and with the aid of Keill’s Introduction, Chambers Dictionary, and other such common books, had attained such an insight into physics, as enabled him to talk on the subject. In the more valuable branches of learning, he was deficient. His office of curator of the Magazine gave him great opportunities of improvement, by an extensive correspondence with men of all professions; it increased his little stock of literature, and furnished him with more than a competent share of that intelligence which is necessary to qualify a man for conversation. He had a good share of wit, and a vein of humour. With all these talents, Hawkesworth could be no more than an instructive and entertaining companion.

  He was originally a watchmaker, or some other mechanick trade. By reading Dr. Johnson’s writings he acquired his style, and a certain moral and sentimental air, though nothing mortified him so much as to suppose that he was an imitator of Johnson. He lived much with him, and Johnson was fond of him, but latterly owned that Hawkesworth—who had set out a modest, humble man—was one of the many whom success in the world had spoiled. He was latterly, as Sir Joshua Reynolds told me, an affected insincere man, and a great coxcomb in his dress. He had no literature whatever; and was so ignorant even of English history that, when he was employed in publishing three volumes of Swift’s letters, the Bishop of Salisbury (as he told me) could not make him comprehend the difference between Lord Oxford and Lord Orford.

General

  Let me add, that Hawkesworth’s imitations of Johnson are sometimes so happy, that it is extremely difficult to distinguish them, with certainty, from the compositions of his great archetype. Hawkesworth was his closest imitator, a circumstance of which that writer would once have been proud to be told; though, when he had become elated by having risen into some degree of consequence, he, in a conversation with me, had the provoking effrontery to say he was not sensible of it.

  Read Hawkesworth’s “Life of Swift;” of whose character and conduct but an imperfect idea is given by the narrative of Johnson. Hawkesworth is much more communicative and interesting; and the minuteness and simplicity with which he details the few but deplorable incidents of the last four years of Swift’s life are highly affecting. The circumstance of his struggling to express himself, after a silence broken but once for more than a year, and finding all his efforts ineffectual, heaving a deep sigh, quite cleaves the heart.

  Dr. Hawkesworth favoured the public with a whimsical, but beautiful little piece, called “Edgar and Emmeline.” The machinery of fairies, who direct everything, is well managed, and by the addition of musical interludes, the piece afforded an elegant entertainment to a number of crowded audiences.

  His literature, though by no means deep or accurate, was elegant and various; his style was polished, his imagination ardent; his morals were pure, and he possessed an intimate knowledge of the world…. It is scarcely requisite to observe, that he formed his STYLE on that of Dr. Johnson; he was not, however, a servile imitator; his composition has more ease and sweetness than the model possesses, and is consequently better adapted for a work, one great object of which is popularity. He has laid aside the sesquipedalia verba, and, in a great measure, the monotonous arrangement and the cumbrous splendour of his prototype, preserving, at the same time, much of his harmony of cadence and vigour of construction.

  His “Amurath” is, perhaps, the most instructive tale of the kind in any language, and has been reprinted in a variety of forms in books adapted for the use of children. The stories of Opsinous, of Charlotte and Marie, of Eugenio, of Abulus, of Desdemona, and of Flavilla, are told with impressive elegance, and discover an accurate knowledge of the human heart, and an uncommon felicity in displaying the workings of the passions. That of Agamus cannot be read without exciting a powerful interest. It is to be feared it turns upon an incident more common than is generally suspected among those who extend their licentious indulgences to a late period of life. Everywhere, indeed, his practical morality is to be preferred to his philosophy of ethics; for the latter is frequently perplexed, and leads to erroneous conclusions. In treating the most common topics, Dr. Hawkesworth’s illustrations are peculiarly striking.

  Hawkesworth had little learning, but considerable literary talent.

  Dr. Hawkesworth’s tale of “Almpran and Hamet” (1761) has a supernatural basis: the elder of the two kingly brothers is endowed by a genius with the power of exchanging forms with whomsoever he pleases, and thus is enabled to carry on a plot against his brother, and to attempt to supplant him in the affections of the beautiful Almeida. But the object of the tale is to show how powerless are fate and metaphysical aid to crush virtue, and how little magical power can add to the happiness of a vicious possessor. The author was the biographer of Swift and the admirer of Johnson; his tale is the offspring of “Gulliver” and “Rasselas.”

  The great ape of Johnson.