s the Admirable Crichton brought into that state, in which he
could excel the meanest of mankind only by a few empty honours paid to
his memory: the court of Mantua testified their esteem by a publick
mourning, the contemporary wits were profuse of their encomiums, and the
palaces of Italy were adorned with pictures, representing him on
horseback with a lance in one hand and a book in the other[1].

[1] This paper is enumerated by Chalmers among those which Johnson
dictated, not to Bathurst, but to Hawkesworth. It is an elegant
summary of Crichton's life which is in Mackenzie's Writers of the
Scotch Nation. See a fuller account by the Earl of Buchan and Dr.
Kippis in the Biog. Brit. and the recently published one by Mr.
Frazer Tytler.

No. 84. SATURDAY, AUGUST 25, 1753.

_Tolle periclum,
Jam vaga prosiliet frenis natura remotis._ HOR. Lib. ii. Sat. vii. 73.

But take the danger and the shame away,
And vagrant nature bounds upon her prey. FRANCIS.

TO THE ADVENTURER.

SIR,

It has been observed, I think, by Sir William Temple, and after him by
almost every other writer, that England affords a greater variety of
characters than the rest of the world. This is ascribed to the liberty
prevailing amongst us, which gives every man the privilege of being wise
or foolish his own way, and preserves him from the necessity of
hypocrisy or the servility of imitation.

That the position itself is true, I am not completely satisfied. To be
nearly acquainted with the people of different countries can happen to
very few; and in life, as in every thing else beheld at a distance,
there appears an even uniformity: the petty discriminations which
diversify the natural character, are not discoverable but by a close
inspection; we, therefore, find them most at home, because there we have
most opportunities of remarking them. Much less am I convinced, that
this peculiar diversification, if it be real, is the consequence of
peculiar liberty; for where is the government to be found that
superintends individuals with so much vigilance, as not to leave their
private conduct without restraint? Can it enter into a reasonable mind
to imagine, that men of every other nation are not equally masters of
their own time or houses with ourselves, and equally at liberty to be
parsimonious or profuse, frolick or sullen, abstinent or luxurious?
Liberty is certainly necessary to the full play of predominant humours;