commonly appealed was that too rare one, the love of wisdom, and he
combined his thoughts and knowledge in propositions of wisdom so weighty
and strong, that the minds of ordinary hearers
were not on the instant prepared for them.’ (Morley’s _Burke_,
1882, 209–10.)
And thought of convincing, while they thought of
dining. For the reason given in the previous note, many of Burke’s
hearers often took the opportunity of his rising to speak, to retire to
dinner. Thus he acquired the nickname of the ‘Dinner Bell.’
To eat mutton cold. There is a certain resemblance
between this character and Gray’s lines on himself written in 1761,
beginning ‘Too poor for a bribe, and too proud to importune.’ (See Gosse’s
_Gray’s Works_, 1884, i. 127.) But both Gray and Goldsmith may
have been thinking of a line in the once popular song of _Ally
Croaker_:—
Too dull for a wit, too grave for a joker.
honest William, i.e. William Burke (_v. supra_).
Now breaking a jest, and now breaking a limb. A
note to the second edition says—‘The above Gentleman [Richard Burke,
_v. supra_] having slightly fractured one of his arms and legs, at
different times, the Doctor [i.e. Goldsmith] has rallied him on those
accidents, as a kind of _retributive_ justice for breaking his jests
on other people.’
Here Cumberland lies. According to Boaden’s _Life
of Kemble_, 1825, i. 438, Mrs. Piozzi rightly regarded this portrait
as wholly ironical; and Bolton Corney, without much expenditure of acumen,
discovers it to have been written in a spirit of _persiflage_.
Nevertheless, Cumberland himself (_Memoirs_, 1807, i. 369)
seems to have accepted it in good faith. Speaking of Goldsmith he says—I
conclude my account of him with gratitude for the epitaph he bestowed on
me in his poem called _ Retaliation_.’ From the further details
which he gives of the circumstances, it would appear that his own
performance, of which he could recall but one line—
All mourn the poet, I lament the man—
was conceived in a less malicious spirit than those of the others, and had
predisposed the sensitive bard in his favour. But no very genuine
cordiality could be expected to exist between the rival authors of _The
West Indian_ and _She Stoops to Conquer_.
And Comedy wonders at being so fine. It is
instructive
here to transcribe Goldsmith’s serious opinion of the kind of work which
Cumberland essayed:—‘A new species of Dramatic Composition has been
introduced, under the name of _ Sentimental_ Comedy, in which the
virtues of Private Life are exhibited, rather than the Vices exposed; and
the Distresses rather than the Faults of Mankind, make our interest in the
piece. . . . In these Plays almost all the Characters are good, and
exceedingly generous; they are lavish enough of their _Tin_ Money on
the Stage, and though they want Humour, have abundance of Sentiment and
Feeling. If they happen to have Faults or Foibles, the Spectator is taught
not only to pardon, but to applaud them, in consideration of the goodness
of their hearts; so that Folly, instead of being ridiculed, is commended,
and the Comedy aims at touching our Passions without the power of being
truly pathetic.’ (_Westminster Magazine_, 1772, i. 5.) Cf. also
the _Preface to The Good Natur’d Man_, where he ‘hopes that too
much refinement will not banish humour and character from our’s, as it has
already done from the French theatre. Indeed the French comedy is now
become so very elevated and sentimental, that it has not only banished
humour and _Moliere_ from the stage, but it has banished all
spectators too.’
The scourge of impostors, the terror of quacks. Dr.
John Douglas (_v. supra_) distinguished himself by his exposure of
two of his countrymen, Archibald Bower, 1686–1766, who, being secretly a
member of the Catholic Church, wrote a _History of the Popes_;
and William Lauder 1710–1771, who attempted to prove Milton a plagiarist.
Cf. Churchill’s _Ghost_, Bk. ii:—
By TRUTH inspir’d when _Lauder’s_ spight
O’er MILTON cast the Veil of Night,
DOUGLAS arose, and thro’ the maze
Of intricate and winding ways,
Came where the subtle Traitor lay,
And dragg’d him trembling to the day.
‘Lauder on Milton’ is one of the books bound to the trunk-maker’s in
Hogarth’s _Beer Street_, 1751. He imposed on Johnson, who wrote
him a ‘Preface’ and was consequently trounced by Churchill (_ut supra_)
as ‘_our Letter’d_ POLYPHEME.’
Our Dodds shall be pious. The reference is to the
Rev. Dr. William Dodd, who three years after the publication of _Retaliation_
(i.e. June 27, 1777) was hanged at Tyburn for forging the signature of the
fifth Earl of Chesterfield, to whom he had been tutor. His life previously
had long been scandalous enough to justify Goldsmith’s words. Johnson made
strenuous and humane exertions to save Dodd’s life, but without avail.
(See Birkbeck Hill’s _Boswell_, 1887, iii. 139–48.) There is an
account of Dodd’s execution at the end of vol. i of Angelo’s _Reminiscences_,
1830.
our Kenricks. Dr. William Kenrick—say the
earlier annotators—who ‘read lectures at the Devil Tavern, under the
Title of “The School of Shakespeare.”’ The lectures began January 19,
1774, and help to fix the date of the poem. Goldsmith had little reason
for liking this versatile and unprincipled Ishmaelite of letters, who,
only a year before, had penned a scurrilous attack upon him in _The
London Packet_. Kenrick died in 1779.
Macpherson. ‘David [James] Macpherson, Esq.; who
lately, from the mere _force of his style_, wrote down the first poet
of all antiquity.’ (Note to second edition.) This was ‘Ossian’ Macpherson,
1738–96, who, in 1773, had followed up his Erse epics by a prose
translation of Homer, which brought him little but opprobrium. ‘Your
abilities, since your Homer, are not so formidable,’ says Johnson in the
knockdown letter which he addressed to him in 1775. (Birkbeck Hill’s _Boswell_,
1887, ii. 298.)
Our Townshend. See note to line 34.
New Lauders and Bowers. See note to l. 80.
And Scotchman meet Scotchman, and cheat in the dark.
Mitford compares Farquhar’s _Love and a Bottle_, 1699, Act iii—
But gods meet gods and jostle in the dark.
But Farquhar was quoting from Dryden and Lee’s _Oedipus_, 1679,
Act iv (at end).
Here lies David Garrick. ‘The sum of all that can
be said for and against Mr. Garrick, some people think, may be found in
these lines of Goldsmith,’ writes Davies in his _Life of Garrick_,
2nd ed., 1780, ii. 159. Posterity has been less hesitating in its verdict.
‘The lines on Garrick,’ says Forster, _Life of Goldsmith_,
1871, ii. 409, ‘are quite perfect writing. Without anger, the satire is
finished, keen, and uncompromising; the wit is adorned by most
discriminating praise; and the truth is
only the more unsparing for its exquisite good manners and good taste.’
Ye Kenricks. See note to line 86.
ye Kellys. Hugh Kelly (1739–1777), an Irishman,
the author of _False Delicacy_, 1768; _A Word to the Wise_,
1770; _The School for Wives_, 1774, and other _sentimental
dramas,_ is here referred to. His first play, which is described in
Garrick’s prologue as a ‘Sermon,’ ‘preach’d in Acts,’ was produced at
Drury Lane just six days before Goldsmith’s comedy of _The Good
Natur’d Man_ appeared at Covent Garden, and obtained a success which
it ill deserved. _False Delicacy_—said Johnson truly
(Birkbeck Hill’s _ Boswell_, 1887, ii. 48)—‘was totally
void of character,’—a crushing accusation to make against a drama.
But Garrick, for his private ends, had taken up Kelly as a rival to
Goldsmith; and the _comédie sérieuse_ or _ larmoyante_
of La Chaussée, Sedaine, and Diderot had already found votaries in
England. _False Delicacy_, weak, washy, and invertebrate as it
was, completed the transformation of ‘genteel’ into ‘sentimental’ comedy,
and establishing that _genre_ for the next few years, effectually retarded
the wholesome reaction towards humour and character which Goldsmith had
tried to promote by _The Good Natur’d Man_. (See note to l.
66.)
Woodfalls. ‘William Woodfall’—says Bolton
Corney—‘successively editor of _The London Packet_ and
_The Morning Chronicle_, was matchless as a reporter of
speeches, and an able theatrical critic. He made lofty pretensions to
editorial impartiality—but the actor [i.e. Garrick] was not _
always_ satisfied.’ He died in 1803. He must not be confounded with
Henry Sampson Woodfall, the editor of Junius’s _ Letters_. (See
note to l. 162.)
To act as an angel. There is a sub-ironic touch in
this phrase which should not be overlooked. Cf. l. 102.
Here Hickey reclines. See note to l. 15. In
Cumberland’s _Poetical Epistle to Dr. Goldsmith; or Supplement to his
Retaliation_ (_Gentleman’s Magazine_, Aug. 1778, p. 384)
Hickey’s genial qualities are thus referred to:—
Give RIDGE and HICKY, generous souls!
Of WHISKEY PUNCH convivial bowls.
a special attorney. A special attorney was merely
an attorney who practised in one court only. The species is now said to be
extinct.
burn ye. The annotator of the second edition,
apologizing for this ‘forced’ rhyme to ‘attorney,’ informs the English
reader that the phrase of ‘burn ye’ is ‘a familiar method of salutation in
Ireland amongst the lower classes of the people.’
Here Reynolds is laid. This shares the palm with
the admirable epitaphs on Garrick and Burke. But Goldsmith loved Reynolds,
and there are no satiric strokes in the picture. If we are to believe
Malone (Reynolds’s _Works_, second edition, 1801, i. xc),
‘these were the last lines the author wrote.’
bland. Malone (_ut supra_, lxxxix) notes this
word as ‘eminently happy, and characteristick of his [Reynolds’s] easy and
placid manners.’ Boswell (Dedication of _Life of Johnson_)
refers to his ‘equal and placid temper.’ Cf. also Dean Barnard’s verses
(Northcote’s _Life of Reynolds_, 2nd ed., 1819, i. 220), and
Mrs. Piozzi’s lines in her _Autobiography_, 2nd ed., 1861, ii.
175–6.
He shifted his trumpet. While studying Raphael in
the Vatican in 1751, Reynolds caught so severe a cold ‘as to occasion a
deafness which obliged him to use an ear-trumpet for the remainder of his
life.’ (Taylor and Leslie’s _Reynolds_, 1865, i. 50.) This
instrument figures in a portrait of himself which he painted for Thrale
about 1775. See also Zoffany’s picture of the ‘Academicians gathered about
the model in the Life School at Somerset House,’ 1772, where he is shown
employing it to catch the conversation of Wilton and Chambers.
and only took snuff. Sir Joshua was a great
snuff-taker. His snuff-box, described in the Catalogue as the one
‘immortalized in Goldsmith’s _Retaliation_,’ was exhibited,
with his spectacles and other personal relics, at the Grosvenor Gallery in
1883–4. In the early editions this epitaph breaks off abruptly at the word
‘snuff.’ But Malone says that half a line more had been written. Prior
gives this half line as ‘By flattery unspoiled—,’ and affirms that
among several erasures in the manuscript sketch devoted to Reynolds it
‘remained unaltered.’ (_Life_, 1837, ii. 499.) See notes to ll.
53, 56, and 91 of _The Haunch of Venison_.
Here Whitefoord reclines. The circumstances which
led to the insertion of these lines in the fifth edition are detailed in
the prefatory words of the publisher given at p. 92. There is more than a
suspicion that Whitefoord wrote them himself; but they have too long been
accepted as an appendage to the poem to be now displaced. Caleb Whitefoord
(born 1734) was a Scotchman, a wine-merchant, and an art connoisseur, to
whom J. T. Smith, in his _Life of Nollekens_, 1828, i. 333–41,
devotes several pages. He was one of the party at the St. James’s
Coffee-house. He died in 1810. There is a caricature of him in
‘Connoisseurs inspecting a Collection of George Morland,’ November, 16,
1807; and Wilkie’s _Letter of Introduction_, 1814, was a
reminiscence of a visit which, when he first came to London, he paid to
Whitefoord. He was also painted by Reynolds and Stuart. Hewins’s _Whitefoord
Papers_, 1898, throw no light upon the story of the epitaph.
a grave man. Cf. _Romeo and Juliet_, Act
iii, Sc. 1:—‘Ask for me to-morrow, and you shall find me _a grave
man_.’ This Shakespearean recollection is a little like Goldsmith’s
way. (See note to _The Haunch of Venison_, l. 120.)
and rejoic’d in a pun. ‘Mr. W. is so notorious a
punster, that Doctor Goldsmith used to say, it was impossible to keep him
company, without being _infected_ with the _itch of punning_.’
(Note to fifth edition.)
‘if the table he set on a roar.’ Cf. _Hamlet_,
Act v, Sc. I.
Woodfall, i.e. Henry Sampson Woodfall, printer of
_The Public Advertiser_. He died in 1805. (See note to l. 115.)
Cross-Readings, Ship-News, and Mistakes of the Press.
Over the _nom de guerre_ of ‘Papyrius Cursor,’ a real Roman name, but
as happy in its applicability as Thackeray’s ‘Manlius Pennialinus,’
Whitefoord contributed many specimens of this mechanic wit to _The
Public Advertiser_. The ‘Cross Readings’ were obtained by taking two
or three columns of a newspaper horizontally and ‘onwards’ instead of
‘vertically’ and downwards, thus:—
Colds caught at this season are
The Companion to the Playhouse.
or
To be sold to the best Bidder,
My seat in Parliament being vacated.
A more elaborate example is
On Tuesday an address was presented;
it unhappily missed fire and the villain made off,
when the honour of knighthood was conferred on him
to the great joy of that noble family
Goldsmith was hugely delighted with Whitefoord’s ‘lucky inventions’ when
they first became popular in 1766. ‘He declared, in the heat of his
admiration of them, it would have given him more pleasure to have been the
author of them than of all the works he had ever published of his own’
(Northcote’s _Life of Reynolds_, 2nd ed., 1819, i. 217). What
is perhaps more remarkable is, that Johnson spoke of Whitefoord’s
performances as ‘ingenious and diverting’ (Birkbeck Hill’s _Boswell_,
1887, iv. 322); and Horace Walpole laughed over them till he cried (Letter
to Montagu, December 12, 1766). To use Voltaire’s witticism, he is _bien
heureux_ who can laugh now. It may be added that Whitefoord did not, as
he claimed, originate the ‘Cross Readings.’ They had been anticipated in
No. 49 of Harrison’s spurious _Tatler_, vol. v [1720].
The fashion of the ‘Ship-News’ was in this wise: ‘August 25 [1765]. We
hear that his Majestys Ship _Newcastle_ will soon have a new
figurehead, the old one being almost worn out.’ The ‘Mistakes of the
Press’ explain themselves. (See also Smith’s _Life of Nollekens_,
1828, i. 336–7; Debrett’s _New Foundling Hospital for Wit_,
1784, vol. ii, and _Gentleman’s Magazine_, 1810, p. 300.)
That a Scot may have humour, I had almost said wit.
Goldsmith,—if he wrote these verses,—must have forgotten that
he had already credited Whitefoord with ‘wit’ in l. 153.
Thou best humour’d man with the worst humour’d muse.
Cf. Rochester of Lord Buckhurst, afterwards Earl of Dorset:—
The best good man, with the worst-natur’d muse.
Whitefoord’s contribution to the epitaphs on Goldsmith is said to have
been unusually severe,—so severe that four only of its eight lines
are quoted in the _ Whitefoord Papers_, 1898, the rest being
‘unfit for publication’ (p. xxvii). He afterwards addressed a metrical
apology to Sir Joshua, which is printed at pp. 217–8 of Northcote’s _
Life_, 2nd ed., 1819. See also Forster’s _ Goldsmith_,
1871, ii. 408–9.
SONG FOR ‘SHE STOOPS TO CONQUER.’
Boswell, to whom we are indebted for the preservation of this lively song,
sent it to _The London Magazine_ for June, 1774 (vol. xliii, p.
295), with the following:—
‘To the Editor of _The London Magazine_.
SIR,—I send you a small production of the late Dr. _Goldsmith_,
which has never been published, and which might perhaps have been totally
lost had I not secured it. He intended it as a song in the character of
Miss _ Hardcastle_, in his admirable comedy, _She stoops to
conquer_; but it was left out, as Mrs. _Bulkley_ who played the
part did not sing. He sung it himself in private companies very agreeably.
The tune is a pretty Irish air, called _The Humours of Balamagairy_,
to which, he told me, he found it very difficult to adapt words; but he
has succeeded happily in these few lines. As I could sing the tune, and
was fond of them, he was so good as to give me them about a year ago, just
as I was leaving London, and bidding him adieu for that season, little
apprehending that it was a last farewell. I preserve this little relick in
his own handwriting with an affectionate care.
I am, Sir,
Your humble Servant,
JAMES BOSWELL.’
When, seventeen years later, Boswell published his _Life of Samuel
Johnson, LL.D._, he gave an account of his dining at General
Oglethorpe’s in April, 1773, with Johnson and Goldsmith; and he says that
the latter sang the _Three Jolly Pigeons_, and this song, to
the ladies in the tea-room. Croker, in a note, adds that the younger
Colman more appropriately employed the ‘essentially low comic’ air for
Looney Mactwolter in the [_Review; or the_] _Wags of Windsor_,
1808 [i.e. in that character’s song beginning—‘Oh, whack! Cupid’s a
mannikin’], and that Moore tried to bring it into good company in the
ninth number of the _Irish Melodies_. But Croker did not admire
the tune, and thought poorly of Goldsmith’s words. Yet they are certainly
fresher than Colman’s or Moore’s:—
Sing—sing—Music was given,
To brighten the gay, and kindle the loving;
Souls here, like planets in Heaven,
By harmony’s laws alone are kept moving, etc.
TRANSLATION.
These lines, which appear at p. 312 of vol. V of the _History of the
Earth and Animated Nature_, 1774, are freely translated from some
Latin verses by Addison in No 412 of the _Spectator_, where
they are introduced as follows:—‘Thus we see that every different
Species of sensible Creatures has its different Notions of Beauty, and
that each of them is most affected with the Beauties of its own kind. This
is nowhere more remarkable than in Birds of the same Shape and Proportion,
where we often see the Male determined in his Courtship by the single
Grain or Tincture of a Feather, and never discovering any Charms but in
the Colour of its own Species.’ Addison’s lines, of which Goldsmith
translated the first fourteen only, are printed from his corrected MS. at
p. 4 of _Some Portions of Essays contributed to the Spectator by Mr.
Joseph Addison_ [by the late J. Dykes Campbell], 1864.
THE HAUNCH OF VENISON.
It is supposed that this poem was written early in 1771, although it was
not printed until 1776, when it was published by G. Kearsly and J. Ridley
under the title of _The Haunch of Venison, a Poetical Epistle to the
Lord Clare. By the late Dr. Goldsmith. With a Head of the Author, Drawn by
Henry Bunbury, Esq; and Etched by_ [_James_] _ Bretherton._
A second edition, the text of which is here followed, appeared in the same
year ‘With considerable Additions and Corrections, Taken from the Author’s
_last_ Transcript.’ The Lord Clare to whom the verses are addressed
was Robert Nugent, of Carlanstown, Westmeath, M.P. for St. Mawes in
1741–54. In 1766 he was created Viscount Clare; in 1776 Earl Nugent. In
his youth he had himself been an easy if not very original versifier; and
there are several of his performances in the second volume of Dodsley’s
_Collection of Poems by Several Hands_, 4th ed., 1755. One of
the Epistles, beginning ‘Clarinda, dearly lov’d, attend The Counsels of a
faithful friend,’ seems to have betrayed Goldsmith into the blunder of
confusing it, in the _Poems for Young Ladies_. 1767, p. 114,
with Lyttelton’s better-known _ Advice to a Lady_ (‘The
counsels of
a friend, Belinda, hear’), also in Dodsley’s miscellany; while another
piece, an _Ode to William Pultney, Esq._, contains a stanza so
good that Gibbon worked it into his character of Brutus:—
What tho’ the good, the brave, the wise,
With adverse force undaunted rise,
To break th’ eternal doom!
Tho’ CATO liv’d, tho’ TULLY spoke,
Tho’ BRUTUS dealt the godlike stroke,
Yet perish’d fated ROME.
Detraction, however, has insinuated that Mallet, his step-son’s tutor, was
Nugent’s penholder in this instance. ‘Mr. Nugent sure did not write his
own Ode,’ says Gray to Walpole (Gray’s _Works_, by Gosse, 1884,
ii. 220). Earl Nugent died in Dublin in October, 1788, and was buried at
Gosfield in Essex, a property he had acquired with his second wife. A _
Memoir_ of him was written in 1898 by Mr. Claud Nugent. He is described
by Cunningham as ‘a big, jovial, voluptuous Irishman, with a loud voice, a
strong Irish accent, and a ready though coarse wit.’ According to Percy (_Memoir_,
1801, p. 66), he had been attracted to Goldsmith by the publication of
_The Traveller_ in 1764, and he mentioned him favourably to the
Earl of Northumberland, then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. A note in
Forster’s _Life_, 1871, ii. 329–30, speaks of Goldsmith as a
frequent visitor at Gosfield, and at Nugent’s house in Great George
Street, Westminster, where he had often for playmate his host’s daughter,
Mary, afterwards Marchioness of Buckingham.
Scott and others regarded _The Haunch of Venison_ as
autobiographical. To what extent this is the case, it is difficult to say.
That it represents the actual thanks of the poet to Lord Clare for an
actual present of venison, part of which he promptly transferred to
Reynolds, is probably the fact. But, as the following notes show, it is
also clear that Goldsmith borrowed, if not his entire fable, at least some
of its details from Boileau’s third satire; and that, in certain of the
lines, he had in memory Swift’s _Grand Question Debated_, the
measure of which he adopts. This throws more than a doubt upon the truth
of the whole. ‘His genius’ (as Hazlitt says) ‘was a mixture of originality
and imitation’; and fact and fiction often mingle inseparably
in his work. The author of the bailiff scene in the _Good Natur’d Man_
was quite capable of inventing for the nonce the tragedy of the unbaked
pasty, or of selecting from the Pilkingtons and Purdons of his
acquaintance such appropriate guests for his Mile End Amphitryon as the
writers of the _Snarler_ and the _Scourge_. It may
indeed even be doubted whether, if _The Haunch of Venison_ had
been absolute personal history, Goldsmith would ever have retailed it to
his noble patron at Gosfield, although it may include enough of real
experience to serve as the basis for a _jeu d’esprit_.
The fat was so white, etc. The first version reads—‘The
white was so white, and the red was so ruddy.’
Though my stomach was sharp, etc. This couplet is
not in the first version.
One gammon of bacon. Prior compared a passage from
Goldsmith’s _Animated Nature_, 1774, iii. 9, _à propos_
of a similar practice in Germany, Poland, and Switzerland. ‘A piece of
beef,’ he says, ‘hung up there, is considered as an elegant piece of
furniture, which, though seldom touched, at least argues the possessor’s
opulence and ease.’
a bounce, i.e. a braggart falsehood. Steele, in No.
16 of _The Lover_, 1715, p. 110, says of a manifest piece of
brag, ‘But this is supposed to be only a _Bounce_.’
Mr. Byrne, spelled ‘Burn’ in the earlier editions,
was a relative of Lord Clare.
M—r—’s. MONROE’s in the
first version. ‘Dorothy Monroe,’ says Bolton Corney, ‘whose various charms
are celebrated in verse by Lord Townshend.’
There’s H—d, and C—y, and H—rth, and
H—ff. In the first version—
‘There’s
COLEY, and WILLIAMS, and HOWARD,
and HIFF.’—Hiff was Paul Hiffernan, M.B., 1719–77, a
Grub Street author and practitioner. Bolton Corney hazards some
conjectures as to the others; but Cunningham wisely passes them over.
H—gg—ns. Perhaps, suggests Bolton
Corney, this was the Captain Higgins who assisted at Goldsmith’s absurd
‘fracas’ with Evans the bookseller, upon the occasion of Kenrick’s letter
in _The London Packet_ for March 24, 1773. Other accounts,
however, state that his companion was Captain Horneck (Prior, _Life_,
1837, ii. 411–12). This couplet is not in the first version.
Such dainties to them, etc. The first version
reads:—
Such dainties to them! It _would_ look like a flirt,
Like sending ’em Ruffles when wanting a Shirt.
Cunningham quotes a similar idea from T. Brown’s _Laconics, Works_,
1709, iv. 14. ‘To treat a poor wretch with a bottle of Burgundy, or fill
his snuff-box, is like giving a pair of lace ruffles to a man that has
never a shirt on his back.’ But Goldsmith, as was his wont, had already
himself employed the same figure. ‘Honours to one in my situation,’ he
says in a letter to his brother Maurice, in January, 1770, when speaking
of his appointment as Professor of Ancient History to the Royal Academy,
‘are something like ruffles to a man that wants a shirt’ (_Percy
Memoir_, 1801, 87–8). His source was probably, not Brown’s _Laconics_,
but those French ‘ana’ he knew so well. According to M. J. J. Jusserand (_English
Essays from a French Pen_, 1895, pp. 160–1), the originator of this
conceit was M. Samuel de Sorbieres, the traveller in England who was
assailed by Bishop Sprat. Considering himself inadequately rewarded by his
patrons, Mazarin, Louis XIV, and Pope Clement IX, he said bitterly—‘They
give lace cuffs to a man without a shirt’; a ‘consolatory witticism’ which
he afterwards remodelled into, ‘I wish they would send me bread for the
butter they kindly provided me with.’ In this form it appears in the
Preface to the _Sorberiana_, Toulouse, 1691.
_a flirt_ is a jibe or jeer. ‘He would sometimes . . . cast out a
jesting _flirt_ at me.’ (Morley’s _History of Thomas Ellwood_,
1895, p. 104.) Swift also uses the word.
An under-bred, fine-spoken fellow, etc. The first
version reads—
A fine-spoken Custom-house Officer he,
Who smil’d as he gaz’d on the Ven’son and me.
but I hate ostentation. Cf. Beau Tibbs:—‘She
was bred, _but that’s between ourselves_, under the inspection of the
Countess of All-night.’ (_Citizen of the World_, 1762, i.
238.)
We’ll have Johnson, and Burke. Cf. Boileau, _Sat._
iii. ll. 25–6, which Goldsmith had in mind:—
Molière avec Tartufe y doit jouer son rôle,
Et Lambert, qui plus est, m’a donné sa parole.
What say you—a pasty? It shall, and it must.
The first version reads—
I’ll take no denial—you shall, and you must.
Mr. J. H. Lobban, _Goldsmith, Select Poems_, 1900, notes a
hitherto undetected similarity between this and the ‘It _must_, and
it _shall_ be a barrack, my life’ of Swift’s _Grand Question
Debated_. See also ll. 56 and 91.
No stirring, I beg—my dear friend—my dear
friend. In the first edition—
No words, my dear GOLDSMITH! my very good Friend!
Mr. Lobban compares:—
‘Good morrow, good captain.’ ‘I’ll wait on you down,’—
‘You shan’t stir a foot.’ ‘You’ll think me a clown.’
‘And nobody with me at sea but myself.’ This is
almost a textual quotation from one of the letters of Henry Frederick,
Duke of Cumberland, to Lady Grosvenor, a correspondence which in 1770 gave
great delight to contemporary caricaturists and scandal-mongers. Other
poets besides Goldsmith seem to have been attracted by this particular
lapse of his illiterate Royal Highness, since it is woven into a ballad
printed in _The Public Advertiser_ for August 2 in the above
year:—
The Miser who wakes in a Fright for his Pelf,
And finds _no one by him except his own Self_, etc.
When come to the place, etc. Cf. Boileau, _ut
supra_, ll. 31–4:—
A peine étais-je entré, que ravi de me voir,
Mon homme, en m’embrassant, m’est venu recevoir;
Et montrant à mes yeux une allégresse entière,
Nous n’avons, m’a-t-il dit, ni Lambert ni Molière.
Lambert the musician, it may be added, had the special reputation of
accepting engagements which he never kept.
and t’other with Thrale. Henry Thrale, the
Southwark brewer, and the husband of Mrs. Thrale, afterwards Mrs. Piozzi.
Johnson first made his acquaintance in 1765. Strahan complained to Boswell
that, by this connexion, Johnson ‘was in a great measure absorbed from the
society of his old friends.’
(Birkbeck Hill’s _Boswell_, 1887, iii. 225.) Line 72 in the
first edition reads—
The one at the House, and the other with THRALE.
They both of them merry and authors like you.
‘They’ should apparently be ‘they’re.’ The first version reads—
Who dabble and write in the Papers—like you.
Some think he writes Cinna—he owns to Panurge.
‘Panurge’ and ‘Cinna’ are signatures which were frequently to be found at
the foot of letters addressed to the _Public Advertiser_ in
1770–1 in support of Lord Sandwich and the Government. They are said to
have been written by Dr. W. Scott, Vicar of Simonburn, Northumberland, and
chaplain of Greenwich Hospital, both of which preferments had been given
him by Sandwich. In 1765 he had attacked Lord Bute and his policy over the
signature of ‘Anti-Sejanus.’ ‘Sandwich and his parson Anti-Sejanus [are]
hooted off the stage’—writes Walpole to Mann, March 21, 1766.
According to Prior, it was Scott who visited Goldsmith in his Temple
chambers, and invited him to ‘draw a venal quill’ for Lord North’s
administration. Goldsmith’s noble answer, as reported by his reverend
friend, was—‘I can earn as much as will supply my wants without
writing for any party; the assistance therefore you offer is unnecessary
to me.’ (_Life_, 1837, ii. 278.) There is a caricature portrait
of Scott at p. 141 of _The London Museum_ for February, 1771,
entitled ‘Twitcher’s Advocate,’ ‘Jemmy Twitcher’ being the nickname of
Lord Sandwich.
Swinging, great, huge. ‘Bishop Lowth has just
finished the Dramas, and sent me word, that although I have paid him the
most _swinging_ compliment he ever received, he likes the whole book
more than he can say.’ (_Memoirs of Hannah More_, 1834, i.
236.)
pasty. The first version has Ven’son.’
So there I sat, etc. This couplet is not in the
first version.
And, ‘Madam,’ quoth he. Mr. Lobban again quotes
Swift’s _Grand Question Debated_:—
And ‘Madam,’ says he, ‘if such dinners you give
You’ll ne’er want for parsons as long as you live.’
These slight resemblances, coupled with the more obvious likeness of the
‘Raphaels, Correggios, and stuff’ of _ Retaliation_ (ll. 145–6)
to the _Noueds_ and _ Bluturks_ and _Omurs_ and stuff’
(also pointed out by Mr. Lobban) are interesting, because they show
plainly that Goldsmith remembered the works of Swift far better than _The
New Bath Guide_, which has sometimes been supposed to have set the
tune to the _Haunch_ and _Retaliation_.
‘may this bit be my poison.’ The gentleman in _She
Stoops to Conquer_, Act i, who is ‘obligated to dance a bear.’ Uses
the same asseveration. Cf. also Squire Thornhill’s somewhat similar
formula in chap. vii of _The Vicar of Wakefield_, 1766, i. 59.
‘The tripe,’ quoth the Jew, etc. The first version
reads—
‘Your Tripe!’ quoth the _Jew_, ‘if the truth I may speak,
I could eat of this Tripe seven days in the week.’
Re-echoed, i.e. ‘returned’ in the first edition.
thot. This, probably by a printer’s error, is
altered to ‘that’ in the second version. But the first reading is the more
in keeping, besides being a better rhyme.
Wak’d Priam. Cf. 2 _Henry IV_, Act I,
Sc. 1:—
Even such a man, so faint, so spiritless,
So dull, so dead in look, so woe-begone,
Drew Priam’s curtain in the dead of night.
And would have told him half his Troy was burnt.
sicken’d over by learning. Cf. _Hamlet_,
Act iii, Sc. 1:
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is _sicklied o’er_ with the pale cast of thought.
Notwithstanding the condemnation of Shakespeare in the _Present State
of Polite Learning_, and elsewhere, Goldsmith frequently weaves
Shakespearean recollections into his work. Cf. _She Stoops to Conquer_,
1773, Act i, p. 13, ‘We wanted no ghost to tell us that’ (_Hamlet_,
Act i, Sc. 5); and Act i, p. 9, where he uses Falstaff’s words (1 _Henry
IV_, Act v, Sc. 1):—
Would it were bed-time and all were well.
as very well known. The first version has, ‘’tis
very well known.’
EPITAPH ON THOMAS PARNELL.
This epitaph, apparently never used, was published with _The Haunch
of Venison_, 1776; and is supposed to have been written about 1770.
In that year Goldsmith wrote a _Life of Thomas Parnell, D.D._,
to accompany an edition of his poems, printed for Davies of Russell
Street. Parnell was born in 1679, and died at Chester in 1718, on his way
to Ireland. He was buried at Trinity Church in that town, on the 24th of
October. Goldsmith says that his father and uncle both knew Parnell (_Life
of Parnell_, 1770, p. v), and that he received assistance from the
poet’s nephew, Sir John Parnell, the singing gentleman who figures in
Hogarth’s _Election Entertainment_. Why Goldsmith should write
an epitaph upon a man who died ten years before his own birth, is not easy
to explain. But Johnson also wrote a Latin one, which he gave to Boswell.
(Birkbeck Hill’s _Life_, 1887, iv. 54.)
gentle Parnell’s name. Mitford compares Pope on
Parnell [_Epistle to Harley_, l. iv]:—
With softest manners, gentlest Arts adorn’d.
Pope published Parnell’s _Poems_ in 1722, and his sending them
to Harley, Earl of Oxford, after the latter’s disgrace and retirement, was
the occasion of the foregoing epistle, from which the following lines
respecting Parnell may also be cited:—
For him, thou oft hast bid the World attend,
Fond to forget the statesman in the friend;
For SWIFT and him despis’d the farce of state,
The sober follies of the wise and great;
Dext’rous the craving, fawning crowd to quit,
And pleas’d to ’scape from Flattery to Wit.
his sweetly-moral lay. Cf. _The Hermit_,
the _Hymn to Contentment_, the _Night Piece on Death_—which
Goldsmith certainly recalled in his own _City Night-Piece_. Of
the last-named Goldsmith says (_Life of Parnell_, 1770, p.
xxxii), not without an obvious side-stroke at Gray’s too-popular _Elegy_,
that it ‘deserves every praise, and I should suppose with very little
amendment, might be made to surpass all those night pieces and church yard
scenes that have since appeared.’ This is certainly (as Longfellow sings)
to
rustling hear in every breeze
The laurels of Miltiades.
Of Parnell, Hume wrote (_Essays_, 1770, i. 244) that ‘after the
fiftieth reading; [he] is as fresh as at the first.’ But Gray (speaking—it
should be explained—of a dubious volume of his posthumous works)
said: ‘Parnell is the dung-hill of Irish Grub Street’ (Gosse’s Gray’s
_Works_, 1884, ii. 372). Meanwhile, it is his fate to-day to be
mainly remembered by three words (not always attributed to him) in a
couplet from what Johnson styled ‘perhaps the meanest’ of his
performances, the _Elegy— to an Old Beauty_:—
And all that’s madly wild, or oddly gay,
We call it only _pretty Fanny’s way_.
THE CLOWN’S REPLY.
This, though dated ‘Edinburgh 1753,’ was first printed in _Poems and
Plays_, 1777, p. 79.
John Trott is a name for a clown or commonplace
character. Miss Burney (_Diary_, 1904, i. 222) says of Dr.
Delap:—‘As to his person and appearance, they are much in the _John-trot_
style.’ Foote, Chesterfield, and Walpole use the phrase; Fielding
Scotticizes it into ‘John Trott-Plaid, Esq.’; and Bolingbroke employs it
as a pseudonym.
I shall ne’er see your graces. ‘I shall never see
a Goose again without thinking on Mr. _Neverout_,’—says the
‘brilliant Miss Notable’ in Swift’s _Polite Conversation_,
1738, p. 156.
EPITAPH ON EDWARD PURDON.
The occasion of this quatrain, first published as Goldsmith’s* in _Poems
and Plays_, 1777, p. 79, is to be found in Forster’s _Life and
Times of Oliver Goldsmith_, 1871, ii. 60. Purdon died on March 27,
1767 (_Gentleman’s Magazine_, April, 1767, p. 192). ‘“Dr.
Goldsmith made this epitaph,” says William Ballantyne [the author of _Mackliniana_],
“in his way from his chambers in the Temple to the Wednesday evening’s
club at the Globe. _I think he will never come back_, I believe he
said. I was
sitting by him, and he repeated it more than twice. (I think he will never
come back.)”’ Purdon had been at Trinity College, Dublin, with Goldsmith;
he had subsequently been a foot soldier; ultimately he became a
‘bookseller’s hack.’ He wrote an anonymous letter to Garrick in 1759, and
translated the _ Henriade_ of Voltaire. This translation
Goldsmith is supposed to have revised, and his own life of Voltaire was to
have accompanied it, though finally the Memoir and Translation seem to
have appeared separately. (Cf. prefatory note to _Memoirs of M. de
Voltaire_ in Gibbs’s _Works of Oliver Goldsmith_, 1885,
iv. 2.)
* It had previously appeared as an extempore by a correspondent in
the _Weekly Magazine_, Edin., August 12, 1773 (_Notes and
Queries_, February 14, 1880).
Forster says further, in a note, ‘The original . . . is the epitaph on “La
Mort du Sieur Etienne”:—
Il est au bout de ses travaux,
Il a passé, le Sieur Etienne;
En ce monde il eut tant des maux
Qu’on ne croit pas qu’il revienne.
With this perhaps Goldsmith was familiar, and had therefore less scruple
in laying felonious hands on the epigram in the _Miscellanies_
(Swift, xiii. 372):—
Well, then, poor G—— lies underground!
So there’s an end of honest Jack.
So little justice here he found,
’Tis ten to one he’ll ne’er come back.’
Mr. Forster’s ‘felonious hands’ recalls a passage in Goldsmith’s _Life
of Parnell_, 1770, in which, although himself an habitual sinner in
this way, he comments gravely upon the practice of plagiarism:—‘It
was the fashion with the wits of the last age, to conceal the places from
whence they took their hints or their subjects. A trifling acknowledgment
would have made that lawful prize, which may now be considered as plunder’
(p. xxxii).
EPILOGUE FOR LEE LEWES’S BENEFIT.
This benefit took place at Covent Garden on May 7, 1773, the pieces
performed being Rowe’s _Lady Jane Grey_, and a popular
pantomimic after-piece by Theobald, called _Harlequin Sorcerer_,
Charles Lee Lewes (1740–1803) was the original ‘Young Marlow’ of _She
Stoops to Conquer_. When that part was thrown up by
‘Gentleman’ Smith, Shuter, the ‘Mr. Hardcastle’ of the comedy, suggested
Lewes, who was the harlequin of the theatre, as a substitute, and the
choice proved an admirable one. Goldsmith was highly pleased with his
performance, and in consequence wrote for him this epilogue. It was first
printed by Evans, 1780, i. 112–4.
in thy black aspect, i.e. the half-mask of
harlequin, in which character the Epilogue was spoken.
rosined lightning, stage-lightning, in which
rosin is an ingredient.
EPILOGUE INTENDED FOR
‘SHE STOOPS TO CONQUER.’
This epilogue was first printed at pp. 82–6, vol. ii, of the _Miscellaneous
Works of_ 1801. Bolton Corney says it had been given to Percy by
Goldsmith. It is evidently the ‘quarrelling Epilogue’ referred to in the
following letter from Goldsmith to Cradock (_Miscellaneous Memoirs_,
1826, i. 225–6):—
‘MY DEAR SIR,
The Play [_She
Stoops to Conquer_] has met with a success much beyond your
expectations or mine. I thank you sincerely for your Epilogue, which,
however could not be used, but with your permission, shall be printed.*
The story in short is this; Murphy sent me rather the outline of an
Epilogue than an Epilogue, which was to be sung by Mrs. Catley, and which
she approved. Mrs. Bulkley hearing this, insisted on throwing up her part,
unless according to the custom of the theatre, she were permitted to speak
the Epilogue. In this embarrassment I thought of making a quarrelling
Epilogue between Catley and her, debating who should speak the Epilogue,
but then Mrs. Catley refused, after I had taken the trouble of drawing it
out. I was then at a loss indeed; an Epilogue was to be made, and for none
but Mrs. Bulkley. I made one, and Colman thought it too bad to be spoken;
I was obliged therefore to try a fourth time, and I made a very mawkish
thing, as you’ll shortly see. Such is the history of my Stage adventures,
and which I have at last done with. I cannot help saying that I am very
sick of the
stage; and though I believe I shall get three tolerable benefits, yet I
shall upon the whole be a loser, even in a pecuniary light; my ease and
comfort I certainly lost while it was in agitation.
I am, my dear Cradock,
your obliged, and obedient servant,
OLIVER GOLDSMITH.
P.S.—Present my most humble respects to Mrs. Cradock.’
* It is so printed with the note—‘This came too late to be Spoken.’
According to Prior (_Miscellaneous Works_, 1837, iv. 154),
Goldsmith’s friend, Dr. Farr, had a copy of this epilogue which still,
when Prior wrote, remained in that gentleman’s family.
Who mump their passion, i.e. grimace their
passion.
ye macaroni train. The Macaronies were the
foplings, fribbles, or beaux of Goldsmith’s day. Walpole refers to them as
early as 1764; but their flourishing time was 1770–3, when the
print-shops, and especially Matthew Darly’s in the Strand, No. 39, swarmed
with satirical designs of which they were the subject. Selwyn, March—many
well-known names—are found in their ranks. Richard Cosway figured as
‘The Macaroni Painter’; Angelica Kauffmann as ‘The Paintress of
Maccaroni’s’; Thrale as ‘The Southwark Macaroni.’ Another caricature (‘The
Fluttering Macaroni’) contains a portrait of Miss Catley, the singing
actress of the present epilogue; while Charles Horneck, the brother of
‘The Jessamy Bride’ (see p. 251, l. 14) is twice satirized as ‘The Martial
Macaroni’ and ‘The Military Macaroni.’ The name, as may be guessed, comes
from the Italian dish first made fashionable by the ‘Macaroni Club,’ being
afterwards applied by extension to ‘the younger and gayer part of our
nobility and gentry, who, at the same time that they gave in to the
luxuries of eating, went equally into the extravagancies of dress.’ (_Macaroni
and Theatrical Magazine_, Oct. 1772.) Cf. Sir Benjamin Backbite’s
later epigram in _The School for Scandal_, 1777, Act ii, Sc. 2:—
Sure never was seen two such beautiful ponies;
Other horses are clowns, but these _macaronies_:
To give them this title I’m sure can’t be wrong,
Their legs are so slim and their tails are so long.
Their hands are only lent to the Heinel. See note
to l. 28, p. 85.
EPILOGUE INTENDED FOR
‘SHE STOOPS TO CONQUER.’
This epilogue, given by Goldsmith to Dr. Percy in MS., was first published
in the _Miscellaneous Works_ of 1801, ii. 87–8, as _An
Epilogue intended for Mrs. Bulkley_. Percy did not remember for what
play it was intended; but it is plainly (see note to l. 40) the second
epilogue for _She Stoops to Conquer_ referred to in the letter
printed in this volume.
There is a place, so Ariosto sings. ‘The poet
alludes to the thirty-fourth canto of _The Orlando furioso_.
Ariosto, as translated by Mr. Stewart Rose, observes of the _lunar world_;
There thou wilt find, if thou wilt thither post,
Whatever thou on earth beneath hast lost.
Astolpho undertakes the journey; discovers a portion of his own sense;
and, in an ample flask, the lost wits of Orlando.’ (Bolton Corney.) Cf.
also _Rape of the Lock_, Canto v, ll. 113–14:
Some thought it mounted to the Lunar sphere,
Since all things lost on earth are treasur’d there.
Lord Chesterfield also refers to the ‘happy extravagancy’ of Astolpho’s
journey in his _Letters_, 1774, i. 557.
at Foote’s Alone. ‘Foote’s’ was the Little Theatre
in the Haymarket, where, in February, 1773, he brought out what he
described as a ‘Primitive Puppet Show,’ based upon the Italian Fantoccini,
and presenting a burlesque sentimental Comedy called _The Handsome
Housemaid; or, Piety in Pattens_, which did as much as _ She
Stoops_ to laugh false sentiment away. Foote warned his audience
that they would not discover ‘much wit or humour’ in the piece, since ‘his
brother writers had all agreed that it was highly improper, and beneath
the dignity of a mixed assembly, to show any signs of joyful satisfaction;
and that creating a laugh was forcing the higher order of an audience to a
vulgar and mean use of their muscles’—for which reason, he
explained, he had, like them, given up the sensual for the sentimental
style. And thereupon followed the story of a maid of low degree who, ‘by
the mere effects of morality and virtue, raised herself [like Richardson’s
_Pamela_], to riches and honours.’ The
public, who for some time had acquiesced in the new order of things under
the belief that it tended to the reformation of the stage, and who were
beginning to weary of the ‘moral essay thrown into dialogue,’ which had
for some time supplanted humorous situation, promptly came round under the
influence of Foote’s Aristophanic ridicule, and the _ comédie
larmoyante_ received an appreciable check. Goldsmith himself had
prepared the way in a paper contributed to the _Westminster Magazine_
for December, 1772 (vol. i. p. 4), with the title of ‘An Essay on the
Theatre; or, A Comparison between Laughing and Sentimental Comedy.’ The
specific reference in the Prologue is to the fact that Foote gave morning
performances of _The Handsome Housemaid_. There was one, for
instance, on Saturday, March 6, 1773.
The Mohawk. This particular species of the genus
‘rake’ belongs more to Swift’s than Goldsmith’s time, though the race is
eternal. There is an account of the ‘Mohock Club’ in _Spectator_,
No. 324. See also _Spectator_, No. 347; Gay’s _ Trivia_,
1716, Book iii. p. 74; Swift’s _Journal to Stella_, March 8 and
26, 1712; and the _Wentworth Papers_, 1883, pp. 277–8.
Still stoops among the low to copy nature. This
line, one would think, should have helped to convince Percy that the
epilogue was intended for _She Stoops to Conquer_, and for no
other play.
THE CAPTIVITY.
The Oratorio of the _Captivity_ was written in 1764; but never
set to music. It was first printed in 1820 at pp. 451–70 of vol. ii of the
octavo edition of the _ Miscellaneous Works_ issued by the
trade in that year. Prior reprinted it in 1837 (_Works_, iv.
Pp. 79–95) from the ‘original manuscript’ in Mr. Murray’s possession; and
Cunningham again in 1854 (_Works_, i. pp. 63–76). It is here
reproduced from Prior. James Dodsley, who bought the MS. for Newbery and
himself, gave Goldsmith ten guineas. Murray’s copy was the one made for
Dodsley, October 31, 1764; the one printed in 1820, that made for Newbery.
The latter, which once belonged to the autograph collector, William
Upcott, was in the market in 1887.
AIR. Act i. This song had been published in the
first edition
of _The Haunch of Venison_, 1776, with the second stanza varied
thus:—
Thou, like the world, th’ opprest oppressing,
Thy smiles increase the wretch’s woe’
And he who wants each other blessing,
In thee must ever find a foe.
AIR. Act ii. This song also had appeared in the
first edition of _The Haunch of Venison_, 1776, in a different
form:—
The Wretch condemn’d with life to part,
Still, still on Hope relies;
And ev’ry pang that rends the heart,
Bids Expectation rise.
Hope, like the glim’ring taper’s light,
Adorns and chears the way;
And still, as darker grows the night,
Emits a brighter ray.
Mitford, who printed _The Captivity_ from Newbery’s version,
records a number of ‘first thoughts’ afterwards altered or improved by the
author in his MS. Modern editors have not reproduced them, and their
example has been followed here. _The Captivity_ is not, in any
sense, one of Goldsmith’s important efforts.
VERSES IN REPLY TO AN INVITATION TO DINNER.
These were first published in the _ Miscellaneous Works_ of
1837, iv. 132–3, having been communicated to the editor by Major-General
Sir H. E. Bunbury, Bart., the son of Henry William Bunbury, the well-known
comic artist, and husband of Catherine Horneck, the ‘Little Comedy’ to
whom Goldsmith refers. Dr. Baker, to whose house the poet was invited, was
Dr. (afterwards Sir George) Baker, 1722–1809. He was Sir Joshua’s doctor;
and in 1776 became physician to George III, whom he attended during his
illness of 1788–9. He is often mentioned by Fanny Burney and Hannah More.
Horneck, i.e. Mrs. Hannah Horneck—the
‘Plymouth Beauty’—widow of Captain Kane William Horneck, grandson
of Dr. Anthony Horneck of the Savoy, mentioned in Evelyn’s _Diary_,
for whose _Happy Ascetick_, 1724, Hogarth designed a
frontispiece. Mrs. Horneck died in 1803. Like Sir Joshua, the Hornecks
came from Devonshire; and through him, had made the acquaintance of
Goldsmith.
Nesbitt. Mr. Nesbitt was the husband of one of Mr.
Thrale’s handsome sisters. He was a member of the Devonshire Club, and
twice (1759–61) sat to Reynolds, with whom he was intimate. He died in
1779, and his widow married a Mr. Scott.
Kauffmann. Angelica Kauffmann, the artist,
1741–1807. She had come to London in 1766. At the close of 1767 she had
been cajoled into a marriage with an impostor, Count de Horn, and had
separated from him in 1768. In 1769 she painted a ‘weak and
uncharacteristic’ portrait of Reynolds for Mr. Parker of Saltram
(afterwards Baron Boringdon), which is now in the possession of the Earl
of Morley. It was exhibited at the Royal Academy in the winter of 1876,
and is the portrait referred to at l. 44 below.
the Jessamy Bride. This was Goldsmith’s pet-name
for Mary, the elder Miss Horneck. After Goldsmith’s death she married
Colonel F. E. Gwyn (1779). She survived until 1840. ‘Her own picture with
a turban,’ painted by Reynolds, was left to her in his will (_Works_
by Malone, 2nd ed., 1798, p. cxviii). She was also painted by Romney and
Hoppner. ‘Jessamy,’ or ‘jessimy,’ with its suggestion of jasmine flowers,
seems in eighteenth-century parlance to have stood for ‘dandified,’
‘superfine,’ ‘delicate,’ and the whole name was probably coined after the
model of some of the titles to Darly’s prints, then common in all the
shops.
The Reynoldses two, i.e. Sir Joshua and his
sister, Miss Reynolds.
Little Comedy’s face. ‘Little Comedy’ was
Goldsmith’s name for the younger Miss Horneck, Catherine, and already
engaged to H. W. Bunbury (_v. supra_), to whom she was married in
1771. She died in 1799, and had also been painted by Reynolds.
the Captain in lace. This was Charles Horneck,
Mrs. Horneck’s son, an officer in the Foot-guards. He afterwards became a
general, and died in 1804. (See note, p. 247, l. 31.)
to-day’s Advertiser. The lines referred to are
said by Prior to have been as follows:—
While fair Angelica, with matchless grace,
Paints Conway’s lovely form and Stanhope’s face;
Our hearts to beauty willing homage pay,
We praise, admire, and gaze our souls away.
But when the likeness she hath done for thee,
O Reynolds! with astonishment we see,
Forced to submit, with all our pride we own,
Such strength, such harmony, excell’d by none,
And thou art rivall’d by thyself alone.
They probably appeared in the newspaper at some date between 1769, when
the picture was painted, and August 1771, when ‘Little Comedy’ was
married, after which time Goldsmith would scarcely speak of her except as
‘Mrs. Bunbury’ (see p. 132, l. 15).
LETTER IN PROSE AND VERSE TO MRS. BUNBURY.
This letter, which contains some of the brightest and easiest of
Goldsmith’s familiar verses, was addressed to Mrs. Bunbury (the ‘Little
Comedy’ of the _Verses in Reply to an Invitation to Dinner_,
pp. 250–2), in answer to a rhymed summons on her part to spend Christmas
at Great Barton in Suffolk, the family seat of the Bunburys. It was first
printed by Prior in the _Miscellaneous Works_ of 1837, iv.
148–51, and again in 1838 in Sir Henry Bunbury’s _Correspondence of
Sir Thomas Hanmer, Bart._, pp. 379–83. The text of the latter issue
is here followed. When Prior published the verses, they were assigned to
the year 1772; in the _Hanmer Correspondence_ it is stated that
they were ‘probably written in 1773 or 1774.’
your spring velvet coat. Goldsmith’s pronounced
taste in dress, and his good-natured simplicity, made his costume a
fertile subject for playful raillery,—sometimes, for rather
discreditable practical jokes. (See next note.)
a wig, that is modish and gay. ‘He always wore a
wig’—said the ‘Jessamy Bride’ in her reminiscences to Prior—‘a
peculiarity which those who judge of his appearance only from the fine poetical head
of Reynolds, would not suspect; and on one occasion some person contrived
to seriously injure this important adjunct to dress. It was the only one
he had in the country, and the misfortune seemed irreparable until the
services of Mr. Bunbury’s valet were called in, who however performed his
functions so indifferently that poor Goldsmith’s appearance became the
signal for a general smile’ (Prior’s _Life_, 1837, ii. 378–9).
Naso contemnere adunco. Cf. Horace, _Sat_.
i. 6. 5:—
naso suspendis adunco
Ignotos,
and Martial, _Ep_. i. 4. 6:—
Et pueri nasum Rhinocerotis habent.
Loo, i.e. Lanctre- or Lanterloo, a popular
eighteenth-century game, in which _Pam_, l. 6, the knave of clubs, is
the highest card. Cf. Pope, _Rape of the Lock_, 1714, iii. 61:—
Ev’n might _Pam_, that Kings and Queens o’erthrew,
And mow’d down armies in the fights of Lu;
and Colman’s epilogue to _The School for Scandal_, 1777:—
And at backgammon mortify my soul,
That pants for _loo_, or flutters at a vole?
Miss Horneck. Miss Mary Horneck, the ‘Jessamy
Bride’ _vide_ note, p. 251, l. 14).
Fielding. Sir John Fielding, d. 1780, Henry
Fielding’s blind half-brother, who succeeded him as a Justice of the Peace
for the City and Liberties of Westminster. He was knighted in 1761. There
are two portraits of him by Nathaniel Hone.
by quinto Elizabeth, Death without Clergy. Legal
authorities affirm that the Act quoted should be 8 Eliz. cap. iv, under
which those who stole more than twelvepence ‘privately from a man’s
person’ were debarred from benefit of clergy. But ‘quint. Eliz.’ must have
offered some special attraction to poets, since Pope also refers to it in
the _Satires and Epistles_, i. 147–8:—
Consult the Statute: _quart_. I think, it is,
_Edwardi sext._ or _prim. et quint. Eliz._
With bunches of fennel, and nosegays before ’em.
This was a custom dating from the fearful jail fever of 1750, which
carried off, not only prisoners, but a judge (Mr. Justice Abney) ‘and many
jurymen and witnesses.’ ‘From that time up to this day [i.e. 1855] it has
been usual to place sweet-smelling herbs in the prisoner’s dock, to
prevent infection.’ (Lawrence’s _Life of Henry Fielding_, 1855,
p. 296.) The close observation of Cruikshank has not neglected this detail
in the Old Bailey plate of _The Drunkard’s Children_, 1848, v.
mobs. The mob was a loose undress or _dèshabillè_,
sometimes a hood. ‘When we poor souls had presented ourselves with a
contrition suitable to our worthlessness, some pretty young ladies in _mobs_,
popped in here and there about the church.’ (_Guardian_, No.
65, May 26, 1713.) Cf. also Addison’s ‘Fine Lady’s Diary’ (_Spectator_,
No. 323); ‘Went in our _Mobbs_ to the Dumb Man’ (Duncan Campbell).
yon solemn-faced. Cf. _Introduction_,
p. xxvii. According to the ‘Jessamy Bride,’ Goldsmith sometimes aggravated
his plainness by an ‘assumed frown of countenance’ (Prior, _Life_,
1837, ii. 379).
Sir Charles, i.e. Sir Thomas Charles Bunbury,
Bart., M. P., Henry Bunbury’s elder brother. He succeeded to the title in
1764, and died without issue in 1821. Goldsmith, it may be observed, makes
‘Charles’ a disyllable. Probably, like many of his countrymen, he so
pronounced it. (Cf. Thackeray’s _Pendennis_, 1850, vol. ii,
chap. 5 [or xliii], where this is humorously illustrated in Captain
Costigan’s ‘Sir _Chorlus_, I saw your neem at the Levee.’ Perhaps
this accounts for ‘failing’ and ‘stealing,’—‘day on’ and ‘Pantheon,’
in the _New Simile_. Cooke (_European Magazine_, October, 1793,
p. 259) says that Goldsmith ‘rather cultivated (than endeavoured to get
rid of) his brogue.’
dy’d in grain, i.e. fixed, ineradicable. To ‘dye
in grain’ means primarily to colour with the scarlet or purple dye
produced by the _kermes_ insect, called _granum_ in Latin, from
its similarity to small seeds. Being what is styled a ‘fast’ dye the
phrase is used by extension to signify permanence.
VIDA’S GAME OF CHESS.
Forster thus describes the MS. of this poem in his _Life of Goldsmith_:—‘It
is a small quarto manuscript of thirty-four pages, containing 679 lines,
to which a fly-leaf is appended in which Goldsmith notes the differences
of nomenclature between Vida’s chessmen and our own. It has occasional
interlineations and corrections, but such as would occur in transcription
rather than in a first or original copy. Sometimes indeed choice appears
to have been made (as at page 29) between two words equally suitable to
the sense and verse, as “to” for “toward”; but the insertions and erasures
refer almost wholly to words or lines accidentally omitted and replaced.
The triplet is always carefully marked; and seldom as it is found in any
other of Goldsmith’s poems. I am disposed to regard its frequent
recurrence here as even helping, in some degree, to explain the motive
which had led him to the trial of an experiment in rhyme comparatively new
to him. If we suppose him, half consciously, it may be, taking up the
manner of the great master of translation, Dryden, who was at all times so
much a favourite with him, he would at least, in so marked a peculiarity,
be less apt to fall short than to err perhaps a little on the side of
excess. Though I am far from thinking such to be the result in the present
instance. The effect of the whole translation is pleasing to me, and the
mock-heroic effect I think not a little assisted by the reiterated use of
the triplet and alexandrine. As to any evidence of authorship derivable
from the appearance of the manuscript, I will only add another word. The
lines in the translation have been carefully counted, and the number is
marked in Goldsmith’s hand at the close of his transcription. Such a fact
is, of course, only to be taken in aid of other proof; but a man is not
generally at the pains of counting, still less, I should say in such a
case as Goldsmith’s, of elaborately transcribing, lines which are not his
own.’ (Forster’s _Goldsmith_, 1871, ii. 235–6).
When Forster wrote the above, the MS. was in the possession of Mr. Bolton
Corney, who had not been aware of its existence when he edited Goldsmith’s
Poems in 1845. In 1854 it was, with his permission, included in vol. iv of
Cunningham’s _ Works_ of 1854, and subsequently in the Aldine
_ Poems_ of 1866.
Mark Jerome Vida of Cremona, 1490–1566, was Bishop of Alba, and favourite
of Leo the Magnificent. Several translators had tried their hand at his
_Game of Chess_ before Goldsmith. Lowndes mentions Rowbotham,
1562; Jeffreys, 1736; Erskine, 1736; Pullin, 1750; and _Anon_.
(Eton), 1769 (who may have preceded Goldsmith). But after his
(Goldsmith’s) death appeared another Oxford anonymous version, 1778, and
one by Arthur Murphy, 1786.
APPENDIXES
A. PORTRAITS OF GOLDSMITH.
B. DESCRIPTIONS OF NEWELL’S VIEWS OF LISSOY, ETC.
C. THE EPITHET ‘SENTIMENTAL.’
D. FRAGMENTS OF TRANSLATIONS, ETC. BY GOLDSMITH.
E. GOLDSMITH ON POETRY UNDER ANNE AND GEORGE THE FIRST.
F. CRITICISMS FROM GOLDSMITH’S ‘BEAUTIES OF ENGLISH POESY.’
[Illustration: ]
OLIVER GOLDSMITH
(M. W. Bunbury)
APPENDIX A
PORTRAITS OF GOLDSMITH.
PORTRAITS of Goldsmith are not numerous; and the best known
are those of Reynolds and H. W. Bunbury. That by Sir Joshua was painted in
1766–70, and exhibited in the Royal Academy (No. 151) from April 24th to
May 28th in the latter year. It represents the poet in a plain white
collar, furred mantle open at the neck, and holding a book in his right
hand. Its general characteristics are given at p. xxviii of the
‘Introduction.’ It was scraped in mezzotint in 1770 by Reynolds’s Italian
pupil, Giuseppe, or Joseph Marchi; and it is dated 1st December.*
Bunbury’s portrait first appeared, after Goldsmith’s death, as a
frontispiece to the _Haunch of Venison_; and it was etched in
facsimile by James Bretherton. The plate is dated May 24, 1776. In his
loyal but despotic _Life of Goldsmith_ (Bk. iv, ch. 6), Mr.
John Forster reproduces these portraits side by side; in order, he
professes, to show ‘the distinction between truth and a caricature of it.’
Bunbury, it may be, was primarily a caricaturist, and possibly looked at
most things from a more or less grotesque point of view; but this sketch—it
should be observed—was meant for a likeness, and we have the express
testimony of one who, if she was Bunbury’s sister-in-law, was also
Goldsmith’s friend, that it rendered Goldsmith accurately. It ‘gives the
head with admirable fidelity’—says the ‘Jessamy Bride’ (afterwards
Mrs. Gwyn)—‘as he actually lived among us; nothing can exceed its
truth’ (Prior’s _Life_, 1837, ii. 380). In other words, it
delineates Goldsmith as his contemporaries saw him, with bulbous
forehead, indecisive chin, and long protruding upper lip,—awkward,
insignificant, ill at ease,—restlessly burning ‘to get in and
shine.’ It enables us moreover to understand how people who knew nothing
of his better and more lovable qualities, could speak of him as an
‘inspired idiot,’ as ‘silly Dr. Goldsmith,’ as ‘talking like poor Poll.’
It is, in short, his external, objective presentment. The picture by Sir
Joshua, on the contrary, is almost wholly subjective. Draped judiciously
in a popular studio costume, which is not that of the sitter’s day, it
reveals to us the author of _The Deserted Village_ as Reynolds
conceived him to be at his best, serious, dignified, introspective, with
his physical defects partly extenuated by art, partly over-mastered by his
intellectual power. To quote the ‘Jessamy Bride’ once more—it is ‘a
fine poetical head for the admiration of posterity, but as it is divested
of his wig and with the shirt collar open, it was not the man as seen in
daily life’ (_Ib_. ii. 380). Had Goldsmith lived in our era of
photography, photography would doubtless have given us something which
would have been neither the one nor the other, but more like Bunbury than
Reynolds. Yet we may be grateful for both. For Bunbury’s sketch and
Reynolds’s portrait are alike indispensable to the true comprehension of
Goldsmith’s curiously dual personality.**
* This was the print to which Goldsmith referred in a well-known
anecdote. Speaking to his old Peckham pupil, Samuel Bishop, whom, after
many years, he met accidentally in London, he asked him eagerly whether he
had got an engraving of the new portrait, and finding he had not, ‘said
with some emotion, “if your picture had been published, I should not have
suffered an hour to elapse without procuring it.”’ But he was speedily
‘appeased by apologies.’ (Prior’s _Life_, 1837, i. 219–20.)
** There is in existence another undated etching by Bretherton after
Bunbury on a larger scale, which comes much nearer to Reynolds; and it is
of course possible, though not in our opinion probable, that Mrs. Gwyn may
have referred to this. But Forster selected the other for his comparison;
it is prefixed to the _Haunch of Venison_; it is certainly the
better known; and (as we believe) cannot ever have been intended for a
caricature.
The portrait by Reynolds, above referred to, was painted for the Thrale Gallery
at Streatham, on the dispersion of which, in May, 1816, it was bought for the
Duke of Bedford for £133 7s. It is now at Woburn Abbey (Cat. No. 254). At
Knole, Lord Sackville possesses another version (Cat. No. 239), which was
purchased in 1773 by the Countess Delawarr, and was shown at South Kensington
in 1867. Here the dress is a black coat and a brown mantle with fur. The
present owner exhibited it at the Guelph Exhibition of 1891. A third version,
now in the Irish National Gallery, once belonged to Goldsmith himself, and then
to his brother-in-law, Daniel Hodson. Finally there is a copy, by a pupil of
Reynolds, in the National Portrait Gallery, to which it was bequeathed in 1890
by Dr. Leifchild, having formerly been the property of Caleb Whitefoord. Caleb
Whitefoord also had an ‘admirable miniature’ by Reynolds, which
belongs to the Rev. Benjamin Whitefoord, Hon. Canon of Salisbury (_Whitefoord
Papers_, 1898, p. xxvii). A small circular print, based upon Reynolds, and
etched by James Basire, figures on the title-page of _Retaliation_. Some
of the plates are dated April 18, 1774.* The National Portrait Gallery has also
a silhouette, attributed to Ozias Humphry, R.A., which was presented in 1883 by
Sir Theodore Martin, K.C.B. Then there is the portrait by Hogarth shown at
South Kensington in 1867 by the late Mr. Studley Martin of Liverpool. It
depicts the poet writing at a round table in a black cap, claret-coloured coat
and ruffles. Of this there is a wood-cut in the later editions of
Forster’s _ Life_ (Bk. iii, ch. 14). The same exhibition of 1867
contained a portrait of Goldsmith in a brown coat and red waistcoat, ‘as
a young man.’ It was said to be extremely like him in face, and was
attributed to Gainsborough. In Evans’s edition of the _Poetical and
Dramatic Works_ is another portrait engraved by Cook, said, on some copies,
to be ‘from an original drawing’; and there is in the Print Room at
the British Museum yet another portrait still, engraved by William Ridley
‘from a painting in the possession of the Rev. Mr. Williams,’ no
doubt Goldsmith’s friend, the Rev. David Williams, founder of the Royal
Literary Fund. One of these last may have been the work to which the poet
refers in a letter to his brother Maurice in January, 1770. ‘I have sent
my cousin Jenny [Jane Contarine] a miniature picture of myself . . . The face
you well know, is ugly enough, but it is finely painted’ (_Misc.
Works_, 1801, p. 88).
* There is also a sketch by Reynolds (?) at the British Museum.
[Illustration: ]
SILHOUETTE OF GOLDSMITH
(Ozias Humphry)
In front of Dublin University is a bronze statue of Goldsmith by J. H.
Foley, R.A., erected in 1864.** Of this there is a good engraving by
G. Stodart. On the memorial in Westminster Abbey erected in 1776 is a
medallion by Joseph Nollekens.
** Goldsmith’s traditional ill-luck pursued him after death. During
some public procession in front of Trinity College, a number of
undergraduates climbed on the statue, with the result that the thin metal
of the poet’s head was flattened or crushed in, requiring for its
readjustment very skilful restorative treatment. The Editor is indebted
for this item of information to the kindness of Mr. Percy Fitzgerald, who
was present at the subsequent operation.
APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTIONS OF NEWELL’S VIEWS OF LISSOY, ETC.
In 1811, the Rev. R. H. Newell, B.D. and Fellow of St. John’s College,
Cambridge, issued an edition of the _ Poetical Works_ of
Goldsmith. The distinctive feature of this lay in the fact that it was
illustrated by a number of aquatints ‘by Mr. Alkin’ (i.e. Samuel Alken),
after drawings made by Newell in 1806–9, and was accompanied by a series
of ‘Remarks, attempting to ascertain, chiefly from local observation, the
actual scene of _The Deserted Village_.’ Some quotations from
these ‘Remarks’ have already been made in the foregoing notes; but as
copies of six of the drawings are given in this volume, it may be well, in
each case, to reproduce Newell’s ‘descriptions.’
LISHOY, OR LISSOY MILL.
The west end of it, as seen from a field near the road; to the north the
country slopes away in coarsely cultivated enclosures, and the distance
eastward is bounded by the Longford hills. The stream ran from the south
side of the mill (where it is still of some width though nearly choked
up), and fell over the once busy wheel, into a deep channel, now overgrown
with weeds. Neglect and poverty appear all around. The farm house and
barn-like buildings, which fill up the sketch, seem to have no
circumstances of interest attached to them (p. 83).
[Illustration: ]
LISSOY MILL
(R. H. Newell)
KILKENNY WEST CHURCH.
This south-west view was taken from the road, which passes by the church,
towards Lishoy, and overlooks the adjacent country to the west. The church
appears neat, its exterior having been lately repaired. The tree added to
the foreground is the only liberty taken with the subject (p. 83).
HAWTHORN TREE.
An east view of the tree, as it stood in August, 1806. The Athlone road
occupies the centre of the sketch, winding round
the stone wall to the right, into the village, and to the left leading
toward the church. The cottage and tree opposite the hawthorn, adjoin the
present public-house; the avenue before the parsonage tops the distant
eminence (p. 84).
SOUTH VIEW FROM GOLDSMITH’S MOUNT.
In this sketch ‘the decent church,’ at the top of the hill in the
distance, is an important object, from its exact correspondence with the
situation given it in the poem. Half-way up stands the solitary ruin of
Lord Dillon’s castle. The hill in shadow, on the left, is above the
village, and is supposed to be alluded to in the line—
Up yonder hill the distant murmur rose.
A flat of bogland extends from the narrow lake in the centre to the mount
on the right of the foreground (p. 84).
THE PARSONAGE.
A south view from the Athlone road, which runs parallel with the stone
wall, and nearly east and west: the gateway is that mentioned in
Goldsmith’s letter,* the mount being directly opposite, in a field
contiguous with the road.
* See note to l. 114 of _The Deserted Village_.
The ruinous stone wall in this and three other sketches, which is a
frequent sort of fence in the neighbourhood, gives a characteristic
propriety to the line (48)
And the long grass o’ertops the mould’ring wall.
(pp. 84–5).
[Illustration: ]
THE PARSONAGE
(R. H. Newell)
THE SCHOOL-HOUSE.
This cottage is situated, as the poem describes it, by the road-side, just
where it forms a sharp angle by branching out from the village eastward:
at this point a south-west view was taken (p. 85).
Newell’s book was reissued in 1820; but no alterations were made in the
foregoing descriptions which, it must be borne in
mind, refer to 1806–9. His enthusiastic identifications will no doubt be
taken by the reader with the needful grain of salt. Goldsmith probably
remembered the hawthorn bush, the church upon the hill, the watercress
gatherer, and some other familiar objects of the ‘seats of his youth.’ But
distance added charm to the regretful retrospect; and in the details his
fancy played freely with his memories. It would be unwise, for example, to
infer—as Mr. Hogan did—the decorations of the _Three
Pidgeons_ at Lissoy from the account of the inn in the poem.* Some
twelve years before its publication, when he was living miserably in Green
Arbour Court, Goldsmith had submitted to his brother Henry a sample of a
heroi-comic poem describing a Grub Street writer in bed in ‘a paltry
ale-house.’ In this ‘the sanded floor,’ the ‘twelve good rules’ and the
broken tea-cups all played their parts as accessories, and even the
double-dealing chest had its prototype in the poet’s night-cap, which was
‘a cap by night—a stocking all the day.’ A year or two later he
expanded these lines in the _Citizen of the World_, and the
scene becomes the Red Lion in Drury Lane. From this second version he
adapted, or extended again, the description of the inn parlour in _The
Deserted Village_. It follows therefore, either that he borrowed for
London the details of a house in Ireland, or that he used for Ireland the
details of a house in London. If, on the other hand, it be contended that
those details were common to both places, then the identification in these
particulars of Auburn with Lissoy falls hopelessly to the ground.
* What follows is taken from the writer’s ‘Introduction’ to Mr.
Edwin Abbey’s illustrated edition of _ The Deserted Village_,
1902, p. ix.
APPENDIX C
THE EPITHET ‘SENTIMENTAL.’
Goldsmith’s use of ‘sentimental’ in the ‘prologue’ to _She Stoops to
Conquer_ (p. 109, l. 36)—the only occasion upon which he seems
to have employed it in his _Poems_—affords an excuse for
bringing together one or two dispersed illustrations of the rise and
growth of this once highly-popular adjective, not as yet
reached in the _N. E. D._ Johnson, who must often have heard it,
ignores it altogether; and in Todd’s edition of his _Dictionary_
(1818) it is expressly marked with a star as one of the modern words which
are ‘not’ to be found in the Doctor’s collection. According to Mr. Sidney
Lee’s admirable article in the _Dictionary of National Biography_
on Sterne, that author is to be regarded as the ‘only begetter’ of the
epithet. Mr. Lee says that it first occurs in a letter of 1740 written by
the future author of _Tristram Shandy_ to the Miss Lumley he
afterwards married. Here is the precise and characteristic passage:—‘I
gave a thousand pensive, penetrating looks at the chair thou hadst so
often graced, in those quiet and _sentimental_ repasts—then
laid down my knife and fork, and took out my handkerchief, and clapped it
across my face, and wept like a child’ (Sterne’s _Works_ by
Saintsbury, 1894, v. 25). Nine years later, however circulated,
‘sentimental’ has grown ‘so much in vogue’ that it has reached from London
to the provinces. ‘Mrs. Belfour’ (Lady Bradshaigh) writing from
Lincolnshire to Richardson says:—‘Pray, Sir, give me leave to ask
you . . . what, in your opinion, is the meaning of the word _sentimental_,
so much in vogue amongst the polite, both in town and country? In letters
and common conversation, I have asked several who make use of it, and have
generally received for answer, it is—it is—_sentimental_.
Every thing clever and agreeable is comprehended in that word; but [I] am
convinced a wrong interpretation is given, because it is impossible every
thing clever and agreeable can be so common as this word. I am frequently
astonished to hear such a one is a _sentimental_ man; we were a _sentimental_
party; I have been taking a _ sentimental_ walk. And that I might be
reckoned a little in the fashion, and, as I thought, show them the proper
use of the word, about six weeks ago, I declared I had just received a _
sentimental_ letter. Having often laughed at the word, and found fault
with the application of it, and this being the first time I ventured to
make use of it, I was loudly congratulated upon the occasion: but I should
be glad to know your interpretation of it’ (Richardson’s _Correspondence_,
1804, iv. pp. 282–3). The reply of the author of _Clarissa_,
which would have been interesting, is not given; but it is clear that by
this date (1749) ‘sentimental’ must already have been rather overworked by
‘the polite.’ Eleven years after this we meet with it in the Prologue to
Colman’s
‘Dramatick Novel’ of _Polly Honeycombe_. ‘And then,’ he says,
commenting upon the fiction of the period,—
And then so _sentimental_ is the Stile,
So chaste, yet so bewitching all the while!
Plot, and elopement, passion, rape, and rapture,
The total sum of ev’ry dear—dear—Chapter.
With February, 1768, came Sterne’s _ Sentimental Journey_ upon
which Wesley has this comment:—‘I casually took a volume of what is
called, “A Sentimental Journey through France and Italy.” _Sentimental_!
what is that? It is not English: he might as well say, _ Continental_
[!]. It is not sense. It conveys no determinate idea; yet one fool makes
many. And this nonsensical word (who would believe it?) is become a
fashionable one!’ (_Journal_, February 11, 1772). In 1773,
Goldsmith puts it in the ‘Dedication’ to _She Stoops_:—‘The
undertaking a comedy, not merely _sentimental_, was very dangerous;’ and
Garrick (forgetting Kelly and _False Delicacy_) uses it more
than once in his ‘Prologue’ to the same play, e.g.—‘Faces are blocks
in _sentimental_ scenes.’ Further examples might easily be multiplied, for
the word, in spite of Johnson, had now come to stay. Two years
subsequently we find Sheridan referring to
The goddess of the woful countenance,
The _sentimental_ Muse!—
in an occasional ‘Prologue’ to _The Rivals_. It must already
have passed into the vocabulary of the learned. Todd gives examples from
Shenstone and Langhorne. Warton has it more than once in his _History
of English Poetry_; and it figures in the _Essays_ of
Vicesimus Knox. Thus academically launched, we need no longer follow its
fortunes.
APPENDIX D
FRAGMENTS OF TRANSLATIONS, ETC., BY GOLDSMITH.
To the Aldine edition of 1831, the Rev. John Mitford added several
fragments of translation from Goldsmith’s _Essays_. About a
third of these were traced by Bolton Corney in 1845 to the _Horace_
of Francis. He therefore compiled a fresh collection, here given.
_From a French version of Homer_.
The shouting army cry’d with joy extreme,
He sure must conquer, who himself can tame!
_The Bee_, 1759, p. 90.
The next is also from Homer, and is proposed as an improvement of Pope:—
They knew and own’d the monarch of the main:
The sea subsiding spreads a level plain:
The curling waves before his coursers fly:
The parting surface leaves his brazen axle dry.
_Miscellaneous Works_, 1801, iv. 410.
From the same source comes number three, a quatrain from Vida’s _Eclogues_:—
Say heavenly muse, their youthful frays rehearse;
Begin, ye daughters of immortal verse;
Exulting rocks have crown’d the power of song!
And rivers listen’d as they flow’d along.
_Miscellaneous Works_, 1801, iv. 427.
Another is a couplet from Ovid, the fish referred to being the _scarus_
or bream:—
Of all the fish that graze beneath the flood,
He, _only_, ruminates his former food.
_History of the Earth,_ etc., 1774, iii. 6.
Bolton Corney also prints the translation from the _Spectator_,
already given in this volume. His last fragment is from the posthumous
translation of Scarron’s _ Roman Comique_:—
Thus, when soft love subdues the heart
With smiling hopes and chilling fears,
The soul rejects the aid of art,
And speaks in moments more than years.
_The Comic Romance of Monsieur Scarron_, 1775, ii. 161.
It is unnecessary to refer to any other of the poems attributed to
Goldsmith. Mitford included in his edition a couple of quatrains inserted
in the _Morning Chronicle_ for April 3, 1800, which were said
to be by the poet; but they do not resemble his manner. Another piece with
the title of _The Fair Thief_ was revived in July, 1893, by an
anonymous writer in the _Daily_
_Chronicle_, as being possibly by Goldsmith, to whom it was
assigned in an eighteenth-century anthology (1789–80). Its discoverer,
however, subsequently found it given in Walpole’s _Noble Authors_
(Park’s edition, 1806) to Charles Wyndham, Earl of Egremont. It has no
great merit; and may safely be neglected as an important addition to
Goldsmith’s _Works_, already burdened with much which that
critical author would never have reprinted.
APPENDIX E
GOLDSMITH ON POETRY UNDER ANNE AND GEORGE THE FIRST.
In Letter xvi, vol. ii. pp.139–41, of _An History of England in a
Series of Letters from a Nobleman to his Son_, 1764, Goldsmith gives
the following short account of the state of poetry in the first quarter of
the Eighteenth Century.
‘But, of all the other arts, poetry in this age was carried to the
greatest perfection. The language, for some ages, had been improving, but
now it seemed entirely divested of its roughness and barbarity. Among the
poets of this period we may place John Philips, author of several poems,
but of none more admired than that humourous one, entitled, _The
Splendid Shilling_; he lived in obscurity, and died just above want.
William Congreve deserves also particular notice; his comedies, some of
which were but coolly received upon their first appearance, seemed to mend
upon repetition; and he is, at present, justly allowed the foremost in
that species of dramatic poesy. His wit is ever just and brilliant; his
sentiments new and lively; and his elegance equal to his regularity. Next
him Vanbrugh is placed, whose humour seems more natural, and characters
more new; but he owes too many obligations to the French, entirely to pass
for an original; and his total disregard to decency, in a great measure,
impairs his merit. Farquhar is still more lively, and, perhaps more
entertaining than either; his pieces still continue the favourite
performances of the stage, and bear frequent repetition without satiety;
but he often mistakes pertness for wit, and seldom strikes his characters
with proper force or originality. However, he died very young; and it is
remarkable, that he
continued to improve as he grew older; his last play, entitled _The
Beaux’ Strategem_, being the best of his productions. Addison, both
as a poet and prose writer, deserves the highest regard and imitation. His
_Campaign_, and _Letter to Lord Halifax from Italy_,
are masterpieces in the former, and his _Essays_ published in
the _ Spectator_ are inimitable specimens of the latter.
Whatever he treated of was handled with elegance and precision; and that
virtue which was taught in his writings, was enforced by his example.
Steele was Addison’s friend and admirer; his comedies are perfectly
polite, chaste, and genteel; nor were his other works contemptible; he
wrote on several subjects, and yet it is amazing, in the multiplicity of
his pursuits, how he found leisure for the discussion of any. Ever
persecuted by creditors, whom his profuseness drew upon him, or pursuing
impracticable schemes, suggested by ill-grounded ambition. Dean Swift was
the professed antagonist both of Addison and him. He perceived that there
was a spirit of romance mixed with all the works of the poets who preceded
him; or, in other words, that they had drawn nature on the most pleasing
side. There still therefore was a place left for him, who, careless of
censure, should describe it just as it was, with all its deformities; he
therefore owes much of his fame, not so much to the greatness of his
genius, as to the boldness of it. He was dry, sarcastic, and severe; and
suited his style exactly to the turn of his thought, being concise and
nervous. In this period also flourished many of subordinate fame. Prior
was the first who adopted the French elegant easy manner of telling a
story; but if what he has borrowed from that nation be taken from him,
scarce anything will be left upon which he can lay any claim to applause
in poetry. Rowe was only outdone by Shakespeare and Otway as a tragic
writer; he has fewer absurdities than either; and is, perhaps, as pathetic
as they; but his flights are not so bold, nor his characters so strongly
marked. Perhaps his coming later than the rest may have contributed to
lessen the esteem he deserves. Garth had success as a poet; and, for a
time, his fame was even greater than his desert. In his principal work,
_The Dispensary_, his versification is negligent; and his plot
is now become tedious; but whatever he may lose as a poet, it would be
improper to rob him of the merit he deserves for having written the prose
dedication, and preface, to the poem already mentioned; in which he
has shown the truest wit, with the most refined elegance. Parnell, though
he has written but one poem, namely, _The Hermit_, yet has
found a place among the English first rate poets. Gay, likewise, by his
_Fables_ and _Pastorals_, has acquired an equal
reputation. But of all who have added to the stock of English Poetry,
Pope, perhaps, deserves the first place. On him, foreigners look as one of
the most successful writers of his time; his versification is the most
harmonious, and his correctness the most remarkable of all our poets. A
noted contemporary of his own calls the English the finest writers on
moral topics, and Pope the noblest moral writer of all the English. Mr.
Pope has somewhere named himself the last English Muse; and, indeed, since
his time, we have seen scarce any production that can justly lay claim to
immortality; he carried the language to its highest perfection; and those
who have attempted still farther to improve it, instead of ornament, have
only caught finery.’
APPENDIX F
CRITICISMS FROM GOLDSMITH’S ‘BEAUTIES OF ENGLISH POESY.’
To _The Beauties of English Poesy_, 2 vols., 1767, Goldsmith
prefixed, in each case, ‘short introductory criticisms.’ They are, as he
says, ‘rather designed for boys than men’; and aim only at being ‘obvious
and sincere’; but they carry his views on the subject somewhat farther
than the foregoing account from the _History of England_.
THE RAPE OF THE LOCK.
This seems to be Mr. Pope’s most finished production, and is, perhaps, the
most perfect in our language. It exhibits stronger powers of imagination,
more harmony of numbers, and a greater knowledge of the world, than any
other of this poet’s works; and it is probable, if our country were called
upon to show a specimen of their genius to foreigners, this would be the
work here fixed upon.
THE HERMIT.
This poem is held in just esteem, the versification being chaste, and
tolerably harmonious, and the story told with perspicuity and conciseness.
It seems to have cost great labour, both to Mr. Pope and Parnell himself,
to bring it to this perfection.* It may not be amiss to observe that the
fable is taken from one of Dr. Henry More’s Dialogues.
*Parnell’s _Poems_, 1770, xxiv.
IL PENSEROSO.
I have heard a very judicious critic say, that he had an higher idea of
Milton’s style in poetry, from the two following poems [_Il Penseroso_
and _ l’Allegro_], than from his _Paradise Lost_. It
is certain the imagination shown in them is correct and strong. The
introduction to both in irregular measure is borrowed from the Italian,
and hurts an English ear.
AN ELEGY, WRITTEN IN A COUNTRY CHURCH YARD.
This is a very fine poem, but overloaded with epithet.† The heroic
measure with alternate rhyme is very properly adapted to the solemnity of
the subject, as it is the slowest movement that our language admits of.
The latter part of the poem is pathetic and interesting.
†This is a
strange complaint to come from Goldsmith, whose own _Hermit_,
as was pointed out to the present Editor by the late Mr. Kegan Paul, is
certainly open to this impeachment.
LONDON. IN IMITATION OF THE THIRD SATIRE
OF JUVENAL.
This poem of Mr. Johnson’s is the best imitation of the original that has
appeared in our language, being possessed of all the force and satirical
resentment of Juvenal. Imitation gives us a much truer idea of the
ancients than even translation could do.
THE SCHOOL-MISTRESS. IN IMITATION OF SPENSER.
This poem is one of those happinesses in which a poet excels himself, as
there is nothing in all Shenstone which in any way approaches it in merit;
and, though I dislike the imitations of
our old English poets in general, yet, on this minute subject, the
antiquity of the style produces a very ludicrous solemnity.
COOPER’S HILL.
This poem, by Denham, though it may have been exceeded by later attempts
in description, yet deserves the highest applause, as it far surpasses all
that went before it: the concluding part, though a little too much
crowded, is very masterly.
ELOISA TO ABELARD.
The harmony of numbers in this poem is very fine. It is rather drawn out
to too tedious a length, although the passions vary with great judgement.
It may be considered as superior to anything in the epistolary way; and
the many translations which have been made of it into the modern
languages, are in some measure a proof of this.
AN EPISTLE FROM MR. PHILIPS [Ambrose Philips] TO THE EARL OF DORSET.
The opening of this poem is incomparably fine. The latter part is tedious
and trifling.
A LETTER FROM ITALY, TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLECHARLES LORD HALIFAX.
In the Year MDCCI.
Few poems have done more honour to English genius than this. There is in
it a strain of political thinking that was, at that time, new in our
poetry. Had the harmony of this been equal to that of Pope’s
versification, it would be incontestably the finest poem in our language;
but there is a dryness in the numbers which greatly lessens the pleasure
excited both by the poet’s judgement and imagination.*
* See introductory note to _The Traveller_, p. 162.
ALEXANDER’S FEAST; OR, THE POWER OF MUSIC.
AN ODE, IN HONOUR OF ST. CECILIA’S DAY.
This ode [by Mr. Dryden] has been more applauded, perhaps, than it has
been felt, however, it is a very fine one, and gives its beauties rather
at a third, or fourth, than at a first perusal.
ODE FOR MUSIC ON ST. CECILIA’S DAY.
This ode [by Mr. Pope] has by many been thought equal to the former. As it
is a repetition of Dryden’s manner, it is so far inferior to him. The
whole hint of Orpheus, and many of the lines, have been taken from an
obscure Ode upon Music, published in Tate’s Miscellanies.*
*_A Pindaric Essay upon Musick_—says Gibbs—by
‘Mr. Wilson’,’ which appears at p. 401 of Tate’s Collection of 1685.
THE SHEPHERD’S WEEK. IN SIX PASTORALS.
These are Mr. Gay’s principal performances. They were originally intended,
I suppose, as a burlesque on those of [Ambrose] Philips; but, perhaps
without designing it, he has hit the true spirit of pastoral poetry. In
fact, he more resembles Theocritus than any other English pastoral writer
whatsoever. There runs through the whole a strain of rustic pleasantry
which should ever distinguish this species of composition; but how far the
antiquated expressions used here may contribute to the humour, I will not
determine; for my own part, I could wish the simplicity were preserved,
without recurring to such obsolete antiquity for the manner of expressing
it.
MAC FLECKNOE.
The severity of this satire, and the excellence of its versification give
it a distinguished rank in this species of composition. At present, an
ordinary reader would scarce suppose that Shadwell, who is here meant by
Mac Flecknoe, was worth being chastised, and that Dryden’s descending to
such game was like an eagle’s stooping to catch flies.† The truth
however is, Shadwell, at one time, held divided reputation with this great
poet. Every
age produces its fashionable dunces, who, by following the transient
topic, or humour, of the day, supply talkative ignorance with materials
for conversation.
†‘Aquila non capit muscas’ (Apostolius).
ON POETRY. A RHAPSODY.
Here follows one of the best versified poems in our language, and the most
masterly production of its author. The severity with which Walpole is here
treated, was in consequence of that minister having refused to provide for
Swift in England, when applied to for that purpose in the year 1725 (if I
remember right). The severity of a poet, however, gave Walpole very little
uneasiness. A man whose schemes, like this minister’s, seldom extended
beyond the exigency of the year, but little regarded the contempt of
posterity.
OF THE USE OF RICHES.
This poem, as Mr. Pope tells us himself, cost much attention and labour;
and, from the easiness that appears in it, one would be apt to think as
much.
FROM THE DISPENSARY.
This sixth canto of the _Dispensary_, by Dr. Garth, has more
merit than the whole preceding part of the poem, and, as I am told, in the
first edition of this work it is more correct than as here exhibited; but
that edition I have not been able to find. The praises bestowed on this
poem are more than have been given to any other; but our approbation, at
present, is cooler, for it owed part of its fame to party.*
* Cf. Dedication of _The Traveller_, ll. 34–45.
ECLOGUE I.
SELIM: OR, THE SHEPHERD’S
MORAL.
The following eclogues,† written by Mr. Collins, are very pretty:
the images, it must be owned, are not very local; for the pastoral subject
could not well admit of it. The description
of Asiatic magnificence, and manners, is a subject as yet unattempted
amongst us, and I believe, capable of furnishing a great variety of
poetical imagery.
† i.e.—Selim, Hassan, Agib and Secander, and Abra. Goldsmith
admired Collins, whom he calls in the _ Enquiry_, 1759, p. 143,
‘the neglected author of the Persian eclogues, which, however inaccurate,
excel any in our language.’ He borrowed freely from him in the _Threnodia
Augustalis_, q.v.
THE SPLENDID SHILLING.
BY MR.
J. PHILIPS.
This is reckoned the best parody of Milton in our language: it has been an
hundred times imitated, without success. The truth is, the first thing in
this way must preclude all future attempts; for nothing is so easy as to
burlesque any man’s manner, when we are once showed the way.
A PIPE OF TOBACCO:
IN IMITATION OF
SIX SEVERAL AUTHORS.
Mr. Hawkins Browne, the author of these, as I am told, had no good
original manner of his own, yet we see how well he succeeded when he turns
an imitator; for the following are rather imitations than ridiculous
parodies.
A NIGHT-PIECE ON DEATH.
The great fault of this piece, written by Dr. Parnell, is that it is in
eight-syllable lines, very improper for the solemnity of the subject;
otherwise, the poem is natural, and the reflections just.
A FAIRY TALE.
BY DR. PARNELL.
Never was the old manner of speaking more happily applied, or a tale
better told, than this.
PALEMON AND LAVINIA.
[From _The Seasons_.]
Mr. Thomson, though, in general, a verbose and affected poet, has told
this story with unusual simplicity: it is rather given here for being much
esteemed by the public, than by the editor.
THE BASTARD.
Almost all things written from the heart, as this certainly was, have some
merit. The poet here describes sorrows and misfortunes which were by no
means imaginary; and, thus, there
runs a truth of thinking through this poem, without which it would be of
little value, as Savage is, in other respects, but an indifferent poet.
THE POET AND HIS PATRON.
Mr. Mo[o]re was a poet that never had justice done him while living; there
are few of the moderns have a more correct taste, or a more pleasing
manner of expressing their thoughts. It was upon these fables [Nos. v, vi,
and xvi of the _Fables for the Ladies_] he chiefly founded his
reputation; yet they are, by no means, his best production.
AN EPISTLE TO A LADY.
This little poem, by Mr. Nugent [afterwards Lord Clare] is very pleasing.
The easiness of the poetry, and the justice of the thoughts, constitute
its principal beauty.
HANS CARVEL.
This bagatelle, for which, by the by, Mr. Prior has got his greatest
reputation, was a tale told in all the old Italian collections of jests,
and borrowed from thence by Fontaine. It had been translated once or twice
before into English, yet was never regarded till it fell into the hands of
Mr. Prior. A strong instance how everything is improved in the hands of a
man of genius.
BAUCIS AND PHILEMON.
This poem [by Swift] is very fine; and though in the same strain with the
preceding [Prior’s _Ladle_] is yet superior.
TO THE EARL OF WARWICK, ON THE DEATH
OF MR. ADDISON.
This elegy (by Mr. Ticknell) is one of the finest in our language; there
is so little new that can be said upon the death of a friend, after the
complaints of Ovid and the Latin Italians, in this way, that one is
surprised to see so much novelty in this to strike us, and so much
interest to affect.
COLIN AND LUCY.
Through all Tickell’s works there is a strain of ballad-thinking, if I may
so express it; and, in this professed ballad, he seems to have surpassed
himself. It is, perhaps, the best in our language in this way.
THE TEARS OF SCOTLAND.
WRITTEN IN THE YEAR
MDCCXLVI.
This ode, by Dr. Smollett, does rather more honour to the author’s
feelings than his taste. The mechanical part, with regard to numbers and
language, is not so perfect as so short a work as this requires; but the
pathetic it contains, particularly in the last stanza but one, is
exquisitely fine.
ON THE DEATH OF THE LORD PROTECTOR.
Our poetry was not quite harmonized in Waller’s time; so that this, which
would be now looked upon as a slovenly sort of versification, was, with
respect to the times in which it was written, almost a prodigy of harmony.
A modern reader will chiefly be struck with the strength of thinking, and
the turn of the compliments bestowed upon the usurper. Everybody has heard
the answer our poet made Charles II; who asked him how his poem upon
Cromwell came to be finer than his panegyric upon himself. ‘Your majesty,’
replies Waller, ‘knows, that poets always succeed best in fiction.’
THE STORY OF PHOEBUS AND DAPHNE APPLIED.
The French claim this [by Mr. Waller] as belonging to them. To whomsoever
it belongs the thought is finely turned.
NIGHT THOUGHTS.
BY DR. YOUNG.
These seem to be the best of the collection; from whence only the two
first are taken. They are spoken of differently, either with exaggerated
applause or contempt, as the reader’s disposition is either turned to
mirth or melancholy.
SATIRE I.
Young’s Satires were in higher reputation when published, than they stand
in at present. He seems fonder of dazzling than pleasing; of raising our
admiration for his wit, than our dislike of the follies he ridicules.
A PASTORAL BALLAD.
These ballads of Mr. Shenstone are chiefly commended for the natural
simplicity of the thoughts and the harmony of the versification. However,
they are not excellent in either.
PHOEBE. A PASTORAL.
This, by Dr. Byrom, is a better effort than the preceding [a ballad by
Shenstone].
A SONG.
This [‘Despairing beside a clear stream’] by Mr. Rowe, is better than
anything of the kind in our language.
AN ESSAY ON POETRY.
This work, by the Duke of Buckingham, is enrolled among our great English
productions. The precepts are sensible, the poetry not indifferent, but it
has been praised more than it deserves.
CADENUS AND VANESSA.
This is thought one of Dr. Swift’s correctest pieces; its chief merit,
indeed, is the elegant ease with which a story, but ill-conceived in
itself, is told.
ALMA: OR, THE PROGRESS OF THE MIND.
What Prior meant by this poem I can’t understand; by the Greek motto to it
one would think it was either to laugh at the subject or the reader. There
are some parts of it very fine; and let them save the badness of the rest.