Chapter 14

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.’

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.