about it. Goldy had gone in March, for a week or two, to his retreat at Hyde on the Edgeware Road, when an attack of a local complaint to which he had for some time been subject brought him back to his chambers in the Temple. The immediate illness passed off, but a kind of nervous fever followed; and at eleven o'clock at night on the 25th of March, Mr. Hawes, an apothecary and a friend of Goldsmith's, was sent for. He found Goldsmith very ill, and bent on doctoring himself himself with "James's fever-powders," a patent medicine the property in which had belonged to Newbery the publisher, and in which Goldsmith had great faith. In spite of all that Mr. Hawes could say, he would take one of these powders; after which he became worse and worse. Dr. Fordyce, who had been just elected a member of the Gerrard Street Club, and Dr. Turton, another physician of celebrity, were called in to assist Mr. Hawes, but without avail. "Your pulse," said Dr. Turton to his patient, "is in greater disorder than it should be from the state of your fever is your mind at ease?" "It is not," said Goldsmith. And so, with varying symptoms, he lay on in his chambers in Brick Court till Monday, the 4th of April, 1774, on which day it was known through town that Goldsmith was dead. He died at half-past four that morning in strong convulsions. When Burke was told the new, she burst into tears. When Reynolds was told it, he left his painting-room, where he then was, and did no more work that day. How Johnson was affected at the moment we can only guess; but three months afterwards he wrote as follows to Bennet Langton, in Lincolnshire: " Chambers, you find, is gone far, and poor “Goldsmith is gone much farther. He died of a fever, exasperated, as I believe, by "the fear of distress. He raised money and squandered it by every artifice of acquisition and folly of expense. But let not his frailties be remembered; he

was a very great man." When Goldsmith died he was forty-five years and five months old. His body was buried, on the 9th of April, in the burying-ground of the Temple Church. The monument to him in Westminster Abbey, with the Latin inscription by Johnson, was erected in 1776.

About Goldsmith personally we can add but few particulars to those already given. As is implied by the very name "Goldy," so persistently attached to him in spite of his remonstrances, he was a little man,-not above five feet five inches high, it is said, though stout and thick about the chest and limbs. To have seen him walking down Fleet Street, with the gigantic Johnson by his side, must have been a sight indeed. His pale and pitted face taken along with his figure, people thought him one of the plainest little bodies that ever entered a room; they even called his appearance

46 mean." Looking at his portrait now, and knowing what he was, we do not find this, but only a certain oddness, caused by the outbulging forehead, the lax mouth and chin, and in general the pouting, sulky, "You don't sufficiently respect me," expression. Though sociable and convivial, and lavishly expensive in his style of entertaining others, he seems himself to have had simple enough tastes in eating and drinking; he never had a habit of excess in wine, and he was fond of a bowl of milk to the last. One of his peculiarities- he himself

notes it as a peculiarity in one who professed to write on Natural History-was a strong antipathy to mice, eels, and most little animals of the crawling kind, such as worms and caterpillars. Of all the rest of that strange mixture, or jumble, c qualities that went to make Goldy, a sufficient account has already been given; ani, if one ce pent on summing it all up in some one general idea or impression, to be easily remembered, it must be that impression or idea in which his contemporarie concurred unanimously through every period of his life, and which has been trans mitted to us in so many forms, viz. that he was one of the best-hearted creatures ever born, but a positive idiot except when he had the pen in his hand.

Except when he had the pen in his hand! Ay! there has been his power with the world! And what shall one say now of Goldsmith's writings? Take four brief remarks:-(1) Not to be forgotten is that division of them, alread dwelt on, into two distinct orders-compilations and original pieces. As the division was a vital one to Goldsmith himself-for his literary life consisted, as we have said, of a succession of glitterings of spontaneous genius amid du! habitual drudgery at hackwork-so it is of consequence in our retrospect c, him. Probably much that Goldsmith did in the way of anonymous compilation lies buried irrecoverably in the old periodicals for which he wrote, and which are now little better than lumber on the shelves of our great libraries. But his compilations of English, Roman, and Grecian History, and his Animats Nature, once so popular, are still known, and are to be distinguished from that class of his writings of which the present volume is a collection. Even in the present volume there are some small things that must be regarded as mere compilations, and may serve as minor specimens of Goldsmith in that line—the wretched shred called a Life of Bolingbroke, for example, and the better, but still poor, Life of Parnell, if not indeed also the Memoir of Voltaire, and the Life of Beau Nash Deduct these, and in the Inquiry into the State of Polite Learning, the Essays, the Bee, the Citizen of the World, the Vicar of Wakefield, and the Poems and Plays, you have, in various forms, the pure and real Goldsmith. (2) In all that he wrote. his compilations included, there was the charm of his easy, perspicuous style. This was one of Goldsmith's natural gifts; with his humour, his tenderness, and his graceful delicacy of thought, he had it from the first. No writer in the language has ever surpassed him, or even equalled him, in that witching simplicity, that gentle ease of movement, sometimes careless and slip-shod, but always in perfect good taste, and often delighting with the subtlest turns and felicities, which critics | have admired for a hundred years in the diction of Goldsmith. It is this ment that still gives to his compilations what interest they have, though it was but in a moderate degree that he could exhibit it there. "Nullum ferè scribendi genus non tetigit; nullum quod tetigit non ornavit” (“There was no kind of writing almost that he did not touch; none that he touched that he did not adorn,") said Johnson of him in his epitaph in Westminster Abbey; and the remark includes his compilations. In matter, his History of England, for example, has become quite worthless; and if you want a good laugh over Goldy's notion of what sort of thing a battle

might be, open the book at his descriptions of the battles of Cressy and Agincourt. What "letting fly" at the enemy! and how it is the Black Prince in the one case, and Henry V. in the other, that settles everything with his own hand, and tumbles them over in droves! But read on, and you will see how the style could reconcile people to the meagreness of the matter, and keep the compilation so long popular. And so with his Animated Nature. Johnson prophesied that he would make the work as pleasant as a Persian tale; and the prophecy was fulfilled. The “style” of Goldsmith—which includes, of course, the habitual rule of sequence in his ideas, his sense of fitness and harmony, the liveliness of his fancy from moment to moment, and his general mental tact—this is a study in itself. (3) In his original writings, where the charm of his style is most felt, there is, with all their variety of form, a certain sameness of general effect. The field of incidents, characters, sentiments, and imagined situations, within which the author moves, is a limited one, though there is great deftness of recombination within that horizon. We do not mean merely that Goldsmith, as an eighteenth-century writer, did not go beyond the intellectual and poetic range to which his century had restricted itself. This is true; and though we discern in Goldsmith's writings a fine vein of peculiarity, or even uniqueness, for the generation to which they belonged, there is yet abundant proof that his critical tenets did not essentially transcend those of his generation. Even more for him than for some of his contemporaries, Pope was the limit of classic English literature, and the older grandeurs of Shakespeare and Milton were rugged, barbaric mountain-masses, well at a distance. But, over and above this limitation of Goldsmith's range by essential sympathy with the tastes of his time, there was a something in his own method and choice of subjects causing a farther and inner circumscription of his bounds. All Goldsmith's phantasies, whether in verse or prose-his Vicar of Wakefield, his Traveller, his Deserted Village, his Good-Natured Man and She Stoops to Conquer, and even the humorous sketches that occur in his Essays and Citizen of the World—are phantasies of what may be called reminiscence. Less than even Smollett, did Goldsmith invent, if by invention we mean a projection of the imagination into vacant space, and a filling of portion after portion of that space, as by sheer bold dreaming, with scenery, events, and beings, never known before. He drew on the recollections of his own life, on the history of his own family, on the characters of his relatives, on whimsical incidents that had happened to him in his Irish youth or during his continental wanderings, on his experience as a literary drudge in London. It is easy to pick out passages in his Vicar, his Citizen, and elsewhere, which are, with hardly a disguise, autobiographical. Dr. Primrose is his own father, and the good clergyman of the Deserted Village is his brother Henry; the simple Moses, the Gentleman in Black, young Honeywood in the GoodNatured Man, and even Tony Lumpkin in She Stoops to Conquer, are so many reproductions of phases of himself; the incident on which this last play turns, the mistake of a gentleman's house for an inn, was a remembered blunder of his own in early life; and more than once his device for ending all happily is a benevolent uncle in the background. That of these simple elements he made so many

charming combinations, really differing from each other, and all, though suggeste by fact, yet hung so sweetly in an ideal air, proved what an artist he was, and was better than much that is commonly called invention. In short, if there a sameness of effect in Goldsmith's writings, it is because they consist of poetry an truth, humour and pathos, from his own life, and the supply from such a life his was not inexhaustible. (4) Though so much of Goldsmith's best writing wa generalized and idealized reminiscence, he discharged all special Irish colour outc the reminiscence. There are, of course, Irish references and allusions, and w know what a warm heart he had to the last for the island of his birth. But most of his writings, even when it may have been Irish recollections that suggeste the theme, he is careful to drop its origin, and transplant the tale into England] The ideal air in which his phantasies are hung is an English air. The Vicar Wakefield is an English prose-idyll; She Stoops to Conquer is a comedy of Englis humour, and Tony Lumpkin is an English country-lout; and, notwithstanding & the accuracy with which Lissoy and its neighbourhood have been identified with th Auburn of the Deserted Village, we are in England and not in Ireland while read that poem.

Goldsmith's heart and genius were Irish; his wandering abo

in the world had given him a touch of cosmopolitan ease in his judgment things and opinions, and especially, what was rare among Englishmen then, ⠀ great liking for the French; but in the form and matter of his writings he wa purposely English.

DAVID MASSON.

August 1868.

THE VICAR OF WAKEFIELD.

(1766.)

ADVERTISEMENT.

There are an hundred faults in this thing, and an hundred things might be said prove them beauties. But it is needless. A book may be amusing with numerous rors, or it may be very dull without a single absurdity. The hero of this piece unites himself the three greatest characters upon earth; he is a priest, an husbandman, and he father of a family. He is drawn as ready to teach, and ready to obey; as simple a affluence, and majestic in adversity. In this age of opulence and refinement, whom in such a character please? Such as are fond of high life will turn with disdain rom the simplicity of his country fireside; such as mistake ribaldry for humour will nd no wit in his harmless conversation; and such as have been taught to deride eligion will laugh at one whose chief stores of comfort are drawn from futurity.