when I perceived what appeared at a distance like a wagon, which I was resolved to overtake; but when I came up with it, I found it to be a strolling company's cart, that was carrying their scenes and other theatrical furniture to the next village, where they were to exhibit. The cart was attended only by the person who drove it, and one of the company, as the rest of the players were to follow the ensuing day. "Good company upon the road," says the proverb, "is the shortest cut." I therefore entered into conversation with the poor player, and as I once had some theatrical powers myself, I disserted on such topics with my usual freedom; but as I was pretty much unacquainted with the present state of the stage, I demanded who were the present theatrical writers in vogue,-who the Drydens 1 and Otways2 of the day. "I fancy, sir," cried the player, "few of our modern dramatists would think themselves much honored by being compared to the writers you mention. Dryden's and Rowe's 3 manner, sir, are quite out of fashion; our taste has gone back a whole century; Fletcher, Ben Jonson, and all the plays of Shakespeare are the only things that go down." "How!" cried I; "is it possible the present age can be pleased with that antiquated dialect, that obsolete humor, those overcharged characters, which abound in the works you mention?" "Sir," returned my companion, "the public think nothing about dialect, or humor, or character, for that is none of their business; they only go to be amused, and find themselves happy when they can enjoy a pantomime under the sanction of Jonson's or Shakespeare's name." "So, then, I suppose," cried I, that our modern dramatists are rather imitators of Shakespeare than of nature."

1 See Note I, p. 43.

2 Thomas Otway (1651-85) was an English dramatist of the time of Dryden.

3 Nicholas Rowe (1673-1718) was also a dramatist. His most successful play is referred to on p. 117.

4 John Fletcher, whose name is inseparably connected with that of Francis Beaumont, his brother in labors and domestic life, was a contemporary of rare Ben Jonson" and of Shakespeare.

"To say the truth," returned my companion, "I don't know that they imitate anything at all; nor, indeed, does the public require it of them; it is not the composition of the piece, but the number of starts and attitudes that may be introduced into it, that elicits applause.1 I have known a piece, with not one jest in the whole, shrugged into popularity. No, sir, the works of Congreve and Farquhar 2 have too much wit in them for the present taste; our modern dialect is much more natural."

By this time the equipage of the strolling company was arrived at the village, which, it seems, had been apprised of our approach, and was come out to gaze at us; for my companion observed that strollers always have more spectators without doors than within. I did not consider the impropriety of my being in such company, till I saw a mob gather about me. I therefore took shelter, as fast as possible, in the first public house that offered, and being shown into the common room, was accosted by a very well-dressed gentleman, who demanded whether I was the real chaplain of the company, or whether it was only to be my masquerade character in the play. Upon my informing him of the truth, and that I did not belong in any sort to the company, he was condescending enough to desire me and the player to partake in a bowl of punch, over which he discussed modern politics with great earnestness and interest. I set him down in my own mind for nothing less than a Parliament man at least; but was almost confirmed in my conjectures when, upon asking what there was in the house for supper, he insisted that I and the player should sup with him at his house; with which request, after some entreaties, we were prevailed on to comply.

1 This is clearly Goldsmith's own view of the condition to which the sentimental comedy of his time had brought the stage.

2 William Congreve (1670-1719) and George Farquhar (1678–1707) were master writers of English comedy.

CHAPTER XIX.

THE DESCRIPTION OF A PERSON DISCONTENTED WITH THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT AND APPREHENSIVE OF THE LOSS OF OUR LIBERTIES.

HE house where we were to be entertained lying at a small

TH

distance from the village, our inviter observed that, as the coach was not ready, he would conduct us on foot; and we soon arrived at one of the most magnificent mansions I had seen in that part of the country. The apartment into which we were shown was perfectly elegant and modern. He went to give orders for supper, while the player, with a wink, observed that we were perfectly in luck. Our entertainer soon returned; an elegant supper was brought in, two or three ladies in an easy deshabille were introduced, and the conversation began with some sprightliness. Politics, however, was the subject on which our entertainer chiefly expatiated; for he asserted that liberty was at once his boast and his terror. After the cloth was removed, he asked me if I had seen the last "Monitor;" to which replying in the negative, "What, not the 'Auditor,' I suppose?" cried he. "Neither, sir," returned I. "That's strange-very strange," replied my entertainer. "Now, I read all the politics that come out. The 'Daily,' the 'Public,' the 'Ledger,' the 'Chronicle,' the 'London Evening,' the 'Whitehall Evening,' the seventeen magazines, and the two reviews; and though they hate each other I love them all. Liberty, sir, liberty is the Briton's boast, and, by all my coal mines in Cornwall! I reverence its guardians." be hoped," cried I," you reverence the King." my entertainer, "when he does what we would have him; but if he goes on as he has done of late, I'll never trouble myself more with his matters. I say nothing. I think, only, I could have directed some things better. I don't think there has been a sufficient number of advisers; he should advise with every person

"Then it is to "Yes," returned

willing to give him advice, and then we should have things done in another-guess 1 manner."

"I wish," cried I, “that such intruding advisers were fixed in the pillory.2 It should be the duty of honest men to assist the weaker side of our constitution, that sacred power which has for some years been every day declining, and losing its due share of influence in the state. But these ignorants still continue the same cry of liberty; and if they have any weight, basely throw it into the subsiding scale."

"How!" cried one of the ladies, "do I live to see one so base, so sordid, as to be an enemy to liberty, and a defender of tyrants? Liberty, that sacred gift of Heaven, that glorious privilege of Britons! "

be

"Can it be possible," cried our entertainer, "that there should any found at present advocates for slavery? any who are for meanly giving up the privileges of Britons ? Can any, sir, be so

abject?"

'No, sir," replied I; "I am for liberty, that attribute of God! glorious liberty, that theme of modern declamation ! I would have all men kings. I would be a king myself. We have all naturally an equal right to the throne; we are all originally equal. This is my opinion, and was once the opinion of a set of honest men who were called Levelers. They tried to erect themselves into a community where all should be equally free. But, alas! it would never answer; for there were some among them stronger, and some more cunning than others, and these became masters of the rest; for as sure as your groom rides your horses, because he is a cunninger animal than they, so surely will the animal that is cunninger or stronger than he sit upon his shoulders in turn.

1 Of another kind.

2 A frame of movable boards by means of which the head and hands of an offender were held fast while he was exposed to public gaze, and possibly to public derision.

3 A faction in the Parliamentary army, which in 1647 wished to level all ranks and to establish equality in titles and estates throughout the kingdom.

Since, then, it is entailed upon humanity to submit, and some are born to command, and others to obey, the question is, as there must be tyrants, whether it is better to have them in the same house with us, or in the same village, or still farther off, in the metropolis. Now, sir, for my own part, as I naturally hate the face of a tyrant, the farther off he is removed from me, the better pleased am I. The generality of mankind also are of my way of thinking, and have unanimously created one king, whose election at once diminishes the number of tyrants, and puts tyranny at the greatest distance from the greatest number of people. Now the great, who were tyrants themselves before the election of one tyrant, are naturally averse to a power raised over them, and whose weight must ever lean heaviest on the subordinate orders. It is the interest of the great, therefore, to diminish kingly power as much as possible, because whatever they take from that is naturally restored to themselves; and all they have to do in the state is to undermine the single tyrant, by which they resume their primeval authority. Now the state may be so circumstanced, or its laws may be so disposed, or its men of opulence so minded, as all to conspire in carrying on this business of undermining monarchy. For, in the first place, if the circumstances of our state be such as to favor the accumulation of wealth and make the opulent still more rich, this will increase their ambition. An accumulation of wealth, however, must necessarily be the consequence, when, as at present, more riches flow in from external commerce than arise from internal industry; for external commerce can only be managed to advantage by the rich, and they have also at the same time all the emoluments arising from internal industry; so that the rich, with us, have two sources of wealth, whereas the poor have but one. For this reason wealth, in all commercial states, is found to accumulate, and all such have hitherto in time become aristocratical. Again, the very laws, also, of this country may contribute to the accumulation of wealth; as when, by their means, the natural ties that bind the rich and poor together are broken, and it is ordained that the