therefore, with deference to his | Joshua's), Reynolds, Forbes (the superior judgment, they humbly Scotch baronet and biographer requested he would at least take of Beattie),* Barnard, Sheridan, the trouble of revising it, and of Metcalfe (another great 1774. making such alterations and ad- friend of Sir Joshua's, and Æt. 46. ditions as he should think proper a humane as well as acupon a further perusal. This tive member of the House of part of the remonstrance John-Commons) Gibbon, and Joseph son received with good-humour; Warton. "I wonder," exclaimed and desired Sir Joshua, who pre- Johnson, when he read this part sented it, to tell the gentleinen of the remonstrance, and the he would alter the epitaph in names, "that Joe Warton, a any manner they pleased, as to "scholar by profession, should the sense of it. But then came "be such a fool. I should have the pinch of the matter. Lang-"thought Mund Burke, too, would ton, who was present when the "have had more sense.' His remonstrance was drawn up, had formal answer was not less emnot objected thus far; but to phatic. He requested Reynolds what now was added, he refused at once to acquaint his fellowto give his name. "But if we mutineers, that he would never "might venture to express our consent to disgrace the walls of "wishes, they would lead us to Westminster Abbey with an Eng"request that he would write the lish inscription. The Latin was "epitaph in English rather than accordingly placed upon the "in Latin, as we think that the marble, where it now remains. memory of so eminent an Eng- I append a translation as nearly "lish writer ought to be per- literal, line for line, as I could "petuated in the language to make it, consistent with an at"which his works are likely to tempt to preserve the spirit as "be so lasting an ornament, well as manner of the original. "which we also know to have "been the opinion of the late "Doctor himself." Langton was too sturdy a classic to assent to this; his scholarly sympathies having already invited and received, from Johnson, even a OLIVARII GOLDSMITH nullum quod tetigit non ornavit:** *From whose communication to Bos name in the round robin without the c. Greek lament for their common well (vi. 207-10) these facts are derived. loss. The names circumscribed I may mention that Francklin signs his were those of Burke, Francklin But his identity is not to be disputed. (the translator of Sophocles and He was Greek professor at Cambridge, Lucian who misspelled his own and chaplain to the Royal Academy. name in signing it), Chamier, Colman, Vachell (a friend of Sir minster Abbey, p. 297), remarking happily of this expression that it has passed into **Dean Stanley (Memorials of West the proverbial Latin of mankind, gives hastily a popular but not correct version OF OLIVER GOLDSMITHPoet, Naturalist, Historian, who left scarcely any kind of writing untouched, and touched nothing that he did not adorn: Whether smiles were to be stirred or tears, commanding our emotions, yet a gentle master: In genius lofty, lively, versatile, in style weighty, clear, engaging— The memory in this monument is cherished by the love of Companions, of it, nihil tetigit quod non ornavit, and (in the parish) of Forney, (and county) of of his agreeable book.) Longford, on the 29th Nov. 1731. Trained in letters at Dublin. Died in London, 4th April, 1774. adds: "Professor Conington calls my "attention to the fact that, if this were "a genuine classical quotation, it would "be ornaret. The slight mistake proves "that it is Johnson's own." The mistake is in the quotation. The line as it stands in my text is good Latin, expressing exactly what Johnson intended; Sixty-one years after this monuand as it so stands, it is on the marble. ment was placed in the Abbey it (I leave this note as written, the error being commonly made in quoting the Occurred to the Benchers of the line it refers to: but the Dean has cor- Temple Inn to which I have the rected his mistake in the later editions honour to belong, to contribute to the place such additional in*This epitaph was first made public in Campbell's Philosophical Survey of the terest as it might receive from South of Ireland (437-8), Dr. Johnson commemorating Goldsmith's conhaving furnished a copy. But it was nection with it. A simple and then incomplete, the exact place of handsome inscribed slab of plain Croker, in his last and greatly im- solid white marble was accordproved edition of Boswell, justly ex-ingly, in 1837, fixed in the church, presses himself at a loss to discover how which, when the subsequent rean English church, or a writer whose pairs and restorations compelled fame is exclusively English; and seems disposed, on the other hand, to think a Latin inscription, in such a place, and for such a purpose, about as absurd in principle as Smollett's dinner after the manner of the ancients. I may here add, from Mr. Croker's volume, the Greek tetrastich which (ante, 330) Johnson sent to Langton. birth not having been ascertained. Mr. an English inscription should disgrace Τὸν τάφον εἰσοράας τον Ολιβάροιο Αφροσι μὴ σεμνὴν Ξεῖνε, πόδεσσι Οἶσι μέμηλε φύσις, μέτρων χάρις, ἔργα παλαιῶν, Κλαίετε ποιητὴν, ἱστορικὸν, φυσι κόν. Here GOLDSMITH lies. O ye, who deeds of Eld Or Nature's works, or sacred Song terred. THIS TABLET RECORDING THAT OLIVER GOLDSMITH DIED IN THE TEMPLE ON THE 4TH OF APRIL, 1774, IN THE ADJOINING CHURCHYARD, SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK, TREASURER. 66 1774. Æt. 46. its removal, was transferred to I had so written nearly twenty the recesses of the vestry-cham- years ago; and in a correspondber, where it now remains in- ence respecting it held lately with the present Reader of the Temple, the Rev. Mr. Ainger thus wrote to me last August (1870). "As you 'suppose, I was well aware that "the exact position of Gold"smith's grave is not known. A "flat gravestone with his name "has however been placed in "the yard at the north side of "the church, a few feet west of "the Master's house. As you "do not mention this stone in "the last edition (1855) of your "Life, which I have by me, I con"clude that it has been placed "there subsequently. The old Availing myself of the friend-"vestry of the church has been ship of the distinguished person "superseded by a larger and whose name is affixed to this "more commodious room since tablet, at that time Treasurer of ". "you wrote, and is now occupied the Inner Temple and afterwards "by the blowing-machinery of Chief Baron, we visited together, "the organ; so that the Tablet in 1852, the burial-ground of the "which, as you say, was transTemple in the hope of identify- "ferred thither at the restoration ing the grave; but we did not "of the church, is now still succeed in the object of our "further hidden from the eyes search. We examined unavail- "of the curious." More recently ingly every spot beneath which (1871) I learn that it is moved interment had taken place, and into the triforium, where it will every stone and sculpture on the in future remain; and not a Sunground; nor was it possible to day passes, the Reader of the discover any clue in the register Temple assures me, that he does of burials which we afterwards not see pilgrims of all classes looked through with the Master thronging about the flat graveof the Temple. It simply records stone in the Temple churchas "Buried 9th April, Oliver yard on which mere fancy has "Goldsmith, MB, late of Brick- inscribed for them Here lies "court, Middle Temple." 'OLIVER GOLDSMITH.' Within the last few years too, by the exercise of a higher fancy, the poet has received in the land that dignified audience in whose of his birth more exalted hom- ears might still be ringing some age. His full-length statue by echo of the memorable words Mr. Foley stands now at addressed to them by Lord the gate of the Dublin Chesterfield. "Wit, my Lords, Et. 46. University. 1774. CHAPTER XXII. "is a sort of property-the pro"perty of those who have it, and "too often the only property "they have to depend on. It is, "indeed, but a precarious de"pendance. We, my Lords, "thank God, have a dependance WHILE Goldsmith lay upon "of another kind." Safe in that his death-bed, there was much dependance of another kind, discussion in London about the what was their judgment, then, rights of authors. After two de- as to the only property which not cisions in the courts of common the least distinguished of their law, which declared an author's fellow-citizens had entirely and property to be perpetual in any exclusively to count upon for work he might have written, the subsistence and support? question had been brought upon First for the opinions of the appeal before the House of judges. Five declared their beLords, where the opinions of the lief that, by the common law of judges were taken.* This was England, the sole right of mul*Lord Shelburne, in a letter to Lord tiplying copies of any work was Chatham, describes the scene, with a vested for ever in him, by the very manifest spleen against the Chief exercise of whose genius, facul"self the merest Captain Bobadil that, I ties, or industry such work had suppose, ever existed in real life. I been produced; and that no ought, instead of being a bad writer, to enactment had yet been passed, "be a good painter, to convey to your of force to limit that estate in "lordship the ridicule of the scene. You Justice. "Lord Mansfield showed him 66 can perhaps imagine to yourself the fee. The special verdict in the 66 Bishop of Carlisle, an old metaphysical 66 66 "head of a college, reading a paper, not "Mr. Dunning to put up his glass to look a speech, out of an old sermon book," at the head of criminal justice." Chat"with very bad sight, leaning on the ham Correspondence, IV. 327-8. "table, Lord Mansfield sitting at it, with *Arthur Murphy, at this time praceyes of fixed melancholy looking at tising as a barrister, argued the case "him, knowing that the bishop's were against the perpetual right, as counsel "the only eyes in the House who could for Donaldson and the other appellants "not meet his; the judges behind him (Foot's Life, 356). He had already, five "full of rage at being drawn into so ab-years earlier, defended against Millar's "surd an opinion, and abandoned in it prosecution a Scotch pirate named Tay"by their chief; the bishops waking, as lor, for having seized and appropriated your lordship knows they do, just be- Thomson's Seasons. I mention this be"fore they vote, and staring on finding cause his argument, in which I have little "something the matter; while Lord doubt that Johnson assisted him, is a Townsend was close to the bar, getting somewhat elaborate statement of the 66 1774. case of Millar v. Taylor found it ment of literature. Chief Justice as a fact, "that before the reign Mansfield's opinion would have "of Queen Anne it was usual to equalised these opposing judg"purchase from authors the per-ments; but, though retain'petual copyright of their books, ing it still as strongly as "and to assign the same from when it had decided the t. 46. "hand to hand for valuable con- right in his Own court, the "siderations, and to make them highest tribunal of common law, "the subject of family settle- he thought it becoming not then "ments;" and, in the subsequent to repeat it. Lord Camden upon elaborate judgment, Lord Mans- this moved and carried a reversal field, Mr. Justice Willes, and of Lord Mansfield's decision, by Mr. Justice Aston, concurred in reversing the decree which had holding that copyright was still been founded upon it. The perpetual by the common law, House of Lords thus declared the and not limited, except as to statute of Anne to have been a penalties, by the statute. Six confiscation to the public use, other judges, on the contrary, after a certain brief term, of held that this perpetual property such rights of property in the which undoubtedly existed at fruits of his own labour and common law, had been reduced genius, as, up to the period of its to a short term by an act passed enactment, an author had unin the reign of Queen Anne, and doubtedly possessed. somewhat strangely entitled (if Lord Camden glorified this rethis were indeed its right con- sult as an advantage to literature struction) as for the encourage-itself. For he held that genius reasoning in favour of the limitation of was intended not for the benefit the author's right, and is partly printed in of the individual who possessed Foot's Life, 340-6. It is to be hoped, how it, but the universal benefit of ever, that Johnson did not supply him the race; and, believing Fame to which would be equally good as an argu- be its sufficient reward, thought ment against the admission of any kind that all who deserved so divine a of property in the production of a book. with the hint for one part of his defence, "To whom," says Murphy, "is it owing recompense, spurning delights "that many valuable compositions are and living laborious days, should "now to be had in pocket volumes? To scorn and reject every other. "the country booksellers altogether ... "and the London booksellers, in their The real price which genius sets own defence, and not from choice, upon its labours, he fervently ex"have had recourse to the same measure. claimed, is Immortality, and "The present defendant lives at Ber- Oliver Goldsmith's Life and Times. II. On the "Glory is the reward of science; "and those who deserve it scorn all "meaner views. I speak not of the "scribblers for bread, who tease the "world with their wretched productions; 22 |