powers. The author of a good book hears of his success, but the writer of a good play may night after night witness it.

be unfavourable,

On the other hand, the discouragements are of a serious description; so great as to cause wonder how such as possess reputation in another department of writing can commit it to the caprice of managers, actors, and audiences; and the risks they must necessarily run, has kept many proud or sensitive minds not otherwise indisposed to dramatic composition, from trusting their labours to the stage. The composition of a good play we know is no ordinary effort of mind; its requisites of plot, incident, character and dialogue, their combinations and developements so as to produce an agreeable whole, require genius of a high and varied order. When the piece is completed, interest is commonly necessary to secure its representation. Friends for this purpose are to be sought, especially by such as are poor and unknown. The private judgment of the or the actors dissatisfied with their manager may parts; alterations are suggested in order to satisfy caprice or unreasonable pretension, which sometimes have the effect either of obscuring the author's original design, or impairing his sense. The delay of months or seasons in bringing it forward even when all other obstacles are surmounted; the annoyance of being brought forward at a late or unfavourable period of the season; the chance of being finally rejected by the audience, often as capricious and uncertain as either manager or performers, but from whom there lies no appeal; the consequent extinction of all hopes of fame or profit, the annoyance of having taxed his ingenuity in vain, and the mortification, if not ridicule, consequent upon ill success-these form very solid reasons for men of high reach of mind frequently declining to write for the stage.

All these obstacles were very well known to Goldsmith, but some he fancied might be obviated by his reputation, and others by personal knowledge of theatrical persons. It serves to heighten our dislike to embark labour and genius in such a calling, to know that however popular as a poet, though familiar with the tastes of the town, and well acquainted with the manager of at least one of the theatres, besides being introduced by friends of influence and celebrity to another, he was fated to experience them all.

His first interview with Garrick some years before, led, as may be supposed, to no further intercourse, but his interests rendering such an acquaintance now desirable, Sir Joshua Reynolds, by a letter still in existence, appears to have brought them together. Goldsmith wished to have the manager's opinion of his play; the latter at the first glance is said to have approved it, but in his usual manner, took care not to express himself so frankly as to be unable to retreat from any rash inferences of the author of receiving it for representation. This habitual indecision gave rise to frequent charges against him of insincerity by the dramatists of the day; Murphy and Bickerstaffe were sometimes loud in his condemnation; and Goldsmith heard enough to believe that less was to be expected from the civilities of the manager, than from what he believed his own reputation and the influence of literary friends. From the first therefore, without wholly disregarding Drury Lane, it is certain he contemplated Covent Garden Theatre as more likely to prove favourable to his views.

That no reasonable precaution should be neglected in case of being refused at one house, it was however submitted to Garrick in form for his stage, and the result turned out as had been anticipated. He at first hesitated to give so decided an opinion to the author as to his friends, for Reynolds and Johnson were soon told it would not succeed in representation. In one of the interviews succeeding this communication of his sentiments, Garrick after some discussion, finally offered to submit the piece to Mr. Whitehead, which Goldsmith thought proper to decline, believing that its condemnation was already resolved upon in that quarter; another person of no critical or dramatic note was then named, at which the Poet exhibited some warmth, influenced by an impression that the friends of the manager had been canvassed for unfavourable opinions of his play. In this temper they parted, when in a few weeks Garrick, who had proceeded to his native city, received the following letter, which makes the withdrawal of the piece rather the act of the author than direct rejection on his part. Traces of wounded feeling are obvious in the disappointed author; but we must fairly attribute them as much to the vexations occasioned by pecuniary embarrassment as to the offended pride of authorship: for by several notes written about this time, which have been seen by the writer, he was urgently in want of money. The conviction therefore that at least one channel of probable relief was closed against him, sufficiently explains his dissatisfaction.

"SIR,

London, July 20, 1767.

"A few days ago Mr. Beard renewed his claim to the piece which I had written for his stage, and had as a friend submitted to your perusal. As I found you had very great difficulties about that piece, I complied with his desire, thinking it wrong to take up the attention of my friends with such petty concerns as mine, or to load your good nature by a compliance rather with their requests than my merits. I am extremely sorry that you should think me warm at our last meeting; your judgment certainly ought to be free, especially in a matter which must in some measure concern your own credit and interest. I assure you, Sir, I have no disposition to differ with you on this or any other account, but am with an high opinion of your abilities and with a very real esteem, Sir,

"Your most obedient humble servant,

"To David Garrick, Esq., at Litchfield."

"OLIVER GOLDSMITH."

To this the following reply was promptly returned

"SIR,

"Litchfield, July 25, 1767.

" I was at Birmingham when your letter came to this place, or I should have answered and thanked you for it immediately. I was indeed much hurt that your warmth at our last meeting mistook my sincere and friendly attention to your play for the remains of a former misunderstanding which I had as much forgot as if it never had existed. What I said to you at my own house I now repeat, that I felt more pain in giving my sentiments than you possibly would in receiving them. It has been the business, and ever will be, of my life, to live on the best terms with men of genius, and I know that Dr. Goldsmith will have no reason to change his previous friendly disposition towards me, as I shall be glad of every future opportunity to convince him how much I am

"His obedient servant and well-wisher,

"D. GARRICK,”*

The play was therefore withdrawn to try its fortune at Covent Garden.

A memorandum of Newbery about this time, points to compilations in which Goldsmith appears to have been engaged, though after diligent search no trace of these works, or more certain information on the matter, has been gained. By this it appears that the promissory note of 1763 remained still unpaid.

Part of the summer (1767) he resided at Islington, occupying apartments as traditionary accounts state, in the old turret of Canonbury house, in which it appears several literary men, publishers, and printers, his friend Newbery for one, had at various times fixed their abode. Here he had as visiters or resident acquaintance; be

• Communicated by - Smith, Esq.

† Humphreys, author of "Canons, a Poem," "Ulysses, an Opera," &c, &c.; Chambers, editor of the Cyclopædia; Smart, the poet; and several others of misides others whose names are forgotten, the Rev. Mr. Rider, the Rev. Mr. Sellon, known for eccentricity and absence of mind, and who in consequence became the subject of many jocular tricks, Beaufort, editor of the Town and Country Magazine, Woty, Huddleston Wynne, Mr. Robinson the publisher, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. William Baker, printers, The Crown Tavern, in the lower road, formed the scene of many of their social dinners, and Goldsmith, according to accounts furnished by surviving relatives of some of these parties, was not the least convivial.

It was stated by Isaac Reed, and by Seward, the friend of Johnson and the Thrales and author of some volumes of anecdotes, that in this year he attempted to secure some more certain provision than literature afforded, by becoming a candidate for the Gresham lectureship on Civil Law, vacant by the death of Mr. William Mace. No trace of his application with this view is extant, as appears by reference to the proper authority.* He found perhaps on inquiry, as in the case of the Secretaryship to the Society of Arts, that private influence which commonly determines such appointments, rendered the chance of success small, and therefore decided him not to risk a repulse by the ballot. Genius is too often but a secondary recommendation to fill such situations in England; interest is commonly the first; and by some unhappy mischance, we rarely find genius and interest in conjunction.

Such hours as he deemed unfavourable to composition in works of genius, were occupied by productions of less original character, the materials for which were at hand, and required only his taste, to string skilfully together. He had thus, as constant labour was necessary, at least the pleasure of variety. History at this period fixed his attention, more no doubt, as a source of profit, than of fame. The subject is indeed one which whenever treated by a writer of talent, may earn both, as he saw in the instances of Hume, Robertson and Smollett; and having already in the Letters of a Nobleman to his Son, tried his hand with success, was led to think there was still room for another labourer in the same field. No rivalry was intended by what he had undertaken, as his plan differed materially from theirs.

• The following polite answer to the inquiry at Mercer's Hall is creditable to the writer and seems conclusive on the subject:" SIR,

"In reply to your inquiry as to whether Dr. Goldsmith was a candidate for one of the Gresham Lectureships, I beg to state that I believe he was not. In the year 1767 there was an election to the Civil Law Lectureship in the room of Mr. Mace, deceased; there are only two persons entered as candidates - Dr. Dawson and Mr. Jeffries, the latter of whom obtained the appointment. Neither in the election preceding or subsequent to the one above alluded to, is any mention made of Goldsmith being a candidate, and I conclude that if his intentions had at any time been directed to that object, he must have abandoned them previous to the period of election. I should have been happy if I could have afforded you any information on the subject and equally gratified in the knowledge of the circumstance,

"I am, Sir,

"Your very obedient servant,
"W. H. LANE."

He appears to have thought that history, as it is usually treated, tells more than it is necessary to tell, and much more than is true. Sir Robert Walpole, and Dr. Johnson, the one a practical statesman, and the other an acute and profound philosopher, were of the same opinion. Yet on all questions connected with the conduct of preceding ages and individuals, we lean to the desire of fulness of information as the great source of wisdom to ourselves; and indeed in every great emergency connected with the political or social condition of men, the only safe guide to follow. We feel not only that nothing should be concealed on such an occasion, but that nothing should be left untold that can lead to the knowledge of truth; we are not afraid so much of tediousness as uncertainty; not of the accumulation of evidence, but of its scantiness. We can frequently spare speculations concerning motives, conceiving we may believe them or not as we think proper, and knowing that at best they are matters of opinion; but we cannot submit to be deprived of the knowledge of even minute facts. On the number and importance of these, chiefly depend our deductions; and many such must be omitted in short and unskilful histories. From this cause we are disposed rather to have our patience taxed with details, than run the risk of being left unacquainted with circumstances, sometimes apparently trifling, which serve to throw light upon the springs of human conduct.

Readers of a different description, however, require likewise to have their tastes consulted; and for these he began about this time, by an agreement with Thomas Davies, the bookseller so often mentioned by Boswell, and afterwards the biographer of Garrick, to write the Roman History. It was to be completed within two years, or less if it could be accomplished, and the sum to be paid was 250 guineas.

Early in the month of January 1768, a Mr. Roach, one of his countrymen who died in London about 1795, dined with him at his chambers in the Temple, -introduced by letters from Ireland. Several particulars of this interview he afterwards, by the aid of a good memory repeated with much interest to his friends, but being a commercial, not a literary man, not with that fulness which they, or he himself as he said, could have wished. From one of the persons thus favoured, who heard him describe this evening, on more than one occasion, a brief abstract of the chief topics of conversation has been gleaned.

Two other persons beside the host and this gentleman, formed the party; one a Mr. Higgins, unconnected with literature, the other whose name was forgotten, an author, though of no note. The dinner was of an expensive description. During a portion of the evening the conversation turned upon literary topics, and the visiter remembered a very animated comparison drawn by the Poet, between Shakspeare and Milton, censuring the latter most sharply for all his writings excepting his poetry. Otway, he considered the greatest dramatic genius which England had produced after Shakspeare. Farquhar, he said, was truer to nature and