Chapter XXIII: 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.’

OLIVER GOLDSMITH

(M. W. Bunbury)