his faults, at the worst, were but negative, while his merits were great and decided. He was no one's enemy but his own; his errors, in the main, inflicted evil on none but himself, and were so blended with humorous and even-affecting circumstances, as to disarm anger and conciliate kindness. Where eminent talent is united to spotless virtue, we are awed and dazzled into admiration, but our admiration is apt to be cold and reverential; while there is something in the harmless infirmities of a good and great, but erring individual, that pleads touchingly to our nature; and we turn more kindly towards the object of our idolatry, when we find that, like ourselves, he is mortal and is frail. The epithet so often heard, and in such kindly tones, of "poor Goldsmith," speaks volumes. Few, who consider the real compound of admirable and whimsical qualities which form his character, would wish to prune away his eccentricities, trim its grotesque luxuriance, and clip it down to the decent formalities of rigid virtue. "Let not his frailties be remembered," said Johnson; "he was a very great man." But, for our part, we rather say, "Let them be remembered," since their tendency is to endear; and we question whether he himself would not feel gratified in hearing his reader, after dwelling with admiration on the proofs of his greatness, close the volume with the kindhearted phrase, so fondly and familiarly ejaculated, of "POOR GOLDSMITH." THE END APPENDIX Adverse Goldsmith. CRITICAL ESTIMATES OF GOLDSMITH Irving naturally has much to say of Boswell's ill-natured criticisms of Goldsmith, and for these he has ascribed a fairly sufficient motive. Boswell, however, criticisms of did not stand alone among Goldsmith's contemporaries in his contemptuous estimate of Goldsmith's character; witness Walpole, whose characterization of Goldsmith as an "inspired idiot" received a new lease of life from Carlyle, in his Essay on Boswell's Johnson. "Yet," concludes Carlyle, "on the whole, there is no evil in the 'goose-berry fool'; but rather much good; of a finer, if of a weaker, sort than Johnson's." With these distinctly hostile estimates by Boswell, Walpole, and Carlyle, may be compared the following more judicial summary of the character of Goldsmith by Macaulay: Goldsmith. "His associates seem to have regarded him with kindness, which, in spite of their admiration of his writings, was not unmixed with contempt. In truth, there was Macaulay on in his character much to love, but very little to respect. His heart was soft even to weakness: he was so generous that he quite forgot to be just: he forgave injuries so readily that he might be said to invite them; and was so liberal to beggars that he had nothing left for his tailor and his butcher. He was vain, sensual, frivolous, profuse, improvident. One vice of a darker shade was imputed to him, envy. But there is not the least reason to believe that this bad passion, though it sometimes made him wince and utter fretful exclamations, ever impelled him to injure by wicked arts the reputation of any of his rivals. The truth probably is, that he was not more envious, but merely less prudent, than his neighbours." -Essay on Oliver Goldsmith. Scott on On the other hand, it must not be supposed that Irving stands alone in his generous characterization of Goldsmith. Sir Walter Scott says of him: "He was a friend to virtue, and in his most playful pages never forgets what is due to it. A gentleness, delicacy and purity of feeling distinguishes whatever he wrote, and bears a correspondence to the generosity of a disposition which knew no bounds but his last guinea. It was an attribute almost essential to such a temper, that he wanted the proper guards of firmness and decision, and permitted, even when aware of their worthlessness, the intrusions of cunning and of effrontery. With this cullibility of temper was mixed a hasty and eager jealousy of his own personal consequence: he unwillingly admitted that anything was done better than he himself could have performed it; and sometimes made himself ridiculous by hastily undertaking to distinguish himself upon subjects which he did not understand. But with these weaknesses, and with that of carelessness in his own affairs, terminates all that censure can say of Goldsmith. The folly of submitting to imposition may be well balanced with the universality of his benevolence, and the wit which his writings evince, more than counterbalance his defects in conversation, if these could be of consequence to the present and future generations."-Biographical and Critical Notices of Eminent Novelists by Walter Scott: Oliver Goldsmith. And at the conclusion of his essay on Goldsmith in his English Humorists, Thackeray sums up his subject in the following eloquent words: Thackeray on "Think of him reckless, thriftless, vain if you like but merciful, gentle, generous, full of love and pity. He passes out of our life, and goes to render his account beyond it. Think of the poor pensioners weeping at his grave; think of the noble spirits that admired and deplored him; think of the righteous pen that wrote his epitaph-and of the wonderful and unanimous response of affection with which the world has paid back the love he gave it. His humor delighting us still; his song fresh and beautiful as when first he charmed with it; his words in all our mouths; his very weaknesses beloved and familiar-his benevolent spirit seems still to smile upon us: to do gentle kindnesses: to succor with sweet charity: to soothe, caress, and forgive: to plead with the fortunate for the unhappy and the poor." De Quincey on It would be easy to add indefinitely to the above appreciations, but it must suffice to note the following paragraphs, the one from De Quincey (The Eighteenth Century in Scholarship and Literature), and the second from Dobson's Life of Goldsmith. "Goldsmith's own precipitancy, his overmastering defect in proper reserve, in self-control, and in presence of mind, falling in with the habitual undervaluation of many amongst his associates, placed him at a great disadvantage in animated conversation. His very truthfulness, his simplicity, his frankness, his hurry of feeling all told against him. They betrayed him into inconsiderate expressions that lent a color of plausibility to the malicious ridicule of those who disliked him the more, from being compelled, after all, to respect him. His own understanding oftentimes sided with his disparagers. He saw that he had been in the wrong; whilst secretly he felt that his meaning-if properly explained-had been right. Defrauded in this way, and by his own coöperation, of distinctions that naturally belonged to him, he was driven unconsciously to attempt some restoration of the balance, by claiming for a moment distinctions to which he had no real pretensions. The whole was a prick of sorrow, and of sorrowing perplexity. He felt that no justice had been done to him, and that he himself had made an opening for the wrong. The result he saw, but the process he could not disentangle; and in the confusion of his distress, natural irritation threw him upon blind efforts to recover his ground by unfounded claims, when claims so well-founded had been maliciously disallowed." Dobson on "It would be easy to multiply examples of that strange mingling of strength and weakness-of genius and gaucherie —which went to make up Goldsmith's character. Yet the advantage would remain with its gentler and more lovable aspects, and the 'over-word' would still be the compassionate verdict: 'Let not his frailties be remembered, for he was a very great man.'' |