1763. introductions to the various sections, full of picturesque animation. He was to have received for this labour "eleven guineas in full," but it was increased to nearly thirty. He had also some share in the Martial Review or General History of the late War, the profits of which Newbery had set apart for his luckless son-in-law, Kit Smart. In a memorandum furnished by himself to the publisher, he claims three guineas for Preface to Universal History (a rival to the existing publication of that name, set on foot by Newbery and edited by Guthrie); two guineas for Preface to Rhetoric, and one for Preface to Chronicle, neither of these last now traceable; three guineas for Critical and Monthly, presumed to be contributions to Newbery's magazines; and twenty-one pounds on account of a History of England. A subsequent receipt acknowledges another twenty-one pounds "which with "what I received before, is in full for the copy of the History of England in a series of Letters, two volumes in 12mo."* This latter book, which was not published till the following year, claims a word of description. Such of the labours of 1763 as had yet seen the light, were not of a kind to attract much notice. "Whenever I write anything," said Goldsmith, “I think the public make a point to know nothing about "it." So, remembering what Pope had said of the lucky lines that had a lord to own them, the present book was issued, doubtless with Newbery's glad concurrence, as a History of England in a series of Letters from a Nobleman to his Son. It had a great success in that character; passed 66 * Newbery MSS. Prior, i. 468, 473-4, 477, 479, and 498. The subjoined is from a copy in Goldsmith's own handwriting: "Brookes' History, 117 118; Pre"face to Universal History, 31 38; Preface to Rhetoric, 27 28; Preface to Chronicle, "17 18; History of England, 211; The Life of Christ, 107 10s; The Life [Lives] "of the Fathers, 107 108; Critical and Monthly, 31 38.-Total, 631. Received, "October 11, 1763, the contents, of Mr. Newbery. OLIVER GOLDSMITH." + Boswell, vii. 84. 1763. through many editions; and was afterwards translated into French by the wife of Brissot, with notes by the revolutionary Et. 35. leader himself. The nobleman was supposed to be Lord Chesterfield, so refined was the style; Lord Orrery had also the credit of it; but the persuasion at last became general that the author was Lord Lyttelton,* and the name of that grave good lordt is occasionally still seen affixed to it on the bookstalls. The mistake was never formally corrected: it being the bookseller's interest to continue it, and not less the author's as well, when in his own name he subsequently went over the same ground. But it was not concealed from his friends; copies of the second edition of the book were sent with his autograph to both Percy and Johnson; and his friend Cooke tells us, not only that he had really written it in his lodgings at Islington, but how and in what way he did so. In the morning, says this authority, he would study, in Rapin, Carte, Kennett's Complete History, and the recent volumes of Hume, as much of what related to the period on which he was engaged As late as 1793, it became matter of discussion in the Gentleman's Magazine (lxiii. 799, &c) which of these three noblemen had written the letters; whereupon a better informed correspondent told Mr. Urban the real name of the writer, and added: "Goldsmith was much gratified to find the assumed character so well "sustained, as to pass upon the world for real; and was often diverted with the " contending opinions of such as ascribed it to one or other of the above noblemen. "This information comes from one who had a copy given him by the real author "when it first came from the press, and who had often laughed with him at the "success of his fiction." Gent. Mag. Ixiii. 1189. It may have been in consequence of its success in this instance, that the reckless author of Dr. Syntax, Combe, placed the name of the second or "wicked" lord to his wonderfully clever collection of letters. In the course of a recent attempt in the Quarterly Review (xc. 91-163) to identify this second lord with Junius, which I cannot but regard as altogether unsound, though in parts ingenious, a wholly unwarranted assumption is made of the genuineness of these letters in the main. There cannot be a doubt that they are spurious, and all written by Combe. One of them, I may take this opportunity of saying, is a sort of homily on the moral of Goldsmith's life and death, on which the writer is as severely critical, in regard to the vices of improvidence and extravagance, as it behoved a man to be who ran through more than one fortune, and closed a career of riotous vicissitude by extremely assiduous literary labours in the king's bench prison. 1763. as he designed for one letter, putting down the passages Et. 35. referred to on a sheet of paper, with remarks. He then walked out with a companion, certain of his friends at this time being in the habit of constantly calling upon him; and if, on returning to dinner, his friend returned with him, he spent the evening convivially, but without much drinking (“which he was never in the habit of"); finally taking up with him to his bed-room the books and papers prepared in the morning, and there writing the chapter, or the best part of it, before he went to rest. This latter exercise cost him very little trouble, he said; for, having all his materials ready, he wrote it with as much facility as a common letter.* One may clearly trace these very moderate" convivialities," I think, in occasional entries of Mrs. Fleming's incidental The good lady was not loath to be generous at times, but is careful to give herself the full credit of it; and a not infrequent item in her bill is "a gentleman's dinner, expenses. 66 nothing." Four gentlemen have tea, for eighteen-pence; wine and cakes" are supplied for the same sum; bottles of port are charged two shillings each; and such special favourites are "Mr. Baggott" and one "Doctor Reman," that three elaborate cyphers (£0. 0s. Od.) follow their teas as well as their dinners. Redmond was the latter's real name. He was 1763. through many editions; and was afterwards translated into French by the wife of Brissot, with notes by the revolutionary Et. 35. leader himself. The nobleman was supposed to be Lord Chesterfield, so refined was the style; Lord Orrery had also the credit of it; but the persuasion at last became general that the author was Lord Lyttelton,* and the name of that grave good lordt is occasionally still seen affixed to it on the bookstalls. The mistake was never formally corrected: it being the bookseller's interest to continue it, and not less the author's as well, when in his own name he subsequently went over the same ground. But it was not concealed from his friends; copies of the second edition of the book were sent with his autograph to both Percy and Johnson; and his friend Cooke tells us, not only that he had really written it in his lodgings at Islington, but how and in what way he did so. In the morning, says this authority, he would study, in Rapin, Carte, Kennett's Complete History, and the recent volumes of Hume, as much of what related to the period on which he was engaged 66 * As late as 1793, it became matter of discussion in the Gentleman's Magazine (lxiii. 799, &c) which of these three noblemen had written the letters; whereupon a better informed correspondent told Mr. Urban the real name of the writer, and added: "Goldsmith was much gratified to find the assumed character so well 'sustained, as to pass upon the world for real; and was often diverted with the 'contending opinions of such as ascribed it to one or other of the above noblemen. "This information comes from one who had a copy given him by the real author "when it first came from the press, and who had often laughed with him at the success of his fiction." Gent. Mag. lxiii. 1189. 66 + It may have been in consequence of its success in this instance, that the reckless author of Dr. Syntax, Combe, placed the name of the second or "wicked" lord to his wonderfully clever collection of letters. In the course of a recent attempt in the Quarterly Review (xc. 91-163) to identify this second lord with Junius, which I cannot but regard as altogether unsound, though in parts ingenious, a wholly unwarranted assumption is made of the genuineness of these letters in the main. There cannot be a doubt that they are spurious, and all written by Combe. One of them, I may take this opportunity of saying, is a sort of homily on the moral of Goldsmith's life and death, on which the writer is as severely critical, in regard to the vices of improvidence and extravagance, as it behoved a man to be who ran through more than one fortune, and closed a career of riotous vicissitude by extremely assiduous literary labours in the king's bench prison. 1763. admirer could not under better circumstances have seen Et. 35. William Hogarth. He might see, in that little incident, his interest in homely life, his preference of the real in art, and his quick apprehension of character; his love of hard hitting, and his indomitable English spirit. The admirer, who, at the close of his own chequered life, thus remembered and related it, was James Barry of Cork; who had followed Mr. Edmund Burke to London with letters from Doctor Sleigh, and whose birth, genius, and poverty soon made him known to Goldsmith. Between Goldsmith and Hogarth existed many reasons for sympathy. Few so sure as the great, self-taught, philosophic artist, to penetrate at once, through any outer husk of disadvantage, to discernment of an honest and loving soul. Genius, in both, took side with the homely and the poor; and they had personal foibles in common. No man can be supposed to have read the letters in the Public Ledger with heartier agreement than Hogarth; no man so little likely as Goldsmith to suffer a sky-blue coat, or conceited, strutting, consequential airs, to weigh against the claims of the painter of Mariage à-la-Mode. How they first met has not been related, but they met frequently. In these last two years of Hogarth's life, admiration had become precious to him; and Goldsmith was ready with his tribute. Besides, there was Wilkes to rail against, and Churchill to condemn, as well as Johnson to praise and love. "I'll tell you what," would Hogarth say: "Sam Johnson's conversation is to the talk of "other men like Titian's painting compared to Hudson's: "but don't you tell people, now, that I say so; for the "connoisseurs and I are at war, you know; and because I "hate them, they think I hate Titian-and let them!"* * Mrs. Piozzi's Anecdotes, 136. " Many were the lectures," adds the lively little lady, "I used to have in my very early days from dear Mr. Hogarth, whose regard |