warran.’ In 1769 he was elected member for the Forfar Boroughs. Parl. Hist. xvi. 453.
[1201] The Critical Review, in which Mallet himself sometimes wrote, characterised this pamphlet as ‘the crude efforts of envy, petulance and self conceit.’ There being thus three epithets, we, the three authours, had a humourous contention how each should be appropriated. BOSWELL.
[1202] Johnson (Works, ix. 86) talks of the chiefs ‘gradually degenerating from patriarchal rulers to rapacious landlords.’ In Boswell’s Hebrides, the subject is often examined.
[1203] See ante, i. 365.
[1204] ‘Dr. Burney spoke with great warmth of affection of Dr. Johnson; said he was the kindest creature in the world when he thought he was loved and respected by others. He would play the fool among friends, but he required deference. It was necessary to ask questions and make no assertion. If you said two and two make four, he would say, “How will you prove that, Sir?” Dr. Burney seemed amiably sensitive to every unfavourable remark on his old friend.’ H. C. Robinson’s Diary, iii. 485.
[1205] See post, April 24, 1777, note, and Oct. l0, 1779, where he consults Johnson about the study of Greek. He formed wishes, scarcely plans of study but never studied.
[1206] See post, Feb. 18, 1777. It was Graham who so insulted Goldsmith by saying:—”Tis not you I mean, Dr. Minor; ‘tis Dr. Major there.’ Boswell’s Hebrides, Aug. 24, 1773.
[1207] See post, Sept. 19, 1777.
[1208] Of Mathematics Goldsmith wrote:—‘This seems a science to which the meanest intellects are equal.’ See post, March 15, 1776, note.
[1209] In his Present State of Polite Learning, ch. 13 (Misc. Works, i. 266), Goldsmith writes:—‘A man who is whirled through Europe in a post-chaise, and the pilgrim who walks the grand tour on foot, will form very different conclusions. Haud inexpertus loquor.’ The last three words are omitted in the second edition.
[1210] George Primrose in the Vicar of Wakefield (ch. 20), after describing these disputations, says:—‘In this manner I fought my way towards England.’
[1211] Dr. Warton wrote to his brother on Jan. 22, 1766:—‘Of all solemn coxcombs Goldsmith is the first; yet sensible—but affects to use Johnson’s hard words in conversation.’ Wooll’s Warton, p. 312.
[1212] It was long believed that the author of one of Goldsmith’s early works was Lord Lyttelton. ‘“Whenever I write anything,” said Goldsmith, “I think the public make a point to know nothing about it.” So the present book was issued as a History of England in a series of Letters from a Nobleman to his Son. The persuasion at last became general that the author was Lord Lyttelton, and the name of that grave good lord is occasionally still seen affixed to it on the bookstalls.’ Forster’s Goldsmith, i. 301. The Traveller was the first of his works to which he put his name. It was published in 1764. 16. p. 364.
[1213] Published in 1759.
[1214] Published in 1760-1.
[1215] See his Epitaph in Westminster Abbey, written by Dr. Johnson. BOSWELL.
‘Qui nullum fere scribendi genus
Non tetigit,
Nullum quod tetigit non ornavit.’
Post, under June 22, 1776.
[1216] In allusion to this, Mr. Horace Walpole, who admired his writings, said he was ‘an inspired ideot;’ and Garrick described him as one
‘——for shortness call’d Noll, Who wrote like an angel, and talk’d like poor Poll.’
Sir Joshua Reynolds mentioned to me that he frequently heard Goldsmith talk warmly of the pleasure of being liked, and observe how hard it would be if literary excellence should preclude a man from that satisfaction, which he perceived it often did, from the envy which attended it; and therefore Sir Joshua was convinced that he was intentionally more absurd, in order to lessen himself in social intercourse, trusting that his character would be sufficiently supported by his works. If it indeed was his intention to appear absurd in company, he was often very successful. But with due deference to Sir Joshua’s ingenuity, I think the conjecture too refined. BOSWELL.
Horace Walpole’s saying of the ‘inspired ideot’ is recorded in Davies’s Garrick, ii. 151. Walpole, in his Letters, describes Goldsmith as ‘a changeling that has had bright gleams of parts,’ (v. 458); ‘a fool, the more wearing for having some sense,’ (vi. 29); ‘a poor soul that had sometimes parts, though never common sense,’ (ib. p. 73); and ‘an idiot, with once or twice a fit of parts,’ (ib. p. 379). Garrick’s lines—
‘Here lies Nolly Goldsmith, for shortness called Noll,
Who wrote like an angel, but talked like poor Poll,’
are his imaginary epitaph on Goldsmith, which, with the others, gave rise to Retaliation. Forster’s Goldsmith, ii. 405.
[1217] Rousseau accounting for the habit he has ‘de balbutier promptement des paroles sans idées,’ continues, ‘je crois que voilà de quoi faire assez comprendre comment n’étant pas un sot, j’ai cependant souvent passé pour l’être, même chez des gens en état de bien juger…. Le parti que j’ai pris d’écrire et de me cacher est précisément celui qui me convenait. Moi présent on n’aurait jamais su ce que je valois, on ne l’aurait pas soupconné même.’ Les Confessions, Livre iii. See post, April 27, 1773, where Boswell admits that ‘Goldsmith was often very fortunate in his witty contests, even when he entered the lists with Johnson himself:’ and April 30, 1773, where Reynolds says of him: ‘There is no man whose company is more liked.’
[1218] Northcote, a few weeks before his death, said to Mr. Prior:—‘When Goldsmith entered a room, Sir, people who did not know him became for a moment silent from awe of his literary reputation; when he came out again, they were riding upon his back.’ Prior’s Goldsmith, i. 440. According to Dr. Percy:—‘His face was marked with strong lines of thinking. His first appearance was not captivating; but when he grew easy and cheerful in company, he relaxed into such a display of good humour as soon removed every unfavourable impression.’ Goldsmith’s Misc. Works, i. 117.
[1219] ‘Dr. Goldsmith told me, he himself envied Shakespeare.’ Walpole’s Letters, vi. 379. Boswell, later on (post, May 9, 1773), says:—‘In my opinion Goldsmith had not more of it [an envious disposition] than other people have, but only talked of it freely.’ See also post, April 12, 1778. According to Northcote, ‘Sir Joshua said that Goldsmith considered public notoriety or fame as one great parcel, to the whole of which he laid claim, and whoever partook of any part of it, whether dancer, singer, slight of hand man, or tumbler, deprived him of his right.’ Northcote’s Reynolds, i. 248. See post, April 7, 1778, where Johnson said that ‘Goldsmith was not an agreeable companion, for he talked always for fame;’ and April 9, 1778.
[1220] Miss Hornecks, one of whom is now married to Henry Bunbury, Esq., and the other to Colonel Gwyn. BOSWELL.
[1221] ‘Standing at the window of their hotel [in Lisle] to see a company of soldiers in the Square, the beauty of the sisters Horneck drew such marked admiration, that Goldsmith, heightening his drollery with that air of solemnity so generally a point in his humour and so often more solemnly misinterpreted, turned off from the window with the remark that elsewhere he too could have his admirers. The Jessamy Bride, Mrs. Gwyn, was asked about the occurrence not many years ago; remembered it as a playful jest; and said how shocked she had subsequently been “to see it adduced in print as a proof of his envious disposition.”’ Forster’s Goldsmith, ii. 217.
[1222] Puppets.
[1223] He went home with Mr. Burke to supper; and broke his shin by attempting to exhibit to the company how much better he could jump