sonian Age, and its standard popularity is illustrated by the brilliant run of one hundred nights which it sustained at one of the London theatres in 1869-1870. CRITICISMS. I know of no comedy for many years that has so much exhilarated an audience; that has answered so much the great end of comedy, making an audience merry.-DR. JOHNSON. Dr. Goldsmith has written a comedy-no, it is the lowest of all farces; it is not the subject I condemn, though very vulgar, but the execution. The drift tends to no moral, no edification of any kind; the situations, however, are well imagined, and make one laugh in spite of the grossness of the dialogue, the forced witticisms, and total improbability of the whole plan and conduct. But what disgusts me most is that, though the characters are very low and aim at low humor, not one of them says a sentence that is natural, or marks any character at all.—HORACE WALPOLE. [Quoted for its absurdity.] Fashions in dramatic literature may come and go, but the wholesome, good-natured fun of "She Stoops to Conquer" is as capable of producing a hearty laugh now as it was when it first saw the light in Covent Garden. Tony Lumpkin is one of the especial favorites of the theatregoing public, and no wonder; with all the young cub's gibes and jeers, his impudence and grimaces, one has a sneaking love for the scapegrace; we laugh with him rather than at him; how can we fail to enjoy those malevolent tricks of his when he so obviously enjoys them himself? And Diggory-do we not owe an eternal debt of gratitude to honest Diggory for telling us about Ould Grouse in the gunroom, that immortal joke at which thousands and thousands of people have roared with laughter, though they never, any of them, could tell what the story was about? The scene in which the old squire lectures his faithful attendants on their manners and duties is one of the truest bits of comedy on the English stage.-WILLIAM BLACK. IRVING'S CHARACTERIZATION OF GOLDSMITH AS A WRITER. If it must be admitted that Goldsmith had no talent for oral display, it will not be disputed that in the solitude of the closet, "when he argued alone," he was almost unrivalled. A celebrated critic remarked of him that "whatever he composed, he did it better than any other man could." It has been objected to the moral essays of Goldsmith that they present life under a gloomy aspect, and leave an imprèssion of despondency on the mind of the reader. Whether to paint life as it is be a fault in a writer is a question that will admit of considerable dispute; but it will not be denied that when he pictures the woes and vanities of existence he only repeats the lessons of experience. It ought also to be recollected that an author's writings are generally a transcript of his own feelings. If the moral productions of Goldsmith are sometimes gloomy and despondent, we should take into account the circumstances under which they were written: when he was obscure and friendless, oppressed with want, sick of the past, and almost despairing of the future. The language of his prose works in general is admitted to be a model of perfection. His very enemies used to acknowledge the superiority of his taste in composition and the unrivalled excellence of his style. It was not without reason, therefore, that Johnson at one time exclaimed, "Where is there now a man who can pen an essay with such ease and elegance as Goldsmith ?" In poetry Goldsmith confessedly shines with great lustre ; but, viewing him as a scholar, it is surprising how little of his imagery is drawn from reminiscences of the classics. His verses are utterly void of the machinery of ancient polytheism, and scarcely a single mythological personage is ever invoked by him. In truth, he seems to have had no partiality for the family of gods, goddesses, and demigods, and to have discarded as useless the whole race of fauns, satyrs, dryads, and hamadryads. He is one of those who seek to please chiefly by an exhibition of Nature in her simplest and most familiar views. From these he selects his objects with equal taste and discretion, and in no instance does he ever represent what would excite disgust or cause pain. In the poetry of Goldsmith there is nothing that strikes us as merely ideal. Everything is clear, distinct, and palpable. His very imagery is tangible. He draws it from objects that act at once upon the senses, and the reader is never for a moment at a loss to discover its application. It is this that makes Goldsmith so easily understood and so generally admired. His poetical landscapes and portraits are so many transcripts from living nature, while every image, every thought, and every sentiment connected with them have a corresponding expression of unaffected truth and simplicity. . . . The characteristics of Goldsmith's poetry are ease, softness, and beauty. He can be commended for the elegance of his imagery, the depth of his pathos, and the flow of his numbers. He is uniformly tender and impressive, but rarely sublime. BOOKS OF REFERENCE. Washington Irving's "Life of Gold- | De Quincey's Works: "Essays on the smith.' William Black's "Oliver Goldsmith," Oliver Goldsmith." Walter Scott's "Life of Goldsmith." Poets," vol. ix. Macaulay's "Essays," vol. vi. Thackeray's "Humorists of the Eighteenth Century." "The Cumberland Memoirs." Taine's "History of English Literature." IX. AGE OF REVOLUTION. A.D. 1784-1837. GREAT REVOLUTION IN POETRY.-COWPER, BURNS, WORDSWORTH, SCOTT, BYRON. GROWTH OF THE NOVEL.-MARIA EDGEWORTH, SCOTT, BULWER-LYTTON. PROGRESS IN THE SCIENCE OF PHILOSOPHICAL AND POLITICAL HISTORY.-HENRY HALLAM. ESTABLISHMENT OF CELEBRATED BRITISH JOURNALSREVIEWS: EDINBURGH, QUARTERLY, WESTMINSTER. MAGAZINES: BLACKWOOD'S, LONDON, FRASER'S. FOUNDATION OF ENGLISH PHILOSOPHICAL CRITICISM BY S. T. COLERIDGE. SCHOOL OF SCOTCH PHILOSOPHERS-T. REID, DUGALD STEWART, DR. T. BROWN, SIR WILLIAM HAMILTON. RISE OF THE ART SCHOOL IN POETRY.-JOHN KEATS, WALTER SAVAGE LANDOR. |