« 이전계속 »
been ascertained from contemporary statements, that the
WALLER, EDMUND (1605–1687), the poet. Good-Naturd
WALL-EYED, having an eye the iris of which is streaked, parti-
WAR. 'Like one of those instruments used in the art of war,
WARM, in comfortable circumstances, well-to-do, moderately
WARWICK-LANE. "To-night I head our troops in Warwick-
Wash, a liquid used for toilet purposes. Vicar, 219, 241.
Water Parted, a song in Arne's opera of Artaxerxes, produced
WAUNS, a contracted form of God's wounds ’, used as an
WEALTH, ACCUMULATION OF, Dr. Primrose on. Vicar, 301-2.
WEASEL-SKIN PURSE, as token of good luck. Vicar, 255.
WELBRIDGE FAIR: Moses's bargain at, Vicar, 254-6; Dr.
WELL-KNIT. See Knit.
WELLS, THE. Vicar, 293. Mr. Edward Ford (National
WESTMINSTER-HALL, the old Hall of the Palace at Westminster,
WHISTLE-JACKET, the name of a famous racehorse. She
WHISTON, THE Rev. WILLIAM (1667-1772), monogamist.
Whitehall Evening, i.e. The Whitehall Evening Post, or London
Why, used as a call or exclamation. Constance, why Con-
Wig. ‘He fastened my wig to the back of my chair,' &c.
WILDMAN's, a coffee-house in Bedford Street, under the Piazza
WILD NOTES, i.e. produced without culture or training. She
WILMOT, Mr., his controversy with Dr. Primrose on Mono-
WINDGALL, a soft tumour on the fetlock joints of a horse.
WINE. '1.. asked for the landlord's company over a pint
WIVES, markets for. Vicar, 288. See Fontarabia, Ranelagh.
WOODEN SHOES. 'What! give up liberty, property, and, as
WOODWARD, HENRY (1717-1777), actor. Good-Natur'd Man,
WOUNDILY, wondrously, excessively, very. “They look
YEATING, dialect form of “ eating'. She Stoops, 104.
Your, used indefinitely. 'I detest your three chairs and a
ZOUNDS, an expletive, 'God's wounds!' Good-Naturd Man,
THE GOOD-NATUR’D MAN
This play was originally intended for Covent Garden Theatre, but at the time when it was ready for representation the affairs of that theatre had been thrown into temporary confusion by the death of Rich, the manager. Goldsmith thereupon decided to try the rival house, Drury Lane, which was under the management of Garrick. Financial pressure doubtless forced Goldsmith to seek a favour at Garrick's hands, for the two had not been on good terms for some time; but Sir Joshua Reynolds acted as an intermediary and brought them together. The interview was not altogether successful: sensitive pride on one side, and the arrogance of a successful man on the other, nearly wrecked the negotiations at the outset. However, the manuscript was placed in Garrick’s hands for consideration, only to be followed by excuses and delays on the part of the manager. Privately, he was giving his opinion to Johnson and Reynolds that the play could not possibly succeed ; to the dramatist himself he suggested several alterations, which Goldsmith indignantly refused to adopt. Mr. Whitehead (the Poet Laureate) was thereupon suggested as an arbitrator : this proposal was declined, Goldsmith believing that condemnation of the play was already decided in that quarter. Another name was suggested, only to be rejected with warmth ; and in this spirit manager and dramatist parted. Goldsmith, however, fully realized the defects of his play, and, writing in a chastened spirit to the manager of Drury Lane, undertook to give him a new character in his comedy, “and knock out Lofty, which does not do, and will make such other alterations as you direct.' This letter was cruelly endorsed by Garrick ‘Goldsmith's Parlaver '.
Certain events in the interval had occurred at Covent Garden which resulted in renewed negotiations with that house, now under the management of George Colman, and eventually the
manuscript was withdrawn from Garrick and handed over to his rival. Dissensions arising among the new proprietors of Covent Garden Theatre the production of the comedy was again retarded. In the meantime Garrick, in opposition to Goldsmith, had brought out a play at Drury Lane, written by Hugh Kelly, entitled False Delicacy, which belonged to the then prevailing school of 'sentimental' comedy, and was likely to have an adverse effect on a play constructed on opposite lines and out of harmony with current taste. 'It was with Steele the unlucky notion began,' writes Forster, ‘of setting comedy to reform the morals instead of imitating the manners of the age.' Kelly continued this tradition, and in this play ‘sounded the depths of sentimentalism'.
The play was produced for the first time on Saturday, January 23, 1768, six nights before The Good-Natur’d Man was brought out at Covent Garden. Johnson pronounced it a play of 'no character', but it had a great stage success.
It was backed by the remaining adherents of the 'sentimental' school of comedy, and Garrick used all his influence to ensure the success of the piece. Through his intervention, False Delicacy was received with 'singular favour', and a great number of copies of the book was sold, Kelly's profits amounting to above £700.
Whilst success was thus attending Kelly's play, affairs at Covent Garden were not proceeding smoothly. The actors were squabbling over their parts : Powell protested he could make nothing of Mr. Honeywood, and the actors generally thought but little of the play's chance of success—with the possible exception of Shuter. The manager himself had lost all faith, and under the circumstances it is not surprising that Goldsmith should have become down-hearted and despondent. Johnson, however, was steadfast in support, attending a rehearsal, and promising to furnish a prologue.
At last, on Friday, the 29th of January, 1768, the comedy was produced. The majority of the members of the Literary Clubincluding Johnson, Burke, and Reynolds-attended the first performance, to cheer and encourage their fellow member. The opening was not altogether promising : Johnson's prologue proved somewhat ponderous; and Powell, with his preconceived