ideas of failure, did not mend matters in his representation of Honeywood in the first Act. It was left to Shuter, with his inimitable representation of Croaker, to galvanize the play into life, and make the house ring with honest laughter. On the other hand, the bailiffs' scene was unsuccessful: its humour was too broad for the 'sentimentalists', and its language was thought low-uncommonly low' said the London Chronicle in reporting the play. But Shuter again rescued the piece from failure by his mirth-provoking reading of the 'incendiary' letter in the fourth Act, and this carried the play on to its close with a fair amount of success. For further details of the acting it is only necessary to refer to Forster's Life of Goldsmith, which is practically exhaustive on the subject of the drama in Goldsmith's time. On the second night (February 1) the scene with the bailiffs was omitted, and a few minor alterations were made. The third, sixth, and ninth nights were appropriated for the author's benefit, by which he received some £350 to £400; the fifth night had been commanded by their Majesties. In all, it ran for ten consecutive nights, and on the 20th of March it was selected by Shuter for his benefit, the author generously adding ten guineas, in recognition of the actor's great services. A few years later, on May 3, 1773, it was again selected for a benefit-this time for Mrs. Green, the original Mrs. Hardcastle in She Stoops to Conquer. At this representation the bailiffs' scene was acted,' by particular desire' Morris and Quick were the bailiffs, and Lee Lewes took the part of Lofty. : Goldsmith's profits were small compared with those reaped by Kelly with False Delicacy, but the sale of the copyright to W. Griffin added somewhat to the sum. The play was immediately printed, with the bailiffs' scene restored, and the first edition published on February 5, which went off with great rapidity. Prior quotes the following trade advertisement: 'The first large impression of the comedy of The Good-Natured Man, written by Dr. Goldsmith, being sold off on Saturday last (the 6th, the day after publication) a new edition will be published this afternoon, at three o'clock; when those ladies and gentlemen that were then disappointed of their books may be supplied by W. Griffin, in Catherine Street in the Strand.' On February 22 a fourth edition appeared, and a fifth before the end of the year. Qualified, therefore, as its success on the stage may have been, it is evident from these records that the literary merits of the play were recognized from the first. It had been applauded in manuscript by Edmund Burke; it was now to obtain the appreciation of the reading public, although not without its detractors. Boswell spoke slightingly of the play to Johnson, but the latter declared it to be the best comedy that had appeared since The Provoked Husband, and that there had not been of late any such character exhibited on the stage as that of Croaker.' Boswell's Life, ii. 48, ed. Birkbeck Hill. But although The Good-Natur'd Man has taken an enduring place in the literature of our country, it has seldom been reproduced on the stage, and the presumption is that it is not really a good acting play. By the courtesy of the Editor of the Athenaeum, I am permitted to reprint the following article from the pen of the late Mr. Joseph Knight, concerning a representation of this play in October, 1906 :: CORONET.-Afternoon Representation: The Good-Natured Man. By Oliver Goldsmith. Played in Three Acts. THE general impression of the demerits, as an acting play, of Goldsmith's Good-Natured Man will scarcely be removed by the afternoon presentation given under the direction of Mr. William Poel at the Coronet Theatre. The conditions surrounding the performance were scarcely favourable. So amateurish was the whole that the comparatively subordinate part of Sir William Honeywood assumed, in the hands of Mr. Charles Allen, an importance that can rarely have been assigned it. Mr. Poel himself played Croaker, and Mr. Ben Field doubled the part of Lofty with that of the Footman. In one instance no fewer than three characters were assigned to the same actor, Flannigan (the bailiff's follower), Dubardieu, and the postboy being all in the hands of Mr. Edwin H. Wynne. Miss Richland, the heroine, was played by Miss Muriel Currey; and Olivia (in whom it is possible to trace a sort of predecessor of Constantia Neville in She Stoops to Conquer) was presented gracefully by Miss H. B. Potter. Much stress was laid in Goldsmith's second piece upon the improbability of taking Hardcastle's house for an inn. An error of the kind is insignificant beside that of Croaker, who accepts into his house, as his own daughter Olivia, a stranger palmed off upon him as such by his son Leontine, who has brought her home from Paris for the purpose of marrying her. This piece may have been included in the performances of classical comedy which were, under Buckstone's management, a feature of the Haymarket. No record of any presentation during the past half century is traced previous to the first revival by Mr. Poel in Cambridge, of which that at the Coronet was a repetition.— Athenaeum, October 20, 1906. NOTE 1.-HUGH KELLY Hugh Kelly was born at Killarney in 1739, the son of a Dublin tavern-keeper. He went to London early in 1760 to try literature as a profession, first, in a moment of rashness, describing himself— a passing weakness which he was not speedily permitted to forget as a staymaker. He afterwards took to journalism and editing, and wrote political pamphlets, one of which was praised by Lord Chesterfield; took chambers in Middle Temple Lane, and married Mira (his wife's nom de plume). Later on he published one or two novels, and worked for John Newbery as editor of the Public Ledger. He published Thespis: or a Critical Examination of all the Principal Performers belonging to Drury Lane Theatre, but apologized in the second edition for his 'ruffian cruelty'. At this stage of his career he was taken up by Garrick, in rivalry to Goldsmith, who was then on the point of bringing out The Good Natur'd Man. Kelly's play, False Delicacy, as stated above, proved very successful in London; it had also a vogue in country towns in Great Britain, and was translated into several foreign languages. Kelly's last five comedies were all unsuccessful; but he was one of the most deeply affected of the mourners at Goldsmith's burial, and one of the last to leave the grave; and for this much may be forgiven him. Kelly died in poverty, February 3, 1777. NOTE 2.-GARRICK'S TREATMENT OF GOLDSMITH AND Was it partly the recollection of Garrick's treatment of him and his attitude in the matter of the production of The Good Natur'd Man that led Goldsmith to criticize him, not surely too severely, in Retaliation? It may be worth while to reproduce the lines in this place : Here lies David Garrick, describe me, who can, What a commerce was yours, while you got, and you gave! While he was be-Roscius'd and you were be-prais'd! But peace to his spirit, wherever it flies, To act as an angel, and mix with the skies: Those poets, who owe their best fame to his skill, Shall still be his flatterers, go where he will. Old Shakespeare, receive him, with praise and with love, NOTE 3.-SUPPOSED ORIGIN OF THE TITLE GOOD-NATUR'D MAN' Mr. Forster reminds us that one of Nash's friends, introduced as ' the celebrated S-,' is mentioned in Goldsmith's Life of Nash, ed. 1762, as having gone by the name of 'The Good-Natur'd Man'. But 'good nature' seemed then to be in the air, and it is quite possible that there was no connexion between Croaker and the celebrated S-, who is otherwise wholly unknown to us. See also Glossarial Index, p. 440. NOTE 4.-PROLOGUE BY DR. JOHNSON. Page 5. Originally, in the fifth line, 'Our little Bard' had been written. Don't call me our LITTLE bard' said Goldsmith to Johnson, and Our anxious bard' was good-naturedly substituted. Malone used to refer to this eagerly-desired omission as one of the most characteristic traits he knew of Goldsmith. (Forster's Life, Book IV, chap. i.) NOTE 5.-CROAKER AND JOHNSON'S 'SUSPIRIUS'. Page 13. Johnson's sketch of Suspirius in The Rambler, No. 59, has often been put forward as the original from which Goldsmith copied Croaker, and he is said to have acknowledged his indebtedness to Johnson; but Mr. J. W. M. Gibbs, in his edition of Goldsmith (ii. 193), suggests that Goldsmith may, after all, have taken the main idea from his own desponding philosopher in The Citizen of the World, No. 92. Goldsmith was such an inveterate repeater of his own good things-often three or four times within a short space-that a few additional plagiarisms do not seem to fall from him with an ill grace. For purposes of reference, a transcript of the number of The Rambler in question is annexed. No. 59. THE RAMBLER. Tuesday, October 9, 1750. Est aliquid fatale Malum per Verba levare, Price 2d. Strangulat inclusus dolor atque exaestuat intus OVID. It is common to distinguish Men by the Names of Animals which they are supposed to resemble. Thus a Hero is frequently termed a Lion, and a Statesman a Fox, an extortioner gains the |