favourite song, and the music is only a medley of old Italian airs, or some meagre modern capricio.

When such is the case, it is not much to be wondered if the opera is pretty much neglected. The lower orders of people have neither taste nor fortune to relish such an entertainment; they would find more satisfaction in the "Roast Beef of Old England" than in the finest closes of an eunuch; they sleep amidst all the agony of recitative. On the other hand, people of fortune or taste can hardly be pleased, where there is a visible poverty in the decorations, and an entire want of taste in the composition.

Would it not surprise one, that when Metastasio is so well known in England, and so universally admired, the manager or the composer should have recourse to any other operas than those written by him? I might venture to say, that "written by Metastasio," put up in the bills of the day, would alone be sufficient to fill a house, since thus the admirers of sense as well as sound might find entertain

ment.

The performers also should be entreated to sing only their parts, without clapping in any of their own favourite airs. I must own, that such songs are generally to me the most disagreeable in the world. Every singer generally chooses a favourite air, not from the excellency of the music, but from the difficulty; such songs are generally chosen as surprise rather than please, where the performer may show his compass, his breath, and his volubility.

From hence proceed those unnatural startings, those unmusical closings, and shakes lengthened out to a painful continuance; such, indeed, may show a voice, but it must give a truly delicate ear the utmost uneasiness. Such tricks are not music; neither Corelli nor Pergolesi ever permitted them, and they begin even to be discontinued in Italy, where they first had their rise.

And, now I am upon the subject, our composers also should affect greater simplicity-let their bass cliff have all the variety they can give it,-let the body of the music (if I may so express it) be as various as they please; but let them avoid ornamenting a barren groundwork, let

them not attempt, by flourishing, to cheat us of solid harmony.

The works of Mr. Rameau1 are never heard without a surprising effect. I can attribute it only to this simplicity he every where observes, insomuch that some of his finest harmonies are often only octave and unison. This simple manner has greater powers than is generally imagined; and were not such a demonstration misplaced, I think, from the principles of music, it might be proved to be most agreeable.

But to leave general reflection: With the present set of performers, the operas, if the conductor thinks proper, may be carried on with some success, since they have all some merit, if not as actors, at least as singers. Signora Matei is at once both a perfect actress and a very fine singer. She is possessed of a fine sensibility in her manner, and seldom indulges those extravagant and unmusical flights of voice complained of before. Cornacini, on the other hand, is a very indifferent actor-has a most unmeaning faceseems not to feel his part-is infected with a passion of showing his compass; but to recompense all these defects, his voice is melodious-he has vast compass, and great volubility-his swell and shake are perfectly fine, unless that he continues the latter too long. In short, whatever the defects of his action may be, they are amply recompensed by his excellency as a singer; nor can I avoid fancying that he might make a much greater figure in an oratorio than upon the stage.2

In

However, upon the whole, I know not whether ever operas can be kept up in England; they seem to be entirely exotic, and require the nicest management and care. stead of this, the care of them is assigned to men unacquainted with the genius and disposition of the people they would amuse, and whose only motives are immediate gain. Whether a discontinuance of such entertainments would be more to the loss or the advantage of the nation,

6

1 J. P. Rameau, composer of Castor and Pollux,' &c. See also the essay on 'Schools of Music' in vol. i.-ED. 2 In these paragraphs, and in the have Goldsmith as a critic of music. his capabilities in this regard, 'Life,'

Schools of Music' in vol. i., we Compare with Hawkins, &c., on p. 13, &c.-ED.

I will not take upon me to determine, since it is as much our interest to induce foreigners of taste among us on the one hand, as it is to discourage those trifling members of society who generally compose the operatical dramatis persona, on the other.1

1 So ended 'The Bee,' a publication not at all successful when first issued, but one having important after-results for its author. It led to Goldsmith's acquaintance with Johnson and Smollett-which led to the connexion with Newbery, to the publication of the Citizen of the World' letters, and to the sale and publication of the 'Traveller' and the Vicar of Wakefield '-all within less than seven years of the days of the 'Bee'-and these successes of course fully established Goldsmith both as a poet and a prose writer.-ED.

APPENDIX TO THIS EDITION OF THE

'BEE.'

"THE AUGUSTAN AGE OF ENGLAND."

The following few words are less an Appendix in themselves than a means of apprising the reader of what may more fairly be termed an "Appendix to the Bee,'" which we have to come in our fourth volume. The eighth, and last, number of the 'Bee,' it may have been noticed, though the fact is not very generally known, is much less original than are the previous numbers. Likely enough this is traceable to the doubts which naturally existed as to whether there should be a number eight at all. We can imagine the question being in debate, and the "copy being consequently delayed; and when it was decided that there should be a number eight, which should be the little paper's last, we can further imagine Goldsmith getting his matter together hurriedly—and, in fact, borrowing its greater part. Borrowed the greater part certainly was. The first of the three articles constituting the number is, as we have shown at p. 438, borrowed from a similar miscellany of nearly forty years before, the Humourist.' The paper entitled 'An Account of the Augustan Age of England' is also borrowed, but with an important difference. This paper is, as we conclude, and as Prior also concluded, borrowed by Goldsmith from Goldsmith. That is to say, it is part of a longer paper or series of papers which Goldsmith published about a year before in another periodical, and with another title. The Account of the Augustan Age of England' is in fact the concluding portion of four papers entitled The History of Our Own Language' which Goldsmith contributed to the Literary Magazine' of 1758. When the 'Literary Magazine' started in 1756 it was edited and contributed to by Dr. Johnson; but Goldsmith's contributions came some months after Johnson had left the magazine. It is somewhat strange, seeing that the 'Bee' article on the Augustan Age of England' has always been included with Goldsmith's works-from Bishop Percy's collection, which was the first, down to the edition immediately preceding our own—that its other and larger part should never have been re-published. As we

6

have remarked at p. 443, if it is a settled thing, as it seems to be, that the Augustan Age' article is by Goldsmith, it can hardly be doubted that the History of Our Own Language,' whence the Augustan Age' article was taken, is also by him. This being our view, we shall publish in the present edition of the Works of Goldsmith,' and for the first time so collected, the remainder of this 'History of Our Own Language.' It will be found with the 'Later Collected Essays, &c." in vol. iv. It may be added, that the hitherto rejected portion of the History of Our Own Language' is perhaps chiefly notable, as a work of Goldsmith, on account of its containing what may be viewed as a more adequate judg ment upon Shakspere and Milton than occurs elsewhere in the author's writings.-ED.