LETTER CХІІІ. To the Same. A LITERARY CONTEST OF GREAT IMPORTANCE; IN WHICH BOTH SIDES FIGHT BY EPIGRAM.1 THE disputes among the learned here are now carried on in a much more compendious manner than formerly. There was a time when folio was brought to oppose folio, and a champion was often listed for life under the banners of a single sorites. At present the controversy is decided in a summary way; an epigram or an acrostic finishes the debate, and the combatant, like the incursive Tartar, advances, and retires with a single blow. An important literary debate at present engrosses the attention of the town. It is carried on with sharpness, and a proper share of this epigrammatical fury. An author,2 it seems, has taken an aversion to the faces of several players, and has written verses to prove his dislike; the players fall upon the author, and assure the town he must be dull, and their faces must be good, because he wants a dinner: a critic comes to the poet's assistance, asserting that the verses were perfectly original, and so smart, that he could never have written them without the assistance of friends; the friends, upon this, arraign the critic, and plainly prove the verses to be all the author's own. So at it they are, all four together by the ears; the friends at the critic, 1 Dated April 14, 1761, in the Public Ledger.—ED. 3 2 Churchill. His Rosciad,' in which he attacks the players, displays great vigour both of thought and expression. His other poems, which were generally on topics of temporary interest, though much read and admired at the time, are now comparatively neglected.-B. 3 The critic was probably he of the Critical Review, who said of the "Rosciad,'-" We will not pretend, however, absolutely to assert that Mr. L- wrote this poem, but we venture to affirm, that it is the production, jointly or separately, of the new triumvirate of wit who never let an opportunity slip of singing their own praises-caw me, caw thee, as Sawney says; and so to it they go and scratch one another, like Scotch pedlars." The "triumvirate " was understood to be Messrs. Lloyd, Colman, and Thornton. See note 3, p. 409.-ED. the critic at the players, the players at the author, and the author at the players again. It is impossible to determine how this many-sided contest will end, or which party to adhere to. The town, without siding with any, views the combat in suspense, like the fabled hero of antiquity, who beheld the earth-born brothers give and receive mutual wounds, and fall by indiscriminate destruction. This is, in some measure, the state of the present dispute; but the combatants here differ in one respect from the champions of the fable. Every new wound only gives vigour for another blow; though they appear to strike, they are in fact mutually swelling themselves into consideration, and thus advertising each other a way into fame. "To-day," says one," my name shall be in the Gazette, the next day my rival's; people will naturally enquire about us; thus we shall at least make a noise in the streets, though we have got nothing to sell." I have read of a dispute of a similar nature, which was managed here about twenty years ago. Hildebrand Jacob, as I think he was called, and Charles Johnson, were poets, both at that time possessed of great reputation; for Johnson had written eleven plays, acted with great success; and Jacob, though he had written but five, had five times thanked the town for their unmerited applause. They soon became mutually enamoured of each other's talents; they wrote, they felt, they challenged the town for each other. Johnson assured the public, that no poet alive had the easy simplicity of Jacob, and Jacob exhibited Johnson as a masterpiece in the pathetic. Their mutual praise was not without effect; the town saw their plays, were in raptures, read, and without censuring them, forgot them. So formidable an union, however, was soon opposed by Tibbald. Tibbald 2 asserted that the tragedies of the one had faults, and the comedies of the other substituted wit for vivacity: the combined champions flew at him like tigers, arraigned the censurer's judgment, and impeached his sincerity. It was a long 1 Hildebrand was an eccentric writer of plays and other things. He was the son of Sir John Jacob, of Bromley, and so became Sir Hildebrand Jacob. He died in 1790. See Nichols' Lit. Anec. Charles Johnson figures in Pope's 'Dunciad.'-ED. time a dispute among the learned, which was in fact the greatest man, Jacob, Johnson, or Tibbald; they had all written for the stage with great success, their names were seen in almost every paper, and their works in every coffeehouse. However, in the hottest of the dispute, a fourth combatant made his appearance, and swept away the three combatants, tragedy, comedy, and all, into undistinguished ruin. From this time they seemed consigned into the hands of criticism; scarce a day passed in which they were not arraigned as detested writers. The critics, those enemies of Dryden and Pope, were their enemies. So Jacob and Johnson, instead of mending by criticism, called it envy; and, because Dryden and Pope were censured, they compared themselves to Dryden and Pope. But to return. The weapon chiefly used in the present controversy is epigram; and certainly never was a keener made use of. They have discovered surprising sharpness on both sides. The first that came out upon this occasion was a kind of new composition in this way, and might more properly be called an epigrammatic thesis, than an epigram. It consists, first, of an argument in prose; next follows a motto from Roscommon; then comes the epigram; and, lastly, notes serving to explain the epigram. But you shall have it with all its decorations. "AN EPIGRAM, "Addressed to the Gentlemen Reflected on in The Rosciad, a Poem by the Author. 1 "Worried with debts, and past all hopes of bail, "Let not the hungry Bavius' angry stroke 2 Charity. [? GOLDSMITH.] See note 1 on next page.-ED. 2 Settled at one shilling, the price of the poem. [? GOLDSMITH.] And, by a quick transition, plainly show That caused his putrid kennel to o'erflow." The last lines are certainly executed in a very masterly manner. It is of that species of argumentation called the perplexing. It effectually flings the antagonist into a mist; there is no answering it: the laugh is raised against him while he is endeavouring to find out the jest. At once he shows, that the author has a kennel, and that his kennel is putrid, and that his putrid kennel overflows. But why does it overflow? It overflows, because the author happens to have low pockets! 2 There was also another new attempt in this way; a prosaic epigram which came out upon this occasion. This is so full of matter, that a critic might split it into fifteen epigrams, each properly fitted with its sting. You shall see it. TO G. C. AND R. L.3 ""Twas you, or I, or he, or all together, 'Twas one, both, three of them, they know not whether. You, I, he, wrote it not-'twas Churchill's all." There, there's a perplex! I could have wished, to make it quite perfect, the author, as in the case before, had added Almost every word admits a scholium, and a long notes. This epigram we find was printed, together with its two notes, in the Public Ledger, ten days prior to its quotation as above. So printed, on April 4, it is dated as from "Gray's Inn." The first edition of the 'Rosciad' was published anonymously in March. The second edition, with Churchill's name, appeared April 9. Goldsmith's Letter, therefore, appeared after Churchill's avowal of the poem, though the above Epigram had appeared before the avowal. Now, query: Is this Epigram Goldsmith's? It has been included in some late editions of his Poems.-ED. 2 The Ledger has in addition :-"But it was impossible so good a thing could pass without a reply; a reply, therefore, it had equally witty, poignant, and severe."-ED. 3 6 By these initials are meant George Colman, the elder, and Robert Lloyd. These gentlemen, with Mr. Bonnel Thornton, were suspected of having assisted Churchill in writing the Rosciad.'-B. [Lloyd was the author of poems, &c. Colman and Thornton were the writers of the Connoisseur, which Goldsmith had reviewed in the Monthly Review of 1757; see the review in our vol. iv.—ED.] one too. I, YOU, HE! Suppose a stranger should ask, "and who are you?" Here are three obscure persons spoken of, that may in a short time be utterly forgotten. Their names should have consequently been mentioned in notes at the bottom. But when the reader comes to the words great and small, the maze is inextricable. Here the stranger may dive for a mystery, without ever reaching the bottom. Let him know, then, that small is a word purely introduced to make good rhyme, and great was a very proper word to keep small company. Yet, by being thus a spectator of others' dangers, I must own I begin to tremble in this literary contest for my own. I begin to fear that my challenge to Doctor Rock1 was unadvised, and has procured me more antagonists than I had at first expected. I have received private letters from several of the literati here, that fill my soul with apprehension. I may safely aver, that I never gave any creature in this good city offence, except only my rival Doctor Rock; yet, by the letters I every day receive, and by some I have seen printed, I am arraigned at one time as being a dull fellow, at another as being pert; I am here petulant, there I am heavy. By the head of my ancestors! they treat me with more inhumanity than a flying fish. If I dive and run my nose to the bottom, there a devouring shark is ready to swallow me up; if I skim the surface, a pack of dolphins are at my tail to snap me; but when I take wing, and attempt to escape them by flight, I become a prey to every ravenous bird that winnows the bosom of the deep. Adieu. 2 See Letter LXVIII.-ED. |