APPENDIXES A. PORTRAITS OF GOLDSMITH. B. DESCRIPTIONS OF NEWELL’S VIEWS OF LISSOY, ETC. C. THE EPITHET ‘SENTIMENTAL.’ D. FRAGMENTS OF TRANSLATIONS, ETC. BY GOLDSMITH. E. GOLDSMITH ON POETRY UNDER ANNE AND GEORGE THE FIRST. F. CRITICISMS FROM GOLDSMITH’S ‘BEAUTIES OF ENGLISH POESY.’ [Illustration: ] OLIVER GOLDSMITH (M. W. Bunbury) APPENDIX A PORTRAITS OF GOLDSMITH. PORTRAITS of Goldsmith are not numerous; and the best known are those of Reynolds and H. W. Bunbury. That by Sir Joshua was painted in 1766–70, and exhibited in the Royal Academy (No. 151) from April 24th to May 28th in the latter year. It represents the poet in a plain white collar, furred mantle open at the neck, and holding a book in his right hand. Its general characteristics are given at p. xxviii of the ‘Introduction.’ It was scraped in mezzotint in 1770 by Reynolds’s Italian pupil, Giuseppe, or Joseph Marchi; and it is dated 1st December.* Bunbury’s portrait first appeared, after Goldsmith’s death, as a frontispiece to the _Haunch of Venison_; and it was etched in facsimile by James Bretherton. The plate is dated May 24, 1776. In his loyal but despotic _Life of Goldsmith_ (Bk. iv, ch. 6), Mr. John Forster reproduces these portraits side by side; in order, he professes, to show ‘the distinction between truth and a caricature of it.’ Bunbury, it may be, was primarily a caricaturist, and possibly looked at most things from a more or less grotesque point of view; but this sketch—it should be observed—was meant for a likeness, and we have the express testimony of one who, if she was Bunbury’s sister-in-law, was also Goldsmith’s friend, that it rendered Goldsmith accurately. It ‘gives the head with admirable fidelity’—says the ‘Jessamy Bride’ (afterwards Mrs. Gwyn)—‘as he actually lived among us; nothing can exceed its truth’ (Prior’s _Life_, 1837, ii. 380). In other words, it delineates Goldsmith as his contemporaries saw him, with bulbous forehead, indecisive chin, and long protruding upper lip,—awkward, insignificant, ill at ease,—restlessly burning ‘to get in and shine.’ It enables us moreover to understand how people who knew nothing of his better and more lovable qualities, could speak of him as an ‘inspired idiot,’ as ‘silly Dr. Goldsmith,’ as ‘talking like poor Poll.’ It is, in short, his external, objective presentment. The picture by Sir Joshua, on the contrary, is almost wholly subjective. Draped judiciously in a popular studio costume, which is not that of the sitter’s day, it reveals to us the author of _The Deserted Village_ as Reynolds conceived him to be at his best, serious, dignified, introspective, with his physical defects partly extenuated by art, partly over-mastered by his intellectual power.