ll; but this
was abandoned; and Goldsmith was privately buried in the ground of the
Temple Church on the 9th of April, 1774. Strangely enough, too,
Johnson seems to have omitted all mention of Goldsmith from his
letters to Boswell. It was not until Boswell had written to him, on
June 24th, "You have said nothing to me about poor Goldsmith," that
Johnson, writing on July 4, answered as follows:--"Of poor dear Dr.
Goldsmith there is little to be told, more than the papers have made
public. He died of a fever, made, I am afraid, more violent by
uneasiness of mind. His debts began to be heavy, and all his resources
were exhausted. Sir Joshua is of opinion that he owed not less than
two thousand pounds. Was ever poet so trusted before?"

But if the greatest grief at the sudden and premature death of
Goldsmith would seem to have been shown at the moment by certain
wretched creatures who were found weeping on the stairs leading to his
chambers, it must not be supposed that his fine friends either forgot
him, or ceased to regard his memory with a great gentleness and
kindness. Some two years after, when a monument was about to be
erected to Goldsmith in Westminster Abbey, Johnson consented to write
"the poor dear Doctor's epitaph;" and so anxious were the members of
that famous circle in which Goldsmith had figured, that a just tribute
should be paid to his genius, that they even ventured to send a round
robin to the great Cham desiring him to amend his first draft. Now,
perhaps, we have less interest in Johnson's estimate of Goldsmith's
genius--though it contains the famous _Nullum quod tetigit non
ornavit_--than in the phrases which tell of the honour paid to the
memory of the dead poet by the love of his companions and the
faithfulness of his friends. It may here be added that the precise
spot where Goldsmith was buried in the Temple churchyard is unknown.
So lived and so died Oliver Goldsmith.

* * * * *

In the foregoing pages the writings of Goldsmith have been given so
prominent a place in the history of his life that it is unnecessary to
take them here collectively and endeavour to sum up their distinctive
qualities. As much as could be said within the limited space has, it
is hoped, been said about their genuine and tender pathos, that never
at any time verges on the affected or theatrical; about their quaint
delicate, delightful humour; about that broader humour that is not
afraid to