I call a spade, a spade; Dunbar,* a bully ; Brounckard,† a pimp; and Aubrey Vere,‡ a cully. Because I deal not in satyr, I have sent your Lordship a prologue and epilogue, which I made for our players, when they went down to Oxford. I hear they have succeeded; and by the event your Lordship will judge how easy 'tis to pass any thing upon an university, and how gross flattery the learned will endure.§ If your Lordship had been in town, and I in the country, Probably the grandson of Sir George Hume, created Earl of Dunbar by James the First, in 1605. Henry Brouncker, younger brother of William, Viscount Brouncker. He was a gentleman of the Duke of York's bedchamber, and carried the false order to slacken sail, after the great battle in 1665, when the Duke was asleep, by which the advantage gained in the victory was entirely lost. There is a great cloud over the story; but that Brouncker was an infamous character, must be concluded on all hands. He was expelled the House of Commons; and countenanced by the king more than he deserved, being "never notorious for any thing but the highest degree of impudence, and stooping to the most infamous offices." Continuation of Clarendon's Life, quoted by Malone. Aubrey de Vere, the twentieth and last Earl of Oxford, of that family. This nobleman seduced an eminent actress (said, by some authorities, to be Mrs. Marshall, but conjectured, by Mr. Malone, to have been Mrs. Davenport) to exchange her profession for his protection. The epithet, applied to him in the lines, renders it improbable that he imposed on her by a mock-marriage, though the story is told by Count Hamilton, and others. The Prologue and Epilogue in question may have been those spoken by Mr. Hart and Mrs. Marshall (vol. x. p. 379). But, in this case, the date of their being delivered has been placed too late. Exact accuracy is of little consequence; but I fear the hint in the letter gives some reason for Tom Brown's alleging, that Dryden flattered alternately the wits of the town at the cost of the university, and the university scholars at the expence of the London audience. I cry that facetious person mercy, for having said there was no proof of his accusation. See vol. x. p. 309. I durst not have entertained you with three pages of a letter; but I know they are very ill things which can be tedious to a man, who is fourscore miles from Covent Garden. 'Tis upon this confidence, that I dare almost promise to entertain you with a thousand bagatelles every week, and not to be serious in any part of my letter, but that wherein I take leave to call myself your Lordship's Most obedient servant, JOHN DRYDEN. LETTER III. The following Note and Letter contains the determination of a dispute, and probably of a wager, which had been referred to our author by the parties. It concerns a passage in Creech's "Lucretius," and probably was written soon after the publication of that translation in 1682, when it was a recent subject of conversation. The full passage in "Lucretius" runs thus : Præterea quæcunque vetustate amovet ætas, Si penitus perimit, consumens materiam omnem, Which Creech thus renders: Besides, if o'er whatever years prevail Should wholly perish, and its matter fail, The translation of Creech is at least complicated and unintelligible; and I am uncertain whether even Dryden's explanation renders it grammatical. Dryden speaks elsewhere with great applause of Creech's translation. The original of this decision (in Dryden's hand-writing) is in the possession of Mrs. White of Bownham-hall, Gloucestershire, and was most obligingly communicated to the editor by that lady, through the medium of Mr. Constable of Edinburgh. THE two verses, concerning which the dispute is rais'd, are these: Besides, if o're whatever yeares prevaile Shou'd wholly perish, and its matter faile. The question arising from them is, whether any true gramaticall construction can be made of them? The objection is, that there is no nominative case appearing to the word perish, or that can be understood to belong to it. I have considered the verses, and find the authour of them to have notoriously bungled; that he has plac'd the words as confus'dly as if he had studied to do so. This notwithstanding, the very words, without adding or diminishing in theire proper sence (or at least what the authour meanes), may run thus:-Besides, if what ever yeares prevaile over, should wholly perish, and its matter faile. I 'pronounce therefore, as impartially as I can upon the whole, that there is a nominative case, and that figurative, so as Terence and Virgil, amongst others, use it; that is, the whole clause precedent is the nominative case to perish. My reason is this, and I think it obvious; let the question be ask'd, what it is that should wholly perish, or that perishes? The answer will be, That which yeares prevaile over. If you will not admit a clause to be in construction a nominative case, the word thing, illud, or quodcunque, is to be understood, either of which words, in the femine gender, agree with res, so that he meanes what ever thing time prevails over shou'd wholly perish, and its matter faile. Lucretius, his Latine runs thus: Prætereà, quæcunque vetustate amovet ætas, VOL. XVIII. G Unde animale genus, generatim in lumina vitæ which ought to have been translated thus: Besides, what ever time removes from view, I translated it whatever purposely, to shew, that thing is to be understood; which, as the words are heere plac'd, is so very perspicuous, that the nominative case cannot be doubted. The word, perish, used by Mr. Creech, is a verb neuter; where Lucretius puts perimit, which is active; a licence which, in translating a philosophical poet, ought not to be taken; for some reason, which I have not room to give. But to comfort the loser, I am apt to believe, that the cross-grain confused verse put him so much out of patience, that he wou'd not suspect it of any sence. SIR, THE company having done me so great an honour as to make me their judge, I desire from you the favour of presenting my acknowledgments to them; and shou'd be proud to heere from you, whether they rest satisfyed in my opinion, who am, Sir, Your most humble servant, JOHN DRYDEN.* * There is no address or superscription. LETTER IV. TO THE REV. DR. BUSBY. HONOUR'D SIR, Wednesday Morning, [1682.] We have, with much ado, recover'd my younger sonn, *who came home extreamly sick of a violent cold, and, as he thinks him selfe, a chine-cough.† The truth is, his constitution is very tender; yet his desire of learning, I hope, will inable him to brush through the college. He is allwayes gratefully acknowledging your fatherly kindnesse to him; and very willing to his poore power, to do all things which may continue it. I have no more to add, but only to wish the eldest may also deserve some part of your good opinion; for I believe him to be of vertuous and pious inclinations; and for both, I dare assure you, that they can promise to them selves no farther share of my indulgence, then while they carry them selves with that reverence to you, and that honesty to all others, as becomes them. I am, honour'd Sir, Your most obedient servant and scholar, * John Dryden, admitted a King's scholar in 1682. +["Whooping-cough."-ED.] This letter from Lady Elizabeth Dryden seems to have been written at the same time, and on the same subject: HONNORED SIR, Ascension Day, [1682.] I HOPE I need use noe other argument to you in excuse of my sonn for not coming to church to Westminster then this, that he now lies at home, and thearfore cannot esilly goe soe far backwards and forwards. His father and I will take care, that he shall duely goe to church heare, both on holydayes and Sundays, till he comes to be more nearly under your care in the college. In the mean time, will you pleas to give me leave to accuse you of forgetting your prommis conserning my eldest sonn, who, as you once assured me, was to have one night in a |