is to the Upper Nobility. And afterwards the _Emperours_ were generally
_High-Priests_ themselves. The Romans in distress endeavour'd to make
Friends with _Coriolanus_ whom they had banish'd before. To this purpose
they furnish'd out several _Solemn_ Embasayes. Now the Regulation of the
Ceremony, and the Remarks of the Historian;[276] plainly discover that the
_Body_ of the _Priests_ were thought not inferior to any other. One
Testimony from _Tully_ and I have done. 'Tis in his Harangue to the College
of the _Priests_.[277] _Cum multa divinitus, Pontifices, a majoribus
nostris inventa atque instituta sunt; tum nihil preclarius quam quòd vos
eosdem et Religionibus Deorum immortalium, & summe Rei publicæ præesse
voluerunt._ &c. _i. e. Amongst the many laudable Instances of our Ancestors
Prudence, and Capacity, I know nothing better contrived then their placing
your Order at the Helm, and setting the same Persons at the Head both of
Religion, and Government._ Thus we see what _Rank_ the _Priest-hood_ held
among the _Jews_, and how Nature taught the _Heathen_ to regard it. And is
it not now possess'd of as fair pretences as formerly? Is Christianity any
disadvantage to the Holy Office. And does the Dignity of a Religion lessen
the Publick Administrations in't? The _Priests of the most High God_ and of
_Idolatry_, can't be compared without Injury. To argue for the Preference
is a Reflection upon the _Creed_. 'Tis true the _Jewish Priest-hood_ was
instituted by God: But every Thing Divine is not of Equal Consideration.
_Realities_ are more valuable than _Types_; And as the Apostle argues, the
_Order_ of _Melchizedeck_ is greater than that of _Aaron_.[278] The Author,
(I mean the immediate one,) the Authorities, the Business, and the End, of
the _Christian Priest-hood_, are more Noble than those of the _Jewish_. For
is not _Christ_ greater than _Moses_, _Heaven_ better than the Land of
_Canaan_, and the _Eucharist_ to be prefer'd to all the _Sacrifices_, and
_Expiations_ of the _Law_? Thus the Right, and the Reason of Things stands.
And as for _Fact_, the Christian World have not been backward in their
Acknowledgments. Ever since the first Conversion of Princes, the
_Priest-hood_ has had no small share of Temporal Advantage. The _Codes_,
_Novels_, and _Church History_, are Sufficient Evidence what Sense
_Constantine_ and his Successors had of these Matters. But I shall not
detain the _Reader_ in remote Instances.
To proceed then to Times and Countries more generally known. The People of
_France_ are branched into three Divisions, of these the _Clergy_, are the
First. And in consequence of this Privilege, at the Assembly of the
_States_, they are first admitted to Harangue before the King.[279]
In _Hungary_ the _Bishops_ are very Considerable, and some of them great
Officers of _State_.[280] In _Poland_ they are _Senators_ that is part of
the Upper _Nobless_. In _Muscovy_ the _Bishops_ have an Honourable Station;
and the Present Czar is descended from the _Patriarchal_ Line.[281] I
suppose I need say nothing of _Italy_. In _Spain_ the _Sees_ generally are
better endowed than elswhere, and Wealth alwaies draws Consideration.[282]
The _Bishops_ hold their Lands by a Military Noble _Tenure_, and are
excused from Personal Attendance. And to come toward an end; They are Earls
and Dukes in _France_, and Soveraign Princes, in _Germany_.[283] In
_England_ the _Bishops_ are Lords of Parliament: And the _Law_ in plain
words distinguishes the _Upper House_ into the _Spiritual_ and _Temporal
Nobility_. And several _Statutes_ call the Bishops _Nobles_ by direct
Implication.[284] To mention nothing more, their _Heraldry_ is regulated by
_Garter_, and _Blazon'd_ by _Stones_, which none under the _Nobility_ can
pretend to. In this Country of ours, Persons of the First Quality have been
in _Orders_; To give an Instance of some few. _Odo_ Brother to _William_
the _Conquerour_ was _Bishop_ of _Baieux_, and Earl of _Kent_. King
_Stephens_ Brother was _Bishop_ of _Winchester_. _Nevill Arch-Bishop_ of
_York_ was Brother to the Great Earl of _Warwick_, and _Cardinal Pool_ was
of the Royal Family. To come a little lower, and to our own Times. And here
we may reckon not a few Persons of Noble Descent in Holy _Orders_. Witness
the _Berklyes_, _Comptons_, _Montagues_, _Crews_, and _Norths_; The
_Annesleys_, _Finches_, _Grayhams_ &c. And as for the Gentry, there are not
many good Families in _England_, but either have, or have had a
_Clergy-man_ in them,
In short; The _Priest-hood_ is the profession of a Gentleman. A _Parson_
notwithstanding the ignorant Pride of some People, is a Name of Credit, and
Authority, both in Religion, and _Law_. The _Addition_ of _Clerk_ is at
least equal to that of Gentleman. Were it otherwise the _Profession_ would
in many cases be a kind of Punishment. But the _Law_ is far from being so
singular as to make _Orders_ a Disadvantage to _Degree_. No, The Honour of
the Family continues, and the _Heraldry_ is every jot as safe in the
_Church_, as 'twas in the _State_. And yet when the _Laity_ are taken leave
of, not _Gentleman_ but _Clerk_ is usually written. This Custom is an
argument the Change is not made for the worse, that the Spiritual
Distinction is as valuable as the other; And to speak Modestly, that the
first _Addition_ is not lost, but Cover'd. Did the Subject require it, this
Point might be farther made good. For the stile of a higher Secular Honour
is continued as well with _Priest-hood_ as without it. A Church-man who is
either _Baronet, or Baron_, writes himself so, notwithstanding His
_Clerkship_. Indeed we can't well imagine the Clergy degraded from Paternal
Honour without a strange Reflection on the Country; without supposing
_Julian_ at the Helm, the _Laws_ Antichristian, and _Infidelity_ in the
very _Constitution_. To make the Ministers of Religion less upon the score
of their Function, would be a Penalty on the _Gospel_, and a contempt of
the God of Christianity. 'Tis our Saviours reasoning; _He that despises
you, despises Me, and he that Despises Me, Despises Him that sent me._[285]
I hope what I have offer'd on this Subject will not be misunderstood. There
is no Vanity in necessary Defence. To wipe off Aspersions, and rescue
Things from Mistake, is but bare Justice: Besides, where the Honour of God,
and the Publick Interest are concern'd, a Man is bound to speak. To argue
from a resembling Instance. He that has the Kings Commission ought to
Maintain it. To let it suffer under Rudeness is to betray it. To be tame
and silent in such cases, is not Modesty but Meanness, Humility obliges no
Man to desert his Trust; To throw up his Privilege, and prove false to his
Character. And is our Saviours Authority inferiour to that of Princes? Are
the Kingdoms of this World more Glorious than that of the next? And can the
Concerns of Time be greater than those of Eternity? If not, the reasoning
above mention'd must hold in the Application.
And now by this time I conceive the ill Manners of the _Stage_ may be in
some measure apparent; And that the _Clergy_ deserve none of that Coarse
Usage which it puts upon them. I confess I know no _Profession_ that has
made a more creditable Figure, that has better Customs for their
Privileges, and better Reasons to maintain them. And here setting aside the
point of Conscience, where lies the Decency of falling foul upon this
_Order_? What Propriety is there in Misrepresentation? In confounding
Respects, disguising Features, and painting Things out of all Colour and
Complexion? This crossing upon Nature and Reason, is great Ignorance, and
out of Rule. And now what Pleasure is there in Misbehaviour and Abuse? Is
it such an Entertainment to see Religion worryed by Atheism, and Things the
most Solemn and Significant tumbled and tost by Buffoons? A Man may laugh
at a Puppy's tearing a Wardrobe, but I think 'twere altogether as discreet
to beat him off. Well! but the _Clergy_ mismanage sometimes, and they must
be told of their Faults. What then? Are the _Poets_ their _Ordinaries_? Is
the _Pulpit_ under the Discipline of the _Stage_? And are those fit to
correct the Church, that are not fit to come into it? Besides, What makes
them fly out upon the _Function_; and rail by wholesale? Is the
_Priesthood_ a crime, and the service of God a disadvantage? I grant
Persons and Things are not always suited. A good _Post_ may be ill kept,
but then the Censure should keep close to the Fault, and the Office not
suffer for the Manager. The _Clergy_ may have their Failings sometimes like
others, but what then? The _Character_ is still untarnish'd. The _Men_ may
be Little, but the _Priests_ are not so. And therefore like other People,
they ought to be treated by their best Distinction.
If 'tis Objected that the _Clergy_ in _Plays_ are commonly _Chaplains_, And
that these _Belonging_ to Persons of Quality they were obliged to represent
them servile and submissive. To this I Answer
_1st._ In my former remark, that the _Stage_ often outrages the whole
_Order_, without regard to any particular Office. But were it not so in the
_2d._ Place, They quite overlook the Character, and mistake the Business of
_Chaplains_. They are no _Servants_, neither do they _Belong_ to any
_Body_, but God Almighty. This Point I have fully proved in another,
_Treatise_,[286] and thither I refer the _Reader_.
CHAP. IV.
_The Stage-Poets make their Principal Persons Vitious, and reward them at
the End of the Play._
The Lines of Virtue and Vice are Struck out by Nature in very Legible
Distinctions; They tend to a different Point, and in the greater Instances
the Space between them is easily perceiv'd. Nothing can be more unlike than
the Original Forms of these Qualities: The First has all the sweetness,
Charms, and Graces imaginable; The other has the Air of a _Post_ ill Carved
into a _Monster_, and looks both foolish and Frightful together. These are
the Native Appearances of good and Evil: And they that endeavour to blot
the Distinctions, to rub out the Colours, or change the Marks, are
extreamly to blame. 'Tis confessed as long as the Mind is awake, and
Conscience goes true, there's no fear of being imposed on. But when Vice is
varnish'd over with Pleasure, and comes in the Shape of Convenience, the
case grows somewhat dangerous; for then the Fancy may be gain'd, and the
Guards corrupted, and Reason suborn'd against it self. And thus a
_Disguise_ often passes when the Person would otherwise be stopt. To put
_Lewdness_ into a Thriving condition, to give it an Equipage of Quality,
and to treat it with Ceremony and Respect, is the way to confound the
Understanding, to fortifie the Charm, and to make the Mischief invincible.
Innocence is often owing to Fear, and Appetite is kept under by Shame; But
when these Restraints are once taken off, when Profit and Liberty lie on
the same side, and a Man can Debauch himself into Credit, what can be
expected in such a case, but that Pleasure should grow Absolute, and
Madness carry all before it? The _Stage_ seem eager to bring Matters to
this Issue; They have made a considerable progress, and are still pushing
their Point with all the Vigour imaginable. If this be not their Aim why is
_Lewdness_ so much consider'd in Character and Success? Why are their
Favourites Atheistical, and their fine Gentleman debauched? To what purpose
is _Vice_ thus prefer'd, thus ornamented, and caress'd, unless for
Imitation? That matter of Fact stands thus, I shall make good by several
Instances: To begin then with their Men of Breeding and Figure.
_Wild-blood_ sets up for _Debauchery_, Ridicules Marriage, and Swears by
_Mahomet_.[287] _Bellamy_ makes sport with the Devil,[288] and _Lorenzo_ is
vitious and calls his Father _Bawdy Magistrate.[289] Horner_ is horridly
Smutty, and _Harcourt_ false to his Friend who used him kindly.[290] In the
_Plain Dealer_ _Freeman_ talks coarsely, cheats the Widdow, debauches her
Son, and makes him undutiful. _Bellmour_ is Lewd and Profane,[291] And
_Mellefont_ puts _Careless_ in the best way he can to debauch _Lady
Plyant_.[292] These _Sparks_ generally Marry up the Top Ladys, and those
that do not, are brought to no Pennance, but go off with the Character of
Fine Gentlemen: In _Don-Sebastian_, _Antonio_ an Atheistical Bully is
rewarded with the Lady _Moraima_, and half the _Muffty_'s Estate.
_Valentine_ in _Love for Love_ is (if I may so call him) the Hero of the
_Play_;[293] This Spark the _Poet_ would pass for a Person of Virtue, but
he speaks to late. 'Tis true, He was hearty in his Affection to _Angelica_.
Now without question, to be in Love with a fine Lady of 30000 Pounds is a
great Virtue! But then abating this single Commendation, _Valentine_ is
altogether compounded of Vice.[294] He is a prodigal Debauchee, unnatural,
and Profane, Obscene, Sawcy, and undutiful, And yet this Libertine is
crown'd for the Man of Merit, has his Wishes thrown into his Lap, and makes
the Happy _Exit_. I perceive we should have a rare set of _Virtues_ if
these _Poets_ had the making of them! How they hug a Vitious Character, and
how profuse are they in their Liberalities to Lewdness? In the _Provoked
Wife_, _Constant_ Swears at Length, solicits Lady _Brute_, Confesses
himself Lewd, and prefers Debauchery to Marriage. He handles the last
Sybject very notably and worth the Hearing. _There is_ (says he) _a poor
sordid Slavery in Marriage, that turns the flowing Tide of Honour, and
sinks it to the lowest ebb of Infamy. 'Tis a Corrupted Soil, Ill Nature,
Avarice, Sloth, Cowardize, and Dirt, are all its Product_.--But then
_Constancy (alias Whoring) is a Brave, Free, Haughty, Generous, Agent_.
This is admirable stuff both for the Rhetorick and the Reason![295] The
Character _Young Fashion_ in the _Relapse_ is of the same Staunchness, but
this the _Reader_ may have in another Place.
To sum up the Evidence. A fine Gentleman, is a fine Whoring, Swearing,
Smutty, Atheistical Man. These Qualifications it seems compleat the _Idea_
of Honour. They are the Top-Improvements of Fortune, and the distinguishing
Glories of Birth and Breeding! This is the _Stage-Test_ for _Quality_, and
those that can't stand it, ought to be _Disclaim'd_. The Restraints of
Conscience and the Pedantry of Virtue, are unbecoming a Cavalier: Future
Securities, and Reaching beyond Life, are vulgar Provisions: If he falls a
Thinking at this rate, he forfeits his Honour; For his Head was only made
to run against a Post! Here you have a Man of Breeding and Figure that
burlesques the _Bible_, Swears, and talks Smut to Ladies, speaks ill of his
Friend behind his Back, and betraies his Interest. A fine Gentleman that
has neither Honesty, nor Honour, Conscience, nor Manners, Good Nature, nor
civil Hypocricy. Fine, only in the Insignificancy of Life, the Abuse of
Religion and the Scandals of Conversation. These Worshipful Things are the
_Poets_ Favourites: They appear at the Head of the _Fashion_; and shine in
Character, and Equipage. If there is any Sense stirring, They must have it,
tho' the rest of the _Stage_ suffer never so much by the Partiality. And
what can be the Meaning of this wretched Distribution of Honour? Is it not
to give Credit and Countenance to Vice, and to shame young People out of
all pretences to Conscience, and Regularity? They seem forc'd to turn Lewd
in their own Defence: They can't otherwise justifie themselves to the
Fashion, nor keep up the Character of Gentlemen: Thus People not well
furnish'd with Thought, and Experience, are debauch'd both in Practise and
Principle. And thus Religion grows uncreditable, and passes for ill
Education. The _Stage_ seldom gives Quarter to any Thing that's serviceable
or Significant, but persecutes Worth, and Goodness under every Appearance.
He that would be safe from their Satir must take care to disguise himself
in Vice, and hang out the _Colours_ of Debauchery. How often is Learning,
Industry, and Frugality, ridiculed in Comedy? The rich Citizens are often
Misers, and Cuckolds, and the _Universities_, Schools of Pedantry upon this
score. In short, Libertinism and Profaness, Dressing, Idleness, and
Gallantry, are the only valuable Qualities. As if People were not apt
enough of themselves to be Lazy, Lewd, and Extravagant, unless they were
prick'd forward, and provok'd by Glory, and Reputation. Thus the Marks of
Honour, and Infamy are misapplyed, and the Idea's of Virtue and Vice
confounded. Thus Monstrousness goes for Proportion, and the Blemishes of
Human Nature, make up the Beauties of it.
The fine Ladies are of the same Cut with the Gentlemen; _Moraima_ is
scandalously rude to her Father, helps him to a beating, and runs away with
_Antonio_.[296] _Angelica_ talks sawcily to her Uncle,[297] and _Belinda_
confesses her Inclination for a Gallant.[298] And as I have observ'd
already,[299] the Toping Ladies in the _Mock Astrologer_, _Spanish Fryar_,
_Country Wife_, _Old Batchelour_, _Orphan_, _Double Dealer_, and _Love
Triumphant_, are smutty, and sometimes Profane.
And was Licentiousness and irreligion, alwaies a mark of Honour? No; I
don't perceive but that the old _Poets_ had an other Notion of
Accomplishment, and bred their people of Condition a different way.
_Philolaches_ in _Plautus_ laments his being debauch'd; and dilates upon
the Advantages of Virtue, and Regularity.[300] _Lusiteles_ another Young
Gentleman disputes handsomly by himself against Lewdness. And the discourse
between him and _Philto_ is Moral, and well managed.[301] And afterwards he
lashes Luxury and Debauching with a great deal of Warmth, and Satir.[302]
_Chremes_ in _Terence_ is a modest young Gentleman, he is afraid of being
surpriz'd by _Thais_, and seems careful not to sully his Reputation.[303]
And _Pamphilus_ in _Hecyra_ resolves rather to be govern'd by Duty, than
Inclination.[304]
_Plautus_'s _Pinacium_ tells her Friend _Panegyric_ that they ought to
acquit themselves fairly to their Husbands, tho' These should fail in their
Regards towards them.[305] For all good People will do justice tho' they
don't receive it. Lady _Brute_ in the _Provok'd Wife_ is govern'd by
different maxims. She is debauch'd with ill Usage, says _Virtue is an Ass,
and a Gallant's worth forty on't_.[306] _Pinacium_ goes on to another Head
of Duty, and declares that a Daughter can never respect her Father too
much, and that Disobedience has a great deal of scandal, and Lewdness
in't.[307] The Lady _Jacinta_ as I remember does not treat her Father at
this rate of Decency. Let us hear a little of her Behaviour. The _Mock
Astrologer_ makes the Men draw, and frights the Ladys with the Apprehension
of a Quarrel. Upon this; _Theodosia_ crys _what will become of us!_
_Jacinta_ answers, _we'll die for Company: nothing vexes me but that I am
not a Man, to have one thrust at that malicious old Father of mine, before
I go_.[308] Afterwards the old Gentleman _Alonzo_ threatens his Daughters
with a Nunnery. _Jacinta_ spars again and says, _I would have thee to know
thou graceless old Man, that I defy a Nunnery: name a Nunnery once more and
I disown thee for my Father_.[309] I could carry on the Comparison between
the old and Modern Poets somewhat farther. But this may suffice.
Thus we see what a fine time Lewd People have on the _English Stage_. No
Censure, no mark of Infamy, no Mortification must touch them. They keep
their Honour untarnish'd, and carry off the Advantage of their Character.
They are set up for the Standard of Behaviour, and the Masters of Ceremony
and Sense. And at last that the Example may work the better, they generally
make them rich, and happy, and reward them with their own Desires.
Mr. _Dryden_ in the _Preface_ to his _Mock-Astrologer_, confesses himself
blamed for this Practise. _For making debauch'd Persons his_ Protagonists,
_or chief Persons of the Drama; And, for making them happy in the
Conclusion of the Play, against the Law of Comedy, which is to reward
Virtue, and punish Vice_. To this Objection He makes a lame Defence. And
answers
_1st._ _That he knows no such Law constantly observ'd in Comedy by the
Antient or Modern Poets._ What then? _Poets_ are not always exactly in
Rule. It may be a good Law tho' 'tis not constantly observ'd, some Laws are
constantly broken, and yet ne're the worse for all that. He goes on, and
pleads the Authorities of _Plautus_, and _Terence_. I grant there are
Instances of Favour to vitious young People in those Authors, but to this I
reply
_1st._ That those _Poets_ had a greater compass of Liberty in their
Religion. Debauchery did not lie under those Discouragements of Scandal,
and penalty, with them as it does with us. Unless therefore He can prove
_Heathenism_, and _Christianity_ the same, his _precedents_ will do him
little service.
_2ly._ _Horace_ who was as good a judge of the _Stage_, as either of those
_Comedians_, seems to be of another Opinion. He condemns the obscenities of
_Plautus_, and tells you Men of Fortune and Quality in his time; would not
endure immodest Satir.[310] He continues, that Poets were formerly admired
for the great services they did. For teaching Matters relating to Religion,
and Government; For refining the Manners, tempering the Passions, and
improving the Understandings of Mankind: For making them more useful in
Domestick Relations, and the publick Capacities of Life.[311] This is a
demonstration that Vice was not the Inclination of the Muses in those days;
and that _Horace_ beleiv'd the chief business of a _Poem_ was, to Instruct
the Audience. He adds farther that the _Chorus_ ought to turn upon the
Argument of the _Drama_, and support the Design of the _Acts_. That They
ought to speak in Defence of Virtue, and Frugality, and show a Regard to
Religion. Now from the Rule of the _Chorus_, we may conclude his Judgment
for the _Play_. For as he observes, there must be a Uniformity between the
_Chorus_ and the _Acts_: They must have the same View, and be all of a
Piece. From hence 'tis plain that _Horace_ would have no immoral
_Character_ have either Countenance or good Fortune, upon the _Stage_. If
'tis said the very mention of the _Chorus_ shews the Directions were
intended for _Tragedy_. To this
I answer, that the Consequence is not good. For the use of a _Chorus_ is
not inconsistent with _Comedy_. The antient _Comedians_ had it.
_Aristophanes_ is an Instance. I know 'tis said the _Chorus_ was left out
in that they call the _New Comedy_. But I can't see the conclusiveness of
this Assertion. For _Aristophanes_ his _Plutus_ is _New Comedy_ with a
_Chorus_ in't.[312] And _Aristotle_ who lived after this Revolution of the
_Stage_, mentions nothing of the Omission of the _Chorus_. He rather
supposes its continuance by saying the _Chorus was added by the Government
long after the Invention of Comedy_.[313] 'Tis true _Plautus_ and _Terence_
have none, but those before them probably might. _Moliere_ has now reviv'd
them,[314] And _Horace_ might be of his Opinion, for ought wee know to the
contrary.
_Lastly._ _Horace_ having expresly mentioned the beginning and progress of
_Comedy_, discovers himself more fully: He advises a _Poet_ to form his
Work upon the Precepts of _Socrates_ and _Plato_, and the Models of Moral
Philosophy. This was the way to preserve Decency, and to assign a proper
Fate and Behaviour to every _Character_.[315] Now if _Horace_ would have
his _Poet_ govern'd by the Maxims of Morality, he must oblige him to
Sobriety of Conduct, and a just distribution of Rewards, and Punishments.
Mr. _Dryden_ makes Homewards, and endeavours to fortifie himself in Modern
Authority. He lets us know that _Ben Johnson after whom he may he proud to
Err, gives him more than one example of this Conduct_;[316] _That in the_
Alchemist _is notorius_, where neither _Face_ nor his _Master_ are
corrected according to their Demerits. But how Proud soever Mr. _Dryden_
may be of an Errour, he has not so much of _Ben Jonson_'s company as he
pretends. His Instance of _Face &c._ in the _Alchemist_ is rather
_notorious_ against his Purpose then for it.
For _Face_ did not Council his Master _Lovewit_ to debauch the Widdow;
neither is it clear that the Matter went thus far. He might gain her
consent upon Terms of Honour for ought appears to the contrary. 'Tis true
_Face_ who was one of the Principal Cheats is Pardon'd and consider'd. But
then his Master confesses himself kind to a fault. He owns this Indulgence
was a Breach of Justice, and unbecoming the Gravity of an old Man. And then
desires the Audience to excuse him upon the Score of the Temptation. But
_Face continued, in the Cousenage till the last without Repentance_.[317]
Under favour I conceive this is a Mistake. For does not _Face_ make an
Apology before he leaves the _Stage_? Does he not set himself at the _Bar_,
arraign his own Practise, and cast the Cause upon the Clemency of the
Company? And are not all these Signs of the Dislike of what he had done?
Thus careful the _Poet_ is to prevent the Ill Impressions of his _Play_! He
brings both Man and Master to Confession. He dismisses them like
Malefactours; And moves for their Pardon before he gives them their
Discharge. But the _Mock-Astrologer_ has a gentler Hand: _Wild-Blood_ and
_Jacinta_ are more generously used: There is no Acknowledgment exacted; no
Hardship put upon them: They are permitted to talk on in their Libertine
way to the Last: And take Leave without the least Appearance of
Reformation. The _Mock-Astrologer_ urges _Ben Johnson's_ _Silent Woman_ as
an other _Precedent_ to his purpose. For _there_ Dauphine _confesses
himself in Love with all the Collegiate Lady's_. _And yet this naughty_
Dauphine _is Crowned in the end with the Possession of his Uncles Estate,
and with the hopes of all his Mistresses_.[318] This Charge, as I take it,
is somewhat too severe. I grant _Dauphine_ Professes himself in Love with
the Collegiate Ladies at first. But when they invited him to a private
Visit, he makes them no Promise; but rather appears tired, and willing to
disengage. _Dauphine_ therefore is not altogether so naughty as this Author
represents him.