"in the place of acknowledging that "fuch particular paffages only were in"terpolated, he gave up the whole effay "against Milton as delufion and mifre presentation, and therefore impofed "more grievoufly on the public than I "had done ;. and that too in terms much "more fubmiffive and abject than the "nature of the offence required *."

The amanuenfis here gained two con→ fiderable points. 1. It was at his op tion to mention or not the affiftance that Lauder had in compofing his effay; and confequently to conceal in what degree the fraud was communicated to him from the beginning. 2. He effectually anfwered Mr.Douglas's expectation, who * Vindication of King Charles I. p. 4.

would

would naturally conclude that Lauder had no accomplices in his villany, except the jefuits.

But they who read Lauder's complaints of this confidential friend in the pamphlet juft quoted, muft fuperabound both in faith and charity, if they can believe that the compofer of the letter to Mr. Douglas was unconfcious of Lauder's forgery, previoufly to Dr. Douglas's detection of it.

A poftfcript to a fecond edition of Dr. Douglas's Vindication, dated May 17, 1756, finifhed the controverfy. Lauder was difgraced with the public, and dif carded by his amanuenfis, who turned a deaf ear to all his reproaches, and abandoned him to his fate, with a cool philofophical

fophical apathy, void of all ambition to fhare with him the blufhing honours himself had fo generously contributed to thicken upon Lauder's devoted head.

7

The effects of his journey-work, in defaming Milton, being thus disappointed by the laudable diligence of Dr.Douglas, and the unmanageable petulance of Lauder, common prudence fuggefted to our biographer the expedience of fuppreffing his impatience for another opportunity of leffening the public vene, ration for Milton's merit. Accordingly he laid by his project for about two years, when he might reasonably hope his ma noeuvres, under the hide of Lauder would be forgotten, or laid afleep by a fucceffion of that variety of entertainment

which the prefs is always providing for the public on all forts of fubjects.

In January 1758 he released himself from his quarentine, and appeared in the Literary Magazine for that month, holding forth to the public his POETI CAL SCALE, the particulars of which, fave what relates to Milton; we leave to the critics by profeffion. This is what he fays of Milton:

I am fenfible that in the calculations I have here exhibited I have, in many inftances, ftrong prejudices against me! The friends of Milton will not yield to St

Shakespeare the fuperiority of genius, which, I think, lies on the fide * of Shakespeare. Both of them have faults. But the faults of Shakespeare

-66 were

fophical apathy, void of all ambition to fhare with him the blufhing honours himself had fo generously contributed to thicken upon Lauder's devoted head.

The effects of his journey-work, in defaming Milton, being thus disappoint ed by the laudable diligence of Dr.Douglas, and the unmanageable petulance of Lauder, common prudence fuggefted to our biographer the expedience of suppreffing his impatience for another opportunity of leffening the public vene ration for Milton's merit. Accordingly he laid by his project for about two years, when he might reasonably hope his manoeuvres, under the hide of Lauder would be forgotten, or laid afleep by a fucceffion of that variety of entertainment