: In the year 17:51 was published Lauder's penitential letter * to Dr. Douglas, containing a full and free confeffion of his roguery : the merit of which was toe tally overthrown by a contradictory posti fcript; which is thus accounted for by Lauder himself, after informing his readers, that his confidential friend advised an unreserved disclosure of his import ture.. . 1:With this expedient,” fays Lauder's “ I then chearfully complied, when that ".gentleman wrote for me that letter that st was publissed in my name to Mr. Dougde las, in which he committed one error 6 that proved fatal to me, and at the 56 fame time injurious to the public For * Quarto, printed for Owen, 1751.

se in the place of acknowledging that * fuch particular paffages only. were ip. “ terpolated, he gave up the whole effay 6 againft Milton as-delufion and miste« presentation, and therefore imposed “ more grievoufly on the public than I. « had done ; and that too in terms much “more submissive and abject than the nature of the offence required *.” ,

The amanuenfis here gained two confiderable points. 1. It was at his option to mention or not the affistance that Lauder had in composing his effay.; and consequently to conceal in what degree the 'fraud was communicated to him from the beginning. 2. He effe&tually answered Mr.Douglas?s expectation, who · * Vindication of King Charles I. p.:40 .,


would naturally conclude that Lauder had no accomplices in his villany, ex. cept the jesuits. · But they who read Lauder's complaints of this confidential friend in the pamphlet just quoted, muft fuperabound both in faith and charity, if they can believe that the composer of the letter to Mr. Douglas 'was unconscious of Lauder's forgery, previoufly to Dr. Douglas's detection of it. . . .

A poftfcript to a second edition of Dr. Douglas's Vindication, dated May 17, 1756, finished the controversy. Lauder was difgraced with the public, and discarded by his amanuensis, who turned a deaf ear to all his reproaches, and abandoned him to his fate, with a cool philo


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

The effects of his journey-work, in defaming Milton, being thus disappointed by the laudable diligence of Dr.Doug: las, and the upmanageable petulance of Lauder, common prudence suggested to our biographer the expedience of suppressing his impatience for another opportunity of leffening the public veneration for Milton's merit. Accordingly he laid by his project for about two years, when he might reasonably hope his manæuvres, under the hide of Lauder, would be forgotten, or laid asleep by a fucceffion of that variety of entertainment


which the press is always providing for the public on all sorts of fubjeéts.

In January 1.758 he teleased himself from his quarentine, and appeared it the Literary Magazine for that month, holding forth to the public his poetiCAL SCALE, the particulars of which, fave what relates to Milton, We leave to the critics by profeffion. This is what he say's of Milton : * CS" .0. cocci I am fenfible that is the calculations so I have hidré exhibited I haves, in many ist inftantės, strong préjudices against me. * The friend's of Milton with not yield * to Shakespeare the fuperiority of ge* nius, which, I think, lies on the fide c of Shakespeare. Both of them have * faults. But the faults of Shakespeare

-56 were

« VorigeDoorgaan »