hould in compassion
sometimes attend to him with a silent nod, and let him go away with the
triumphs of his ill-nature. Poor Furius, where any of his cotemporaries
are spoken well of, quitting the ground of the present dispute, steps
back a thousand years, to call in the succour of the antients. His very
panegyric is spiteful, and he uses it for the same reason as some ladies
do their commendations of a dead beauty, who never would have had their
good word; but that a living one happened to be mentioned in their
company. His applause is not the tribute of his heart, but the sacrifice
of his revenge.'

Mr. Dennis in resentment of this representation made of him, in his
remarks on Pope's Homer, page 9. 10. thus mentions him. 'There is a
notorious idiot, one HIGHT WHACHUM, who from an Under-spur-leather to
the law, is become an Under strapper to the play-house, who has lately
burlesqued the Metamorphoses of Ovid, by a vile translation, &c. This
fellow is concerned in an impertinent paper called the Censor.' Such was
the language of Mr. Dennis, when enflamed by contradiction.

In the year 1729 Mr. Theobald introduced upon the stage a Tragedy called
the Double Falsehood; the greatest part of which he asserted was
Shakespear's. Mr. Pope insinuated to the town, that it was all, or
certainly the greatest part written, not by Shakespear, but Theobald
himself, and quotes this line,

None but thyself can be thy parallel.

Which he calls a marvellous line of Theobald, 'unless (says he) the play
called the Double Falsehood be (as he would have it thought)
Shakespear's; but whether this line is his or not, he proves Shakespear
to have written as bad.' The arguments which Mr. Theobald uses to prove
the play to be Shakespear's are indeed far from satisfactory;--First,
that the MS. was above sixty years old;--Secondly, that once Mr.
Betterton had it, or he hath heard so;--Thirdly, that some body told him
the author gave it to a bastard daughter of his;--But fourthly, and
above all, that he has a great mind that every thing that is good in our
tongue should be Shakespear's.

This Double Falsehood was vindicated by Mr. Theobald, who was attacked
again in the art of sinking in poetry. Here Mr. Theobald endeavours to
prove false criticisms, want of understanding Shakespear's manner, and
perverse cavelling in Mr. Pope: He justifies himself and the great
dramatic poet, and essays to prove the Tragedy in question to be in
reality Shake