eded, it was only because he mistook the road, or felt difficulty
in travelling it. The character of Dominic is of that broadly
ludicrous nature, which was proper to the old comedy. It would be
difficult to show an ordinary conception more fully brought out. He
is, like Falstaff, a compound of sensuality and talent, finely varied
by the professional traits with which it suited the author's purpose
to adorn his character. Such an addition was, it is true, more comic
than liberal; but Dryden, whose constant dislike to the clerical order
glances out in many of his performances, was not likely to be
scrupulous, when called upon to pourtray one of their members in his
very worst colours. To counterbalance the Friar's scandalous
propensities of every sort, and to render him an object of laughter,
rather than abhorrence, the author has gifted this reprobate churchman
with a large portion of wit; by means of which, and by a ready
presence of mind, always indicative of energy, he preserves an
ascendence over the other characters, and escapes detection and
disgrace, until poetical justice, and the conclusion of the play,
called for his punishment. We have a natural indulgence for an amusing
libertine; and, I believe, that, as most readers commiserate the
disgrace of Falstaff, a few may be found to wish that Dominic's
penance had been of a nature more decent and more theatrical than the
poet has assigned him[1]. From the dedication, as well as the
prologue, it appears that Dryden, however contrary to his sentiments
at a future period, was, at present, among those who held up to
contempt and execration the character of the Roman catholic
priesthood. By one anonymous lampoon, this is ascribed to a temporary
desertion of the court party, in resentment for the loss, or
discontinuance of his pension. This allowance, during the pressure
upon the Exchequer, was, at least, irregularly paid, of which Dryden
repeatedly complains, and particularly in a letter to the Earl of
Rochester. But the hardship was owing entirely to the poverty of the
public purse; and, when the anonymous libeller affirms, that Dryden's
pension was withdrawn, on account of his share in the Essay on Satire,
he only shows that his veracity is on a level with his poverty[2]. The
truth seems to be, that Dryden partook in some degree of the general
ferment which the discovery of the Popish Plot had excited; and we may
easily suppose him to have done so without any impeachme