LOVE in the SUDS; A TOWN ECLOGUE BEING THE LAMENTATION of ROSCIUS FOR THE LOSS of his NYKY.
With ANNOTATIONS and an APPENDIX.
THE FIFTH EDITION.
LONDON: PRINTED FOR J. WHEBLE, PATER-NOSTER-ROW.
MDCCLXXII.
To DAVID GARRICK, Eſq.
[]THE author of the following Eclogue, having requeſted my aſſiſt⯑ance to introduce it to the world; it was with more indignation than ſurprize I was informed of your having uſed your extenſive influence over the preſs to prevent its being advertiſed in the News-papers. How are you, Sir, concerned in the Lamentation of Roſcius for his Nyky? Does your modeſty think no man entitled to the appellation of Roſcius but yourſelf? Does Nyky reſemble any nick-named fa⯑vourite of yours? Or does it follow, that if you have cheriſhed an un⯑worthy favourite, you muſt bear too near a reſemblance to him? Qui capit ille facit; beware of ſelf-accuſation, where others bring no charge! Or, granting you right in theſe particulars, by what right or privilege do you, Sir, ſet up for a licenſer of the preſs? That you have long ſucceſsfully uſurped that privilege, to ſwell both your fame and fortune, is well known. Not the puffs of the quacks of Bayſ⯑water and Chelſea are ſo numerous and notorious: but by what au⯑thority do you take upon you to ſhut up the general channel, in which writers uſher their performances to the public? If they at⯑tack either your talents or your character, in utrumque paratus, you are armed to defend yourſelf. You have, beſides your ingenuous countenance and conſcious innocence; Nil conſcire ſibi, nulla pal⯑leſcere culpa; Beſides this brazen bulwark, I ſay, you have a ready pen and a long purſe. The preſs is open to the one, and the bar is ever ready to open with the other. For a poor author, not a printer will publiſh a paragraph, not a pleader will utter a quib⯑ble. You have then every advantage in the conteſt: It is need⯑leſs, therefore, to endeavour to intimidate your antagoniſts by countenancing your retainers to threaten their lives! Theſe in⯑timidations, let me tell you Sir, have an ugly, ſuſpicious look. They are beſides needleſs; the genus irritabile vatum want no ſuch perſonal provocations; Heaven knows, the life of a play-wright, like that of a ſpider, is in a ſtate of the moſt ſlender dependency. It is well for my rhiming friend that his hangs not on ſo ſlight a thread. He thinks, nevertheleſs, that he has reaſon to complain, as well as the publick, of your having long preferred the flimzy, tranſlated, patch'd-up and miſ-altered pieces of your favourite com⯑pilers, to the arduous attempts at originality of writers, who have no perſonal intereſt with the manager. In particular, he thinks [iv] the two pieces, you are projecting to get up next winter, for the emolument of your favorite in diſgrace, or to reimburſe yourſelf the money, you may have advanced him, might, for the preſent at leaſt, be laid aſide.
But you will aſk me, perhaps, in turn, Sir, what right I have to interfere with the buſineſs of other people, or with yours? I will anſwer you. It is becauſe I think your buſineſs, as patentee of a theatre-royal, is not ſo entirely yours, but that the publick alſo have ſome concern in it. You, Sir, indeed have long be⯑haved as if you thought the town itſelf a purchaſed appurtenance to the theatre; but, tho' the ſcenes and machines are yours; nay, tho' you have even found means to make comedians and poets your property; it ſhould be with more caution than you practiſe, that you extend your various arts to make ſo ſcandalous a proper⯑ty of the publick.
Again I anſwer, it is becauſe I have ſome regard for my friend, and as much for myſelf, whom you have treated as ill perhaps as you have done any other writer; while under your auſpices, ſome of the perſons ſtigmatiſed by the ſatiriſt, have frequently combined to do me the moſt eſſential injury. But nemo me impurè laceſſit. Not that I mean now to enter into particulars which may be thought to relate too much to myſelf and too little to the publick. When I ſhall have leiſure to draw a faithful portraiture of Mr. Garrick, not only from his behaviour to me in particular, but from his conduct towards poets, players and the town in general, I doubt not to convince the moſt partial of his admirers that he hath accumulated a fortune, as manager, by the meaneſt and moſt me⯑retricious devices, and that the theatrical props, which have long ſupported his exalted reputation, as an actor, have been raiſed on the ruins of the English ſtage.
In the mean time, I leave you to amuſe yourſelf with the follow⯑ing jeu d'eſprit of my friend; hoping, tho' it be a ſevere correction for the errours of your paſt favouritiſm, it may prove a ſalutary guide to you for the future. With regard to the mode of its publica⯑tion I hope alſo to ſtand excuſed with the reader for thus interpoſing to defeat the ſucceſs of thoſe arts, which you ſo unfairly practiſe to prevent, from reaching the public eye, whatever is diſagreeable to your own.
LOVE in the SUDS; A TOWN ECLOGUE.
[]Appendix A APPENDIX.
A Certain circumſtance,* to which the author of the foregoing piece was an utter ſtranger, having happened about the time of its publication, and given riſe to rumours equally falſe and foreign to the writer; it appears that Roſcius, or ſome of his friends, was pleaſed to inſert the following queries in the Morning Chronicle of July 2d.
CANDOUR preſents her compliments to Mr.—, ſhe begs his pardon—to Dr.— Kenrick, and deſires to aſk him a few ſimple queſtions; to which, if he be the Plain-dealer he pretends, he will give a plain and direct anſwer.
- Query I. Whether you are not the author of the eclogue, entitled, Love in the Suds, as well as of the letter prefixed to it?
- II. Whether you did not mean, though you have artfully evaded the law, by affecting the tranſlation of a claſſical cento, to throw out the moſt ſcandalous inſinuations againſt the character of Roſcius?
- III. Whether you were not likewiſe the author of an infamous, anonymous paragraph in a public paper; for which that paper is un⯑der a juſt proſecution?
- IV. Whether you have not openly acknowledged notwithſtand⯑ing, that you really entertained a very different opinion of Roſcius?
- V. Whether any cauſe of diſpute, that might ſubſiſt between you and Roſcius, can authorize ſo cruel, ſo unmanly an attack?
- VI. Whether the brother of Roſcius did not perſonally wait on you to require, in his name, the ſatisfaction of a gentleman, which you refuſed him?
[28]To theſe queries, the author judged it expedient to make the fol⯑lowing reply in the ſame paper of July 4th.
To CANDOUR.
Though I think your ſignature a miſnomer, to ſhew that I am no ſtranger to the name and quality you aſſume, I ſhall not ſtand on the punctilio of your being an anonymous queriſt; but anſwer your ſeveral queſtions explicitly.
- I. I am the author of the eclogue you mention.
- II. I did not mean to throw out the moſt ſcandalous inſinuations on the character of Roſcius, nor any inſinuation more ſcandalous than his conduct. How far that has been ſo, he knows beſt, and is left to make the application.
- III. An infamous paragraph I cannot write; and an anonymous one I will not write, to prejudice my greateſt enemy. As to that in queſ⯑tion, I have not, to this hour, even ſeen it. CALUMNY I deteſt; but I think vice ſhould be expoſed to infamy; nor have I ſo much falſe delicacy as to conceive, it ſhould be treated with tenderneſs in propor⯑tion as it is abominable.
- IV. I have not acknowledged that I entertain a very different opinion of Roſcius; on the contrary, I declare, that I entertain a very indifferent opinion of him.
- V. As to the cauſe of our diſpute, I ſhould be very ready to ſubmit it to the publick, were I egotiſt enough to think it deſerved their at⯑tention.
- VI. The brother of Roſcius did perſonally wait on me, to deſire I would meet "him, the ſaid Roſcius, who would bring a friend with him; I being at liberty to do the ſame;" but as nothing of time, place, or weapon was mentioned, I did not look on this meſſage as a challenge; nor well could I, as I never heard of requiring gentleman's ſatisfaction by letter of attorney, and the profeſſed end of our meeting [29] turned merely on a matter of buſineſs.—It is poſſible, indeed, the meſſenger, otherwiſe inſtructed, might imagine it ſuch, eſpecially as, it ſeems, his head has teemed with nothing but challenges and duels, ſince his magnanimous monomachy with one of his brother Roſcius's candle-ſnuffers.—That Roſcius himſelf, however, did not mean to ſend me a challenge, is plain, from his ſolliciting afterwards by letter, a conference in the preſence only of a common friend to both: a requeſt that would have been complied with, had not he thought proper, in a moſt ungentleman-like manner, to make a confidant, in the mean time, of a booby of a bookſeller, who had the folly and impudence to declare that he would, on his [Roſcius's] account, take an opportu⯑nity to do me ſome deſperate miſchief.—Leſt I ſhould be yet ſuppo⯑ſed, from the purport of this laſt query, to have any fear of a perſonal encounter with the doughty Roſcius, I require only that it may be on an equal footing. I am neither ſo extravagantly fond of life, nor think myſelf ſo conſequential in it, as to fear the end of it from ſuch an antagoniſt; nor, to ſay the truth, ſhould I have any qualms of conſcience, if nothing leſs will ſatisfy him, about putting an end to ſo inſignificant a being as his: but, as "the race is not to the ſwift, nor the battle to the ſtrong," it is but right to provide againſt a miſhap. Roſcius has a large fortune, and little or no family to leave it to: I have a large family, and little or no fortune to leave it. Let Roſcius but previouſly ſettle only half his eſtate on my heirs, on condition that he deprives them of a protector, and I will meet him to-morrow, and engage at his own weapons, not only him, but his brother George into the bargain.*
And now, Madam CANDOUR, give me leave to aſk you a queſtion or two, in my turn.
- Qu. I. Whether, from many groſs inſtances of miſbehaviour, Roſ⯑cius hath not long had ſufficient reaſon to ſuſpect the deteſtable cha⯑racter of Nyky.?
- II. Whether, therefore, granting Roſcius to be himſelf immaculate, he is excuſable for his notorious partialities to ſuch a character?
- III. Whether he has any right to complain of unjuſt ſeverity, in being ludicrouſly reproached with ſuch partialities, by a writer, whom he hath treated, even in favour of that very wretch, with diſ⯑reſpect, with inſolence, with injuſtice.
Inſtead of candidly replying, however, to the above three queries, a very difficult taſk, indeed, to Roſcius, he cauſed the Court of King's Bench to be moved for a rule to ſhew cauſe, why leave ſhould not be given him to file an information againſt the author for a libel: which being granted of courſe, the ſame was exultingly anounced in the fol⯑lowing paragraphs inſerted in all the news-papers:
Yeſterday morning Mr. Dunning made a motion in the Court of King's Bench, for a rule to ſhew cauſe why an information ſhould not be laid againſt the author of Love in the Suds. When the court was pleaſed to grant a rule for the firſt day of next term. The poem was read in court by the Clerk of the Crown, and afforded no ſmall diverſion when it came to that part which reflects upon a certain Chief Juſtice, who was preſent all the time.
Beſides Mr. Wallace and Mr. Dunning, who are employed by a greatactor, in his proſecution of ſome deteſtable charges which have been lately urged with as much folly as wickedneſs againſt his charac⯑ter, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Mansfield are alſo engaged, and the cauſe now becomes a matter of much expectation with the publick.
To theſe paragraphs the author judged it neceſſary to make the following reply, in the above-mentioned Morning Chronicle; al⯑moſt all the reſt of the news-papers, by the indefatigable induſtry [31] and powerful influence of Roſcius, a proprietor in moſt of them, being ſhut againſt him.
The AUTHOR of LOVE in the SUDS to the PRINTER of the MORNING CHRONICLE.
In reprehending the faults of other men you ſhould ever be cau⯑tious of falling into the error you condemn. In yeſterday's paper you indirectly charge me, among others, with having "urged a deteſta⯑ble charge with as much folly as wickedneſs againſt a certain great actor."—What other people have done I know not, nor does it con⯑cern me; but I may ſafely defy all the Lawyers in Weſtminſter-Hall fairly to deduce ſuch a charge as you hint at from the eclogue in queſtion. In this reſpect it is certainly as innocent as the great actor's Jubilee Ode! But granting it otherwiſe with any one elſe, how can you take upon you to ſay that ſuch a charge is urged fooliſhly and wickedly? Can you know it to be falſe or groundleſs? And if not, on what grounds do you charge the accuſers with folly and wickedneſs? Why does not the CANDOUR of the great actor, reply to the Queries put to him in your paper of Saturday laſt? But no; unable to juſtify himſelf at the bar of the publick, he flies for refuge to the quirks and quibbles of Weſtminſter-Hall; and even this at the latter end of a term, in order to deceive the town into a notion that the court will countenance his proſecution. Why was not his motion made ſooner, that cauſe might have been ſhewn in time, and the futility of it made immediately evident? Believe me, Sir, before an end is put to this buſineſs, the publick will be better enabled to judge on which ſide the folly and wickedneſs lies, than you appear to do at preſent.
Appendix A.1 THE POETICAL ALTERCATION BETWEEN BENEDICK and BEATRICE. EXTRACTED FROM THE MORNING CHRONICLE.
[32]Appendix A.1.1
Appendix A.1.2 To BENEDICK.
Appendix A.1.3 To BEATRICE.
Appendix A.1.4 To BENEDICK.
Appendix A.1.5 To Dr. K—.
[40]Appendix A.1.6 To BENEDICK.
Time, however, effects ſtrange things, as the poet ſays, and many have been the paſſions which have ſince agitated, and have been alſo quelled in the boſom of ROSCIUS.
To Doctor GOLDSMITH, on ſeeing his name in the liſt of the mummers at the late maſquerade.
On the poetical compliments lately paſſed between Meſſ. G. and A
.LUSUS NATUREAE TYPOGRAPHUS.
Nature againſt G— Notice of Proceſs.
In reply to this notice, it is ſaid, the defendant's plea would have appeared in the ſame paper; but the cauſe was obliged to be removed by certiorari to an other court; when it appeared thus:
Nature againſt G— Defendant's Plea.
ROSCIUS REDIVIVUS.
ROSCIUS, however, hath chang'd his mind, and acquired new elaſtic powers; in ſo much that the following complimentary verſes appeared on the agility, which he lately diſplayed in the performance of that character.
The plaintive ROSCIUS ſeems here to have an eye to the following lines:
I have more of the maſtiff than the ſpaniel in me, I own it: I cannot fawn, and fetch and carry; neither will I ever practiſe that ſervile complaiſance, which ſome people pique themſelves on being maſters of.— I will not whiſper my contempt or hatred; call a man fool or knave by ſigns and mouths, over his ſhoulder; while I have him in my arms: I will not, as you do—
As I do! Heaven defend me! upon my honour! I never at⯑tempted to abuſe or leſſen any one in my life.
What! you were afraid?
No: but ſeriouſly I hate to do a rude thing. No, faith, I ſpeak well of all mankind.
I thought ſo: but know that this is the worſt ſort of detraction, for it takes away the reputation of the few good men in the world by making all alike! Now I ſpeak ill of many men, becauſe they deſerve it.
- Citation Suggestion for this Object
- TextGrid Repository (2020). TEI. 4026 Love in the Suds a town eclogue being the lamentation of Roscius for the loss of his Nyky. University of Oxford Text Archive. . https://hdl.handle.net/21.T11991/0000-001A-6153-9