places, and the nature of the soil. The purity of phrase, the clearness of conception and expression, the boldness maintained to majesty, the significancy and sound of words, not strained into bombast, but justly elevated; in short, those very words and thoughts which cannot be changed but for the worse, must of necessity escape our transient view upon the theatre and yet without all these a play may take. For if either the story move us, or the actor help the lameness of it with his performance, or now and then a glittering beam of wit or passion strike through the obscurity of the poem, any of those are sufficient to effect a present liking, but not to fix a lasting admiration; for nothing but truth can long continue, and time is the surest judge of truth. I am not vain enough to think that I have left no faults in this, which that touchstone will not discover; neither indeed is it possible to avoid them in a play of this nature. There are evidently two actions in it; but it will be clear to any judicious man, that with half the pains I could have raised a play from either of them. For this time I satisfied my own humour, which was to tack two plays together, and to

* THE SPANISH FRYAR (says Dr. Johnson,) is a tragicomedy eminent for the happy coincidence and coalition of the two plots. As it was written against the Papists, it would naturally at that time have friends and enemies and partly by the popularity which it obtained at first, and partly by the real power both of the serious and risible. part, it continued long a favourite of the publick."

;

break a rule for the pleasure of variety. The truth is, the audience are grown weary of continued melancholy scenes; and I dare venture to prophecy that few tragedies, except those in verse, shall succeed in this age, if they are not lightened with a course of mirth; for the feast is too dull and solemn without the fiddles. But how difficult a task this is, will soon be tried, for a several genius is required to either way; and without both of them, a man, in my opinion, is but half a poet for the stage. Neither is it so trivial an undertaking to make a tragedy end happily; for it is more difficult to save than it is to kill. The dagger and the cup of poison are always in a readiness; but to bring the action to the last extremity, and then by probable means to recover all, will require the art and judgment of a writer, and cost him many a pang in the performance.

And now, my Lord, I must confess that what I have written looks more like a Preface than a Dedication; and truly it was thus far my design, that I might entertain you with somewhat in my own art, which might be more worthy of a noble mind than the stale exploded trick of fulsome panegyricks. It is difficult to write justly on any thing, but almost impossible in praise; I shall therefore wave so nice a subject, and only tell you, that in recommending a Protestant play to a

7

* Our author had not yet become a Roman Catholick; and Lord Haughton, to whom this address is made, was a strenuous opponent of the Duke of York.

Protestant patron, as I do myself an honour, so I do your noble family a right, who have been always eminent in the support and favour of our religion and liberties. And if the promises of your youth, your education at home, and your experience abroad, deceive me not, the principles you have embraced are such as will no way degenerate from your ancestors, but refresh their memory in the minds of all true Englishmen, and renew their lustre in your person; which, my Lord, is not more the wish than it is the constant expectation of

Your LORDSHIP'S

Most obedient,

faithful servant,

JOHN DRYDEN.

DEDICATION

OF

THE DUKE OF GUISE."

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE

LAURENCE, EARL OF ROCHESTER, &c.?..

MY LORD,

THE authors of this poem present it humbly to your Lordship's patronage, if you shall think it worthy of that honour. It has already been a

This tragedy was first represented by his Majesty's Servants at the Theatre Royal, Dec. 4th, 1682, as appears from a manuscript note on the printed copy of the Prologue, in the very curious collection of James Bindley, Esq. (a single half-sheet,) and it was first printed in 1683. The same gentleman is possessed of a different Epilogue to this play from that which has been annexed to it, entitled" Another Epilogue intended to have been spoken to THE DUKE OF GUISE, before it was forbidden last summer. Written by Mr. Dryden," It is extremely coarse and indecent.

In our author's time it was the custom to print the Prologue and Epilogue on half-sheets, previous to the first representation of a play; and they were probably sold at the doors of the theatre.

9 Laurence Hyde, Earl of Rochester, was the second son of Edward, Earl of Clarendon; and was born about

confessor, and was almost made a martyr for the royal cause; but having stood two trials from its enemies, one before it was acted, another in the representation, and having been in both acquitted, it is now to stand the publick censure in the reading; where, since of necessity it must have the same enemies, we hope it may also find the same friends; and therein we are secure not only of the greater number, but of the more honest and loyal party. We only expected bare justice in the permission to have it acted; and that we had, after a severe and long examination, from an upright and knowing judge;' who having heard both sides, and examined the merits of the cause in a strict perusal of the play, gave sentence for us, that it was neither a libel, nor a parallel of particular persons. In the representation itself it. was persecuted with so notorious malice by one side, that it procured us the partiality of the other ;

the year 1643. Lord Danby having been removed from the office of Lord Treasurer in March, 1679, on the 18th of November following Mr. Hyde was made First Commissioner for executing that office; on the 23d of April, 1681, he was created Viscount Hyde, and on the 29th of November, 1682, Earl of Rochester. Having strenuously opposed the Bill of Exclusion, soon after the acces sion of James the Second he was appointed Lord High Treasurer. He died May 2, 1711.

The Lord Chamberlain ; who at this time was Henry Bennet, Earl of Arlington; to which office he was appointed in 1674, on the resignation of Henry, Earl of St. Alban.