not his, it
deserves to be. For my part, I declare for distributive justice; and
from this, and what follows, he certainly deserves those advantages,
which he acknowledges to have received from the opinion of sober men.

In the next place, I must beg leave to observe his great address in
courting the reader to his party: For, intending to assault all poets,
both ancient and modern, he discovers not his whole design at once,
but seems only to aim at me, and attacks me on my weakest side, my
defence of verse.

To begin with me, he gives me the compellation of "The Author of a
Dramatic Essay;" which is a little discourse in dialogue, for the most
part borrowed from the observations of others: therefore, that I may
not be wanting to him in civility, I return his compliment, by calling
him, "The Author of the Duke of Lerma."

But (that I may pass over his salute) he takes notice of my great
pains to prove rhyme as natural in a serious play, and more effectual
than blank verse. Thus indeed I did state the question; but he tells
me, "I pursue that which I call natural in a wrong application; For
'tis not the question, whether rhyme, or not rhyme, be best, or most
natural for a serious subject, but what is nearest the nature of that
it represents."

If I have formerly mistaken the question, I must confess my ignorance
so far, as to say I continue still in my mistake: But he ought to have
proved that I mistook it; for it is yet but _gratis dictum_; I
still shall think I have gained my point, if I can prove that rhyme is
best, or most natural for a serious subject. As for the question as he
states it, whether rhyme be nearest the nature of what it represents,
I wonder he should think me so ridiculous as to dispute, whether prose
or verse be nearest to ordinary conversation.

It still remains for him to prove his inference; that, since verse
is granted to be more remote than prose from ordinary conversation,
therefore no serious plays ought to be writ in verse: and when he
clearly makes that good, I will acknowledge his victory as absolute as
he can desire it.

The question now is, which of us two has mistaken it; and if it appear
I have not, the world will suspect, "what gentleman that was, who was
allowed to speak twice in parliament, because he had not yet spoken to
the question[A];" and perhaps conclude it to be the same, who, as it
is reported, maintained a contradiction _in terminis_, in the
face of three hundred pe