when a writer ventures to speak contemptuously of the abilities of his contemporaries, some proof may fairly be demanded of his own. not done all that should have been done. He has "Of the numerous publications relating to our author, his works which appeared during his life, and soon after his death, notice has occasionally been taken in the remarks upon his poems, and we shall not trespass on the patience of our readers by any farther mention of them here. They have, like many other things, become valuable only because they are scarce; and became scarce, only because they were of no value; their titles, names, and merits are preserved in the reviews of the day, the works themselves may be found in the libraries of the antiquarian scavengers of English literature." A critical catalogue of these publications should have been given in this edition, as materially illustrative of Churchill's literary life, and of the literary history of the times. Has Mr. W. T. examined these publications? if he has not, he has not performed his duty as an Editor; if he has, he has most probably been obliged to some of those gentlemen whom he thinks proper to denominate antiquarian scavengers, but to whom English literature is daily more and more indebted. The free use of their collections, which they afford to all men of letters who deserve the privilege, is not and perhaps could not be properly afforded by any of the public libraries in England. The language of the Editor is sometimes disfigured by such miserable affectation as appears in the following instances. "The Monthly Review has sympathetically aged with its Editor." "Dodsley was unequal to receive the sublime inspiration of Melpomene."* *Had the Editor been aware at the time of this just rebuke, he would have gratefully profited by it, and omitted both passages in his next edition; as it is, he spontaneously did so in respect of the unjust and unkind allusion to the Monthly Review and its venerable Editor; but although the sentiment as to Dodsley's tragic powers might have been better expressed, posterity has confirmed its substantial accuracy. THE ROSCIAD. THE structure of this Poem appears to be founded on the old notion of a Session of the Poets, in which, on the demise of the Laureate, the poets of the time were supposed to make their claim to the laurel in the presence of Apollo. The Rosciad stole anonymously into the world in March, 1761, being announced by only one or two advertisements, without any notice of its subject or its plan, and was acknowledged, by every impartial judge, to be a most excellent theatical critique. The satire, though severe, was generally just. A number of Pamphleteers and Poetasters drew their pens in defence of the actors, but their productions being of the most contemptible order, only served to increase the reputation of the Author, and promote the sale of his Poem. The critical reviewers confidently attributed this Poem to Mr. Robert Lloyd, who had in the preceding year published a Poem, called the Actor; or to the united efforts of Lloyd, Colman, and Thornton, the two former of whom advertised their disclaimer;* but so tenacious * The following advertisements appeared on the occasion in the St. James's Chronicle, and other Newspapers:— Whereas in the Critical Review, published this month, it is roundly reported that I am author jointly, if not solely, of a poem called the Rosciad; and whereas the reviewer has, in consequence of that supposition, taken occasion to throw out many reflections injurious to my character, I think I am bound in justice to myself to declare most solemnly, in this public manner, that I was not in the least concerned in writing or publishing the poem above mentioned. 2 April, 1761. GEORGE COLMAN. The Authors of the Critical Review having attributed a Poem called the Rosciad to Mr. Lloyd, he thinks it a justice due to the author and himself thus publicly to declare, that he never was concerned, either directly or indirectly, in the writing of it, nor in the least privy to its publication. 2 April, 1761. VOL. I. 8 ROBERT LLOYD. were the Reviewers of their opinion, that they professed to remain unconvinced, even when the name of Churchil: appeared to the second edition. They persisted in this unbelief till the severity of the Apology lashed them out of their infi delity. In the title-page to the second edition our author asserted his claim to the Poem, and at one bound sprung from complete obscurity to the first rank in literary fame. To his celebrity the actors themselves in no small degree contributed; they, as Davies ingenuously confesses, ran about the town like so many stricken deer, and strove to extract the arrow from the wound by communicating their misfortune to their friends. The public enjoyed their distress, and considered the Rosciad as a pleasant and reasonable retaliation for the mirth which the stage had continually excited by the representation of the follies and frailties of mankind. Excepting Garrick, there was not a single man amongst the players of that period who, in the first impression, entirely escaped the Poet's satirical lash. Those who were foremost in expressing their anger had only the misfortune of being treated with greater severity in subsequent editions. In this respect Churchill has been blamed by some writers, and it has been said that the Rosciad was not always benefited by the alterations which it received. Perhaps there is little foundation for this assertion; but, however that may be, it is certain that its excellence enabled it firmly to maintain its ground against all opposition. Though Anti-Rosciads, Triumvirates, Churchilliads, Examiners, &c. were published in vindication of the players; they were so poorly written that they only served to swell Churchill's triumph. The satirist had for a long time frequented the play house: he bestowed incessant attention on stage representa tion; and by close application laboured to understand perfectly the subject which was the choice of his muse. His observatory was generally the first row of the pit, next to the orchestra; from this place he thought he could best discern the real workings of the passions in the actors, or detect the first symptoms of affectation or inattention. When Churchill first published the Rosciad anonymously, those performers who thought themselves roughly handled by |