How will Plain-dealers[35] triumph, to my sorrow!
And Paphos rise o'er Sodom and Gomorrah!
NOTES.

[35] A character thus admirably depicted by Wycherly, in the scene between Manly and Plausible.
Manly. 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——
Plausible. As I do! Heaven defend me! upon my honour! I never attempted to abuse or lessen any one in my life.
Manly. What! you were afraid?
Plausible. No: but seriously I hate to do a rude thing. No, faith, I speak well of all mankind.
Manly. 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.

APPENDIX.

Certain circumstances, 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 party; 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 under a just prosecution?

IV. Whether you have not openly acknowledged notwithstanding, 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?

CANDOUR."

To these queries, the author judged it expedient to make the following reply in the same paper of July 4th.

To CANDOUR.