He observes that luxury has in a particular manner been destructive to the ladies:  ’That artificial dainties raise in their constitutions fierce ebullitions, and violent emotions, too rude for the delicate texture of their fibres; and for half the year together, they neither take any air, nor use any exercise to remove them.  From hence distempers of body and mind; from hence an infinity of irregular desires, unlawful amours, intrigues, vapours, and whimsies, and all the numerous, melancholy croud of deep hysterical symptoms; from hence it comes to pass that the fruit of their bodies lie in them like plants in hot-beds; from hence it proceeds that our British maids, who in the time of our Henrys, were not held marriageable till turned of twenty, are now become falling ripe at twelve, and forced to prematureness, by the heat of adventitious fire.  Nor has luxury only changed our natures, but transformed our sexes:  We have men that are more soft, more languid, and more passive than women.  On the other side we have women, who, as it were in revenge, are masculine in their desires, and masculine in their practices.’

In a pretty advanced age Mr. Dennis, who then laboured under severe necessities, published two volumes of Letters, by subscription, which are by far the most entertaining part of his writings.  They have more sprightliness and force in them than, from reading his other works, we would be disposed to imagine.  They are addressed to persons distinguished by their fortune, genius, and exalted station; the duke of Marlborough, the Lord Lansdowne, earl of Godolphin, earl of Halifax, Mr. Dryden, Mr. Prior, Mr. Wycherley, Henry Cromwel, Esq; Walter Moyle, Esq; and Sir Richard Blackmore.  He entitles them Letters, Moral and Critical.  The Critical are chiefly imployed upon Mr. Addison’s Cato, which he censures in some places with great justice, and critical propriety:  In other places he only discovers spleen, and endeavours to burlesque noble passages, merely from resentment to the author.

There is likewise published amongst these letters, an enquiry into the genius and writings of Shakespear.  He contends for Shakespear’s ignorance of the ancients, and observes, that it would derogate much from his glory to suppose him to have read, or understood them, because if he had, his not practicing their art, and not restraining the luxuriance of his imagination would be a reproach to him.  After bestowing the highest panegyric upon Shakespear, he says, ’That he seems to have been the very original of our English tragical harmony; that is the harmony of blank verse, diversified often by dissyllable and trisyllable terminations.  For that diversity distinguishes it from heroic harmony, and bringing it nearer to common use, makes it more proper to gain attention, and more fit for action, and dialogue.  Such verses we make when we are writing prose, we make such verse in common conversation.’

One of the reasons Mr. Dennis assigns for Shakespear’s want of learning, is, that Julius Caesar, in the play which goes by his name, makes but a third rate figure, and had he (says the author) consulted the Latin writers, he could not have been guilty of such an error; but this is far from being conclusive, which might us well be owing to his having a contempt for Caesar’s character, and an enthusiastic admiration for those of Brutus and Cassius.