very civil person now; for the Reformer is troubl’d with Fits, you must know, disturbances i th’ brain, which makes him forget one hour what he rails at another, for here now Shakespear’s Falstaff is call’d the admir’d, because he is to serve his turn.  And that the Poet was not so partial as to let his humour compound for his lewdness; but punishes him at last, tho he makes him all his life time a damnable, smutty fellow. [Footnote:  ...54] And now, I think, having said enough of his modest behaviour, ’twon’t be amiss to have a touch or two at his Hypocrisy.  And first, concerning the word Smutt.

“Smutt, Smutt”!  Why does this tarmagant Correcter of our Lives and Manners pretend to make us believe that his Mouth or Conscience is so streight, that the t’other word can’t get passage, or did his Mistress (honourable I mean) sit knotting under his Nose when he was writing, and so gave occasion for the changing it instead of Bawdy, that that odious word might not offend her, tho the Phrase was made Nonsence by it—­hum—­No faith, the case seems to me now to be quite otherwise, and really the effect of downright Hypocrisy, unless done as I said for the last reason; for those that have read his Book, may find sprinkling up and down the other words extreamly plain upon occasion, Ribaldry and Bawdy, and Whores, and Whoring, and Strumpets, and Cuckoldmakers, with as fat a signification as any of the last nam’d could wish for their hearts; for example, by way of Tract, first, he says, Euripides in his Hipolitus, calls Whoring stupidness and playing the fool; and secondly, does Ribaldry, (not Smut) and Nonsence become the dignity of their station. [Footnote:  Collier, p 30, 32.] Again, Berinthia incourages Amanda to play the Whore; and then sowse upon Don Quixot, [Footnote:  p. 74.] when there is not so much as one little tiny todpol of Smut, that I know of, unless he creates it—­Yet I am Crambo’d with, who, with low, nauseous Bawdry fills his Plays. [Footnote:  p. 208.] Again speaking of Jupiter and Alcmena—­ but her Lover—­that is her Whore-master. [Footnote:  p. 178.] And at last with a Rowzer upon Mr Congreeve’s Double Dealer, where he particularly Remarks, that there are but four Ladies in his Play, and three of em are Whores; adding, withal, that ’tis a great Compliment to Quality, to tell em there is but a quarter of ’em honest. [Footnote:  p. 12.] Why who, in the name of Diana, and all the rest of the Maiden Goddesses, does tell ’em so, unless it be Doctor Crambo here—­If any one calls ’em Whores ’tis he, he that by an assum’d Authority thinks he may say any thing; the Ladies, I dare say for the Poet, were drest in such clean Linnen, and were so far from being Tawdry, that no Scrutineer but our severe Master of Art but