_Repulse upon repulse, like waves thrown back, That slide to hang upon obdurate rocks_. After this, let Detraction do its worst! for if this be 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 attack 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 [p. 575] of my great pains to prove "Rhyme as _natural_ in a serious Play; and more _effectual_ than Blank Verse" [p. 561]. 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 'tis 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_ [p. 576]: and, perhaps, conclude it to be the same, who (as 'tis reported) maintained a contradiction _in terminis_, in the face of three hundred persons.