“This uncommon reception of _The Beggar’s Opera_ induced Colley Cibber to attempt something the same kind the next year, under the title of _Love in a Riddle_, but how different was its reception from Gay’s production; it was damned to the lowest regions of infamy the very first night, which so mortified Cibber, that it threw him into a fever; and from this moment he resolved as soon as he conveniently could to leave the stage, and no longer submit himself and his talents to the capricious taste of the town. “It was generally thought that his jealousy of Gay, and the high opinion he entertained of his own piece had operated so strongly as to make him set every engine in motion to get the sequel of _The Beggar’s Opera_, called _Polly_, suppressed in order to engross the town entirely to _Love in a Riddle_. Whether Cibber did or did not bestir himself in this affair, it is certain that Gay and Rich had the mortification to see all their hopes of a succeeding harvest blasted by the Lord Chamberlain’s absolute prohibition of it, after it had been rehearsed and was just ready to bring out.” In this same volume[5] it is stated that the failure of the piece was one of the potent causes of the dissolution of the Drury Lane company, though this seems an exaggeration, as does also the effect on Cibber that is ascribed to the failure. Cibber denies[6] that he had anything to do with the suppression of the second part of _The Beggar’s Opera_, and gives as his reason for writing that he thought something written in the same form, but recommending virtue and innocence instead of vice and wickedness, “might not have a less pretence to favor.” _The Temple of Dullness_ (1745), which _The Biographia Dramatica_[7] states had been ascribed to Cibber, is in two acts of two scenes each, the second scene of each act being the comic “interlude” of Theobald’s _Happy Captive_ (1741). These two scenes have as their principal characters, Signor Capochio and Signora Dorinna.[8] The other two scenes, which give the principal title to the piece, are based, as is stated in the preface, on the fact that Pope in _The Dunciad_ makes the Goddess of Dullness preside over Italian operas. It is inconceivable that either Cibber or Theobald would have based anything of the sort on a hint from _The Dunciad_ and complacently given the credit to Pope, after the way they had both been handled in _The Dunciad_. There is nothing on the title page to indicate that Cibber had anything to do with the piece. The ascription of the authorship of _The Temple of Dullness_ to Cibber seems to be without foundation, and the probability is that this piece was composed by a third person soon after Theobald’s death, which occurred about four months before it was acted.[9]