Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 16.djvu/76

 at his highest power. Two other works, suggested by contemporary controversy, occupied him at the same time. The ‘Religio Laici’—a defence of the Anglican position, which shows his singular power of arguing in verse—was suggested by a translation of Simon's ‘Critical History of the Old Testament,’ executed by a young friend, Henry Dickinson (the name is ascertained by Duke's poem to Dickinson on the occasion). He also co-operated with Nathaniel Lee in producing the ‘Duke of Guise.’ The story, which in Dryden's early effort had been intended to suggest a parallel to the English rebellion, was now to be applied to the contest of the court against Shaftesbury and Monmouth. Dryden, however, did his best to extenuate his own responsibility in a ‘Vindication’ separately published. The Duchess of Monmouth had long been his first and best patroness (Preface to King Arthur).

Dryden was now at the height of his reputation as the leading man of letters of the day. He was much sought after as a writer of prologues and epilogues. He contributed both prologue and epilogue to Southerne's first play in February 1682, and, according to Johnson, raised his price on the occasion from two guineas to three (the sums have been stated less probably as four and six guineas and as five and ten guineas, see, p. 456). He contributed prologue and epilogue in the following November for the first play represented by the King's and Duke's Companies, who had now combined at Drury Lane. He contributed a preface to a new translation of Plutarch's ‘Lives’ in 1683; translated Maimbourg's ‘History of the League’ in 1684; and published two volumes of ‘Miscellaneous Poems’ in 1684 and 1685, including contributions from other writers. A letter (undated, but probably of 1683) to Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, shows that Dryden was writing under the spur of poverty. He begs for a half-year's salary. He is in ill-health and almost in danger of arrest. His three sons are growing up and have been educated ‘beyond his fortune.’ ‘It is enough,’ he says, ‘for one age to have neglected Mr. Cowley and starved Mr. Butler.’ On 17 Dec. 1683 Dryden was appointed, perhaps in answer to this appeal, a collector of customs in the port of London (, Lives, ed. Cunningham, i. 335). The fixed salary was only 5l. a year, but presumably consisted in great part of fees. The dedication to (Laurence Hyde) Lord Rochester of ‘Cleomenes’ in 1692 shows that Dryden's application for arrears had been to some extent successful. Dryden wrote an opera called ‘Albion and Albanius’ to celebrate Charles's political successes. It had been rehearsed before the king, and a sequel, ‘King Arthur,’ was ready when Charles died (5 Feb. 1685). It was produced, with alterations, after James's accession (8 June 1685). The excitement produced by Monmouth's rebellion put a stop to the performance and caused great loss to the company. In an ode to the king's memory Dryden had managed skilfully to insinuate that Charles's encouragement of art had more frequently taken the form of praise than of solid reward. In 1676 Dryden had said (Dedication to Aurengzebe) that he lived wholly upon the king's bounty, though in 1693 (Discourse on Satire) he complained that the king had encouraged his design for an epic poem with nothing but fair words. He was clearly dependent upon the royal favour for a large part of his income, and the withdrawal of favour would mean ruin. The dependence was now transferred to James II. James continued Dryden's offices (omitting the laureate's butt of sack) and the pension of 100l. allowed by Charles. Some months afterwards (19 Jan. 1686) Evelyn notices a report that Dryden, with his two sons and ‘Mrs. Nelly (miss to the late king),’ were going to mass. The opinion that such converts were equally venal was certainly not unnatural. Macaulay has given his sanction to the opinion by the account in his history, written under the belief (now proved to be erroneous) that the pension of 100l. a year was an addition by James instead of a renewal of a previous grant.

The purity of Dryden's motives has been frequently discussed. He has not the presumption in his favour which arises from a sacrifice of solid interests. He was a dependent following a master with a crowd of undoubtedly venal persons. Nor is there the presumption which arises from loftiness of character. Dryden's gross adulation of his patrons was marked by satirists even in his own age (see e.g. ‘Letter to the Tories,’ prefixed to Medal of John Bayes), and he pandered disgracefully to the lowest tastes of his audiences. Nor was the religious change associated with any moral revulsion, or the result of any profound intellectual process. He had been indifferent to religious controversy till he was fifty, and his most marked prejudice was a dislike for priests of all religions, frequently noticed by contemporaries. He had satirised the Roman catholics in the ‘Spanish Friar,’ when the protestant feeling was excited. It is idle to compare such a conversion to those of loftier minds. But, in a sense, he may well have been sincere enough. In the preface to the