THEATRICAL WORK, 1737-1749

Speaking of 1737, Doran says: ‘Drury gained this season a new author in Dodsley,’ who ‘gave wholesome food to satisfy the public appetite; and the man who had not long before slipped off a livery, showed more respect for decency than any gallant of them all. He was the only successful author of the season.’ His pen, indeed, had not been idle. The Toy-shop had been a welcome addition to satire, but rather as a pamphlet, which was frequently reprinting, than as a stage piece; and it was not until Feb. 1736-7, when Dodsley's play, The King and the Miller of Mansfield, was acted at Drury Lane, that he really experienced a theatrical triumph.

Of the ballad from which his King and Miller was taken, it will not be necessary to speak at any length—it was first printed by Percy in his Reliques—and it may be sufficient to say that Dodsley, aptly enough, was the first, although not the last, to make use of it for the stage. Like so many other old songs, once so popular in their own particular districts, it tells of the fortuitous meeting of a king—in this case Henry II., who, whilst hunting in his own forest of Sherwood, has become separated from his followers—and one of his meaner subjects—in this case John Cockle, a miller. Sir Walter Scott, in his Introduction to Ivanhoe, cites a very similar story called The Kyng and the Hermyt, and, in fact, the Mansfield story has no very distinctive features, but it must have appealed very strongly to Dodsley, who would have known every inch of his ‘native Sherwood,’ and been familiar with the King's Mill, which popular superstition, though little more, credited with being the very place where honest John Cockle had received his Majesty, and been knighted for his pains. Dodsley seems to have been content to follow the ballad, only adding a love story, in which Dick, the miller's son, and a repentant Peggy are concerned. The atmosphere of the play is perhaps a little artificial, and the treatment of the female characters, Peggy in particular, does not exhibit any profound psychological insight. The dialogue, however, is exceptionally neat, and displays good technique. The miller, for example, has a pretty wit. ‘Ay,’ says he, ‘now I am convinc'd you are a courtier; here is a little bribe for to-day, and a large promise to-morrow, both in the same breath.’ Further on in the play, Dick says that he has been to the ‘land of Promise.’

‘MILLER.
The land of Promise? What dost thou mean?
‘DICK.
The Court, father.’

The miller himself is enough of a courtier to make rather a neat epigram. ‘The more compliments, the less manners,’ is a line which is quite modern in its form and expression.

Dodsley's satire, remarks one biographer, is ‘pointed, though not personal; the sentiments do honour to humanity, and the catastrophe’—if such it can be called—‘is perfectly simple, affecting, and just.’ The play deserved its success, but neither Dodsley himself, nor the most sanguine of his admirers could have supposed that it would prove to be one of the most popular plays in an ever-increasing repertoire for the next twenty years.

It was not apparently offered to Mr Rich, whose theatre at this time, and for some years to come, did not enjoy the wide patronage given to Drury Lane, but to the younger Cibber, who had then closed his house in the Haymarket and returned to the older theatre. The play was performed for the first time with Hughes' Siege of Damascus, on Jan. 29th, 1736-7, five nights after Rich had revived the Toy-shop at Covent Garden. Cibber himself played the king, and Mrs Pritchard Peggy. It was performed, says Genest, ‘with much success,’ and repeated with various plays on Feb. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. On the 5th it was played with Sotherne's Fatal Marriage, and repeated on the 7th, 8th, 10th, 14th, and 15th. By command of the Prince and Princess of Wales it was performed on the 16th with Farquhar's Twin Rivals, on which occasion the celebrated Dr Arne composed for it a ‘comic medley overture.’ Further representations took place on Feb. 17th, 18th, 21st, 22nd, March 14th, 17th, 21st, on which night the Toy-shop was again played at the rival theatre, 22nd, a benefit night for Cibber, who seems to have enjoyed his part, 24th, 31st, April 2nd, 13th, 25th, and May 7th. On May 15th, ‘at the particular desire of several Ladies of Quality,’ amongst whom no doubt were some of those who had subscribed to the author's Muse in Livery, it was repeated with the Busybody, ‘for the benefit of the author.’ This appears to have been Dodsley's first benefit night; he had certainly deserved one, for his play continued in its triumphant course, and was repeated on May 19th and 23rd, and—for the last time that season—on June 11th.

Few can have grudged him his success. His modesty and good nature preserved him from all conceit, and the number of his friends and patrons increased. He was a welcome guest at Twickenham, both at Pope's villa, and at Lord Radnor's house, while at his own table might be found many of those who were soon to become famous. At the same time, however, as he was enjoying a certain social success, he was attending diligently to his business, and was gradually laying up that small fortune which enabled him in later years to retire from the Tully's Head, and give all his time to literary pursuits.

He published his play on Feb. 8th, and took the precaution to enter it in the Hall Book, advertising at the same time his determination ‘to prosecute any Person that shall print it or sell any pirated Edition with the utmost Severity.’ Its success at Drury Lane led him to write a sequel, Sir John Cockle at Court, wherein the miller comes to London and pleases the king by his blunt words and honest behaviour. This second play was acted at Drury Lane with Otway's Venice Preserved, for the first time on Feb. 23rd, 1737-8, but although Cibber appeared again as the King, and the popular Mrs Clive acted the miller's daughter, now dazzled by her new position and in consequence faithless to her rustic lover, the little piece failed to please. There was, in fact, much dissatisfaction displayed amongst the audience at certain lines, and even with these removed, the public showed none of the enthusiasm which it had for the first piece. Sir John Cockle was therefore withdrawn after the second performance, and the King and Miller, which had been revived on Jan. 21st, took its place. Here it may be noted that Dodsley had three plays acted in London theatres within one month. Sir John Cockle was played on Feb. 23rd, the King and Miller on March 18th and 25th, and the Toy-shop at Covent Garden on March 20th. The reason for the failure of the second Mansfield play seems to lie in the increased artificiality of its atmosphere, and complete absence of action. Local colour could not be introduced, and the fact that Kitty temporarily discards a faithful farmer for a rakish lord is scarcely of much interest to anyone. In neither of these plays is Dodsley's dramatic power much in evidence, and without extraneous interest he was apparently unable to write anything approaching greatness. But at the same time it must be admitted that he knew exactly how to suit the taste of his time, as is evident from the repeated performances of the first piece. ‘There is,’ says one biographer, ‘a simplicity and fitness for the drama in the turn of the former production which it seems impossible to attach to the circumstances attending the knighted miller's appearance at Court. It must be admitted,’ he continues, ‘that these farces, taken in a connected point of view, exhibit a striking contrast between the blunt honesty of rustic manners, and the splendid finesse of court ceremony.’ Two years later the first play was still being played to crowded houses, even though Cibber had been replaced by Winstone, and a similar entertainment was being provided for the patrons of the New Wells, Clerkenwell, called The Happy Miller Arriv'd, or let None Despair, a possible burlesque, but more probably, an open piracy or hotch-potch of both plays. And almost every season right on to the seventies, the little piece was being played either at Drury Lane or at Covent Garden, and it may with justice be called one of the most popular plays of the century. So late, moreover, as 1809, an Italian translation was being given at the King's Theatre in the Haymarket.

The season of 1741 saw the production of a fourth play of Dodsley's, the Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green, performed at Drury Lane on April 3rd, but in spite of Mrs Clive's acting, and one or two songs of more than average merit, it was not repeated. The King and Miller, however, was revived with great success, and played during some weeks at both theatres. Cibber had migrated to Covent Garden, and played the King there for the first time on March 9th; at Drury Lane Gibson was taking his part. There were altogether nineteen performances. The Toy-shop, too, was played for the first time at Drury Lane this season, which also saw the publication of an English translation of Lewis Riccoboni's Historical and Critical Account of the Theatres of Europe. In this Dodsley appears to have had half a share, and it was of considerable use to him when, three years later, he was preparing the introductory essay to his still well-known Collection of Old Plays.

As Dodsley informs us, one Kirkman, a bookseller, had about eighty years before, ‘made diligent enquiry after old plays, and collected and published a great number.’ Since Kirkman's day, however, little if anything had been done to reprint the older dramatists, and Dodsley's love of the stage had suggested to him an undertaking of this nature. For this purpose he had purchased, probably by private treaty from Osborne, the plays, some seven hundred in number, which had belonged to the famous Harleian collection. He had also made the acquaintance of Sir Clement Cottrell Dormer, a friend at Court and afterwards Master of the Ceremonies, who placed at his disposal his own library which happened to be rich in theatrical literature. Situated thus advantageously, he framed the following proposal, which appeared in the London Evening Post for March 24-26, 1743:

As all our Old Plays, except Shakespeare's, Johnson's and Beaumont and Fletcher's, are become exceeding scarce and extravagantly dear, I propose, if I can procure 200 Subscribers, to select from such of our Dramatic Writers, as are of any considerable Repute, about Forty or Fifty Plays. I shall take only one or two of the best from each Author, as a Specimen of their Manner, and to shew the Humour of their Times. There are also many single Plays well worth preserving; such as the Gorboduc of Lord Buckhurst, the Marriage Night of Lord Faulkland, and some others. I will print them in a handsome manner, in Pocket Volumes, and at so cheap a Rate that they shall not exceed Sixpence each Play. In Making this Collection I shall not rely on my own Opinion, but consult the most judicious of my Friends, who have promised me their best Assistance in this Work. And, that such as are willing to encourage it may not run any Hazard, I desire no money but upon the Delivery of the Books.

The booksellers, he added, were to have ‘a handsome allowance,’ and those who were pleased to send their names and places of abode by the General or Penny-post, might depend on having them carefully inserted in the first volume.

The undertaking seems to have met with immediate and wide support, for by the following week Dodsley was able to announce that he had received the necessary number of names, and proposed to go to press ‘with all the expedition that the difficulty of making a proper and judicious choice’ would admit.

Ten volumes ultimately made their appearance on Feb. 1st, 1744-5, an additional two a year later. They were prefaced by an exceedingly well-written and carefully prepared account, of Dodsley's own composition, of the Rise and Fall of the English Stage, and to each play was attached a few words about the author, introductions which serve to show the editor's diligence and wide reading. At the time of publication he had obtained nearly eight hundred subscribers, including Mr Pope, who died three months later; David Garrick, then a newcomer, though not unknown, to the London public; Mr Spence, just then home from a third and last tour on the continent with Lord Lincoln, during which he had met many distinguished people, including young Horace Walpole, whose life he had been instrumental in saving; Warburton, not then on bad terms with Dodsley; Lord Radnor; and many of those great ladies who seem to have followed his career, much as they followed Richardson's, with so great an interest. The collection was dedicated to Sir Clement Dormer, was widely bought by the booksellers, and helped to increase Dodsley's reputation not a little. If there had been any question of his abilities before, all doubts must by now have been dispelled, and his Old Plays, by which, indeed, he is best remembered at the present day, may be said to have been a permanent and important contribution to English literature. ‘The art of collation,’ says Mr Tedder, ‘was then unknown, and when he [Dodsley] undertook the work, the duties of an editor of other than classic literature were not so well understood as in more recent times,’ but the author of the Toy-shop showed no little erudition, and his comments have the merit of good judgment and conciseness.

In the following year the always ambitious bookseller endeavoured to introduce Rex & Pontifex ‘a new Species of Pantomime’ on the stage, but was unable to find a producer for what was in reality a kind of morality play, and it was not until 1749 that he appeared once again as acted playwright. Peace with France had been proclaimed in London on Feb. 2nd, and on the 21st of the month, Dodsley's masque The Triumph of Peace was performed at Drury Lane for the first time. It was repeated on the 23rd, 25th, 27th, and 28th; March 2nd, 4th, 6th, 27th, and 28th. On April 14th the last scene only, representing ‘a view of the Temple of Peace’—a fine spectacular display, one imagines—was performed ‘for the Benefit of Mr Leviez the Ballet Master.’ The masque seems to have caught the public fancy, and three other theatres brought out similar performances.

This was the last of Dodsley's dramatic works until 1758, when his tragedy Cleone was acted at Covent Garden. The story of that production, however, is so interesting, and introduces so many well-known names, that it will be dealt with by itself in a later chapter. …

DODSLEY'S FABLES

It is a little curious to find that with the exception of two short pieces, Dodsley published no further verse after Cleone, but during 1759 and 1760, in the intervals of travelling about and attending to the now very frequent attacks of gout, he was busily occupied in bringing together materials for his well-known Select Fables. A desire to write fables, had, one supposes, been his, even since he had read the two quarto volumes issued by Mr Gay in 1728. In his Muse in Livery he had published The Enquiry, in which various animals give utterance to a number of sound, if somewhat conventional, moral aphorisms. It is not, indeed, surprising to find that this method of literary expression should have appealed to the author of the Oeconomy of Human Life. As a young man he would have been familiar with Samuel Croxall's translation of Æsop, and he would have admired his friend Edward Moore's Fables for the Female Sex, issued in 1744; and, indeed, he and Akenside had included many fables in verse in the Museum. Some years later the idea of publishing some such work as would bring together both ancient and modern fables, related in such a way that children should understand them, seems to have occurred to him. The composition, however, of his Agriculture, and the tragedy of Cleone occupied the whole of his leisure time, and it was not until his retirement that he was able to give much time to the project.

And so it is not until Oct. 10th, 1758, that we have the first intimation that any such work is in progress, but on that day he lets Shenstone ‘into a secret.’ ‘I am at present,’ he says, ‘writing from Esop and others, an hundred select Fables in prose, for the use of schools; we having no book of that kind fit to put into the hands of youth, from the wretched manner in which they are written. Tell me what you think of this attempt.’ Shenstone is interested, but doubtful. Fables, he inclines to think, are over-rated. Dodsley writes again on the subject in the following January, determined to arouse his friend's interest. From this letter it appears that Robert Lowth, afterwards Bishop of London, and famous for his controversy with Warburton, had first incited him to the composition of original fables. ‘It is a task,’ he writes,

which I was first perswaded to undertake by Dr Lowth, when I had y^e pleasure of seeing him last Sūmer at Durham. I wrote between thirty and forty soon after I came home, & happening to shew them to Mr Melmoth, his partiality approv'd them so well, that he was pleas'd to join me in the work, & whilst I have been busy'd in my Play, has written between thirty and forty more. I shall be very glad to hear your reasons for entertaining but a mean opinion of Fables; & that you would favour me with what rules you think should be observ'd in writing them. Indeed we have no Collection of Fables in prose, that are fit to be read; and as they are amongst the first things that are put into y^e hand of young people, were they judiciously chosen, well told, in a Style concise & clear, & at y^e same time so plainly couch'd in the Narrative, as to need no detach'd explanatory Moral at the end, I think it might possibly be a useful & acceptable work, and not altogether unentertaining.

Shenstone apparently reconsidered his ‘mean opinion,’ and asked to see a copy of La Motte and Fontaine, a ‘pompous edition’ of whose Fables, as Dodsley informs him, was then appearing, and indeed, he seems to have promised the publisher a Fable of his own composition. On March 19th, 1759, Dodsley is reminding him of this promise. ‘Pray,’ says he, ‘don't forget the Fable of the two Swans, and I wish you would write it in prose that I might have the advantage of inserting it in my Collection.’ A week later, although he is so busily engaged with the worries of removing from the Tully's Head, he has found time to compose another short fable The Halcyon and the Sparrow, which is immediately despatched to Shenstone as ‘a specimen of what I intend.’ ‘But,’ he writes, ‘instead of giving me your thoughts on the Subject, you ask what I think the precise distinction betwixt a Fable and a Tale. This is not fair dealing. However, I will give you my opinion, in order that it may be corrected. I think a Tale may be defin'd—a Series of Events, related without regard to any Moral: whereas a Fable is one single Event, contriv'd on purpose to illustrate and enforce some Moral Truth or Prudential Maxim. And now,’ he adds, ‘pray give me your opinion! and I could wish you would favour me with half a dozen or half a score Fables by way of Specimen.’ Shenstone's reply embraces an invitation to come to the Leasowes. ‘Pray now,’ he writes, upon Dodsley's refusing,

you that are a Mythologist, what an absurd man you are, not to jump at an invitation to come directly to the Leasowes? Here am I, like your friend Esop, before Ogilby's Fables; or like Adam in our old Bibles sitting once or twice a day with every created animal before me. Is not this the only residence for a person that is writing fables?’Tis true, this very person may contemplate better in a crowd, than another in the depths of solitude: you may far surpass me, who thus converse with birds, while he describes a sparrow from Pall-mall, or a kingfisher from Charing Cross: but imagination is a prodigious heightener; and unless he paints them from life, may be not attribute to a Kingfisher much finer feathers than he in truth possesses?

Some months passed before Dodsley was able to get to the Leasowes, but he arrived there in September, interviewed Baskerville, and arranged provisionally that his Fables should be printed at Easy Hill. He stayed at the Leasowes and in Birmingham for five weeks, writing further fables under Shenstone's supervision, and from there proceeded to Bath, where Spence and William Whitehead joined him. Shenstone was to have been of the party, but was unable to get away from his home on account of a legal squabble in which he was at the time engaged. His opinion of Dodsley's undertaking appears in a letter to Graves, written at the beginning of October. ‘Dodsley,’ says he, ‘to give his book eclat, should allow himself time to abridge and polish. It is not enough in my opinion merely to surpass L'Estrange and Croxall … and … in respect of his own new invented Fables, I wish him to devise uncommon subjects, and to inculcate refined Morals.’ Graves himself was another contributor, and he seems to have joined the little coterie at Bath. There was some talk even then of publishing the collection during the coming winter, but Dodsley was well advised to wait. Shenstone's opinion seems to have been shared by most of the other coadjutors. ‘As to Dodsley's publishing this winter,’ he writes at the end of October, ‘he may possibly do so without loss of credit; but when one considers that they are, or ought to be, the standard for years to come, one can hardly avoid wishing him to give them the polish of another summer.’

At the same time all of Dodsley's friends were not in entire agreement upon all points. Melmoth, for instance, differed from Shenstone, and indeed, from Dr Lowth, in so far as he considered that no fable which did not turn upon ‘the obvious qualities of common and familiar objects’ was exactly suited for juvenile instruction. Many of the fables submitted to him in manuscript had, in fact, told of unfamiliar animals or objects, but his objection was overruled, and when the book appeared, although most of the pieces treated of everyday objects, there were one or two animals and plants mentioned which cannot have been familiar to the young scholars for whom the book was intended. Of the critics Shenstone was perhaps the most fastidious of all. ‘You will observe,’ he writes upon one occasion, ‘that I take great liberties with the Fables you ask me to revise. Dodsley must think me very fantastical or worse, while I was correcting those he wrote at the Leasowes. I find my ear more apt to take offence than most other people's; and, as his is far less delicate than mine, he must of course believe in many places, that I altered merely for the sake of alteration. I cannot be easy,’ he continues, ‘without some certain proportion between one sentence and another; without a melody at the close of a paragraph almost as agreeable as your Magnificent Salon. I have not written to Dodsley any decent letter since he arrived at his house in London. I must now apply myself to write half a score Fables, and, if he chuses it, a translation of La Motte's Discourse upon the subject.’ His great interest in the undertaking appears from the fact that he caused his own painter, Alcock, to make some drawings for the collection. These, however, were not finished in time, and Hale and Grignion were afterwards commissioned to make a number of plates. During the winter, too, Shenstone translated La Motte's essay on Fable, ‘a most excellent discourse,’ he thought it, for inclusion in the collection, but although Dodsley made large use of it, he preferred to put his ideas upon the subject in his own way. At the beginning of the new year the first draft of this essay was finished, and sent to Graves and Shenstone for their correction. By that time he had determined to print some time during the summer. In May, he was writing again to thank Shenstone for his excellent translation:

‘I am sorry,’ he says in the course of a long and characteristic letter,

I hurried my Essay out of your Hands, before you had done with it; but if I think of publishing my Fables next October or November, it is high time I should put both to press now, that the printer may have good weather to print in, and that the work may have time to dry, after it is finished, before the books are bound. But as it happens, I cannot begin till the latter end of this month, as the printer is not at leisure; however I have put my plates in hand, and they are going on as fast as possible, I never receiv'd Mr Alcock's drawings; so I have got two others executed, of somewhat a different design. I will not put the essay in hand till the last, which may, perhaps, be about July, as I shall be very desirous of having the advantage of your corrections. But am I not to hope for a new Fable or two from you? You see how I dwindle in my expectations: but pray don't let me be quite disappointed. I propose. if possible, to finish the printing of my Fables before I set out on my northern expedition. Mr Melmoth and his lady will be at Nottingham about the latter end of August; they have wished I would meet them there, and in their return to town, bring them round to the Leasowes. Mr Burke has also a strong inclination to meet us there; so that possibly we may be happy enough to spend a day or two with you; another must be spent at Lord Lyttelton's (as they are both acquainted with him) and a third at Birmingham.

‘How much am I obliged to you,’ he writes again in the next month, ‘for the pains you have taken in translating La Motte's Discourse on Fable! and though I fancy you will find, upon comparing the two, that I have made a good deal use of it, I shall be very glad to have more of it interwoven, if you shall think I have not sufficiently extracted the sense of it. I must own,’ he adds, ‘my pride (or call it my folly, if you please) would rather chuse to prefix somewhat of my own on that subject, than servilely adopt the thoughts of a Frenchman, though I acknowledge them to be very ingenious. Besides I have had the temerity to differ with him in some respects, which makes it still more improper to take his whole Discourse. I hope,’ he adds, after telling his friend that he intends to come to the Leasowes during the next month, ‘that Mr Baskerville will be quite ready for me; I shall send him the paper in a fortnight.’ His journey into Warwickshire, however, was postponed for some little time owing to his paying a long promised visit to Mansfield, whither he went from Nottingham, but sometime in August he reached Baskerville's house where he stayed, with occasional runs out to the Leasowes, until the last few sheets were passing through the press. By the beginning of October, however, he had begun to be impatient at the delay. ‘Dodsley,’ writes Shenstone to Percy, ‘has gone to spurr Baskerville, returns on Friday to spurr me, but,’ he adds, ‘I believe his original fables will be printed off in about a fortnight, when I shall find myself more at leisure.’ A month later, although the work at Birmingham was not yet completed, Dodsley was able to set out again for his London house. ‘Mr Dodsley's Fables,’ writes Shenstone, ‘are not printed off thro’ some Mistakes that occasioned y^e loss of three or four reams of Paper. However wⁿ fresh Paper arrives, they will be finished in three days time.’ Dodsley's return to London doubtless followed on the fact that he had determined to supplement Baskerville's impression with a cheaper edition printed in London for the use of schools. Baskerville's edition was ultimately published on Feb. 9th, a very beautiful little production, but marred by its ‘cuts,’ which, being of a lilliputian size, are out of all proportion to the rest of the design, and might very well have been omitted. Shenstone for one was so dissatisfied with them that he caused Alcock, who was then painting his portrait for Dodsley in return for the publisher's portrait by Sir Joshua Reynolds, to procure a copy of the book from Baskerville before the cuts were inserted and finish them with some devices of his own. The book, however, sold well. By April Shenstone was able to inform Percy that ‘Dodsley has sold 2000 of his Fables & begins to talk of second & third editions, I would have him permit Baskerville to print one more edition for the Curious.’ Most of the copies sold, however, would appear to have belonged to the London impression, and in the next month Dodsley was complaining ‘that he should lose thirty pounds by Baskerville's impression; and that he should not be more than ten pounds gainer upon the whole.’ ‘I told him,’ writes Shenstone,

it was enough, in books of this sort, if the first edition paved the way for their future establishment in schools. And surely so it is: for a book of this kind, once established, becomes an absolute estate for many years; and brings in at least as certain and as regular returns. I would wish him to give the polite world one more edition from Baskerville's press; admitting only a new sett of emblematical top and tail-pieces; and confining those empty cuts relating to each fable to the cheap edition which he prints at London. A second edition of this latter sort will appear in a little time; and if you have any improvements to propose, he will very thankfully receive them. Mr Spence offers him to write the life afresh; and Spence, Burke, Lowth, and Melmoth, advise him to discard Italicks. I confess he has used them to a very great excess, but yet I do not think they should be utterly discarded.

On the whole, he seems to have shared the general satisfaction shown with the work. ‘What merit I have there,’ he records, ‘is in the Essay’—this passage has caused some to imagine that he was its author, although, as we have seen, Dodsley only made use of his translation of La Motte—

in the original Fables, although I can hardly claim a single Fable as my own; and in the Index, which I caused to be thrown into the form of Morals, and which are wholly mine. I wish to God it may sell; for he has been at great expence about it. The two rivals which he has to dread are, the editions of Richardson and Croxall.

The book itself was a success, and the original Fables added considerably to Dodsley's literary reputation. His collection, indeed, has often been reprinted, once with illustrations by Bewick, and once or twice at Nottingham. It is sensibly divided into Ancient, Modern, and Original Fables—a tolerable survey of the art. Dodsley's own essay is well worthy of inclusion, and shows him to have been a master of plain and direct prose. A translation of de Meziriac's Life of Æsop, which, as Dodsley observes with some surprise, was utterly unknown either to L'Estrange or Croxall, gives the book a completeness which it might otherwise lack. And Shenstone's Index combines novelty of form with conciseness of expression. Its success, indeed may be gauged by the fact that the expensive Baskerville was permitted to print another edition in 1764 shortly before Dodsley's death.

After his Old Plays and his Collection of Poems, Dodsley's Select Fables are the best known of his works.