being yet invented for the communication of thought.

Another very wrong objection has been made by some who have not
taken leisure to distinguish the characters. The hero of the play,
as they are pleased to call him (meaning Mellefont), is a gull, and
made a fool, and cheated. Is every man a gull and a fool that is
deceived? At that rate I'm afraid the two classes of men will be
reduced to one, and the knaves themselves be at a loss to justify
their title. But if an open-hearted honest man, who has an entire
confidence in one whom he takes to be his friend, and whom he has
obliged to be so, and who, to confirm him in his opinion, in all
appearance and upon several trials has been so: if this man be
deceived by the treachery of the other, must he of necessity
commence fool immediately, only because the other has proved a
villain? Ay, but there was caution given to Mellefont in the first
act by his friend Careless. Of what nature was that caution? Only
to give the audience some light into the character of Maskwell
before his appearance, and not to convince Mellefont of his
treachery; for that was more than Careless was then able to do: he
never knew Maskwell guilty of any villainy; he was only a sort of
man which he did not like. As for his suspecting his familiarity
with my Lady Touchwood, let 'em examine the answer that Mellefont
makes him, and compare it with the conduct of Maskwell's character
through the play.

I would beg 'em again to look into the character of Maskwell before
they accuse Mellefont of weakness for being deceived by him. For
upon summing up the enquiry into this objection, it may be found
they have mistaken cunning in one character for folly in another.