1809.] 
think the experiment has perfectly suc- 
ceeded. Iam convinced with him, that 
there is as much dignity and har- 
mony inthe words, gun, musket, bayonet, 
pistol, cannon, shell, mortar, platoov, 
brigade ; as in spear, shield, helmet ; 
greaves, bow, shaft, sling, cohort, and 
phalanx. 
In his note on Mr, West, the painter, 
he asserts (with how much justice I 
will not determine), that this artist is the 
first who introduced modern costume, 
and rendered it familiar in historical 
painting. With equal, if not greater 
truth, it may now be said, that Mr. B. 
has introduced and familiarized modern 
military terms in heroic poetry.’ Whe- 
ther he thought of emulating his coun- 
tryman in this respect, I know not, but 
his design was equally bold; and it pro- 
mises to be equally successfu) with that 
of the painter, which is said to have pro- 
duced a revolution in the art. 
The note in the 5th book on the British 
colonization exemplitics in a memorable 
manner the effect of habitual feelings of 
liberty. The free-born spirit that goes 
forth with the young colony becomes 
more conspicuous, aims at higher objects, 
and sustains a greater growth of national 
prosperity than it could do in the mo- 
ther country, though as free as England, 
The contrast the author draws between 
our system and that of other modern 
nations, which have sent coloniesabroad, 
does honour to his liberality, and is an 
equal tribute of respect to our country 
and hisown, Indeed this is not the only 
instance in which the English nation is 
highly complimented in the work before 
me. I am happy to see it, because it 
is more than certain other writings of 
Mr. B. had taught me to expect. 
In the 2nd book there is a note on the 
graphic art, oceasioned by a view ofthe 
hierogiyphics of Mexico. Itis the result 
of deep reflection, and leads to some un- 
common conclusions with respect to the 
early unstoried ages of human society. 
There are several other philosophical 
notes, which, for their original vein of 
thinking, and the very perspicuous and 
unaffected manner of holding up his 
thoughts to his readers, cannot fail of 
fixing their attention, if not their appro- 
bation. ; 
Mr. B.’s prose style is remarkable for 
its harmony and eloauence. He has 
likewise attained a degree of purity, so 
far superior to any other of his country- 
men, whose writings we have seen, that, 
were it not for the danger of giving of- 
w)/yMonturx Mac., No. 179. 
Ovid’s Epistles translated by Shakspeare. 
523 
fence to him, or them, I should perhaps 
ascribe it to his long residence in this 
country. 
I intended, however, when I be- 
gan this article, to notice a few oddities 
in his orthography and his neology. He 
is so sensible of having laid himself open 
to animadversion in this respect, that he 
has written a postscript to his notes in 
Justification of'the liberties he has taken 
with our language. But as he has ex- 
plained himself fully on this subject, I 
will only add a word of regret at seeing 
a disposition in American writers for in- 
novating so fast in our common national 
language, as must in a few generations 
more produce an irreconcilable dialect. 
Such a tendency is certainly to be de- 
precated ; and I am sorryto find, that 
So great an example as Mr. B.’s writings 
must p.ove to his countrymen should — 
have given countenance to these innova- 
tions. 
—e 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
HAVE read, with much _ pleasure, 
Mr. Lofft’s reply to the question, 
“* Whether Shakspeare was the. author 
of the Epistles translated from Ovid.” It 
is highly satisfactory. By treating the 
Question as the subject of atrial at law, 
he has taken the fairest method of ex- 
amining it. No testimony that would 
not abide the test of a judicial investiga- 
tion, should be admitted as evidence. 
Ieywood’s assertion is no proof. Shak- 
speare, it is true, was silent, but it is pro- 
bable he was ignorant of the charge, for 
the reasons assigned by Mr. Loft. The 
translations in question were certainly 
published in Shakspeare’s name, and 
with his permission; they were also de- 
dicated by him to his best and kindest 
friend. Now could Dr. Farmer think so 
meanly.of Shakspeare. for whom he pro- 
fessed so high a veneration, as to suppose 
him capable of imposing the versions of 
Ileywood, not only on the public, bat on 
his patron, as the productions of his own 
pen? Impossible. But this is not the 
only occasion on which Dr, Farmer ex- 
ereises his ingenuity in doing injustice, 
(perhaps sportively) to his darling Shake 
speare. He labours to prove him ignorant 
of every language but his own, merely 
because the orthography of the different 
langaayes which he occasionally employs, 
is sometimes incorrect. On the same 
grounds he might deny his knowledge of 
the English language, Did Dr. Farmer 
examine the original manuscripts of 
3X Shakspeare’s 
