1797-1] 
and the captivity of Jehoiachin, the 
former event will be found to have taken 
place 975 years before Chrift. 
As to the captivity beginning from 
the expedition of Cambyfes, it is a fup- 
- pofition too wild to need a ferious reply; 
fince it is without a fingle paflage in any 
ancient hiftorian to countenance it. 
Cambyfes died in Syria on his return 
from Egypt (Herod. B. 3) and, confe- 
quently, could not poflibly conduct the 
Jews to Babylon, had he taken any of 
them captive ; which it does not appear 
he ever did. { am afraid to extend thefe 
remarks any farther, left I fhould take 
up too much room in your pages. 
Witney, March 29. W. FE. 

P.5. Perhaps it may hardly be worth 
while to make a remark on the commu- 
nication of Cambrobrittanicus (p. 18) 
becaufe, when he has gone a little far- 
ther in the ftudy of aftronomy, he will 
undoubtedly difcover his error. It may, 
however, induce him to think twice 
before he attempts, in future, to contro- 
vert a received do€trine. I find that 
the {quare of the aphelion diftance has, 
to the fquare of the perihelion diftance, 
not the ratio of ro to 8, but of 10 to 
9356; and, therefore, by inverting the 
the terms, the*heat received by the 
earth into its perihelion, will be to that 
received in its aphelion, as 10 to 9356, 
anftead of as 10 to 8; but, from the na- 
ture of the ellipfis, the equinoétial points 
are connected by a double ordinate to 
the axis, palling through that focus in 
which is the fun; the conneéting line 
will, therefore, divide the elipfis into 
two unequal parts, of which the largeft 
will be that towards the aphelion; and, 
as the times are proportional to the areas 
defcribed, it follows, that the fun will 
be longer north of the equator, than 
fouth of it. This is accordingly found 
to be the cafe by eight days. For the 
fame reafon, the earth will move {wiftett 
in its perihelion and floweft in its aphe- 
lion, and the velocity of its motion, at 
the two diftances, will be inverfely as 
the diftances; that is, velocities will be 
direétly as the’ proportions of heat. 
Now the quantity of a continually emit- 
ted fluid, received on any furface, may be 
confidered as the quantity received in an 
indefinitely {mall time, multiplied by the 
duration of the emitlion ; and, therefore 
(from the preceding) the temperatures of 
lat. 23°28/ North, and the fame lat. South, 
wili be equal; becaufe the fun remains 
longer in the former, than in the Jatter. 
Afironomical Difficulty folved..:.. Anfwer to A. S. 253 
To the Edjtor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
Your cerrefpondent, A. S$. who is 
pleafed with fo much candour to 
fuggeft envy, and other malignant paf- 
fions, as the motives of a little harmlefs 
critical pleafantry, in my former letter, 
may be affured, that I am, in no refpedct, 
a competitor of the friend whofe part 
he (or fhe) fo warmly takes ; and thar I 
had no other intention, than to exprefs 
my fentiments ona literary topic,open, I 
conceive, to general difcuffion. Ido not 
feel it neceflary, therefore, to make any 
apology, with regard to defgn ; and afew 
plain words will fuffice, by way of re- 
ply to fome particulars urged againft 
me, perhaps with more acrimony than 
force. 
Your correfpondent’s logic muft be of 
a peculiar kind, if he can take it for a 
good argument, that becaufe Mifs S. 
began with a declaration, that her tran{- 
lations were iztended to be diffufe, the 
fault of diffufenefs, if any, is thereby 
done away. If the charge of want of 
fidelity had been brought againft her, 
the juttification would have been to the 
purpofe ; but where her pieces were al- 
luded to as f{pecimens of that kind of 
amplification which was the object of 
cenfure, the only queftion in point is, ’ 
whether they are really examples of that 
fault 2? Your correfpondent has certain- 
“ly browght no proof that they are not; 
and I am under no obligation to yield 
my opinion to his. But why (fays he) 
feleét Mifs S. as an inftance, rather than 
Pope, and a hundred others? I might 
fimply anfwer, Why not? TI fhall, how- 
ever, add, that Pope is mf an example of 
diffufenefs—that no Englifh writer ex- 
hibits greater powers of compreflion— 
and that his tranflation of Homer, how- 
ever faulty it may be in exuberance of 
ornament, is by no means enfecbled by 
amplification. 
Nothing was farther from my inten- 
tions, than to injure the fair fame of 
MifsS. whofe poetical powers, in feveral 
refpeéts, I fincerely admire; though I 
am {till of opinion, that lL had fufficient 
ground for referring to her Horatian 
tranflations, as /*rikizg examples of the 
fault I meant to expofe; and to fay, tha: 
“they are eminently fuperior to thofe of 
all preceding tranflators,” appears to me 
the groffeft partiality. As to the shree 
columns taken up by my letter, you, Mr. 
Editor, have the beft right to determine, 
whether they were employed to your fa- 
tisfaction, and to thofe of your readers. 
aKa I can- 
