e3° 
Pan zxrivus was ill-made, fhort, ugly, 
and married tova great fhrew, who made 
a cuckold of him at every opportunity. 
SOCRATES is reprefented, in,- the 
Elquds, as walking the ftreets, with a 
Tofty mien, with haggard eyes, naked 
Feet, an air of felf-futiiciency, as pur- 
Foming the clokes of his difciples, and 
flovenly. 
Afrer this follows the French tranf- 
ation, made, as .Lobinean obferves, 
folely after the original Greek, and the 
zncient {choliafts, without any reference 
to the Latin verfion, or to the partial 
tranfiation ef Madame Dacier of Plutus 
and of tLe Clouds. Lcbineau makes no 
dittin€tion of acts and fcenes, as, he fays, 
#t would be dificult to find in the original 
the five aéts, which, according to fome, 
conftitute the whole economy of theatri- 
eal pieces; and he would not make an 
amagmary diftribution. 
Of the tranflation itfelf we fhall only 
ebferve, that it 1s natural and unlabour- 
ed, and that it feems to have been ma- 
tured in retirement, and at a time when 
the French language had yet,. fo to 
tpeak, its france parler: In order to copy 
the manners of the Athenians with the 
greater verity, the tranflator has rather 
ehofen to offend fome too delicate eyes, 
ehan to fall fhort of the refemblance of 
his portraits: as a painter, employed to 
copy a family picture, ought neither to 
beautify an ugly figure, nor to change a 
Fidiculcus coftume. 
ses i ee 2 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
'HLE following Effays were read fome 
time in the year 1794, to a Literary 
Society in Liverpool. If you think them 
wvorthy of a place in your Mifcellany, 
they are much at your fervice, together 
with the beift wifhes of your’s, 
= 
Pon. 
On THE CHARACTERISTICS OF 
Portry. No. I: 
* MANKIND may be divided into 
two claffes, confifting of chofe that are 
converfant with the produétions of lite- 
yature, and thofe that entirely difregard 
them. The former clafs may be fub- 
divided into thofe that’are “ pleafed they 
know not why, and care not wherefore”’ 
—and thofe that enquire into the prin- 
ciples of their pleafures, and bring them 
to be meafured by the ftandard of reafon. 
Tt is one thing to be moved—another to 
enguire by what inftruments our emo- 
tons axe occafoned. ‘The. former pre- 
Elfays read before a Literary Society. 
[Sup. 
dicament allies us to the literary vulgar, 
the latter affociates us with philofopheis. 
‘“* Notwithftanding the contempt that 
has been thowered in {uch abundance upon 
critical enquiries into the principles of 
‘works of faite and genius, tothefe enquiries 
the human mind 1s irrefiftibly impelled. 
In this refpeé the creation of the mind 
ftands upon the fame footing as the works 
of God. The delight and aftonithment 
which men experienced at the fight of 
the wonders of nature, led to an invefti- 
gation of their caufes; and became the 
germ of what is termed natural philofo- 
phy. And the appearance of exquifite 
literary produétions led men to invefii- 
gate the principles whence flowed the 
pleafure with which they refrefhed the 
foul: and this gave rife to philofophical 
criticifm. . 
*« But it is a fat well known to thofe 
who have formed the flighteft habit of . 
refleétion, that many fubjeéts which ap- 
pear moft famiiiar and comprehenfible, 
are In reality moft dificult of inveftiga- 
tion. The mental faculiies are, perhaps, 
never put more intenfely on the firetch 
than in endeavouring toexplain an axiom: 
and when we fet about analyzing and 
reducing to fyftem, ideas that are 
daily and hourly floating on the furface 
of our minds, we meet with more per- 
plexity than we were at firft aware of. 
Thefe obfervations are furely not irrele- 
vant when they are prefixed to an at- 
tempt at an enquiry into the nature and 
charatterifties of poetry. 
‘* Whofe breaft has not been warmed 
by the mufes ?) Where is the man whofe 
feelings are fo firmly bound by the frott 
of reafon as to be impenetrable to the 
influence of ‘* Sacred Song?’’ I would 
not difkonour the prefent affembly fo 
much as te fuppofe that we had a bro- 
ther of this defeription. But if any one 
be inclined to doubt the difficulty of the 
enquiry into which it is our bufinefs to 
enter, I {hall defend my affertions by the 
high authority of the inveftigator of the 
life and writings of Homer. Having 
looked. into his book for alfiftance in the 
tafk which I unwarily undertook, | found 
the following paffage, that ftrongly re- 
minded me of the friends. of Job, who 
are fo generally known under the charace - 
ter of ** miferable comforters.” 
“ The fubje&t is of a nature fo deli- 
cate as not toadmit of a direét definition 5 
for if ever the ye xe feats quot was rightly 
applied, it is to the powers of poetry 
and the faculty that produces it. Te go 
about to defcribe it, would be-like at- 
tempting 
