€g6 
and HARMONY ; and'thefe were written 
by two of the beft poets this century has 
€iven birth to. 
Bath, OF. 10. 
SE 
CriItTo. 
. 

To the Ed:tor of tbe Monthly Magazine. 
STR, 
ek es was .on a vifit at Stowe, 
when he wrote his celebrated ballad 
ef Admiral Hofier’s Ghoft, perhaps. the 
moft {pirited of all his productions. The 
idea occurred to him during the night ; 
he rofe early, and went into the garden 
to compofe. In the heat of compofition, 
he got into the tulip bed : unfortunately, 
he had a fick in his hand, and, with a 
true poetical furor; hewed down the 
tulips. Lady Temple was particularly 
fond of tulips ; and fome of the company, 
who had feen Glover flathing around 
him, and fufpeéted: how his mind was 
occupied, afked him, at breakfait, how he 
could think of deftroying lady Temple’s 
favourite flowers> The poet, perfeétly 
unconfcious of what he haddone, pleaded 
not guilty. There were, however, wit- 
nefies’ enough te convict him. He ac- 
Knowledged that he had been compofing 
am the garden, and excufed himfelf by 
re peating the ballad. 
Glover was partial to the Athenaid ; 
twas the child of his age. He ufed to 
fay, it was better than Leonidas; and 
fometimes would boaft that it was Joxger 
than the Iliad. . Se. 
ar le - 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SiR;, 
ye remarks which I made, in the 
™ Fourth Number of your Magazine, re- 
fative to the intellectual talents of women, 
E was led to make by a queftion propofed 
‘in your preceding Number, ‘“ Whether 
hiterary and {cientific purfuits were fuited 
to the female charaéter?’? TI was cer- 
tainly not induced to make thofe remarks, 
by any prejudice againft the ladies, to 
whom J] am verv iufficiently attached, 
and whofe underftandings I with to fee 
much better cultivated, than they gene- 
rally are: but the fa& is, I have too 
much kindnefs for the fair fex, to be de- 
firous of flattering, or of deceiving them ; 
which would only tend ‘to render them 
lefs excellent, and lefs amiable. 
Your female correfpondent, who, in 
your Sixth Number, has made fome ob- 
sections to my obfervations, remarks, that 
what I have faid, feems to imply, that 
the right ef women to the enjoyment of 
Talents of Women. 
(Oa. 
intelleétual pleafures, “is to be fubjeé& 
to fome limitations :’’ but not a finyle 
fentence that I‘ have written, is jufily 
hable ‘to fuch an interpretation ; and I 
particularly exprefled my withes, that 
‘‘ the intellectual powers of women 
might be more diligently, and more 
generally cultivated.” 
Your correfpondent fpeaks of an en- 
quiry concerning the intelleétuai abilities 
r women, as “ petty and unphilofophi- 
al’— frivolous “and uninterefting ;”” 
but to me it appears, tharfuchanenquiry | 
is entitled to none of thofe epithets.— 
Women are of fo much importance in 
human feciety, that an enquiry refpeét- 
ing their talents, cannot be unphilefo. 
phical, frivolous, or unintereiting. 
-Your female correfpondent complains 
of it, as a grievance, that “ one half-of 
the human fpecies, on a felf-ere&ted 
throne, fhould prefcribe bounds to, and 
impofe intelle€tual fetters on, the other 
half ; and diétate to them to what pur- 
pofes they are to apply, and how far 
they are to be allowed to exercife, their 
common faculties.” I certainly difap- 
prove of all reftrictions of this kind; and 
I know of no law of this country, which 
prohibits any woman from profecuting 
any branch of literature or {cience fo 
which fhe may be inclined. Situation 
and circumftances may certainly prevent 
this ; and it may not be convenient for 
a woman to be employed in literary or 
{cientific purfuits, when fhe fhould be 
nurfing her children, or attending to the 
domeftic concerns of her family. But 
there are great numbers of women in 
this country, of eafy fortunes, and of 
much leifure, who may have ready accefs 
to books, and to every fpecies of in- 
firuction that they with for; and yet J 
do not bear that many of thefe are much 
engaged in the puriuits of literature or 
of icience. 
In my former letter, I propofed it, as 
a kind of interrogation, ‘* Whether the 
works of all the female authors who 
ever exifted, taken collectively, were 
equal in value to the works of Shak- 
fpeare, an uneducated man?” .I am 
now inclined tofpeak affirmatively, and to 
give itas my opinion, that the lofs of the 
works of all the female authors who 
ever exifted, would not be fo great a lofs 
to the literary world, as the lofs of the 
works of Shakfpeare. But your cor- 
re{pondent afks, whether the fuperiority 
** of a whole {pecies is to be deduced 
from the example of a few individuals, 
formed by extraordinary circumftances ?” 
Te 
= 
> 
~ 
