yE00.]’ 
parifon between ancient and modern mu- 
fic, in one of your former Numbers, and 
the reft of which I fhall trouble you with 
at forme future time, and am, Sir, 
Your’s, &c. w.c. 
EET 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
HE *¢ Infcription varioufly interpre- 
ted” in p. 42, is atolerable jeu d’ef- 
prit, well calculated to keep the laugh 
againft antiquaries, who, no doubt, often- 
times well deferve it. But every farcafm of 
this kind fhould be fourded in truth, for 
otherwife its vigour is Jo?, and it becomes 
“© telum imbelle fine idtu.” 
There is no reafon whaiever for fuppof- 
ing the ftones in queftion to have been 
‘* Gothic carvings,’ as the wit, who is 
probably one of the Anaifts, though your 
Man of Letters has not cited his authority, 
afferts. All thefe bas-reliefs were found 
indigging at Notre Dame, and were moft 
certainly reorefentations of Gallic deities, 
The circumftance of the Druids having 
no idols, is a very ignorant objection, and 
hardly defcrving notice. Thefe figures 
had probably decorated fome temple, on 
the ruins of which the Chriftians erected a 
church, according to their ufual prattice, 
with a view to ex:irpate the Pagan idola- 
try. There was no omiflion of any let- 
ter in the infcription, much lefs of 
an O, the word being clearly engraven 
CERNVNNVS. 
The “* £ff hic quafiio,” as anetymology 
of etiquette, is as bad as Menage’s Sriyoc; 
the moft probable etymology is to deduce 
it from the Spanith cuftom of committing 
to paper, or a little ticket, whatever is to 
be the regulation of the king’s houfhold 
for the day ; and the fame with refoedct to 
particular ceremonies. Thisis fometimes 
called a bulletin. E. 
aa 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SiR, 
O the inftances of the article quoted 
from Homer by your correlpondent 
N.K. in page 535 of your Magazine for 
July, permit me to add the following: 
fliad A, 21 }'©,:903 ©, 121053 A,’ 1 3 
©, 3425 ©, 430; @, 5323 1, 935 A, 
4655 As 543 1, 2593 I, 320. 
To thefe many more might be added 
from Homer; but I prefer noting the 
following from Hefiod, a bard of nearly 
equal antiquity with the immortal author 
of the Iliad. Opp. et Dd. 171, 191, 198, 
245, 218, 254, 264, 278, 285, 237, 280. 
With thefe let us now compare a 
Greek Ariicle— Infidel Societies. 
12% 
much later poet, Tryphiodorus. In the 
firtt thirteen lines of his TAse “AaAwous 
there are twenty-two inflances of the 
article omitted, and perhaps {ome of yeur 
readers may be inclined to reckon twenty- 
four. Shall we conciude from this, thar 
Tryphiodorus was unacquainted with the 
ufe of the article? Should we not be 
much nearer tothe truth in faying that the 
article was known and ufed as {uch from 
the earlieft era of the Greek language 5 
but that it was not, atany period, deemed 
neceflary in poetry? A very curfory in- 
fpe&ion of the Anthologia, containing fo 
many pieces of various writers, who, com. 
pared with Homer and Hefiod, might al- 
moft be confidered as moderns, wil! be 
fufficient to prove the latter part of my 
remaik ; and perhaps the reafon why Ho- 
mer did not ufe the article fo frequently 
as it might have been ufed by a later poet, 
was, that he employed fo many of thofe 
particles which we call expletives, but 
which certainly mui have had their pecu- 
liar beauty and fignificancy in his times 
and which left him lefs room for the infer- 
tion of the article in places wheie he pre- 
bably might otherwife have introduced it. 
I aii, Sir, &c. J. C. 
aE 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
ESTDING in a remote province, it is 
very natural, that I fhould often be 
whoily ignorant of what is tranfaéted with 
great notoriety in the metropolis. A 
pamphlet or a magazine brings me the fir 
news of a conf{piracy, by recording the 
apprehenfion of the accomplices; and I 
feldem hear of the dangers of my country 
until they are happily over. This was 
more efpecially the cafe with one very re- 
cent danger of i's church; I mean that 
revealed to us in W. H. Reid’s “Rife and 
Diffolution of the Infidel Societies in Lon- 
don ;*” and muft apologize for remaiks 
now perhaps fomewlhiat behind hand. 
Are all this writer’s aflertions true? 
Were there really cluts of Englifhmen 
(p- 15), ‘© among whom private aflaflina- 
ticn was looked upenas no crime: in which 
a member fermaily propofed to the per- 
fons afflembled (p. 16), © to go and killall 
the bloody priefts :°” and in whichit was a 
common toaft (p.16), © May the laft king 
be firangledinthe bowels of the laft prieft?”” 
Thefe three imputations appear impros 
bable. In the firit place, although tyran- 
nicice has been defended here in printed 
books, yet private affa{fination never has ; 
fo that it cannot eafily have become a te 
tr net 
