516 
benevolence; and what I affirm is, that 
religious principle is more favourable 
than any other to this expanfien of the 
character. I only add that an affection 
which was originally exercifed upon fel- 
fifh confiderations, becomes gradually, 
from the very conftitution of human na- 
ture, more and more difinterefted, a cir- 
cumftance to which, if Lord Shaftefbury. 
had adverted, his view of morality would 
have been more correct. 
Allow me to thank your ‘correfpondent 
. C. (page 311 of your laft Number) for 
is animadverfionus on my correction of 
Virgil’s Aneid vi. 242. I did not propofe 
the emendation as neceffary on the {core 
of phrafeology, but to try whether by a 
flight alteration a line might not be vin- 
dicated to Virgil, which Burman and 
Fleyne reject as fpurious. Mr. Wakefield, 
I ought to obferve, on the other hand, 
thinks that Lucretius, in beok vi- v. 
420, rather countenances its genuinenefs. 
In the fecond remark of your correi- 
pondent there is much force, but it ap- 
plies only te Aornon, and not to 4vernus, 
which fome copies read. Should it be 
faid that A’vernus is only a corruption of a 
Greek name, and therefore that Graio 
nomine would be improper, I would re- 
fer the objector to the following lines of 
Ovid: 
Sed Veneris menfem Graio fermone no- 
tatum 
Auguror: afpumis eff dea di@a ma- 
Tis. 
Nec tibi Gt mirem Graio rem nomine 
dici, 
tala nam tellus Grecia major erat. 
Falt iv. 61. 
Certainly Aprilis is no more 2 genuine 
Greek word than Avernus. Perhaps the 
following lines of Silius Italicus afford the 
beft commentary on this controverted paf- 
fage of the Mantuan bard, if indeed the 
ne be his: 
Ie, olim populis dium Styga, no- 
mine vero 
Stagna inter celebrem nunc mitia mon- 
frat Avernum. Pun. x11. 120, 
In farther conffrmation of the fub- 
yunctive mood in Virg. Ain. vi. sgr, 
which confirmation can enly be needed, 
becaufe Burman and Heyne, af gui viri f 
nave acguieiced in the indicative, let me 
add Ain. ix. 728—9. 
Demens! qui Rutulum in medio non 
agmine regem 
Vidertt iwrumpentem, u troque fncluferit 
urbi. i 
IT have fince obferved, that in tk 
ford edition (which I did rot 
Tythe of Lambs. 
{Jan. 1, 
that I had in my poffeflion,) /imularet is 
given for fmularat. Iam, Sir, 
Your’s, &c. 
Chefbunt, 
Nov. 1, 1800. E. Cocan. 

To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
Sir, 
- you can fpare room in your next 
month’s publication, for the follow- 
ing remark, in anfwer to the complaint 
and requeft of your correfpondent N. S. 
(Monthly Mag. vol. x. p. 306.), they are 
much at your iervice. 
If the proprietor of the tythes fhould 
refufe to take his tythe-lambs “ when they 
are capable of living without their dam,” 
I fhould think all that N. S. can do is, to 
wait till the proprietor choofes to receive 
his property ; and then to keep back fo 
many of the lambs as will indemnify 
N. S. for the lofs fuftained by keeping 
them beyond the legal period. If the 
perfon fhould think proper te difpute-the 
juftice of this mode of proceeding, he 
muft have recourfe to a legal procefs. 
The fubjc& of agifiment tythes appears 
to have been mifreprefented by moft 
writers on ecclefiaftical law. At prefent, 
I recollect only one publication which 
exclufively relates to it; the title of which 
is, “ The Matter of Agiftment Tythe of 
‘ unprofitable Seock, in the cafe of the 
Vicar of Holbeach, as decreed by Lord 
Chief Baron Parker, Baron Smythe, &c. 
in the Court of Exchequer, in Michael- 
mas Term, 1768. By Cecil Willis, D. D: 
Vicar of Holbeach, &c. 4to. 1770."— 
This pamphlet I have never feen; my 
information concerning it being derived 
from the Monthly Review. In the 56th 
volume of that work, pages 185 and 
186, are to be found fome remarks, on 
Dr. Wiilis’s performance, which the critic 
reprefents as throwing but little light on 
the fubje&i. But the critique contains 
an explanation of the law relative to 
agiftment tythes, which appears to me 
to be very fatisfactory. Left your corre- 
fpondent fhould not have an opportunity 
of {écing the volume of the Monthly Re- 
view above referred to, I will juit ob- 
ferve, that the reviewer, in oppofigion to 
the opinions of Gibfon, Burn, ana other 
writers on ecclefiaitical law, maintains 
that the tenth of the price of keeping an 
unproductive beaft, and not the tenth 
ofits improved value, during any given 
period, is the right of the proprietor of 
the tythes. Or, in other words, that his 
claim is founded exclufively on a right to 
the temh of the produce cenfumed by 
the animal. . 
I cannot conclude withoxt obferving, 
that. 
> 
