LOZ 
mounce a general and unqualified fen- 
tence of condenination upon him for his 
prefumption in venturimg into it. This 
enables the reviewer to pafs himfelf off 
Yor a very wife man, and the poor victim 
of his fcalping-knife for an egregious 
fool. Now it is very poffible that all this 
while the unfortunate fufterer may be the 
only one of the two who knows any thing 
at all of the fubjec&t. But this method of 
general criticifm is fufficient for the pur- 
poses of the reviewers and their pub- 
‘Tifhers. 
Lam forry to obferve, that there are 
o many readers who feel the greateft 
pleafure in thts kind of reviewing; arid 
1 critics, fenfible of this, endeavour to 
re 
m0 
eb 
poms 
ay 
Cy 
cy OD 
(@) 
ated taite, by throwing into their remarks 
as much of the fel aiticus as pofhible. 
Some, indeed, are more profufe in fprink- 
Ying the critical brine than others; but 
this wenerally happens to be the cafe with 
thoie who have hardened themielves in 
the protefion, and whofe feelings are 
grown quite callous to the fenfibility of 
an author fuffering under their operations. 
‘Fhere are, it muft be confefled, a few 
critics who have not guite loft firht of 
what may properly be called the meraliiy 
of criticijm , but even they find that their 
critiques are not fo favourably received 
by the public as they deferve to be, trom 
zie want of that which they cannot bring 
themfelves to make ule of with the free- 
dom of their lefs tender-heartcd bre- 
thien.' 
The great fource of ail this evil appears 
to be in the fecrecy which covers the cri- 
icaliribunals. Were thefe literary cen- 
o affix their names to their refpective 
es, or at leaft in the title-pages of 
their publications, they would be more 
cautious how they give leofe to intem- 
perate wit, and would be under the ne- 
ceflity of taking more pains with, and 
mantiefting more candour to, an author’s 
produ€tions, than they now feel them- 
ielves difpofed to do. 
I fhall beg leave to clofe thefe obferva- 
tions with a tew remarks on the fame fub- 
ject made by that great man, Pope Cle- 
ment XIV. (Ganganelli) in a letter toa 
reviewer at Florence: 
. €€ Lalways read your writings with plea- 
“Tuse, my dear Abbé; but I with you would 
always give the reafons of yourcenfures. In- 
fiead of faying, for example, tbat the ftyle of 
puch 2 work is incorre; that there are trifies 
whico disfgure the beauty of tke book; you 
thould plainly preve the charge. Rules have 
aiways need ef examples. Huw would you 
Rave am author correct agofelf and tie pub= 
ote 
? 
oh, pe 
pat 
3 
icl 
2 
r 
rh a 
r4 * 
Pik ery Mey He 
Lal Lee : ‘ > 
\ pees ‘ - : $3 a 
Reviews... elpa Nidulans....Cretins. 
mmodate their criticifms to this viti-_ 
fFeb. - 
lic adopt your manner of judging, if you 
only cenfure vaguely, and do not point out 
the place where the writer has forgot him- 
feif? 
‘¢ There is hardly any book of which it 
may not be faid, that it contains fome care- 
lefs or afie€ted expreflions. When you fpeak 
in general, it gives room to believe that you 
have only glanced your eye over the work 
which you are giving an account, and that 
vou are in hafte to get rid of the trouble. 
¢¢ Another omiifion is, your not fhewing 
the beft parts of the work. The good tafte 
of the reviewer requires that lie fhould be 
attentive to this. if a work is not worth the 
trouble of readingy it is better not to an- 
nounce it at all, than to rail at the writer. 
It is illiberal to abufe a work merely to 
make the public merry at the expence of the 
author.” 
I am, Sir, your’s, 
Ww. 


To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
VEEING in your Magazine for No- 
vember laft, a fhort account of the 
vefpa nidulans, wii re it was faid to be 
only found in America, I beg leave to 
afk, through the medram of your Maga- 
zine, whether there 1s not a waip of nearly 
the fame kind in England; as about four 
or five years ago 1 sound a nett in a hay- 
loft, fixed to a beam, which, as well as 
T can now recollect, agreed in many par- 
ticulars with that defcribed in your Ma- 
gazine. 
It was fhaped like a turnip, though not 
fo flat, about three inches in diameter, 
the outfide confitted of a fubftance like 
thin pa, er Rriped with white and a bluifh 
grey, that was wrapped regularly round 
twelve or fourteen times, and in the center 
was the conib, waich did not contain any 
thing ; but when I tound the neftI fawa 
waip or two about it. 
This defcription of it is merely from 
memory, as it was pulled to pieces and 
deftroyed {con ater it was found. 
1 te A 
—— ee 
To the Editor of the Monihly Magazine. 
SIR, 
JERHAPS I am troublefome in call]- 
ing the attention of your readers fo 
frequently to the Cretins: but the fol- 
lowing paragraph, which I have tranf- 
cribed trom the Appendix to the twenty- 
third volume of the ** Monthly Review,” 
is {o curious, that J perfuade mytelf few 
perfons will think their time loft in pe- 
rufing it. The fubjeét of the critique 
are the letters of Mr. Matthifon, relating 
atour performed by him in the year 17855 
through 
