83 
the magic wreath intended by the Mufes, 
for their votary. How much more faith- 
ful is Mr. SoTHEBY’s line, : 
Who round my brow the wreath enchanted 
braids ? 
As Dr. Witt icH afferts he has fol- 
_ Towed the author fo /ierally, I may men- 
- tion, teo, that it was not neceffary to ule 
the epithet fd in the firft line, as the 
German word ihr fupplied him with ye, 
which is uled by Mr. SOTHEBY: 
Yet once again, ye Mufes, &c. 
Dr. WILLICH having fo freely com- 
mented on Mr. SorHeRy, I think im- 
partiality requires that his own errors 
fhould not pafs unnoticed: fince, there- 
fore, the Mufes do not feem, on this ac- 
eafion, to have been fo kzzd toward him as 
he may have fuppoiled, it is to be hoped 
he will rather devote his attention to fome 
of the very ufeful and interefting fubjects 
mentioned in the former part of his letter, 
and fuffer Mr. SOTHEBY (who certainly 
appears more capable of guiding the 
Hippogryf)} to foar unmolefted into the 
regions of romance. I am, fir, your 
humble fervant, Ss 
Hull, BENJ. THOMPSON, jun. 
#ug. 14, 1798. | , 
eee 
Te the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
(ieee are few books which I have 
ai. perufed more frequently, with higher 
pleafure, or with greater advantage, than 
<Warton's Ejay on the Genius and Writ- 
ings of Pope.” In confequence of this, I 
was among thofe who were the moft im- 
patient and the moit fanguine in their ex- 
peétations of the Critic’s edition of the 
poet, whofe character he had, before, fo 
well illuftrated. My expectations have 
been, like thofe of others, difappointed. 
But, expectation is, in fuch cafes, tyran- 
Yet, there is one fpecies of imperfeétion 
which I can lefs eafily pardon than I 
fhould many others, to a critic of the 
Englifh and the Oxford fchcol. If not 
the refinement and penetration of a phi- 
Jofopher; if not the wide yet accurate 
knowledge of human nature, which can 
only be gathered by genius, from the 
fcenes of real life: give us—would I fay 
to fuch a one—give us, at leaft, fome 
proofs of claffical erudition, and of that 
minute accuracy of reference and colla- 
tion, which no truly learned, and curi- 
oufly diligent claffical {cholar can ever 
fail to exhibit. 
* But,where were Dr. Warton’s erudition 
and carefw accuracy in matters of clatiical 
Remarks on Warton’s Pope. 
fAug. 
literature, when he ventured to affirm, 
<‘ that °¢ Pope’s Poemata Italorum” differs 
from the original edition of this feleétion, 
only by poffeffing the addition of the poem 
of © Aonius Palearius de Immorialitate Ani- 
ma?’ Inftead of adding but a fingle piece 
of no eminent merit, Pope has, in truth, 
in his edition, inferted a great number of 
new pieces, not at all inferior in excel- 
‘lence to thofe of which the collection was 
before made up. ‘ 
In the clafs of Paftorals, Pope has re- 
jected one by Heinfrus—one by Grotius 
——two by Buchanan; which appear in 
the original edition: but are none of thens 
very excellent. He has introduced, in- 
ftead of thefe, three by J. Bapt. Amaltheus 
Corydon, Sarnus, Silis; and three by 
Vida, Daphnis, Corydon, Nice. 
The “ Alcon’? of Fracaftorio, and the 
<¢ Poetica’? of Vida, are, as well as the 
‘© De Immortalitate Anime” of Aonius Pa- 
learius, among the didactic poems, with 
which Pope’s tafte and learning led him 
to enlarge this collection. 
All the elegies of Sannazarius, (fome of 
which have been pronounced by the late. 
Mr. Harris, of Malmefbury, to be the beft 
of all that Neapolitan poet’s producti- 
ons,) are among the additions of Pope. 
The pieces, too, by Molfa—the ** Nu- 
tricia,’ © Manto,” and “Ambra” of Po- 
litian—the «‘Benacus’’ of Bembo—moft 
of the {mailer pieces of Fracafterio—feve- 
ral.fmall pieces by Cattiglione—two epi- 
grams by H. Amaltheus alfo appear in 
the edition by Pope, although wanting 
in the primary edition. : 
Pope has virtuoully rejected one or two 
pieces which have a tendency to excite 
ummoral fentiments in the mind. 
I agree with Dr. Johnfon in regretting 
that Pope did not preferve the preface of 
the original edition; which I think ad- 
mirable, equally for the foundnefs of its 
criticifm, and the elegance of its com- 
ofition. 
Such is the edition given by Pope of 
the °* Poemata Italorum,’’ when confidered 
in comparifon with that original edition 
to which Dr. Warton deems it icarcely 
preferable. Why ithould the Editor, 
whether negligently or invidioufly, detract, 
from the praife of his author’s learning? 
Is it becaufe Pope: ftudied at neither Oni-~ 
verfity, that his learning is never to be 
otherwife than faintly and f{neeringly 
praifed? However this may be, E hope 
that you, fir, will have the goodnefs to 
give value and dignity to my correction 
of Dr. Warton’s miftake, by inferting it 
in your excellent Magazine. 
Edinburgh, May 7th. RHENOQg 
