212 
one not likehimfelf, who cannot keép his 
tongue fill on a fubject of which he is 
ignorant, from one who will not firft pur- 
Join the wit of another, and afterwards 
mifapply it to overturn a very ufeful in- 
veltigation as yet in its infancy, becaufe 
he pofiefles no capacity of effecting it 
from his own refources. 
Bath, R. Gittum, M.D. 
— Ee 
To tbe Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
) H.C. fays, ina former magazine, 
o that when {peaking concerning 
Mr. Simeon’s fkeleton, he had *‘no other ob- 
ject in view than to ftate what appeared to 
him a plain truth, and that he did not 
mean to difcredit your infiructive mifcel- 
lanye re 
What objeéts people may have in view 
who write under concealed names, is not 
always very evident, and thofe who have 
the leat knowledoe of mankind are not'in 
the habit of giving them implicit credit for 
their regard to plain truth. But I will 
even admit the fincerity of R. H.C. and 
add, that § never meant to infinuate, thata 
man might not juftly avail himfelf of a 
magazine to fhew refpect to a work of 
merit, or what he fuppofed to be fuch. 
My obfervation was directed againtt fuch 
as injure works of genius and learning, 
{as Robinfon’s work undoubtedly is, be 
his fentimencts what- they may,) and who 
aim to raife their awn reputation, or the 
reputation of their friends, on the ruin of 
others. Nodifrefpectful infinuations were 
meant on my fide againft evangelical men: 
a_fincerely evangelical man I refpect as 
much as R. H. C. can; but it does not 
follow, that every thing faid or done by 
people cailed evangelical, is to be received 
as gofpel. And héreI leave this matter ; 
T will not trouble R. H.C. with any fur- 
ther obfervations, fhould he think proper 
to notice this letter. The little commu- 
nications I have for two or three years paft 
fent to the Monthly Magazine, appear 
with my name at full length; and it was 
certainly imprudent in me, fo far as my 
own intereft is concerned, to engage in 
the fmalleft altercation, where on the one 
fide is all the advantage of concealment, 
and on the other all the inconvenience of 
an open avowal ofname. I remain, &c. 
-G. Dyer. 

Yao the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
T OFFER my thanks to your corre- 
Jt fpondent, p. 23, for his information 
concerning Latin negatives. On his cri- 
Mr, Dyer.—Mr. Singleton. 
nikal. 
is entirely nugatory and might as well 
[ April I, 
tique on my cuotation from Virgil. per- 
mit meto fay a few words. Jt is true, 
my method of conftruing the paffoge in 
queftion is different from that which he 
prcpotes: I have always been.accuftomed 
to apprehend it thus; Tite nec aufus eff, 
nec potuit facere nihil. And this ftill 
feems to me the moft plain, natural, and 
obvious conftruétion; elpecialy fince, 
even admitting his mode of interpretation, 
the collifion ot tie negatives is not thereby 
diffolved, as the fubftantive zibi/, not- 
withfanding his zegative, muft fill be 
applied to facere in the two fubfequent 
members of the fentence; the active verb 
facere requiring an objettive cafe after it, 
without which the fentence would be in- 
complete, and zzhil being the only fub- 
ftantive which the Latin idiom will war- 
rant in this place. Therefore fuppofing, 
with your correfpondent, the verb fecit to 
be underftood, the pafiage, if written in 
full, according to the fyntaétical order and 
dependance*of the words on each other, 
wili ftand as follows: Ifte fecit nihil, nec 
aufus ef facere nibil, nec: potuit facere 
So that his criticifm, either way, — 
have been omitted. 
Upon further inveftigation, I find, in- 
deed, that other of the beft Latin poets 
have not always obferved that nice diftinc- 
tion of terms which might have been ex- 
pected; but ‘ometimes ftrangely diftort 
them from their »rimary and literal import, 
and that without any apparent reafon. 
I fhall illuftrare my meaning by two ex- 
amples from Horace. ‘The firft is taken 
from B. 2. Od. 12. ab initio. 
Nolis longa ferze bella Numantie 
Nec dirum Annibalem, zec Siculum mare 
Peeno purpureurn fanguine, mollibus 
Aptari citharz modis 5 
Nec feevos Lapithas, e¢ nimium mero 
Hyleum ; domitofgue Herculea manu 
Telluris juvenes, &c. 
The fecond example oecurs in B. 3. Od. 
Del. 4r-44c 
Quod fi dolentem #ec Phrygius lapis, 
Nec purpurarum fidere clarior 
Delenit ufus, zec Falerna : 
Vitis, Acheameniumgze coftum, &c. © 
Tn the above paflages there is evidently 
a confufed aflociation of copulative and 
disjun€tive conjunctions, the fignification 
of which is here neceffarily required to be 
identical. But great poets, perhaps, like 
fome great perfonages, enjoy a privilege of 
occafionally tranfereffing thofe laws which 
bind the ordinary clafs of mankind. 
Hanflope, Lam, &c. 
Feb. 21, 1800. W. SINGLETON. 
