2 Mr. Wakefield on Hume's Style...Mr. 1 
«¢ aeguize over 
<6 er.” 
‘“Fhere feems nothing faulty here, ex- 
cept that the fame éxpreffion has tdo re- 
cently preceded ; and a more difcriminace 
commendation would have been Hee 
as. follows:- “ They owed, all of them, 
any undue afeexdazt 
<¢ their advancement to the fagatity of 
“¢ her choice.’ 
‘*-In her family, in her gas in her 
kingdom, fhe remazucd equally. miftrefs. 
‘The force of the tender paffions was 
<« great’over her, but 24¢ force. of ber mind 
“was ftill fuperior ; and rhe’ combat 
** which her victory viffoly coft ber, ferves 
only. to difplay the trmnefs of her re- 
“ fobation, and the loftinefs of her améi- 
<6 ious, feniuments. 
€ 
“¢ 
“ 
Remained, in this ufe, is feeble, and 
void of tafte: the force of ber mind is a 
phrafe inclegant in itfelf, and without 
beauty in this appofition; and amé:tiox 
fimply’ had been much better, in con- 
nection with refolutcon, than the affected 
periphrafs, arb:tious fentiments. 
«© The fame of this primcefs, though it 
« has furmounted the prejudices doth of 
«<' fadtion and bigetry, yet lies full expofed 
«to, another prejudice, which is more 
“ durable, becaufe - more natural ; and 
«which, accordmg to the ger cad views 
« in’ which we furvey her, 4s’ capabie 
«¢ either of exalting beyond meafure, or 
«“ dimiifhing the luftre:of her charac- 
€¢ ter, e 
As nothing was faid above of any thing 
but redigrous fabtions, the words, Jz of 
aétion and bigotry, ave inaccurate and in 
diftiné. The charaéter of the paffege, 
inftead of the difparag ging term prejudice, 
evidently required a word of middle power, 
as It 1S meade po a ea of two oppolite 
applications. © ** More natural’ 3s fcolnh : 
no cemparifon is “necolar, and none, in 
reality, was inrended Whether ta fur- 
vey according to a wew be either Englith 
phrafeology. or even fenfe, | much que 
ftion ; and, “0 exalt a lufixe will command 
no great admiration from readers of tafte. 
Befides, Yegularity dem ands’ this coy 
tion of the words :-—* either of exalt- 
« ing, or diminifhing, beyond meafure, 
« the luftre---” Meafire, too, as applied 
to lufire! Who ever heard of a peck of 
noon fbi né 2 
«This prejudice is founded on the 
* <onfideration of her fex. .When we 
«© contemplate hers woman, we are 
«¢ apt to be Sfiruck ® ‘the bigheft admi- 
‘< ration of her great qualities vand-exten- 
s¢ five capacty ; but we arg alfo apt: to re- 
* 
lichals’s Vindication [July, 
“ quire” nies more Yofeuets of difpof tion, 
“ fome greater lenity of temper, fome of 
‘“* thofe amiable weaknefles, by which her 
“ fex is diftinguifhed.”’ 
For jiruck we fhould fubftirute fricken, 
the proper participle of frz#e. And what 
1s an extenfive capacity, but a great qualily ? 
What an improper diftinGtion, then, have 
we here! Nothing, too, can be more 
paltry than the phrales ‘fome more, Yome 
greater. He fhould have omitted: /ome, in 
both inftances. ¢ ; 
<¢ But the true method of eftimating 
«< her merit is to lay afide all thefe conf- 
& derations, and confider her merely.as a 
“¢ rational being, placed in authority, and 
“« entrufted with the government of man- - 
eo kamnd: 2 
By no means. A woman 1s to be ron- 
fidered as fuch : ; and, if fhe have difplay- 
ed qualities of any kind, not “ufuaily ex- 
hibited by her fex, the better wii! her title 
be 2 a larger portion uf praife or infamy. 
‘ We may find it difficult to reconcile 
‘“ our fancy to her, as a wife or a mif- 
** trefs ; but her qualities as a fovercign, 
‘“‘ though with fome confiderable excep- 
“* tlaps, are the objet of _undifputed ap- 
‘* plaufe and approbation.” 
The latter part of this period: is every 
way iaudabie. What is meant by the 
words, *¢ thongh with fome confiderable 
‘© exceptions,” is. not very clear, from 
their pofition in the context. Inftead of 
objet, he fhould have put /véjeG ; and 
applaufe, Mali -prepriety, thould have fol- 
lowed approbation. 
In thort, I feel no dificulty in flating 
my own cpinion, in the moft unequtvecal 
and -unrelerved language 3that the fiyle 
of Hume, in this hiftory, is replete with 
every’ fpecics of harthnets, coarfenefs, 
saat: and impropriety; that there 
e not /wvo well-written periods together 
ae the whole work ; that corredine/s and 
elegance are very rarely found indeed, and 
true digaily of compofition, zever, There 
is no inftance, I think, on record, of fo 
great a reputation for good Wwrithhg, | that 
refis on fuch a flimfy and fenciful foun- 
dation. GiLBertT WAKEFIELD. 
Hackney, Fune 18th, 1797- 

To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
N your Magazine for December laft, 
page 851, acorrefpondent alks, Whether 
Dr.. FARMER received f{ubfersptions for 
the Antiquities of Leicefter, and whether 
“the book has been publifhed > Without 
entering into the motives for fuch a que- 
ftion, 
