Bs01.7 
benefices in the church of England.. To 
the recognition of the Pope, as fpiritual 
head of the church, there can be little ob- 
jeCtion: it would tend to weaken that al- 
jiance between the church-.and the ftate, 
which is, by fome, confidered as hoftile 
to civil liberty. But-the celibacy of the 
clergy, that ceremony of the mafs which 
almoft renders the prieft himfelf an obje& 
of worfhip, and the practice of auricular 
confeffion continued after the age of ma- 
jority, ought, with the civil governor, to 
be obftacles. The obvious preparation 
for fuch a change would be a repeal of the 
ac of uniformity, and a marked patro- 
nage of thofe among the Englifh clergy, 
who, when thus fet at liberty, fhould be 
moft active in conciliating their feveral 
hearers to this fraternal union. It is 
proper too, that the patrons of advowfons 
be confulted about a public religion, 
avhich were beft accomplifhed by leaving 
them at liberty to prefent to ordained 
priefts of whatfoever particular tenets. 
Thus would any religion, to which the 
ma(s of property may lean, become pof- 
feffed of fanétioned temples, in propor- 
tion to the opulence of its followers. 
BARBARISM AND SOLECISM. 
The Greeks called all foreign nations 
barbarous : to barbarize in language con- 
fequently was to fpeak or write like a fo- 
reioner, or barbarian; and a barbarifm 
was a vitious form of fpeech worthy of 
a foreigner. 
A king of Cyprus, by Solon’s advice, 
founded a city called So/oi, in which fo 
many Athenian emigrants came to fettle 
that they permanently influenced the dia- 
‘Ject of the natives. To /olecize was to 
fpeak or write like the inhabitants of Solcz, 
that is, to ape the Athenians affectedly ; 
and a Soleci/m confequently was an unfac- 
cefsful attempt-to, copy the utmoft refine- 
ment of phrafeology. 
A barbarifm then is a fault of ftyle ori- 
ginating in rudenels andignorance; but a 
folecifm is a fault of ftyle originating in 
affectation and over-refinement. ; 
Shakelpeare fometimes faulters into bar- 
barifm, Ben Johnfon into folecifm. 
That the Greeks thus underftood the 
words, may be further inferred from the 
circumftance that, in morals, the derivative 
phrafes have been uled metaphorically with 
the fame relative’ fenfe ; barbarifm being 
applied to the ferocious, and folecifm to 
the effeminate vices. Thus: Tois de phro- 
némafin ‘o bafileus bebarbaréznenos ’ ércheto. 
And again: Solikixeim "ou monon epi 
phonés legetat, alla kai ‘epi tom kata ton bion 
‘etakios genomenon. 
h 
From the Port-Folio of a Man of Letters 228 
= 
A perverfion of the meaning of thefe 
terms began early among the Latin critics. 
Thus in a work which has been rafhly 
afcribed to Cicero: Vitiain fermone, quo- 
minus i$ Latinus fit, duo poffunt effe, folecif- 
mus et barbarifmus. Solecifmus eff cum 
werbis pluribus confequens verbum fuperioré 
non accomedatur.  Barbarifmus eff cum 
verbum aliquod vitiofe affertur. Rhetor. 
ad Herennium, lib. iv. c. 12. This mif- 
application of terms endures ‘throughout 
the whole courfe of Roman literature ; for 
Ifidorus Hifpalenfis, c. xxxii. fays: Solz- 
cifmus eff plurimorum wverborum inter fe 
taconveniens compofitios ficut barbarifimus 
unius verbs corruptio. 
‘WHY LIFT THE HAT? 
Fafhions, like prejudices, have common- 
ly fome latent utility; this fhould be in- 
veftigated and recorded, in order to pre-= 
vent attempts to lay afide the convenient. 
The old way of bowing had no fuch merit. 
Capita autem aperiri afpedu magifiratuum 
non venerationts caufa jufere, fed, ut Varro 
auctor eft, valetudinis, quo firmiora confue- 
tudine ed fiewent. Nat. Hift. lib. xxviii. 
¢. 6. According to Pliny then we pulled 
off our hats in falutation, that we might 
become lefs liable to catch cold: for our 
cuftom, no doubt, has derived from the 
Romans, 
markable for catarrhous diforders. Now 
that hats have neither taffels nor corners, 
it is far more conyenient only to touch than 
‘to Jift them. 
CRITICISM OF JOHNSON. 
Dr. Jobn{on’s Criticifm is not always 
fo precife as eloguent: he fays fomewhere : 
‘© In the writings of other poets a charac- 
ter is too often an individual; in thofe of 
Shakefpeare, it is commonly a fpecies.” 
. The diametrically oppofite pofition would 
have approacied nearer totruth. Shake- 
{peare delights to individualize his per- 
fons: and far from confining his imi- 
tation to thofe traits of character which 
are common to whole clafles, as Voltaire 
and-other French dramatifts have done, he 
officioufly brings into notice all thofe ac- 
cidents of complexion, figure, habits, di- 
aleét, difpofition, which were traditionally 
fuppofed to pecultarize an Othello, a Ri- 
chard, a Henry, a Shylock, a Macbeth. 
This practice is exactly what confers fo 
much appearance of lifeon his portraiture 
—fuch an air of reality on his perfonages ; 
and what has given to the Gothic plays of 
England and Germany an intereft fo fu- 
perior to that excited by the ancient, or 
the French drama. ‘The imitation of ge- 
neral nature, as it has been called, that is 
i the 
It did not anfwer this purpofe; - 
the Englith of the laft generation were re- | 
