1803.] Sirifures on the Retrofped? of American Literature. aii 
eonclufion KAIOQ. AHMOC @O@PTE- 
THN, has frequently been -obferved in 
other infcriptions, the verb being ufually 
omitted. Dr. Raine ingenioufly conjec- 
tures, in his letter to the Secretary of the 
Society, that the name of the Prefeét, who 
caufed the pillar ta be erected, was IIOM- 
{IH1IOC, and from that circumftance it 
may have been called Pompey’s Pillar, 
for there are precifely fix charaéters want- 
ing to fill up the hiatus. ‘The four dotted 
letters were not-completely decyphered, 
though, from thole at the beginning and 
conclufion of the word, there can be no 
doubt that the name was Diocletian. By 
confulting the hiftory of that era, we 
find, that this Emperor, after he had ap- 
peafed the rebellion in Egypt, was peculi- 
arly honoured in Alewandria; we learn 
alfo that he and his colleague M:ximian 
arrogated to themfelves the titles and epi- 
thets of divinity; and, it appears from 
the writers of thofe times, that erecting 
monuments, building palaces, and a ftrong 
inclination for every fpecies of architec- 
‘ture, was the prevailing paffion of Diocle- 
tian. It feems, from the Memoir, that it 
was not without difficulty, that the gen- 
tlemen, whom we have mentioned as hav- 
ing difcovered the infcriptions, effected 
their purpofe ; it was only when the fun 
fhone obliquely on the pillar that the cha- 
acters were difcernible, fo that, but fora 
few minutes in the day were they able to 
profecute their refearches. We learn, 
from Dr. Raine’s letter to the Secretary, 
that Captains Leake and Squire, and Mr. 
Hamilton, in their paffage from Athens to 
Malta, were fhipwrecked off the land of 
Cerigo, and that all their papers, journals, 
8c. were loft ;—-3 misfortune never fuffict- 
‘ently to be lamented by the literary world. 
Captain Leake and Captain Squire, in 
their. Memoir, ftate, that a fac-fimile of 
the infcription, in melted fulphur, may be 
expeéted when our troops return from 
Egypt, as thefe gentlemen, at their depar- 
ture, requefted a friend to continue the 
calt which they had begun. M. S. 
—aae 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
AVING been among the earlieft of 
your fubfcribers, the fourteen ve- 
lumcs of your ufeful Mifcellany form a 
valued addition to my little library. Al- 
theugh with few pretenfions to fcience or 
learning, curiofity has fufficiently intereft- 
ed mein the information you have fur- 
nifhed of their progrefs in the world ; and 
from none @ your pages have I derived 
more amufement than from thofe you have 
devoted to the retrofpeétive view of do- 
mettic and foreign literature, given in your 
Supplementary Numbers. Engaged in 
the cares of my counting-houfe, without 
time or talents to acquire knowledge from 
lefs acceflible fources, I am fatisfied with 
the epitome given.me by a few of our Re- 
views, and your Magazine; and the more 
fo with the refpeét to the latter, as I have 
perceived no occafion to diftruft your can- 
dour. Imagine then, Sir, the furprife and 
eoncern with which I obferved, in your 
laft Supplement, that, after giving the 
ufual ** Retrofpeét of American Litera- 
ture,”” you immediately fubjoin, and there- 
by feem to adopt, the ** Animadverfions of 
a Gentleman lately arrived from Ameri- 
ca,’ as deftitute of -candour as of the 
knowledge requifite to the ‘fubject; and 
who, by attempting it, has manifefted no- 
thing more clearly than his fitnefs to cone 
tribute to the OllaPodridas of honeft Noah 
Webfter, of whofe works, by the bye, 2 
twenty years refidence in America never 
introduced me to any knowledge, unlefs 
in the public advertifements intended to 
promote their circulation. Were I alfo 
difpofed to colleét {pecimens of national 
talent from fign-pofts, I could’divert your 
readers with a little felection of my own, 
made within the found of Bow-bell: but 
I leave ridicule to thofe who feemore cleare 
ly than J do its ufe in grave difcuffion. 
Had the ‘* Animadverfions” filled a few 
of your common columns, their wit weuld 
at lealt have been inoffenfive to me, and 
might have diverted fome of your nume- 
rous readers; but, occupying their gre- 
Jeat fiation, they feem to derive a fanction 
from your authority, which intitles them to 
more notice. I will not deny the candour 
“or fapacity of their author, in admitting 
that fome allowance is to be made for the 
inferiority in fcience to Britons, of the 
aboriginal natives of America; inafmuch 
as, without the leat knowledge of our 
language, they can derive none from the 
writings of our authors. His admiffions, 
indeed, are fufficiently liberal to refute the 
doétrine he inculcates of the abfolute fu- 
periority of Britifhh over American intel- 
le&t. A writer who pompoully fets out 
with the profeffed intention of fhewing 
‘* the decay of Britifh genius in its Tranf= 
atlantic foil,”> and concludes tantamount 
with a conceffion, that the difgracetul 
ftate of literature in America ariles not 
from ‘* any actual deficiency of genius,” 
and who, in the fame pages, affigns other 
_very-fofficient caufes for the manifelt infe- 
riority of its cultivation, which he affects 
Lez to. 
