1801. ]Cogan on Profody — Remarks on Memsirs of thePrince of Parma. 485 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
N my remarks on the pau in the hex- 
ameter Verle, called xarz tpsrov tpoya007, 
I fhould not have forgotten to notice fuch 
lines as the following : 
Fulspec ev aha n@Azoy arepp.ova NYpEToV UTVEy. 
This cafe, indeed, L confider as a Species of 
Sefquicefura, in like manner as the place 
of the ordinary cefura is often fupplied by 
a monofyllable, as 
Hoc faterit, Scio mg Danais de claffibus unum. 
In endeavouring to explain the caufe why 
‘the above-mentioned paufe is fo agreeable 
to the ear, I fhould have taken into the 
account the natural fweetnefs of the trochee. 
With refpec& to the ufe of fuch words 
as améntes in the Latin poets, I find, upon 
enguiry, that Lucretius, after the Greek 
manner, frequently ufes them after the 
Sefquicefura ip the third foot, as, 
Cumfremitu,fevitgue mraci murmurepontum ; 
that Ovid generally fets a fhort monofyl- 
lable before them, as likewife Virgil, who 
employs tiem very rarely, except at the 
cloie of the verfe, in which, if I miftake 
not, heis followed by Lucan, Statius, Sili- 
us Italicus, Valerius Fiaccus, and Clau- 
dian. The reafon of the fhort monofyl- 
lable appears to be, that; by being uttered 
with the following word, it produces to 
the ear the effe& of fuch a word as v?- 
nitntes, which is readily admitted into 
that ftation of the verfe. That this is the 
fa&, is manifeft from the following confi- 
deration, that the Latin poets, who do not 
like fuch words as wvinientis at the end 
of the verfe, are equaily averfe to the fhort 
monofyHable before fuch words as amintis 
at the clofe of the line; bur that the 
Grecks, who often terminate their hexa- 
meter with fuch words as xzrevevrev, have 
alfo no objeétion to fuch terminations as 
en ce wapeen, Hom, Il. i. ¢55: And 
petbaps it is for the fame reafon that the 
Greeks have no obijeGion to a word of two 
fhort fyllables before the concluding 
fpondee, as, vo rasdz, Il. ti. 731. Lucre- 
tius, who in this alfo has the authority of 
the Greeks, occafionally ufes fuch words as 
amantes in the following ftation of the verfe : 
Sive uZlipras eft, five eft contrarius ardor. 
To which Virgil has approached very near 
in one or two inftances, as, 
Melle /Zpirdtam et medicatis frugibus offam. 
Whether the following line of Lucre- 
tius can plead any authority or parallel 
exampie, I do not know: 
Per fimulacra lozim cetera, que videt que. 
. The whole matter is of no great confe- 
quence ; but no peculiarity is too minute 
' to deferve notice. Iam,Sir, your’s, &c. 
= Chefeunt, Fune 2, 1801. E, CoGanN. 
MONTHLY MAG, NO, 74. 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SiR, 
6 be E Memoirs of fome Sovereign 
Princes, given in your late Num- 
bers, while they have, I doubt not, grati«. 
fied and informed your Readers, have pro- 
bably afforded to fome of them confiderable 
matter for foeculation. The general firain 
of them is perhaps not perfe&ly accordant 
with the ufus] fpirit of your Mifcellany ; 
yet I fhould defpife the bigotry of one who 
fhould blame their infertion on that ac- 
count. It is enough, if you are ready to 
give place to fuch remarks as may be 
thought ufeful to correé&t any faife bias 
which their writer may have contraGied. 
I thall at prefent defire that favour from 
you, with refpe& to a few cbfervations on 
the Memoirs of the prefent Duke of Parma. 
The mof remarkable thing related of 
this potentate is the account of his educa- 
tion; by which it appears, that, as far ag 
nature would permit, there was a chanfice - 
that even a prince of the Spanifh line 
might have attained a portion of light and 
knowledge. The writer fairly lets us 
knew, that this favourable profpect was 
owing to the choice made of the celebrated 
Abbé de Condillac for a preceptor—a.man 
well known to the literary world asan im- 
genious and profound treafoner on the 
raoft important topics relative to the hu- 
man mind, as well as an elegant writer. 
He gives an infirvétive account from Con- 
dillac himfelf of the procefs followed in 
e 
opening the pupil’s underftanding ; and he 
concludes with lamenting, that thé prince 
fhould have loft all thefe advantages, by 
**« becoming addicted to falfe devotion.” 
So far all is well and confiftent; but in 
the next column we-find a very different 
reprefentation given of the affair. Borrowing 
lights from the Abbé Barruel’s difcoveries, 
he imputes the whole of this project of 
making a prince fomewhat better than a 
puppet, to a deep-laid plot of the French 
Encyclopedifts, who, doubtlefs, thought it 
a wonderful ftroke to feat philcfophy upon 
a throne of Italy. D°Alembert, ‘a pre- 
fefled Atheiit,”’ it feems, propofed Condil- 
lac, another ‘* profefled Atheift,” for the 
Prince’s tator. It might feem extraordi- 
niry that men of this charaSter fhould be 
applied to on fuch an cecafen ; but we 
foon after find this fuppofed Atheifm 
foftened down to ** Ma2terialiim,” which 
is underftood to be a fynonymous term. 
We in England know, however, that one 
of the acuteft philofophers of ‘the age, 
who, fo far from being an Atheift, is a 
very zealous Chriftian, makés no fcruple 
of declaring him‘ealf a Materialift. The 
truth of the matter then feems to be, that, 
3K by 
fxs 
