100 
the end of the fixth century, Theophy- 
laé& Simocatta, a Greek hiftorian, men- 
tions one, of which the fignification is 
fill  obfcure, 
Paris, 1647, p. 101.) He is ftyled, ac- 
cording to that writer, “% rovs Acwvac 
Pigovmcvoc,”” which the Latin tranfla- 
tors venders ‘* Ajonas mercede conducens,” 
without explaining the word Agwvas. Mr. 
Gibbon, however, in quoting this paflage, 
(See his Hiftory of the Decline and Fall 
of the Roman Empire, chap 46, note 
%4) makes ajonas fignify genii—but as 
_ he bas not given his authority for this 
interpretation, my objeét in thus addref- 
fing you is to requelt that fome of your 
ingenious Correfpondents may inform me 
where Mr, Gibbon found the word afonas 
fo explained- One naturally feeks for his 
authority in Burion’s <‘Leipfana Veteris 
Linguz Perlica’’—andinReland’s “Difler- 
tatiode Reliquiis Veteris Lingua Perfica :”” 
but we cannot find, in thefe learned writers, 
any information en the fubjeét of this 
word. Selden, in his “ Titles of Honour,” 
(vol. 3, p. 962.)  fuppofes it to have 
been ufed for Aufonas, and to fignify the 
Aulonians or peopleof Italy... Mr. Bryant 
in his “‘Analyfis of Ancient Mythology,” 
mentions a kind of imaginary beings 
called Zont or Azoni, ztherial eflences or 
emanations from the {un—but here is adif- 
fer:nce of termination as well as a change 
of the letter s into z. Mr. Wejfon in his 
<« Specimen of the Conformity of Euro- 
pean and Oriental Language (fecond edi- 
rion, pref. page xxv.) notices the obfcunity 
of this word afonas, and offers fome in- 
genious conjectures on its fignification— 
neverthelefs there is reafon to _ believe 
that the true meaning of this barbarous 
word is ftill unknown. P.@. 
Auguft 9, 1803. 
To the Editor of the Mouthly Magazine. 
Domeftic Literature fome firi¢tures on 
the poetry of Dr.Darwin are inferted,which 
fem to difpute his claim to thofe high 
povtic honors which a large portion of the 
public has conferred upon him. In the 
Biographical Memoir of this» icelebrated 
author, which appeared in your Magazine 
about atwelvemonth ago, a fimilar difpo- 
fition was, more at large, difplayed.““Now, 
Sir, I certainly do not mean to refufe any 
man the exercife of his private judgment, 
either in matters of tafte or argument: 
but I truft, it will not be deemed indeco- 
rous, if, in,oppofition to the fentiments of 
your two Correfpondents, I vindicate the 
SIR 
tbe your laft half-yearly Retrofpect of 
Ajfonas—-Remarks on Darwin. 
(See his work in folio, 
[ Sept. 1, 
poetry of Dr.Darwin, by Rating the opinion 
concerning it of a brother bard, whofe 
high qualifications to eftimate its excel- 
Jencies and defeéts it would be the height 
of arrogance and prefumption to difpute— 
WILLiam Cowper. 
In one of his familiar letters to Mr. 
Hayley, (fee Hayley’s Life of Cowper, 
vol. 11. p. 56) Cowper fays * What is to 
become of Milton, I know not; I do no- 
thing but feribble to you, and feem to have 
no relith for any other employment. I 
have, however, in purfuit of your idea 
to compliment Darwin, puta few ftan- 
zas together, which I fhall (ubjoin; you 
willeafily give them ail that you find 
they want, and match the fong with an+ 
other,” 
To Dr. Darwin, 
Author of the Botanic Garden, 
Two poets, (Poets, by report, 
Not oft fo well agree,) 
Sweet harmonift of Flora’é court ! 
Confpire to honour thee. 
They beft can judge a poet’s worth, 
Who oft themfel¥es have known 
The pangs of a poetic birth 
By tabours of their own. | 
We, therefore, pleas’d, extol thy fong, 
Though various, yet complete, 
Rich in embellifhment, as ftrong 
And Jearn’d as it is {weet. 
No envy mingles with our praife 5 
Tho’, could our hearts repine 
At any poet’s happier lays, 
They would, they muft, at thine. 
But we, in mutual bondage knit ; 
Of friendthip’s clofeft tie, 
Can gaze on even Darwin’s wit 
With an unjaundic’d eye; 
And deem the bard, whoe’er he be, 
And howfoever known, Mie 
Who would not twine a wreath for thee, 
Unworthy of his own, f 
Thefe lines are in themfelves very flat- 
tering, and, if we confider the author of 
them, they will be deemed peculiarly fo : 
for Cowper was not a man of unmeaning 
compliments ; what he wrote and what he 
fpoke, were equally the honeft effufions of 
his heart. Although Cowper would not 
rob the wreath of a brother poet of one 
fingle leaf, he would never lend his hand 
to entwine it round the brows of hina 
whom he thought unworthy of the honor 
to wear it. 
It is true, indeed, that no two poets 
can be more oppofite in their refpective 
ftyles of compotition thanDarwin and Cow. 
per; the former it muft be confefled addreffed 
his verfes to the ear, and the latter to the 
heart. The former polifhed every sea 
; an 
