400 
God’s name, are they not two or three 
inches longer ?—In a charge with the 
bayonet it is clear that the viétory muft 
be on that fide which is able to inflict 
the firft wound! - 
The Ruffians, it is well known, were 
indebted folely to the unufual length of 
their bayonets, for their viétories over the 
French in Italy. z 
Thefe obfervations claim inftant atten- 
tion, becaule the charge with the bayonet 
is notorioufly a favourite meafure of 
French m litary tactics, and the expence 
~ of horle-piltols and of full-fized bayonets, 
can be no object in the conteft in which 
we are engaged. 
| - COMMON SENSE. 
London, OF. 11, 1803. 
Se 
_ Io the Eaitor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, | 
ROLIX as I may have lately been, I 
have really much lefs time than incli- 
nition for metaphyfical diftuffions. An 
incidental remark, however, of your Cor- 
refpondent, * who obferves ‘on’ fome pofi- 
tions in Mr Burke's Effay on the Sublime 
and Beautiful, isduces me to fay fome- 
thing. 
_ Your Corre/pondent fappofes that werds 
might and vid convey to BLACKLOCK, 
the poe, aithough d4ad from his birth, 
“§ the picture, or reprefentation, of the thing 
Sgnified” by the word. And that in fact, 
from his great defire to have a conception 
of wifial objects, BLAaCKLOCK acquired 
that conceptions through the inftrumen- 
tality of words; as a man who has never 
feen a pyramid may acquire an idea of it 
by verbal defcription. And -he argues, 
that, had he not acquired this conception, 
he never could have combined ina new 
way with great propriety, energy, and in- 
ftruction, images of the objects of fight. 
Aind, again, your Correfpondent repeats: 
from the fame Effay the inftance of Pro- 
feffor SANDERSON, and of his knowledge, 
as. your,Corre/pondent fuppoiles, of light 
and colour. 
I think it isevident from this, that your 
Correfpondent imagines that words are 
the proper reprefentatives ot vifible objed&ts. 
And farther, that they do more by far, in 
‘finitely more, than the vifible objects have 
the power of doing: that they can excite 
' the°crigizal fenfation in thole who want 
the weans of receiving it, and can pive an 
idea of whatever is the object of fight, to 
thofe, who are without fight, and have al- 
ways been without it. 
SSS 
* ‘P.216. 
Letter from Mr. Lofft. 
[Nov. 1, 
Now, words are of the proper reprefen. 
tatives of viible objects. ‘They convey 
not any natural image or idea of fuch ob- 
jects ; as they do, though imperfectly, 
imitate found, motion, extent, harfhnefs, 
{moothnefs, and fach qualities. With 
refpeét to vifible objects, they ‘are mere 
figns for the purpofe of recollection, combi= 
nation, arrangement and abjfraétion. If 
Ihave feen red or green objects, and am 
told how they are named, the word, writ- 
ten or pronounced, conveys to my imagi- 
nation the recolleéted idea of ‘the colour 
once feen. But it is not morean image or 
reprefentation of that colotir, fuch as can 
give thofe an idea of it who. have never 
feen it, than Royge or Verd is, or any other 
words of any other language. A man 
who bas the ufe of fAght can be readily 
made to comprehend an idea of the figure 
of a pyramid, and can form an outline in 
his mind of its appearance, without having 
ever feen it. A man without fight might 
be made, from feeling, to diftinguifh it 
from a fphere or cube; but would have 
no idea of its wi/fdle figure. 
Yet a man dlimd trom his birth may 
poeticaliy deftribe vifibie objects with 
great effect on the imagination. Why 
he can do this, wil! be very apparent on 
confidering the nature of poctical defcrip- 
tion. The power of this de‘cription is 
very greatly derived fiom the affociated 
ideas.of the accompanying /ez/es, of moral 
fentiment, of the affections and of the in- 
tellectual analogies. Vifible objects, by per- 
petua} and infinitely variable ‘aflociations, 
prefent the moft interefting and full af-. 
femblage of thefe ideas. And’ by means 
of them, taking gezzral hints of the objeé&s 
from the defcription of others, a blind -~ 
poet may paint to the imagination very 
impréfively ; and the more impreffively, 
from the furprife which the attempt ex- 
cites ; and from our fympathy for the con- 
dition of the writer, which the very nature 
of fauch defcription very fotcibly awakens. 
Bur in his dire&t delineation of wifible ob- 
jets, as he is neceflarily a copyi/? on truft 
without ideas of his own, he can be no 
more particular than “his powers: and 
muft either be general, or incur manifeft 
plagiarifm. He cannot paint like Homer 
(whe was certainly not born blind) or hke 
Virgil, Spenjer, Taffo, or Roufeau. He 
cannot paint like the inimitaole THom- 
sON: nor like Pore, in his defcription 
of a Moonlight Landfcape, in his Iliad. 
Tints, gradations, fhades, . reflections, 
diftances, aérial perfpective, all thefe a 
man muft have fight to defcribe to others. 
Where Blacklock was a direct — 
€ 
