1803. ] Mr. Shepherd's 
he could no otherwife be affected by his 
own defcription of vifible objicts than by 
general analogies of pleafurable idea: but 
by means of the affociated fentiments, he 
could convey high pleafure to others and 
to himfelf. 
On the writings of SANDERSON, no 
more needs to be faid than this: he could 
have no knowledge of fight and cofcurs : 
but of the laws of refizéfion and refrac- 
tion, which are mathematica! deductions 
and intelleftual relations, his want of fight 
was no obftacle to the accuracy and-ex- 
tent of his knowledge. In fine, fight, like 
other fimple /enx/fations, cannot be iearnt, 
norcan its images be conveyed by de!crip- 
tion, otherwiie than as that revives the re- 
collection ot objects already feen, and vari- 
oufly combines them. Jam Your's, &c. 
O2d?. 6,-1303. Capen LoFrr. 
In my little Latin Poem,for annus 1 requet 
an Erratum to be inferted, to read annuus ; 
for levia, read Jevia; for TROSTUNE, to 
read TROSTUN#, Be fo good as alfo to cor- 
rect a falfe quantity of my own which T have 
detected: and read, ** Que MatRi fimilis 
fuz.” 
—“ Sho 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, ) 
RELY upon your well-known can. 
dour for the admiffion into your Mif. 
cellany of a few lines in reply to the que- 
ries of G.D. concerning the exiftence or 
non-entity of Poggio’s Italian compofi- 
tions ; for neglecting to give fpecimens of 
which, inmy Life of that eminent feholar, 
I have been reprehended inthe third num- 
ber of the Elinburgh Review. 
I have reafon to fufpect, that, though I 
fhall in all probability convey no new in- 
formation to G. D. I may impart inftruc- 
‘ion to the writer of the critique on my 
work, which appeared in the above-men- 
tioned Journal, when I ftate that Poggio 
flourifhed in that period which has been 
fo precifely pointed out by Mr. Rotcoe ; 
when, after the death of Petrarca and 
Boccaccio, the Italian language for the 
{pace of a century, was negletted by the 
learned, and feemed to be falt reverting to 
barbarifm. ‘‘ At this period, (to adopt 
the words of the accomplithed biographer 
of Lorenzo de” Medici) no longer the ve- 
hicle of elegant or learned fentiment, the 
Italian language was configned over to the 
ufe of the vulgar, corrupted by neglcé&, 
and debafed by the mixture of provincial 
dialeéts. It was only on the moft common 
occafions, or in the freedom of epittolary 
intercourfe, that men of learning conde- 
fcended to employ their native tongue ; 
and even then it appears to have been 
Reply to. G. D. 401 
confidered as inadequate to the purpofe ; 
and the affiftance of the Latin language 
was often relorted to, and intermixed with 
it in ofder to renderit imtelligible.”* 
It then the {pecimens of Poggio’s Ita 
lian compofitions, which Melirs. tne Edin. 
burgh Reviewers think I ought to have 
exhibited, do really exift, they muft, as 
G.D. fays, be ** great curiofities.”” But 
An all my refearches intg the literary hifto- 
ry of the fifteenth and fixteenth centuries, 
(refeatches which have not been confined 
within very narrow limits) I have noc 
found any allufion to any fuch compof~ 
tions. 
Accident, however, or fuperior faga- 
city fometimes accomplifhes what is in 
vain attempted by induftry ; and it may 
perhaps be imagined ‘by. tome, that th 
Edinburgh Reviewers have been more 
fkilful or more fortunate than mytelf, and 
that in the courfe of their ‘extenfive ‘tra- 
veis or of their multifarious reading they 
have met with documents of this Gefcrip- 
tion, which eluded the vigilance of my 
refearches.—In reply to thofe who may 
be inclined to fall in with the above traia 
of reafoning, rather than fuppofe it potfi- 
ble that a grave critic could be fo abiurd, 
or fo ill-difpofed, as to blame an author 
for not producing a non-entty, F-muit, in 
juitice to mylelf, itate, that I have before 
me a letter from the author of the critique, 
which has eccalioned G. D.’s inquiry, ia 
which he confefles, that he is unable to 
point out any fuch compofitions. When 
apprized of this ‘circumftance, fuch of 
your readers as intereft them/‘elves in thefe 
matters will perhaps be inclined to fub- 
{cribe to G. D.’s conclufion, and to think 
that the critic. ‘ bears rather hard’? upon 
me in finding fault with me for not pro- 
ducing what it was impoffible for me, or 
himieif, or indeed any one elfe, to pro- 
duce. 1 
FE do not, however, in this particular 
inftance, impute to my cenfor any inten- 
tien of taking an uotair advantage of me. 
Tam very willing to put down this molt 
unreafonabie demand to tne {core.of igno- 
rance; an ignorance, however, which I 
cannot but elteem as extremely grols, 
For after the widely-extended circujation 
of Mr. Rofcoe’s Life of Lorenzo de’ Me- 
dici, even-mere Englifh readers who lay 
claim to the credit of accurecy of obferva- 
tion, are inexcufable in being ignorant, 
.that at the time when Poggio fiourified, 
Italian compolition, thouga it had pre- 
vioufly been brought to perfection by 
* Rofcoe’s Life of Lor. de’ Medici, vol. i. 
pe agi. 
Dante, 
