770 
nine. Atoffa may refemble one paffionate 
and imperious woman, with:firong parts 
and quick feelings: but as a fetire on her 
tex it lofes its force ; for to how many 
of the other would the greater part apoly 
with equal apineis? Haughty and {lfith 
characters are certainly mof eommon 
among thofe who rule, how thould 4€ be 
othe: wife >—I am not ex:tavagant enough: 
to maintain, that nothing can with tuth 
be alleged again weman; alk that F 
have to fay to Chloe, therefore is, that a 
more con/ifient character was neverdrawn, 
and that apathy is not nezeflarily of the 
feminine gender. But our peet now for- 
fakes his leading maxim, that ** moft 
women have no characier at ali,’” hecaufe 
they are diftinguifhed by veriatility and’ 
inconiiftency ; which is indeed (uficicntly’ 
contuted by the very example of Chloe, 
who, though fhe approaches nearer to a 
mere wégative than any one he deicribes, 
is yet the mof unvarying charaéter of 
the whole. A new and totally diffrent 
doétrine is to be brought forwards : 
<¢ In men we various ruling paflions find 5 
In women, two almoft divide the kind ; 
Thofe, only fixed, they firft or laft obey, 
The love of pleafure, and the love of {way.” 
I believe the idea that every individual 
is governed by fome ene ruling paflioa, 
is now fo completely exploded, that no- 
thing need be faid in its confutation. But 
why our fex fhould be juppoted infiu~ 
enced by two only, is hard to conceive ¢ 
that this isnot the fa&, it would be caly 
to prove; ftiil eafier would it be to fhow 
that Pope himfelf cid not think fo when 
he brought ‘* Fhe frugal Crone,” and 
** poor Narciffa,”’ as apt examples of two 
other ruliog paffions, avarice and vanity, 
neither of which can be-refolved, without 
the utmoft violence to language, into 
either of the termer two. In this very 
piece indeed, the majority of the porivai- 
tures are compofed without any regaid 
to this pretended axiom, and aie incapa- 
ble of being folved by it. 
. That ‘* every woman is at heart a rake,” 
is a calumny that T fhall not ftoop to: 
difprove: it could only have entered the 
mind of a depraved man-converfayt with 
abandoned women. Indeed to confute a 
writer who is cantmually contradi@ing 
himielf, is but an idle tafk. To what 
coniufion of head, or perveitity of heart, 
can it be alcribed, that, after celebrating 
a woman, *f without one jarring atom 
made,”’ (as he has elfewiiere faid of 
another female) one whole {ex he in vain 
endeavours to render contemptible by a 
ftroke of the moit pitiful and teflelafs 
Enguiry concerning the Orphic Fragments. 
[Marchi fy 
Hippancy, he reverts again to his old 
maxim, ‘* Woman’s at beft a contradic- 
tion till?” By what fophiftry and abfur- 
dity too is this palpable untruth fup— 
ported! Our “ {corn of fools” accords: 
fingularly well with the love of fops of 
which he frequently acenfes us! “ Re- 
ferve and franknefs, truth and-art,’” are 
qualities fo: oppofite that they can never’ 
1eally be predicated of the fame perfon, 
whilit “ courage and foftnels, modeity: 
and pride,”’ ‘are difpofitions congénial 
enough to co-exilt without the fightett 
incongruly.—To literary eriticifm this 
Epiftle hes peeuliarly open; but that I 
fpave. If I have fuccerded in fhowing, 
what I believe to be true, that the two 
fexes have fo much in common, and fo: 
hile peculiar to each, that fcarce a fhafe 
can be aimed at one exclufively, which 
does not recoil upon fome vulnerable part: 
of human nature im generah; if I have 
proved Pope, notwithtanding Nis lofty 
pretenfions to morality, to philofophy,: 
aud to good fenfe, to have attacked our 
fex with malignity, flippancy, and in- 
decency, with injuftice, abfurdity and* 
isconfittency; I thall be more than fatis=: 
fied. I believe that he who renders we- 
man contemptible, encourages licentioul.. 
nefs, and injures human: happinels ; and: 
this pertuafion, exclulive of other motives, 
would have futhced to prompt me to be= 
come my {¢x’s champion. 
Lam, &c. 
CaMILLA. 
—sET 
Toe the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
MONG the feveral curious and very 
interefling fragments of Orphie’ 
Poetry edited by the Jearned Gelner, E. 
find, in p. 390, the following line: 
L Fey On Sy = 
6© Olvec, toy pikgace Sect, Suvros- T dvtewsro:.” 
And in the parable of Jotham, (goth 
Chap. of Judges) is the following text 5. 
‘* And the Vine faid unto them, Should E. 
leave my Wine which cheereth God and. 
Tan 2" 
It is well known that Clemens Alex- 
andiinus has pointed out feverah lines: 
which Homer appears to have copied from: 
that e/der fon of the Mufes handed down 
to us under the name of Orpheus; and, 
after attending to the Ariking fimilarity 
beth of idea and expreffion in the two. 
foregoing paflages, fome of your more 
Jearned readers will perhaps, through: 
the channel of your Magazine, favor me- 
with the defired 
information, whether 
there, 
