326 Remarks on Mr. Grani’s Reply to the British Critic. [May 15 
Macklin, indeed are over, and their ex- 
ainple is vanished without bequeailiing 
either stimulus or knowledge, to suc- 
ceeding Macenases; yet Stothard, Fuseli, 
and after them an innumerable train of 
minor historic painters, have derived the 
greater part of their employment from 
sources of a similar kind The nobility 
of the land purchase the books, to which 
the engravings from their pictures are 
annexed, and are content to be their 
patrons at second hand. 
Such, on the whole, is a sketch of the 
inadequate state of public knowledge, 
and public attention, with respect to the 
arts of painting and sculpture. ‘That 
there is a growing expression of desire 
towards them, discoverable in a large 
part of the public, no one can reasonably 
doubt; but it is desire unmatured, un- 
formed, unauthorized. We judve as yet 
but of their surface. Of their nature, 
their properties, their constitutional 
growth and progress, it may without 
struple be asserted, that we are, in this 
country, Ignorant; if not wholly, at least 
too much so, to hope for any summary 
accomplishment of their highest excel- 
lences. The foundat»ns of these must 
be laid im general, solid, regular, and 
permanent study. They are not super- 
ficial; they do not lie'in the hand; they 
will never start out of ignorance. Their 
seeds are sown by the immediate hand 
of Providence; but their maturity is 
neither a gift nor an inspiration beyond 
the ordinary processes of nature. 
, Ee 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazize. 
SIR, 7 
Not wates only, but grammatici form the 
genus irritabile. 
UTHORS in general are like the 
Archbishop in Gil Blas; they 
court criticism, but are displeased if it 
does not confer unqualified praise upon 
them. 
Of this we had an instance in your 
last Number, (p. 141, &c.) in ‘the let- 
terof Mr. Grant. I had read the ob- 
servations of the British Critic on his 
Latin Institutes, and had in consequence 
of that. character purchased the book. 
Wishing for information on the subject of 
Latin Grammar, I did not object to the 
Author’s adoption of materials from 
other. writers. This was, in my opinion, 
# recommendation of the book. 
‘Dissimilar must be the object of the 
critic. He is bound by his office to de- 
tect plagiarisms, whether they affect the 
authenticity of the writer or not. Hay- 
ing imbibed the rudiments of Latin in 
Dr. Valpy’s Grammar, I recognized my 
ald friend’s in the poetical rules given 
by Mr. G. Our author represents the 
critic as ‘ petulant,” because he: has 
@iscovered, that he took “* a few verses 
trom Dr. V. respécting the gender of 
nouns.” ‘The fact is, that he has taken 
not only all the verses on the gender (p..30- 
52 of the Institutes), ‘but those on de- 
feetive verbs (p. 121--122), besides a 
certain proportion of prose, which might 
be pointed out, from Dr. V.’s Grammar. 
These verses are so totally different from 
those in other grammars, that I cannot 
but call them “ original,” although Lily 
certainly devised the three special rules, 
and Despauterius and older gramma- 
rians mentioned the irregularities in 
verbs. That Mr, G. has not always neg- 
lected to acknowledge his originals ap- - 
pears from page 37, in which he quotes 
verses from the Westminster Gramimar, 
though I believe that Dr. Busby himself 
laid no more claim to originality than 
Dr. V. probably does. And yet the me- 
rit of versification in Lily’s, Busby’s, and 
Valpy’s Grammars will be acknowledged 
by those. who compare it with that, of 
Clarke, Milner, Holmes, and some-other 
grammarians. Technical and. didactic 
versification presents greater. difficulties 
tham-any other species of poetry. Vir- 
gil bestowed greater labour on the’ 
Georgics, than on the Pastorals, or even 
on the /Eneid. ‘ 1 cate 
A plagiarism froma lving author. 
seems to be the ground of the critic’s 
objection. Dr. Carey, in his excellent 
book on Prosody, has taken the metrical , 
rules of Alvarez, and with unquestioned 
propriety. 
Mr. G. has by way of recrimination 
found some grammatical inaccuracies in 
the British Critic. —To your experience 
and candour, Mr. Editor, who. are so 
remarkable for correctness, I may justly 
appeal on this subject. You, who, like the 
Critic, are obliged to print periodically, 
know the difficulty of being perfectly ac- 
curate in the hurry of composition ;, and 
if your correspondents are correct, you 
know that the printer will sometimes, 
almost unavoidably, shew the woful ef- . 
fects of haste and hurry... As well might 
Mr, G. expect accuracy in a daily paper. 
The efforts of the British Critic to sup- © 
port the cause of the religion and of the, 
government of this country have merited 
‘the praise of good intentions, and. they, 
not unfrequently present their, readers 
with articles of real excellence, although 
a few 
