1804. J flexande. 
queftion from Hackney, a village near 
London, becaufe, it was there, they al- 
ledge, that coaches were firft Jet out for 
hire, and that afterwards all coaches or 
horfes fo Jet out came to be denominated 
hackneys. A. Hi. 
London, Fuly 15, 1804. 
: ti 
To the Editor of the Montkly Magazine. 
SIR, 
\ S your Correfpondent P, has taken 
up the fubjeét of the ufe, in’ the 
Englifh language, of two fubftantives in 
appefition, which occurs very frequently, 
and jeems to be but little underitood by 
peopie in general; I beg leave to fubmit 
to him whether the ule of the hyphen 
ought ever to be difpenfed with when this 
caie occurs; as J think that the inftances 
I fhall now recommend to his notice wiil 
fhew that the grammatical confruction of 
meny fentences intirely depends on that 
mark: for inftance ; 
A Brick-Houfe—(a Houle in which Bricks 
are made.) A brick Houfa—(a Houle 
built of Brick.) Diamond-Scales—(Scales 
for weighing Diamonds.) Diamond Scales 
—(Scales made of Diamonds.) 
Many fimilar inftances exift ; fo that I 
cannot but think that the hyphen fhould 
be conflantly ufed whenever two Subftan- 
tives are placed in appofition. In the ex- 
amples produced from Murray’s Gram- 
mar, I am forry to fay, that two cut of 
the four appear to me erroneous, viz. a 
mahogany Table; a flver Tankard; as 
the firft rules in all grammars that I have 
feen teach us that mahogany and filver, in 
thefé and fimilar inftances, are clearly and 
decidedly adjectives, and of courfe fhould 
not be joined by hyphen, nor brought as 
examples of two Subitantives in appofition. 
Some obje&tions, alfo, may be made to 
the examples given by P, viz. agold Watch, 
County-Politics, Houfe-Lamb ; as geld is 
(I think improperly) ufed for golden, 
which every one muft allow to bean ad- 
jective, and the others are two Sub(tan- 
tives in appofition, which ought to be 
marked as compound Subfiantives by the 
inferticn of the Hyphen. 
London, July 4, 1804. 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
Non ego Pellaas arces, adytifque rete€tum. 
Corpus ALEXANDRI pigra Mareftide mer- 
gam? Lycan. 
sIR, 
KNOW not that I fhovld have 
troubled you again upon the fubje& of 
°5 Tomb. 5 
ALEXANDER’S tomb, had the letter of your 
Correfpondent Davus been withheld. In 
our Magazine of Jaft month, he corrects 
a miftake I had fallen into with regard to 
teltimonies adduced by Mr. Clarke, that 
the Sarcophagus at the Mufeum really was 
the tomb of Alexander, and adds, ** that 
if dipus were a firanger to them till the 
time of his writing, he is more of a con- 
jurer than himfelf is aware.” 
_ Now, Sir, there feems to be in this re. 
mark fuch cunning that I really can con. 
fider it in no other light than an oblique 
puff to the teftimonies of Mr. -!larke, 
which Davus takes care to inform your 
readers are zow in the prefs. He does not 
fay that C&uipus and Mr. Clarke have 
purfued the fame enquiry to a different 
end; that the wifh of one was to prove 
the relique in queftion to have been pofi- 
tively the laft receptacle of Alexander’s 
du& ; and that the refearches of the other 
led him to fuppefe that it was no more 
the tomb of Alexander, than’ it was the 
cheft in which St. Athanafius was conceal. 
ed from the rage of periecuiion. He does 
not fay that nearly all the authorities 
which it was poflible either for the one 
party or the other to examine, were iz 
print; that they were the claffics, and the 
works of voyagers ; the common property 
of all the worid. Why was Mr. Ciarke to 
be the only man whofe fagacity might be 
allowed tu penetrate the recefles of anti- 
quity, or adduce the authorities of modern 
travellers? I thougs, Sir, it had been a 
maxim, Jong and univertally acknow- 
ledged, that the water of the weil was 
every man’s, that in the bucket, his ex- 
clufively who drew it. 
But I have reafon to believe, from 
what has fince been teld me, that aptnefs 
of quotaticn was my crime; and that Mr. 
Clarke had promifed himfelf the acquifi- 
tion of fome applaufe from the introduc 
tion of thof: memorabie lines of Juve- 
nal. 
¢sUnus Pert zo fuveny non fufiicit orvis: 
fe ftuat infelix angurto limite mundi, 
Ut Gyare claufus fcopulis, parvaque Se- 
ripho: 
Quum tamen a figulis munitam intraverit urbemy 
SAR COPHAGO contentus erit.” 
If this was really the cafe, I am forry I 
was before-hand with him: though after 
all, there is not fo much aptnels in this 
quotation to make the right and title to it 
of fuch confequence. What do we gather . 
from it? That Alexander, having entered 
Babylon the conqueror df the world, re- 
figned his honours for the tomb, and be- 
came 
