Chapter XVI: Conclusion

AND, now, having explained, in the best manner I could, the two famous Epistles of Horace to Augustus and the Pisos, it may be expected, in conclusion, that I should say something of the rest of our poet’s critical writings. For his _Sermones_ (under which general term I include his _Epistles_) are of two sorts, MORAL and CRITICAL; and, though both are exquisite, the _latter_ are perhaps, in their kind, the more perfect of the two; his _moral_ principles being sometimes, I believe, liable to exception, his _critical_, never.

The two pieces, illustrated in these volumes, are _strictly_ critical: the _first_, being a professed criticism of the Roman drama; and the _last_, in order to their vindication, of the Roman poets. The rest of his works, which turn upon this subject of criticism, may be rather termed _Apologetical_. They are the IV^{th} and X^{th} of the FIRST, and I^{st} of the SECOND book of Satires; and the XIX^{th} of the FIRST, and, in part, the II^{d} of the SECOND book of Epistles.

In _these_, the poet has THREE great objects; one or other of which he never loses sight of, and generally he prosecutes them all together, in the same piece. These objects are, 1. to vindicate the way of writing in satire. 2. To justify his opinion of a favourite writer of this class, the celebrated Lucilius. And 3. to expose the careless and incorrect composition of the Roman writers.

He was himself deeply concerned in these three articles; so that he makes his own apology at the same time that he criticizes or censures others. The _address_ of the poet’s manner will be seen by bearing in mind this general purpose of his critical poetry. How he came to be _engaged_ in this controversy, will best appear from a few observations on the state of the Roman learning, when he undertook to contribute his pains to the improvement of it.

I have, in the introduction to the first of these volumes, given a slight sketch of the rise and progress of the Roman satire. This poem, was purely of Roman invention: _first of all_, struck out of the old fescennine farce, and rudely cultivated, by Ennius: _Next_, more happily treated, and enriched with the best part of the old comedy, by Lucilius: And, after some succeeding essays, taken up and finally adorned, by Horace.

HORACE was well known to the public by his lyric compositions, and still more perhaps by his favour at court, when he took upon him to correct the manners and taste of his age, by his _Lucilian Satires_. But, here, he encountered, at once, many prejudices; and all his own credit, together with that of his court-friends, was little enough to support him, against the torrent.

FIRST, the kind of writing itself was sure to give offence. For, though men were well enough pleased to have their natural malignity gratified by an old poet’s satire against a _former_ age, yet they were naturally alarmed at the exercise of this talent upon their _own_, and, as it might chance, upon themselves.

The poet’s eminence, and favour, would, besides, give a peculiar force and _effect_ to his censures, so that all who found, or thought themselves liable to them, were concerned, in interest, to discredit the attempt, and blast his rising reputation.

_Omnes hi metuunt versus, odere_ POETAM.

Hence, he was constrained to stand upon his own defence, and to vindicate, as well the thing itself, as his management of it, to the tender and suspicious public.

But this was not all: For, SECONDLY, an old satirist, of high birth and quality, LUCILIUS, was considered, not only as an able writer of this class, but as a perfect model in it; and of course, therefore, this new satirist would be much decried and undervalued, on the comparison. This circumstance obliged the poet to reduce this admired writer to his real value; which could not be done without thwarting the general admiration, and pointing out his vices and defects in the freest manner. This perilous task he discharged in the IV^{th} satire of his first book, and with such rigour of criticism, that not only the partizans of Lucilius, in the poet’s own age, but the most knowing and candid critics of succeeding times, were disposed to complain of it. However, the obnoxious step had been taken; and nothing remained but to justify himself, as he hath done at large, in his X^{th} satire.

On the whole, in comparing what he has said in these two satires with what Quinctilian long after observed on the subject of them, there seems no reason to conclude, that the poet judged ill; though he expressed his judgment in such terms as he would, no doubt, have something softened (out of complaisance to the general sentiment, and a becoming deference to the real merits of his master), if his adversaries had been more moderate in urging their charge, or if the occasion had not been so pressing.

_Lastly_, this attack on Lucilius produced, or rather involved in it, a THIRD quarrel. The poet’s main objection to Lucilius was his careless, verbose, and hasty composition, which his admirers, no doubt, called genius, grace, and strength. This being an inveterate folly among his countrymen, he gives it no quarter. Through all his critical works, he employs the utmost force of his wit and good sense to expose it: And his own writings, being at the same time supremely correct, afforded his enemies (which would provoke them still more) no advantage against him. Yet they attempted, as they could, to repay his perpetual reproaches on the popular writers for their neglect of _limae labor_, by objecting to him, in their turn, that what he wrote was _sine nervis_: and this, though they felt his _force_ themselves, and though another set of men were complaining, at the same time, of his severity.

_Sunt quibus in satyrâ videor nimis_ ACER—
SINE NERVIS _altera quicquid
Composui pars esse putat, similesque meorum_
Mille die versus _deduci posse_—

His detractors satirically alluding, in these last words, to his charge against Lucilius—

in horâ _saepè_ ducentos,
_Ut magnum_, versus _dictabat, stans pede in uno_.

It is not my purpose, in this place, to enlarge further on the character of Lucilius, whose _wordy_ satires gave occasion to our poet’s criticism. Several of the ancient writers speak of him occasionally, in terms of the highest applause; and without doubt, he was a poet of distinguished merit. Yet it will hardly be thought, at this day, that it could be any discredit to him to be censured, rivalled, and excelled by Horace.

What I have here put together is only to furnish the young reader with the proper KEY to Horace’s critical works, which generally turn on his own vindication, _against the enemies of satire_—_the admirers of Lucilius_—_and the patrons of loose and incorrect composition_.

In managing these several topics, he has found means to introduce a great deal of exquisite criticism. And though his scattered observations go but a little way towards making up a complete critical system, yet they are so _luminous_, as the French speak, that is, they are so replete with good sense, and extend so much further than to the case to which they are immediately applied, that they furnish many of the principles on which such a system, if ever it be taken in hand, must be constructed: And, without carrying matters too far, we may safely affirm of these _Critical Discourses_, that, next to Aristotle’s immortal work, they are the most valuable remains of ancient art upon this subject.

_The End of the Notes on the Epistle to_ AUGUSTUS.

* * * * *

THE END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

J. Nichols and Son, Printers,
Red Lion Passage, Fleet Street, London.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] [A Cross with the initials on a label—I. N. R. I. a Glory above, and the motto below ΕΚ ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ.]

[2] “We, the Bishop and Dean and Chapter and Clergy of the Church and Diocese of Worcester, humbly beg leave to present our dutiful respects to your Majesty, and to express the joy we feel on your Majesty’s arrival at this place.

“Your presence, Sir, gladdens the hearts of your faithful subjects, wherever you go. But We, the Clergy of this place, have a peculiar cause to rejoice in the honour vouchsafed us at this time; a time, devoted to an excellent charity for the relief of a most deserving, though unfortunate part of our Order. This gracious notice and countenance of us at such a moment, shews, as your whole life has invariably done, your zealous concern for the interests of Religion, and the credit of its Ministers. And we trust, Sir, that we entertain a due sense of this goodness; and that we shall never be wanting in the most dutiful attachment to your Majesty’s sacred person, to your august house, and to your mild and beneficent government.

“In our daily celebration of the sacred offices, committed to our charge, we make it our fervent prayer to Almighty God, that He will be pleased to take your Majesty into his special protection; and that your Majesty may live long, very long, in health and honour, to be the blessing and the delight of all your people.”

[The above is the substance, and I believe the words, of my address to the King at Worcester, 6th August 1788.]

To this address his Majesty was pleased to return an answer, very gracious, personally, to the Bishop himself, and expressive of the highest regard for the Clergy of the Established Church.

R. W.

[3] [Edward Foley, Esq. Member of Parliament for the County, and William Langford, D. D. late Prebendary of Worcester.]

[4] The Reverend Mr. BUDWORTH, Head-Master of the Grammar School at BREWOOD, in Staffordshire. He died in 1745.

[5] Satyra hæc est in sui sæculi poetas, PRÆCIPUE vero in Romanum drama. Baxter.

[6] Præf. in LIB. POET. et l. vi. p. 338.

[7] _Mærorem minui_, says Tully, grieving for the loss of his daughter, _dolorem nec potui, nec, si possem_, VELLEM. [Ep. ad Att. xii. 28.] A striking picture of real grief!

[8]

_Vel tibi composita cantetur_ EPISTOLA _voce_;
IGNOTUM HOC ALIIS ILLE NOVAVIT OPUS.
ART. AMAT. l. iii. v. 345.

[9] J. Scaliger says, _Epistolas, Græcorum more, Phocylidæ atque Theognidis_ [Horatius] _scripsit: præceptis philosophiæ divulsis minimeque inter se cohærentibus_. And of _this_ Epistle, in particular, he presumes to say, _De Arte quæres quid sentiam. Quid? Equidem quod de Arte sine arte traditâ._ And to the same purpose another great Critic; _Non solum antiquorum ὑποθῆκαι in moralibus hoc habuere, ut ἀκολουθίαν non servarent, sed etiam alia de quibuscunque rebus præcepta. Sic Epistola Horatii ad Pisones de Poëticâ perpetuum ordinem seriemque_ NULLAM _habet; sed ab uno præcepto ad aliud transilit, quamvis_ NULLA _sit materiæ affinitas ad sensum connectendum._ [Salmasii Not. in Epictetum et Simplicium, p. 13. _Lugd. Bat._ 1640.]

[10] See _Victor. Comm. in Dem. Phaler._ p. 73. _Florent._ 1594.

[11] The reader may see a fine speech in the Cyropædia of Xenophon [l. iv.] where not so much as this is observed.

[12] See _Robert Stephens’s Fragm. Vet. Latinorum_.

[13] Sir _Philip Sidney_.

[14] _Quel avantage ne peut il [le poëte] pas tirer d’une troupe d’acteurs, qui remplissent sa scene, qui rendent plus sensible la continuité de l’action, et qui la font paroitre_ VRAISEMBLABLE, _puisqu’il n’est pas naturel qu’elle se passe sans temoins. On ne sent que trop le vuide de notre Théatre sans chœurs, &c._ [Le Théatre des Grecs, vol. i. p. 105.]

[15] See also to the same purpose P. Corneille’s _Exam. sur la Medée_. If the objection, made by these critics, to the part of the chorus, be, _the improbability_, as was explained at large in the preceding note, _of a slave’s taking the side of virtue against the pleasure of his tyrant_, the manifest difference of the two cases will shew it to be without the least foundation. For 1. the chorus in the Medea consists of women, whom compassion and a secret jealousy and indignation at so flagrant an instance of the violated faith of marriage, attach, by the most natural connexion of interests, to the cause and person of the injured queen. In the Antigone, it is composed of old courtiers, devoted, by an habitude of slavery, to the will of a master, assembled, by his express appointment, as creatures of his tyranny, and, prompted, by no strong movements of self-love, to take part against him. 2. In the Antigone, the part of Creon is _principal_. Every step, in the progress of the play, depends so immediately upon him, that he is almost constantly upon the stage. No reflexions could therefore be made by the chorus, nor any part against him be undertaken, but directly in his presence, and at their own manifest hazard. The very reverse of this is the case in the Medea. Creon is there but a subaltern person—has a very small part assigned him in the conduct of the play—is, in fact, introduced upon the stage but in one single scene. The different situation of the chorus, resulting from hence, gives occasion for the widest difference in their conduct. They may speak their resentments freely. Unawed by the frowns and menaces of their tyrant, they are left at liberty to follow the suggestions of virtue. Nothing here offends against the law of probability, or, in the least, contradicts the reasoning about the chorus in the Antigone.

[16] See note on v. 127.

[17] _For her own sake_, as is pleaded, _and in obedience to the laws_,

Σέ τ’ ὠφελεῖν θέλουσα, καὶ νόμοις βροτῶν
Ξυλλαμβάνουσα, δρᾷν σ’ ἀπεννέπω τάδε.
v. 812.

which shews, that the other murders were not against the spirit of the laws, whatever became of the letter of them.

[18] P. Brumoy, Disc. sur le parall. des Theat. p. 165. Amst. 1732.

[19] _Imitations of Horace_ by Thomas Nevile, M. A. Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, 1758.

[20] There is a considerable difference in the copies of this ode, as given us in the best editions of Athenæus and Diogenes Laertius. But the SIXTH verse is, in all of them, so inexplicable, in respect of the _measure_, the _construction_, and the _sense_, that I have no doubt of its being extremely corrupt. In such a case one may be indulged in making conjectures. And the following one, by a learned person, exactly skilled in the proprieties as well as elegancies of the Greek language, is so reasonable, that I had almost ventured to give it a place in the text.

The Poet had been celebrating v. 3. the divine _form_ of virtue; which inspired the Grecian youth with an invincible courage and contempt of danger. It was natural therefore to conclude his panegyric with some such Epiphonema as this: “Such a passion do’st thou kindle up in the minds of men!”

To justify this passion, he next turns to the _fruits_, or advantages which virtue yields; which, he tells us, are more excellent than those we receive from any other possession, whether of _wealth_, _nobility_, or _ease_, the three great idols of mankind. Something like this we collect from the obscure glimmerings of sense that occur to us from the common reading,

Τοῖον ἐπὶ φρένα βάλλεις καρπόν τ’ εἰς ἀθάνατον,
Χρυσοῦ τε κρέσσω, &c.

But it is plain, then, that a very material word must have dropt out of the _first_ part of the line, and that there is an evident corruption in the _last_. In a word, the whole passage may be reformed thus,

Τοῖον ἐπὶ φρέν’ ἜΡΩΤΑ βάλλεις.
Καρπὸν ΦΕΡΕΙΣ ἀθάνατον
Χρυσοῦ τε κρέσσω καὶ γονέων,
Μαλακαυγητοῖό θ’ ὕπνου.

It need not be observed how easily καρπὸν ΤΕΕΙΣ is changed into καρπὸν ΦΕΡΕΙΣ: And as to the restored word ἔρωτα, besides the necessity of it to complete the sense, it exactly suits with σοῖς τε πόθοις in v. 12. Lastly, the _measure_ will now sufficiently justify itself to the learned reader.

[21] _Agite, fugite, quatite, Satyri_: A verse cited from one of these Latin satyrs by Marius Victorinus.

[22] This, I think, must be the interpretation of _sensibus celebrem_, supposing it to be the true reading. But a learned critic has shewn with great appearance of reason, that the text is corrupt and should be reformed into _sensibus_ CELEREM. According to which reading the encomium here past on Pomponius must be understood of his _Wit_, and not the gravity of his moral Sentences. Either way his title to the honour of Invention is just the same.—See a Specimen of a new Edition of Paterculus in BIBLIOTHEQUE BRITANNIQUE, _Juillet, &c._ 1736.

[23] In the library of Emmanuel College, Cambridge.

[24] Mr. Hume, OF SIMPLICITY AND REFINEMENT.

[25] And no wonder, when, as Suetonius tells us, the emperor himself was so delighted with the old comedy. [c. 89.]

[26] This is further confirmed from Lucian, who, in the description of a splendid feast in his ΑΛΕΚΤΡΥΩΝ, and in the _Symposium of his_ ΛΑΠΙΘΑΙ, brings in the ΓΕΛΩΤΟΠΟΙΟΙ as necessary attendants on the entertainment.—But the reader will not take what is said of the _fine satyr_ of Xenophon’s Symposium, who hath not observed, that this sort of compositions, which were in great credit with the ancients, are of the nature of dramas, ΗΘΙΚΟΙ ΛΟΓΟΙ, as Aristotle would call them. In which the dialogists, who are real personages as in the _old comedy_, give a lively, and sometimes exaggerated expression of their own characters. Under this _idea_ of a Symposium we are prepared to expect _bad_ characters as well as _good_. Nothing in the _kind_ of composition itself confined the writer to the _latter_; and the decorum of a _festal conversation_, which, in a republic especially, would have a mixture of satyr in it, seemed to demand the _former_. We see then the undoubted purpose of Xenophon in the persons of his JESTER and SYRACUSIAN; and of Plato, in those of ARISTOPHANES and some others. Where we may further take notice, that, to prevent the abuse and misconstruction, to which these personated discourses are ever liable, Socrates is brought in to correct the looseness of them, in both dialogues, and in some measure doth the office of the dramatic chorus, BONIS FAVENDI. But it is the less strange that the moderns have not apprehended the genius of these _Symposia_, when Athenæus, who professedly criticises them, and one would think, had a better opportunity of knowing their real character, hath betrayed the grossest ignorance about them.—I can but just hint these things, which might afford curious matter for a dissertation. But enough is said to let the intelligent reader into the true secret of these _convivial dialogues_, and to explane the ground of the encomium here passed upon _one_ of them.

[27] “L’étude égale des poëtes de différens tems à plaire à leurs spectateurs, a encore influé dans la maniere de peindre les characters. Ceux qui paroissent sur la scene Angloise, Espagnole, Françoise, sont plus Anglois, Espagnols, ou François que Grecs ou Romains, en un mot que ce qu’ils doivent être. Il ne faut qu’en peu discernement pour s’appercevoir que nos Césars et nos Achilles, en gardant même une partie de leur caractere primitif, prennent droit de naturalité dans le païs où ils sont transplantez, semblables à ces portraits, qui sortent de la main d’un peintre Flamand, Italien, ou François, et qui portent l’empreinte du païs. On veut plaire à sa nation, et rien ne plait tant que la resemblance de manieres et de genie.” [P. Brumoy, vol. i. p. 200.]

[28] DIONYS. HALICARN. EP. AD C. POMP. p. 205. _Edit. Huds._

[29] In conformity with the _Antique_. _Nec enim Phidias, cum faceret Jovis formam aut Minervæ, contemplabatur aliquem e quo similitudinem duceret: sed ipsius in mente incidebat_ species pulchritudinis eximia quædam, _quam intuens in eaque defixus ad illius similitudinem artem et manum dirigebat_ [Cic. Orat. 2.]

[30] Sir _William Temple_.

[31] ἼΩΝ.

[32] Pope’s Works, vol. V. p. 244. 8^{vo}.

[33] Quinctilian, lib. xi. c. 1.

[34] Θεῷ ἀνικήτῳ ἐπιγράψαντες. Though, to complete the farce, it was with the greatest shyness and reluctance, that the humility of these lords of the universe could permit itself to accept the ensigns of deity, as the court-historians of those times are forward to inform us. An affectation, which was thought to sit so well upon them, that we find it afterwards practised, in the absurdest and most impudent manner, by the worst of their successors.

[35] See a learned and accurate dissertation on the subject in HIST. DE L’ACAD. DES INSCR. &c. tom. i.

[36] DIV. LEG. vol. i. B. ii. S. 4.

[37] In these lines,

_Mox tamen ardentes accingar dicere pugnas
Caesaris, et nomen famâ tot ferre per annos,
Tithoni primâ quot abest ab origine Caesar_.

Which I suspect not to have been from the hand of Virgil. And,

I. On account of some _peculiarities in the expression_.

1. _Accingar_ is of frequent use in the best authors, to denote _a readiness and resolution to do any thing_; but as joined with an _infinitive mood_, _accingar dicere_, I do not remember to have ever seen it. ’Tis often used by Virgil, but, if the several places be consulted, it will always be found with an _accusative_ and _preposition_, expressed, or understood, as _magicas accingier artes_, or with an _accusative_ and _dative_, as _accingere se praedae_, or lastly, with an _ablative_, expressing the _instrument_, as _accingor ferro_. LA CERDA, in his notes upon the place, seemed sensible of the objection, and therefore wrote, _Graeca locutio_: the common, but paltry, shift of learned critics, when they determine, at any rate, to support an ancient reading.

2. _Ardentes pugnas_, _burning battles_, sounds well enough to a modern ear, but I much doubt, if it would have passed in the times of Virgil. At least, I recollect no such expression in all his works; _ardens_ being constantly joined to a word, denoting a _substance_ of apparent _light_, _heat_, or _flame_, to which the allusion is easy, as _ardentes gladios_, _ardentes oculos_, _campos armis sublimibus ardentes_, and, by an easy metaphor, _ardentes hostes_, but no where, that I can find, to so _abstract_ a notion, as that of _fight_. It seems to be to avoid this difficulty, that some have chosen to read _ardentis_, in the _genitive_, which yet Servius rejects as of no authority.

3. But the most glaring note of illegitimacy is in the line,

_Tithoni primâ quot abest ab origine Caesar_.

It has puzzled all the commentators from old Servius down to the learned Mr. Martyn, to give any tolerable account of the poet’s choice of _Tithonus_, from whom to derive the ancestry of Augustus, rather than _Anchises_, or _Assaracus_, who were not only more famous, but in the _direct_ line. The pretences of any or all of them are too frivolous to make it necessary to spend a thought about them. The instance stands single in antiquity: much less is there any thing like it to be found in the Augustan poets.

II. But the _phraseology_ of these lines is the least of my objection. Were it ever so accurate, there is besides, on the first view, a manifest absurdity in the _subject-matter_ of them. For would any writer, of but common skill in the art of composition, close a long and elaborate allegory, the principal grace of which consists in its very mystery, with a cold, and formal explanation of it? Or would he pay so poor a compliment to his patron, as to suppose his sagacity wanted the assistance of this additional triplet to lead him into the true meaning? Nothing can be more abhorrent from the usual address and artifice of Virgil’s manner. Or,

III. Were the _subject-matter_ itself passable, yet, how, in defiance of all the laws of _disposition_, came it to be _forced_ in here? Let the reader turn to the passage, and he will soon perceive, that this could never be the _place_ for it. The allegory being concluded, the poet returns to his subject, which is proposed in the six following lines:

_Intereà Dryadum sylvas, saltusque sequamur
Intactos, tua, Maecenas, haud mollia jussa;
Te sine nil altum mens inchoat: en age segnes
Rumpe moras; vocat ingenti clamore Cithaeron,
Taygetique canes, domitrixque Epidaurus equorum,
Et vox assensu nemorum ingeminata remugit_.

Would now any one expect, that the poet, after having conducted the reader, thus respectfully, to the very threshold of his subject, should immediately run away again to the point, from which he had set out, and this on so needless an errand, as the letting him into the secret of his allegory?

But this inserted triplet agrees as ill with what _follows_, as with what _precedes_ it. For how abrupt is the transition, and unlike the delicate connexion, so studiously contrived by the Augustan poets, from

_Tithoni primâ quot abest ab origine Caesar_.

to

_Seu quis Olympiacae miratus praemia palmae_, &c.

When omit but these interpolated lines, and see how gracefully, and by how natural a succession of ideas, the poet slides into the main of his subject.—

_Intereà Dryadum silvas saltusque sequamur
Intactos—
Te sine nil—
Rumpe moras: vocat ingenti clamore Cithaeron
Taygetique canes, domitrixque Epidaurus_ EQUORUM,
_Et vox assensu nemorum ingeminata_ REMUGIT.
_Seu quis Olympiacae miratus praemia palmae
Pascit_ EQUOS; _seu quis fortes ad aratra_ JUVENCOS.

On the whole, I have not the least doubt, that the lines before us are the spurious offspring of some _later poet_; if indeed the writer of them deserve that name; for, whoever he was, he is so far from partaking of the original spirit of Virgil, that, at most he appears to have been but a servile and paltry mimic of Ovid; from the opening of whose Metamorphosis the design was clearly taken. The turn of the thought is evidently the same in both, and even the expression. _Mutatas dicere formas_ is echoed by _ardentes dicere pugnas_: _dicere fert animus_, is, by an affected improvement, _accingar dicere_: and _Tithoni primâ ab origine_ is almost literally the same as _primâque ab origine mundi_. For the _insertion_ of these lines in this place, I leave it to the curious to conjecture of it, as they may: but in the mean time, must esteem the office of the true _critic_ to be so far resembling that of the _poet_ himself, as, within some proper limitations, to justify the _honest_ liberty here taken.

_Cum tabulis animum censoris sumet honesti;
Audebit quaecunque parum splendoris habebunt
Et sine pondere erunt, et honore indigne feruntur_,
VERBA MOVERE LOCO; QUAMVIS INVITA RECEDANT,
ET VERSENTUR ADHUC INTRA PENETRALIA VESTAE.
[2 Ep. ii. 110.]

[38] [B. ix. v. 641.]

[39] _Notes on the story of Phaëton._ [v. 23.]

[40] JACOBI PHILIPPI D’ ORVILLE _Animadversiones in_ CHARIT. APHROD. lib. iv. c. 4.

[41] Ibid. vol. ii. p. 325.

[42] D. L. vol. ii. p. 644.

[43] At inspiciamus porrò, quid alii, _quibus correctius sapit_, de hoc loquendi modo CENSUERINT. Agnoscunt enim, etc. p. 299.

[44] Ibid.

[45] v. 437.

[46] Iliad, Γ. 327.

[47] N. D. ii. 64.

[48] Pag. 397.

[49] INST. ORAT. xi. 3.

[50] There having been such wretches, as the Painter Plutarch speaks of—Χαιρεφάνης, ἀκολάστους ὁμιλίας γυναικῶν πρὸς ἄνδρας. De aud. Poet.

[51] See an essay on the _Composition of the Antients_, by J. GEDDES, Esq.

[52] Sir Philip Sidney.

[53] Diss. III. vol. ii.

[Transcriber’s Note:

Poetry line numbers normalized.

All instances of a stigma (ϛ) in words have been changed to sigma tau (στ).

The original text had an alternative pi (ϖ) at the start of a word. These have been changed to the standard pi (π).

Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.]