ένα και τον αυτον σκοπον,

Let us now proceed to a review of their pride. In the first place then, they very pompously inform us of their natural gravity as follows: Grave though we be, our own rifibility has been provoked,' &c. As if it was of any confequence to the public, whether they are grave or facetious, folemn or ludicrous, fanguine or bilious: whether they poffefs the qualities of the owl, or the ape; and whether they laugh like the tickled. Hyæna, or like Milton's death grin horribly a ghaftly fimile. In the next place, after having praised my paraphrafe of Plotinus on the Beautiful, they add: this praise ought to convince Mr. Taylor, that we are neither infenfible to the real value of his author's work, nor blind to the merits of the tranflation'. As if the praise of a Reviewer could be of any importance to a man, whofe writings, are not calculated for the multitude: or as if the cenfure of ignorant judges, was not preferable to their most unbounded approbation! I only add that from men who are critics by profeffion on the writings of others, the most perfect compofition may be justly expected: and yet the Monthly Reviewers have grofly failed in this refpect, as the following inftances will evince: Polybius makes ufe of the expreffion, νεύειν προς i. e. to verge to one and the fame end' and this our admirable critics tranflate (p. 122.) to verge to one point, and confpire to one end:' which is obviously a most ridiculous tautology. For it is impoffible that any thing can verge to one point, and at the fame time confpire to an end, different from that point. Again, in their review of Bell's Shakespeare, (p. 156.) they make use of the following fimile: 'Shakespeare, now stands (among the French) as a Coloffus, while the most that can be done by Voltaire, and indeed the very beft of our modern writers at home, is to creep under his feet.' But here we may very juftly enquire, what fimilitude there is between modern wits endeavouring to imitate Shakespeare, confidered as a dramatic writer, and men crawling under his feet, confidered as a Coloffus? If Shakespeare indeed had been a quadruped, men by creeping under his feet might be confidered as his groveling imitators: but I cannot conceive any fimilitude between a creeping, and an upright figure. I only add, that the Analytical Reviewers, are not more fortunate in their review of my tranflation of Proclus. For after afferting that the original is not remarkable for its elegance (though the contrary is the opinion of the best ancient and modern writers) and that I have too faithfully copied my author in this refpect, they inform us, among other interefling particulars, that the employment of an ancient philofopher did not confift in relieving the diftreffes of the wretched, and the wants of the miferable! After fuch a fpecimen of tautology, we cannot wonder that Proclus is confidered as an inelegant writer: for though his language is always overflowing and majestic, it never degenerates into weak and needlefs repetition. While on the other hand, there is fuch a perfect famenefs, in the above fentence, that, 'to relieve the diftreffes of the wretched, and the wants of the miferable,' is indeed no other, than 'to verge to one point, and confpire to one end?

And

And thus much for the Reviewers, whom in any other cause than that of verbal cri ticism, I fhould confider as too mean for cenfure, and even too infignificant for contempt. For what attention can those writers deferve, who decide dogmatically on fubjects they have never studied; who endeavour by malevolent aspersions to ruin the reputation of men they have never feen; and who abuse the credulity of the ignorant, by a monthly compilation of criticisms, which originate from vanity, and ultimately tend to illiberal gain?

THE E N D.