P. 65, line 26 for xpnrno read xpuros. P. 109, line 23: for rov Mλvos read o μέλας.

Two observations may be fairly subjoined; not for the sake of exculpation (for I will always thank fully receive fair criticism, and acknowledge my regret for gross errors) but as arising out of the nature of the case itself. First; In the earliest impressions of Greek Authors, the contractions are frequently difficult to decypher, and the accents are so often blurred that it is difficult to copy them correctly. Secondly; If the extracts and descriptions in De Bure's Bibliogr. Instruct. were as minutely examined as have been those in the Bibl. Spenceriana, the deficiencies and errors would be found to be in a tenfold degree more numerous.

I could have

scribbled the margins" (as Warburton expresses it) of my own copy of that justly-popular foreign work, almost from beginning to end. It is not however meant, by this latter observation, to cast uumerited censure upon the reputation of De Bure, or to defend the errors of one work by mentioning those of another. Far otherwise-all that I wish the can

did Critic and experienced Bibliographer to admit, is, that in researches of the nature of the volumes under consideration, the attention cannot be always kept alive with the same ardour, and the most resolute diligence and enduring patience will sometimes abate and be subdued. In Bibliography if in any other pursuit-it may fairly and emphatically be said: "Whoever thinks a faultless piece to see, Thinks what ne'er was, nor is, nor e'er shall be t." Yours, &c.

T. F. DIBDIN.

P.S. Until pointed out to me by Mr. Roscoe, I was not aware that the article FLOTINUS had been introduced

a second time: (see vol. II. p. 275. vol. III. p. 463.) It will however be seen that the mode of describing the The Genitive Case has been here strangely substituted for the Nominative. Pope's Essay on Criticism, v. 253.

edition, here referred to, is pretty much the same in both instances arising from a similarity of feeling on examining it for the purpose of description.

Mr. URBAN,

HE

July 9. The Cathedral Church of Rotis (engraved in your last Frontispiece) was built by the hands of our countrymen in the 13th century; and, in despite of the opinions of Mr. Hawkins, champion for foreign art, who " thinks," though writing on the history of Architecture, that, in regard to the splendid religious fabrics of this Island, there is "no use" in bringing them into discussion, 1 most cordially subscribe to such strong conviction. By consulting the accounts of Rouen, in a "Description of the Earth," published 1605, we read, that "the Cathedral is dedicated to the Virgin Mary," the choir whereof is lined round with copper: it bath three towers of a vast height, particularly that of Reuve, and that of the Pyramid; the spire of which steeple only (being made of wood and covered with gilt lead) hath 200 steps, and the whole edifice above 600.

On the great gate (presume West centre entrance) is a triumphal arch in honour of King Henry IV. with emblems of his conquest over the is supported by 21 pillars, in which, Holy League. The body of the Church and in the chapel, are to be seen the magnificent tombs of Cardinal d'Amboise, and of the antient dukes and archbishops; as also, the monument of John duke of Bedford, who was Regent of France under our King Henry VI.

features of the structure, much doubt Considering the present external

is entertained relative to the correctness of the date 1055, (see p. 633.) as the grand tier of windows, with the turrets, and centrical tier of compartments between the two West towers, brings us to Wells cathedral; centrical entrance to Lichfield Cathedral ; side ditto to Lincoln Cathedral; pyramidal finish over centre entrance to

Salisbury cathedral; circular centre window entirely French; left-hand tion French; right-hand tower to tower to Ely Cathedral, its terminaYork, finish (a crown) French; ailes of nave transepts, and centre tower, to York Cathedral; its spire French,

and

and by its detail of no very remote date (17th century.)

Upon the whole, the display is most magnificent, and worthy the genius of those who raised the walls: and let us assert, with laudable confidence, that either our Architects, or some of their best workmen, were sent to Rouen, from the different churches, brought into notice above, as original models or designs, to contribute their powers in composing that object, the "shadow" of which is now standing in review before us, for our admiration and for our praise. Yours, &c. J. C.

Mr. URBAN,

March 12. O0 highly do I respect the chaTo racter of your excellent publication, the taste of your numerous readers, and my own sense of decorum, to presume to trouble myself or you with coarse declamatory diatribes against any man, or against any set of inen, on account of conduct religious, moral, or political. My strictures on the truly illustrious Nobleman of singular talent, whose various poeti cal lucubrations are in general well received by the publick, shall be temperate and concise: I seek not to wound his honourable feelings, but to appeal to his undisputed and undoubt. ed judgment; and by it, if possible, to awaken and improve his heart.

In an edition of his Lordship's beautiful poem "The Corsair," appear eight lines, addressed to the Princess Charlotte of Wales. I shall not stoop to pick out the literary merits or faults of the composition; my censure applies, solely, to its literal purport. To pot-house politicians, so sprightly a production might perhaps have charms; but, surely, a Peer of the British Empire can derive little food for vanity, or even self-congratula tion, from recollection of an anonymous squib, by which the modest sensibilities of a duteous Female were outraged, and turned into the subject of popular chat.

candid opinion of the tendency and truth of another small copy of verses? They are not unknown to him, I dare say; they were written, as some of his Lordship's Friends may remember, on a transaction that took place at Windsor, and that was briefly and elegantly recorded by the pen of Sir Henry Halford, bart.—As in the former instance, so in this, Mr. Urban, I condescend not to waste words or time in analyzing the charms of the poetry; "Curs'd be the verse, how smooth soe'er it flow,

That tends to make one honest man my

foe!"

ސ

I only ask [of Lord if he will permit me, or, at least of Mr. his counsel,] whether the gross tenour of the composition be worthy of an Englishman's applause?--whether, in short, its Noble Author feels justified faithful representation of plain matter in this severity of his satire by its of fact?

The frowardness of childhood at school, of pupilage at the University, of youth at coming to the command of a fortune and the honours of a title, &c. &c. come not within the scope of present animadversion. My views are of a public nature; and as a public man, only, I conjure bis Lordship to-CONSIDER HIS WAYS. Yours, &c.

CHRISTIANUS.

Mr. URBAN, Adlingfleet, June 4.
VERY one can recollect that

E
the Property Tax was pro-
posed to be taken off on the 5th of
April after the Ratification of a De-
finitive Treaty of Peace. It appears
now, however, to be ascertained from
the Ministry, that it is doubtful and
undetermined whether the Tax may
not be continued during our contest
with America. Most earnestly it is
to be hoped that this will not be the

case.

On reading the Titles of the very many Preferments held by the late Dr. Hugh Thomas (page 440), I was reminded of the famous pluralist Bego de. Clara, a foreigner who held so many Livings in England before the Reformation. Certainly the Statute against Pluralities wants some revi

ston.

the

the Statute appears to have been to permit a second Living to be held as auxiliary to a former one, when such former Living was so low as 87. per annum in the King's Book. After a lapse of 250 years, however, there are many Livings of 15, 20, 25, and 30 pounds per annum present value, which were of the very same value in Henry the Eighth's day; and yet no person can hold a second Living as auxiliary to any of these. And again, many Livings of 81. per anu. and under in the King's Book are now worth 4, 5, and 600!. per annum; and yet any person (who has interest to procure it) can, by the Statute, hold another Living of any value whatever as auxiliary to one of these! There are four Parish-Churches in Yorkshire conti guous to each other, two of them were greater Abbeys, the other two Collegiate Churches before the Reformation; viz. Selby, Drax, Howden, and Hemingbrough. They are all so valued in the King's Book that no second Living can be held with any of them without purchasing a Dispensation; and yet the total amount of the value of them all together is but 1757. per annum! They were all endowed with money-payments *to continue the same for ever. The last named Living is but 201. per annum at this day; and it was 201. per annum in the second year of King Edward VI. Yours, &c.

Mr. URBAN,

T. V――R.

July 2.

T It is now some years since I commenced the practice of Pruning my Forest Trees in the last week of July, and through the months of August and September. It occurred to me when I first made the experiment, that the wounds made in taking off the limbs would heal before the cold weather set in; and as the tree was in progress of growth, this object would be more effectually attained during the ascent of the sap, and whilst the tree was in full leaf, than at any other period of the year; the leaves contributing to shade from the sun and shelter from the rain.

My first trial was upon 100 different sorts of Trees, Oaks, Elms, Spanishand Horse-chesnuts, Lime, Beech, Sycamore, and Planes. The trees were all young ones, from 10 to 16 feet high. In the ensuing year the bark had collapsed over every wound before the month of June. Every one of these trees, I remarked in the course of the year succeeding that in which they had been pruned, enlarged in their girth and head, in a much greater degree than those which had not had the knife.

My second year's trial 1 extended to 1000 Trees of the same description. Similar success accompanied this experiment with the first. Since that period I have extended it to indefinite numbers, and to growing trees of all sizes and ages, with equal effect. In some cases I applied Mr. Forsyth's composition, to ascertain whether it would accelerate the growth of the bark over the wounds: I tried the use of this composition on several trees, applying it to a wound of an equal size on the same tree where I left another wound on the same tree without it; and I am rather inclined to think the composition impeded, instead of assisting, the growth of the bark. It is scarcely necessary to mention that every bough or branch which was taken away, was cut close and smooth to the stem of the tree. In trees of 10 feet high, I cleared the stem 6 feet; of 12 feet, I cleared it 7 feet; of 14 feet, I cleared it 8 feet; of 16 feet, I cleared it 9 feet. A bandsome

head is secured by this practice to each tree, and a sound clean stem, objects of great importance in the growth of timber. R. R.

I am ready to admit that many grave points of doctrine and church discipline are handled in that very witty composition in a most unbecoming way; but, whoever reads the Author's Apology,' prefixed to the Tale, will be disarmed of a large portion of his indignation, when he learns that the publication took place without his privity; that the book was printed eight years after it was written; and that, as he says, ' had he been master of his papers for a year or two before their publication,' he could easily have prevented objections by a very few blots-It is well known that Archbishop Sharp was much scandalized at the licentiousness in which the author had indulged, and that his disapprobation had a sensible effect, with Queen Anne, in impeding the preferment of Swift. It is said, that the Archbishop afterwards saw the affair in a more favourable light, and was concerned to find that the opinion which he had once given, was the cause of preventing the rise of the Author in his profession.

However this may be, it seems never to have struck Swift's editors, or Sharp's biographers, that both the Dean and the Archbishop adopted, to a certain degree, the same allegory-the father-the sons -and the last will and testament. — Dr. Sharp published ‘a Refutation of a Popish Argument handed about in MS. in 1686,' being at that time rector of St. Giles's in the Fields, and Dean of Norwich. Eleven years after, viz. in 1697, Swift (assuming him as the author, then a young man, unpreferred,) wrote the Tale of a Tub. He tells us, in the Author's Apology,' that he resolved to proceed in a manner that should be altogether new, the world having been already too long nauseated with endless repetitions upon every subject:' and it is curious enough that the worthy rector of St. Giles's had, so many years before, fallen upon a mode of illustrating part of his argument against the pretensions of the Church of Rome, similar, in a leading point, to that which Swift seized on as altogether new *.

After mentioning that I quote from Mr. Nichols's edition of Swift's Works, in 24 Vols. 12mo. 1803, where the Author's Apology (well worth reading) oc curs, p. 20; and from the edition of Abp. Sharp's Works, in 7 Vols. 8vo. 1754;

* Swift's second motto claims originality of conception;—

I proceed to lay the passage in question before your readers. The force of the Popish Argument combated by Dr. Sharp lay in these two points: We cannot shew a visible Church that hath, from Christ's time to the Reformation, opposed the Church of Rome in those doc trines and practices wherein we differ from her;' and, 'There was a time when all Christian churches were in communion with the Church of Rome.' The conclusion from hence is, that therefore the present Church of Rome is the only true Church of Christ upon earth.'

"This is as surprising a conclusion from such premises, as can enter into the mind of a man. First of all we cannot shew a visible Church that hath, from Christ's time to the Reformation, opposed the Church of Rome in her pretences; therefore the Church of Rome is the only true Church. Why, supposing that all the churches of the world had, from Christ's time to this, agreed with the Church of Rome in all points, both of doctrine and practice, yet doth it from thence follow, that the Church of Rome is the only visible Church? No, not in the least: she is still but a part of the visible Church,and the other churches that agree with her are as much parts of it as she. And if this be so, how can it in the least follow, that when churches are divided from her both in doctrine and practice, she is any more the whole visible Church than they? Why are not they as much the visible Church, after they are divided, as they were before, supposing it was her fault and not their's, that occasioned this division and separation? And if the visible Church can be but in one communion, why are not those churches that are separated from the Church of Rome, the only true Catholic visible Church, and the Church of Rome no part of it at all, since it appears that in this case it is she that hath caused the schism ?

"But that I may fully expose the sophistry of this argument to the meanest understanding, and enable every one to give an answer to it, I will put the whole force of it into an obvious case.

"The argument is, that if we cannot shew a visible Church distinct from the Roman, that bath in all times, from the beginning, opposed the doctrines and practices of the present Church of Rome, then it will undeniably follow, that the present Church of Rome is the only visible Church.

"Why now, methinks, this is just such an argument as this:

"A father bequeaths a large estate among his children, and their children after them. They do for some generations quietly and peaceably enjoy their several

shares,

shares, without disturbance from each other. At last, one branch of this family (and not of the eldest house neither) starts up, and being of greater power than the rest, and having got some of the same family to join with him, very impudently challengeth the whole estate to himself, and those that adhere to him; and would dispossess all the rest of the descendants, accounting them no better than bastards, though they be far more in number than his own party, and have a far greater share in the inheritance. Upon this they contest their own right against him, alledging their father's will and testament, and their long possession, and that they are lawfully descended from their first common ancestor.

"But this gentleman, who would lord it over his brethren, offers this irrefragable argument for the justice of his claim. If, says he, you deny me and my adherents to be the sole proprietors of this estate, then it lies upon you to shew, that, ever since the death of our progenitor, who left us this estate, there hath appeared some of the family who have always opposed my claim to this estate. But that you cannot shew; and therefore I have an undoubted title to the whole estate: I am lord of the whole inheritance.

"I do appeal to any man living, whether this plea would pass in any court of judicature; nay, whether any private man, though never so unlearned, can believe that this insolent pretender doth offer any fair reason for the disseising the coheirs of their inheritance. And yet this is just the argument with which those learned gentlemen would persuade us to give up our birth-rights, to depart from that share of the inheritance we have in the Catholic Church.

"Well, but what will the co-heirs that are concerned, say to this argument? Why there are three things so obvious to be said to it, that if the persons concerned have not the wit to hit upon them, they are fit to come under the custody and guardianship of this pretended heirgeneral. May they not say to this gentleman that makes so universal a claim,-Sir, your claim was not so early as the death of our forefather, who left us this joint-inheritance. Your ancestors and ours lived a great while peaceably together, without any clashing about

this estate; and we were suffered for some ages to enjoy our own right, with

out any molestation from you or those you derive from: And the case being so, there was no need of opposing your pretences, because you made none. But then, (which is the second thing) when you did set up for this principality, and

wheedled some of our family, and forced others to join with you, you know you were presently opposed by others of our family, who would not so easily part from their rights. You know, that, as soon as ever you made your claim, there were some that stoutly declared against it, though they had not power, and strength, and interest enough in the world to stem the torrent of your ambition.

"But then thirdly, may they say, supposing it was not so; supposing you had met with no rub in your pretences (which yet you know you did); supposing our family were not so suddenly aware of the mischief that would come upon them from those your usurpations, as to make a present opposition; doth now it follow, that, because no opposition was just then made to your pretences, therefore your pretensions to the whole estate are justifiable? No, we can prove they are not so; for it is plain by the testament, by the settlement of our common father, that we have as much a right to our parts in this estate as you have, or as your ancestors ever had. Tell not us, that you were not at first, or that you were not always, opposed in your claim: but tell us by what right or justice you can pretend to be the sole lord of this inheritance. Let the will of our common parent be produced, and that will plainly shew, that we have as much a share in this estate as you have.

"This allegory is so pat to our business, and the application of it so easy to our present case, that I think I should injure the most vulgar understanding, if I should suspect his ability to make that use of it which I intend."

I conceive, Mr. Editor, that I need not offer any apology for this Letter, which at once contains what I am inclined to deem a literary curiosity, and an argument against the encroaching spirit of Popery. Of this at all events be assured, that no man can possibly wish success to the efforts of The Protestant Advocate more sincerely than, Sir, Yours, &c.

YOU

INDAGATOR."

Mr. URBAN, July 16. 7OUR Correspondent, Parti. p.551, is perfectly correct in considering the Imprecations in the 109th Psalm, as spoken not by David against his Enemies, but by his Enemies against him. There is nothing in the original language against this interpretation, but on the contrary, something in its favour. For what is more common in Hebrew than the omission of the word saying? If this word were supplied at the end of the 5th verse,

all