heres to the old readings, 'decerptam fronti præponere olivam,' probably the true one, authorised by all the manuscripts and all editions before the time of Erasmus, who proposed the feeble line, adopted by the edition in Usum Delphini, which has unhappily been most common in our country: So carelessly has that work of Desprez been reprinted, that its errours have become innumerable, and in the London copy of 1727, in line 31st of this same Ode, the sense and the metre are ruined by the omission of the word 'vino.' In Ode 9, line 15, 'Camænas' is substituted for 'amores,' without any pretence that it is the true read ing. The modesty of the French press shrunk, forsooth! from the original sentiment, and, lest our morals should be corrupted, adopted this new phraseology. What can be more ridiculous, than such delicacy? What, but the omission of the four last lines of this playful poem, the frightful immorality, of which Dr. Francis (a venerable D. D. proh pudor!) has dared closely to translate. The laugh, that from the corner flies, Again in Ode 17, line 24, the true text is unreasonably altered; but it was rendered necessary, as the four succeeding lines are excluded. In Ode 28, line 14, Didot has admitted the reading, Judice me,' proposed by a single critick in opposition to all others, which greatly diminishes the force of the passage; but in line 18 he follows the better authorities. avidum' in opposition to the vulgar avidis,' and again in line 31st. In lib.2,Ode 10,1.9,the stereotype has 'sævius' instead of the common reading 'sæpius;' and it seems preferable, as Burman and Wakefield think. In line 12 the reading of most of the manuscripts, fulgura,' is followed, though many early editions have fulmina.' Of the text in Lib.3, Ode 8, line 19, I know not what to say. Most of the good editions read, Medus infestus sibi luctuosis;' but Didot has obeyed Bentley and Wakefield. The difference is hardly worth a contest. But in Ode 24, line 24, he adopts the readings of the most learned criticks, which is more lively at least, than the common one. In Ode 26, line 1, the printer's purity is once more alarmed, and he substitutes choreis' for puellis.' In Ode 27, line 48, he has the better reading, cornua monstri.' In Lib. 4, Ode 6, line 25, a manuscript, cited by Bentley, is followed, with some reason, against most of the editions. In Ode 13, line 9, having needlessly omitted four lines, the editor is compelled to substitute amor' for enim.' In the Carmen Sæculare, line 21, Didot reads ut denos decies per annos,' and he has some of the earlier editions to countenance him; yet the great majority of the learned prefer 'undenos decies,' and no critick has, I believe, lately asserted that these secular games were usually celebrated every hundred years, but every hundred and ten years. It seems strange, that a chronological fact, of so great importance during the most enlightened period of the Roman empire, should now be disputable. The authority of two Sybilline verses is brought in by the editor in Usum Delphini, but they are probably spurious. After much search I have obtained no satisfaction upon this question; but I find that the general suffrage is in favour of the longer term, and two considerations incline me to it. It is less probable the dispute would have occurred, as it certainly did among the Romans themselves, for Suetonius mentions the celebration at a time nothing near the recurrence of the solemn era, if these most solemn ceremonies were to be holden precisely at the end of every hundred years. The Greek verses also, though perhaps never proceeding from the prophetick books, must at least have been forged many hundred years before the invention of printing, and may have been cited at the court of Augustus. The variations in the Satires and Epistles are less numerous, than the omissions, and are of little consequence. The change in line 107, Sat. 3, of the first book, cannot be objected to. In the Art of Poetry the lines which are numbered 45 and 46 in the Delphini edition are transpos ed in this stereotype edition, according to the admirable emendation of Bentley, which has generally been acquiesced in, though it is rejected by the text of Foulis. Didot has also followed the great English critick in line 101, Ut ridentibus arrident, ita flentibus adAent,' which is approved by most of the English editions, and stoutly opposed by the German Gesner. Though the reading of Bentley in this place seem preferable, too much deference has been sometimes paid to his boldness of substitution, as in line 114, where he is followed by Foulis and Baskerville, while the old reading is maintained by Wakefield, and received by the French editor. I observe the omission of the point at the end of the 153d line, the only defect in the printing of this volume, 6 which has occurred to me. When shall we become as correct in our country? In line 197 Didot has followed the elegant emendation of Bentley, Et regat iratos, et amet pacare tumentes'; which, though opposed by Gesner, is received by the learned; and the reason may be quoted from Francis, "the expresssion in the common editions would say the same,` as bonis faveat,' as in the former line, and even say it more feebly.” In verse 294 he reads præsectum' with the best criticks. In line 360, the more expressive reading of Bentley is adopted. The next line is as much improved by a change in punctuation as any passage ever can be, Ut pictura, poesis; erit qua,' &c. In verse 443 Didot has adopted sumebat' for 'insumebat,' which seems good enough. but it has little support from great names; and none from manuscripts. In lines 460, 461, he follows the best editors, who read 'curet' not 'curret.' In writing the notes the French editor has not, like most others, intruded a load of mythological, physical, or historical knowledge. He has not quoted parallel passages from Anacreon and Aristophanes; but has only attempted to explain his author without increasing the cost of the volume. Virgil he had published without a single annotation; but Horace requires explanation in many passages. The notes are never longer than three or four lines, and more frequently not more than that number of words. In these notes perhaps even Didot has only elucidated what was clear before, but this must always be expected from note-makers. Omnibus hoc vitium. The notes of Wakefield, tho' I mean not to depreciate his labours, seem written for his par ticular edition, and not to explain Horace. The edition of Gesner appears most laudable in this respect. In the Ode to Varus, lib. 1. 18. Siccis omnia nam dura Deus proposuit,' hardly meets illustration, though most of the commentators have told us, that Siccis' is here metaphorically used for sober. Nor do we learn much from the word 'innocens' in the margin to explain integer vitæ ;' nor from indecorè' to illustrate 'parmulâ non bene relicta.' In Lib 2, Ode 3, near the end, the punctuation must be wrong, for after urna' he uses a semicolon, while his note interprets it, like former criticks. 6 In the explanation of the beginning of the third Ode, Lib. 1, is a phrase that might have confirmed Wakefield in his strange manner of reading. Reddere incolumem' means to deliver or land Virgil safe at Athens, not, as Wakefield by altering the punctuation of the passage would make it, to return him safe to Italy. Reddo' does not frequently mean to return. We say reddere epistolam' to deliver, not to return, a letter. Pliny has 'reddere flores' to blossom, and its use in other parts of Horace will be learned in Lib. 2, Ode 17, line 30, and line 75, Sat. 3, Lib. 1. But in his note Didot uses restituas,' which, I believe always means, to return or restore to a former condition. Vide Lib.3, Ode 7, at the beginning. So that with diffidence I believe both of the learned editors have misunderstood the meaning of that word; Didot, who uses restituas,' as tantamount to 'reddas,' while he maintains the common reading; and Wakefield, who totally changes the usual interpretation by only shifting a com neminem editorum, quorum sanè proventum uberrimum sibi nacta est Horatii felicitas, rectam hujusce loci rationem arripuisse. Erat Virgilius scilicet in "fines Atticos" nave deferendus, unde in patriam reditum tutum dilectissimo poetæ precatur Flaccus ; cui scriptoris scopo manifeste per nostram interpunctionem consultum ivimus." "I cannot sufficiently admire, that none of the editors, of whom the happy style of Horace has raised him a plentiful harvest, has rightly apprehended the meaning of this passage. Virgil was about to sail for Athens, whence Horace prays for this beloved poet a safe return to his own country; and to this meaning of the author we have paid attention in our punctuation." It is strange indeed, that so good a writer, as Wakefield,should thus use the first person of the singular number in one sentence,and of the plural in the next; but it is still more strange, that,in opposition to all preceding editors, he should construe this prayer of Horace to apply to the return of the vessel, and not to her voyage to Athens. It is not very probable, that the same ship, in which Virgil was going to Athens, would wait to bring him back; and from his biographer we learn, that, when, he left Rome, he intended to have passed three years in Greece and Asia in retirement, perhaps to have given the last polish to his Eneid. But being taken sick at Megara, he hurried back to Italy, and died before reaching home. This supposition affixes a later date to the composition of this famous Ode, than is allowed by Bentley; but I believe with Dacier, that it was composed at the time of the fatal voyage of Virgil. But if the safe return of his friend ORIGINAL LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN TRAVELLER IN EUROPE TO HIS FRIENDS IN THIS COUNTRY. LETTER Rome, Nov. 16, 1804. MY DEAR FRIEND,. YOU well know, that I came to Europe with as few prejudices for or against any particular sect of christians as most men, and that I was (and indeed I still am) disposed to believe, that there are honest and virtuous men of all persuasions. It must be admitted, that all such, however opposed in articles of faith or modes of worship, are equally entitled to our charity. Still this charity does not forbid us to examine and expose the follies or absurdities, which may have crept into their creed or practice. On the contrary our duty, as men and christians, requires, that we should, as far as may be in our power, counteract and oppose with becoming candour those errours and abuses, that impede the reception and usefulness of the religion we profess. Both of us had formed some opinion of the absurdity of Catholic superstition, but I assure you, that I found it a very imperfect one. No writer,however severe,has hitherto, nor, in my estimation, ever can do, any thing like justice to the subject. Dr. Moore and others have exerted all the powers of SECOND. wit to render the notions and practices of the Catholicks ridiculous; but one half of the time, spent in simple narration, without the aid of satire, would have produced more effect, and would have saved them the opprobrium of being suspected to be opposers of christianity itself. To point out the errours, or to ridicule the absurd superstitions, which have debased the worship of the present system of religion, is certainly not only consistent with a thorough belief of that system, but is perhaps a duty, which that belief requires; but one should be extremely careful, lest in the zeal of reformation, a weapon should be afforded to the opponents of religion itself. To the Catholicks, I think we owe no apology for the exposure of their failings. The bigotted intolerance and persecution, which have marked the footsteps of the followers of papacy, from the burning of John Huss, to the massacre of St. Bartholomew, give them but feeble claims on the liberality of Protestants; and the evident contempt for all other Christians, who are denominated Infidels, which is still to be perceived at Rome, notwithstanding all their humiliations, give us a fair right to examine the grounds of their imaginary claim to superiority. I shall devote the present letter to the narration of such facts as have fallen within my own observation only, relative to the superstitious opinions and observances, and pious frauds, existing in Italy at the present moment. The doctrine of indulgences is familiar to you. The pretended origin is the power given to St. Peter, and which the papists contend has descended like a heirloom, or like the mantle of Elijah upon his regular, anointed successors in the apostolick chair. Where this power resided, when there were two rival popes, anathematizing each other, and waging war with the arm of flesh for the good of the apostolick church, we are not told. I suppose, at such a moment, it must be be considered, as the freehold sometimes is in our law in Abeyance, ready to grace the temples of the victor. At Milan, and in all the great cities of Italy, you still find in scriptions in the churches in which the sale of indulgences is publickly advertized. The following I insert as a specimen. It is an exact copy of one of these advertisements in Italian. Indulgenza plenaria tutti i giorni advertize this privilege, one of which I also transmit to you. D. O. M. "The souls of the dead during nine days are prayed into eternal rest." This privilege however is very rare, and is confined only to such churches as are pre-eminently blessed by possessing some relick, or by having been founded by some distinguished saint. In such cases you always find a bull of the pope sculptured on marble,granting this favour by virtue of his apostolick authority. I forget, whether I mentioned to you the church of St. Suaire, at the church of the holy handkerchief at Turin. This building is one of the most magnificent in Italy. It is wholly lined with polished black marble, which, combined with the artificial darkness, which it is contrived to produce, impresses the firmest minds with awe, and disposes the lightest to devotion. This edifice was erected to inclose the holy handker. chief, with which our Saviour is fabled to have wiped his face, as he was bearing the cross to the place of execution. A writer up on this subject remarks, that he has found seven different churches, And for the benefit of the more all of which claim the honour of learned it is usually also translated into Latin. possessing this valuable relick; but he gives the preference to the Indulgentiæ plenariæ et aliæ non ple- claims of the church at Turin, nariæ quotidianè. As I understand it in plain English, they daily grant permissions, either general or more limited, to commit offences. There are other churches,which have the exclusive right of praying souls out of purgatory. They also because it has fourteen bulls in its favour. The veneration, in which this relick is held is astoniehing. A citizen of Turin thinks it one of the most solid foundations of is superiority over its sister cities, and the sovereigns of Sardinia and Piedmont annually assisted at the |