our fondness for what partakes of her beauties, and when such resemblance is withered by age, the mistake is at an end :

citraque juventam

Ætatis breve ver et primos carpere flores.

This mistake in nature is known to be much more common in mild climates than amidst the northern frosts, the blood being there more fervid and the occafion more frequent: accordingly, what seems only a weakness in young Alcibiades, is in a Dutch failor or a Ruffian sutler, a loathsome abomination.'

We shall not attempt to conjecture how much the female fex will think themselves honoured by this pretended mistake in nature. Of a mistake, however, it is so horrible a one, that we think it cannot be contested, that the Author hath here imputed it to the most excusable cause, and given it the mildeft appellation it could possibly bear. If all this be not palliative, we know not what can be called palliation; nor can we conceive how a writer could form the notion of getting any thing read that might be more fo. We see the infamous crime, as it was called in the beginning of the article, softened into the mere local effect of custom; and, though still it be a loathsome abomination in a Russian or Hollander, it is only a weakness in young Alcibiades. But it is not the name of Alcibiades, which we find annexed as an epithet to this infamous paffion; it is that of the venerable, the divine Socrates.

The Translator admits that his Author may be mistaken again, when he says, that the Greeks never authorized this vice; but this, continues he, is an historical matter about which men of great learning have differed in opinion. Does not this seem to infinuate, that the author's design was merely to discuss this point as a matter of hiftory? Let the Reader judge how well he hath acquitted himself, and whether he is not justly to be suspected of a worse design; ' I cannot bear, fays he, that the Greeks should be charged with having authorised this licentiousness. The legislator Solon is brought in because he has faid,

"Thou shalt caress a beauteous boy,

Whilft no beard his smooth chin deforms."

• But who will say that Solon was a legiflator at the time of his making those two ridiculous lines ? He was then young, and when the rake was grown virtuous, it cannot be thought that he inferted such an infamy among the laws of his republic: it is like accusing Theodore de Beza of having preached up pederasty in his church, because, in his youth, he made verses on young Candidus, and says:

• Plutarch likewife is misunderstood, who, among his rants in the dialogue of love, makes one of the speakers say, that women are not worthy of a genuine love; but another speaker keenly takes the women's part.'

Let us fee now what information is to be gathered from the above passage. We are told, that the Greeks are charged with having authorized this licentiousness; that Solon made verfes in favour of it; that a passage in one of the fathers of the Chriftian church will bear a like interpretation; and that in Plutarch's dialogues it is made a matter of debate whether women are the proper objects of love. - To counteract the influence of all which fufpicious infinuations, we have only the Author's fimple declaration that he can't bear the Greeks should be thus charged; though he gives no proof, nor indeed attempts to give any, that they were charged unjustly. Solon's verses, it is true, he calls ridiculous; and questions whether he was a legislator when he wrote them. Beza he leaves open to the infinuation thrown out against him; and tacitly refers us to Plutarch for what he was possibly ashamed, or afraid, to infert in his own work. Doth all this bear any refemblance to the difcuffion of a point of hiftory? or is so vague and equivocal a manner of treating fuch a fubject, consistent with that horrour and deteftation which, the Translator says, his Author displays against the vice in question? In the next passage the tables are fairly turned upon us; and Socratic love is no longer that infamous crime of which the Author had been treating. 'It is as certain, as the knowlege of antiquity can be, that Socratic love was not an infamous paffion. It is the word love has occafioned the mistake. The lovers of a youth were exactly what among us are the minions of our princes, or, formerly the pages of honour; young gentlemen who had partaken of the education of a child of rank, and accompanied him in his studies or in the field: this was a martial and holy institution, but it was foon abused, as were the nocturnal feasts and orgies.

The troop of lovers instituted by Laïus, was an invincible corps of young warriors engaged by oath, mutually to lay down their lives for one another; and, perhaps, never had antient difcipline any thing more grand and useful.'

Admitting the truth of what is here advanced, we may juftly afk, why did not the Author make this distinction at the beginning of the article? It had been more becoming a lexicographer to have given us the meaning of the term at first; initead of running on for two or three pages about pederafty, under the name of Socratic love, and afterwards telling us they are totally different. It is plain, however, on the least reflection, that the term Socratic love cannot, with any propriety, be applied to (uch kind of lovers as are here described. Did Socrates ftand

I

:

stand under the fame predicament, or bear the like relation, to Alcibiades, Virgil to Alexis, or Horace to Ligurinus, as minions and pages of honour do to princes? In the next paragraph the Author changes his note again; proceeding to speak of pederasty in express terms.

Sextus Empiricus and others may talk as long as they please of pederasty being recommended by the laws of Perfia. Let them quote the text of the law, and even shew the Perfiari code, I will not believe it; I will say it is not true, by reason of its being impossible. I do aver that it is not in human nature to make a law contradictory and injurious to nature; a law which, if literally kept to, would put an end to the humart species. The thing is, scandalous customs being connived át, are often mistaken for the laws of a country. Sextus Empiricus, doubting of every thing, might as well doubt of this jurifprudence. If living in our days he had feen two or three young jefuits fondling * some scholars, could he from therice say that this sport was permitted them by the constitutions of Ignatius Loyola?

The love of boys was so common at Rome, that no punishment was thought of for a foolery into which every body run headlong. Octavius Augustus, that sensualist, that cowardly murderer, dared to banish Ovid, at the fame time that he was well pleased with Virgil's finging the beauty and flights of Alexis, and Horace's making little odes for Ligurimus. Still the old Scantinian law against pederasty was in force: the emperor Philip revived it, and caused the boys who followed that trade to be driven out of Rome. In a word, I cannot think that ever there was a policed nation, where the laws were contrary to morality.'

We have now quoted the whole article, in which our Readers will fee that the Author, whether through ignorance or defign, hath preserved the fame artless, or artful, inconfiftency, and equivocation, throughout. The last-quoted passages are exactly of the fame infinuating turn as the preceeding. We are there informed that Sextus Empiricus, and others, affirm pederasty to have been recommended by the laws of Persia: that the jefuits give into this abominable practice with their pupils: that at Rome this odious practice was notorioufly common and attended with impunity. Nay, to mend the matter, we find this unnatural vice, this infamous crime, still farther softened, and that in the proper words of the Translator, into fondling, a sport, a foolery. In opposition to these palliatives, indeed, we have the Author's assurance, that he will not believe the Perfian laws

* The original has it abufer, a term more expressive and determinate; leaving no doubt of the Author's meaning.

U2

authorized

authorized this vice, even though he should fee the code. But why? nay, because he won't; because, in short, because he is obftinate, and thinks it impoffible. - Is not this an ingenious method of argumentation? well calculated, doubtless, to difprove what is so strongly infinuated! Had the Author intended to treat this subject either as an historian, a philosopher, or a moralift, can it be imagined he would have thus amused, and trifled with, the understanding of his readers? Not a writer of the meanest capacity in the world could be at a loss for better arguments, if ingenuously and honestly disposed to controvert what is here pretended. And if this were not the Author's design, we should be glad to know, what good design he could poffibly have, in writing such an article at all. Will he be exculpated, by alledging that he confiders this point merely as a civilian; conceiving nothing to be authorized but what is established by an express law? Even in this cafe, he might surely have brought stronger proofs against the affertion of Sextus Empiricus. than an ipfe dixit, an ipfe cogitat, a mere fic volo. It is true, he hath offered one flight argument in support of his opinion; but this carries with it only the shadow of a reason; and is no more than one vague afsertion in support of another; for it is notoriously false, and contradicted both by history and experience. He avers, it is not in human nature to make laws contradictory or injurious to nature; and cannot think that any civilized nation ever made laws tending to immorality.' What will this Author say to those laws, which subsisted in ancient republics, and by which the most virtuous of their citizens were perfecuted, banished, and put to death? What will he say to those laws, which have been enacted in modern times, and have directly tended to prevent population, and fuppress the exertion of every principle of humanity? the laws proscribing heretics? destroying witches? enjoining celibacy? and many others of the like unnatural and immoral tendency? The legislature of the wisest nation is neither so prudent, nor prescient, but that it is frequently and fatally mistaken, in the laws enacted for the good of community. This is evident from its being so often obliged to repeal such laws, as injurious and destructive, which had been unanimously pasled, as the most salutary acts of legislation. Admitting, however, after all, that our Author had really proved, what we also firmly believe to be true, viz. that pederafty never was authorized by law in any nation in the world: is this alone sufficient to prove, that, as his Tranflator afferts, he thinks the crime horrid and unnatural? Do we neceffarily conceive every practice horrid and unnatural which government refuses to authorize? or even which government expressly condemns? Do we think it horrid and unnatural in a paffionate young lover to fteal his mistress out of a window, and poft away

to

I

T is a circum.kance very in furious to the productions the best writers, that the punut prepodieffionis 555 favour before they make er sperance; elec prepofition mart been kept ocnicerat e time expectation and fpenfe per being in a pointment, which prepares the maforaf gara cation, and even ples us to croce נאי יום if we are not gratified womenting fuperior to what w百多 firsta right to expect. A number of sparges are resta rious are the pleas admitted, ination of a recenz