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

Etatis breve ver et primos carpere flores.

This mistake in nature is known to be much more common in mild climates than amidst the northern frofts, 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 futler, a loathfome 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 fo horrible a one, that we think it cannot be contefted, that the Author hath here imputed it to the most excufable caufe, and given it the mildeft appellation it could poffibly 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 fee the infamous crime, as it was called in the beginning of the article, foftened into the mere local effect of custom; and, though ftill it be a loathsome abomination in a Ruffian 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 Tranflator 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 feem 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 fufpected of a worse defign;-I cannot bear, fays he, that the Greeks fhould be charged with having authorised this licentioufnefs. The legislator Solon is brought in because he has faid,

"Thou shalt carefs a beauteous boy,

Whilft no beard his smooth chin deforms."

But who will fay 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 fuch an infamy among the laws of his republic; it is like accufing Theodore de Beza of having preached up pederafty in his church, because, in his youth, he made verfes on young Candidus, and fays:

• Plutarch likewife is misunderstood, who, among his rants in the dialogue of love, makes one of the speakers fay, 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 paffage. We are told, that the Greeks are charged with having authorized this licentioufnefs; that Solon made verfes in favour of it; that a paffage 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 fhould be thus charged; though he gives no proof, nor indeed attempts to give any, that they were charged unjustly. Solon's verfes, it is true, he calls ridiculous; and questions whether he was a legiflator 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 poffibly afhamed, or afraid, to infert in his own work. Doth all this bear any refemblance to the difcuffion of a point of hiftory? or is fo vague and equivocal a manner of treating fuch a fubject, confiftent with that horrour and deteftation which, the Tranflator fays, his Author difplays against the vice in question? In the next paffage 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 ftudies or in the field: this was a martial and holy inftitution, but it was foon abufed, as were the nocturnal feafts and orgies.

The troop of lovers inftituted 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 ufeful.'

Admitting the truth of what is here advanced, we may juftly afk, why did not the Author make this diftinction at the beginning of the article? It had been more becoming a lexicographer to have given us the meaning of the term at firft; intead 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 leaft reflection, that the term Socratic love cannot, with any propriety, be apglied to fuch kind of lovers as are here defcribed. Did Socrates ftand

I

and 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 fpeak of pederafty in exprefs terms.

Sextus Empiricus and others may talk as long as they please of pederafty being recommended by the laws of Perfia. Let them quote the text of the law, and even fhew the Perfian code, I will not believe it; I will fay it is not true, by reason of its being impoffible. 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 human fpecies. The thing is, fcandalous 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 fome scholars, could he from thence fay that this port was permitted them by the conftitutions of Ignatius Loyola ?

The love of boys was fo common at Rome, that no punishment was thought of for a foolery into which every body run headlong. Octavius Auguftus, that fenfualift, 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 pederafty was in force: the emperor Philip revived it, and caufed 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 laft-quoted paffages are exactly of the fame infinuating turn as the preceeding. We are there informed that Sextus Empiricus, and others, affirm pederafty to have been recommended by the laws of Perfia: that the jefuits give into this abominable practice with their pupils: that at Rome this odious practice was notoriously common and attended with impunity. Nay, to mend the matter, we find this unnatural vice, this infamous crime, ftill farther foftened, and that in the proper words of the Tranflator, into fondling, a sport, a foolery.In oppofition to thefe palliatives, indeed, we have the Author's affurance, 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.

authorized

authorized this vice, even though he fhould fee the code. But why? nay, because he won't; because, in fhort, because he is obftinate, and thinks it impoffible. Is not this an ingenious method of argumentation? well calculated, doubtlefs, to difprove what is fo ftrongly infinuated! Had the Author intended to treat this fubject either as an hiftorian, a philofopher, 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 meaneft capacity in the world could be at a loss for better arguments, if ingenuously and honeftly difpofed to controvert what is here pretended. And if this were not the Author's defign, we should be glad to know, what good design he could poffibly have, in writing fuch 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 exprefs 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 fupport of his opinion; but this carries with it only the fhadow of a reafon; and is no more than one vague affertion in fupport of another; for it is notorioufly falfe, 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 fay to thofe laws, which fubfifted in ancient republics, and by which the moft virtuous of their citizens were perfecuted, banished, and put to death? What will he fay to those laws, which have been enacted in modern times, and have directly tended to prevent population, and fupprefs the exertion of every principle of humanity? the laws profcribing heretics? deftroying witches? enjoining celibacy? and many others of the like unnatural and immoral tendency? The legislature of the wifeft nation is neither fo prudent, nor prefcient, but that it is frequently and fatally mistaken, in the laws enacted for the good of community. This is evident from its being fo often obliged to repeal fuch laws, as injurious and deftructive, which had been unanimously paffed, as the moft falutary acts of legiflation. 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 fufficient 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 exprefsly condemns? Do we think it horrid and unnatural in a paffionate young lover to fteal his miftrefs out of a window, and poft away

to

2

favour before her make the appearance; eiecka Puch prepoficion hath been kept and create time in a time expectation and Lupenie: alar bunga teda k me of 2 pointment, which prepares the murah geen mat cation, and even diplin us to conceive cinél is a „moured if we are not gratified with jometting fuperior to what we ha, a first a right to expect. A number of spoorits are readicam, rious are the pleas admimet, in pilkutia of a procidumož