SIR,

THE sensibility of lady Montague is generally supposed to have been equal to her wit. A higher encomium could scarcely be passed, for in wit she certainly was not inferiour to any of her sex. It is with reluctance that I point to lady Mary's conduct, in regard to Henry Fielding, as a proof that she could be disdainful and unfeeling; but a just appreciation of characters, which are held forth for publick applause, is so necessary to the welfare of the moral world, that my presumption in this particular must need little apology.

on

Henry Fielding was second cousin to lady Montague, both being descended in the same degree from George Fielding, earl of Desmond. In addition to his claim on the score of affinity, Fielding's pretensions, as a gentleman and a wit, were assuredly sufficient to entitle him to the same consideration bestowed Pope; but these two writers appear to have been received by her ladyship in a very different manner. Pope was admitted to an extreme of familiarity, and his letters are written in a correspondent train of confidence. Fielding waited at her door, as the poet attends his patron, and concludes a letter, which appears expressive of his usual manner to lady Mary, in these words:—“ I shall do myself the honour of calling at your ladyship's door to morrow, at eleven, which, if it be an improper hour, I beg to know from your servant what other time will be more convenient." The man thus liable to rejection, and thus distant in mode of address, was her cousin, and of high rank in letters; but he was necessitous. Pope, whose epistles denote the acknowledged consequence of the writer, and who could readily appoint the proper hours for the lady to call on him, was rich. There lay the most important difference; for ladies of wit and sen

sibility, like the common world, are fond, it seems, of a gilded toy.

Throughout every letter in which lady Mary mentions Fielding, she is entirely silent on the relationship that existed between them; and her ladyship admired his talents; but then she knew his poverty. "Since I was born," she observes in a letter to her daughter, "no original has appeared, excepting Congreve and Fielding, who would, I believe, have approached nearer to his excellences if not forced by necessity to publish without correction, and throw many productions into the world, he would have thrown into the fire, if meat could have been got without money, or money without scribbling. The greatest virtue, justice, and the most distinguished prerogative of mankind, writing, when duly executed, do honour to human nature; but when degenerated into trades, are the most contemptible way of getting bread"

Her ladyship regrets the death of Fielding, but merely as a writer, and as a being that relished existence.— Lady Mary Wortley Montague appears at one period to have been afraid, and at another ashamed, to own for a cousin the author of Tom Jones! "I am sorry," writes lady Mary, "for H. Fielding's death, not only as I shall read no more of his writings, but I believe he lost more than others; as no man enjoyed life more than he did, though few had less reason to do so; the highest of his preferment being raking in the lowest sinks of vice and misery. His happy constitution, (even when he had with great pains half demolished it) made him forget every thing when he was before a venison pasty, or over a flask of champaigne; and I am persuaded he has known more happy moments than any prince upon earth. Ilis natural spirits gave him rapture

with his cook-maid, and cheerfulness when he was starving in a garret " It may be averred that the dissipated habits of Fielding rendered him an improper intimate for a lady; but still he was entitled to the consideration due to a relation and a man of, genius. The frequent low pleasures in which Fielding was accustomed to indulge may, perhaps, in some part, be attributed to the scantiness of his finances. Lady Montague was con

nected with many persons of consequence and power. Through the medium of these she might have recommended her cousin to the notice of the court, and have given him an opportunity of proving that he was as well calculated to be an honour to his family in point of general demeanour, as from poignancy of wit and fertility of imagination.

I am, sir, your's, &c.

J. N. B.

SIR,

YOUR correspondent, Mr. Bannantine's remarks on pastoral poetry, are very ingenious and entertaining. But I do not exactly agree with him in his opinion of Theocritus, and other pastoral writers. They deserved, I judge, better treatment.

With respect to Shenstone's celebrated ballad, I am one of those few, who think with Mr. B. that a great part of it borders upon nonsense; inasmuch as to render the whole ridiculous. It is an excellent subject for the burlesque and I really wonder that its namby-pamby strain should have received praise from Johnson, and that it was never travestied before"the Devon and Cornwall Poets," thought proper to make merry with it. For the amusement of your readers, I shall insert in this place a few stanzas from the parody alluded to. After which, I must beg leave to recur to my first position, that Theocritus "deserved better treatment.'

In reading the following "risum teneatis?"

"My beds are all furnished with fleas, Well stocked are my orchards with jays, Whose bitings invite me to scratch; And my pigsties white over with thatch: I seldom a pimple have met,

Such health does magnesia bestow; My horse-pond is bordered with wet, Where the flap-ducks and sting-nettles grow.

I have found out a gift for my fair,

In my Cheshire some rotton I've found; But let me the plunder forbear,

Nor give that dear bosom a wound: Though oft from her lips I have heard,

That the rotten her palate would please; Yet he ne'er could be true, she averred; Who would rob the poor mite of his cheese."

"I sleep not a wink all the night,

And my days they do dolefully pass, Till I see her (O! exquisite sight!)

Come tripping it over the grass.
Oh, say can'st thou hear me complain,
Nor list to thy shepherd so true?
O! come, and give life to the swain,
Who now is a dying for you;
No hurt my sweet Phillis shall ail,
By Venus the goddess I vow,
For, whilst I am holding the pail,

Why She shall be milking her cow."

It has had many detractors, however; especially at that time when the ridiculous question was agitated respect ing the preeminence of the ancients over the moderns. Herodotus can be accused of relating prodigies only when he is contemplated by the standard of our own institutions: but, if we visit Egypt, and view its ancient monuments and catacombs, and consider its numerous and magnificent remains of social organization, we shall be convinced that Herodotus has added nothing to the picture of antiquity, which he has delineated.

Such was the opinion which I formed while among the ruins of the famous Thebes and its hundred gates. I passed the greatest part of the month of October there, in the year 1799; and I employed some moments of leisure in ascertaining the veracity of Herodotus with regard to his observations upon natural history. I shall confine myself, at present, to what he has said, respecting the crocodile.

I had only this opportunity of studying this celebrated animal. It is known that he is found no where but in the Thebaid and in the Upper Nile. Not having remained long enough at Thebes, to corroborate all the obser

vations of Herodotus, I supplied my deficiencies by inquiries of the fishermen of Luxor, of Carnat, and of Medinet-Abou.

It may be necessary to observe, that these sort of people, in Egypt, have more knowledge of their trade, and more acquaintance with the habits of aquatick animals, than their brethren in Europe. The occupation is hereditary, and descends from father to son: and their knowledge is transmitted with accuracy; for they dread nothing so much as a fruitless expenditure of time and labour. They say, in the same sense as naturalists, and almost always with singular precision, such an animal is of such a genus, and such a one is but a variety of this genus. They have

also our dual nomenclature, and they designate each species by its generick and specifick appellation.

However, I was not wholly without distrust. I suspected their indolence of mind and their servility of character. They do not love much talking; and, from the hope of a good reward, they have the courtesy of not displeasing any one by contradiction: hence, they almost naturally reply yes to every question that is put to them, provided they are not interested in it.

Thus forewarned, my readers will be enabled to exercise a discretionary judgment.

Herodotus, in the translation of M. Larcher, commences thus upon the subject of the crocodile :

"Let us now pass to the crocodile and its natural qualities.-It never eats during the four most severe months of winter." this point: but they did not compreI interrogated my fishermen upon dotus is not contrary to the known hend me. Yet, the position of Herocharacter of reptiles. Bartram asserts, positively, the same thing of the cro codiles or caymans of North America; but, to be sure, these animals live in a colder climate, inhabit a younger soil, and are enabled to find, more easily, barren places, where

they may conceal themselves and remain torpid during the winter. If crocodiles were still to be found in Lower Egypt, as they were in the that his observation would be true: time of Herodotus, it is very probable that portion of Egypt (especially on the shores of the Pelusiack branch and of lake Menzalch) being covered by inaccessible marshes, and being also much colder, both from its northern position and from the abundant rains that fall during the winter. Should not Herodotus, therefore, be considered in the neighbourhood of the sea? as speaking only of these crocodiles

"Though it has four feet, yet it is amphibious. It passes the greater part of the day in dry places, and the whole night in the river; for the water is warmer than the air and the dew."

These observations are strictly true. All crocodiles do this, unless some local circumstances combine to render it impossible. They live in troops, on the tops of the islands, which are very numerous in the rivers. They never leave the spot that gave them birth, except to seek for prey; and they return, at stated pcriods, and repose, in common, upon the strand.They never believe themselves safe. Hence, if they hear the least noise, and, above all, if they perceive any one coming towards them, they plunge into the water, separate from each other, and swim about at hazard.

When any persons come to the shore which they inhabit, and remain there a length of time (as I had the patience to do for half a day with some friends and my guides) it causes them the greatest uneasiness. They

cannot remain under water more

than ten minutes at a time, and they do not even wait ten minutes without raising their heads so that their snout is level with the surface of the water. The nasal apertures being in the middle, they are thus enabled to draw in the air, which, from the peculiar organization of the parts, passes into the tracheal artery, without any of the ambient water. But this manner of breathing while swimming, fatigues them after a while. Then they sepa rate into two troops; the smallest go to a distance to find some beach where they may be safe; but the larger ones content themselves with approaching the slope which is produced at the head of each island by the deposited sediment of the earth. So much inquietude at the sight of a single man, shows a timidity of character; and, in fact, the crocodile is a fearful animal on land; but he is quite the reverse in the water. It is not prudent to bathe near him. The *cries of terrour that were uttered by the inhabitants of Luxor, at beholding a Frenchman commit the rash act, were sufficiently indicative of the idea which they entertained of the VOL. II.

power and ferocity of the crocodile. It is no uncommon thing to meet, in the Thebaid, countrymen who are deprived of an arm or a leg; and if they are asked to what accident they owe their loss, they reply, this misfortune happened to me from a croco=

dile.

"They lay their eggs upon the earth, and hatch them there."

Aristotle says the same of the incubation of the female of the croco

dile. The fishermen, however, assurė

me that the heat of the sun alone hatches the eggs of the crocodile. Should Herodotus be understood, in the expressions which he has used, as meaning the care which the mothers bestow upon their eggs when they are upon the point of being hatched? I asked how long a time elapsed between the laying of the eggs and the birth of the young crocodile. They always replied a month, without being able to specify the exact number of days.

Two enemies of the crocodile, the ichneumon and the tupinambis", are constantly employed in seeking for its eggs, of which they are very fond. These animals excited the gratitude of the ancient Egyptians, by attacking thus, in its very source, the re production of an animal so fatal to Egypt.

The tupinambis, which swims very well, carries on, besides, a constant war with the young crocodiles, and continues the pursuit of them till they take shelter amongst larger individuals of their species.

The Egyptians imagine that the tupinambis is the crocodile in its first state; and, though they have often had opportunities of correcting themselves in this errour, yet they persevere in it; for that which approaches to the marvellous, will never want enthusiasts to relate it, nor the credulous to believe it.

"Of all known animals, there is not one which becomes so great after having been,

* Quaran el bar of the Arabs : Lacerta Nilotica of Haselquist.

so little. The eggs are not much larger than those of a goose, and the animals that issue from them are in proportion to the eggs: but they gradually grow and reach to seventeen cubits, and even more."

Elian relates that there was to be seen one of twenty five cubits under Psammeticus, and another of twenty six under Amasis; and the learned have determined that this measure was nearly equal to thirty five or thirty seven feet. Prosper Alpinus, Hasselquist, and Norden, speak of crocodiles that were thirty feet in length. M. Lacipierre, an officer of health, and a member of the French commission in Egypt, was in possession of teeth which had belonged to a crocodile of equal dimensions. Now, we know that a crocodile, when it issues from the egg, is nine inches long. It is capable, therefore, of acquiring more than forty times its original length. What Herodotus says of the size of the egg, is also perfectly correct.

"It has the eyes of a hog, the teeth are projecting, and of a size in proportion to

that of the body."

Pere Fenillée [Observ. tom. 3, p. 373] says of the crocodile of St. Domingo, that it has the eyes of a hog; which, doubtless, implies that the crocodile has a small prominent eye, the upper part of which is covered and almost hidden. Its under eye-lid moves in an upward direction. As, according to the relation of Swammerdam, the pupil of the eye is capable of contraction, like that of the cat, and of becoming perpendicularly long, some learned individuals, and especially M. Camus, who saw a living crocodile at Paris in 1772, have found that its eyes have more resemblance to those of a cat than of a pig. I shall simply observe, that this is a quality which it possesses in common with many nocturnal animals, as also being furnished with a membrana nictitans.

With regard to its teeth, every one is acquainted with them; and besides, M. Lacepede, in his interesting article of the Crocodile, may be consulted.

"It is the only animal which has no tongue."

Yes, doubtless, which has no apparent tongue. Such is the opinion that would be formed from an inspection of the living animal, and which has been given by Aristotle in two parts of his works, by Seba, Hasselquist, and all travellers. But, not. withstanding, the tongue has been discovered by Olaus Wormius, Girard, Borrich, and Blasius. The early anatomists of the academy of sciences have also described it; and they suspected the accuracy of Herodotus in consequence; but surely he may be forgiven that he did not know what after ages have discovered only by means of anatomical research.

"It does not move the under jaw, and it is the only animal, also, which moves the upper jaw towards the under one."

Much has been written for and

against this position; but I am asto

nished that it should have been so long questioned. The crocodile is, in fact, the only known animal, whose upper jaw (between the parts of which the skull is to be found) moves towards the inferiour one, which has scarcely any motion at all. Herodotus, however, could not establish this distinction. He had, under his eyes, living crocodiles, and he was fully justified in speaking, as he has spo ken, of the motion of their jaws.

"The claws of the crocodile are very strong, and the skin on the back is so covered with scales, as to be impenetrable."

trate the armour of the crocodile, It is impossible, in fact, to pene. without using iron weapons: leaden bullets flatten on his sides, but do not enter, unless they happen to strike him near the ears.

"It cannot see when in the water; but when above the surface its sight is very exact."

The first proposition can only mean that he sees less perfectly under water; but the second is strictly true. Procopius has verified this fact. He often endeavoured to approach near enough to crocodiles to shoot at them, but the moment he was per