see no harm, nor any thing unnatural in't. Now this being a matter of mere judgement, and no controversy of fact, I am not surprised to see Mr B. and myself have such different opinions about it. And when a thing is once brought to that issue, 'tis in vain to dispute further about it; but we must refer the whole matter to the readers that have taste and skill. I shall only take some short notice of the particulars that his argument is built on. He says, "Phalaris was not successful in a second attempt upon Stesichorus, at the instance of a Sicilian gentleman." But it's plain from the Epistle itself, that Phalaris refused to make a second attempt; so that the gentleman was unsuccessful with Phalaris, not Phalaris with Stesichorus. Mr B., it seems, does not know his own favourite book; and yet if I, that despise it, and believe it not worth the reading, had made such a mistake about it as this is, he would have given us two whole pages in aggravation of the fault, and have poured out his grimace and banter profusely upon so worthy a subject.
But he finds I have high thoughts of Phalaris, because I said that such stuff as Stesichorus's verses did not busy his head. They were not high thoughts
