take the freedom of observing, that he has succeeded better as a scholar
than a poet; having fallen below the strength, the conciseness, and, at
the same time, below the perspicuity of his author. I shall not point
out the particular passages in which this disparity is remarkable, but
content myself with saying, in general, that the criticisms, which there
is room for on this translation, may be almost an incitement to some
lawyer, studious of antiquity, to learn Latin.

The inscription, which I now proceed to consider, wants no arguments to
prove its antiquity to those among the learned, who are versed in the
writers of the darker ages, and know that the Latin poetry of those
times was of a peculiar cast and air, not easy to be understood, and
very difficult to be imitated; nor can it be conceived, that any man
would lay out his abilities on a way of writing, which, though attained
with much study, could gain him no reputation; and engrave his chimeras
on a stone, to astonish posterity.

Its antiquity, therefore, is out of dispute; but how high a degree of
antiquity is to be assigned it, there is more ground for inquiry than
determination. How early Latin rhymes made their appearance in the
world, is yet undecided by the criticks. Verses of this kind were called
leonine; but whence they derived that appellation, the learned Camden
[18] confesses himself ignorant; so that the style carries no certain
marks of its age. I shall only observe farther, on this head, that the
characters are nearly of the same form with those on king Arthur's
coffin; but whether, from their similitude, we may venture to pronounce
them of the same date, I must refer to the decision of better judges.

Our inability to fix the age of this inscription, necessarily infers our
ignorance of its author, with relation to whom, many controversies may