University of Virginia Library

LETTER XL.

Your letter of the 13th arrived this morning, and I
trust the apprehension it expresses has been dispelled by my
last; although, to say the truth, I was by no means pleased.
Your translation bears scarcely any resemblance to its predecessor;
being, with a single exception, literally correct:
which proves that when you commit gross errors, it is not
from a want of ability to avoid them; and, indeed, impresses
me with a belief that, when you choose, you can excel
"Labour is necessary to excellence." Without the one,
the other never did, nor can exist, in any pursuit of human
life. But, to my criticism:—invito parenti is improperly
rendered by "desponding father." I do not find that
invitus is ever used in that sense. Such, certainly, was not
Ovid's meaning. "He returns thanks to his reluctant father;"
to his father, unwilling to trust him with the chariot.

I must still urge you to endeavour to attain that great desideratum
of writing—distinctness of character; a more important
point than you are, perhaps, aware of. The want of
it is particularly to be remarked in your writing, where m,
n, and u come together. Thus, the word etiamnum is
written somewhat like this—ctian i mun. This proceeds
from leaving more space between the members of the same
letter than between the letters themselves; and from a very
ridiculous, though common practice (I might say affectation)
of turning the n and u, in the same way—thus, u u. By
giving due space between your letters and words, and writing
uprightly, and with the point of your pen, holding it
as nearly perpendicular to the paper as possible, your object
will be gained. If you examine print, you will find its
great legibility to be owing to the length of the body of the

letter, (not of the heads and tails,) and to a regular space
preserved between the letters and words, respectively. I
am sorry that my example should not comport more with
my precept: but my paper is greasy; and, moreover, he
who writes ill at twenty, will, at forty, be altogether illegible.

I would not mix ancient with modern history: as soon,
therefore, as you finish Goldsmith, which is a very concise
but admirable compilation, and cannot detain you long, I
would stick to Hume and Belsham. I shall bring you Mr.
Fox's history when I return home. It is but a fragment—
but a most precious one. It corrects some important errors
of Hume, respecting Charles and James II., who had not
(that is Hume) access to the information from which Mr.
Fox wrote.

Adieu, my dear Theodore.