848. ὡς αὐτὸν αὐτῶν ἄνδρα πεύθεσθαι πέρι-αὐτὸς αὐτὸν — πάρα

Port. Stanl.

900. ποῦ δαὶ τὰ λοιπὰ--ποῦ δὴ, τάλαν, τὰ λ. Aur. ποῦ δαὶ, τάλαν, Ta A. Stanl.

908. νῦν δὲ γηράναι θέλω.— σὺν δὲ Aur. Stanl.

948. ἔθιγε δὴ μάχᾳ χερὸς—μαχαίρας Aurat. Stanl.

955. ǎčev aoev Port. Stanl.

967. ἅπαν ἐλατήριον---ἄτας Port. Stanl.

1025. ᾄδειν ἕτοιμος ἠδ ̓ ὑπορχεῖσθαι——ἁλεῖν ἕτοιμος, οὐδ ̓ ὑπορχεῖσθαι--1041. καὶ μαρτυρεῖν μοι, λεως ἐπορσύνθη κακά —προσμαρτυρεῖν μοι πῶς

Aur. Port. Stanl.

1044. quæ profert Stanl. in curis secundis partim Porti sunt, partim

Aurati.

1059. Λοξίου δὲ προσθιγών--- Λοξίας Aur. Stanl.

1068. παιδόμοροι μὲν πρῶτον-παιδοβόροι μὲν πρῶτος Aur. Stanl.

It is needless for me to continue this comparison through the other plays; for if what has been already specified should fail of satisfying the reader, as to the disingenuous use which Stanley made of the labours of the preceding critics, it will be of no use to multiply instances of agreement.

I cannot, however, easily believe that the conjectures marked P, were really those of Portus, (whether Franciscus the Cretan, or Æmilius,) but rather of Casaubon. As to Auratus, or Dorat, the high opinion which Scaliger entertained of his critical acumen is well known. I request that the reader, who takes an interest in this question, will observe the manner in which Stanley often quotes a conjecture, without specifying the author of it, although it is obvious that he knew; I mean such expressions as Est qui malit, Malit aliquis, &c. I will add only one instance, which seems to me to prove decisively that Stanley had seen, if not the very book which is now in Mr. Mitford's possession, yet one from which the marginal annotations contained in that, were transcribed. Eumen. 773. odovs ἀθύμους—ἀτίμους Portus. sed V. in margine explicat “ ἀθύσε μovs voto non respondentes." Stanley's note is this: · ὁδοὺς álúμovs. Animo aut voto non respondentes. Vide vero an legendum ἀθύμοις vel ἀτίμους.”

66

It seems, however, to be doubtful, whether Stanley had seen this collection of conjectures before his first edition, although many of them appear to have been known to him.

Having formed a deliberate opinion as to the use which Stanley made of the conjectures of the illustrious French critics, I did not conceive that I should incur any degree of censure, if I stated it without aggravation or extenuation, as a matter for the consideration of scholars. The literary property of at least three hundred emendations is a question not unworthy of investigation; and if it turn out that they do in fact belong to Scaliger, or Casaubon, or Auratus, and not to Stanley, no blame can fairly attach to the person who proves it.

A sensible and ingenious writer in the British Review, No. xxvII. p. 301. says "surely it might probably happen that two men of study and taste, in attempting to unravel the same thread of unintelligible jargon, should arrive at the same conclusion by the same, or similar methods." This is no doubt true to a certain extent; but the writer in question, will, I am convinced, acknowledge that his argument cannot be carried to such a length as to account for 300 instances of agreement in conjectural emendation. It is perfectly true, as Mr. Kidd remarks, (Pref. to Porson's Tracts, p. 95,) that in criticism as in mathematics, the same discoveries have been made by different men, who seem rather to have coincided with, than to have followed each other. But although Tyrwhitt in 1781, proposed several emendations on PseudOrpheus, which had been published twenty years before by Schrader; and, as I shall show, Porson, and Hermann, and other eminent critics, have sometimes unconsciously trodden in the footsteps of others, yet the sum total of all the coincidences of any ten modern scholars will hardly amount to Stanley's three hundred.

But, says Mr. Burges, all this may be very true, and yet the person who says it, is the most unfit man in the world to make the charge, being himself the greatest plagiarist that ever lived. Our readers will bear with me, if I occupy a few pages in rebutting, once for all, a charge, which has been urged against me in a recent number of a contemporary journal, by a person who has been long seeking to raise himself into notice by calumniating the fair fame of others.

I need scarcely remark, that in most instances, where plagiarism is laid to the charge of a scholar, the only thing he can do, is to deny the accusation; and if the number or the

nature of the instances alleged be such, as to preponderate against his assertion, he must submit to his fate. I wish to premise, that where I am compelled to have recourse to simple asseveration, I make it upon the honour and good faith of a scholar and a gentleman; and having done so, its reception must be such as my readers think fit to give it. I shall now proceed to consider, one by one, the instances, which Mr. Burges adduces.

In the note on Prometh. 795, are proposed four emendations, effected by inserting av. "The first of these," says Mr. Burges, "was doubtless found in Porson's papers; for it is published in the Advers. p. 275."

Answer. The first edition of the Prometheus was published in October 1810. I never saw one of Porson's papers until after its publication.

"The second was doubtless found in Porson's papers; for it is published in the 2d edition of the Orestes at 581."

Answer. The same.

The third, as Mr. B. remarks, was faulty, and was omitted in the 2d edition at the suggestion of Mr. Elmsley.

In the same note I remarked, "Eurip. Iph. T. 1302. ov πρiv y' âu eiπη—ubi mirum est Marklandum, Musgravium, Gaisfordium, reliquisse etπo." "His improvement in the knowledge of Greek Syntax, says Mr. Burges, C. J. B. owes to the Porson papers upon Aristoph. Eccl. 625, where to support this construction, the very words ρìv âv eiπη are quoted from Vesp. 915."

Answer, I assert, that I never looked at the Porson papers upon Aristophanes in my life. I consider it unnecessary to detail the circumstances under which I inspected a part of Porson's MSS. but I pledge my honour that I never consulted one of the documents, from which Mr. Dobree has compiled the Aristophanica. (See Preface to the Adversaria, p. xvi.) Upon looking at the note referred to by Mr. Burges, I find that the verse of Euripides is not mentioned.

Mus. Crit. No. II. p. 189. "Iph. A. 1242. oμws de ovvὅμως συνδάκρυσον ἱκέτευσον πάτρος — Lege ἱκέτευσόν τε πρός.” C. J. B. This correction was made long before by Mr.

VOL. II. No. 7.

SS

Burges, and is styled by himself ingenious and certain." It is in the Appendix to his Troades, p. 129.

I am not ashamed to meet this charge by stating the real fact; at the same time that I cheerfully resign the emendation : but I am afraid I shall not mend matters, by confessing that I had never read the Appendix. I frankly acknowledge that I could never get beyond the two first pages of it; as the present state of my copy, unviolated by the paper-knife, sufficiently testifies. (Mr. Elmsley seems to have been guilty of the same neglect; for in the Quarterly Review, XIV. p. 458, he proposes an emendation of the Iph. A. 1141, which Mr. Burges had made at v. 167 of the Troades; yet Mr. B. only remarks "In meam emendationem incidunt et R. P. apud Kidd. ad Dawes p. vi. et Elmsl. in Quarterly Review, No. XIV. p. 458." I observe by the way, that Mr. Burges has no objection to the elision of a diphthong before a short vowel; in spite of the observation of Porson and Hermann. See Suppl. 790.) Mr. Burges says of himself" and this is one of the persons, to whom C. J. B. alludes, when in the Article upon Gaisford's Hephæstion, Edinburgh Review, XXXIV. p. 382. he says, we suspect that, even now, more credit would be given, in many instances, for arranging, than for construing a chorus; and many modern scholars, we believe, feel less delight in the perception of a beautiful image, or a noble sentiment than in the antistrophising a set of monostrophics, or in the detection of a hitherto undiscovered dochmiac." The antistrophising, Mr. Burges is pleased to take to himself; and the dochmiac hunting, he pins upon Mr. Seidler; and if he be right in both instances, I don't see why either gentleman should be very angry but as to Mr. Seidler, the review of Gaisford's Hephaestion was published before his work on Dochmiacs appeared. It may therefore be argued, that as one half of Mr. Burges's appropriation is erroneous, the other half may be so too'; and if it were worth the trouble, I could satisfy him that he is mistaken,

"C

:

'Mr. Elmsley says on v. 1033 of the Baccha, "Seidlerum laudo, quod potius proodos, mesodos, et epodos fingit, aut versus excidisse. statuit, quam eos imitatur, qui eodem carminum monostrophicorum

odio

Prom. v. 20. Menander is quoted in the notes, as using the word "роσTaTTaλeuw, This C. J. B. is said to have προσπατταλεύω, borrowed from Dr. Butler. Once for all I observe, that I never did, nor do at present, conceive, that in quoting an author in the way of illustration, (not of emendation,) a critic is bound to mention all the preceding scholars who have quoted him for the same purpose: and if Mr. Burges means to establish a new rule to this effect, let it not have an ex post facto operation. It has not hitherto been considered necessary. Porson uses without scruple the same passages which had been adduced by Barnes, Valckenaer, Musgrave and others, without mentioning their names. Upon the Med. v. 333, he quotes a passage of Athenæus, and says, "Hinc saltem Euripidis senarium lucramur, Κακός σε δαίμων καὶ κακὴ τύχη λάβοι.” The same observation had been made by P. Leopardus Em. 1. 12, and Porson had certainly read Leopardus's admirable work. So the fragment of Macho quoted at v. 1343, had been compared with Euripides by Leopardus I. 7, and the facetious parody of Thais on v. 1382, (1352. Elmsl.) which is not quoted by Porson, but which Mr. Elmsley has adduced, Aiyeî Žuvockýσουσα τῷ Πανδίονος had also been compared by Leopardus, 1. 8. who quotes it, as it ought to be in the parody, Aiyi Žuvokýσovoα. The passage of Eustathius quoted at v. 387 of the Orestes had been pointed out by Bergler on Alciphron, p. 413. The passages of the Rhesus, Hecuba, and Alcestis, quoted at v. 1338, had been compared by William Canter, Nov. Lect. II. 7. Yet there is no doubt but that Porson cited them from his own reading.

With regard to the verse of Menander, I have only to say, that I did not take it from Dr. Butler's notes.

With respect to the emendations of Photius proposed in the Edinburgh Rev. No. XLII. p. 336, which Mr. Burges says C. J. B. took from Porson's papers; I reply, that in Mr. Kidd's publication, they are given, as communicated to him by Dr. Maltby, who will testify that he never showed them to me; and

odio imbuti, carmina prorsus nova veteribus substituunt." This allusion also Mr. Burges takes to himself; but he takes it quietly, although the charge is far more serious, and perfectly just.