Porson's transcript of Photius I never saw, till some years after the article in the Ed. Rev. appeared. As far as I can recollect, it was not amongst the Porson papers at the time when I was employed upon the Adversaria. And after all, the third correction which is proposed in the Review, and which is a very easy one, is not the same with that of Porson; the second correction is the reading of the Codex Galeanus, with the omission of one letter; and the correction which is proposed on v. Zeîoa is materially different from Porson's (which I most solemnly declare I never saw), and certainly not so good. It is said in the Review," Eupolis is cited év Mapiką ap. Athen. XV. p. 690. E. 691. C. Plutarch, in Nicia p. 960. ed. HSt. Erotian. v. Váydas. Schol. Esch. Pers.65. Schol. Soph. Ed. Col. 1600. Schol. Aristoph. Plut. 1038. Schol. Platon. p. 7. Hesych. τ. Δούλων. Suid. v. Αμφορεαφόρους Μικροῦ τοῦ ὀβόλου. Yala. (where Maрva) Polluc. X. 20. Aristoph. ap. Eustath. in Iliad. B. p. 300. 22. Ἀλλ ̓ οὖν ἔγωγε σοὶ λέγω Μαρικάντα μn koλάew." This Mr. Burges says, was taken from Porson's note on Aristoph. Nub. 998. which is this. Eupolis Marica, ut videtur, apud Eustath. ad iλ. B. p. 300, 23. áλλ' ovv čywye σοὶ λέγω Μαρικᾶντα μὴ κολάζειν. 1 Mr. B. gives me credit If for having found the other ten passages, surely I may be supposed to have seen the eleventh in Eustathius, an author whom Mr. B. himself gives me credit for having read. This clause of the indictment sufficiently exemplifies the spirit of calumnious detraction which pervades the whole.

I am censured, for quoting in the Glossary on v. 15, a fragment of Eschylus in the following terms: "Fragmenta Promethei Soluti apud Galen. Comment. ad Hippocrat. de Morb. Epid. I. p. 454," which he says I found in Bentley's letter to Mill; and he says truly; for I have referred to the very passage in my note on v. 821. Why the fragments of poets should not be accurately cited, as to the place where they are preserved, I am at a loss to understand'. "That C. J. B. had himself read thoroughly the works of Galen, at the period of his first

"The most usual trick, which C. J. B. exhibits to excite the astonishment of the unlearned, is to fill a note with a long list of the names of voluminous, or unusual authors, quoted for the purpose of

noticing

edition of the Prometheus, we, who are not ignorant of his early life, are hard to believe." Mr. Burges has good reason to know that I was more profitably employed. He might have remembered also, that at the period to which he alludes, engaged as I was in more important pursuits, I found time to revise the sheets of his Phoenissæ, and to correct many faults of the grossest kind, which would otherwise have seen the light. He might also have remembered that he has himself borne testimony to this service, in words, which ought to have deterred him from attacking me with a degree of rancour, which even the greatest personal injury would hardly have justified, and which I have never at any subsequent time provoked by any offence against him, either, of word or deed.

Prometh. 59. ed. 2. I correct ópovs for wópov in Aristarch. ap. Stob. p. 387. Mr. Burges says that it had been done by Jacobs, Cura Post. in Eurip. p. 213. I have only to say, that I never saw Jacobs's book, till I procured it in consequence of Mr. Burges's charge. Upon referring to it, I find that Jacobs quotes Tópovs without any notice of an emendation; so that probably it had been corrected by some former critic: by whom, I am unable to say. The emendation was too obvious to be overlooked, with the other passages before me; and whoever will take the trouble to compare my note with Jacobs, will acquit me of plagiarism o.

noticing a fragment of the Tragic or Comic writers, already to be found in their proper place, in the edition of each poet respectively." G. Burges ad Suppl. 121, quotes "Eschyl. Philoct. Fragm. apud Stob. p. 602-493. et Plutarch. ÎI. p. 106. D." This fragment is given by Stanley in its proper place.' Idem p. 81. "Soph. apud Schol. Pindar. Nem. X. 59," given by Brunck, in its proper place.' Idem p. 151. Neque distat Eschylei Philoctetæ Fragm. apud Schol. ad Aristoph. Ran. 1430," given by Pauw in its proper place.' Idem p. 170. Bacchylidis verba apud Stob. p. 367=209.' given by Brunck in their proper place. These instances are quoted, for the purpose of showing that hypercritical objections are very apt to redound upon him who makes them.

2 Perhaps Mr. Burges will not believe that I had no knowledge of Jacobs's work, except from the writings of other critics. At v. 253, of the Supplices Mr. B. says, "Jacobs. Animadv. in Athen. p. 3. Πέρας γὰρ ἐλθὼν ̓́Απις ἐκ Ναυπακτίας.” But he does not add, “Jacobs. Addit. Animadv. p. 3. "Απις γὰρ ἐλθὼν ἐκ πάτρας Ναυπακτίας.”

V. 105. "Citant Moschopulus in MS. apud Fabricii Bib. Gr. XII. p. 306. et Theodorus Hyrtacenus Epp. 8. et 12." Alberti on Hesych. v. 'Adýpiтov. refers to the former of these authors; and from him I am ready to acknowledge that I may have taken the reference, although I cannot now recollect whether I did so; nor do I think it of the least importance. Mr. Burges has lately written a play, which he calls the Supplices of Eschylus; and in a note on the Nightingale, p.76, he says, "Neque in hanc rem omitti debet Babrii Fab. XIV. Euper & épnμois, &c." which had been cited by C. J. B. in his note on the Nightingale in Agam. 1113. Again, 681. “Cum hisce Eschyleis conferri debent Hesiodea &c." all of which had been compared by Spanheim, in his notes on the passage of Callimachus, which Mr. Burges quotes.

*

V.112. Some remarks on άπλακεῖν and αμπλακεῖν, which Mr. Burges says are taken from Dr. Burney in the Monthly Review. If he will look in the third edition of the Prometheus, he will find a reference to my note on Agam. 336, where are these words: “ Tragicos dixisse ἀπλακεῖν, non ἀμπλακεῖν, pluribus ostendit Burneius Monthly Rev. Feb. 1796. p. 132." which indicates, what was really the fact, that I had not seen Dr. Burney's remarks when I edited the Prometheus, and that as soon as I had, I referred to them.

V. 169. Mr. Burges gives a reference to Schaefer in edit. Lips. Porson. 4. fab. Eurip. Index v. Tion. Mr. Schaefer's Index I never examined, till this remark of Mr. Burges's reminded me of it: nor was I aware of its existence till several years after the publication of the Prometheus. At that time I used the first Leipzig edition of Porson's plays. However, upon looking to the place which Mr. Burges refers to, I find that Mr. Schaefer quotes an instance of the phrase éoa voor, which I have not quoted, and says nothing of the two instances which I have quoted.

"Vetus

V. 250. "Pindarus apud Athen. XIII. p. 601. ös un τółę κυμαίνεται, ἐξ ἀδάμαντος ἠὲ σιδάρου κεχάλκευται μέλαιναν Kapdíav уvxpâ poyi."- Duport, ap. Stanl. quotes καρδίαν ψυχρᾷ φλογί. poeta ap. Plutarch. de capiend. ex inim. utilit. keīvos ež aðáμαντος ἢ σιδάρου Κεχάλκευται μέλαιναν καρδίαν.” And is this a plagiarism? As well might Mr. Burges himself be accused of it, for quoting five instances of ayéλaσros at v. 775, of the

Supplices, some of which had been adduced by C. J. B. or at v. 783, a passage from Eustathius given by Stanley; or at v. 680, from C. J. B. ad Pers. 674, or 920, from C. J. B. in Agam. 652. But of these, and similar instances, no candid man would use the term plagiarism. I should be much more inclined to apply it to a person, who in v. 20. of the Supplices prints τίν ̓ ἂν οὖν χώραν εὔφρονα μᾶλλον Τῆσδ ̓ ἀφικοίμεθα; instead of the common reading, Tiva your X. and adds this note. Sermonis Græci ratio av omissum non sinit. MECUM facit Aristoph. Αν. 127. Ποίαν τιν ̓ οὖν ἥδιστ ̓ ἂν οἰκοῖτ ̓ ἂν πόλιν. Et Bl. (i. e. C.J. B.) ad s. c. Th. 731. Tív av ovv." This is a curious instance of that strict observance of the suum cuique, upon which Mr. Burges so clamorously insists. It is an old and hackneyed trick with critics of a certain description, to propose an emendation as their own, and then to add, as it were by the way, that another scholar, who had proposed it long before, coincides with them.

V.302. 363. 386. 836. 865. do not deserve notice.

V. 321. "Jacobs. Animadv. in Eurip. p. 328." What this means I am at a loss to imagine. I compare this verse with a fragment in Stobæus of which Jacobs cites a part, but does not refer to Eschylus and I compare it for the purpose of making a correction which Jacobs does not make. I refer to Wytten-, bach and Luzac who treat of his fragment; and I do not refer to Jacobs, who does not treat of it; whose book I had never seen, and probably should not have referred to, if I had seen it.

V. 367. "Gatakeri conjecturam certam reddit Scholiastes Venetus ad II. A. 319." the passage of the Venetian Scholiast, which I took from a book into which I had long before copied all the quotations contained in those Scholia, is referred to by Schweighauser Index in Athen. v. ÆSCHYLUS: of which I was not aware.

V. 470. The remarks on Neobule are said to be borrowed from the notes on Hesych. v. épyaris. If they had been, I should have avoided the mistake pointed out by Mr. Elmsley of calling her Lycambe. However, in point of fact, I have referred in the Glossary to the Commentators on Hesychius. I was here guilty of carelessness, not of plagiarism 1.

'I am not quite so careless, however, as Mr. Burges would make me appear. He says at v. 874, of his Supplices, "In Stesichori

fragmento

V.698. Conj. ἀκτήν τε Λέρνης. A worthy friend and colleague of Mr. Burges had informed me that Spanheim had conjectured Λέρνης ἀκτήν τε. which certainly ought to have been mentioned in the second edition; why it was not, I cannot now say, except that I suppose the gentleman's letter was forgotten. Assuredly I did not intentionally omit to notice it, seeing that I could be so easily convicted of the omission. In my answer to Mr. Burges's friend, which he has published (for it seems he keeps my letters) I remarked to him that a correction which I had made on Archilochus (ad Prometh. 721.) had been made long before by D. Heinsius and Hemsterhuis. And he mentions it, "particularly as the acknowledgment does not appear in the second edition of the Prometheus, which has been published since the date of this letter." Now the date of this letter is June 29, 1812. and the second edition of the Prometheus came out in 1811. as Mr. Burges's friend knew. He might have known also that in the third edition, the correction is assigned to its rightful owner.

V.878. "Porson ad Hec. 1161. in Addend. ad Equit. 1046. et ad Pac. 630, suggested the materials of this note." His note on Hec. 1161, is this; 'poteram quædam de vocibus èkμéδιμνον, ἑξμέδιμνον, et ἑξαμέδιμνον disserere. On the Equit. 1946, he quotes part of the passage which I have given from the Etymol. M. and he corrects Pac. 630. Ekμédiuvov. Let the reader compare the notes referred to, and judge for himself whether there be any plagiarism, even if it were not true, which it is, that I never looked into Porson's papers on Aristophanes.

I think it very probable, that I was indebted to Dorville for the wrong reference to the Schol. on Apollon. Rhod. in the Glossary on v. 27. If so, I was unfortunate; for the right reference is given in the notes on Hesychius; but for the fragment of Phrynichus preserved by Pausanias, and

fragmento apud Strabon. VIII. p. 347. D.-emendat Heynius vouous pro vous, metro probante, quod nescire videtur Bl. in Mus. Crit. No. VI. p. 267." "I have mentioned Heyne's correction, without any remark, knowing that if the metre approved, it did not require it; in another edition I may add "uvous primam interdum corripit, (vid. Hephæst. p. 15.) quod nescire videtur G. B. ad Suppl. 874."