quoted at v. 376. whom I refer to.

I was indebted to Gronovius, Obs. II. 11.
Let the reader compare what I have said

there, with Porson's Adversaria, p. 38.

Gloss. 199. 249. In two observations I had been anticipated in two such well known books, that in the absence of all other motives, the certainty of detection would have deterred me from committing a plagiarism.

431. The instances which I quote of avoрónpwpos, are, with one exception, given in the notes on Hesych. I acknowledge that they are; and I ought perhaps to have made that reference. I had, however, collected them bona fide, from the authors themselves; and did not expect much credit from such an enumeration.

453. Archipp. ap. Etym. M. p. S57, 26. ПIXOUTWV (VUV) γενόμην χρημάτων ἐπήβολος. “ νῦν is inclosed within curved lines, and appears as if C. J. B. wished it to be expelled-and so did Sylburgius"-true; and for that very reason I put it between brackets, and said nothing about it.

802. I am charged with taking from Porson the instances of eira with a participle. Now of nineteen passages to which I refer, six only are mentioned in the Adversaria, p. 275. As to the note on v. 75.. of the Theb. waving the fact of my never having seen Porson's note on the Acharn. v. 250. I leave the reader to compare the two, and to judge for himself.

As for the long diatribe about the Fables of Babrius, I have only to assert, that I have never seen Schneider's edition, nor was aware of its existence till I learned it from Mr. Burges. I lived for several years in an obscure country parish, at a considerable distance from any library, and with a very imperfect collection of critical works; and many of the classical publications which appeared in Germany during the war, I have only seen within the last two years; for instance, Schow's edition of Heraclides, a book which I could never succeed in procuring till within these three months, and from which I am charged with having borrowed an emendation in Alcæus. The restitution of Babrius proposed in the Museum Criticum, is such plain sailing, that it was scarcely possible for any person, tolerably versed in the iambic metre, to avoid the emen3 T

VOL. II. NO. 7.

dations there suggested. I have very recently procured an edition of Babrius by a Mr. Berger, printed at Munich in 1816, where I find the same arrangements as those which I had proposed in the Museum Criticum, and the same corrections with a few exceptions, with the following note in p. vi. of the Preface. “Ex ea (sc. ed. Corayana) cl. Io. Gott. Schneiderus ad calcem fabularum Æsopicarum, e cod. Augustano nunc primum editarum xxx111. fabulas Babrianus partim in numeros suos redactas, partim prout Tyrwhittus e cod. Bodleiano ediderat, prosaicas excerpsit, eisque reliquarum fragmenta cum suis et Butmanni emendationibus subjecit. E quibus, perfecto jam opere meo, solam egregiam plane conjecturam, fab. XXIV. libri primi notatam, et pauca quædam alia recepi; in reliquis me vel convenire vel ita discrepare deprehendi, ut meorum me non pœniteret.”

I am further accused of pilfering in a certain Review an emendation of Mr. Dobree's on the Eumen. v. 887. yanópw for y' auoipov. Mr. Dobree's correction is in the Classical Journal, γ ̓ ἀμοίρου. III. p. 654. and ought to have been known to me. It is my general practice, when I meet with what I consider a probable emendation in the writings of other scholars, to note it down with the proper reference. When, however, I state, that I have done this very imperfectly, and assign as a reason the fact, that for the last ten years I have been only able to look into critical works by fits and starts, as I could find a spare half-hour, I shall find credit with those who have had the means of knowing my avocations. Upon looking in my interleaved Eschylus, I find the following note, of which the part in brackets has been added long since the Review in question was published: y' ev poíρου. Aldus habet τῆ δέ γ' αμοίρου. ita L. Robortellus τῇ δὲ δ' ἀμοίρον. Suspicor τῆσδέ γ ̓ εὐμοίρου vel etiam τῆσδε γαμόρου χθονός. Hesych. Γάμοροι . . . . οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐγγείων τιμημάτων τὰ κοινὰ διέποντες. vid. Æ. P. Lex Ion. in v. [γαμόρῳ P. P. D. Class. Journ. III. p. 654.] Now certainly, if I had remembered Mr. Dobree's emendation, I should hardly have had the assurance to palm it upon the public as my own, when it was before them in so well known and recent a work. As the whole credit of the correction, of course, belongs to Mr. Dobree, I make this statement only for the purpose of exculpating myself, and I may add, that if I had been inclined to

trespass, it would not have been on the property of a learned and respected friend. Mr. Elmsley on v. 508. of the Baccha proposes an emendation of the Prometh. v. 86. which, says Mr. Burges, he will find recorded in the Class. Journal, I. p. 81. yet he abstains from any charge of plagiarism.

A writer in No. VII. of the Classical Journal, p. 159. had corrected ἐκ τινὸς φρονήματος for ἐκ ποίου φρ. for the sake of the metre. "Hinc suum," says Mr. B. ut solet, furatur Blomfieldus in Edinb. Rev. No. XXXVIII. p. 501." Is it probable that I should have proposed as my own, a correction which had been published but a few months before in an English Journal, had I known of its being there? Whether the article in question were written before the Class. Journ. No. VII. appeared, I cannot at this distance of time undertake to say, although most probably it was: but this I can with the greatest truth aver, that for the correction I was not indebted to the Classical Journal.

I have now only to add a few general remarks. My employments, for the last ten years of my life, have rendered it utterly impossible for me to hunt through all the literary journals for the casual emendations of other scholars, and in many cases even to look at them. This Mr. Burges, of course, will believe or not, as he pleases. My friends know it to be the case'. In the second place, it is scarcely possible, in the present state of literature, even with the utmost care, to avoid occasional coiucidences. Hermann. ad Orphic. p. 314. gives av ovoμovσas as a correction of his own, for avlovóμov тâs in v. 44. of the Supplices; whereas ávovoμovoas had been restored by Porson in the Glasgow edition, and he has done the same with epaπTop in v. 548. Mr. Elmsley had in one or two instances been anticipated by Hotibius in his remarks on the Acharnenses, as I learn from Mr. Dobree's work. See Edinb. Rev. Vol. XVII. pp. 391, 392. Hermann. ad Orph. p. 749. gives as his own, an

1

1 It is the case also with scholars who have had more leisure for research. It is plain from Mr. Elmsley's notes on the argument of the Medea, that he was unacquainted with the remarks by Boeckh in his work on the 3 Greek Tragedians, Lips. 1808. How much celebrity had the Meletemata Critica of Schaefer deservedly obtained abroad, before they were known to English scholars.

emendation of D'Orville's on Manetho; which is remarked by Spitzner de versu Heroico p. 157. and on Viger p. 927. he corrects Solon XVI. 6. as Vossius had done before; which is noticed by Friedemann de media syllaba pentam. p. 286. See Dobree's Aristoph. Addend. ad Eccles. 1133. Porson ap. Dobr. ad Ach. 1149. corrects a fraginent of Eschylus, as it is cited by Grotius, Exc. p. 55. Mr. Elmsley proposes to correct v.93. of the Medea, as I had already corrected it Gloss. in Pers. 520. Many other instances might be produced from Mr. Hermann's writings, and many from those of Mr. Reisig; and yet it would be very unjust to call them plagiarisms. Mr. Elmsley had been anticipated in his discussion of the elision of I in the dat. sing. (ad Heracl. 693.) by Lobeck (ad Ajac. p. 340.) of which Mr. Burges was not aware, when he said "Litem primus composuit Elmsleius."

In v. 26. of the Suppl. for varоi Te Oeoì κai Baρúτiμo Χθόνιοι θήκας κατέχοντες, Mr. Burges ingeniously reads χθονίας Onkas; but he does not mention that Pearson had proposed Xoovious Onkas, which is probably the true reading. And yet I do not attribute this to any thing but inadvertence. Auratus proposed xlovías. Again at v. 46. he proposes an emendation on an Epigram (not first published as he supposes, in the Classical Journal) τίς μοιρῶν μίτον ὑμμὶν ἐκλώσατο παῖδες awpov; as it had been printed by Jacobs in his notes on the Anthol. Palatin. p. 967. Again v.62. kipkyλátov tándóvos. Mr. Burges prints kipknλáтoi' and. and gives his reason for the correction, but does not state till he comes to the Addenda, that it had been made by Mr. Elmsley, ad Med. p. 207. so that the same correction may be hit upon by two critics.

On v. 191. "A. et R. (i. e. Robort.) in codice ipso Xpeios εἰ ξένη φυγάς. unde erui, χρή σ', ὅσ ̓ εἶξεν εὖ φυγάς.” Sophianus had corrected είξεν ἡ φυγάς.

If I am not prepared with a longer list of instances from the writings of Mr. Burges, it is owing, in part, to the slight acquaintance which I have contracted with that gentleman's critical labours; and in part to the peculiar turn of mind, which has led him to make the generality of his emendations of such a cast, that they are not likely to have been anticipated by any former, or to be borrowed by any future critic.

I have now only to express a hope, that in my endeavours to refute a charge, which has been urged with a coarseness of invective, almost unparalleled in the annals of literature, I have said nothing in violation of that decorum which ought to mark the intercourse of scholars; although, to speak the truth, I know not whether Mr. Burges can lay any claim to this forbearance, on the score either of scholarship, or of gentlemanly feeling. I am not insensible of the disgrace of having been forced to descend into the arena with such an adversary, and Mr. Burges may be assured, that the mortification which I experience in being compelled to appear, for the first and last time, in the character of his antagonist, is such as might satisfy even his spirit of malevolence.

C. J. B.

OUR attention has been called to the following passage of a popular and entertaining work called 'Peter's Letters to his Kinsfolk's :' the author speaking of the Literature of Edinburgh, says,

"Mr. D, the Professor of Greek, has published “several little things in the Cambridge Classical Researches, " and is certainly very much above the common run of scholars." Vol. I. p. 168.

What the common run of scholars,' at Edinburgh may be, we know not; but what Mr. D― is, the world has had some opportunity of learning, from a work which he calls a continuation of Dalzel's Collectanea Græca. Our only wish is to contradict most positively the assertion that he has ever been a contributor, small or great, to this publication. How such a strange mistatement originated, we cannot form the least conjecture.