appear to be original, because I give no authority for it, is in fact taken from them. In the subsequent page this insinuation is repeated, "The work before us is an olla-prodrida' of quotations from Gesner's and Facciolati's Lat. Dictionaries, of critical notes, done into English, from Servius to Professor Monk." Now, in the face of the literary world, I challenge this reviewer to produce a single passage of any sort whatsoever either from this work, or from any other production of my pen, which is taken, without any acknowledgment, either from the commentators and the critics, whom he has named, or from any others, who are included in the period, which is specified by him, from the time of Servius to the date of Professor Monk's publication: "Moneo, et testor religiose a me servatam nobilem illam Laurentiam legem, NE POMUM EX ALIENO, nosti cætera: quidquam a nobis ex doctorum hujus ævi virorum scriptis in mea tralatum, nomina ingenue profiteor, neque enim furtivæ a me sublectæ pennæ, Ne, si forte suas repetitum venerit olim Grex avium plumas, moveat cornicula risum." J. Meursius's Preface to his Commentary upon the Cassandra of Lycophron. As he has made this most serious charge, he is of course prepared to support it by the evidence of facts: let him then lay them before the public, or let him stand before them a convicted criminal: let the conductor of the "Critical Review give up the name of the writer, or let him be content to share in the guilt of the calumny. The insertion of an article so replete with malignity, and with ignorance, reflects as little credit upon the understanding, as it does upon the heart of the said conductor. The work before us is an olla-prodrida (olla-podrida) of quotations from Gesner and Facciolati's Latin Dictionaries, of critical notes, done into English, from Servius to Professor Monk; of citations from various travellers, and modern historiographers, in the way, it is said, of illustration; of untenable assumptions; and it is altogether a noble sample of that art, to which the Irish have given the happy and intelligible title of botheration it sets out with a long and tedious verbal commentary on the Germany of Tacitus, through the mire of which the reader will flounder for many a weary page without the illumination of a single ray of genius: even the errors themselves are of such a nature, as not to excite any passion but mirth. : The reviewer begins this paragraph with asserting that my It is a pity that the Reviewer did not look into a dictionary, before he ventured to write this word, as I believe that he would have found the orthography to be olla-podrida; or that he did not adopt the expedient, which is occasionally used by a clerical friend of my father's, who, when he had an occasion in the course of his conversation to use the words olla-podrida, and para-sol, afraid as he was to pronounce them improperly, omitted the podrida of the one, and the sol of the other. 1 work is "an olla-podrida," (or, as he calls it, olla-prodrida) "of quotations from Gesner and Facciolati's Latin Dictionaries. Gesner's Thesaurus is either quoted, or referred to, by me twentynine times, and Facciolati's Ler. is only quoted, or referred to, four times. I challenge the reviewer to produce any other pas sage, where Facciolati's Lexicon is quoted, or referred to, with an acknowledgment, or cited without any acknowledgment; if he cannot produce such a passage, it is for the public to decide upon the honesty of the reviewer. As to Servius, he is cited only once. The reviewer, as the reader will remember, concludes the paragraph, which I am now discussing, with these words: "A, display of egotism, which we certainly never witnessed before, and of which a fair specimen may be adduced from the following puff direct, y'clept:" I add this "fair specimen : SPECIMEN. ADVERTISEMENT OF WORKS PROJECTED BY THE SAME AUTHOR. The Commentary on the Germany of Tacitus, with which the following work begins, forms only a Specimen of the notes, which I have collected on this very important Tract. It was my intention to publish a little Edition of the Germany and the Agricola from the Text of Brotier, with all the Notes, both critical and explanatory, of Brotier, with a selection of Notes from the Gronovian, the Bipontine, and the Ernestine Editions, (including the Observations of Oberlin), with such illustrations, as are incidentally given in the later publications of eritical works, and with such remarks; critical, explanatory, moral, and political, as have occurred to me in the course of my reading: the work would have been so arranged, as to consult the convenience of both the student, and the scholar: I may, probably, publish such an Edition of these inestimable Tracts in the subsequent year: in the mean time, the reader will be enabled to judge from this specimen whether such an edition is really wanted, and whether I am sufficiently qualified for the execution of such a task. It is my intention to publish, as soon as the materials are collected, and my papers are arranged for the press, an Edition of Demosthenes, containing the Orution on the Crown, and the Philippic, and the Olynthiac Orations, with all the Notes of Taylor, and Reiske, with a selection of Notes from the Editions of Mounteney, and Stock, as well as the Translation of Leland, and his Life of Philip, with such incidental illustrations, as are scattered throughout the different productions of the later Critics, and with such original observations, as have occurred to me in the perusal, both of them, and of the work itself: no Latin version will be given, and all the original Notes, except where a quotation is made from a Critic, who has written in Latin, will be written in English: no pains will be spared to embellish the Edition with useful and solid information: the present generation of critical scholars seems to be so much occupied with the Greek Tragedians, that such an undertaking will not, I fear, meet with that encouragement, which it deserves. It is also my intention to publish in the subsequent year an Edition of the Gospel of St. Luke, which will be more particularly adapted to the use of the young men at Trinity College, Cambridge, where it is regularly read in the second year: no Latin version will be given, and all doctrinal matter will be excluded from the Notes, which will be merely critical, and explanatory; they will be drawn from every accessible source of criticism; and the student, who aspires to critical accuracy, will be presented for a small sum, and in a small compass, with a great mass of useful information, for which he must have searched through various volumes. p. vii-ix. The reviewer adds: "Quid dignum tanto feret hic promissor hiatu?" As soon as these works have issued from the press, the public will be able to answer the question of the reviewer: the edition of Tacitus's Germany and Agricola is now in the press. I should be glad to be informed where is "the puff direct, displaying an egotism, which We never witnessed before," in this " fair specimen? Surely the reviewer will not be disposed to deny that an edition of Demosthenes, and of St. Luke's Gospel, as edited upon this plan, will both deserve more encouragement than they are likely to meet, and contain a great mass of useful information. p. 94. Alexander ab Alexandro in his Geniales Dies' why is this sentence half in English, half in Latin? He is often cited with apparent ignorance of his name Alessandro de Alessandri: he was a Neapolitan lawyer. p. 394. I will tell to this reviewer why, what he is pleased to call improperly a sentence, the words Alexander ab Alexandro in his Geniales Dies,' were used: it was because I did not choose to translate the title of the book; for I wish always to preserve the very words of the title of every work, which I quote; partly from my love of accuracy in statements, partly from my care to prevent any misunderstanding between the reader and myself, and partly from my anxiety to save to the reader some trouble, if he is disposed to make any inquiries after the book, which is cited. If the reviewer wishes to ascertain experimentally the validity of the two last reasons, let him for the future always give to his bookseller his orders for any critical work, which is written in Latin, not in the words of the title-page, but in plain English. He is often cited,' says the reviewer, with apparent ignorance of his name, Alessandro de Alessandri: he was a Neapolitan lawyer.' I am greatly obliged to him for having told to me his real name; for I will deal plainly with him, and honestly confess that I did not know his real name. Will the reviewer venture to say that he himself is able to discover, under the Latinised form, the real name of all the German and Dutch critics, commentators, and editors, whose works he has seen quoted in reviews, or, it may be, read in the books themselves? But to what does this confession, which I have made, amount? Does it prove that the writer, who knows not the real name of his author, is unacquainted with the contents of the book? Have I not shown, by frequent quotations from it, that I have been a diligent reader of this admirable work? Will he pretend to say, that he has a better knowledge of it than I have? if he really has read it, I congratulate him upon the solid and the useful information, which he must have derived from it: I felicitate him upon the great advantage, which this sort of knowledge will give to him, in discuss VOL. I. NO. II. 2 G ing the meaning of disputed passages, which involve the subject of antiquities, by which they are alone capable of being satisfactorily explained. I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice, that, when his brethren of the Porsonian school are devoting their attention to the departments of orthography, of accentuation, and of metre, which are far less important, far less useful, far more limited in their extent; he, who indirectly professes himself to be a disciple of this school, has been deviating from the common course of reading, and has entered upon this wide field, so smooth, so green, so full of goodly prospects on every side? I exult in the thought of the numerous obstacles, which he will be able to remove; vallies will be filled, mountains will be levelled; the traveller will advance in royal state, and his path will be strewed with flowers; the boundaries of knowledge will be extended; criticism under his plastic hands will assume a new form, and will not come in the questionable shape in which she was wont to appear. But, after all, it is a possible circumstance, that the acquaintance, which the reviewer himself has with the "Geniales Dies," may not extend beyond the title-page; and that he may have learnt from it the important fact, which he has so kindly, but so unnecessarily, communicated to the public, and to myself, that Alexander ab Alexandro, (or, as the reviewer would call him, Alessandro de Alessandri) was a Neapolitan lawyer.' I must, however, observe that, when I use the Latinised form of a German name, it does not therefore follow that I am ignorant of the real name; for in many cases, where I happen to be acquainted with the real name, I have not used it, and, probably, shall continue not to use it. In the same page the veteran Ileyne is abused without the slightest reason. But, before the reader assents to this "untenable assumption," he should examine into the real state of the case. I am speaking upon the subject of second marriages, and make the following quotation from Potter's Gr. Ant.: "Second marriages were not reputed creditable: hence Dido, in Virgil, speaking of being married to Æneas after the death of a former husband, calls it (culpam) a fault, Huic uni forsan potui succumbere culpæ, Æn. iv. 19. [yet Heyne absurdly says, Culpa cum dilectu, i. e. pro amore], where Servius has made this remark, Quod antiqui a sacerdotio repellebant bis nuptas." Surely absurdity is still absurdity, whether it come from a profound Heyne, who generally talks like a sensible scholar, or from a flippant reviewer, who may never by any accident "deviate into sense." Is it possible for any judicious critic, who has presented to him the explanations of the word culpa, as given by Heyne, (whose taste would have rejected it, if he had, at the time, recollected the remark of Servius), and by Potter, whose idea is founded upon the opinions of the Romans, to hesitate between the two? At p. 117, commence some crude observations in English, entitled "Critical and Explanatory Notes on the Hippolytus of Euripides, with Strictures on some Remarks of Professor Monk.' There was no need for him to say some crude observations in English" for I have never written a note in Latin; and, though I may often be an editor of classical works, never mean to write in Latin, because I keep utility too much in my view to throw this obstacle into the way of the youthful scholar. I do not wonder that the reviewer should call these observations crude; for it should seem, from what he immediately adds, that he has not digested them : And first of all, there is much ado about nothing concerning the term Touvorgia, which the latter-named gentleman has well explained in his notes by the English word match-maker: he is, however, in Mr. B.'s humble opinion,' mistaken; he would give the sense of pronuba to the word: the word is used decidedly in the sense of match-maker, in the following lines of Aristophanes, Nep. 41, cited by Professor Monk, εἴθ ̓ ὠφελ ̓ ἡ προμνήστρι ̓ ἀπολέσθαι κακῶς, ἥτις με γῆμαι πῆρε τὴν σὴν μητέρα. The word match-maker in English is generally used in a bad sense. When Dr. Parr had read my note upon this passage, he said " that I had clearly, and ably made out my point;" and I am inclined to think that Professor Monk has too much sense not to see it, and too much candor not to acknowledge it. I have undermined the ground, upon which the Professor rests his interpretation of poμνήστρια, which he thus explains, “ προμνήστρια proprie est nuptiarum conciliatrix, Anglice a match-maker, exponente Hesychio ἡ συνιστῶσα ἀλλήλοις τοὺς γαμοῦντας, et mox, προξενοῦσα νυμφίους, ἢ vuus: similiter explicat Pollux 3. 31-in nostro versu metaphorice dicitur malorum conciliatrix." Before I attempt to prove that this is really the case, I will defend by additional arguments my opinion, that goμorpia corresponds precisely to pronuba, against the remark of the reviewer, who says, with an implied negation of the fact," he [E. H. B.] would give the sense of pronuba to the word." Scaliger Poet. c. 92. 1. 11 (cited by Martinius in his Lexicon Philologicum) under the word Paranymphus, says: "Absoluto sacrificio diei nuptialis in soceri ædes deducebatur sponsus ab eo, quem Græci napávvutov, quasi ejus asseclam, nominârunt aliqui etiam vuur, alii zάpoxov vocabant: quemadmodum mulier, quæ sponsæ aderat, ПIPÓмNHETPIA dicebatur illis, nobis PRONUBA." Under the word pronubus Martinius cites the Glossarium Philoxeni, Pronuha ǹ magávuμdos, and the Glossarium Cyrilli, #poμvýστρia, PRONUBA. Should the reviewer : |