boring to achieve in vain." Then comes the finishing stroke to this tirade, as follows:-" And as it concerns the interests of society, that slanders should not be vented with impunity, we have thought fit to hold up these personages for one moment to the public view, and then dismiss them into their natural obscurity for ever." Now, if the Reviews have already succeeded in procuring Mr. Barker a "notoriety," I cannot see on what grounds these gentlemen can be entitled to the merit of introducing him to the public; unless that Mr. Barker's previous "notoriety," being infinitely small compared with that, which the notice of so celebrated a publication as the Mus. Crit. will undoubtedly procure him, may be neglected in the calculation. But a difficulty still remains. By what magic spells is so "notorious" a character to become thus suddenly evanescent, and be lost for ever to the public view? This is truly a dignus vindice nodus. The slanders alluded to are specified as " charges against us, (that is, against the whole body corporate of contributors to the Mus. Crit.) of wilful plagiarism, of bad faith, and of malignity towards contemporaries." These charges, if I am not mistaken, have been alleged against one individual alone, who, by his insufferable superciliousness, has become deservedly obnoxious to scholars both at home, and abroad : κακὰ δεννάζων ῥήμαθ ̓ ἃ δαίμων, Κοὐδεὶς ἀνδρῶν, ἐδίδαξεν : and of whom it may with truth be said, The charge of plagiarism preferred against C. J. B. by Mr. G. Burges, was founded on coincidences equally striking with those, which induced the former to bring forward a similar allegation against Stanley; the only difference in the two cases being this, that C. J. B. is alive to publish his vindication in the pages of the Mus. Crit., while poor Stanley, εἰς ἀνάγκην δαιμόνων ἀφιγμένος, is effectually precluded from uttering a syllable in refutation of his accuser, and therefore "must submit to his fate." (Vide Mus. Crit. No. VII. p. 497.) C. J. B.'s logic with respect to his attack upon Stanley, is perfectly applicable, mutatis mutandis, to Mr. G. Burges: The literary property of numerous emendations is a question not unworthy of investigation; and, if it turn out that they do in fact belong to Porson, or Burges, or Butler, or Dobree, and not to C. J. B., no blame can fairly attach to the person, who proves it." The accusation against Mr. Barker and other writers in the Classical Journal, of a continued course" of insolence and detraction" towards the conductors of the Mus. Crit., may gain credence with those, who are content to receive assertion for argument. A sufficient refutation of this charge, which is not now urged for the first time, has already appeared in the 46th Number of that work. As a constant reader of the Journal, in none of its contributors have I detected any symptoms of the spirit attributed to them by this genus irritabile; and least of all in Mr. Barker, against whom the fire of this tremendous battery is principally directed. In the strictures, which he took the liberty of offering to the public on Dr. Blomfield and Professor Monk's Editions, his objections were stated in an uniformly temperate and candid style, equally removed from hypercritical censoriousness, and degrading adulation. That a scholar of Mr. Barker's profound erudition and extensive research should discover omissions and inaccuracies in the writings of one, who confesses that "he has 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 again, that "for the last ten years he has only been able to look into critical works by fits and starts, as he could find a spare half-hour," (Mus. Crit. No. vii. p. 505-6.) cannot be regarded as greatly surprising. The mysterious part of the case is, on what grounds a writer, who pleads these manifold disadvantages, is to be considered infallible, or on what principle of justice and propriety Mr. Barker is to be denounced as a detractor and a slanderer, for supplying his defects and correcting his errors, or still farther, why the Classical Journal, one department of which publication avowedly consists of "Criticisms on new Editions of the Classics," should not be the medium for conveying these animadversions to the public? To conclude. The information sifted from the principal University Bookseller, and detailed with such exultation, respecting the sale of the Classical Journal, is clearly decisive of that character for decorum and gentlemanly feeling, which these writers so exclusively arrogate to themselves. It is in itself too contemptible to deserve any comments; and therefore, with many apologies to your readers" for having devoted even a single page to such unworthy subjects," I subscribe myself, ΦΙΛΑΛΗΘΗΣ. AMERICAN PRIZES. Ir has been observed that the progress of arms and arts has been from East to West. From Chaldæa, Egypt and Palestine it proceeded to Greece, then to Italy. France stood for a time on the pinnacle of military and literary fame, and has been lately rivalled by this country. How soon the American world may succeed to those high distinctions, we must leave to the course of events, and to the records of future history. Certain it is that North America has within these few years risen high in military exertions by sea and land. Whatever jealousy may exist in this country on account of those symptoms of greatness in arms, we must all rejoice at the attempts made by the Americans to deserve some credit in art and science. We hail with pleasure the improvements making in their colleges in classical knowledge, in the litera humaniores. One of our Correspondents in America has sent us two publications, containing prize compositions in prose and verse, in Latin and English, by the youths of New England, educated at Boston Public School. What adds to the credit of both masters and pupils is, that, as we understand, the latter are not so old as those, who leave our Public Schools for the University. We shall produce a specimen of their Latin Poetry; and take the liberty of adding a few hints for the improvement of their style, which we shall record with pleasure on some future occasion. PROSERPINA RAPTA. AUCTORE BENJAMINE BRIGHAM. "Quo fugis, ah! miseram, demens Proserpina, matrem ? Heu! nunquamne licet te rursus visere? nunquam Maternis dabitur natam complectier ulnis ? 5 10 15 Nescia quid timeat, "Ditem nunc," inquit, “adibo, Acciderit proli si quis mihi casus amatæ". Plura locuturæ vox nunc pervenit ad aures, 20 "Diva Ceres, o siste gradum, te cuncta docebo"- Nec mora quin dextra lævaque dehiscere cœpit: Et sic alloquitur Superumque hominumque parentem : "O Pater omnipotens, jam supplicis annue votis: Te facilem præbe, miseramque ulciscere matrem ! Qui mihi per facinus rapuit sub Tartara natam ; Imperat hoc fieri Divum pater atque hominum rex."— Jam superas Cereris soboles venisset ad auras, Ni forte Ascalaphus funesto prodidit ore, We wish to suggest to the young candidates for poetical fame, that a verse should not begin with a spondee closing the sense, as in No. 1. p. 41.-Savis? Fundis? A short final vowel should not be followed by a word beginning with sc, sp, sq, st, as No. 1. p. 45.-Astræa stateramNo. 2. p. 41. tempora spicis; 44. semina spargens-glaciale strinxit. The enclitic should follow the first word of a clause: hence we would propose a correction in No. 2. p. 44. On this subject we beg to refer to the Classical Journal, Vol. 1x. p. 589. In English Poetry it is scarcely necessary to guard the young writers against defective rhymes; of which we observe several instances. |