more liberal use than any preceding critic had ventured to make. He also proposes a system of metrical quantity, founded chiefly on the practice of Homer, whose works, he says, "are composed of materials so pure and simple, and executed with such precision and regularity, that we can still trace the minutest touches of the master's hand, and ascertain, with almost mathematical certainty, the principles upon which he wrought." On this passage Porson very justly observes that "Homer's poetry, however exalted and embellished by learning and genius, must partake of that rudeness and simplicity which are always incident to the infancy of language and of society;" and intimates that "the champions for Homer, who attribute to him all possible perfection, who find in him not only all other arts and sciences, but also a philosophical grammar, and a philosophical system of metre," attribute to him much more than they can substantiate, except to their own imaginations. The character of the book Porson sums up as follows:-"The author is a man of reading, learning, and inquiry. His taste and knowledge seem to predominate rather in the antiquarian's province, as it is generally called; but, when he traces the history of language and the etymology of words, he gives too much scope to conjecture and imagination. In the execution of his plan he unnecessarily contracts his foundation by building only on the groundwork of Homer; and, while he denies that particular changes of sounds and words can take place except in one certain prescribed mode, he allows too little to the changes, caprices, conveniences, &c., which produce the fluctuations. We have, however, perused his essay generally with entertainment, sometimes with instruc

tion and approbation; and Mr. Knight may deserve, at least, this praise, that the errors in his research are sometimes more to the purpose than the successful inquiries of others."

The book contains a remark on the faculties and attainments requisite for verbal criticism, which Porson was very glad to quote, as a support to his own pursuits, at the head of his article :

"I cannot but think that the judgment of the public, upon the respective merits of the different classes of critics, is peculiarly partial and unjust.

"Those among them who assume the office of pointing out the beauties, and detecting the faults, of literary composition, are placed with the orator and the historian in the highest ranks; while those who undertake the more laborious task of washing away the rust and canker of time, and bringing back those forms and colours which are the subject of criticism to their original purity and brightness, are degraded, with the index-maker and antiquary, among the pioneers of literature, whose business it is to clear the way for those who are capable of more splendid and honourable enterprises.

"But, nevertheless, if we examine the effects produced by these two classes of critics, we shall find that the first have been of no use whatever, and that the last have rendered the most important services to mankind. All persons of taste and understanding know, from their own feelings, when to approve and disapprove, and therefore stand in no need of instruction from the critic; and as for those who are destitute of such faculties, they can never be taught to use them; for no one can be taught to exert faculties which he does not possess. Every dunce may indeed be taught to repeat the jargon of criticism, which of all jargons is the worst, as it joins the tedious formality of methodical reasoning to the trite frivolity of common-place observation. But, whatever may be the taste and discernment of a reader, or the genius and ability of a writer, neither the one nor the other can appear

while the text remains deformed by the corruptions of blundering transcribers, and obscured by the glosses of ignorant grammarians. It is then that the aid of the verbal critic is required; and though his minute labour, in dissecting syllables, and analysing letters, may appear contemptible in its operation, it will be found important in its effect."

The usefulness of verbal criticism, judiciously applied, will not be questioned; but that elegant criticism, which dwells on the beauties and defects of composition, and compares the merits of different authors, works, and passages, is utterly useless, will not so readily be admitted. The criticisms of Addison, Johnson, or Warton, which instruct or please us, cannot be regarded as utterly valueless productions. Nor is verbal criticism. to be set above all other criticism simply because of its usefulness; for the performances of mankind do not rise in estimation merely in proportion to their utility; else the labours of the agriculturist would exalt him high above all other human agents.

CHAP. X.

PORSON'S INTENTIONS REGARDING ÆSCHYLUS.

THE LONDON PUBLISHERS.

PROJECTED EDITION BY

AN EDITION OF ESCHYLUS SURREPTI

TIOUSLY PRINTED AT GLASGOW FROM PORSON'S CORRECTIONS. PORSON'S SAGACITY AND CAUTION EXHIBITED IN THE EMENDATIONS.

SOME time before this period, Porson had projected an edition of Eschylus, to contain the fragments, and to be accompanied with the scholia and notes*; and, says the "Short Account of Porson," "he sent his Eschylus to be printed at Glasgow in octavo." What he sent was a copy of Pauw's Eschylus†, in which, according to Dr. Young, he had made more than two hundred corrections. The text of the seven plays thus corrected was printed by Foulis at Glasgow, as early as 1794, in two volumes octavo, for the London booksellers, who expected, apparently on Porson's promise, that he would add notes and the fragments, but, having waited for these accompaniments more than ten years, they at last allowed the volumes, at the instance of Porson's friends, to go forth in 1806 without them. This text, says Kidd §, was the substratum of Porson's projected edition; "it was given to the world with his knowledge, and, after unceasing importunity, with a sort of half-faced consent." After it was published, he

Monthly Review, Feb. 1796.

† Museum Criticum, vol. i. p. 110. Encyclop. Brit., art. "Porson."

§ Tracts, p. lxix.

frequently and earnestly, according to the same authority, conversed about his intended preface to it; he had arranged the materials in his mind, and Kidd heard him twice detail the substance of them; and when he was entreated to prepare them for publication, he would promise to try, but added that he hated and abhorred composition.

In the mean time, with the date 1795, there had come forth a folio edition, presenting nearly the same text, at Glasgow, from the same printers, said to have been surreptitiously printed from the corrections for the other edition. According to a note on the Pursuits of Literature*, its origin was as follows: "Mr. Porson, the Greek Professor at Cambridge, lent his manuscript corrections and conjectures on the text of Eschylus to a friend in Scotland; for he once had an intention of publishing that tragedian. His corrected text fell into the hands of the Scotch printer Foulis, and, without the Professor's leave or even knowledge, he published a magnificent edition of Eschylus from it without notes." Dibdin says that it was printed with the same types as the famous Glasgow Homer, and that there were only fifty-two copies struck off in all, and only eleven on the largest paper. He speaks with rapture of a large-paper copy, illustrated with Flaxman's designs, which he saw in the library at Althorp.

The account of the affair given by Hellenophilus, supposed to be Dr. Maltby, in Aikin's Athenæum, is that Porson concluded a treaty with Messrs. Elmsley and Payne, in consequence of which a new, but most improved edition, was to be printed at Glasgow. After