And three Harleian MSS. preserved in the British Museum, respectively called in the edition Δ. Π. Σ.
These three last MSS. being immediately within his reach, the Professor carefully collated, and the result of his conclusion was, that Wakefield cannot receive the palm of a skilful and scrupulously accurate collator. It is not intended to assert that the passage which follows, came from Porson’s pen, but it is so perfectly true in itself, and characteristic of Wakefield, that it is here inserted.
“In thus examining the present Edition of Lucretius, we feel a strong confidence that we shall not be suspected of being actuated by any resentment against a person, who must himself feel the chief evils of a restless, impatient, intolerant, mind. We think it, indeed, most lamentable, that a man, whose proper occupations are study and polite literature, should be so little able to command himself, as to fall into extravagances of political conduct, injurious ultimately to himself and family. Too many instances of this spirit appear completely out of their places in this Edition of Lucretius, in the form of political verses, allusions to the glories of France, and aspirations after similar changes here, with prophetic intimations of their approach.
“In such a farrago, abuse of us and our work, as supporting all that Mr. W. wishes to see overthrown, is virtually the highest compliment, and though we owe no gratitude to the author, we cannot but approve the tendency of his conduct towards us.
“We see, however, in his pages not the slightest tincture of that character, which he has, very early in his Preface, bestowed upon himself. ‘Si quis unquam diffidens mei.’ A most extravagant self-confidence, on the contrary, is every where conspicuous, except in a few of the prefatory flourishes; and though his maturer judgment has enabled him to see in his own ‘Silva critica plurima quæ sint juveniliter temeraria απροσδιονυσα prorsus et homine critico indigna,’ yet the very same character unimproved, will be found to prevail in his critical conjectures, scattered abundantly throughout the notes to his work, and readily accessible by means of his critical index. No author escapes his rage for correction, and Horace and Virgil in particular would have as little knowledge of their own works, were they presented to them reformed à la Wakefield, as we should of the British constitution were it given to his emendation. We can, however, pity while we censure, and most sincerely wish that with a more temperate mind, even in literature, he would give himself exclusively, and without mixture, to those studies, in which, with all his failings, he has certainly made a proficiency not common among scholars of this country.”
Whether the miscellaneous articles which follow be worthy of insertion, may by some be doubted, but they are genuine, and asperity may be softened by the consideration that they are the last.
If the reader will refer to the edition of Demosthenes, by Wolfius, printed at Frankfort, 1604, at p. 470, he will find the Oration of Æschines contre Ctesiphontem to conclude thus:
Και ειμεν καλως και αζιως του αδικηματος κατηγορηκα, ειπον ως εβουλομην, ειδε ενδεεστερως ως εδυναμην.
Porson has noted a singular coincidence of expression to be found in the 38th verse of the last chapter of the second book of Maccabees.