him that, a committee having been appointed to consider of these matters (consisting of Messrs. B. C. D. E. O. P. Q. and R.), these objections were overruled, and unanimously voted of no weight whatsoever." *

Some critics thought that the extraordinary deviations from probability in the papers tended to prove their genuineness, as a forger would have kept nearer to the appearance of truth.

Malone deserves great credit for his perspicacity and research in the exposure of the forgeries, but his attempts at wit and merriment, in his exultation over the vanquished, are often heavy and pointless.

But Malone was not to enjoy an unquestioned triumph. In the following year, 1797, George Chalmers, with the assistance of we know not whom, put forth his "Apology for the Believers in the Shakspeare Papers," a weighty octavo of more than six hundred pages, which is not so much a defence of those who had looked favourably on the papers, as an attack upon Malone for having spoken scornfully of them. If Tomline's Life of Pitt, as Macaulay declares, enjoys the reputation of being the worst biography in the English language, Chalmers's Apology may well be allowed the honour of being the dullest book of criticism in the English language. Chalmers shook one or two of Malone's absolute assertions, and dug up an exceptional ande and forre, but did the case of the believers, on the whole, very little good. Porson was fond of joking on those who, though forced to acknowledge that Shakspeare did not write the papers, yet wanted to prove that he might

* Malone's Inquiry, p. 100.

have written them. Even Wakefield* launched a happy couplet at Chalmers in his "Imitation of the First Satire of Juvenal:"

"See Chalmers urge with persevering page
To doubt and dulness a discerning age;

while the author of the "Pursuits of Literature " applied to him Pope's lines,

"So, forced from wind-guns, lead itself can fly,
And pond'rous slugs cut swiftly through the sky."

But the application is suitable only in part. Chalmers's pages were leaden enough, but no impulse gave them a rapid flight.

An anonymous writer, about the same time, shot forth this squib :

"Chalmers, in every page thy readers trace

The heavy influence of thy leaden mace:
They all exclaim, when once thy book is read,

His ink is opium, and his pen is lead." †

Mason closed the controversy with the following lines in the "Morning Herald :"

"Four forgers, born in one prolific age,

Much critical acumen did engage;

The first was soon by doughty Douglas scared,

Though Johnson would have screen'd him, had he dared;

The next had all the cunning of a Scot;

The third invention, genius, nay, what not?

Fraud, now exhausted, only could dispense

To her fourth son their threefold impudence."

The first three were Lauder, Macpherson, and Chatterton.

* Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 425.

† Spirit of the Public Journals for 1800.

CHAP. XIII.

PORSON PUBLISHES

THE HECUBA WITHOUT HIS NAME. THE ANNOTATIONS. GILBERT WAKEFIELD'S WRATH EDITOR. WAKEFIELD'S " DIATRIBE EXTEMPORALIS."

- NATURE OF AGAINST THE

HIS REASONS

FOR HIS DISPLEASURE. HIS VANITY AND PRESUMPTION. CRITICAL NICETIES. NOTICE OF WAKEFIELD AND PORSON IN THE MONTHLY REVIEW."- WAKEFIELD'S AWKWARD ATTEMPTS AT EMENDATION, AND OTHER ERRORS.

IN 1797 came forth Porson's first edition of a Greek play, the Hecuba of Euripides, in duodecimo, without his name, though, to most of those who took interest in classical publications, it was well known that it was his. A short preface was prefixed, in which Porson observed that nothing recondite, or of deep research, was to be expected in the notes, as the edition was intended for the use of tiros; that the text, if not everywhere correct, was at least, he hoped, nearer to correctness than it had previously been brought; that wherever the common reading had been altered, the reason for the alteration had been assigned; and that no citation of the play by any ancient author, presenting a variety of reading, had, as far as the editor's memory served him, been omitted. Some remarks on the iambic trimeter were added, in which it was said that the tragic poets never admitted an anapæst beyond the first place, or a dactyl beyond the third, except in the case of a proper name.

The preface then concluded as follows:

"The duty of explaining and illustrating I have forborne to take upon myself, partly lest what was intended to be but a pamphlet should swell into a volume. Imitations of Euripides by Latin writers I have, however, as they arose to my recollection, cited in the margin. The few passages where I have assumed the duty of the interpreter are such as allowed me to unite with it that of the critic. But if I shall be thought to have been, on any point, too sparing of annotation, I will endeavour, in the plays that are to follow, to avoid that fault; for the reader is to understand that the other plays of Euripides will soon be published in the usual order, if I shall find that the present specimen is not disapproved by the literary world; and, should I bring my work to a conclusion, I intend to add some remarks on the different metres of the tragic poets."

The preceding editors, Aldus, Barnes, King, Musgrave, and Beck, were duly consulted, and three new collations of manuscripts were given, two in the library of the Royal Society, and a third in the British Museum.

Among those who were not quite certain that the new edition was Porson's, was Gilbert Wakefield, with whom Porson maintained some intimacy, and who had previously published the five parts of his Silva Critica, and his Tragoediarum Delectus, in both of which publications he had proposed some emendations of the Hecuba. Feeling persuaded however that Porson was the editor, and finding that he himself was not mentioned in the preface or annotations, he hastened, in great agitation, to the shop of Evans, the publisher, and asked him who the editor was. "Can you have any doubt?" replied Evans; "Mr. Porson, of course." "But," said Wakefield, "I want proof, positive proof." "Well,

then," replied Evans, "I saw Mr. Porson present a largepaper copy to Mr. Cracherode, and heard him acknowledge himself the editor." Wakefield, having thus got sufficient evidence, went home and wrote In Euripidis Hecubam Londini nuper publicatam Diatribe Extemporalis; an effusion compounded of praise and censure, of complaint and apology.

"A few days before the appearance of this production," says Kidd, "Porson had met Wakefield at Payne's shop, from whence, conversing amicably on literary matters, they sauntered down to Egerton's, and afterwards parted in a friendly manner at Charing Cross. A few days afterwards, Porson left town for the countryhouse of a friend, where he was told that Wakefield was coming out with something against him.' He was surprised, but, on receiving a copy of the performance, observed that it was as unskilful as it was rash, and that a column in a morning paper would be sufficient to show its want of solidity. But,' added he, 'if he goes on thus, he will tempt me to examine his Silva Critica. I hope we shall not meet; for a violent quarrel would be the consequence.'"*

On the eve of the publication of the Diatribe, Porson is said to have been at a club to which he belonged, consisting of seven members and a president; when, in the course of the evening, the president proposed that each of the members should toast a friend, accompanying his name with a suitable quotation from Shakspeare. When Porson's turn came, he said, "I'll give you my

lxxi.

Rogers's Table Talk, "Porsoniana," p. 320. Kidd, Tracts, p.