338 LEAVES THEY HAVE TOUCHED. 



translation of Bultmann's Greek Grammar. Conjointly with Prof. 

 Dunbar, of Edinburgli, he published what was nominally a translation 

 of the time-honoured Schrevelius, but virtually a new and greaily 

 improved work. I revert -with all the more pleasure to the name of 

 E. H. Barker, as it chanced to be a part of my early experience to 

 derive a good deal of light and help from his editions of portions of . 

 Cicero and Tacitus that fell accidentally, as it were, into my hands. 

 In the absence, in those days, of useful books of reference, the varied 

 and curious information with which his annotations abounded was, 

 as I remember, keenly relished. In like manner his additions to the 

 English reprint of Professor Anthon's Lemj)riere, and the miscel- 

 laneous matter, especially the botanical articles, embodied in the 

 English Schrevelius, furnished delightful reading. By the worship- 

 pers of the old routine in schools, Barker was anathematized as one 

 who betrayed the arcana of a ci^aft, and vulgarized one of the learned 

 pi'ofessions. He was to be frowned down as a dangerous innovator. 

 If he facilitated the studies of the young, who ought to be made 

 to surmount difficulties, it was impossible that he could be himself a 

 scholar. C. J. Blomfield, afterwards Bishop of London, came down 

 very heavily on Barker in an article in the Quarterly Review. Barker 

 replied in a pamphlet entitled Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianus. 

 Unhappily the old style of learned controversy, fashionable in the 

 days of Bentley, had not yet died out. There were two classical 

 periodicals of the hour : one, the Classical Journal, with which Barker 

 was connected as editor, I think ; the other, the Museum Criticum, 

 in which Blomfield wrote. Barker, in his pamphlet, attributed to 

 Blomfield's pen everything hostile to himself in the Museum 

 Criticum : but mistakenly, as it appeared afterwards. And the 

 Museimi took occasion to say of Barker's philippic, that " it carried • 

 personal invective to such a frightful extent as never before disgraced 

 literature." That the Museuin itself could be very satirical, we have 

 evidence in the same paper. Barker whimsically attached to his 

 name sometimes, the letters O. T. N., which he intended to be under- 

 stood as signifying of Thetford, Norfolk. The Museum affects not to 

 understand these letters. " What is the import," it says, " of the 

 tenehricosce literm O. T. IST., which Mr Barker affixes to his name, we 

 cannot undertake to decide. "We are not aware that they denote 

 any academical distinction. We conclude therefore that they imply 

 some personal attribute, like the S. S. (sinner saved) of another 

 renowned character." [Huntington.] Again, referring to the con- 



