
~ ment; 
538 
eork jackets in proportion to the number 
of people. It is needlefs to fay in which 
veflel there is, moft danger of drowning. 
Perhaps from the one, 'fitty, a hundred, or 
more, may cfeape by keeping above water, 
while there is little probability of ten or 
twenty being faved from the other, if the 
fea runs high, allowing them to be expert 
{wimmers. What numbers of lives were 
lof on board the Prince George of 90 guns, 
in‘a former-war. She took fir AS in the 
midft of a fleet, and Continued to burn 
for feveral hours.‘ Her guns being loaced, 
went off as the fire reached. them, which 
prevented the fhips and boats from ap- 
proaching her. It is true fome hundreds 
were faved; but it is egually true that 
fome hundreds perifhed, who might almeft 
‘to a man have been picked up, had they 
“been furnifhed with the cork jacket. I do 
not know what are the reafons ae in- 
troducing this contrivance into the fleet, 
or why even every merchant fhip is not 
provided in proportion to her complement 
of men. I fhould like to know what con- 
fideration can be of equal or fupericr va- 
Jue to preferving men’s lives when re- 
duced to the dire necefiity of being 
drowned or burned. J hope there is not 
fo little fubordimation in the navy, that a 
parcel of cork jackets could not be kept 
under the power of the officers, till they 
became really neceflary. I am convinced 
that a fhip’s company knowing they were 
previded with thele, inftead of deferting 
their duty too focn, weuld rather be fi- 
mulated to continue their exertyons to the 
laft, from a confidence they would natu- 
rally entertain of their perfomal fafety.— 
Let a perfon fuppofe himfelt fhipwrecked 
on a lee fhore, the veflel gcing to pieces, 
the- boat ftaved, and the land a mile or two 
diftant: let hiro alfo fappox e his com- 
panions furnifhed with the jacket, while 
he remains at the mercy of the raging ele- 
and then determine who has the bett 
Phatice for life. A: man may undoubtedly 
be killed or drowned in Ipite of this con- 
trivance; but furely he who keeps on the 
furface has a better bee foeét for lite, than 
another who muft fink te the bottom. 
Iam, eo your moit obedient fervant, 
foros 
Ea 
Jo tke Editor of ihe Menthi; 
SIR, 
N your Magazine, dated June 1, 1799, 
I fee a letter addrefted to you, in which 
the author fays, with a feeming air of tri- 
urnph,—** IT now ferd you fome more er- 
rata, collected in the perufal of the {mall 
“ifs 2 
Cork Yacket—Errata in Didot’s Virgil. 
[Auguf, 
Didot Virgil.” I fhall now examine thefe 
errata in the order in which your ‘corre- 
fpondent fubmits them to your view. 
«© Georg. ie: 22. Reperit ufus. 
with a fingle ~. This 1 know may be 
defended; but it agrees not with the 
orthography followed in this edition in like 
cales.”” “* This I know may bedetended.** 
If the editions of Heyne and Brunck are of 
any ¢fiimation, indeed it may be defended ; 
for, in both, reperit appears with a fingle 
p. Your correipondent puriues his re-— 
mark,-—‘* but it agrees not with the or- 
thography followed in this edition in like 
cafes.”” I wifh the author of this obfer- 
vation would explain to me the inconfif- 
tency with which he charges the editor. 
This word, I believe, occurs only once in 
Virgil in the preterperfeét tenfe; is printed 
in the ftereotype with a fingle p: fo here 
can be no inconfiftency. And the word 
which bears the clofeft affinity to it with 
~refpeét to the initial orthography, 1s repulit, 
which in fome editions is fpelled with twe 
ps, in fome with one. But this Didet 
invariably idpeils with a fingle p.—vid. 
Georg.iv. 233. Aineid.iv. 214. Vil. 4504 
Where then is the difagreement of Mon- 
fieur Didot ? 

“‘ Georg. ii, 23.—Ab/eidens for abfcindens,*4 
But Bands Heyne, poe abicidens. 
*¢ Geor. 11. 150.—Bis pomis utilis arbor. 
“< This, for ardos, an archaifm of which 
Virgil feems decidedly fond, I think mutt 
rather pals for a typographical error, than 
for a various reading intentionally adopt- 
ed.”’ But why is this hafty concluiion 
drawn? Didot in his advertifement thus 
admonifhes his readers: ‘* Ox prewvient 
fewlement les perfonnes qui wm auroient lu Vir- 
gile que dans les petites editions de-claffe, de 
nt goin prendre pour fautes quelques vart- 
Gnies ou lecons particulieres, gui font toutes 
autorijees par les bonnes editions. On les 
pre de conjulier préliminairiment les textes 
de Heinfiis, Heyne, Burmann, Brunck, et 
autres. Which caution, Sir, your cor- 
reipondent either bas not feen, or_it hag 
been ufelefsly given him: for if he had 
coniulted Heyne, he would have found 
arbor. 
“¢ Georg. ii. 435 —Umbras. 
“This, ior zbram, which has much 
more of jweetne(s, I would alfo rather 
think a typographical error.” Another 
hafly conclufoa. Heyne and Brunk ad- 
mit this reading. May not Didot be al- 
lowed to tread in the fteps of editors fe 
eminent as Heyne and Brunck? 
2 M4Seorgs lite: 2076 Glauci 
Potniades malis membra af/umpfere quadrige. 
«| With a-dauble / for abfumpfere.”? 
I have 


