404 
furpaffes the copy, fo far Apollonius rifes 
fuperior, (and this is dDeyond all compari- 
fon) to Valerius, who has imitated him 
with a clofe fervility,not only in the general 
plan of the poem, the arrangement of in- 
cidents, and the chara¢ters of the ators ; 
but, in particular paflagesy as I have 
fhewn, very much in detail, in my notes 
on Apollonius Rinodius. 
Indeed, Valerius Flaccus is very much 
the creature of imitation. I might almost 
venture to fay, that there is {earcely a 
fingle fentiment or comparifon in him, 
which is not borrowed from {ome preced- 
ing poet. In the praife, therefore, of ori- 
ginaiity and inventive genius, the Greek 
poet, as I have faid before, rifles infinitely 
fuperior to the Latin. Apollonius alfo 
furpaffes Valerius. eminently in the deli- 
neations of nature, the difplay of charac- 
ter, the exhibition of paffions and feelings, 
‘and the propriety and beauty of his fenti- 
ments. . 
Apollonius in no infance overfieps the 
modefty of nature; and Virgil was fo fen- 
fible of his excellence in. this refpect, that 
he has borrowed largely from him. Va- 
jJerius Flaccus, on the contrary, is diffute 
and declamatory. He borrows the fenti- 
ments of the Greek peet incefiantiy, but 
fpreads and dilates them into weaknefs ; 
jn fhort, we find in him much cf the in- 
flated eloquence that charaéteries the 
French ftage. In point of fiyle and dic- 
tion, and above all, in the charms of me- 
lodious verfification, Apcllonms Rhedius 
fiands unrivalled amorg poets, ancient 
and modern, welut inter fiellas Luna mi- 
wOres. yng 
It were eafy to dilate on this fubje&, 
but even what I have faig, will, I flatter 
mylelf, fetve to vindicate this admirable 
poet from the hafiy cenfure of critics, 
who condemn without having read. In- 
deed, Apolilonivs Rhcdius is net under 
any great obligations to the literature of 
France. La Harpe, to the beft-of my re- 
colle&tion, bas not made any mention of 
him, and the very firft verfion, which 
was ever made of his poem into the 
French languege, has appeared only the 
other day. Your's, &c. 
Ghucefter-fireet, Dublin, WM. PRESTON, 
April 27, 1303. 
== 
To the Editor of the Menthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
New tranflation of Lavoifier’s Ele- 
ments of Chemiltry was a few 
Detection of Plagiarifin. 
[June 1, 
months fince, publifhed in Edinburgh; 
faid, in the title-page, to be executed by” 
Robert Ker, furgeon, F. R, and A. S. S¢ 
Edioburgh, with an additional chapter by 
the tranflator. Upon perufing this chap- 
ter, I was not a little furprifed to find, 
that the matter and method, even to the 
minuteft -arrangements, were borrowed 
frem a work of Mr. John Murray’s, of 
Edin. intitled «* Elements of Chemiftry,”” 
publifhed about two years ago. A clofer 
examination convinced me, that no lefs 
than thirty-eight pages of the tranflator’s  . 
additional chapter were an almoft exact 
tranfcript of that gentleman’s work, fome 
of the fentences being only inverted, and 
occafionally awkward attempts made to 
vary the phrafeology. Of this any of 
your readers may be convinced, by com- 
paring the ** additional chapter’* of the 
tranflation, with the fecond volume of Mr. 
Murray’s work, p.226 & feq. No ac 
knowledgments are made to the original 
auther. 
But this is not all—Joiing grofs ig- 
norance to the bafenels of plagiari(m, this 
tran{lator conveys to the public, through 
the vehiele of Lavoilier’s great work, the 
moft palpable nonienfe. Thus, in page 
181 of Lavoilier’s work, his tranflator, in 
the additional chapter, fpeaking of gum, 
fays, ** The oxygenated muriatic acid con- 
verts it (gum) to NiTRIC acid.” As 
well might it be converted into Calvert's 
entire butt. ‘Though’ I had already an 
opinion of the merits of this tranflator, I 
was a little furprifed to find fo glaring an 
abfurdity in a work bearing to be the pro- 
duction of a Member of the Scottifh Roy- 
al Societies. But, upon looking inte Mr. 
M’s publication (vol.ii. p.132) I found the 
fentence already quoted to be nearly tran- 
fcribet. Upon turning to his (Mr. Mur- 
ray’s) errata, I found zitric to have been 
an error of the prefs. for malic, or rather 
citric acid. This, it would appear, the 
learned coadjutcr of Lavoifier had entirely 
overlooked. 
Next in-utility to the diffemination of 
ufeful truths is the deteétion of error and — 
impofture. We have laws againft the 
petty thief; it were to be withed, that 
fome punifhments might be deviled againft 
the plunderers of literary property. In 
the mean time, the publication of this, if 
it prevent not future plagiarilms, may be 
ufeful ia preventing the world from being 
mifled by the authority of the great name 
of Lavoifir. _ Derecror. 
Te 
