and virtuous of men who ever graced the ranks of literature, I have disposed in the Foreword to my Supplemental vol. vi.  “This edition (Scott’s) was tastefully reprinted by Messrs. Nimmo and Bain in four volumes in 1883” (p. 170).  But why is the reader not warned that the eaux fortes are by Lalauze (see supra, p. 326), 19 in number, and taken from the 21 illustrations in mm.  Jouaust’s edit. of Galland with preface by J. Janin?  Why also did the critic not inform us that Scott’s sixth volume, the only original part of the work, was wilfully omitted?  This paragraph ends with mentioning the labours of Baron von Hammer-Purgstall, concerning whom we are afterwards told (p. 186) for the first time that he “was brilliant and laborious.”  Hard-working, yes! brilliant, by no means!

We now come to the glorification of the “Uncle and Master,” concerning whom I can only say that Lane’s bitterest enemy (if the amiable Orientalist ever had any unfriend) could not have done him more discredit than this foolish friend.  “His classical(!) translation was at once recognised as an altogether new departure” (p. 171), and “it was written in such a manner that the Oriental tone of The Nights should be reflected in the English” (ibid.).  “It aims at reproducing in some degree the literary flavour of the original” (p 173).  “The style of Lane’s translation is an old-fashioned somewhat Biblical language” (p. 173) and “it is precisely this antiquated ring” (of the imperfect and mutilated “Boulak edition,” unwisely preferred by the translator) “that Lane has succeeded in preserving” “The measured and finished language Lane chose for his version is eminently fitted to represent the rhythmical tongue of the Arab” (Memoir, p. xxvii.).  “The translation itself is distinguished by its singular accuracy and by the marvellous way in which the Oriental tone and colour are retained " (ibid.).  The writer has taken scant trouble to read me when he asserts that the Bulak edit was my text, and I may refer him, for his own advantage, to my Foreword (vol. i. p. xvii.), which he has wilfully ignored by stating unfact.  I hasten to plead guilty before the charge of “really misunderstanding the design of Lane’s style” (p. 173).  Much must be pardoned to the panegyrist, the encomiast; but the idea of mentioning in the same sentence with Biblical English, the noblest and most perfect specimen of our prose, the stiff and bald, the vapid and turgid manner of the Orientalist who “commences” and “concludes”—­never begins and ends, who never uses a short word if he can find a long word, who systematically rejects terse and idiomatic Anglo-Saxon when a Latinism is to be employed and whose pompous stilted periods are the very triumph of the “Deadly-lively”!  By arts precisely similar the learned George Sale made the Koran, that pure and unstudied inspiration of Arabian eloquence, dull as a law document, and left the field clear for the Rev. Mr. Rodwell.  I attempted to excuse the style-laches of Lane by noticing the