Henry makes a special appeal to scholars and to the public generally to protect his great work against any piratical appropriations, or any attempts on the part of epitomisers or abridgers. The appeal proved, however, ineffective, and the _Thesaurus Græcus_ was utilised as a convenient quarry by a number of later lexicographers. Greswell makes special mention of Joannes Scapula as the first of the plagiarists who took advantage of the labours of Henry. He states that Scapula had been employed as one of Henry’s correctors, a position which gave him convenient facilities for an early appropriation of the sheets of Henry’s lexicon. The _Lexicon Græco-Latinum_, which bears the name of Scapula, was printed in Basel in 1579. In his introduction, he speaks of having had the plan of the undertaking long in mind, and of having, in fact, made considerable progress in his work before Henry’s volumes were printed. He does not admit the appropriation, or even the use of any of Henry’s material, although, as Maittaire points out, whole pages of the Basel lexicon are substantially identical with those of the Paris work. The lexicon of Scapula being in smaller and less costly form, was found of convenience to students generally, but the scholars of Henry’s generation did not hesitate to censure severely the conduct of Scapula and to make strong condemnations of his literary dishonesty. Maittaire quotes Malinkrot to this effect, and records also that the celebrated Dr. Busby, of Westminster School, actually forbade his pupils, on the ground of indignation at literary larceny, to use what he called “the surreptitious lexicon” of Scapula. The instance is worth commemorating, because it marks a distinct advance in the development of popular, or at least of scholarly, opinion in regard to the rights of literary producers. There had been not a few examples in previous generations of indignation on the part of authors or editors concerning the appropriation of their own works, indignation which was, to be sure, chiefly concerned not with the diminution of the author’s proceeds, but with the risk or certainty that the surreptitious editions would be garbled and inaccurate, and would thus cause injustice to the reputation of the author. I do not, however, find previous record of instances in which scholars or readers not personally associated with the author, had taken pains, simply on the ground of literary ethics, to discountenance or discourage surreptitious or piratical editions.