in ordinary to the king. In the following year he fulfilled a promise of some standing by transmitting to Grævius his notes and emendations on Callimachus, together with a complete collection of the frag. ments of that poet. The erudition and critical acumen displayed in these contributions to his friend's edition, were such as fully to sustain his reputation as the first scholar of modern times.

We now proceed to give a succinct account of the memorable controversy respecting the Epistles of Phalaris.' The relative merits of ancient and modern writers had furnished a topic of dispute among the French literati. Sir William Temple-an English statesman of high reputation, whose essays, though not remarkable for intellectual vigour and profundity, are written in an agreeable, degagé style-interposed on the side of the ancients, and cited the 'Epistles of Phalaris,' and the 'Fables of Æsop,' as conspicuous instances of the superiority of the old literature to the new. He was answered by Wotton, an early friend of Bentley's, whose youthful attainments, prodigious, and almost incredible, had excited expectations which his subsequent performances failed to satisfy. His reply to Sir William Temple, though deficient in vivacity and elegance, is written with ability; and in all the more solid qualities of critical and argumentative disquisition, is immeasurably superior to the more brilliant essay of the statesman. While engaged upon this treatise, he was assured by Bentley that the two instances alleged by Sir William Temple were peculiarly infelicitous; since the pretendedÆsopian Fables' were not Æsop's, and the Epistles of Phalaris' were the forgery of an ignorant sophist of a later age. Upon this, Wotton extracted from his friend a promise to maintain this position in an appendix to the forthcoming dissertation. From a variety of circumstances, however, the first edition of Wotton's book was published without Bentley's promised contribution.

About this time, a new edition of the Letters of Phalaris' was preparing at Christ-church college, Oxford, and the honourable Charles Boyle, brother to the earl of Orrery, and one of the most promising students in the college, was selected as the editor. As the library at St James's contained a manuscript of the Epistles,' Mr Boyle wrote to one Bennett, a London bookseller, "to get this manuscript collated." The bookseller, after much negligence, and many delays on his part, procured the manuscript; but, though admonished by Bentley to lose no time in making the collation, he conducted the business with such inexcusable carelessness, that forty only out of the 148 epistles were finished when the manuscript was returned. To shelter himself, he informed the Oxford editor that he had obtained the use of the manuscript with the utmost difficulty, and that he was not permitted to retain it long enough to make the required collation. As Bentley, in answer to a question from the bookseller, had expressed his opinion of the spuriousness and worthlessness of the Epistles,' Bennett took care to represent this to Mr Boyle as a studied disparagement both of the work and the editor. Hence, when the new edition appeared, the preface was found to contain the following stroke at Bentley: "collatas etiam curavi usque ad Epist. XL cum MSto. in Bibliothecâ Regia, cujus mihi copiam ulteriorem Bibliothecarius, pro singulari suá humanitate, negavit." When apprised of this aspersion upon his character, Bentley wrote immediately to Mr Boyle; and explained

6

the true merits of the whole transaction. To this, Mr Boyle replied, "that what Mr Bentley had said, might be true, but that the bookseller had represented the matter quite otherwise," and that "Mr Bentley might seek his redress in any method be pleased."1 In 1697, a new edition of Wotton's Reply to Sir William Temple' was demanded. For this the author required Dr Bentley to furnish his promised dissertation on the spuriousness of the 'Fables of Æsop,' and the 'Epistles of Phalaris;' and when the critic would have declined on the ground of his unwillingness to engage in a quarrel with the Oxford editors, Wotton refused to admit the excuse. Accordingly, the second edition of the Reflections upon Ancient and Modern Learning,' was accompanied by a dissertation from the pen of Dr Bentley, in demonstration of the spuriousness of the Epistles of Phalaris,' the Fables of Æsop,' and the Letters of Themistocles, of Socrates, and of Euripides. After noticing in a somewhat contemptuous style the judgment which Sir William Temple had pronounced in favour of two of these pretended originals, and giving an account of the manner in which literary forgeries were anciently practised, he proceeds to the 'Epistles of Phalaris.' The four leading arguments from which he concludes against their genuineness are drawn from the chronology, the language, the matter, and the late appearance of the epistles. After assigning the age of Phalaris to the lowest period which authentic history will admit, he collects from the epistles a number of references to events and expressions, all of them considerably posterior to the death of the tyrant. He next attacks the Attic style and dialect of the pretended Phalaris, as manifestly out of character in a Dorian prince, and, besides, inconsistent with the very Atticism of the age of Phalaris. In particular, he insists on the ludicrous confusion of the Attic and Sicilian money. In objecting to the matter of the epistles, he directly impugns the decision of Sir William Temple,―adduces several instances in which all taste, sense, and probability are set at defiance,and affirms, in conclusion, that when reading this pseudo-Phalaris, you feel, by the emptiness and deadness of his production, that you converse with some dreaming pedant, with his elbow on his desk; not with an active, ambitious fyrant, with his hand on his sword, commanding a million of subjects." Finally, he argues against the authenticity of the letters from their late appearance in the world; it being impossible for them to have remained concealed for upwards of a thousand years, during which every species of learning was cultivated with the greatest diligence and success, and the highest rewards were bestowed on those who brought to light any of the hidden treasures of literature. He then proceeds to vindicate himself against the calumny contained in the Oxford preface, and gives a short statement of the transaction with the bookseller. He concludes the dissertation on Phalaris' with a severe and contemptuous animadversion upon the mistakes committed

occasion were:

Not to interrupt the continuity of our account of this memorable controversy, we may mention in a note, that in July, 1696, Bentley took his degree of D. D. at Cambridge. The three subjects defended by Bentley in his theological disputation on this 1. The Mosaic account of the creation and the deluge. 2. The proof of divine authority, by the scripture miracles. 3. The identity of the Christian and Platonic Trinity. Being appointed to preach before the university, he delivered a sermon in defence of the divine revelation, which bears, throughout, the stamp of his masculine understanding.

in the Oxford edition. He then proceeds to show that the reputed 'Letters of Themistocles, Socrates, and Euripides,' were all of them forgeries, in a strain of argument and raillery similar to that which he had employed against the pseudo-Phalaris. His last attack is made upon the Æsopian Fables.' In this section-confessedly the least valuable in the whole dissertation-he has added little to the observations of some of his predecessors; and though his arguments are perfectly conclusive against the genuineness of the fables, yet, contrary to his usual custom, he left the subject far from exhausted.

Considered as a whole, the dissertation must be pronounced a master-piece of learning and ability, to the production of which no other writer of the age was equal. The men of Christ-church were exasperated almost to frenzy by this bold attack upon a work which had issued from their body; and "war to the knife," was declared against the offender. The task of replying to the Bentleian dissertation was committed to a junto of the ablest wits and scholars in the college, consisting of Atterbury, Smalridge, two brothers of the name of Friend, and Anthony Alsop. The principal share of the labour is known to have devolved upon Atterbury. The performance of this doughty confederacy appeared in March, 1698. It was entitled 'Dr Bentley's Dissertations on the Epistles of Phalaris, and the Fables of Æsop, examined by the honourable Charles Boyle, Esq.' It is impossible to deny the praise of wit, ingenuity, and adroitness to this production. It exhibits innumerable specimens of every kind of ingenious and powerful satire, from the lightest vein of sportive pleasantry, up to the most unsparing and merciless invective. But it is disfigured throughout with the grossest blunders on every point of philological learning; and lies open to the still heavier charge of resorting to all the artifices of misrepresentation, in order to blacken the character of an honourable antagonist. It was received, however, by the literary world, with a "tempest of applause." Wits and witlings, poets, mathematicians, and antiquaries, concurred in celebrating the imaginary triumph of the Oxonians, and persecuting the great critic who was soon to crush them at a blow. The only one of all these virulent attacks which continues to be read, is the Battle of the Books,' by Swift; an exquisite specimen of raillery and satire, conceived and executed in the dean's happiest manner. The Boylean corps, however, had reckoned without their host. In the beginning of the year 1699, appeared the unrivalled and immortal Dissertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris, with an Answer to the Objections of the honourable Charles Boyle. By Richard Bentley, D. D.' To those who never critically examined this truly stupendous production, it is impossible to convey an adequate conception of its merits. To affirm that it vindicates the character of Bentley in every particular on which it had been assailed, and, with one inconsiderable exception, sustains every position that he had advanced in the original dissertation upon Phalaris, is saying little. It is replete throughout with learning of the finest and rarest quality. The same unequalled force and subtlety of intellect which had distinguished the appendix to the Chronicle of Malelas,' is here exhibited to even greater advantage. The style, though wanting in harmony and ele

2 Burke.

gance, is full of energy; and the wit and sarcasm with which the whole piece abounds, if inferior to that of his adversaries in the qualities of ease and grace, is equal, perhaps superior, in pungency. This incomparable work was, after an interval of nearly eighty years, translated into Latin by Lennep, a scholar of eminence, and one of the pupils of the illustrious Valckenaer.

In February, 1700, Bentley was installed master of Trinity college, Cambridge; an appointment which sufficiently indicates the height of reputation which he had attained. It is to be regretted, however, that his own subsequent misconduct rendered this preferment the source of incalculable disquietude to others as well as to himself. The following year he married Joanna, daughter of Sir John Bernard of Brampton, in Huntingdonshire. A few months after, he was collated to the archdeaconry of Ely, vacant by the death of Dr Saywell. About the same time he commenced his edition of Horace.

We now approach the most unpleasing part of our memoir;—the record of those interminable quarrels and litigations between Dr Bentley and his college, which reflect so much discredit upon his character. To enter into a minute detail of circumstances almost wholly destitute of interest, and swelling into an incalculable multitude, would extend this memoir greatly too far; we shall, therefore, briefly notice the leading particulars, referring those who wish for ampler information to the quarto volume of Dr Monk. Against many of the alleged instances of oppressive conduct on the part of the master, nothing more can be reasonably objected than the autocratical manner in which he behaved: the acts and regulations being just and salutary in themselves, and wanting nothing to render them perfectly legal, but the concurrence of the seniors. But there were other proceedings for which no colourable pretext or apology can be devised. Such, on his very entrance into his mastership, was his exaction of the arrears which were unquestionably due to his predecessor; such, his obstinacy in compelling the seniors to consent to the erection of a new and splendid staircase, after having previously involved them much against their will in heavy expenses; his electing a profligate young man as a supernumerary fellow to succeed upon a "presumed vacancy," in contrariety to the spirit of the statutes, and for the mere purpose of gratifying one of his own partizans; his arbitrary discommuning of some of the fellows who opposed his proceedings, &c. &c. When any remonstrance was made against these illegal and oppressive steps, he was accustomed to answer in an insolent and careless tone, as one who was resolved to tolerate no opposition to his will. Amidst all these turmoils, he found time to attend to the studies in which he was so peculiarly formed to excel. In the summer of 1708, he addressed to his friend Ludolph Kuster who was then engaged upon an edition of Aristophanes Three Critical Epistles,' containing annotations upon the Plutus and the Nubes. Of these letters two only have reached us; they are such, however, as to make us regret that Bentley did not himself undertake an edition of the Athenian comedian. About the same period he corresponded with Hemsterhuis, who, at the early age of eighteen, was then engaged in the superintendence and completion of a new edition of the Onomasticon' of Julius Pollux. When Hemsterhuis examined the emendations of Bentley on the tenth book of the

'Onomasticon,' he was struck with despair at the transcendent sagacity which they displayed; and for a time he abandoned the study of the Greek language altogether. It is unnecessary to say with what success he afterwards resumed it.

In 1709, Bentley communicated a series of valuable notes to Davies's edition of the Tusculan Questions of Cicero.' At the close of the year 1709, the master came into direct collision with the seniors of his college. He had arranged and digested a new method of dividing the college-revenues, by which his own income would have been materially raised in value. This innovation was met by the most determined opposition of the seniors, who were headed by a lay-fellow of the name of Miller. After an illegal and ineffectual effort on the part of Dr Bentley to eject Mr Miller from his fellowship, the question was solemnly referred by the seniors to the decision of the bishop of Ely, the ex officio visitor of Trinity-college. This measure drew from the master his 'Letter to the Bishop of Ely,' a pamphlet replete with the most indecent scurrility. In the midst of these hostilities Dr Bentley found time to write his celebrated Emendations of Menander and Philemon.' Le Clerc, a man of very vigorous and versatile powers, but totally deficient in classical learning, had, with unparalleled temerity, undertaken a new edition of the Fragments of Menander and Philemon.' Immediately upon its publication, Dr Bentley composed his 'Emendations' of upwards of three hundred passages of the 'Fragments,' in which he animadverts with sarcastic severity upon the portentous blunders of Le Clerc, and exhibits corrections of his own, evincing the most exquisite sagacity. The work was transmitted, with injunctions to secrecy, to Dr Hare, then resident in Holland, by whom it was forwarded, according to the author's directions, to Peter Burman, a continental scholar of eminence. By him it was published, accompanied with a preface of his own, in which the severest chastisement is inflicted upon Le Clerc. A controversy ensued, in which many of the foreign scholars engaged, and, in general, with great virulence. The result of the whole, however, was to confirm and even exalt the critical reputation of Bentley. Meanwhile, articles of accusation against the master, to the number of fifty-four, having been presented to the bishop of Ely, Dr Bentley, after a few characteristic, but unsuccessful manœuvres, boldly petitioned the queen against the bishop's jurisdiction, and affirmed that the right of visitation belonged to the crown. The decision of this question was ultimately referred to the crown-lawyers, the bishop of Ely having been ordered to suspend, for the interim, all proceedings. After a considerable interval, the arbiters passed sentence, that the crown was the general visitor of the college, but that the bishop of Ely had the right of hearing and deciding upon charges against the master. Meanwhile had been published the long-expected edition of Horace,' with a flaming dedication to Harley, earl of Oxford. As to the excellencies and demerits of this celebrated work, the best critics have been long agreed. It abounds with the finest specimens of inexhaustible learning, inventive sagacity, and logical acuteness. It is miserably disfigured, however, by an incessant and inordinate arrogance; it is full of violent and unsupported alterations of the text; while its Latinity is vulnerable in a great number of instances. The errors of this latter description were collected and exposed, with much severity, in two separate publications,