« PreviousContinue »
410 to so... . . . . . .iife of -o-, * * * : * : * or , , , , -** * jections to the Latinity of some passages in his dedication and preface to Horace. The purport ef the second is similar, and exhibits remarks on the Dr.'s treatment -ef himself and of former criticks. -In these compositions there is some just criticism, but it is mingled with too much ill-nature, and the author's resentment is too apparent. - The Latinity is, perhaps', correct, coldly correct : but the letters merit no commendation for sprightliness of wit, or elegance of language. ... : , Bentley, in all probability, paid little regard to these publications, or to their authors. . Whatever might be his private sentiments, he felt the dignity of his character, and the strength of his abilities too forcibly, to think an answer or a defence necessary. These attacks did not seem to influence his literary pursuits, or -damp the ardour of his genius. 'In the course of this year he pub..lished a new edition of his emendations on Menander and Philemon, without altering the name of .Phileleutherus Lifisiensis. He omitted Burman's preface, and added to these remarks, his Letter to Dr. Mill, which had been published in the year 1691, at the end of the Chronography of Malela.” $ We say perhaps, for we have not read them with sufficient attention to. enable us to speak decisively. w * In this new edition of his Epistola Critica, which was his first and, perhaps, his most learned work, the wri
ter of this life observes, that he did
not correct the few trifling raggagata -which had escaped him, in the original edition. Among these may be number--ed : P. 47, Iaw for lar. P. 48, in the reference to Atheneus, Lib. XIV. for Lib. X. P. 52. Undecima Ionis fabula, should be decima, as he has only mentioned nine in his disquisitions on Io, the Chian. P. 80, Eunoraroy is called Comparativum instead of Superlativum.
of both these admirable pieces of criticism we have already spoken. : We cannot, however, quit them, without expressing some regret, that the corrections of Hesychius, which he mentions in this Letter to Dr. Mill, were never written and published. What additional dignity would the splendid edition of this valuable Lexicon have acquired, when it appeared some years ago, at Leyden, under the auspices of Alberti and Ruhnkenius, if the corrections of Bentley had been added to the remarks of so many learned annotators. His vigorous mind was peculiarly adapted to such a task, both on account of his penetration and his boldness. He knew the depth of his own erudition, and seldom paid any regard to the cavils of inferiour criticks.
About this time appeared a book, intituled “A Discourse of Freethinking, occasioned by the Rise and Growth of a Sect, called Free-Thinkers.” The dangerous tendency of this work, which was generally read, determined Bentley to answer it publickly, under his assumed name of Phileleutherus Lipsiensis. He addressed his reply to Dr. Hare, although Collins, the author of the book, had been his pupil. The title was, “Remarks upon a late Discourse of Free-thinking ; in a letter to F. H., D.D. by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis.” ... In the address he compliments Hare upon the care and secrecy
Sed Hec levia fortasse. In the additions, at the end of this Epistle, the references are very improperly made to the pages of the old, instead of thc new edition. They should have been thcor... porated into the text, or at least the references should have been altered. . It is a strange instance of carelessness, and especially, as in the title he says, JEditio altera emendation.
with which he conveyed his annotations on Menander to the press, which encouraged him to send him these remarks on Collins. to a
Dr. Salter" has informed us, ithat Bentley is not serious, when he compliments Hare for his taciturnity and secrecy with respect to the emendations of Menander. He has not, however, declared his authority for such an assertion, and if it was conjecture, there seems no foundation upon which to build such a suspicion. It does not appear, that the delay of the papers was occasioned by any mistake of Hare, or that he ever betrayed the secret. At this time, though they afterwards quarrelled, he almost idolized the Master of Trinity-College ; Sciopius scarcely venerated Scaliger in a higher degree. Why then should Bentley pay him any ironical compliments 2
These Remarks deserve the highest commendation, whether we consider the design or the execution. Those powers of ratiocination, that lively wit, that quickness of imagination, and that penetrating acuteness, which shone so conspicuously in the dissertation on Phalaris, were now again displayed. Ignorance and perversion were never more thoroughly exposed.
These Remarks, and the introductory letter, afforded Dr. Hare an opportunity of publickly demonstrating his regard for Bentley ; and in the course of the year he addressed a pamphlet to him, intituled “The Clergyman's Thanks to Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, &c.” in which he urged the author to continue and complete, his remarks.
* In his additional notes to the new edition of Bentley's Dissertation on Phalaris, p. 448.
Before the expiration of the year, therefore, appeared the second part of this critique on Col. lins, with another letter to his friend H. H., in which he assures him, that his request was his only inducement to pursue the subjeet, as he had many weighty reasons which urged him to remain silent. This publication did not complete his original design, but contains a critical examination of the translations which he gives of his quotations from the ancients.But Collins did not require so acute an examiner to refute his erroneous assertions, Bentley displays his usual penetration, but the subject sinks beneath him : “The former part of the book (he says in his introductory letter) contained matters of consequence, and gave some play to the answerer ; but the latter is a dull heap Iof citations, not worked, nor cemented together, mere sand without lime ; and who would meddle with such dry, mouldering stuff, that with the best handling can never take a polish 2 To produce a good reply, the first writer must contribute something : if he is quite low and flat, his antagonist cannot rise high ; if he is barren and jejune, the other cannot flourish ; if he is obscure and dark, the other can never shine.” Such is the description which Bentley gives of his situation, when he wrote these remarks. Yet this second part is equal to
- the former, in point of critical sa
gacity,and sarcastick ridicule. Nor is it in any degree inferiour with respect to learning, as far as Collins gave scope for a display of his wonderful erudition. These two parts were universally read and admired. Even his enemies were silent. No caviller dared to attack this admirable per:
• * formance. Collins forfeited his reputation: for: Hearning and abilities, and his book, which had been held up as a model, a sunk into obscurity. Eight editions of these Remarks have been published, and he began a third part, at the desire of Queen Caroline, when she was Princess of Wales. Of this only two half sheets were printed, and not much more was written ; for Bentley wrote his remarks sheet by sheet, as the copy was wanted by the printer. During his dispute with the University, in 1717, he gave up this design of finishing his observations; nor could he ever be persuaded to resume the subject. At the same time he declared, with great indignation, that those in whose favour he wrote, were as bad as those he wrote against. The few pages which are published of this third part contain remarks upon some passages from Lucan, which Collins had quoted, about Cato. It is much to be lamented, that he never finished this piece of criticism, for however trifling was the value of the book, there is such a sprightliness, and wit in his manner of confuting his antagonist, that entertains, while it convinces. On the fifth of November, 1715, Dr. Bentley preached a sermon" upon Popety, before the University. This deep discourse is replete with erudition, and was calculated for the learned body before whom it was delivered. It, however, afforded an opportunity of beginning a new assault to some of his enemies; who soon after published some remarks on the sermon. This was one of the few
. . This sermon was afterwards published, with his sixth edition of Boyle's Lectures, at Cambridge, 1735.
attacks which Bentley did not bear in silence. When these petty scribblers criticised his classical erudition, he felt conscious of his superiority. This pamphlet, however, was too scurrilous not to provoke notice, and in 1717 he published an answer, intituled : “Reflections on the scandalous aspersions cast on the Clergy by the Author of the Remarks on Dr. Bentley’s Sermon on Popery, &c.” In the year before this, 1716, two letters were addressed to him, respecting an edition of the Greek Testament, for which he had long been collecting materials. These were published with the Doctor's answers,in which the publick were informed, that the Doctor did not propose using any manuscript in this edition which was not a thousand years old ; and at the same time added, that he had twenty of this age in his library. The following year produced a new antagonist. Mr. Johnson, a schoolmaster, at Nottingham, attacked with great virulence, and considerable ability, Dr. Bentley’s edition of Horace.f This publication was delayed by Johnson's illness, but however out of date it might appear, he tells us in a long preface, that he was determined to publish it, because the authors of the former remarks on the Doctor's Horace had not mentioned the most glar. ing errors. At the end of the preface, he has collected Bentley’s egotisms, on the passages in which he has mentioned himself; and after ---- * * # This is the title of his critique, “Aristarchus Anti-Bentleianus quadraginta sex Bentleii errores super Q. Horatii Flacci odarum libro primo spis. sos, nonnullos, et erubescendos : item per notas Universas in Latinitate, lapsus
'fordissimos nonaginta ostendens.”
them his reflections on other writers. Among the former he has inserted several, which have no title to a place in such a collection ; and many of the latter are as just, as they are severe. To follow this writer through all his animadversions would neither be useful nor entertaining. Like most other commentators, he appears to be sometimes right, and frequently wrong, in his criticisms on Horace. He was a good scholar, but an execrable critick. He had not taste enough to discover the value of many of Bentley’s conjectural corrections, though his extensive reading enabled him to point out several of the great critick’s errors. In addition to the emendations
In Serm. II. Lib. 2, v. 120, Bentley corrects the punctuation of a passage, in which he supposes that Horace refers to an inedited epigram of Philodemus. Above forty years after, the epigram was published by Reiske, in the Anthology of Cephalas, and confirmed his conjecture. Toup doubts whether the Roman poet conceived the meaning of the epigrammatist; he, howevr, gives the lines, with our critick's emendation, which affords a splendid instance of his acumen, that can never be praised too highly, or too frequently. But let us proceed. Some of Johnson’s remarks on
the Latinity of Bentley’s notes are
just and acute. They display great knowledge of the language, and insight into the modes of expression adopted by the best Roman authors. But let it not be supposed that our critick is the only modern, who deserves censure on this account. Scioppius wrote a book against the Latinity of Strada, and the learned H. Stephens another of uncommon excellence on that of the great Lipsius. Markland, in more modern times, is not always equally correct in his annotations ; and it would be found that even the great Toup, who is the Coryshcils of Grecian
+ Sec Bentley's note on the passage Horat. P. 674. Ed. Amst.
# The author of the preface to the Oxford edition of Cephalas, in a note, mentions this passage, but does not seem thoroughly to conceive the force of Bentley's correction. There is an
- account also of this celebrated passage
in Foster on Accents, which the curious reader may consult,
THE LIBERAL ARTS. For the Anthology.
MR. HuME has asserted, “That it is impossible for the arts and sciences to arise, among any peo
le, unless that people enjoy the
lessings of a free government.” This, with many other positions assumed as the foundation of his reasoning, inclines one to believe that in his essays, the primary object was not the discovery of concealed, or illustration of known truths ; but rather to exercise his faculties in the construction of
lausible theories, and in framing
genious arguments on controverted subjects. An impartial attention to the history of the rise and progress of arts will convince us, that they depended much more wpon other causes than political institutions. They originally arose
- - - - - '-'. --> -- - - - -
vivus effugeret.” Ad Q. frat. et alibi. In page 4. Vocat should be tocavit, as the other verbs in the sentence are in the perfect tense. Uterat should be ut esset.—Johnson censures Bentley's alliteratio, what would he have said to Toup's in tertum”, and to some other slips, which may be discovered in this preface. o not, however, let it be suspected, that we mean to detract from Toup's splendid abilities, as a critick. He has few readers who look up to him with higher veneration, or who would praise him with more sincerity; but we were willing that his Herculean shoulders should bear some portion of the load which has been placed on those of Bentley.
in Egypt, which was a monarchy, and frequently a very despotic one; from thence they were transplanted to the free states of Greece; from thence to Rome, where they flourished in the time of the Emperours; they were then involved in the same darkness with every other species of human learning and ingenuity, and restored under papal and despotick power in the reign of Leo the Tenth, his immediate predecessor and successor, with the surrounding contemporary potentates. It appears, therefore, more consonant to reason, as well as fact, to lay their foundation in the wants of mankind, and the perfecting of the superstructure to their superstitions, religion,and ambition. Necessity first gave birth to architec
- a - - - - - - - 5- - - - - - - - - ,