with which he conveyed his annotations on Menander to the press, which encouraged him to send him these remarks on Collins. Dr. Salter* has informed us, that 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 scarce ly venerated Scaliger in a higher degree. Why then should Bent ley pay him any ironical compli ments ? These Remarks deserve the highest commendation, whether we consider the design or the execution. Those powers of ratioci nation, that lively wit, that quick ness of imagination, and that penetrating acuteness, which shone so conspicuously in the dissertation on Phalaris, were now again dis played. 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 ad dressed 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. 418. 1 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 subject,. 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 of citations, not worked, nor cemented together, mere sand with out lime; and who would meddle with such dry, mouldering stuff, that with the best handling can never take a polish? 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 flou. rish; 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 sagacity,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 learning and abili ties, and his book, which had been held up as a model, sunk into ob scurity. 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 Popery, before the University. This deep discourse is replete with erudition, and was calculated for the learned body before whom it was delivered. It, how ever, 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 however, was too scurrilous not to 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.t 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 spissos, nonnullos, et erubescendos: item per notas Universas in Latinitate,lapsus fædissimos nonaginta ostendens." of a a them his reflections on other wri- carry off the richest spoils; and ters." Among the former he has enjoy the treasures which were inserted several, which have no acquired by his labours : title to a place in such a collec -δια πατρα δασασηείο, πολλαδ' εχέσκιν. tion ; and many of the latter are In Serm. II. Lib. 2, v. 120, as just, as they are severe. To follow this writer through Bentley corrects the punctuation all bis animadversions would nci in which he supposes passage, ther be useful nor entertaining, that Horace refers to an inedited Above Like most other commentators, he epigram of Philodemus. appears to be sometimes right, and forty years after, the epigram frequently wrong, in his criticisms was published by Reiske, in the on Horace. He was a good scho Anthology of Cephalas, and con firmed his conjecture. lar; but an execrable critick. He Toup doubts whether the Roman poet had not taste enough to discover the value of many of Bentley's conceived the meaning of the conjectural corrections, though the lines, with our critick's emen epigrammatist; he, howevr, gives his extensive reading enabled him dation, which affords a to point out several of the great did instance of his acumen, that splencritick's errors. can never be praised too highly, or In addition to the emendations which we have already transcrib too frequently. But let us pro ceed. ed, we must add one or two more : Some of Johnson's remarks on Horat. Ars Poet. 121. the Latinity of Bentley's notes are Honoratum şi forte reponis Achillem, just and acute. They display Impiger, iracundus, &c. great knowledge of the language, For honoratum, Bentley, with and insight into the modes of excrițical sagacity which had been pression adopted by the best Rorarely equalled, proposes to read man authors. man authors. But let it not be Homereum, which Hurd has ad- supposed that our critick is the onmitted into the text, in his edition, ly modern, who deserves censure as indeed he has almost all the on this account. Scioppius wrote readings of the British Aristar- a book against the Latinity of chus. “ If you insert the charac- Strada, and the learned H. Steph. ter of Achilles, as it is drawn byens another of uncommon excelHomer, into your work, let him be lence on that of the great Lipsius. Markland, in more modern times, " Impiger, iracundus, inexorabilis, acer, is not always equally correct in his Jura neget sibi nata, nihil non arroget armis.!! annotations; and it would be The son of Peleus, indeed, was found that even the great Touf, dreaded on account of his cou: who is the Coryphcüs of Grecian rage, but if we consider his story, we do not find that honours were + See Bentley's note on the passage Horat. P. 674. Ed. Amst. often showered down upon him. | The author of the preface to the On the contrary, Agamemmon Oxford edition of Cephalas, in a note, takes away his mistress, I promis name mentions this passage, but does not astagnes, or, as Horace stiles her, seem thoroughly to conceive the force Briseis niveo colore and tho' he of Beutley's correction. There is an account also of this celebrated passage had plundered so many cities, yet in Foster on Accents, which the curious did the commander in chirf always reader may consult, a vivus effugeret." Ad Q. frat. et alibi. In page 4. Vocat should be vocavit, as the other verbs in the sentence are in the perfect tense. Ut erat should be ut esset.-Johnson censures Bentley's alliteratio, what would he have said to Toup's in textum, and to some other slips, which may be discovered in this preface. Do 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 por tion of the load which has been placed on those of Bentley. the Augustan age, for the text of a book, * Used by Am. Marcell., but not in literature, in the present age, if his preface to Longinus were examined by a rigid grammarian, can sometimes, as well as criticks of inferiour rank,write inattentively, and adopt "a style! "So Latin, yet so English all the while." Why does he use the ambiguous if not unclassical phrase of Longinum non uno in loco restituimus, which may mean not once, as well as more than once? In another place he says, non semel, Publicasse is used by Pliny, in the sense of publishing a book, but, we believe, not by the writers of the Augustan age. Adeone often begins a sentence, but not adeo ut, which requires a subj. mood after it. Toup is wrong, when he puts an Indic. Cicero says: 66 Remp. funditus amisimus, adeo ut Cato adolescens nullius consilii -vix To be continued.. !.. THE LIBERAL ARTS. MR. HUME has asserted, "That it is impossible for the arts and sciences to arise, among any people, unless that people enjoy the blessings 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 plausible theories, and in framing ingenious arguments on controverted subjects. An impartial at tention to the history of the rise and progress of arts will convince ús, that they depended much more upon other causes than political institutions. They originally arose No. 2. 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 supersti tions, religion,and ambition. Necessity first gave birth to architec ܽܝ ture, which the desire of building dently diffused through the people suitable habitations for various dei- among whom they arise. The ties brought to perfection. Sculp-. means, by which this spirit may be ture arose from, and was matured generated and diffused, it is worth by the universal prevalence of poly while to consider. The first step, theism. Painting most probably is to induce artists of eminence, or was principally indebted to the men of genius promising to arrive same cause ; and when they arose at eminence, whether foreigners or again in Italy, they were cherished, natives, whenever they appear, by protected by, and it may be said in- such encouragement, as will make corporated with the religion of the it worth their while to remain and times, which then possessed the exert their talents in this country: greatest influence over the reason and this encouragement must nøf and passions, as well as the tem- only be of a pecuniary nature, but poral estate of man. To describe must also consist in that respectful and illustrate the wonderful events, attention, which will give them -sublime Nature, and important ob- due degree of consequence in som jects of christian theology, was at ciety; and which, if they possess once the pride, the labour, and the that elevation of mind which the -nutriment of historical painting ; arts are calculated to inspire, and and the reason why its progress which they never fail to inspire in was so long retarded in England men of real genius, will be always may be found in that intolerant esteemed as the most grateful and bigotry which accompanied the re- congenial reward of their labours. formation. It is also equally essential to the It is evident, therefore, that other adequate compensation of real gecauses, besides the possession of a nius, that all unqualified pretenders free government, are requisite to should be universally discountenanproduce the arts among us ; and ced; for there are quacks among if we depend on that alone, we shall artists as well as among physicians, continue without those sources of and when such persons are able intellectual elegance and refine- successfully to practice their impoment, to which other nations are sitions, the arts themselves suffer indebted for their brightest points a temporary disgrace, and artists of superiority. But seeing that of merit are defrauded of their just neither our religious nor political portion of respectability and profit. institutions are calculated to hold Persons, who have laid out their out much inducement, how are we money in what they believed were to trànsplant them into our soil ? works of art and exertions of taHow shall they be nourished, and lent, finding themselves imposed be made to produce scyons of na- upon by gaudy daubings, or the re tive growth? That they may grow, fuse of European auctions, are too when transplanted, let the soil (as often disposed to doubt all they was observed before) be fitted to have heard of the dignity of art, receive them; for what Hume ob- and to withhold, indiscriminately, serves generally, may justly be from every professor, that liberali particularly applied to the imita- ty which they once bestowed in tive arts ; that they cannot make vain. This renders it necessary much progress, or produce enie to be able to discriminate between nent men, except a share of the good and bad, between the works same spirit and genius be antece- of a master and the feeble imita |