DR. Bentley, in the Piece I am about to examine, among several other Liberties, has taken this, of wri­ting without any Method. Great Genius's indeed are above ordina­ry Rules: but it wou'd ill become so unknown a Writer as I am, to exempt my self from 'em; and therefore I shall prescribe my self a method in answering him.

I think most of the scatter'd Remarks he has made, in that part of his Dissertation which relates to Phalaris, will come under one of these Three Heads; They are either some Arguments, which he has urg'd for the Spuriousness of the Epistles; or some Faults which he has found with my Edition and Version of 'em; or some Matters of Fact [Page 2] which he has related, as the Grounds of his peevish Quarrel.

These last he has thrown into an odd corner of his Book, as it were out of sight; and plac'd 'em in the Rear of all his lear­ned Arguments. One wou'd imagine, by the Post he has given 'em, that he distrusted their strength, or that he wrote his Book first, and found Reasons for it afterwards. How­ever that may be, I think my self oblig'd to clear up this Point in the first place, by setting those Matters of Fact in their true light, which Dr. Bentley has extreamly dis­guis'd: And then 'twill be time to consider the Wonderful Proofs he has produc'd on his side, and the Mighty Mistakes he has thought fit to charge me with.

About four or five Years ago, the worthy Dean of Christchurch, Dr. Aldrich, (of whose College I was then a Member) desir'd me to undertake an Edition of Phalaris. I cou'd deny Him nothing, to whom I ow'd so much; and therefore, as unfit as I thought my self for such a Task, I undertook it. In order to it, a Manuscript Phalaris in the King's Li­brary was to be consulted. It was of no Age or Worth, I heard, being written but just before the restauration of Letters; however it was a Manuscript, and therefore not to be neglected; especially since we had no ancient Copies, either in England, or any where else, that I cou'd hear of. I sent to Mr. Bennet, my Bookseller in London, to get the Manu­script, and desir'd him to apply himself to [Page 3] Dr. Bentley, in my name, for the use of it; not doubting in the least a ready complyance with such a request, from one of his Stati­on and Order; and who besides was at that very time in a Lecture of some Honour and Profit that had lately been set up by one of my Family: especially, since the Book, which I desir'd to borrow, was of so little importance, that it had scarce been a Favour to have lent it me, if I had not ask'd it. After an Expectation of many months, Mr. Bennet sent me at last a Collation of part of the Manuscript, with this account; that he had, with a great difficulty, and after long delays, got the Manuscript into his hands; that he had it but a very few days, when Dr. Bentley came to demand it again; and wou'd, by no means, be prevail'd upon to let him have the use of it any longer, tho' he told him, the Collation was not perfect­ed: and that he deny'd this Request in a very rude manner, throwing out several slight and disparaging Expressions, both of me, and the Work I was about.

This I had reason to take very ill of Dr. Bentley, and therefore in that part of my Preface, where I gave an account of the MSS. that were consulted in that Edition, I inser­ted these words, [ Collatas etiam curavi us (que) ad Epistolam 40 cum MS ^o in Bibliothecâ Re­giâ; cujus mihi copiam ulteriorem Bibliothecarius, pro singulari suâ humanitate, negavit.] which, considering the usage I had had from him, was as soft a thing as I cou'd well allow my self to say. The Epistles were no sooner publish'd, but Dr. Bentley sent me a Letter; [Page 4] wherein, after expressing himself with great civility to me, he represented the Matter of Fact quite otherwise than I had heard it. I return'd him immediately as civil an Answer, to this effect: That Mr. Bennet, whom I em­ploy'd to wait on him in my name, gave me such an account of his Reception, that I had reason to apprehend my self affronted: and, since I cou'd make no other excuse to my Reader, for not collating the King's MS. but because 'twas deny'd me, I thought I cou'd do no less than express some resentment of that Denial. That I shou'd be very much con­cern'd if Mr. Bennet had dealt so ill with me, as to mislead me in his accounts; and, if that appear'd, shou'd be ready to take some op­portunity of begging his pardon: and, as I remember, I express'd my self so, that the Dr. might understand, I meant to give him satisfaction as publickly as I had injur'd him. Here the matter rested, and I thought Dr. Bentley was satisfied; especially since, I found, Mr. Bennet persisted in his account, and sup­ported it with further proofs; and the Dr. seem'd willing to let the Dispute drop, by his not writing to me any further about it, or discoursing Mr. Bennet concerning it, to whom my Letter plainly refer'd him. In this Mistake was I, for Two Years and an half after the Edition of Phalaris; till at last Dr. Bentley's Dissertation came out, and con­vinc'd me, that he had had Vengeance in his Heart all the time, and suspended his Blow only till he cou'd strike, as he thought, to purpose. In this angry. Discourse of his, he tells the World the same story (bating a Cir­cumstance [Page 5] or two which he has alter'd) that he had told me before in his Letter. His words are these: A Bookseller came to me in the name of the Editors, to beg the use of the Manuscript. It was not then in my custody: but as soon as I had the power of it, P. 68. I went voluntarily and offer'd it him, bidding him tell the Collator not to lose any time; for I was short­ly to go out of Town for two Months. 'Twas deliver'd, us'd, and return'd: Not a word said by the Bearer, nor the least suspicion in me, that they had not finish'd the Collation.

Startled at these Assertions thus reviv'd, after a long Silence, and improv'd in Print, I examin'd Mr. Bennet again very strictly and particularly. He assur [...]d me, that every word he had writ to me upon this occasion was punctually true; and that Dr. Bentley's account, where it differ'd from his, was en­tirely false. He drew up the Matter of Fact in writing, and set his Hand to it; gi­ving me liberty to make it publick, and to assure the World, that he was ready to ju­stifie the truth of what he had written with his Oath, when it shou'd be duly requir'd of him. He added, that Mr. Gibson, the Colla­tor, cou'd confirm some circumstances of his Account; and that his Brother (who was his Apprentice at that time, and was sent by him both to Dr. Bentley, and to the Collator) wou'd have attested the Truth of the Whole, had he been alive; but he dy'd some Months after this Matter happen'd. However, if his own Testimony, and the Collator's, shou'd be liable to Suspicion, yet still there was a Gentleman of known Credit in the World, [Page 6] Dr. King of the Commons, who was witness to all that pass'd at one meeting, between him and Dr. Bentley; and wou'd, he hop'd, be so just to him as to give an account of it. He was not mistaken; for Dr. King, being apply'd to by a Friend of mine, presently wrote him the following Letter: which, together with the several Certificates of Mr. Bennet and Mr. Gibson, I here offer to the Reader.

[Page 9]The Case then between me and Dr. Bentley stands thus. There is, on the one side, Dr. Bently's single Assertion, in his own cause; and these several concurring Accounts, from Per­sons of Probity and Worth, on the other. The question now is (if it be a question) which of these ought to be credited; the Point to me is so clear, that I dare trust the most partial Friend Dr. Bentley has to de­termine it.

Mr. Bennet and Mr. Gibson, I think, are so little interested in this Dispute, that they may be entirely depended upon. However, Dr. King is a Witness without Exception; and the account he gives of one of those Free Conferences Dr. Bentley held with Mr. Ben­net, is full and home; and I do assure our Lear­ned Critic, that whatever becomes of Pha­laris's Letters, this of Dr. King's is not spu­rious. I have the Original of it by me un­der his own hand, as I have the Originals too of the other Papers, which shall be at Dr. Bentley's, or any man's service, that plea­ses to command a sight of 'em.

And now had I not reason to say what I did, and much more than I did, of Dr. Bentley, in my Preface to Phalaris? Cou'd I resent the harsh Treatment he had given me in Gentler Terms than I there made use of? Since he had deny'd me so common a fa­vour, and spoken of me with so much con­tempt, I was at Liberty, I think, to have re­turn'd his Civilities in what way I pleas'd, and to have given him any Language what­ever that it was not below me to give. And [Page 10] that is a Restraint which, I hope, I shall al­ways be able to lay upon my self, whatever the Provocation be.

Dr. Bentley then, considering all things, was really oblig'd to me, for using him with so much Tenderness. What way did he take of owning his Obligations? He immediate­ly enter'd upon the Honourable and Christian Design of exposing me; and resolv'd, what­ever Time or Pains it might cost him, to prove, that the Epistles I had put out were a ridiculous Cheat; and that I (or whoever the Editor was) was to be pity'd, for giving my self so much trouble about them.

I see Monsiour Rochfaucant drew his Obser­vation from Nature, when he said, We often pardon those that injure us, but we can never for­give those that we injure.

In about two or three years time he had atchiev'd this mighty Work, and compass'd a Dissertation as big as Phalaris it self, to make his Point good. There, that he might be wanting in no instance of Humanity, he tells the World, that the Edition of Phalaris was not mine, but only ascrib'd to me; and, be it whose it would, that 'twas a faulty and a foolish one: and then tells me too, in the same breath, that nothing of this was intend­ed as a disparagement to me; to show his Rea­der, I suppose, that he had as mean an Opi­nion of my Understanding, as he had of my Learning. He names me not indeed, but in his civil way of Circumlocution, calls me, That young Gentleman of great hopes whose Name is set to the Edition. But what great hopes cou'd the World have had of a young Gentle­man, [Page 11] who shou'd have suffer'd the Lye to be publickly given him, in a matter, where his Reputation, both as a Scholar and a Man of Honour, was nearly concern'd, and yet had either not Sense enough to discern the Af­front, or not Spirit enough to resent it?

Dr. Bentley was not satisfied with giving me ill Usage, unless he did it in ill Words too; and therefore has cull'd out the very worst he cou'd find, to bestow on me: for surely no man of Liberal Education cou'd put together so many unmannerly and slovenly expressions without studying for 'em. He charges me with Calumny p. 66., weak Detraction p. 66., Injustice p. 66., Forgery and Slander p. 66.; with the basest Tricks p. 71., and a vile Aspersion p. 71.: He tells me, that a certain Person, tho' a sorry Critic, was yet a degree above me p. 75.; and, that Printing is a Sword in the hand of a Child p. 67.; meaning, I suppose, his humble Servant.

He likens me, by a very elegant Simily, to a Bungling Tinker mending Old Kettles p. 76., in one place; and, by the help of a Greek Proverb, calls me downright Ass p. 74. in another. The correcting the faults of my Version is, in his polite way of writing, the cleansing of Au­geas 's Stables; and, to carry on the Metaphor, he says, The First Epistle cost him four Pages in scouring.

These are the Flowers, which Dr. Bentley has, with no very sparing hand, strew'd throughout every Page almost of his Learned Epistle. It can hardly be imagin'd, how one, that lives within the Air of a Court, shou'd prevail with himself to deal in such dirty Language: the Chairmen at St. Iames's, I [Page 12] dare say, manage their Disputes with more decency. I find the Dr. has not profited much by the dependence he once had on a Great Man, who might have taught him, wou [...]d he have vouchsaf'd to learn it, the Secret of engaging deep with an Adversary, without Loss of Temper, or Breach of Good Manners.

But he will tell me, that few, or none of these exprssions were levell'd at Me; and that for a very obliging reason; because I am not included among the Editors of Phala­ris. Let 'em have been levell'd at whom he will, they are inexcusable. Chew'd Bullets are not more against the Law of Arms, than such ways of speech are against the rules of good writing.

Dr. Bently cou'd not have taken a better way of justifying me in what I said of him, than by writing in this manner he has done; and with so little of that Humanity, the want of which I objected to him. Most Readers will be apt to think that he might proba­bly always want it as much as they see he does now. So that if I needed further Vou­chers than those which I have already brought, I wou'd call in his own Dissertation to wit­ness for me▪ that I have not wrong'd him, nor given him any Character but what he has since been courteously pleas'd to make good.

But Dr. Bently appeals from me to more Equitable Judges; and tells me, that he can produce several Letters from Learned Professors abroad, P. 68. (whose Books in time I may be fit to read) wherein these very same words [pro singulari [Page 13] suâ humanitate] are said of him seriously and candidly. For I endeavour (says he) to oblige even Foreigners by all Courtesie and Humanity; much more wou'd I encourage and assist any use­ful design at home.

But why must we go to Foreign Nations for a true account of Dr. Bently? I thought Mens Characters had been best learnt from those among whom they convers'd. The Law of England is, that every man shall be try'd by his Country and his Neighbourhood: and this is not more reasonable in the Case of Life and Death, than in that of Reputation. But Dr. Bently pleads to have a Jury of Foreign Professors impanell'd to sit upon him: a very suspicious Defence, I think; and which ought, without any more ado, to condemn him. Shou'd a man tax'd with ill breeding here at London (where he has liv'd all his time) produce Certificates in his behalf from some Correspondents in Cornwall, or Cumberland, wou'd this Plea pass at Court? Granting Dr. Bently's Foreigners to have said those things of him which he says they have, 'tis because they are Foreigners; We, that have the happiness of a near conversation with him, know him better; and may perhaps take an opportunity of setting those mistaken Strangers right in their Opinions concerning him.

Thus much, upon the Supposition that he has these Testimonials by him: but I, who have had some dealings with him, have learnt a little to mistrust his accounts; and shall therefore, before I make any more Remarks upon this passage, tell the Reader a Story.

[Page 14]There was, not many Years ago, a Dispute about a Point of History, between an Inge­nious Gentleman and a Learned Prelate of our Church, well known to Dr. Bently. When the Gentleman was at a loss for Proofs, his last resort always was to a certain Chest at Ilcomkill, where there were MSS. it seems, never seen by any body besides himself, that prov'd every thing he had a mind to. This presently put an end to the Controversie: for there was no disputing against Invisible Au­thorities. How far this may be Dr. Bently's case, and whether the Letters from Learned Professors abroad, which he talks of, may not lye in some such Chest as those Records lay in, I will not pretend to determine. However, since they are MSS. I know his Fondness for those precious Jewels so well, that I believe he'l be shy of making 'em publick. Till he does, the Printed Proofs that have been given of his great Humanity will stand good against what he tells us has been written to him.

Sure I am, there are some Learned Men abroad, that are far from Complimenting him. One of 'em, a Man of great note, has complain'd to me, how ill he has been us'd by him, in a Case nearly resembling mine; and complain'd in very expressive Terms; which, not yet having his Leave for it, I do not think my self at liberty to publish.

Another, that was desirous to have a sight of the Alexandrian MS. and apply'd himself to Dr. Bently very earnestly for it, met with no other Answer to his Request, but that the Library was not fit to be seen. A pretty [Page 15] Excuse for a Library-keeper to make, who had been four Years in that Service! And this Instance of his Humanity, I assure him, is of no Old date; it happen'd since he purg'd himself in his new Dissertation, and gave Learned Men encouragement to expect better usage.

If he goes on at this rate, as we have no reason to doubt but he will, Foreigners will begin to suspect, whether we have, as we pretend, the Alexandrian MS. or indeed whe­ther the King has any Library.

But because the Dr. strongly argues from his being ready to oblige even Foreigners by all Courtesie and Humanity, that he wou'd much more be ready to do so to Learned Men at home: I will add one Domestick Instance of that kind; that my Instances may be every way as large as his Assertions.

I have now a Letter by me under the hand of Sir Edward Sherburn, (a Gentleman of known Worth and Learning) wherein he has these words; I have sent Rubenius 's Book, [ de vitâ Mallii, put out by Graevius in Holland, and dedicated to Dr. Bently] the honour of whose Publication Mr. Bently hath ungratefully robb'd me of. The meaning of this is ex­plain'd in a Latin Memorandum enter'd by Sir Edward in the Book it self; where he says, that he put the MS. into Dr. Bently 's hands, under this Condition, that he shou'd send it to Graevius to be publish'd, letting him know from whence he had it, and desiring him to make an honourable mention of him, as the per­son that had oblig'd the World with it. The Edition came out, it was dedicated to Dr. Bent­ly, [Page 16] the honour of the Publication given to him; and not one word of Sir Edward Sherburn said in it. The Sophists are every where pelt­ed by Dr. Bently, for putting out what they wrote in other mens names; but I did not expect to hear so loudly of it from one that has so far outdone 'em: For, I think, 'tis much worse to take the honour of another man's Book to one's self, than to entitle ones own Book to another man.

But Graevius, it may be, was in fault; and forgot to do Sir Edward Sherburn justice. 'Tis hardly to be imagin'd he cou'd, had Dr. Bent­ly told him plainly, that the MS. was put into his hands under that express Condition: But if the Dr. only gave some slight inti­mation of it, Graevius might indeed forget to do what he did not know whether it were in good earnest expected of him, or not.

But supposing the original Omission to have lain wholly at Graevius's door, yet how came the Dr. to be so very quiet under it after­wards? Why did he not send immediately to Sir Edward Sherburn to excuse it? Why did he not take care to have this Neglect repair'd in the next Holland Journal? No­thing of this was done; and therefore, shou'd the Dr. not have been the willing occasion of the Mistake, yet at least he was very wil­ling that it shou'd prevail.

Upon a view of this Story, I am apt to re­tract my Suspicions about Dr. Bently's Letters from Learned Professors. He may perhaps have Testimonials of his Courtesie by him, [Page 17] if he sticks at no methods of procuring 'em: By such Arts as these 'tis easie for a Man to get a Reputation of Humanity abroad, with­out deserving to be much commended for his Honesty at home. 'Tis an hard word, and which I should not easily allow my self to use, but that I think I may take a grea­ter Liberty in another man's behalf, than in my own.

By Dr. Bently's way of treating Sir William Temple, Sir Edward Sherburn, and my self, one would imagine, that he had vow'd hostility to all Gentlemen pretending to Letters; that he thought they broke in upon a Trade which none but those of the Body corporate of Profess'd Scholars ought to deal in; and so, looking upon 'em as the East-India Company does upon Interlopers, was resolv'd to use 'em accordingly.

By this time, the Reader is able to judge, how far my Character of Dr. Bently suits him, and how far he might justly expect to have that Character publickly given him; whether his Humanity be Singular, or not, and whe­ther my Opinion be Singular concerning it. I hope I have now set the Matters of Fact in a true light; I have only some few Re­marks to add on some Passages in the Sto­ry which Dr. Bently tells of this matter, in which either his Memory or his Sincerity fail'd him.

He begins his Account with a great (and I had almost said a wilful) Mistake: He says I have told the World in my Preface, that I had Collated the King's MS. as far as the 40 th Epistle, and would have done so throughout, but [Page 18] that the Library-keeper, &c. Whereas I told the World, not that I had Collated that MS. but that I had taken care to get it Col­lated. My words are, Collatas etiam [viz. Epistolas] curavi cum MS ^o in Bibliothecâ Re­giâ, &c.

The Difference here, as sliḡht as it may seem, is material; and Dr. Bently, one may guess, was aware of it. He saw very well, that, unless I was represented as having col­lated the King's MS. my self, he could not well lay the Mistakes of the Collation upon me; which he was resolv'd however to do to the utmost, and therefore gave that con­venient Turn to his Matter of Fact at the En­trance, which might best serve to counte­nance his Criticisms that follow.

With this View, he makes an unfair and broken citation of my words in the Mar­gin; placing there only thus much out of my Preface, [ MSo in Bibliothecâ Regiâ, cujus mihi copiam ulteriorem Bibliothecarius, pro singulari suâ humanitate, negavit] and taking no notice of the words that introduce these, [ Collatas etiam curavi cum] without which the Sen­tence is imperfect, and unintelligible.

Dr. Bently could not have given us a bet­ter Earnest of his Integrity, at his first set­ting out: The rest of his Account, we shall find, is wrote with the same degree of Truth and Fairness. The true Story (says he) is thus: A Bookseller came to me in the name of the Edi­tors, to beg (he would say, desire) the use of the MS. He knows very well, that Mr. Ben­net went to him in my name only; Mr. Ben­net himself is positive in the point: but least [Page 19] the Dr. should deny it, I have, by good luck, preserv'd so much of his Letter by me, as relates to this Particular. There he was pleas'd to use these Civil Expressions: Mr. Bennet desir'd me to lend him the Manuscript Phalaris, to be collated, because a Young Gen­tleman, Mr. Boyle of Christchurch, was going to publish it. I told him, that a Gentleman of that Name and Family, to which I had so many Obligations, and shou'd always have an honour for, might command any Service that lay in my Power.

But now he says, that Mr. Bennet came to him in the Name of the Editors. How came I to be multiply'd at this rate? unless he has recollected himself since, and remembers the little Circumstances of this Transaction better at two or three Years distance, than he did immediately after it happen'd.

He proceeds in his True Story. — It was not then in my Custody; but as soon as I had the power of it, I went voluntarily, and offer'd it him. What he means by its not being in his Custody, whether that he had lent it to some-body else, or that he was not yet fully enter'd on his Office, or that he had it not in his Pocket, must be a Secret, till he plea­ses to explain himself. Whatever his mean­ing be, the Reader is desir'd to take notice, that there was about Nine Months Sollicitati­on us'd to procure it: A longer time than he needed to retrieve it out of the Hands of Those to whom he might have lent it, or than the Ceremony of his Inauguration to his Library-keeper's Place cou'd require. I'm sure he was much nimbler with my Col­lator; [Page 20] for, instead of Nine Months, he would not allow him Nine Days time to peruse it in.

His next words are, bidding him tell the Collator not to lose any time, (which, transla­ted into English, is, bidding him let the Colla­tor know, that he must not lose any time) for I was shortly to go out of Town for two Months. This, I have reason to think, is pure Ficti­on; Mr. Bennet remembers nothing of it: but he very well remembers, that when the Dr. came to demand the MS. of him agen, he then told him, he was to go into the Country, and gave that for his reason why he could allow him no further time to col­late it in. It was a mighty Treasure it seems; the Credit of the King's Library de­pended on the Alexandrian MS. and That; and therefore he would not trust it out of those Walls a day longer. Besides, (which is a Circumstance, that tho' Dr. Bently has, yet Dr. King has not forgotten) had it been collated, it would have been worth nothing for the future. This was an Objection not to be got over, especially since Mr. Bennet had no Orders from me to take the proper way of removing it.

It follows, 'twas deliver'd, us'd, and return'd, not a word said by the Bearer, nor the least suspicion in me, that they had not finish'd the Col­lation. This is roundly averr'd; but the Rea­der has Mr. Bennet's and Mr. Gibson's Certifi­cates; and after comparing 'em with this Passage, may believe as he thinks fit.

[Page 21] Well, (says he) the Collation, it seems, was sent defective to Oxon, and the blame, I sup­pose, laid upon me. Does he only suppose it? Did not I positively write him word, that it was laid upon him, and so laid upon him, that I was oblig'd to take notice of it? But he is to be excus'd for forgetting what I wrote to him, when it appears, that he has forgot what he himself wrote to me.

After a few Months, out comes the new Edi­tion, with this Sting in the mouth of it. 'Twas a Surprize indeed to find there, that our MS. was not peru [...]'d. Our MS! that is, His Majesty's and Mine. I thought indeed by the Price Dr. Bently set upon the MS. he fancied himself to have some Interest in it: He speaks out now, 'tis no longer the King's, but Our MS. i. e. Dr. Bently's and the King's in common: An Expression as much too familiar for a Li­brary-keeper, as Ego & Rex Meus was for a Cardinal. I will not, for the future, so nicely observe his Indecencies, since I find he is so general and undistinguishing in 'em.

'Twas a Surprize indeed to find there, that our MS. was not perus'd. Could they not have ask'd for it agen then after my Return? Yes, I could, Sir, and have been deny'd it again, which I was not very willing to venture. I neither thought my self so little, nor Dr. Bently so great, nor the MS. so consi­derable, that I should make a second Ap­plication for it after such a Repulse; no, not tho' I had been sure of obtaining it: much less could I ever think of asking it [Page 22] agen, when, by what Mr. Bennet had told me, I had all the reason in the world to think, I should be agen deny'd it.

But there is a reason for every thing, (says the Dr.) and the Mystery was soon reveal'd! A pretty decent Phrase on so light an occasion; but this is not the only instance, where the Critick has got the better of the Divine. Well, but how was the Mystery reveal'd? why, He had the hard Hap, it seems, in some private Conversation, to say, that the Epistles were spurious, and unworthy of a new Edition: Hinc Illae Lachrymae. If he said this, as he in­timates he did, at Oxford, where the Book was then printing, he said a very uncivil thing; and what, in his Dialect, he terms his Hard Hap, other People would be apt to call his Ill Breeding. However, I seriously declare I was utterly a stranger to this Discourse of his, till he told me of it in Print. I might hear, perhaps, of his being in Oxford, but I had heard too much of his Discourse with Mr. Bennet, to be curious in making any En­quiries into his private Conversation.

The Reader will excuse this Tedious De­scant on Dr. Bently's Relation of Matter of Fact. The true Story of our MS. was a point of importance: my Honesty was concern'd in this part of the Dispute, the rest only touches my Learning. Having therefore, I hope, justified my Conduct where it most be­came me to do it, the Matters of pure Cri­ticism will give me no Concern, I'm sure, tho' they may put me to some little Trouble. I shall enter upon 'em with the Indifference of a Gamester, who plays but for a trifle, [Page 23] which 'tis much the same to him whether he wins or loses.

I shou'd now fall closely to my work, the Authority of Phalaris's Epistles, but that there is an Introduction of Dr. Bently's that lies in my way, and must first have a Reflexion or two bestow'd upon it.

He begins it with telling us, that Mr. Wotton, by the power of a long Friendship be­tween 'em, engag'd him to write it.

I hope Mr. Wotton will let the Publick know, that he neither engag'd his Friend to write upon this Subject in this manner, nor approv'd of these Discourses, when written: which the World will presume him to have done, till the contrary appears; and till he has disclaim'd Dr. Bentley's attempt as pub­lickly, as he seems now to countenance and avow it. 'Tis a little strange, that Mr. Wotton in a second Edition of his Book, which he had discreetly taken care to purge of most things that look'd like ill Manners in himself, shou'd be prevail'd upon to allow a place to the ill Manners of another man. But I hear, and▪ I am not unwilling to think, that Mr. Wotton receiv [...]d this Present at a venture from Dr. Bently, and let it be printed without giving himself the trouble of reading it. And I the rather fall in with this account, because I find Mr. Wotton in his Book P. 415, & 416. zealously vindicating the Age from the Imputation of Pedantry, and assuring us, that tho' the Citation of Scraps of Latin, and a nauseous ostentation of Reading were in fashion Fifty or Sixty Years ago, yet that all that is now in a great mea­sure disus'd. Which I suppose he would ne­ver [Page 24] have done in some of the last Pages of his Book, if he had then known of the Disser­tation that immediately follows it.

A Gentleman of my acquaintance was ob­serving to me, what a Motly, Unequal work, these two Pieces made, as they now lye to­gether. Mr. Wotton (said he) in his Reflections takes in the whole compass of Ancient and Modern Learning; and endeavours to show wherein either of 'em has been defective, and wherein they have excell'd. A Large Design, fit for the Pen of my Lord Bacon! and in the well executing of which any one Man's Life would be usefully spent! Dr. Bentley comes after him with a Dissertation, half as big as his Book, to prove, that three or four small Pieces ascrib'd to some of the Ancients, are not so ancient as they pretend to be: a very inconsiderable Point; and which a wise man would grudge the throwing away a weeks thought upon, if he could gain it! and what then shall we say of Him, that has spent two or three years of his life, to lose it? Mr. W's mo­tive to write was, he tells us, a piece of Publick Service that he hop'd he might do the World; Dr. Bentley's plainly a private Picque, and such as 'twas utterly unfit for him to act upon, either as a Scholar, or a Christian; much more as he was one in Holy Orders, and that had undertaken the publick defence of Religion. Mr W. (con­tinued he) is modest and decent; speaks ge­nerally with respect of those he differs from, and with a due distrust of his own Opi­nions: Dr. Bentley is Positive and Pert; has [Page 25] no regard for what other men have thought or said, and no suspicions that he is fallible. Mr. W's Book has a Vein of Learning run­ning through it, where there is no ostenta­tion of it: Dr. Bentley's Appendix has all the Pomp and Show of Learning, without the Reality. In truth (said he) there is scarce any thing, as the Book now stands, in which that and the Appendix agree, but in com­mending and admiring Dr. Bentley; in which they are so very much of a Piece, that one would think Dr. Bentley had writ both the one and the other.

But leaving these two Friends to the Plea­sure of their mutual Civilities, I shall go on to the rest of my remarks on Dr. Bent­ley's Introduction. After telling us then at whose Instance he wrote this famous Piece of Criticism, he begins to give us a cast of his skill in the Point. Sir W. Temple had ob­serv'd in favour of the Ancients; that some of the Oldest Books we have are the best in their kinds. To this Dr. Bentley replies, That some of the Oldest Books are the best in their kinds, the same Person having the Double Glory of In­vention and Perfection, is a thing observ'd even by some of the Ancients And for this he very learnedly quotes Dion Chrysostome: But then (says he) the Authors they gave this Honour to, are Homer and Archilochus, one the Father of Heroic Poem, and the other of Epode and Trochaic, p. 7. What he means by saying that this had been observ'd even by some of the Ancients, is not easie to apprehend, nor why he quotes Chrysostome for it, whose Authority either in this, or any other case, is [Page 26] not very considerable; and who besides, does not say that for which he's produc'd; especi­ally when there is an approved Writer more ancient than Dion, that has directly said that for which Dion is improperly brought. Dion, in the Oration quoted, after a tedious insipid Exordium about the different talents of prai­sing and dispraising, takes occasion from thence to mention Homer as the famous Parent of Panegyrick, as Archilochus was of Satyr, and prefers 'em to all others in their way. But he has not a word there about the Oldest Books being the best in their kind, or of the Double Glory of inventing and perfecting; for which Dr. Bentley gravely produces him. But tho' Dion says nothing of this, Velleius Paterculus does: Non quenquam alium (says he) cujus operis primus Auctor fuerit, in eo perfectissimum re­periemus praeter Homerum & Archilochum. Lib. 1. Cap. 5. 'Tis a little odd, methinks, that Dr. Bentley, who professes in this Piece of his to give Battel to Sophists and Sophistry, and to decry 'em as a company of illiterate Scrib­lers, should yet think fit to grace the very Entrance of his Work, with vouchng the Authority of as errant a Sophist and De­claimer as ever was; and with vouching him for what he really did not say: and for what had been said by a much better hand, before him. But great Scholars have very particular ways with 'em.

Dr. Bentley goes on: But the choice of Pha­laris and Aesop, as they are now extant, for the two great and inimitable Originals, is a piece of Criticism of a Peculiar Complexion, and must pro­ceed [Page 27] from a singularity of Palate and Iudg­ment.

For Aesop it will be time enough to ac­count when I come to the entire Disserta­tion that concerns him. But as to Phalaris's Epistles, many learned men of different Ages and Countries, have been profess'd admirers of 'em; never any man, till the Judicious Dr. Bentley arose, pretended to despise 'em: even those Criticks of late days, who suspe­cted their being Genuine, yet allow'd 'em to be finish'd things in their way, and excel­lently well counterfeited. And therefore the value which Sir W. Temple professes for 'em cannot be said to proceed from a Singulari­ty of Palate and Iudgment: at least this ought not to be said by him, who but four Pages afterwards lets us know, that Stobaeus esteem'd 'em so highly, as to insert some of 'em into his Judicious Collections; and that Suidas terms 'em [...], most admira­ble Letters. Sir W. Temple, one would have thought, might have been secured from the imputation of Singularity by the concurring Judgments of two such men, for whom, we may be sure, Dr. Bentley on any other occasion would have had a particular regard: the one an eminent Commonplacer, and the other a no less eminent Dictionary-writer. 'Tis a pleasant Reflexion to consider that Dr. Bent­ley, at the same time that he is passing this free Censure on Sir W. Temple's Palate, is himself advancing an Opinion contrary to the sense of all Mankind that had ever written before him: Will not a modest Reader, on this oc­casion, [Page 28] be apt to say, that both the Criti­cism and the Critic too are of a Peculiar Com­plexion?

He forgets, I believe, when and where a certain Critic of our times maintain'd, that Ovid and Manilius, were the only two Poets that had wit among the Ancients. A very extraordinary piece of Criticism! and which, doubtless, proceeded not from any singularity of Palate and Iudgment! 'Tis just as if I should say, that Sir W. Temple and Dr. Bentley are the two best-bred Writers living; or, to put it into the Dr's more learned and polite way, That Nireus and Thersites were the only two formose men that repair'd to the Siege of Ilium. Manilius writes with just as much wit as Dr. Bentley does with modesty: only the difference is, that Manilius's subject would not admit of wit ▪ and therefore he might have it, for ought we know, tho' he did not show it: whereas Dr. Bentley's subject, (which is gene­rally Himself) does not only admit of modesly, but require it.

The rest of Dr. Bentley's Preamble is taken up in giving us an account how spurious Books came to prevail upon the World. He says, This was a practice almost as old as Letters; but that i [...] chiefly prevail'd, when the Kings of Per­gamus and Alexandria rivalling one another in the Magnificence and Copiousness of their Libra­ries, gave great Rates for any Treatises that car­ried the names of Celebrated Authors; and this he proves out of Galen upon Hippocrates, de Naturâ Hominis.

[Page 29]There are other Old Writers that tell this Story, and tell it more truly, than Galen did, tho' a Native of Pergamus. He positively af­firms, in favour of the Point he is proving, that till the time of these Rival Princes, there was no such thing as a spurious Book in the World; which is neither true, nor a­greeable to what Dr. Bentley tells us in the case, that the Practice of forging Books was al­most as Old as Letters. Here therefore, as before in the case of Paterculus, Dr. Bentley should have contented himself with vouching apposite, tho' common Authorities; and not have gone out of his way to have fetch'd in a witness, that, after all, speaks against him. But he loves to surprize and dazle his Rea­der: for who would expect to see a point of History setl'd out of a Physician?

I thought indeed Quotation had been the Dr's peculiar Province; and that either he could manage that to advantage, or nothing. But these two awkward Proofs out of Dion Chrysostome and Galen (the very first he has produc'd) have shook my opinion of him even in this Respect. As we go further, we shall see clearlier what to judge of him.

I will detain the Reader no longer in the Approaches to our Argument, than till I have desir'd him to joyn with me in his thanks to Dr. Bentley, for the Intimation he has given us of a certain Supplement to Pe­tronius found at Buda. He does not, I sup­pose, mean that from Alba Graeca, which any of his Dictionaries would have told him was Latin, not for Buda, but Belgrade: and there­fore [Page 30] I conclude, that this must be some new discovery, which Dr. Bentley has had earlier notice of, than the rest of the Learned World; and that in time he will oblige us with a fur­ther account of it.

DR. Bentley having declar'd open War against Phalaris, and all his Party, and having in his own Opinion gain'd the Victo­ry, thought that the more Captive Criticks there were to follow his Chariot-wheels, the more glorious would his Triumph be: He begins therefore with giving us an account of the Number and Strength of the Enemy he engages. He tells us, that the Epistles have been admitted as Genuine, ever since Stobaeus's time; that He has quoted 'em thrice: that Suidas speaks of 'em with honour; and, that Tzetzes has made large Extracts out of 'em. These three, I think, says he, are the only Men among the Ancients that make any mention of 'em. P. 11.

They are perhaps the only Ancients, whose testimonies are to be met with, in any of the Prefaces to Phalaris: but Dr. Bentley methinks should have dug deeper for his materials, and consulted Original Authors. Had he done so, he might have found, that they are men­tion'd too by Epist. 207. Photius in his Epistles, that they are quoted by Nonnus [...] &c. p. 144. in his Histori­cal Comment on St. Gregory's Invectives, and by the Plut. vers. 142. [...] — [...]. Scholiast on Aristophanes; that very [Page 31] Scholiast, whom, one would think, the Dr. by his citing him so often P. 100, 117, 118, 119, 137, 140, 148, &c., had thorough­ly read. The Latest of these is some Cen­turies older than either Suidas or Tzetzes. Indeed Tzetzes, who liv'd but in the 12th Century, deserves not to be call'd an An­cient; and Dr. Bentley himself is of this mind in another part of his Dissertation P. 53., where he stiles him a Later Greek. But it was con­venient, that he should be an Ancient here, and a Modern there, in order to the diffe­rent Ends which Dr. Bentley had to serve by him.

Besides these, there is another remarkable Quotation from the Epistles in Stobaeus, which Dr. Bentley has overlook'd; 'tis Tit. CCXVIII: where an entire Epistle of Phalaris is tran­scrib'd, as it is again in the Collection of An­tonius and Maximus the Monks, which accom­panies Stobaeus. Had Dr. Bentley had these Authorities in his view, he might with bet­ter Grounds, tho' not with more Assurance, have pronounc'd, that P. 12. The Epistles have the general Warrant and Certificate for this last thou­sand years, before the Restoration of Learning. And thus far I can agree with him: but when he further assures us, that P. 11, & 12. All the Scholars of those Ages receiv'd 'em for true Ori­ginals; as willing as I am to hear any thing in Phalaris's favour, I must beg leave to dissent from him; because I find One of those I mention'd, (and Him a Scholar, I think, if there were any in the Age in which he liv'd) speaking of 'em with some distrust: 'Tis Photius I mean; who gives 'em indeed an extraordinary character, and prefers 'em to [Page 32] the Epistles of Plato, Aristotle, and Demosthe­nes: but withal intimates his Suspicions that they are not Genuine, when he calls 'em the Ep. 207. [...]. Epistles that are attributed to Phalaris, and joyns 'em, with those that (as he speaks) are ascrib'd to Ib. [...]. Brutus.

With these Ancients, he tells us, many Moderns have concurr'd in Opinion; parti­cularly, that Fazeltus and Iacobus Capel [...]us, two very Learned men, have asserted the credit of the Epistles; and that Selden himself de­pended on 'em so much, as to determine a point of Chronology out of 'em. And now what would a Modest man expect shou'd have been Dr. Bentley's end in reckoning up all these great Mens Opinions, but to strengthen and countenance his Own? whereas he brings 'em in, only to shew how impossible it was for them to judge right, who had the mis­fortune to live before him. In spite of what the Learned men of so many Ages and Na­tions have thought and said, Dr. Bentley knows P. 64., and will demonstrate P. 5., Phalaris's Epistles to be spurious: Nay, he is very much mistaken, he says, in the nature and force of his Proofs, if ever any man hereafter, that reads 'em, persist in his Old Opinion of making Phalaris an Author P. 13.. I will own to the Reader, that had these words offer'd themselves to me be­fore I had been acquainted with Dr. Bentley's Manner, they would have given me some un­easiness. Phalaris was always a Favourite-book with me; from the moment I knew it, I wish'd it might prove an Original: I had now and then indeed some suspicions that 'twas not Genuine; but I lov'd him so much [Page 33] more than I suspected him, that I wou'd not suffer my self to dwell long upon 'em. To be sincere, The Opinion, or Mistake if you will, was so pleasing, that I was somewhat afraid of being undeceiv'd. However, I ven­tur'd to try, whether the Dr's Proofs would overbear me with that weight of Demonstra­tion they threatned. I read 'em, I weigh'd 'em; and I found, to my satisfaction, that Pha­laris might still be an Author, notwithstanding what Dr. Bentley had said against him. Nay, I assure the Reader, that my Doubts about the Authority of the Epistles, since I read Dr. Bent­ley's Dissertation, are much lessen'd; and if he should write once more upon the Subject, per­haps the point would be clear to me.

His Arguments against the Epistles (they are to go for such, till I have prov'd 'em not to be Arguments) when taken out of the Con­fusion with which he has deliver'd 'em, may be distinguish'd into such, as affect the whole, or touch only those Particular Epistles from whence they are drawn. The first of these are of greatest consequence; for if any One of 'em holds, the Authority of the Epistles is in danger: and I shall therefore, with Dr. Bentley's leave, consider 'em in the first place. In order to come at any of these, I must over­look a great many of his Pages for the pre­sent; not without intentions of returning to 'em: for he has advanc'd nothing on this Subject, but what shall, in its proper Time and Place, have a thorough Examination.

The First of these General Proofs, that I meet with, (for I shall take 'em as they lye) is in the 12th Paragraph, where the Dr. objects [Page 34] against the Dialect Phalaris uses; who reign­ing in Sicily, and being, as he tells us P. 44., born there, should have spoken Doric, the prevai­ling Language of the Island; whereas he writes Attic, the beloved Dialect of the Sophists, in which they affected to excell one another even to Pedantry and Solaecism P. 41..

Tho' it be no very material point, yet I cannot grant the Dr. that the Language of these Letters is properly Attic. There are in­deed several Attic ways of speech in 'em; but so there are in other Authors, who con­fessedly wrote in the Common Dialect. 'Tis one thing to mix Atticisms in ones style, and another thing strictly to write Attic; Homer did the one, Thucydides and Plato the other: however no body will say, that Homer wrote in the same Dialect with Thucydides and Plato. Dr. Bentley has abundance of pure Anglicisms in his Latin, and Latinisms in his English; but he will not for all that be willing to allow, either that his Dissertation on Malala is in English, or that this on Phalaris is in Latin.

Well, but supposing the Letters to be in Attic, what use does he make of this? why, he argues from hence, that they were written by the Sophists; who, he tells us, affected to excell one another in writing Attic, even to Pedan­dantry and Solaecism P. 41.. A very deep Refle­ction! so deep, that I must confess my self to be a little at a loss for the Meaning of it. The perusal of a Late Author indeed has gi­ven me a clear Notion what it is to be af­fected even to Pedantry, but the being affected even to Solaecism, and in Attic too, is to Me, I confess, a very incomprehensible degree of [Page 35] Affectation. I thought, the Athenians, of all the Greeks, spoke the most Properly, and Purely; and were the furthest remov'd from any suspicion of Solaecism: and that therefore no one could be guilty of it, while he spake as They spake; any more than a Man can stick strictly to the Language of the Court, and yet speak false English. But Dr. Bentley's Notions of Language differ much from mine; and therefore 'tis no wonder if I do not ap­prehend him.

To let his Flourish pass then, and to come to his Argument; I will venture to say, that it is a silly one: and I make thus free with it, because it is my Own, and mention'd by Me, in my Preface to Phalaris Ne (que) cum Siculis Scripto­ribus placuerit semper Diale­ctus Dorica, Agrigentinorum (qui antiquitus Dores erant) Tyrannus alia uti debuit. p. 2., as one of the Grounds I had to suspect the Authority of the Epistles; tho' I was far, even then, from having that high Opinion of it Dr. Bentley has, or thinking it to be Demonstrative Evidence: and the more I consider it, the less Weight I find in it.

For Phalaris was by no means oblig'd to speak Doric, on the account of his being a Si­cilian born; for two good Reasons: because the Natives of Sicily (and so of other places) did not always write in the prevailing Dia­lect of their Country; and because Phalaris was no Native of Sicily. I shall dispatch this Last point first, because it will give us the least Trouble.

If the Credit of the Letters stands good, Phalaris, we are sure, was no Sicilian; Dr. Bently indeed says he was, and threatens to [Page 36] prove it from Good Authors P. 44.: but threatn'd History, as well as other threatn'd things, has the luck sometimes to live long; and so it has happen'd in the present point: for the Dr. notwithstanding his Menaces, has not, throughout his Dissertation, said a Syllable to shake it.

I can help the Dr. indeed to One Author, that speaks something to his purpose; and Him an Old Scholiast too, which will please the Dr. the better: Nonnus In Greg. In­vect. p. 143. says, that Phalaris was by birth a Sicilian; but he gives this, to­gether with some other Impertinent and Ri­diculous Accounts of him, which he there confutes. This is all I can at present do for the Dr. in the matter; and as little as it is, it is more than the Dr. has done for him­self.

But whether Phalaris were of Sicily, or no; the Dr. is positive Astypalaea, a City in Crete, never mention'd before by any Geographer. Dissert. p. 44. Our Diligent Editors made that Discovery in Geography; for it could not be learnt any where else. Dissert. p. 58., that he was not of Astypalaea, a City in Crete, as I have re­presented him. And upon this fancied mistake of mine he is very merry, and throws out a great deal of awkward Drollery; which, had there been an Occasion given for it, would, let me tell him, have but ill become a Man of his Gravity, and a Reader of Old Scholiasts: but as it is founded purely on a Mistake of his own, is somewhat the more unseasonable, and unbecoming. For, after the Dr's fit of Mirth is over, I would ask him seriously, how he comes to impute the Discovery of this new City in Crete to me? do not the Epistles [Page 37] themselves plainly suppose it? and does not he himself grow wise enough, or sincere enough, by the 58th Page, expresly to own that they do so; and save me the trouble of proving it? I have the same Authority to say that Phalaris was born at Astypalaea in Crete, as that he was born at any place of that Name. And what has the Dr. to oppose to it? why, he assures us, that there was no such City in Crete. Has he then a List of all the Hundred Cities there? if he has, 'tis a com­pleater one by far than Ptolemy's and a migh­tier Discovery in Geography, than that of mine, with which he so ingeniously diverts himself. He should however have had some Wisdom in his Mirth, and have look'd about him, before he resolv'd to be positive. Had he done so, he would have found, that both Goltzius Hist. Sicil. & Mag. Gr. ex Numism. p. 126. Patre Cretensis, Vrbe Asty­phalide. and Fazellus Rer. Sic. Dec. 1, L. 6, C. 1. Phalaris Cretâ Insulâ Vrbe Astyphalide ortus. made this Discovery before me: the Last of these Dr. Bentley has vouchsaf'd to call a very Learned Man Dissert. p. 12.; and I'll venture to call the Other so. So that if I did mistake, I mistook after Great Names: and Dr. Bentley is unpardona­ble, for not knowing, or not owning, what One of these had said; for he quotes Dissert. p. 12. the very Page in Fazellus, where the Words I have produc'd from him are. If he had read it, as well as quoted it, he could not have miss'd 'em; They stand so fairly in the Front of Fazellus's short account of Phalaris, that they must needs have star'd him in the Face. I will not be so rude as to call the Dr. a [Page 38] Second-hand Critic; but the Reader may judge how far he has given me an occasion to do it.

But No Geographer, he says, has mention'd this City in Crete Diss. p. 44. He speaks unwarily; I will suppose, he means, no Old one. No more have they several of the other Ninety Nine; which nevertheless were as surely there, as if half a dozen Geographers had given us the Names of them. It is enough for my pur­pose, that the Letters have mention'd this Astypalaea. If Dr. Bentley will discard all Places, that occurr but once in Ancient Wri­ters, he'l make mad Work in Geography. What does he think of Trinacia, the Sicilian Town in Diodorus? what of the [...] mention'd by Scylax? where else does he meet with 'em? He'll say, they are corrupt Readings, perhaps: but the MSS. agree in 'em. No matter for that! while the MSS. are for Him, he is for Them; and no lon­ger. And, therefore to shorten the Work, and save my self, and the Reader, the trou­ble of more Instances, I'll put the Dr. in mind of what the Learned Palmerius says up­on this place in Scylax: Ejus Loci seu Regiun­culae (says he) alibi quod sciàm non fit mentio. Sed ideò fortè non est exterminanda ex hoc loco Vox. Nam quot Loca, quot Regiunculae fuerunt, quarum Authores, qui ad nos us (que) devenerunt, vel semel, vel nunquam fecerunt mentionem? Does the Dr. think, because Astypalaea was an Island a­mong the Cyclades, and among the Sporades, that therefore it could not be a Town any where else? Is not this just the Case of Naxos, which was an Isle among the Cyclades; and [Page 39] yet a Town in Crete, and in Sicily too? Stra­bo mentions Astypalaea a Promontory in Attica, another Promontory of that name in Caria; a third Astypalaea, the ancient Metropolis of the Island Cos: and why might there not be an Astypalaea in Crete too?

I have dwelt too long on this point; how­ever I cannot yet part with it, till I have done right to the Learned Greek Professor of Cambridge; whom Dr. Bentley takes upon him to correct, without the least Ground or Co­lour of Reason: to shew, I suppose, that he was Impartial, and resolv'd to bestow his Good Manners, as he had done Himself, upon Both Universities.

Dr. Barnes would have the Island Astypalaea, where he supposes Phalaris born, to be that among the Cyclades. Dr. Bentley allowing Phalaris to have been born in the Island Asty­palaea, yet says it must be that among the Spo­rades; for this convincing Reason; because this Latter was nearest to Crete, whither Phala­ris 's Wife and Son are suppos'd to have fled. Ep. LXIX P. 44.. Giving the Dr. Leave to suppose this Flight from Astypalaea to Crete, why must it needs be from the Astypalaea that was near­est? Those that fly are usually glad to get as far as they can out of the reach of their Pur­suers. But now even the Flight, upon the Supposition of which this fine Reasoning turns, is it self a Fiction. For neither in that Epistle which the Dr. quotes for this, nor in any other Epistle, is any such Flight mention'd, or suppos'd, or in the least intimated. Was it worth his while to forge this little Piece of History, only in order to contradict his Bet­ters? [Page 40] Is the Pleasure of inventing a Circum­stance, meerly to be rude with, an Equivalent to the Shame of being told on't?

But he has found the Professor in another Mistake, as Material as This, and as well made out. Dr. Barnes had call'd the Island, Astypala, and not Astypalaea; and the Exact Dr. Bentley therefore is so kind, as to inform him how it should be spelt. A little share of Good Nature would have made the Dr. su­spect an Error of the Press in this case, if there had been any Error; and a little more Reading than he has, would have taught him, that there was no Error in it: for the Pro­fessor call'd the Island but as Scylax [...]. had call'd it before him. On both these accounts, the Dr. might have spar'd his Criticism: and so he would probably, but that Mr. Profes­sor had been guilty of a Fault not to be for­given by Gratuitously undertaking to Apologize for the Epistles of Phalaris Differ. p. 14., in his Elaborate Edition of Euripides: that is, (for I can make no other sense of it) by defending the Au­thority of the Epistles, without having any thing for his Pains. This looks as if the Dr. thought Learned Men were to set a Price upon their Civilities, and never part with a Favour till they had their Fee.

But to return from our Digression; Let us allow the Dr. what he contends for, without any manner of Proof or Reason, that Phala­ris was a Sicilian born: will he inferr from hence, that it was necessary for him to write in Doric? That I can never allow him. For we have Instances without Number, of Au­thors writing in a Dialect different from that [Page 41] of their own Country; and not a few Instan­ces of Sicilian Writers, who laid aside the Doric: and why then should Phalaris, a Prince, and a very Arbitrary and Lawless one, be confin'd to it? Agathyrsides, the Historian of Samos, had he follow'd the Dialect of his Country, would have written in Doric; and Chrysermus of Corinth, in Doric: and yet both of 'em writ in the Common Dialect, as appears by the Extracts out of 'em, preserv'd in Stobaeus. So did Andronicus the Rhodian, who paraphras'd some part of Aristotle, and Dionysius the Halicarnassian; tho' both Rhodes and Halicarnass were Cities of Do­rian Original. Herodotus was of the same place with Dionysius, and yet made the Ionic Dialect his choice; as Hippocrates of Cos, a Dorian Town also, had done before him. Rhianus, and Epimenides were both Cretans: that the First of these wrote not in the particular Dialect of Crete, we are as sure, as that the large Fragment ascrib'd to him is his; that the Latter did not, we have reason to think from the short Citation out of him in St. Paul [...]., where we find the Common word [...] imploy'd instead of [...], which the Grammarians tell us Ioh. Philop. de Dialectis▪ Corinthus, de Dialectis▪ was peculiar to the Inhabitants of that Island. Alcaeus, Sappho, and Simonides, were born in places where the Ionic was spoken, and yet wrote their Lyric Poems in Aeolic, or Doric. Dr. Bentley in­deed pretends in some measure to account for this by saying, that the Lyric (or, as He loves to speak, the Melic) Poets chose the [Page 42] Doric Dialect for the sake of the Doric Har­mony, which was fitted to That, and to the Nature of the Ode: but why then did not the rest of the Lyric Writers chuse it too? It would have become Anacreon's Odes, every whit as well as Sappho's; and Archilochus's, as well as either: and yet both Anacreon and Archilochus wrote in Ionic. So that no sure Rule can be fix'd, or holding Reason given, for the Ancient Writers departing from the Idiom of their Country: Historians, Mora­lists, Philosophers, and Poets of all sorts practis'd it at pleasure; chusing such a Dialect, as either pleas'd their Own Ear, or the Ears of those for whose sake they wrote, and whom they endeavour'd to please This probably was the Case of Callimachus, in his Hymn upon the Baths of Pal­las, compos'd by him in Do­ric, to compliment the Ar­gians (or Argivans, as Dr. Bentley new names 'em, p. 82): tho' the same reason will not hold for his Other Doric Hymn, dedicated to the honour of Ceres: nor can any reason be given for it, but what will equally prove, that he ought to have written the rest of his Hymns in Doric.; or such, as they thought suited best with their Subject: and very often they took up with that Dia­lect, which was in Fashion a­mong the Polite Writers of the Age in which they liv'd. For, that there was a Fashion in Dialects, and that the Chief of 'em had severally their Course and Period, in which they flourish'd, may (not to mention other Proofs of it) be gather'd from a Passage in Dionysius Halicarnasseus; where he says of the Old Greek Authors, that they chose the Ionic Dialect to write in, as being that which was most in Vogue in their time [...]. D. H. in Thucyd.. I propose this only as probable, Dr. Bentley [Page 43] would have said it was demonstrable. But no man should be Dogmatical in Cases of this Nature, where several other Circumstances, beside the vast distance of Time, concurr to make the Subject obscure; where all is but a Lucky Guess, and He that is most Learned must, if he be fair, confess, that he has but a very dim and uncertain Light to see by.

It will then be very hard upon our Sicilian Prince, to deny him a Liberty, which Wri­ters of all sorts, and of all other Countries and Times have taken: and it will be harder still, if we consider, that this is what has been done often even by Sicilians themselves. Dio­dorus and Empedocles are famous Instances of this kind; the One, in Prose; and the Other, in Verse: Archimedes the Syracusan's Works do not all equally partake of the Doric Idiom; some have more, and some have less of it, as they were written sooner or later; and his Treatise of the Sphaere and Cylinder, the most remarkable part of his Works, least of all.

To come yet closer to our point: We have a Letter writ by Dion of Syracuse to Dionysius Tyrant of that place, and part of another written by Dionysius himself; both preserv'd among the Epistles of Plato; where there is not the least Shadow of Doricism: but as well the Prince as the Philosopher have writ­ten their Epistles in such a Dialect, as if (to use Dr. Bentley's Gentlemanly Phrase) they had gone to School at Athens Diss. p. 43..

Nay some of the Princes and States of Si­cily, and other Dorian Countries, have caus'd Coins to be struck, whose Inscriptions are not [Page 44] in pure Doric. [Abundance of Instances of of this kind are to be met with in Goltzius, Paruta, and Harduin: I shall give the Reader a Tast of them in the Margin [...], a Cretan mony; in some other Inscriptions it is [...], the Inscription of a Coin, be­longing to Velia, a Town in Magna Gracia..

But the most remarkable Instance of all is that of Zaleucus, King of the Locrians, a Do­ric Colony; the Preface to whose Laws is preserv'd in Stobaeus, an exact and faithful Copier of Old Authors; and has plainly no­thing of the Doric Dialect in it. Diodorus Siculus, who does not so strictly transcribe, but chuses rather to weave things into the Phrase and Body of his History, has the same Preface, with some Alterations; but none, that make it more Doric than it is in Sto­baeus.

And now, upon a View of these Instances, (and others of this kind, which I could pro­duce; but I spare the Reader) I might be-speak the Dr. in his own pert way of Enqui­ry; Pray, how came Attic (or any other Dia­lect but the Doric) to be the Court-Language at Syracuse? How came Zaleucus, and Dionysius the Tyrant, so to doat on the Dialect of a Demo­craty Disser. [...]. 41.? How is it that those Little Prin­ces of Sicily, as Arbitrary and Jealous of their Prerogative as the Mightiest Monarch what­ever, allow'd of Inscriptions on their Coins, which were not in the Language of their Country? Any clear Solution that he shall please to afford us of these matters will equal­ly serve to give us an account, why Phala­ris [Page 45] too might be excus'd from writing in Doric.

Dr. Bentley has endeavour'd to prevent me in some part of the Evidence that I have brought; and has excepted against such In­stances as those of Empedocles, and Diodorus, whose Case, he says, is widely remote from that of our Tyrant. The former being to write an EPIC POEM, shew'd an excellent Iudgment in laying aside his Country Dialect for that of the Ionians; for the Doric Idiom had not Grace and Majesty enough for the Subject he was engag'd in; being pro­per indeed for Mimes, Comedies, and Pastorals, where Men of Ordinary Rank are represented, &c. but not to be us'd in HEROIC, without great dis­advantage Disser p. 49..

I desire Dr. Bentley to inform me, in what Old Scholiast, or Manuscript Author, he has met with this Curious account of Empedocles [...]s writing an Epic Poem: as much out of the way as he loves to read, he'll be hard put to't, I believe, to find an Authority for it. If he can, 'tis plain he knows more of Empedocles's Works than Laertius did; who has been so absurd, as to inform us particularly of seve­ral less considerable Pieces of his, and to pass over altogether in silence this Epic Poem. Dr. Bentley will be pleas'd, at his leisure, to produce his Vouchers in this point; which I am apt to believe he will do, at the same time that he lets us know where the Buda MS. of Petronius is to be met with. Empedocles wrote many things in Hexameters indeed; but Dr. Bentley sure cannot be so wretchedly ignorant as to think, that every Large Copy of Verses written in Hexameters, is an Epic Poem. [Page 46] Aristotle would have inform'd him, that Em­pedocles was so far from being an Epic Poet, a Poet of the first Rank, that he scarce deserv'd the Name of a Poet at large: [...] (says he) [...]. Poet. c. 1. There is nothing that Ho­mer and Empedocles agree in but their Verse; and therefore Homer indeed may justly be call'd a Poet, but Empedocles rather a Naturalist, than a Poet. Or if Aristotle be too good a Book for Dr. Bentley to converse with, there is a Writer of less size, Comp. of anc. and mod. Lear. p. 32. even his Friend Mr. Wot­ton, who would have taught him the Distin­ction between Philosophical and Epical Poems; that is, such as Empedocles and Lucretius wrote on the one side, and Homer and Virgil on the other. He who is so nicely severe upon Pha­laris, for confounding [...] and [...] Disser. p. 59., should have taken care not to have given Pha­laris's Friends an Opportunity of making Re­prisals. The Fatal Mistake in this case was, that Suidas, the Dr's Oracle, calls him [...], which strictly taken, signifies an Epic Poet, but in its loose sense a Versifier only; and the Dr. was not at leisure to take notice of this distin­ction.

And if Empedocles did not write an Epic Poem, how did he shew his Iudgment in laying aside his Country Dialect? Could not Physics have been as Iudiciously wrote in Doric Verse, by Him, as in Doric Prose by Ocellus Lucanus, and the rest of the Pythagoreans? His Trea­tise of Expiations [...]., why would it not have born being written in Doric, as well as Theocri­tus's [Page 47] Pharmaceutria? especially since Laertius intimates, that the Subject of that Treatise was in great measure drawn from the Pytha­goreans: would it not properly then have been compos'd in the Dialect those Philosophers us'd? We have several small Remains of Empedocles; but not a Line of his in Doric. We have a Large Fragment of his, directed to the People of Agrigent, his Townsmen: did he shew his Iudgment in laying aside his Coun­try Dialect there too, when he was directing his Verses to the very People of his Country? Had the Doric Idiom not Grace and Majesty enough for the Subject he was engag'd in, when the Subject was no higher than an Account of Himself to his own Countrymen? If Doric be proper for Mimes, Comedies, and Pastorals, where Men of ordinary Rank are represented, why is it not as proper for little Poems, where Men of ordinary Rank are address'd to? I believe it would puzzle a Man of less Sagaci­ty than Dr. Bentley, to tell us, for what rea­son Empedocles us'd Ionic, but because he had a mind to't: and may not the same reason be urg'd also in behalf of the Attic of Pha­laris?

Dr. Bentley has had very ill Luck in bring­ing off the Poet, let us see whether he has bet­ter in what he has to say for the Historian. P. 50. Diodorus Siculus, he tells us, and the other Historians of Dorian Nations, had great reason to decline the Vse of their Vernacular Tongue, as im­proper for History; which besides the affectation of Eloquence, aims at Easiness and Perspicuity, and is design'd for General Vse: but the Doric is Course and Rustic, and always clouded with an Obscurity. [Page 48] The Reader cannot but observe in this Pas­sage the particular Beauty and Happiness of the Dr's Expression: but it matters not much how he Writes, let us consider how he Rea­sons.

If the Dr's Solution be just, how came Archimedes and the Pythagorean Naturalists and Moralists not to decline the use of their Vernacular Tongue, as well as the Historians? They all, I dare say, aim'd as much at Per­spicuity, and the Last of the Three doubtless design'd their Treatises as much for General Vse. I will not say indeed, that they affected Eloquence, because I do not think that a good Character, whatever Dr. Bentley may: but, which is much better, they were Eloquent; very Lofty and Magnificent, and withal very Clear in their Expression: on both which accounts they are recommended by Dionysius Halicarnasseus [...]. T. 2. p. 70., to be read by all those that desire to write well. And his Judgment in this Case is the more to be valu'd, because he wrote ex­cellently well himself, and with great Per­spicuity.

'Tis true, as the Doric Dialect grew out of Use and Request, their Writings grew less Easie and Perspicuous; and Porphyry had rea­son therefore to attribute the decay of the Pythagorean Sect to the Use, or rather to the Decay of that Dialect: but without dispute the Doric, in its flourishing days, had the same degree of Clearness as the rest; and the Philosophers, that writ in it, design'd their Works to be of as General Use, and to last [Page 49] as long, as those of the Historians. So that Dr. Bentley has assign'd no Reasons for the Historians not writing in Doric, but what will serve as well to prove Others not to have writ in it, tho' we are sure they did: a Way of arguing, worthy his Adventurous Pen! and which no body, I believe, will envy him the honour of!

Hitherto I have been proving against Dr. Bentley, (I hope not without success) that Phalaris was under no obligation of writing Doric, tho' he had been a Sicilian born: much less was he oblig'd to write it, upon the account of his Living among the Agrigentines, or Reigning over them, as Dr. Bentley pre­tends. He was a Publican (says the Dr.) or Collector of Taxes; could not that Perpetual Ne­goce and Converse with the Dorians bring his Mouth to speak a little broader P. 46.? No doubt it could; and perhaps it did: but the Questi­on is, whether, notwithstanding his learning Doric, he might not retain another Dialect with it; and speak it, and write it occasio­nally? But would not He that aim'd at Mo­narchy, and for that reason design'd to be Popular, have quitted his Old Dialect for that of the place, and not by every word he spake make the Invidious Discovery of his being a Stranger? The Dr. forgets, that every one of Phalaris's Epistles were written after he was a Tyrant: He might, for ought we know, speak Doric be­fore he got into Power; but afterwards there was no need of courting the People, for he govern'd by his Blew coats P. 39.. And I think he could not have taken a more proper way of shewing his Tyrannical Temper, than by [Page 50] throwing off the Language of the Country, and using a Foreign Dialect in all his Di­spatches. The Conqueror did the same thing by Us, when he chang'd the Language of our Law; and he shew'd himself in nothing more a Conqueror, than by doing it.

But the Dr. has urg'd, that Phalaris, being such a Tyrant, would not probably have been fond of the Language of a Democracy, that was eminently [...], an hater of Tyrants P▪ 41.. Was not Doric too the Language of the La­cedaemonians? and did not they hate Tyrants, as much as the Athenians themselves? At this rate, Phalaris could not have spoken any Dialect of the Greek Tongue, for every one of 'em was the Language of a Democraty, some where or other. If the Dr's Reasoning be right indeed, it may happen to prove that the Epistles are not Genuine, because not written in Persic; but it will never prove 'em Spurious, because they are not written in Doric. After all, what Trifles are these to amuse us with? that Phalaris, to be sure, would not speak Attic, because the Athenians in his time drove out Pisistratus? Would I give my self leave to declaim at this rate, might I not with much better colour say, that Phalaris would, to chuse, make use of that Dialect; because it was the Language of Pi­sistratus, his Brother Tyrant? I see Dr. Bent­ley loves no less to argue, than read out of the way; and it is so much out of the way, that I am asham'd to follow him.

Were I so very a Critic, as to love Wran­gling rather than Truth, I might further di­spute it with the Dr. whether Doric were [Page 51] the Language of Agrigent, or no, and that upon no less an Authority than Strabo's; who expresly says, that Agrigent was a Colo­ny of the Ionians [...]. L. 6, p. 272.. And Monsieur Menage Certè ut erat Agrigen­tum Ionum Colonia, teste Stra­bone, Agrigentini licet Siculi (qui quidem Siculi Dores erant) Ionico sermone forsan uteban­tur. Notae in Diog. Laert. l. 8, sect. 60. rely'd upon this so far, as to ac­count from hence for the Ionic of Empedocles. How­ever, I must freely own my Opinion, that this Passage is corrupted, and that we ought to read [...] instead of [...], according to the account which that most Exact and Faithful Writer Thucydides has given us; not to mention Polybius, and the Scholiast on Pin­dar. And this Conjecture is the more pro­bable, because Strabo seems to be speaking there of Colonies drawn from one part of Sicily to another; such as that from Syracuse to Camarina, which he mentions in the words immediately foregoing. I wonder how this escap'd the most Learned and Acute Casau­bon's observation. Not to insist upon this therefore; but allowing Dr. Bentley, that A­grigent was a Dorian Town, as I believe it was; allowing him, that Phalaris was even born there, if he pleases, or in any other Town in Sicily, that he shall pitch upon, as I believe he was not: an allowing further, that Pha­laris was oblig'd on this account to speak Do­ric as long as he liv'd, yet still I have One Question to ask the Dr.; How can he prove, that Phalaris did not write Doric? 'Tis true, the Epistles at present are not in that Dialect: but they might have been Originally in it; [Page 52] and afterwards, upon the disuse of that Dialect, have been turn'd out of it into the Ordinary Language at the Fancy of some Copyer, before the Days of Stobaeus P. 49.. This the Dr. has irrefragably prov'd in the very Article we are upon, to have been the case of Ocellus Lucanus's Book [...]: and why may it not too have been the case of Phalaris's Epistles? If some Copyer since Stobaeus's time thought that Ocellus's Physics would look better out of Doric than in it, and therefore transdialected 'em; why might not some other Copyer be­fore Stobaeus's time think the same of our Ty­rants Letters, and do the same to 'em? and why, after this was done, might not the Original Phalaris be lost, as well as the Ori­ginal Ocellus? It is certain, that Stobaeus thought that this might so happen, or at least, that Phalaris might not have written Doric originally; for he transcribes several of his Epistles into his Excellent Work, in the very Language we now find 'em, with­out imagining in the least that they could not be Genuine, because they were not in Doric. Such a Consequence as that never en­ter'd into his Head: He had met with seve­ral Sicilian Writers, that chose to write out of the Dialect of their Country, particularly Empedocles, an Author of the same Town with Phalaris: (He had not indeed met with any Heroic Poem of his; that Lucky Hit was re­serv'd for the Inquisitive Dr. Bentley) and he had met also with some Writers, whose works were at first in all probability penn'd in Do­ric, and yet were in another Dialect in his time: for instance, the Pieces of Perictyone, and [Page 53] Aristoxenus, two Pythagoreans; and who very probably wrote Doric, because they were Py­thagoreans; and yet in Stobaeus's time it is plain, that some part of the Writings of the One were in Ionic, and those of the Other (if I remember right; for I have not Stobaeus now by me) in the Common Dialect. Let Dr. Bentley then take which side he pleases; either that Perictyone, and Aristoxenus, (and I will add Zaleucus too, who we are sure was a Pythagorean also from very good Authority Porph. in Vitâ Pyth. p. 15. Diod. Sic. l. 12, p. 84.) either, I say, that these did write originally in Doric, or that they did not. If they did, then we have Instances in 'em of Ancient Au­thors transdialected very early, long before the days of Stobaeus; if they did not, then here is a plain Proof that Authors probably of Doric Countries (to be sure One of 'em was) might nevertheless not write Doric: and ei­ther of these being granted me, the Reader sees, there will be no difficulty in justifying the Dialect of Phalaris. Indeed if the Last be granted me, it will be pretty difficult to justi­fie Dr. Bentley's hardy assertion, that the Py­thagoreans would sooner have lost their Lives, than have written out of Doric Disser. p. 47.; and that, if they had done it, it is most certain they would have been banish'd the Society Ibid. p. 48.. And there­fore Dr. Bentley. I suppose, to make himself Consistent, (a very hard Task!) will choose rather to grant, that these Writers were ori­ginally in Doric: and if they were, he will please to consider, how they got out of it; and shew us, why Phalaris might not get out the very same way.

[Page 54]And here I should take my leave of this tedious Article, but that I hear Dr. Bentley crying out [...], and calling loudly on the Learned World to listen to a mighty Discove­ry. He undertakes to prove, that Ocellus Lucanus did not repudiate his Vernacular Idiom, nor compose his Book [ [...]] in the Dress that it now wears, but in his own Country fashion Dissert. p. 47.; that is, in plain English, that he did not write it in the Common Dia­lect, as 'tis now extant, but in Doric. Upon this the Dr. spreads his Plumes, and swells beyond his usual pitch: I dare engage to make out, and, If I may expect Thanks for the Disco­very, are Expressions that carry in 'em an Extraordinary Air of Satisfaction; and seem a little too Pompous for the Matter they in­troduce, were it entirely New, and his Own; but they much less become it, considering it is all taken, Word for Word, out of a Preface to an Edition of Ocellus, as I shall now shew the Reader.

Vizzanius, above fifty Years ago, put out Ocellus Bononiae 1646.; and in his Prolegomena to that Piece has said every thing that Dr. Bentley has pro­duc'd on this Subject, to a Tittle; and (which is a little unlucky) has said it almost in the very same Words too: only Dr. Bentley is in English (I compliment him when I say so) and Vizzanius is in Latin. The Dr. has condescended to translate that Honest Edi­tor's Preface, without making the least Im­provement of a single Argument there, but not without worsting several; and has the Modesty after that to take it All to Himself, as the First Inventor; and to talk higher of [Page 55] this Petty Larciny of his, than Vizzanius did of the Original Discovery, which he thought too Obvious to value himself upon. Perhaps some, who have not the Opportunity of com­paring this Editor with Dr. Bentley, may be glad to have a Particular Account of the Dr's Ingenuity in the matter: and therefore I shall take the trouble of going through all he says on this point, and plainly shew whence he had his Intelligence.

I find (says the Dr. Dissert. p. 47.) it was agreed and co­venanted among the Scholars of that Italian Sect, [...] (Jambl. Vit. Pyth.) I can tell him, where he found it, it was in Vizza­nius: who says the same thing, and quotes the very same Authority for it. Id certè as­serendum crediderim Ocellum Doricâ Dialecto suum Opus conscripsisse, tùm quia Pythagoraeos quoslibet illi studuisse comperio, tùm quia id Py­thagorae suadeant Instituta, cui semper Idiomatum Graecorum Doricum maximè voluit sectari, tùm antiquius, tùm etiam praestantius illud arbitratus teste Iamblicho, in Vitâ Pythag. Indeed he makes no such Inference as Dr. Bentley does, that the Pythagoreans would sooner have lost their Lives, than have broken this Agreement; and that 'tis most certain, if any body had publish'd a Book against that Injunction, he would have been banish'd the Society: because he knew, this was not observ'd by Empedocles, nor by the Au­thor of the [...], nor even by Iamblichus, while he is writing this Account of the P [...]tha­goreans; no nor by Pythagoras himself, if Dio­genes Laertius may be credited.

[Page 56]'Tis true, Vizzanius speaks a little unwari­ly, and may be understood to intimate, that the Use of this Dialect among the Italian Sect was from the institution of Pythagoras him­self: a Mistake, which, if he were in, he was probably led into by too slight a perusal of Iamblichus. Dr. Bentley took all he found there for his Own, and this Mistake among the rest; and when he had it, to make it look the more like his Own, gave it the Confident Turn. Immediately these Instituta Pythagorae grew a solemn Injunction of Pythago­ras P. 47., which the Dr. talks as familiarly of, as if he had seen a Copy of it. But methinks he might have inferr'd, that there was no In­junction of this kind, from what he himself had told us out of Iamblichus but Three Lines before; that this Use of the Dialect proceed­ed from a Covenant and agreement among the Scholars P. 47. themselves: For they who know what an Implicit Regard was paid to Pythago­ras's Orders by all his Scholars, will easily a­gree, that there could be no need of their entring into a Compact, to do any thing that He had commanded. Dr. Bentley's Adversaries may be as severe upon him, on the account of his Criticisms, as they please; but they needs must allow him to have a Particular Talent at Reasoning, and to have thus much at least of a Good Disputant, that he is sure to make the most of his Argument.

Dr. Bentley's next Suggestion is this, We are assur'd that the other Pieces of this Author were made in Doric, as one of Law, [...], ci­ted by Stobaeus. Vizzanius too cites this Frag­ment of Ocellus's Piece [...], from Stobaeus, [Page 57] and makes the same Use of it: Ocellum scil. Lucanum scimus Librum de Legibus scripsisse — hujus fragmentum exhibet Stobaeus — Doricâ Dia­lecto expressum, &c.

Dr. Bentley goes on, But, which is plain De­monstration, Four Citations are brought by the same Writer out of this very Book, [...], all which are in Doric, and not as they are now extant in the Common Dialect. Vizzanius referrs us to these four very places as they lye in Stobaeus, and observes too that they are there in Doric; not, as they are now extant, in the Common Dialect. De caeteris tandem in hoc Ocelli Opusculo contentis quis dubi­tet? Si enim primum respiciamus Caput, textum ejusdem ultimum; si secundum caput, textum sex­tum; si tertium caput, postremam textûs quarti partem; & textum quintum & sextum; iisdem servatis vocibus, immutatâ licet Dialecto, ad amussim veluti Ocelli dogmata describit Stobaeus.

From hence Dr. Bentley argues, that this Tract of Ocellus now extant is to be acknowledg'd for a Genuine Work, which HITHERTO Lear­ned Men have doubted of from this very business of the Dialect. So does Vizzanius in the pas­sage before quoted; and agen, Grave Stobaei Testimonium, non perfunctorie, sed summo studio veteris monumenta sapientiae semper lustrantis illud [Opus de Lege] ab Ocello prodiisse dubitare non si­nit; & tamen Dorico Idiomate videmus conscri­ptum, cujus nec minima in hoc [ [...]] opere conspiciuntur vestigia: ideó (que) an verè Ocellus aureum hoc opus conscripserit, jure quemcunque suspicari contingat — hinc tamen cer­ta potius quibus illi operi fides conciliatur, erumpunt argumenta. The only difference between Viz­zanius [Page 58] and Dr. Bentley upon this point, is, that Vizzanius does not triumph over the mistakes of those that went before him, nor tell us that All the Learned Men before his time had doubted whether the Work were Genuine; even when he might perhaps have said this safely, and truly: whereas Dr. Bently says it, fifty Years afterwards; and assures the World, that HITHERTO Learned Men have doubted of this matter, at the very time that he is a Translating a Learned Man, who was so far from doubting of it, that he was giving Reasons, why No body else should ever doubt of it hereafter.

Dr. Bentley concludes his Whole Argument thus, Now We see by these Fragments, that every Word of the True Book is faithfully preserv'd; the Doric only being chang'd into the ordinary Lan­guage, at the Fancy of some Copyer, since the Days of Stobaeus. Vizzanius does not speak quite so strongly as the Dr, but he gives much the same account of it: Quis dubitet de hoc Opusculo, cùm viderit eosdem quos retulit Stobaeus textus iisdem quidem omninò verbis, at diversâ Dialecto, Doricâ scilicet conscriptos? — indéque tenui ac facili immutatione Ocelli Opera ad Atti­cam traducta Dialectum? and in the Words before quoted [ Hinc certa potius, &c.] He an­swers the Cavils of those who suspected Ocel­lus from his Dialect, and handsomly turns their own Cavils against them. But I must give Dr. Bentley his Due, and own he has here made some Improvement: for Vizzanius never thought of carrying this Argument so far as to prove, that because these few Frag­ments cited by Stobaeus exactly agree with [Page 59] Ocellus, as we now have him, therefore 'tis cer­tain, that every Word of the True Book is faith­fully preserv'd. This was a Consequence re­serv'd for Dr. Bentley, which a Common Cri­tic, who reasons but like other men, would never have thought of: and it being the on­ly one which he has produc'd of his Own on this Occasion, I should not be just to him, unless I fairly told the World, that he did not borrow it.

And now, why don't the Critics, Great and Small, rise up to do him Homage? How many Letters can he produce from Learned Men abroad, who have paid him their acknowledg­ments for this Information? What has he to say for himself? can he pretend not to have seen this Edition of Ocellus? how came he then to hit just upon all Vizzanius says, and no more? has he not seen the Amsterdam Edition of Dr. Gale neither? To what pur­pose, does he think, that Dr. Gale set those Four Passages out of Stobaeus before his Editi­on, but to let People see that his Author was Genuine, and writ in Doric? He did not indeed make a Stir with that matter in his Preface, because he knew that Vizzanius had exhausted the point before Him; and he thought it not fit for Him to take the humble and dishonourable Task of transcribing ano­ther Man's Labours, either with, or without naming him.

I am glad of this Opportunity of mention­ing the Worthy Dean of York, and of paying my Publick Acknowledgments to him, for the particular Kindness and Favours I receiv'd from him, while I was under his Care. The [Page 60] Foundation of all the little Knowledge I have in these matters was laid by Him; which I gratefully own: for I think my self oblig'd to let the World know, whom I have been beholden to; tho' Dr. Bentley, I find, be of another Opinion.

And now I think I may without Vanity say, that I have outdone Dr. Bentley in the way of Discovery: for Mine, as inconsiderable as it is, is a Discovery; and such an one, as proves His to be None.

FROM the particular Idiom of Speech which Phalaris us'd, Dr. Bentley has prov'd nothing but this, that he can Construe a Latin Preface, take a Learned Man's Notions, and calmly put 'em off for his own; and then imperiously summon in the Men of Letters to do Obeysance to Him, as the First Discoverer: all which I, and his Readers, would readily have allow'd him, without putting him to the trouble of pro­ving it. Having therefore thus strenuously manag'd the Argument of the Dialect, he now turns his Formidable Pen to another kind of Proof: He has found out, that the Greek even of that Dialect is more Modern than the Times of Phalaris.

His Arguments on this Head are so far from making any thing to his purpose, that one would imagine he brought 'em only as so many Instances to illustrate what he said in the 13th Page, that Men have been deceiv'd in their Conjectures of this Nature even to Ridi­cule. For, could he make out what he aims at, and produce some Expressions from these [Page 61] Epistles, that are not us'd by the Polite Greek Writers, what would he inferr from hence? that these Words were certainly coin'd since the Age of Phalaris? how does he know but that they might be Then in use, and drop'd afterwards when the Learned Age came on; and reviv'd again, as that declin'd? Horace thought such Changes and Revoluti­ons in Speech not unusual: and it might easily be prov'd, that there have been many such, both in the Greek and Latin Tongue; but that Dr. Bentley has made the Proof of it superfluous here: for he has not produc'd any One Word, that is of that New Stamp he pretends. And among all the Marks and Moles Disser. p. 52. which, he says, betray the Epistles to be a Thousand Years younger than Phalaris P. 51., he has had the Judgment to chuse out such, as betray Him to be as little a Critic in the Greek Language, as he is in his Own.

He has so propos'd his First Instance, that He and I shall have no Dispute about it in This Place: [...], in the sense of accusing, is, he says, an Innovation in Language, for which the Ancients us'd [...]. I entirely agree with him, 'tis an Innovation in Language, and a very Modern one; so Modern, that I suspect 'twas first broach'd by a Little Greek, that writ towards the latter end of the 17th Century: (whom I shall not forget to talk with on this score, when I find his Criticism in its Proper Place, among the Faults of the Version) and consequently I apprehend the Epistles to be in no danger from This Word; but the next seems to carry Terror in it. For the Dr. de­clares, [Page 62] that [...], which in the XVII. Epist. must signifie, having given before, was never so us'd by the Ancients, but always for ha­ving betray'd. And this is One of the Instan­ces that is to bring down the Date of the Letters a Thousand Years lower than their pre­tended Author. Let it have its force to the Confusion of Phalaris, and all his Adherents: but what shall we do for St. Paul? He comes far within this Period; so that the Writings that carry his Name must be Four hundred Years Younger than We Christians suppose 'em: and the Epistle to the Romans could not be the Genuine Work of that Apostle, but was penn'd (as Phalaris's Epistles were) by some more Recent Sophist; whom Dr. Bentley has detected and unmask'd by the word [...], employ'd to signifie, he gave before; [ Rom. xi.35.] but never us'd in this sense, till many Ages after our Saviour. What shall we say to this? Shall we allow Dr. Bentley to be a Scurvy Critic, or shall we in Tenderness to his Honour, give up our Bibles? Perhaps the Dr. may, for this once, be mistaken: and I'm the rather inclin'd to think he is, because I find [...] and [...] us'd in the very same sense by the Best Writers of Anti­quity, Xenophon [...] (in margine rectiùs [...]) [...] Which Leunclavius rightly translates, Praterea Cyrus & Stip [...]ndium priùs illis debitum persolvit, & menstruum aliud ante tempus numeravit. Xen. Hellen. l. 1, p. 441., Demosthenes — [...] Orat. [...], and Ari­stotle — [...] Oecon. l. 2., if the Oeconomicks be his.

[Page 63]These are Great Authorities; but if they should prevail with the Dr. to withdraw this Argument, we are not yet safe; he has still a stronger Objection against the Epistles of St. Paul and Phalaris, taken from the word [...], put for following; which, he says, an­ciently signified to pursue, when that which fled fear'd and shunn'd the Pursuer. What pity 'tis, the Knowing Dr. Hody had not learnt this Secret Piece of Criticism sooner? how easily might he have prov'd the Septuagint of a much less Authority, and Later Date than Vossius contended for, by that Expressi­on in Ezra (ix.4.) [...]? by which however the LXX, I suppose, were far from meaning, Every one that persecutes the Word of God. [...], as I remem­ber, is us'd once only by Phalaris in this sense; but I'm sure 'tis frequently so em­ploy'd by St. Paul; and Remarkable it is, that in One Passage of his Epistles the Word is taken both in Phalaris's following, and Dr. Bentley's persecuting Sense, within the Compass of two Lines: [...] Rom. XII.13, 14. Now let Phalaris shift for himself; but I am agen con­cern'd to put in one word for our Apostle. Would Dr. Bentley give himself Time to con­sider, he would find, that [...], in all its va­rious acceptations still implies the Notion of Following: sometimes the Thing follow'd has reason to fly and fear the Follower; and then it signifies to pursue in Dr. Bentley's sense: but sometimes the Thing follow'd is less shy and timerous; and then it signifies barely to follow. Theocritus says,

Now tho' the Kid might be afraid of the Wolf, yet the Cytisus is not so apt to run away from the Kid: and Virgil therefore, who understood the force of a Greek Word as well as Dr. Bentley, translates it thus,

where the Word sequitur, which is of it self Indifferent, is, as the Greek Word [...] is in Theocritus's Verse, determin'd to signifie differently by the several things to which it is apply'd. In much the same sense it is us'd by Aristotle, throughout his Ethicks, where­ever he has occasion to express a pursuit after Honour, Riches, Pleasure, Virtue, and many such Objects, which are under no fearful ap­prehensions of the pursuer. If Dr. Bentley be not yet convinc'd, I refer him for his far­ther satisfaction to Plato [...], ('Tis Socrates speaks) [...] Phoed., and Dionysius Halicarnasseus [...] Faustulus follow'd Romulus into the City. P. 52.; and I desire him particularly to consider those Words of Xenophon in the Memoirs of Socrates, [...], which, according to the little Skill I have in Greek, is to be tran­slated thus, We ought to fly the Men of a Troublesome Temper▪ and to court the Candid. But if [...] here signified to pur­sue: [Page 65] then [...], which is oppos'd to it, would signifie to follow: and so indeed we should have a Precept for Courting Dr. Bentley.

He instances agen in these words, [...], which in one of the Epistles are meant to express Lovers of their Children; whereas, says he, this of Old would have been taken for a Flagitious Love of Boys; and he would argue from thence, that this use of the word must be introduc'd by some Modern Sophist. Now to Me the Argument seems to lye quite the other way; and since the words [...] and [...] were, in latter times, of such infamous usage, 'tis not to be imagin'd, that a Sophist should put 'em into Phalaris's Mouth, to express the Love of Children: but 'tis very conceivable, that this in Phalaris's time might be an innocent Expression; tho' afterwards, as Greece grew lewder, it had a Double Mean­ing, and was therefore not fit to be us'd. I'm sure, I can give a better reason for my con­jecture, than the Dr. can for his; and it is this: Whenever Phalaris has occasion to ex­press the Scandalous Love of Boys, he does not use this word, as Later Authors do; he calls Lysinus (Ep. VIII.) [...], but not [...]; which, if the Word had then born as Vile a sense as it did afterwards, he would certainly have done: for he had a little of Dr. Bentley in him at that time, and was be­stowing the very Worst Names he could think of upon his Adversaries. Besides, [...] and [...] sound very diffe­rently; and if we take the Whole Sentence in Phalaris together, [...], the Connexion plain­ly [Page 66] shews, that [...] can have no ill meaning. Nay, long after Phalaris's time, we have Instances where these Words are em­ploy'd in a Vertuous Sense: Plato uses 'em so al­most every where; particularly in his [...] they recurr often, and under a Chaste mean­ing [...], Says one of the Persons in that Dialogue — Who immediately afterwards professes, that he meant not these Words of a Lascivious Love: [...], &c. p. 192. In the same manner [...], which generally had a Scandalous Sense, is by Plato often us'd in a Good one: particu­larly in his Phoedrus; where Socrates calls Lysias the Orator [...], Phoedri Deliciae, because of Phoedrus 's admiring and delight­ing in Lysias 's Orations. See p. 236., if Plato's own word may be taken for it. If Dr. Bentley thinks otherwise, and dares say so, I leave him to be scourg'd by Mr. Norris, and the rest of the Platonists.

Till I am at leisure to look out for more Authorities, I hope Plato may be thought con­siderable enough to countenance Phalaris in the use of this Expression: but the Dr. has still a Proof in reserve, which he takes to be the most distinguishing Mark of a Late Wri­ter. [...] (Ep. CXLII.) is us'd for Mai­dens: this, he says, is a most manifest token of a Later Greek; even Tzetzes interprets it [...]: that is, (if I can make any Sense of what he says) this Use of the Word is so mo­dern, that even Tzetzes himself was asham'd so to employ it, and therefore put [...] instead of it. But if Tzetzes's Judgment may go for any thing, he's of my side; for he cites the Epistles as Genuine: and therefore to be sure did not substitute [...] in the [Page 67] room of [...], because he thought this sense of the word Modern. And here again I must put the Dr. in mind of his Bible. For in the LXX. we find, [...], ( Prov. xxxi.29.) where [...] must mean Women, or Maidens: But these Maidens were Some body's Daughters; and so, I suppose, were those that Phalaris presented to his Friend. The same Expression recurrs too in the Evan­gelists, where they tell us what our Saviour said to the Woman that touch'd the Hem of his Garment; St. Matthew has it, [...]; and St. Mark, [...] I need not go farther for Instances, since 'tis probable that this Criticism is altoge­ther founded on a mistake; and what we now read [...] in the modern MSS. of Phalaris, was in the more ancient ones contractedly written [...], which might be read either [...], or [...], as the Copyer chanc'd to hit upon it. Tzetzes therefore might truly read, and not interpret, it [...]; and (as it has often happen'd in Other Cases) this True Reading, which is corrupted in the entire MS. of the Author, be preserv'd in this cited Pas­sage of him. If our great Dealer in MSS. did not observe this, where is his Sagacity? If he observ'd it, without owning it, where is his Sincerity? He must give me leave now and then to ask him an Insulting Question; He has ask'd me a great many. But I have One Enquiry more to make of him on this occasi­on; and that is, Whether he thinks, that his Philosophical Lectures serve more to the esta­blishment of Religion, than his Criticisms do to overthrow it? For is he not Positive, that the Idioms of the Letters prove them to be [Page 68] a Thousand Years later than Phalaris? And are not some of these very Idioms frequently to be met with both in the Gospels and Epistles? Should not so Profound a Grecian and Divine as He is have look'd a little into the New Testament, before he had pronounc'd such rash and groundless Assertions? Could Men imagine One, who writes at this rate, to have any Meaning, they would think he had a very ill one: but the whole management of this Controversie clears him from all suspicions of Meaning and Design.

These are all the Marks of Novity, which he has given himself the trouble to take notice of; They that will search, he says, may find more of this sort: without question they may; but if they don't find some of another sort, they'll have the Discretion to keep their Discoveries to themselves, and not expose 'em to be cor­rected by every one that can turn an Index, or a Lexicon N [...]c sanè quisquam est tam procul à cognitione eorum remotus, vt non In­dicem certè ex Bibliothecâ sumptum transferre in Li­bros suos possit. Quint. In­stit. l. 10, c. 1.. By such Helps as these, 'twould be easie to collect Authorities in abundance against every In­stance that Dr. Bentley has brought on this head: but I am so far from valuing my self upon a multitude of Quotations, that I wish there had been no occasion for those few I have produc'd; and think I am oblig'd to excuse my self to the Reader for that mixture of Latin and Greek, with which I am forc'd to vary this Odd Work of mine. I can only say, that I have been as sparing in this way, as Dr. Bentley would give me leave to be: and I have the rather avoided being tedious upon the Particular Point in debate between [Page 69] us, that I might have room to examine the General Reflection which he has made upon the Change and Decay of Languages.

It is easie (says the Dr.) from the very turn and fashion of the Style to distinguish a fresh En­glish Composition from another a hundred Years old. Now there are as real and sensible Differen­ces in the Greek; were there as many that could discern them. But very few are so vers'd and practis'd in that Language, as ever to arrive at that Subtilty of Tast Diss. p. 52. I can easily grant, that the English Tongue has undergone very consi­derable and surprizing Changes, especially in this Last Century; till about the middle of which, we did not in good earnest set about the Cultivating and Refining it: and then carried our Improvements so far, that Some who wrote at the beginning of this Century are not now easily understood. At our best, We are perhaps a little too fond of adopting Foreign Words; and fancying, out of a Mo­desty peculiar to our Nation, that we have not stock enough of our own, are continually borrowing from our Neighbours: and this brings a great many New Phrases in upon us, and consequently antiquates a great many others. Besides we have few things in our Tongue writ with any tolerable Degree of perfection; and They therefore who would write or speak well, have no Patterns to look up to, no sure Rule, but the present Mode of the Age, to guide themselves by: and as fast as That alters therefore, the Manner of wri­ting must alter along with it. But now if Dr. Bentley pretends to point out as Real and Sensible Differences in the several Ages of the [Page 70] Greek, as a moderate Critic may in the En­glish, I'm afraid his Subtilty of Tast will fail him. Does he take the Greek of Lucian to be as different from that of Plato, as our English Now is from that which was spoken soon af­ter the Conquest? Are not Homer and Oppian much nearer one another in their Language than Chaucer and Cowly, tho' in Time they are far more distant? No body is so absurd as to say, that the Greek Tongue did not ad­mit of some few Alterations in Every Age; but 'twas incomparably the most fix'd and enduring of any that we are generally acquain­ted with: and I shall offer at Some Reasons, that gave it this remarkable advantage over other Languages. 'Twas early improv'd and adorn'd by Men of the greatest Genius that ever appear'd in the World; They polish'd and perfected it to that degree, that it was admirably fitted to all the Purposes of Speech and Ways of Writing imaginable: They wrought it up into all the Majesty and Grace, all the Sweetness and Smoothness that an Happy Composition of Words, an Harmoni­ous mixture of Vowels and Diphthongs, or a Just Cadency of Syllables could give it. The best Greek Writers had generally Skill in Music; which was infus'd into 'em from their Infancy, and none were reckon'd well-bred that wanted it. This made their Ear just, and fine: and the fineness of their Ear easily slid into their Tongue; model'd their Speech, and made it Tuneable. They brought all the Learning in the World into their Language; and wrote in the best manner, upon all the most useful and pleasing Subjects, that could [Page 71] benefit, or entertain Mankind. The Natural Perfection of their Tongue, and the distin­guishing Excellency of their Authors in all Kinds of Knowledge, and Ways of Writing, made 'em a Compleat Standard and Model to other Nations, and after-Ages; upon which every one endeavour'd to form himself. So that what was sure always to be lik'd, could not chuse but last long. Their Empire also did not a little contribute to the Stability and Prevalence of their Language: They overcame a Great part of the World, and extended their Tongue with their Conquests, so as to make it Universal; All Nations bor­row'd from Them, but They had that Con­tempt of the Barbarity of other Countries, that they were shy of suffering either their Manners, or their Speech to be introduc'd among 'em. This Pride they preserv'd in a great measure, even when the Roman Empire was at its utmost heighth; and while Rome flourish'd with the Glory of Arms, the Seat of Learning still continu'd at Athens. This kept the Language so far entire and unmix'd, that we have Greek Books writ by Authors at almost Two thousand Years distance, who disagree less in their Phrase and Manner of Speech, than the Books of any Two English Writers do, who liv'd but Two hundred Years asunder. This then was a Peculiar Happiness of the Greek Tongue; No other Language, that has been of known and fami­liar use in the World, not even the Latin it self, enjoy'd any thing like it. An 150 or 200 Years was the utmost Length of Time that the Latin Purity continu'd. And therefore, [Page 72] to Compare the Greek, the most Holding Tongue in the World, with the English, the most Fickle and Fleeting of any; and to In­ferr from the observable difference between the several Ages of English, that there was as great a Difference between the several Ages of Greek; is a Comparison and an Inference, which No-body, but Dr. Bentley, would have allow'd himself to make: that is, (to be plain with him) No-body but One, who has no true Relish, no nice Tast of the Beauties and Proprieties of Either of these Languages; or of any Other, that he has yet pretended to judge of, or to write in. By those Marks and Moles of Novity which he has pointed out, in the Paragraph we are upon, the Reader is by this time satisfied, how able he is to assign to every Greek Writer his proper Age and Period, meerly by the Thread and Colour of his Style. Indeed, tho' he has the Vanity to declare this to be his Extraordinary Faculty, yet he has withal the Modesty not to hope that he shall convince any body Disser. p. 52.; and in this, I dare say, he is not mistaken. For 'tis some­what hard to imagine, how a Man should en­ter into the Spirit and Delicacy, and all the Various Niceties of a Dead Tongue, who is so far from having any exquisite sense of these things, even in that very Tongue, which he was born and bred up in. I shall take an oc­casion by and bye to give the Reader such a Specimen of his English Eloquence, as will discourage any body (if there be any body left, who is not yet discourag'd) from chusing Him for a Taster. In the mean time, to stay the Reader's Longing, I shall instance in One [Page 73] Happy Phrase, newly minted by the Dr. in this very Paragraph: he speaks here of the Mien of a Face; which, as I take it, is much the same thing with the Behaviour of a Look, or the Carriage of a Smile: I do not know how particular the Dr's Mien, or his Face, may be; for, to my knowledge, I never saw him; but the Mien of the Face of his Style the Reader must allow me, even from this single instance, is somewhat extraordinary!

THE Use of the Attic Dialect was made one shrewd Objection against Phalaris; the Use of the Attic Talent, Dr. Bentley is resolv'd, shall be another. This Way of Counting recurrs pretty often in the Epi­stles; however not so often, as that an Ar­gument built upon it should deserve to be rank'd among the General Proofs: but I am so little sensible of the force of it, that I am willing to allow it a place there; and if Dr. Bentley can make it out, I promise to re­nounce, not those Particular Epistles only from whence 'tis taken, but the Whole Sett of them.

The Dr. upon this Article, accuses his Mock-Phalaris of mistaking the Sicilian Ta­lent: and this Mistake of his, he, with his usual Gaiety, calls a Slippery Way of telling Mony Disse [...] p. 5 [...].; and therefore cautions us against dealing with him Ibid. p. 54.. He explains himself thus, — That the Sicilian Talent was the Low­est of any; that Phalaris promising in his Epi­stles to several of his Countrymen Talents in General, must be understood to mean Sicilian [Page 74] Talents, whereas he means nothing like it. Now (says the Dr.) if a Bargain were made in England, to pay so many Pounds, or Marks; and the Party should pretend at last, that he meant Scots Marks, or French Livres; few, I suppose, would care to have Dealings with him. And this is the very Case in so many of these Letters Dissert. p. 54.. So far from being the Case, that the Case is just contrary! For if the [...]icilian Talents were so very Low, and Phalaris must be thought to intend them in his Promises, and yet paid Attic ones; Those he dealt with had certainly no reason to complain of him. Would a man think himself ill us'd in Scotland, who should have a General Promise made him of so ma­ny Pounds, which he expected to be made good in the Pounds of the Country, and re­ceiv'd 'em afterwards in good English Sterling? What could possibly give this Perverse Turn even to Dr. Bentley's Imagination? What Cloudy Author had he been conversing with, that could put him into this State of Perple­xity and Confusion? We have great hopes indeed that the Intricate Accounts of this Pa­ragraph should be clear'd up, by such an Head, in such Order! But, it may be, the Dr. did not intend this for a Remark that was to Edifie his Reader; but for a pure piece of harmless Diversion. Having therefore sport­ed himself a little, he resumes the Chair, and thus authoritatively dictates to us.

We are to know, that in Sicily, as in most other Countries, the Name and Value of their Coins, and the way of reckoning by Summs, was peculiar. The Sum Talent, in the Sicilian Accompt, con­tain'd no more in Specie than Three Attic Drachms, [Page 75] or Roman Denares; as plainly appears from Ari­stotle Pollux, l. ix, c. 6., in his now lost Treatise of the Sicilian Government. And the Words of Festus are most express; Talentorum non unum Genus: Atticum est sex millium Denariûm, Syracusa­num trium denariûm. What an Immense Diffe­rence! One Attic Talent had the real value of Two thousand Sicilian Talents. Now in all these Epistles the very Circumstances assure us, that by the word Talent simply nam'd, the Attic Talent is understood. But should not our wise Sophist have known, that a Talent, in that Country where he had laid the Scene of his Letters, was quite ano­ther thing? Without Question, if the true Pha­laris had penn'd them, he would have reckon'd these Summs by the Sicilian Talents, encreasing only the Number: Or should he have made use of the Attic Accompt, he should always have given express notice of it; never saying [...] alone, without the addition of [...] Disser. p. 54, 55..

Now, in opposition to the Dr's Reasonings and Authorities about this matter of the Ta­lents, I shall endeavour to shew, that what the Dr. says we are to know, we are still to know, after all the Information he has vouchsaf'd to give us: and that if we did know it, we could not from thence gather, that these Epistles are Spurious. For if there is Room to suspect that the Dr's Witnesses are corrupted, if their Testimony is inconsistent, if they tell us things demonstratively false, if the Dr. says more than his Witnesses do, if there be stronger Authority to counterbalance theirs; if, ad­mitting what they say, or what the Dr. makes 'em say, to be true, the Letters may be never­theless Authentic: if these things can be [Page 76] made good, the Dr. will, I hope, pardon me, if I refuse to part with Phalaris, upon any Quarrel about the Talents.

The Dr's Witnesses are Pollux, and Festus, whom I shall examine severally. Aristotle in­deed is call'd in for a Witness; but He not appearing in Person, we have his Testimony only at second hand: so that its force will wholly depend on the Authority of Pollux, the Relater. To Him we are referr'd in the Margin; but it doth not appear from the Book and Chapter there cited, that the Trea­tise of Aristotle which, the Dr. says, is now Lost, was ever sound. That Aristotle wrote [...], or accounts of the State and Polity of several Particular Cities, and of several Sicilian Cities among the rest, is sufficiently known [...] Diog. in Vitâ Arist.: but that he wrote any thing which bore such a Title as a Treatise of the Sicilian Go­vernment, we want the Light of some other Lost Treatise to make plain to us. A Treatise of Aristotle, but not under this Name, is cited by Pollux in this Chapter: but whether that part of this Chapter which concerns the Value of Talents be genuine, we have Room to doubt. Seberus, in his Notes on Pollux, tells us, that from Pag. 435, v. 32, of his Edition, to the End of the 6th Chapter (within which space all that is said to Talents lies) is wanting in One MS But allowing it to be genuine, what the Dr. says is plain from that place in Pollux, is so far from being plain from thence, that Pollux, must be chang'd and help'd out from other Authors, before he [Page 77] can be made to speak to the purpose. It plainly appears to the Dr. from Aristotle, as there cited by Pollux, that the Summ Talent in the Sicilian Accompt contain'd no more in Spe­cie than three Attic Drachms, or Roman De­nares. But tho' the Sicilian Talent be there mention'd, 'tis neither adjusted to Attic Drachms, nor Roman De­nares [...] * [...] Poll. l. 9, c. 6.. Two sorts of Si­cilian Talents are there taken notice of; an Ancient, and a Later: That equal to 24 Nummi, This to 12. And the Nummus is said to be equal to three [...] So that be­fore the Value of the Sicilian Talent can be settled from this Passage, the Value of the Nummus should be first agreed on; which it will not be very easie to fix from its given proportion to the [...], be­cause that is a Species of Mony we are Stran­gers to; and the Criticks are agreed we owe that Coin purely to a Corrupt Reading of the Text: (which, by the bye, is much such an Instance of Equivocal Generation, as that which the Dr. tells us of Dissert p. 118., where he makes Mu­shrooms to grow out of a Rotten Passage in Suidas). Some therefore for [...] read [...], others [...]. This Latter must be own'd to be a greater departure from the Letter of the Text than the Former; so that if we admit it in order to our setling the value of the Nummus, and consequently of the Talent, we do not owe our Light in this matter to what we read in Pollux, but to what we gather from [Page 78] our own Conjectures, or from other Authors. When we have put [...] for [...], 'tis granted, that the Nummus, which is equal to three half-Obolus's, or one Obolus and an half, is the same with the Nummus Sestertius of the Romans: the value of which being known from other Authors, and it's proportion to the Ro­man Denare; the proportion of the Sicilian Talent to the Roman Denare is thereby made out. But those who go this way to work in setling the value of the Sicilian Talent from this obscure and corrupted passage, seem to take it for granted, that the Greek word [...] in Pollux means the Roman Nummus; or Sestertius, and then adjust the obscure word [...] (by changing it into [...]) to the known value of the Sesterius. But Pollux tells us, that tho' [...] L. 9, C. 6. [...] may seem to be a Roman Name of Mony, yet it is a Greek one, and a Term of the Dorians in Italy, and Sicily. And if so, 'tis more probable that the Sicilian Talent is here compar'd to the Dorian or Si­cilian Nummi, whatever those were, than to the Roman Sestertii. Had Pollux given us the Value of the Sicilian Talent in his own Name and Words, we might have suppos'd that he adjusted it to the Roman Monies; but 'tis ab­surd to think that Aristotle, those words [...], &c. ut suprá. are here ci­ted for the value of the Ta­lent, should give it us in Ro­man Sestertii, which were a Coin not stamp'd at Rome, till after Ari­stotle's [Page 79] time Who dy'd Olymp. cxiv, 3. according to Laertius. And Pliny tells us, Argen­tum signatum est Anno urbis 585, ( others read 485) Quin­to Fabio Consule, 5 annis ante primum Punicum bel­lum. Nat. Hist. l. 33. Now A. U. C. 585, falls in with Ol. 153. A. U. C. 485, with Ol. 128.. So that the Ground upon which the re­ceiv'd Computation of the Si­cilian Talent seems to have been made, plainly fails. But admitting the Nummus here to be the same with the Roman Sestertius, which we have good reason not to admit; and that [...] is rightly substituted, which we have no reason to grant: yet after all Dr. Bentley has impos'd upon us in his va­luation of the Sicilian Talent. For the Value of the more Ancient Sicilian Talent, which is equal to 24 Nummi or Sestertii, will be equi­valent not to Three, but to Six Roman Denares, or Attic Drachms; it being agreed on all hands, that each Sestertius is one fourth part of a Denare or Drachm: so that the Dr. has sunk the value of the Sicilian Talent (admit­ting this Computation) half in half. The Later Sicilian Talent will indeed at this rate be, as the Dr. puts it; but the more Ancient one will be double its Value. But tho' the Dr. in his way of telling Money after Pollux, slips the Old Talent, (which it had been fair to have taken notice of, since Phalaris must be suppos'd to reckon by those Talents that were most ancient) and gives us the value on­ly of the Later one; yet the difference be­tween these Two Talents is not, I own, so great, as to be worth contending for: since 'tis freely acknowledg'd, that the Talents mention'd in Phalaris must be put at a higher rate than even the greater Sicilian Talent, if [Page 80] that was worth no more than Six Roman De­nares, or Attic Drachms. The value of a De­nare, or Drachm, is computed by all Authors, and may be prov'd by the Scales to be equal to 7 d. ob. so that Six of these will amount to 3 s. 9 d. the Price, as is pretended, of the Greater Sicilian Talent: and Three of them, to half that Summ, 1 s. 10 d. ob. the value of Dr. Bentley's Talent. But now if Pollux had expresly told me from Aristotle, that these were the several Values of the Two Sicilian Talents, I should have made some difficulty of giving him any Credit in this matter. For I find, that this same Pollux, as we now have him, cites Aristotle for things of this nature, which even upon Aristotle's Authority I can­not admit. He tells us from Aristotle [...] L. 4, C. 24., that the Sicilians reckon'd that Two Brass Pie­ces ( [...]) were equal to Six Litrae; and that Six Brass Pie­ces were equal to half a Litra. Now, that Two should be twelve times as much as Six, is not according to the re­ceiv'd Rules of Arithmetic: To puzzle us still more, Pollux tells us in another place [...]. L. 9, C. 6., from the same Treatise of Aristotle, that Six Talents are equal to Two Brass Pieces; and that Three Talents are equal to Three of the same Brass pieces; that is, that Three are more than Six. I beg to be ex­cus'd, if I cannot believe Pollux, that Aristotle [Page 81] counted at this rate; because I always thought, that Aristotle had some little Skill in Mathematicks. It would not perhaps be difficult to offer some Emendations, that might set these things right: but till that is done, Pollux's Calculations are of no great Credit with me. Pollux, in the same place which the Dr. cites for his value of the Ta­lents, informs us He tells us expresly, that the Mina of each Coun­try is divided into an hundred Drachms of that Country. [...] L. 9, C. 6. And if the Drachmae of each Country rise and fall in propor­tion to the Talent, it is evi­dent, that there are as many Hundreds of them, that is, as many Minae, in one Talent as in another. And so Brerewood understands Pollux: Omne Talentum, ut Suidas & Pollux inquiunt, continet Minas 60, ut Minâ Drachmas 100. Proinde 6000 Drachmas con­tinebat▪ Talentum Omne, proprias sc. l. ejus regionis, cujus Talentum esse diceba­tur. De Nummis, p. 26. Talentum quodvis s [...]xmil­lia Drachmarum sui generis habet, quae ad Atticas re­ductae variant. Gron. de [...]. Vet. c. 3., that as the Attic Talent was divided into Sixty Attic Minae, and each of those Minae into an Hundred Attic Drachms, so the Talent of each Country was divided into the same number of Minae; and each Mina into the same number of Drachms, proportionably to the value of the several Talents. So that the Sici­lian Mina, the 60th part of the greater Sicilian Talent, will at this rate be just Three Farthings of our Mony; and the Sicilian Drachm, the hun­dredth part of that minute Summ, i. e. more than three and thirty times less than our Farthing. Now it cannot ea­sily be imagin'd, that the Si­cilian Drachm, which was a Coin current amongst them, should be so unconceivably little as it must be, if its va­lue were but the three and thirtieth part of our Farthing: and yet we [Page 82] must not stop here, but must carry our Ima­gination further, and still break that Particle of Metal into Two Parts, if we would reach the Littleness of that other Drachm which an­swers to the Lesser, or Dr. Bentley's Talent; being not quite the 66th part of our Farthing, and that in Silver too: a Species of Mony, not to be counted without the help of Mi­croscopes. So that when we have occasion hereafter to express the Value, or rather worthlesness, of any contemptible Perfor­mance, we shall in complement to the Dr's Criticism say, it is not worth a Sicilian Drachm.

I beg the Reader's Patience, while I take a Review of what has been said in answer to the Dr's First Authority. The Value of the Si­cilian Talent appears clearly to him from a Lost Treatise, which he owns has long since disap­pear'd, and which I think never did appear. That part of Pollux, where he finds the Re­mains of this Lost Treatise, is of suspected Credit. If it is Genuine, it is Imperfect; and to be supply'd by Guess. The Supplies which have been made to it seem to have been built upon a Wrong Supposition, that the [...] in Pollux was a Roman Word. When these Supplements are admitted, they do not sink the Talent in dispute quite so low as the Dr. doth. Pollux, whose Authority we must depend upon for this Citation from Aristotle, cites things of this nature from him which, as they there stand, are demonstrably false. In his Division of the Talent, he breaks it into pieces, which, admitting the Dr's Rate of the Talent, are of no Value, and of no Use.

[Page 83]If this Plea (for the Length of which I beg the Reader's pardon) is sufficient to invali­date the Authority of Pollux, the Testimony of Festus will admit of an easier Dispatch. For, not to insist on any of those Exceptions against Pollux, which affect Festus equally with Him, it is observable that the Book which we now have under the Name of Festus, is not the Work of Festus, but compos'd out of some Fragments of Festus, and an Epitome of Festus, which Paulus Diaconus, a mean Writer Paulus Longobardus, homo confidentissimus ac in­eptissimus; nihil Festo pejus potuit accidere, quàm quòd in hujus Pauli manus incide­rit. Ios. Scalig. in Ep. Ded. ad Castigationes in Fes [...]um., whose Picture Scaliger has so drawn, as if an Acquaintance of mine had sate for it, made in Charles the Great's time. The Original Festus, if we had him entire, was but an Epitome of Verrius Flaccus; and Scaliger thinks it a Just Judg­ment upon Festus, for having abridg'd Flaccus, that his Epitome was Epitomiz'd by so Igno­rant a Creature as Paulus. But, what is most to our Purpose, those that give us these words of Festus, (if they be His) which the Dr. says are express to his point; take care to warn us, that for Syracusanum trium Dena­riûm, we ought to read, Syracusanum, trium millium Denariûm. Which Error may be sup­pos'd easily to have crept into the Copies of Festus, by leaving out the Capital Let­ter M, between the Words Trium and Dena­riûm.

[Page 84]I have consulted all the Editions of Festus I could meet with; and find none Vide Notas Gothofredi ad Schedas Festi frag­mento de­tractas, p. 234. Vide eundem in Notis ad Festum, p. 1821. Vide Festum ex Editione P. Santandreani, ubi in textu ponitur Trium Denarium, in margine, Trium Millium. Vide Antonii Augustini Annotationes ad Festum ad vocem Talen­tum, ubi dicit; Mendosus hic Locus est, & qui non patitur Emen­dationem. Hoc unum certum est, Talentorum non unum esse Ge­nus, & Atticum esse Sex Millium Denariûm. Caetera incerta sunt. Vide Bernardum de Ponderibus & Mensuris, qui Syracusanum Talentum dicit esse 3000 Denariûm, citát (que) Festum. Vide Dacerii Notas in Festum. which doth not take notice of this Emendation; and This the Dr. could not be a Stranger to: and had He therefore been a Fair Dealer in this matter, Festus had not been quoted at such a Loose Rate, to prove Phalaris a foul one.

The Opinion which the Dr. would have us entertain of his Great Reading would have been better confirm'd, had he supported his Notion of the Low Value of the Sicilian Ta­lent by good Authorities taken from ap­prov'd Sicilian Writers, or others that pur­posely treat of Sicilian Affairs. But, whether the Dr. knows it or not, he had good rea­son to decline the Testimony of those, who so plainly declare against him. For they give us better Grounds for setting an higher Price on the Talent, by which Sicilian Authors us'd to reckon, than Pollux and Festus could give us for placing it so low; tho' they had been more express to the Dr's purpose than they are.

[Page 85] Diodorus a Sicilian, writing of Sicilian Af­fairs, frequently uses the word Talent ▪ with­out any Addition; which therefore, accord­ing to the Dr, must mean the Sicilian: and which yet, by the Circumstances must have as great a Price put upon it, as the Talents men­tion'd by Phalaris require. He tells us, that Agathocles being possess'd of a Garrison of the Messaneans in Sicily, offer'd to surrender it to 'em for 30 Talents [...] Diod. Sic. l. 19.. Here a Sicilian Writer speak­ing of a Contract between the Prince of one Sicilian Town, and People of another, men­tions Talents, which must be the Sicilian, according to Dr. Bentley's Reasoning; but must not be Sicilian, according to his Computa­tion. For by his Reckoning, a Garrison, up­on a fair bargain, was to be parted with for less than Three pounds: which, if it be true, 'tis probable Agathocles got less by selling his Garrisons, than his Pots.

Agen Diodorus tells us, that Gorgias the fa­mous Rhetorician of Leonti­um [...] L. 12., had One hundred Mi­nae a piece from his Scholars, ( Sicilian Minae they must be, according to the Dr.) for teaching em his Art. This, tho' taken notice of by the Historian as an Extraordinary Price, was very inconsiderable Pay It amounts to 3 s. 1. l. ob. of our Mony. for so great a Master; unless we may suppose, that he taught at different Prices, in proportion [Page 86] to the Improvements of his Scholars; and then I can allow the Dr. that there is a sort of Eloquence, which had been too dear a Pur­chase even at that rate.

From the same Author we learn [...] L. 11. that the Syracusians, after a signal Victory, gave One Mina to each of their Subjects, that had behav'd themselves well in the Fight. The Relator of this is a Sici­lian: those who give, and those who receive the Reward are Sicilians of Syracuse, the very place from whence the Dr's Low Talent had its Denomination: The Persons honour'd with this Gratuity are such as had distinguish'd themselves by their Bravery: and for their Exemplary Courage, and Eminent Service to their Country they are crown'd, and each of them receives, according to the Dr's Estima­mation, the moiety of Three Farthings. A No­ble Donative! for which no doubt the States were often remember'd by the Souldiery in the best Wine of Syracuse.

Theocritus, another Sicilian Writer, in one of his Idylliums, mentions both Minae and Drachmae. The Persons he introduces speak­ing ^(b) are two Syracusian Ladies; ^* they talk [Page 87] Doric, the Language of Syracuse. The One admires the Others fine Habit, which she had put on upon a Great Festival, to appear at Court in, and asks the Price of it: The O­ther answers her, that it cost somewhat more than a Mina or two; and seems to make an Excuse for her Extravagance: which, if she paid for it in the Dr's Mony, she need not have done, considering they were her Holi­day-clothes.

In the same Idyllium we have an account of Five Fleeces ^(*) bought for Seven Drachms. It is true, we are told it was bad ware: but the Woman had no great Reason to rail at her Husband as a Spendthrift, and an ill Market­man (as we find she doth) if the Whole Pur­chase fell short of the Eighth Part of a Far­thing.

It would be easie, if pardonable, to multi­ply Instances of this Nature from Sicilian Writers, or such as treat of things transacted in Sicily. A Neighbouring State Diod. Sic. l. 13. is by a Bribe of 15 Talents Less than 30 Shillings. prevail'd with to forsake the Agrigentines, their Allys. Sixty Talents Thucyd. p. 353. are offer'd by the Egestani of Sici­ly for a Months pay A Talent 1 s. 10 d. ob. for a Months pay of a Ship. for 60 Ships, which they had oc­casion to borrow. Timoleon Plut. in Vitâ Timo­leontis. the Restorer of Syracuse to its Liberties and [Page 88] Rights, was magnificently buried by the State, which he had deliver'd, at the Charge of 6 s. 3 d. 200 Minae. A vast Fund of Less than 100 pounds. a Thousand Ta­lents is rais'd by letting out Ground and Houses to 60000 men, for the Recruit of Syra­cuse, after it had been ruin'd by a War Plut. ibid.. Dion's Estate, Plato, Ep. 7. which lay at Syracuse, is reckon'd a Great one; and its full value said to be an Hundred Less than 10 pounds. Talents. Two Sicilian Princes Polyb. p. 249. send 75 Talents to the Rhodians Less than 7 pounds. for their Relief, after they had been ruin'd by an Earthquake; but could not raise so great a Sum at once, and there­fore sent it by Parcels. In short, after some search into this matter, I am perswa­ded no one Instance can be produc'd of Ta­lents, or other Moneys mention'd by any Si­cilian Writer, or any one that writes of Sici­ly, which will countenance or admit of the Low Valuation of the Sicilian Talent, that Dr. Bentley espouses.

But because I find the Modern Dea­lers in ancient Monies go into the Opinion of a Sicilian Talent of Low Value, with­out any other Authority, as I can find, but the obscure and interpolated Passa­ges of Pollux and Festus, I shall lay no stress upon the Exceptions that have been made against that Opinion: since we may freely ad­mit such a Low Value of this Talent, and yet [Page 89] think these Letters Genuine. For there might be a Low Value of the Sicilian Ta­lent in some other Age, and yet the Ta­lent of Phalaris's time might be higher. Or there might be a Talent of his Low Va­lue in other parts of Sicily, and yet the Ta­lent of Agrigentum, a distinct State, might be higher. Or there might be a Low Ta­lent of baser Metal The Talents in Pollux, being compar'd to [...], and being, according to the present reading of Pollux, lower in Value than They, seem to be Brass rather than Silver., suppose Brass, equal to a Litra; and yet the Sil­ver Talents, which Phalaris's are expresly said to be Epp. 118, 95., might be higher. Or there might be a Low Value us'd by the Natives, and ancient Inhabitants of Sicily, and the Talent us'd by the Greek Colonies that plac'd themselves there, might be higher. Or if in Phalaris's time there was a Silver Talent of this Low Value of use among the Greek Colonies, at Agrigent and elsewhere, yet the Reasons that may be offer'd for Phalaris's using the Attic Dialect (to speak loosely) tho' a Si­cilian, will justifie his reckoning the Talents, as the Athenians did: Or if these Letters might by a Later hand be chang'd out of the Doric Dialect into the Attic, the same hand might make 'em speak Attic, in the valuation of the Monies. All these Suppo­sitions must be shewn impossible, before any convincing Argument can be drawn from hence, to prove these Letters Spurious. Or Lastly, tho' none of these Reasonings should hold, 'tis agreed by those, who treat [Page 90] of these matters Talentum sine adjecti­one Scriptoribus antiquis passim pro Attico. Gronov. de Pec. Vet. c. 3. Talentum Atticum pro­priè [...] in scriptis Grae­cis Latinisque. Bernard. in Ep. ad Pocock. Semper in Auctoribus (praeter Sacros) ubi Nomen Talenti occurrit, hoc ipsum ( Atticum, 6000 Drachma­rum Atticarum) intelligen­dum est, si Nomen Talenti absolutè positum sit, ne (que) di­stinctionis causâ aliquid ad­jiciatur. Brerewood de Num. p. 27., and give us this low Value of the Sicilian Talent, that where­ever the Word Talent is us'd by Greek Writers, without any addition, the Attic Ta­lent must be understood. So far are the Learned from thinking, as the Dr. doth, that Phalaris, had he made use of the Attic Accompt, should always have given express no­tice of it: and never have said [...] alone, without the ad­dition of [...]. For They, who were conversant in o­ther Books beside Dictiona­ries were sensible, that Sicilian Writers fre­quently us'd the Word Talent in the Attic sense of it, without any such express Li­mitation. And if Other Sicilian Authors might express themselves in this manner, without being suspected as Spurious, Phalaris is unjustly suspected by the Dr. on this ac­count. As to this head, he stands or falls, with the rest of his Countrymen: and I doubt not but the Reader, upon a fair and impartial View of what has been said to This Article of Dr. Bentley's In­dictment against Phalaris, will pronounce him Not Guilty.

[Page 91]HItherto Dr. Bentley has kept himself pret­ty well within his Province, and criti­cis'd chiefly upon Words and Phrases and Dialects; in his next General Proof he ven­tures to criticise upon Things, and to shew the Letters an Imposture, from the Matter and Business of 'em Dissert▪ p. 55.. They are a Fardle of Common Places (he says) without any Life or Spirit from Action and Circumstance: When You come to 'em, YOU FIND BY THE EMPTI­NESS AND DEADNESS OF THEM, THAT YOU CONVERSE WITH A DREAMING PEDANT, WITH HIS ELBOW ON HIS DESK; not with an active ambitious Tyrant, with his Hand on his Sword, &c. All that takes or affects You is a Stiffness, and Stateli­ness, and Operoseness of Style, &c. which is quite aliene from the Character of Phalaris, a Man of Business and Dispatch Dissert. p. 62, 63..

Stiffness, and Stateliness, and Operoseness of Style, is indeed quite aliene from the Character of a Man of Business and Dispatch: for which reason, any body that reads Dr. Bentley would easily guess, that he is not a Man of Business. And not being a Man of Business, but a Li­brary-keeper, it is not overmodestly done of him, to oppose his Judgment and Taste in this case to that of Sir William Temple; who is certainly a Man of Business, and knows more of these things, than Dr. Bentley does of Hesychius and Suidas. For, as his Friend Mr. Wotton has with Great Sagacity observ'd, It is Vniversally acknowledg'd, that He who has studied any Subject is a better Iudge of that Sub­ject, [Page 92] than another Man who did never purposely bend his Thoughts that way; provided they be both Men of Equal Parts Reflect. upon an­cient and modern Learning, p. 20.. Sir William Temple has spent a good part of his Life in transact­ing Affairs of State; He has written to Kings, and They to Him: and this has qualified him to judge how Kings should write, much bet­ter than all Dr. Bentley's Correspondence with Foreign Professors; especially if they be such Professors, as have the Judgment to ad­mire Him and His Humanity. I shall not there­fore offer a Word on the General Part of this Head, in Justification of the Epistles: I shall barely set down the Passage in which Sir Wil­liam Temple expresses his Sense of this mat­ter; and shall then leave it to the Reader, whose Opinion he'll think fit to take, either His, or the Library-keeper's at St. Iames's. Sir William's admirable Words are, I think he must have but little skill in Painting, that cannot find out this to be an Original. Such Diversity of Passions upon such Variety of Actions, and Pas­sages of Life and Government; such Freedom of Thought, such Boldness of Expression; such Boun­ty to his Friends, such Scorn of his Enemies; such Honour of Learned Men, such Esteem of Good; such Knowledge of Life, such Contempt of Death, with such Fierceness of Nature, and Cruelty of Re­venge could never be represented but by Him that possess'd 'em. And I esteem Lucian to have been no more capable of Writing than of Acting as Phalaris did. In all One writ You find the Scho­lar, or the Sophist; and in all the Other writ, the Tyrant and the Commander. It is plain, Sir William Temple does not write like a Dream­ing Pedant, with his Elbow on his Desk: and [Page 93] therefore the Reader perhaps will be apt to take his Judgment, when he tells him, that Phalaris does not write like one neither.

I cannot but observe, that Dr. Bentley is here and elsewhere Those Little Pedants, that have stalkt about in the Apparel of Heroes. Dissert. p. 29. — that wretched Pedan­try in the matter, p. 65. — affected to excel each other, even to Pedantry. p. 41, &c. very Liberal in distributing the Reproach of Pedantry; which is to Me, I confess, a plain Proof that he has no just No­tions of it: for if he had, it is so high an Offence a­gainst Good Manners, and Good Sense, that methinks he should impute it more sparingly. I will en­deavour therefore to set him right; which perhaps I shall be the better able to do, be­cause having convers'd much a late with some Writings, where this Beauty of Style pre­vails, I have very strong and sensible Impres­sions of it.

PEDANTRY is a Word of a very various and mix'd meaning, and therefore hard to be Defin'd: but I will Describe it to the Dr. as well as I can, by pointing out some of the Chief Marks and Moles of it.

The First and surest Mark of a Pedant is, to write without observing the receiv'd Rules of Civility, and Common Decency: and without distinguishing the Characters of Those he writes to, or against: For Pedan­try in the Pen, is what Clownishness is in Conversation; it is Written Illbreeding.

It is Pedantry, to affect the use of an Hard Word, where there is an Easie one; or of a Greek or Latin Word, where there is an English one, that signifies the very same [Page 94] thing. And these Two Meanings of the Word my Lord Roscommon seems to have hinted in those sine Verses of his; which are worth at least half a dozen Pages of Dr. Bent­ley's Scraps of Callimachus, Notes and all.

How Dr. Bentley will, on these Articles, ex­cuse his Familiar Treatment of Sir William Temple Could neither dis­cover the true Time, nor true Value of his Au­thors. p. 6. — Criticism of a Peculiar Complexion, and must proceed from a Singularity of Palate and Iudgment. P. 7., and his Course Complements to Me Sorry Critic, Bungling Tinker, Lucian 's Ass, &c.; how he will bring off his Greek and Latin Proverbs [...], Asinus ad Lyram, &c., his aliene, and negoce, and concede, and repudiating a Vernacular Idiom, with an Hundred other such Elegances of Speech, I leave him to consider at his Leisure.

To over-rate the Price of Knowledge, and to make as great ado about the true Rendring of a Phrase, or Accenting of a Word, as if an Article of Faith, or the Fortune of a King­dom depended upon it, is Pedantry. And so is an Assuming and Positive way of deliver­ing ones self, upon Points especially not worth our Concern, and not capable of being per­fectly clear'd: and whether Dr. Bentley be guilty in this respect or no, the Reader will [Page 95] be able to judge, when he has cast his Eye on the Margin, and consider'd, how many times the Dr. in his Dissertation, has freely us'd the Word Demonstrate of his own Per­formances — even Demon­strated, that the Epistles of Phal. are Spurious. P. 5. — that Demonstrate Anaxilaus to have liv'd — P. 26. — Demonstrate the Doric Dialect to have been, &c. P. 42. — But which is plain Demonstration, P. 48. — I'll Demonstrate 'em by and by to be an Imposture. P. 116. — I shall Demonstrate ours to be of a modern date. P. 138. — is a Demonstrative Proof. P. 141.: and withal, how fond he is of Negatives, (a very dangerous way of Speech!) and that in Cases oftentimes where the Con­trary Affirmative is most certainly true; as it is, and shall be prov'd to be, in all those Instances, which this Mark There was no such thing as Tragedy while be tyranniz'd at Agri­gentum. P. 40. [...] never us'd by the Ancients in that sense. P. 52. By that time I have done with 'em, it will be no more a Contro­versie, whether they are Spurious. P. 89. There is No MS. above CCC Years old, that has the Fables accor­ding to that Copy. P. 146. In all that Tract of Time, not one Single Author, that has given us the Least Hint that Aesop was Ugly. P. 149. Astypalaea, a City in Crete, never mention'd by any Geographer. P. 44. A Discovery in Geography, that could not be learnt any where else. P. 58. Eustathius, who appears never to have seen the true Athenaeus. P. 20. referrs to.

To depart from the Common Ways of Writing or Speaking, and such as have been us'd by the best Pens, on purpose to shew ones self more Exact and Knowing than the Rest of the World, is a Piece of Affectation, that favours of Pedantry. Tauromenium is the word that is generally us'd by both Ancient [Page 96] and Modern Writers. Dr. Bentley has re­form'd our Spelling, and will have it Tauromi­nium, because Pliny, and Solinus, (and perhaps somebody else) have happen'd to call it so. And here I must beg the Reader's Excuse, if I go a little out of the Way, to do right to Sir William Temple, in a Case of the Like na­ture: Mr. Wotton tells him, with great Plain­ness of Speech, that He, of all men, ought not to have arraign'd the Modern Ignorance in Gram­mar, who puts Delphos for Delphi, every where in his Essays Reflect. upon anc. and mod. Learning, p. 59.: A Capital Mistake, and wor­thy to be chastis'd by the Acute Pen of Mr. Wotton! But is he sure that putting Del­phos for Delphi is an Offence against Grammar? I thought always, that what was according to Propriety, and the receiv'd Use of a Tongue, could not be against Grammar. It may in­deed be against some General Rule of Gram­mar: but so Wise a Man as Mr. Wotton is, should have known, that Grammar has not only General Rules, but Particular Exceptions too; and that the Common Custom and Usage of a Tongue is capable of creating an Exce­ption at any time; and is as good a Rule as any in the Grammar. Now Delphos, for the Latin Word Delphi, is us'd by all the finest Writers of our Tongue, and best Judges of it: particularly, by Mr. Waller twice, in some of his Last Copies P. 269, 263.; which, tho' they are worse Poetry than the rest, yet are in Cor­recter English: by Mr. Dryden, four or five times, in his Life of Plu­tarch P. 6, 33, 41, 46, 48.; by Mr. Duke P. 4, 20, 23, 36, 42, 59., and Mr. Creech P. 280, 288, 310. often in their several Lives of Theseus, and Solon: and [Page 97] (because▪ perhaps One Old Divine may weigh more with Mr. Wotton than all these Modern Witnesses) by the Reverend and Learned Dr. Iackson, in his Volumes on the Creed T. 2 [...] p. 364.. Mr. Wotton might have said indeed, that Del­phos, in the Singular Number, is not Good Latin, or Good Greek: but when he says, 'tis bad English, he only shews, that he does not converse with so Good Authors as he ought to do. This Digression might have been spar'd, but that Mr. Wotton, when he was purging his Book of some unbecoming Pas­sages in a second Edition of it, thought fit still to retain this Grammatical Reflection there: perhaps in a third Edition, he'l take care that This too shall bear the rest Com­pany.

Dr. Bentley will forgive me this short Visit to his Friend, now I return to him.

Pedantry consists also in Low and Mean ways of Speech, which are a Vicious Affectation of what is Natural and Easie, as Hard Words are of Learning and Scholarship. And whe­ther Dr. Bentley has not offended this way, by those Familiar Expressions of Mother Clito the Herbwoman, and Going to Pott, and setting Hor­ses together, and Roasting the Old Woman, and by his apt Simile drawn from Bungling Tinkers mending old Kettles; any-body, but Pedants, can tell.

An Itch of contradicting Great Men, or Establish'd Opinions upon very slight Grounds, is another Instance of Pedantry: and (not to mention any thing that relates to the Present Dispute) something of this kind there was, I'm afraid, in Dr. Bentley's brisk Censure of [Page 98] Grotius and Scaliger for not knowing the mea­sure of an Anapaestic Verse Bentl. Ep. ad Millium in sine Malalae, p. 26., when 'tis plain (as I shall shew, before I lay down my Pen In the Article of the Thericlean Cups., that the Dr. would never have censur'd 'em, if he had known it himself Madestè & circumspe­ctè de tantis Viris pronun­tiandum est, ne fortè (quod plerisque accidit) damnent quae non intelligunt. Quint.. Castelvetro, an Italian Pedant, was famous for such a Snar­ling Faculty as this; He was (as Balzac says very well of him Cestoit une Enemie Public, qui ne pouvoit sous­frir le merite, ni la reputa­tion de personne. L. 5, Lettr. 5.) a Public Enemy, that could not endure any-body should have Merit, or Reputation, but himself.

The Subject is fruitful; but I will confine my self to one Particular more of the Pedant's Character; and that is, a Love of Quoting Books, or Passages not extant, or never seen by him; in order to amaze and confound his poor Reader, and make himself Terrible in the Way of Learning. As Aristotle says in his Lost Treatise of the Sicilian Government, says the Dr Dissert. p. 55.; tho' that Treatise be so far lost, that Aristotle did really never write it. And agen he tells us, what Monsieur de Meziriac has done in his Life of Aesop P. 135., and yet owns in the very next Line, that he never met with this Book, but only guess'd what was in it. He produces P. 26. the Vnknown Authors Diodorus transcrib'd, as so many Witnesses on his side: and, in another place P. 28., he gives a very particular account of what A. Gellius said in a Lost Chapter; not from any other Writer that had quoted it, but meerly by dint of Con­jecture.

[Page 99]These are all the Marks and Moles of Pedan­try that I can now stay to point out to the Dr: if he be still at a loss to know what the Pedant's Character is, and where to apply it; I referr him to a Passage in Bruyere Les Caract. ou les Moeeurs de ce Siecle. Chap. des Ouvrages de'l' Esprit., where I think this matter is very succinctly and fully handl'd. There are, says he, in Learning, as in War, a sort of Inferiour and Subaltern Officers; Men, who seem made only for Registers and Magazines to store up the Productions of better Writers. Col­lectors they are, Transcribers, Plagiaries; They never Think, themselves; they tell You only what Others have thought before them. They heap to­gether Matter in abundance, without Choice or Distinction; and care not how Worthless it is, so there be but Enough on't. They Know nothing, but just as they learn it from their Books; and Learn nothing but what every-body else desires to be Ignorant of. They have a Vain, Dry, Insipid sort of Knowledge; that is Disagreeable, and Vse­less; can neither enliven Conversation, nor conduce to Business. We are sometimes surpriz'd at their Reading, but always tir'd with their Discourse, or their Writings. These are They, who among All the Little Men, and Some Great Ones, go for Scho­lars; but among the Wise and Sensible part of Mankind, for Pedants.

This Account of Pedantry has drawn me a little out of my Way; I shall now return a­gain into it, and consider the Particular In­stances Dr. Bentley has brought to justifie his General Assertion, that the Matter and Busi­ness of the Letters betrays 'em not to be Ge­nuine.

[Page 100]The first is an Improbable and Absurd Story P. 56. (as he thinks) about Stesichorus; who dying at Catana, the Himereans desir'd to have his Ashes brought back into his Native City Hi­mera; but the Cataneans would not part with them. This occasion'd a fierce Contest be­tween the two Towns, which Phalaris ap­peas'd, by prevailing with the Himereans to let Stesichorus's Ashes sleep in Peace at Catana, and build a Temple to the Honour of him, at Home. Now what is there in this Story ei­ther Absurd, or Improbable? that the Himere­ans should be so concern'd to get the Ashes of Stesichorus, and the Cataneans to keep them? This very thing happen'd afterwards in the case of Euripides; whose Bones the Athenians sent a solemn Embassy to Macedonia, to re­trieve, as A. Gellius informs us L. 15, C. 20.; and that, not in a Lost Chapter. And after the Denial of this Request, we learn from Pausanias L. 1, P. 2., that the Athenians built a Noble Monument to the Memory of Euripides, which continu'd even to His Time. Somewhat of the same Honour was paid to Hesiod's Remains; which being buried, where Hesiod was murder'd, a great way off Ascra, the Orchomenians, Plutarch tells us Conv. Sap. p. 162, endeavour'd all they could to get 'em into their possession, but They that had 'em, would not be prevail'd upon to part with 'em. And if Euripides and Hesiod were ho­nour'd with such Contentions as these, after their Deaths, why might not Stesichorus?

Ay, but says the Dr, a Temple, and Deifica­tion, were a little too Extravagant an Honour to be paid to a Poet's Memory Disser [...] p. 57.. I thought such things as these could not have surpriz'd a [Page 101] man of the Dr's Polymathy: but, I find, he knows nothing of the several Temples erected to Homer, at Smyrna, and in other places; as Strabo L. 14, p. 646., and Aelian Var. Hist. l. 13, c. 23. expresly affirm: nor so much as remembers that Known Passage in Tully's Oration pro Archiâ Poetâ, which is no Secret even to the First Beginners in Learning. Homerum (says he) Smyrnaei suum esse confir­mant: ita (que) etiam Delubra Ejus in Oppido collo­caverunt. From whence also Dr. Bentley may please to learn the reason, why Phalaris would have the Himereans content themselves with erecting a Temple to Stesichorus, because That would declare to Posterity, that he was Born there Smyrna Homerum Vatem sibi vendicabat; Sepulcrum, Templum, & Statuas ipsius ostentans, Varro..

Nay, it happens a little unluckily, that an Ancient Marble is preserv'd to this Day, (which perhaps belong'd to some Temple erected to the Honour of Homer, in some of the places that contended for his Birth) where the Apotheosis, or Deification of that Poet is describ'd; and a Learned Man, Cuperus, has writ a Large Comment upon it: which me­thinks the Dr. should have been acquainted with, tho' he be not a Foreign Professor.

E're I quit this Particular, I must observe a Little Slip of the Dr's, in telling us, that Himera in Tully's time was call'd Thermae Dissert. p. 57.. I believe it was not; because Tully himself as­sures us, that Himera and Thermae were two Different Towns; and the Latter built at some Distance from the Ruines of the For­mer [Page 102] Himerâ deletâ, quos Cives belli Calamitas reli­quos secerat, ii sese Thermis collocarant, in ejusdem agri sinibus, ne (que) longè ab Oppi­do antiquo. Or. 7. in Verr.. And, without this Distinction, between Himera and Thermae 'tis impossible to understand Diodorus, where he says, that after Himera was sack'd and ras'd by the Car­thaginians, it continu'd alto­gether uninhabited, even to His Days [...] L. 11, p. 38.: which could not be True, if Himera and Thermae were the same; for, that Thermae was well inhabi­ted in Diodorus's time, is past Dispute. I will not deny, but that some care­less Passages may perhaps have dropp'd from the Pens of Old Authors, where these Two are not nicely distinguish'd: but it is not in Works, where they set up for being severe upon other Mens Mistakes; and Their want of Exactness therefore may be forgiven them. But Dr. Bentley, who professes to give no Quarter, should take care not to want any.

His Last Objection happily arose from contemplating the Matter of One Single E­pistle, the Dr. will now compare the Epistles together, and confute One by another. There is an Inconsistency, he says, between the LI ^st and the LXIX ^th, because in the LI ^st Phalaris 's Wife is Dead, and in the LXIX ^th She is Alive again P. 57.. As if it were necessary that these Epistles should have been written just in the same Order that they stand; which is diffe­rent in the Printed Copies from what it is in the MSS, and different in one MS from [Page 103] what it is in another. Upon such an unrea­sonable Supposition as this, how many Incon­sistencies might be found in Tully's Epistles? or even in Those of St. Paul? And yet, if this Supposition do not take place, there is no manner of Inconsistency between these Two Epistles of Phalaris. The Penetrating Dr. Bentley seems to have had some Suspicions, that this Argument was of it self a little too weak to stand its Ground; and therefore has back'd it with a strong Reserve of Four Other Suppositions: and if All These hold good, he will still prove the Epistles Spuri­ous. First he supposes, that Erythia was poi­son'd by Python, not long after Phalaris 's Ba­nishment; because otherwise, he supposes, she could not want Opportunities to follow him: then he supposes, Erythia was poison'd in the Island Astypalaea, where he supposes, that her Poisoner dwelt. Here's more Postulatums than Euclid requir'd to build the Whole Body of his Ele­ments upon; and yet He must be very kind to Dr. Bentley, that will grant him any One of them; since there is nothing either in the Epistles themselves, or in any Other History I have had the Luck to meet with, that can give 'em the least Countenance. At present therefore I take the same Liberty, to deny every one of these Suppositions, as He has to assume them: If hereafter he can prove them in another Language, 'twill then be time enough to shew, that they are Nothing to the Purpose.

In some Other Epistles, the Dr. has disco­ver'd a Scene of Putid and Sensless Formality Dissert. p. 58.. A Man of Quality in Syracuse, whose Wife [Page 104] was lately Dead, sends his Brother to Phala­ris, with a Request, that he would endeavour to prevail with Stesichorus to write an Elegy upon Her: Phalaris trys, and prevails; but is not so successful in a second Attempt of the same Nature, that he makes at the In­stance of another Sicilian Gentleman. I pro­test, I can see no Harm in all this: there may indeed, for ought I know, be Putid For­mality in it, because I can't well tell what those Hard Words mean; but I see nothing Unna­tural there, or Misbecoming the Character of Phalaris. No! says the Dr, what? can any One believe that such Stuff as this busied the Head of the Tyrant Dissert. p 59.? As Low thoughts as the Dr. has of the Epistles, I find he has very high ones of Phalaris: he seems to have re­presented him to himself, as some Mighty Monarch, that had Vast Dominions, and was too Great and too Busie, to attend such Tri­fles: whereas He was only a Petty Prince of One Town in Sicily: and, as such, I hope, the Office here given him was no ways be­low him. Indeed the Dr. has, for the Ho­nour of Phalaris, represented that Town as exceeding Populous; for Diodorus, he says, counts 200000 Souls in Agrigent, and Others 800000 Dissert. p. 58.. Diodorus I grant, in the place cited, says, there were such Numbers in it, when the Carthaginians took it, Olymp. LXXXXIII. 3; when (as he tells us in the same place) it was in its most prosperous and flourishing Estate: but must there needs be as many Inhabitants in it, 150 Years before, in the Reign of Phalaris? As for his Other Witness Laertius, his 800000 are given up by [Page 105] the Learned, as a Gross Mistake; which Bo­chart supposes to have risen from the change of a Numeral K into a [...]: or however that may be, the Account, he says, is incredible, and utterly false Cùm res planè superat fidem adeóque sit falsissima. Phaleg. p. 553.. Incredible as it is, the Dr. vouchsafes to take up with it; and it grows under his Hands: for by that time we are got to the End of this Article, these 800000 are a Mil­lion of Subjects Dissert. p. 58.: the 200000 are thrown in carelesly to make it a Round Number. Let it be a Million, yet there have been Tyrants, with many Millions of Subjects at their Com­mand, who have thought fit to employ and entertain themselves much after this manner. Has the Dr. who deals so much in Fragments, never seen those of Augustus's Letters to Ho­race? has he never heard, that we owe the Fourth Book of Horace 's Odes, and the finest of all his Epistles, to that Prince's Importuni­ty, who press'd, and oblig'd him to write, and to make mention of Him in his Poems? And such Stuff, I presume, may very well be allow'd to busie Phalaris's Head, which found room in the Thoughts of Augustus.

But why so much ado? says Our Keen Ob­server; could not the Syracusian have written to Stesichorus, and at the pri [...]e of some Present met with Success Dissert. p. 60.? I agree with the Dr. that a Present is sometimes an Expeditious Method of doing Business; I have known se­veral things in my Life-time stick for want of it. However here it was Improper: for Stesichorus was not only the Greatest Poet, but one of the Greatest Men in Sicily. His Bro­ther [Page 106] Helianax was a Lawgiver [ [...]] Suidas tells us; and He himself probably in the Government of Himera; or at least con­sulted by 'em in Extraordinary Cases, as ap­pears by his Apologue in Aristotle's Rhetoric: And the true way of prevailing with such a man to employ his excellent Pen was to of­fer him not Mony, but a Subject that de­serv'd it. Some of his Brother Poets indeed were to be tempted this way: but they were Men of Mean Birth, and Education; and were to make their Fortunes by their Pen; and no wonder therefore that they were Mercenary.

It is objected, that if these Letters about the El [...]gy were Phalaris's, he would have ex­press'd himself properly, and not have call'd the same Copy of Verses [...], and [...], which are as different from one another as Theognis is from Pindar Disser. p. 59.: an Egregious Piece of Dulness! says the Dr; and which proves him to be a meer Asinus ad Lyram! Now, to see the different Cast of Mens Heads, allowing the Error in this case, so Egregiously Dull am I, that I should have reason'd, just the other way, from it; that if a Sophist had writ these Letters, he would never have confounded these Two Words, the distinct Sense of which was so well settl'd before his Time by the Grammarians. But in Phalaris's time the meaning of these Terms of Art might not be so strictly mark'd out; or a Prince might not think himself oblig'd to take notice of it, and to write with all the Exactness of a Scho­lar. So that from this very Mistake, if it were one, I should have inferr'd something [Page 107] favor of the Letters: but, to our Misfortune, here is no Mistake. Phalaris did but as a Nicer Man than He might have done; he calls the Poem [...] Ep. 144., when he asks it of Stesi­chorus, and did not know in what Verse it would be compos'd by him; and he calls it [...] afterwards Ep. 79., when he had it, and found it was in Lyric Measures. [...] and [...] originally signified only a Mournful or Funeral Song —Elegeia, flebile Carmen: Ah! nimis ex vero nùnc tibi nomen habes! Ovid. [...] Eust. in Hom. Il. Ω. paulo ante sinem. an Ele­gy, as we say in English: re­ferring to the Subject of the Song, and not to the Mea­sure. But Elegies being gene­rally writ in Hexameters, and Pentameters, the Word came afterwards to be apply'd pure­ly to the Measure, without any Regard to the Subject. However this Second Sense of the Word did not so far prevail, as ab­solutely to extinguish the First; still [...] and [...] were now and then employ'd in a Looser Meaning than what the Grammari­ans put upon 'em; and of this I will give the Dr. one plain Instance, from a Darling Au­thor of his, Dion Chrysostome, who in his 4th Book de Regno calls the Heroic Verses written on Sardanapalus's Tomb, [...]: And Ari­stophanes speaking of the Nightingale, has this Passage:

Where [...] can signifie nothing, but a Me­lancholy [Page 108] Tune, or Mournful Song Accordingly the Scho­liast thus interprets it. [...].; unless our Gram­marian can prove, that the Nightingales in that part of the World sung in Elegiac Measure. And the Misfor­tune of it is, that these very [...] are call'd [...] but a few Verses before.

And I hope Aristophanes understood Greek, and was no Asimis ad Lyram. As strong Proofs as these may seem, I have still behind One Authority more, which will go farther with Dr. Bentley than any I have yet brought: 'tis his Own. He, p. 139, of his Dissertati­on, tells us, that Some-body made an Edition of Aesop 's Fables in Elegiac Verse; and after giving us several Instances of the kind, he adds, that Some of Them, ( i. e. of the Elegiac Fables) were all in Hexameters Disser. p. 140.. I'd advise him therefore to call in this Criticism, and his Dirty Proverb along with it, for fear it shou'd stick where he has not a mind it should.

He has still One way left of disproving this Piece of Putid Formality; and that is, by denying that Stesichorus and Phalaris were ac­quainted Ibid. p. 60.. 'Tis a Negative, and therefore pretty hard to be made out; let us see how he sets about it. He observes, that Lucian says nothing of this Acquaintance. Lucian mentions it not by Name indeed; but he speaks in General of Phalaris's Conversation with Learned Men, and their great Esteem of him; and then gives an Instance in Pythago­ras, [Page 109] the most celebrated Scholar of his Time [...], &c. Luc. Phal. 1.; and after Him, there needed no other Instan­ces. Had a Less Skilful Hand been employ'd in making this Oration, he would probably have heap'd up all he knew of Phalaris, and overacted his part by too Great and Cir­cumstantial a Nicety. But Lucian had more Art; he knew when to leave off, that the Piece might not look stist and unnatural. Besides, if Lucian's Silence be an Exception to Stesichorus's acquaintance with Phalaris, it is to Abaris's too; which yet Our Critic has before, for the sake of Aristotle and Iamblichus Disse [...] ▪ p. 15., been graciously pleas'd to al­low.

But Plato is silent, as well as Lucian, in this matter; and that in an Epistle written to a Tyrant of Sicily, where he is reckoning up the Friendships of Learned Men with Tyrants and Magistrates Ibid. p. 6 [...].. Neither has Plato mention'd any thing in that Epistle of the acquaintance between Phalaris and Pythagoras; which had been as Proper, and as Domestic an Instance as the other. And yet the Pythagoreans all agree that their Master and Phalaris were ac­quainted; and Dr. Bentley grants it: why should Plato's Ill Memory be a proof against the one, and no proof against the other? But I rather think, it was his Good Judgment, than his Ill Memory, that occasion'd this O­mission: Phalaris's Name was detested and in­famous in Sicily; and to have brought him in therefore among his other Instances, would [Page 110] have spoil'd the Complement to Dionysius, who might like well enough to have the Parallel drawn between Him and Hiero, or Pericles. or Periander, or Croesus; but would not have thought it a Civility, I believe, to have been compar'd with Phalaris: whose Character, when taken at the best, and as drawn in these Epistles, is not so Amiable, as that any man should be pleas'd with resembling him; espe­cially One, who could not but be conscious to himself, that he had made use of His Me­thods, and had reason to expect His Fate. Plato was a Great Master of Decency; and he never shew'd it more than in this dextrous management, which I am not surpriz'd to find that our Library-keeper has no Relish of.

His last Argument is from Pindar, who speaks of Phalaris's Cruelty with Detestation. And what follows from thence? that he ne­ver heard of his Extraordinary Dearness with Stesichorus; for the sake of which, Pindar, had he known it, would certainly have for­born giving him so Vile a Character Disser. p. 61.. This indeed is Demonstration, and not to be with­stood! I will not Attempt to answer it; on­ly I will put the Dr. in mind of One false Colour, that he has given to his Argument: for it does not appear from any Expression in this Ode, that Pindar is there exhorting Hiero to be kind to Poets and Men of Letters Ibid.. There is not a Word of Poets and Men of Letters mention'd in the Verses themselves, whatever Guess the Scholiast (who perhaps knew as little of Pindar's Intentions, as I or Dr. Bentley do) may make at their Remote [Page 111] Meaning. Pindar only praises Hiero for his Humanity and Hospitality, at large; and tells him, Croesus was renown'd for these Vertues, and Phalaris infamous for the want of 'em. Which I would have observ'd, because if he be not speaking here of Beneficence to Poets and Men of Letters, Dr. Bentley might as well have undertaken to prove his point from [...], as from the passage he has pro­duc'd. He has lam'd it in his Quotation; I will give it the Reader entire. [...]. Croesus, says he, will always be renown'd for his Humanity and Benevolence; but the Memory of the Savage and Inhuman Phalaris is everywhere detested. Could a better Panegyric be made upon Hiero, in fewer Words? Could any thing be more artful, than the pitching upon these Two Op­posite Instances, to set out his Character by? Were a Man to Complement some Person in Dr. Bentley's Station, could he do it more effectually, than by saying of him, that he had all the Humanity and Good Nature of the Library-keeper at Cambridge Mr. [...]aughton., and none of the Disobliging Rude Qualities of Him at St. Iames's?

After all, the Dr's Opinion and Mine up­on this point are not so very distant as he may imagine: for I agree with him, that there was no Extraordinary Dearness between Stesichorus and Phalaris; nor do the Letters themselves imply that there was. They say indeed that Phalaris oblig'd and courted Stesi­chorus, out of Vanity, or a Real Esteem of his Merit. And Stesichorus could not but pay [Page 112] some Regard to Phalaris, on this account; tho' he could never Love Him, or his Cha­racter: nor is there any Proof from the Epi­stles, that he did. Phalaris, after he had gi­ven him his Life, desir'd only his Friendship in return; and Stesichorus was oblig'd both in Gratitude and Prudence, not to stand off; but to be in as Good Terms as he could with a Man that was able to do him so much Mis­chief. We have a Lively Account of just such a management as this between Iulius Cae­sar and Tully, in the Epistles of the Latter. When Caesar had got the better of Pompey, whose Side Tully took, either out of a true Esteem for Tully's Vertues, or out of Design, he took all Methods of making him his Own; pay'd him a great many Civilities, and did him a great many Services. Tul'y could ne­ver from his Heart love a Tyrant, but we may imagine how he behav'd in this case; he accepted Caesar's proffer'd Friendship, wrote Civilly to him, and lay still. No more than this, that I can see, ever pass'd between Stesichorus and Phalaris, to speak upon the Foot of the Letters: and if so, what be­comes of Dr. Bentley's Harangue about the Si­lence of Authors, in relation to this fancied Intimacy and Dearness? Good Writers must needs say nothing of that which never hap­pen'd. Stesichorus's Love for Phalaris could no more be the Subject of any of the Pens that went before us, than Dr. Bentley's Humanity will be of any of the Pens that shall come after us. 'Tis Easie then to answer for the Silence of Authors upon This Head; whether it can be justified as well upon the Next, I shall now en­quire.

[Page 113]IN my Preface to Phalaris, among the Ob­jections that might be rais'd against the E­pistles, I mention'd This for One, that they had, for ought we knew, lain a Thousand Years without being taken notice of. Dr. Bentley has been pleas'd to resume this slight Argument of mine, as he did that of the Dialect, and give it a place among his Irrefragable Demonstra­tions: an Honour which, I must own, it no ways deserves. For, tho' he has taken this occasion of shewing his Extraordinary Ta­lent in Wit and Raillery, and tells us, the Epistles were preserv'd in the Parchments of Jove, and buried in some Secret Cave under Ground, or else they had certainly gone to Pot Dissert. p. 63.: yet I suppose he does not in good Earnest think it any great Wonder, that Mortal Vel­lum should endure a Thousand Years; or that a small Parcel of Letters should lye so many Ages without being mention'd by any Author now extant; a Thing not altogether Incredible, because it has actually happen'd to other Books besides Phalaris.

Vellejus Paterculus, an Elegant Writer, and one that tells us several Particulars, not to be met with in other Roman Historians, might with more reason expect to be taken notice of than Our Author: yet perhaps Dr. Bent­ley won't meet with any plain mention of his Writings for Five Centuries after he writ, till Priscian quotes him, and that only in a point of Grammar. After this time he'll be as much at a loss to find any Footsteps of him for Nine Hundred Years more, down to the Age of Aventinus: and yet the Criticks [Page 114] have receiv'd him without being so nice as to examine, what Secret Cave he was conceal'd in. Phoedrus, as far as I can find, was never mention'd by any Author since Avienus, till his Fables were in this Age brought to light by Pithaeus, after they had been lost above a Thousand Years. Lactantius de Mortibus Perse­cutorum, was a Book which the World had not seen since St. Ierome's time, till, after a Thousand Years, Baluze discover'd it in the fa­mous Library of Colebert, and made it pub­lick. Now, as our Dissertator learnedly argues, if these Books lay untouch'd and un­stirr'd, they must have moulder'd away: if they were us'd during these Ten Centuries, Some­body would surely have spoken of 'em. Either the Dr. must give up these Authors as Spurious, or these Objections as Slight and Frivolous; and own, that the Silence of the Ancients is not a Direct, but (as any-body else would have thought, and call'd it) a very Indirect Argument against 'em: tho' still not quite so indirect as ano­ther, that he founds upon a Disagreement between Lucian, and the Epistles, in their Accounts of Phalaris. This does not come properly under the head I am now speaking to: however, because he has thrown toge­ther here Two or Three Paultry Proofs, that would make no Figure by themselves, I shall take 'em as they lye before me. The Diffe­rent Relations concerning Phalaris given by Lucian, and the Epistles, I urg'd formerly Preface to my E­dition of Phalaris. as a Proof that Lucian could not write them. But as He has manag'd it, at second hand, to shew, that Lucian does as good as expresly declare [Page 115] he never saw 'em, it either proves nothing, or proves too much; even that Lucian never saw Timaeus, as Learned as he was, and as of­ten as he mentions him. For Timaeus relates, that the Agrigentines threw the Brazen Bull into the Sea; but Lucian says, Phalaris sent it to Delphos. What I should gather from hence would be, that Lucian overlook'd that and many other Authorities, and did not confine himself to strict History in a Declamation: but, according to Dr. Bentley's manner of drawing Consequences, it must follow, that Timaeus no more writ his History, than Phala­ris did his Letters; for Lucian equally contra­dicts Both; and for that reason is a Bad Evi­dence against either of them. Now if Lucian himself be of no Authority in this point, much less are those Authors he follow'd Dissert. p. 65., which Dr. Bentley summons up as so many Witnesses against the Epistles. I would ask him how many Witnesses these are? where they liv'd? what are their Names, and the Names of the Books they wrote? `Tis very hard to urge such Testimonies against us, as are not now, and probably never were in being: For Lu­cian, in this Harangue, seems to tye himself up to no Authors, nor to be guided by any thing but his own Invention: and this the Dr. him­self confesses in another place Dissert. p. 62.; where he says, Lucian feigns an Embassy from Phalaris to Delphi. And if the Ground of this whole Discourse were a Fiction, why does the Dr. here argue from it as seriously as if it were copy'd from the most Authentic Histories then extant? how can he allow himself to put such an Air of Gravity upon what he [Page 116] knows to be such a Trifle? We shall have him, at this rate, in his next Dissertation, solemnly quoting Lucian's Vera Historia too, and the unknown Authors which he follow'd. But I suppose he resolv'd to make the best advantage he could of these Poor Colours, for want of Better Authorities: For the Two Historians he brings to strengthen his Proof, say nothing that is inconsistent with the Epi­stles. Jamblichus, he says, brings in Abaris in company with Pythagoras to Phalaris; but in the Epistles Abaris refuses to come. Who would not have refus'd an Invitation from Phalaris, till he had good assurances that he might come with Safety? Report had told him very dismal Stories of him, and dress'd him up in frightful Colours; Abaris perhaps did not know at first, but that Phalaris might Live upon Philosophers Flesh; or might have a Fancy to try, which made his Bull Roar best, a Scythian, or a Sicilian: an Experiment, which Abaris by no means car'd to have made upon him; for he came from a Cold Country, and had a very particular Aversion to Fire. These were very Important matters, and if he should not have taken care to be fully satisfied in 'em before he ventur'd his Person, he had not been quite so Wise a man as he was thought to be; for one part of Wisdom is to be Cautious. Pythagoras therefore manag'd at the very same rate; he often refus'd to come Ep. LXXIV., and yet came at last: why might not this be the case of Abaris? This is a very easie way of re­conciling Phalaris with Iamblichus; and he does not differ so widely from Heraclides nei­ther, but that They too may be brought [Page 117] (with Dr. Bentley's Leave, and in his Carriers Phrase) to set Horses together. Phalaris says, he was an Orphan, before he came to Agrigent; and yet Heraclides says his Mother was burnt there. Dr. Bentley has given a Clear Soluti­on of this Difficulty himself; and frankly owns, that his Mother might be burnt, tho' his Father dy'd long before. But how, says he, came the Old Woman to be roasted at Agri­gent, if Phalaris fled alone from Astypalaea, neither Wife nor Child, nor any Relation following him, according to the Epistles Dissert. p. 65.? I do not re­member any such Epistle in my Edition of Phalaris; but if there should be such an one in the King's MS, I'll answer this Objection to it, when the Library-keeper is in so good an Humor, as to favour me with a Sight of it: Till then I may be excus'd from prosecu­ting this Point any further. Only I must ob­serve to the Dr, that either he uses some Co­py of Heraclides that I have not seen; or else cites him for what he does not say. Both Here, and in the 30th Page of his Dis­sertation, he tells us, that Heraclides affirms Phalaris to have been burnt by the Agrigen­tines; whereas he only says, [...] 'Tis true, it's all one to his purpose, whether he was burnt, or any other way put to Death: but he has such a Facility of Misunderstand­ing or Misrepresenting Authors, to serve a Turn, that he does it, even when it is of no service to him.

[Page 118]I Hope I have now so thoroughly examin'd Dr. Bentley [...]s General Arguments, that none of 'em can be thought to affect the whole Body of the Epistles: if his Objections against some Particular Letters have no more Weight in 'em, he's the best Patron Phalaris has yet met with; for the next Happiness to being very well Defended, is that of being very weakly Oppos'd. All his Attacks of this kind are grounded upon Chronology: and therefore, before he could make any Approa­ches, he was oblig'd to settle the Time of Phalaris. And first he gives us the account of Eusebius thus. ‘Ol. XXXI. 2. Phalaris apud Agrigentinos Tyrannidem exercet. Ol. XXXVII. 2. Phalaridis Tyrannis destructa: by which reckoning he govern'd 28 Years Dissert. p. 14..’ In­stead of Ol. XXXVII, he means, I suppose, Ol. XXXVIII, as 'tis in Eusebius; or else his Reckoning of 28 Years (which he could bring in here, for no other Reason, but to shew his Skill in Counting) is false. However, he is willing to allow, that (according to St. Hie­rome, and Suidas) Phalaris 's Government com­menc'd Ol. LIII. 3. and expir'd Ol. LVII. 3. This Account, says he, I allow of for the sake of Aristotle and Jamblichus, who make him Co­temporary with Stesichorus and Pythagoras Ibid. p. 15.. But by his Niceness in Computation he con­futes himself in the same Breath, and says, Pythagoras was not taken notice of in Greece till 80 Years after Ol. XXXVIII. (for I'll suppose XXXVII a false Print) i. e. Three Years af­ter [Page 119] Phalaris dy'd. And yet Pythagoras had a great Name in Greece many Years before he came into Sicily. So that Dr. Bentley has ma­nag'd this Point with a particular Dexteri­ty; and prov'd that Pythagoras and Phalaris could not be acquainted, by that very ac­count which he accepted of meerly to coun­tenance their acquaintance. A most auspici­ous Entrance upon his Chronological Proofs! doubtless all the rest will be made out with Equal Force and Clearness! Here's a Page spent to give us his Opinion about the Age of Phalaris, where he has so contriv'd to say one thing, and prove another, that we are still at a loss to know what his Opinion is. Just such another Instance of his Consisten­cy he gives us about Xerxes's Expedition. P. 13th he says, 'twas Ol. 73. P. 85th he says, the very next Olympiad after Xerxes 's Ex­pedition Hiero was in the Throne; and quotes Diodorus (xi. p. 39.) for it: where we read that Hiero came to the Crown Ol. LXXV. 3. Therefore here Dr. Bentley is of opinion, that Xerxes's Expedition was in the 74th Olympiad. And yet if Diodorus is to be be­liev'd, (and he always believes him, when it is for his Turn to do so Vide Diss. p. 88.) Xerxes's Expedi­tion was neither in the 73d, nor 74th, but 75th Olympiad. If Dr. Bentley be so Quar­relsome, that he cannot agree with himself, how is it possible for other people to agree with him? I would willingly allow of any Date of Phalaris that he is inclin'd to admit: but since he has express'd himself so intricate­ly, that 'tis hard to know which way he is determin'd, I'll take the most receiv'd Ac­count, [Page 120] and go on to shew, that notwith­standing any of His Discoveries, the Epistles might have been written before the 58th Olympiad.

He begins his Chronological Observations with the Aeras of some Cities mention'd in the Epistles; a very Slippery Foundation to build an Argument upon! for all these Ci­ties are so very ancient, that it would puz­zle one of a Greater Reach in Chronology than Dr. Bentley, to trace their Originals. The Oldest Historians now extant had but very Slender Memoirs of those times, and accordingly we find their Accounts so con­fus'd and contradictory, that No-body but a Man of Dr. Bentley's Judgment would pre­tend to draw Demonstrations from 'em. I hear the Famous Mr. Dodwell (who surpasses Dr. Bentley in Learning as much as he does in Candour and Modesty) is now printing some Lectures at Oxford, in which he shews, how very obscure and uncertain the Histo­ries of those Ages are; and that from the Concurrence of those Rude Accounts he meets with, he has made it probable that Phalaris must be brought much lower than even St. Hierome places him. This perhaps would cut off most of the Dr's Arguments at One Blow; but for want of this assistance, I must encounter 'em singly: and be content to wander with him thro' those Woods and Mazes in which he often loses both Himself and his Reader. But before I follow him in­to this Dark Scene, I will consider a little the Tendency of this way of arguing in Ge­neral. He would prove that Phalaris could [Page 121] not possibly be the Author of these Letters, because some Places are mention'd there un­der such Names, as he thinks were given 'em since the Age of Phalaris. Does he know Whose this Sort of Proof is, and to what Ill Purpose it has been employ'd? It is fa­mous for being made use of by Spinosa to ruine the Authority of Moses's Writings; which he would prove not to be His (just as our Chronologer here does) from Places being mention'd in 'em, more Modern than He. Ought the Dr. in a Doubting Age to have employ'd such an Argument, without the utmost Caution and Guard? Ought he to have propos'd it so Generally and Crude­ly, without informing his Reader, how far it held, and where it fail'd? what Excepti­ons were necessary to be made to it, and of what Solutions it was capable? Is he so Eager to prove Phalaris Spurious, that he cares not whether the Authority of the Sa­cred Writings sink with him? But I hope he does n't think there's any more Weight in Spinosa's, than I think there is in His Ar­guments. The General Answer I have heard given upon this occasion is, that these Names were chang'd since Moses writ, to make his History more intelligible to those, to whom the ancient Names of those Towns and Coun­tries were no longer known. And this Plea therefore I might fairly lay hold of for Pha­laris, if there were any need of it; and pre­sume, that the Copyers of these Letters might alter some of the Old Names to such as were of more known and familiar Use in their Time. But I have no occasion to say this, [Page 122] till Dr. Bentley has clearly prov'd some of the Names of Cities mention'd there to be later than Phalaris, which, I think, with all his little Skill in puzzling Accounts, he has not been able to do.

For Methods sake, he begins at the Last Epistle; from whence he cites these words; [...], and says, the Sophist was care­ful to mention such Cities (he means, People) as he knew were in Sicily Disser. p. 15. Which is un­luckily said just in this place, because the Sophist (if he be one) happens to mention a People that were not in Sicily; for in all the Copies of Phalaris 'tis [...]. Indeed I guess'd it should be [...], and am there­fore oblig'd not to bear hard upon him for making use of my Conjecture. Granting it therefore to be [...], whether any of the Sicilian Hybla's be here meant is dubious, and therefore he says nothing to it: but when he comes to Phintia, which every-body owns to be in Sicily, he brings abundance of needless Authorities to prove 'tis there. One of these, Diodorus, says, that Phintia was built by Phintias of Agrigent, long enough after the Time of Phalaris; upon which Dr. Bentley begins to triumph a little too hastily; ima­gining, he has certainly prov'd this to be the Phintia mention'd by the Mock- Phalaris. Whereas he ought to have consider'd, that Diodorus, in the very place he cites, says, that the Phintia built by Phintias was a Maritime Town [...]: but there's another Phintia, which both Ptolemy Geogr. l. 3, c. 4., and Pliny Nat. Hist. l. 3, c. 8. tell us is a Mediterranean Town. Now if Phalaris's Friends should be as Positive as Dr. Bentley [Page 123] sometimes is with less reason, that 'tis the Mediterranean Phintia that's mention'd in this Epistle, how would he disprove 'em? This has certainly as good a Title to be there as his Maritime Phintia has; nay, according to his way of arguing in the next Paragraph from the Company that Towns keep, the case is evident in its favour; for Hybla, which it is here joyn'd with, is Mediterranean. Perhaps the Dr. will bravely stand to what he has here inconsiderately said, that all these Authors mean the same place: If so, (which I am far from Granting) why may not Dio­dorus be mistaken as much in the Date of this Town, as two Good Witnesses prove him to be in the Situation of it? unless this Phintias be such another Place as Agrigent, a Seaport Town in the middle of Sicily Dissert. p. 50..

From Phintia the Dr. marches on victori­ously to Alaesa; where he finds Stesichorus in danger of being snapt Ibid. p. 16., in his intended Jour­ney from thence to Himera. And here agen he appeals to Diodorus, whether there was any such place as Alaesa in the Days of Phala­ris. Diodorus gives him a less satisfactory an­swer than he did in the Case of Phintia; and tells him, that there was indeed one Alaesa built by Archonides in the 94th Olymp. (which, according to the Dr's Arithmetick, is above 120; another man would have said, above 140 Years after the last Period of Phalaris) but that there were several other Alaesa's in Sicily; and therefore Archonides gave this Ci­ty the Appellation of Archonidium. So that we are at liberty to chuse any other of those Alaesa's for Phalaris; unless Dr. Bentley by his [Page 124] Arbitrary Power can confine us to Archoni­dium. He says he can, and by this Stratagem: Alaesa is here joyn'd with Himera and Alu [...]ti­um; and the Alaesa of Archonides is upon the same Coast with these Two Cities: therefore 'tis evident from the Situation that this Alaesa of Archonides is meant in the Epistles. A Surpri­zing Argument! and I verily believe his Own! If he be not too unreasonably fond of it, I desire to borrow it for One Moment, to prove just the Contrary to what He has prov'd; that this Alaesa is not upon the same Coast with Aluntium. Tully says; Hal [...]sini, Catanenses, Panonmitani, &c. and agen, Hale­sini, Catanenses, Tyndaritani, &c. Orr. in Verr. 'Tis Evi­dent therefore that Alaesa is upon the same Coast with Catana; that is, upon the Coast directly opposite to Aluntium. I could con­found all the Geographers in the World with this argument; but must detain it no longer: I return it to the Dr. with Thanks, and with a Promise never to use it again. If any-body be of so slow a Iudgment, as not to be affected with the Evidence of this proof, the Dr, who is a man that guards against all possible Cavils and Exceptions, has another ready to support it; which plainly shews, that Alaesa of Ar­chonides must be meant in the Epistles, because there was no other Town of that name in the days of the Sophist Dissert p. 17.. The Question is, whether these Epistles could be written by Phalaris? No, says Dr. Bentley; because the Alaesa of Archonides is mention'd there. But how does it appear, that, among the several Alaesa's in Sicily, this of Archonides must needs be meant there? That, says he, is plain; becaus [...] [Page 125] there was no other Town of that name in the days of the Sophist: i. e. If a Sophist writ these Let­ters, he must needs mean the Alaesa of Archo­nides, because there was no other then stand­ing. But the Dr. forgets that he is dispu­ting with a strange sort of People, who won't allow that a Sophist writ these Letters▪ and if he could prove that a Sophist writ 'em, they would still deny his Consequence: for might not a Sophist mention a Town he had read of, tho' 'twas not standing in his time? If he might not, 'twill follow, that a Sophist could not write these Epistles; where we find the names of As [...]ypalaea, Hiniera, Zancle, &c. Towns out of Date long before the Days of the Sophist. It has been the Dr's fortune in this Section to use such perverse arguments, as will sooner serve to any purpose than to what he applys 'em. Instead of proving the Epistles Spurious, he has prov'd 'em Genuine, instead of setling the true place of one City, he has unsetled all the Geography that ever was writ.

However he is not discourag'd with this ill Success at Alaesa, but proceeds to give Battle to the Zancleans, upon the strength of an old saying and a true, [...] Disser. p. 30. Phalaris in the 85th Epistle says, [...], and inscribes the 21st Epistle [...]; upon which Dr. Bent­ley makes this Remark: Here we have mention made of Zancleans and Messenians, as if Zancle and Messana were two different Towns Ibid p. 24.: and agen, the Zancleans, by the reckoning of Pausa­nias, had been an obsolete forgotten Word 100 Y [...]ars before the date of these pretended Epi­stles [Page 126] Disser. p. 27.. If the Author had mention'd Zan­cle and Messana too, Dr. Bentley might have said with some Grounds that he mistook 'em for two different Towns: but to say, he did so, from his mentioning the Zancleans and Messa­nians, is a Consequence too nearly related to some we have lately parted with. For from the Messanians taking Zancle, and calling it after their own Name, does it follow, that there were no Zancleans left in the World? Were these poor people annihilated upon the Loss of their City? A man less rash in pro­nouncing their Name forgotten and obsolete might have Suspected, and a man better ac­quainted with History might have Known, that they continu'd many Ages in a Distinct Body, and under the same Name. Pausa­nias Eliac. p. 346., where he observes, that, during the Messanians absence from Peloponnese, but Two of their Nation won the Prize at the Olym­picks, adds, that the Sicilians say, these were not Messanians, but descended from the old Zancleans [...].. This implys, that the Zancleans were not swallow'd up by the Messanians, but kept their Families unmix'd with their new Conque­rors. And this appears more clearly from Diodorus, who tells us Lib. 11., that in the 79th Olympiad the Zancleans recover'd their City out of these Strangers hands, that had pos­sess'd it so many Years. Nay, so far were the Zancleans from being obsolete 100 Years before Phalaris, that we are sure they pre­serv'd themselves in a Separate Body even till L. 3, c. 8. Pliny's time, who expresly distinguishes [Page 127] 'em from the Messanians; and tells us, Messa­na was a Free City, but the Zancleans were Tributaries. These Testimonies will suffi­ciently justifie Phalaris for mentioning the Zancleans; and if we can bring him off as well for mentioning the Messanians, that in­excusable Ignorance in this matter, which Dr. Bentley presses so hard upon the Sophist, must lye at his own Door, till he can remove it. But this, the Dr. says, Thucydides will not suffer, who relates that, at the time of Xerxes 's Expedition, Anaxilaus King of Rhegium be­sieg'd Zancle, and took it; and call'd it Messana. Thucydides L. 6, § 5. says indeed, that Anaxilaus beat out the Samians from Zancle, and call'd it Messana; but fixes the time of this action no otherwise than only by saying, 'twas not long after the Samians, flying from the Medes, possess'd it. Dr. Bentley calls this Xerxes's Expedition; as if the Medes had never made an Incursion upon Greece till the time of Xerxes. I don't know how he will excuse himself for misre­presenting that Excellent Author, but only by pleading that he has dealt as freely with others. For, after the Words last quoted from Thucydides, he adds; the same says He­rodotus; whereas what Herodotus L. 6. says, is so far from being the same, that it contra­dicts both the Story which Thucydides him­self tells, and that which Dr. Bentley makes for him. For he says, not that Anaxilaus expell'd the Samians from Zancle, but that he assisted 'em to take it; not that this was done at the time of Xerxes's Expedition, but in the Reign of Darius. A common Reader [Page 128] would be surpriz'd to hear him profess, im­mediately after these Two fair Citations, that he loves to deal ingenuously Disser. p. 25.: but I be­gin now to understand his Figurative Ex­pressions; when he offers an argument, that has no Consequence, or Meaning in it, then his Phrase is, 'tis Evident: When he has tran­scrib'd two or three Pages together from another man, then he crys out, a Discovery: and when he would put a false Colour up­on any thing, then he loves to deal ingenuously. But to deal a little more ingenuously than He does, I will give his Authorities all the force that they will bear, tho' not all that he lays upon 'em; and then consider, how far the Positive Testimony of Pausanias may prevail against 'em. That Anaxilaus chang'd the Name of Zancle into Messana is agreed between Dr. Bentley and Me; the only questi­on is about the Date of this Change. Thu­cydides fixes upon no date: Diodorus places the Death of One Anaxilaus in the 76th Olympiad, but does n't say, this was the A­naxilaus ▪ that nam'd Messana. Herodotus, in the place cited, says nothing about the Change of the Names, but tells a Story of the Samians seizing Zancle, a little after Mi­letus was taken; that is, about the 70th O­lympiad: and all the Ground we have, from this Passage of Herodotus, to conclude the Change of the Name Zancle into Messana to have happen'd after this time, is, his calling the City Zancle, and not Messana, throughout this Story: which, I think, proves nothing more, than that the Old Name was not yet [Page 129] yet so utterly abolish'd, but that it was call'd indifferently either Zancle, or Messana still: and this I take to be the most Natural In­terpretation of another Pas­sage in Herodotus [...] L. 7, § 164., (which I shall produce in Terms because Dr. Bentley has not) where, having occasion to mention Zancle, after the Samians had possess'd it, he calls it Zancle still; only letting us know, that it had also a New Name, Messana. So that hitherto we have had no direct and posi­tive Testimony about the Time of Zancle's changing its Name. Pausanias is the only Au­thor, that speaks fully up to the point: and He expresly affirms this to have happen'd in the 29th Olympiad, and tells the Story with a great deal of Solemnity and Circum­stance. He says, the Flight of those Messa­nians [who nam'd Messana] was after the ta­king of Ira by the Lacedaemonians, in the 28th Olympiad, when Chionis the Spartan carried the Prize the first time P. 259, 260.: that, upon their Flight, Anaxilaus Prince of Rhe­gium, who had War with the Zancleans, in­vited 'em to joyn with him; that they did so, and together with his Forces took Zan­cle; and had it given 'em to inhabit, and new nam'd it Messana, in the 29th Olympiad, when the same Chionis won the Prize the Se­cond time P. 260, 261.. That this Anaxilaus was the Great Grandson of Alcidamidas, who fled with his Family from Messene to Rhegium, af­ter the taking of Ithome, and the Death of Aristodemus P. 260.; which happen'd (he tells us [Page 130] in another place P. 251.) the first Year of the 14th Olympiad, that is about Threescore Years be­fore; so that all the little particulars of Pau­sanias's whole Story are adjusted with the ut­most exactness. He speaks home to the point, so, as to leave no possible room for interpret­ing his Words to any other Sense: and we have as much reason to depend upon him in This, as in Any Aera of Chronology what­ever that he has laid down throughout his Writings. And that Pausanias, who gives us this account, was not unacquainted with what Herodotus had said, appears from his quoting Herodotus [...], &c. Eliac. p. 340., in relation to Micythus, the Servant of Anaxilaus: so that this cannot be thought an Error of his, owning to his want of Memory, or sufficient Light; but his fix'd and settled Judgment after the Matter had been by him throughly consi­der'd: And doubtless, when he laid down this Account so peremptorily and with so much Exactness, he had such Authorities in his View, as he judg'd sufficient to bear him out in it; and to be more than a Counter­poyse to the Testimony of Herodotus; which he rejects, not only as to the Age of Anaxilaus, but as to the Circumstances of his Life also; giving us a very different relation of them. The most Eminent Chronologers, and Men best vers'd in these things, (having never seen that whole Tenor of History confirm'd by so many Synchronisms and Concurrences, which, I suppose, Dr. Bentley keeps by him in re­serve) fall in with this account of Pausanias. [Page 131] Vbbo Emmius follows it, in his History of An­cient Greece L. 1, p. 18.; Lydiat, in his Notes on the Chronicon Marmoreum; Ioseph Scaliger, in his Animadversions upon Eusebius P. 27.; and in his [...] It was compos'd by Sca­liger himself, tho' many Lear­ned Men have quoted it since, as an Ancient Piece. so does Petavius too Rat. Temp. par. 1, p. 38., who never agrees with Scaliger when he can help it; and Meursius Lect. Att. l. 2, c. 23., who has a distinct Chapter on this Subject. To sum up our Evidence then; against an Indirect and Dubious Proof, built chiefly on a Disputable Passage in Hero­dotus, we have the express, and full, and undoubted Authority of Pausanias; and the Opinions of Vbbo Emmius, Lydiat, Scaliger, Petavius, and Meursius, to counterpoise Dr. Bentley's: and if These are not Enough to do it, I promise the Dr. to throw half a dozen more into the Scale, the next time he and I talk together.

In the same Epistle, from whence Dr. Bentley took an occasion of giving us this large and ingenuous account of Zancle and Messana, the Tauromenites were mention'd with the Zan­cleans; [ [...]] upon which I expected, that when he had dispatch'd the Zancleans, he would have fallen upon the Tauromenites: but to shew his Aver­sion to any thing that looks like Order or Method, he postpones 'em, to intermix some Proofs of a different Nature. I have already excus'd my self from following him in his Rambles, and shall consider Tauromenium here in its proper place. The only Authority he [Page 132] has brought to prove Tauromenium so nam'd since the time of Phalaris, is that of Diodorus, which I mention'd in my Preface; and own'd to be a clear Proof against Phalaris, if it might be rely'd on. But Diodorus is in two Stories, which, as Dr. Bentley (after his way of citing Authors) has put 'em together, look plausibly enough; but, as Diodorus himself tells 'em, are utterly inconsistent. In his 14th Book he says, that some Sicilians plant­ed themselves upon Taurus, and from their Settlement there call'd the place they built, Tauromenium: In the 16th Book, he says, that about 40 Years after this, Andromachus plant­ed some of the Old Naxians upon Taurus, and from his long stay there call'd the place where he planted 'em, Tauromenium. Thus Diodorus plainly gives us Two different ac­counts of the Time when the Place was nam'd; either of which, I confess, would serve Dr. Bentley's purpose: but since they contradict one-another, neither of them is to be depended on. If Dr. Bentley pleads, that they do not contradict one-another, because the Place might be twice call'd so, for One and the Same Reason; why will not the Same Reason equally hold for its being call'd so, long before Phalaris liv'd? Doubtless the Sicilians had often before his time resorted to the Strong Holds of that Mountain. Nay, Thucydides expresly tells us L. 6, § 15., that there were of old People that inhabited the Hil­ly parts about Naxos: and 'tis not improba­ble, that These might be call'd [...], before they were form'd into any Politick Body; and afterwards, when they were col­lected [Page 133] together, and a City was built (tho' we don't know when that was) that City might be call'd Tauromenium. 'Tis observa­ble that Phalaris, tho' he has very often oc­casion to mention these People, yet never names any such Town as Tauromenium; ne­ver calls 'em Citizens, nor uses any such Ex­pression as implys, they belong'd to any City. This could scarce have happen'd, if a Sophist had writ these Letters: but 'tis no wonder that Phalaris should write so, because there might be Tauromenites, as there was a River Tauromenius (if Vibius Sequester be to be cre­dited, who says the Town had its Name from thence) before there was a Tauromenium. So that Dr. Bentley would have no reason to tri­umph over the Defenders of Phalaris, if he could prove Tauromenium of a Later Date; much less, since he cannot prove it, ought he so insultingly to call upon 'em, Where are those that cry up Phalaris for the florid Author of these Letters, who was burnt in his Own Bull above 150 Years before Tauro­menium was ever thought of Disser. p. 31.? E're I an­swer this Question, I desire to ask Him one: Where does he find that Phalaris was burnt in his Bull? Does this Great Historian take up with the Trifling Author of the Verses upon Ibis, when so many Grave Writers have given us a different account of Pha­laris's Death? In another place indeed he cites Heraclides for this Story; but, as I have already observ'd, falsly. However, Phalaris's being burnt in his Bull before Tauromenium was thought on, was so refreshing a Quibble, [Page 134] that he would rather venture upon False History, than lose it. The Witticism is something remote, as it stands here; but when he is at leisure to put this Disser­tation into Latin, 'twill receive a Great Ad­vantage.

TWas not to be hop'd, that these Ob­scure Points concerning the Building and Peopling Ancient Towns should be so far clear'd and settl'd, as to make 'em a­mount to a Plain and Direct Proof against the Epistles: However it was a piece of Learning not unworthy of a Scholar's Pains; and by a Skilful Hand might have been made useful to some Other purpose. I would not therefore be thought to disparage Dr. Bentley for enquiring into this matter, tho' he has happen'd to leave it more obscure than he found it; His Attempt was Commendable, whatever his Success has been: but Now, methinks, he stoops very low; from the Rise and Aera's of Cities, to the Chronolo­gy of Old Sayings and Proverbs. This would make a much more suitable Appendix to a Vocabulary, than to an History of Ancient and Modern Learning. 'Tis so dry and fruitless, and so little to the purpose, that I am al­most tempted to break my promise, and leave this part of his Dissertation unexa­min'd. While Men of Different Times have a Like Frame of Soul, and meet with Like Accidents of Life, i. e. while they have the [Page 135] same Faculties, and the same Occasions of thinking, what Wonder is it, that they should happen upon the same Reflection? or that Authors, who write in the same Language, and upon the same Subject, should put the same Two Words together? Yet this is what astonishes Dr. Bentley; he cannot be­lieve, that there should be so strange a Iumping of Good Wits, without some silching Dissert. p. 33. and therefore concludes, these Letters must be writ, not by Phalaris himself, but by a Se­cretary Ibid. p. 38. of his; who is not so Dutiful as a Secretary should be in attending his Master, for he comes a Thousand Years after him.

The Dr. takes this Secretary tripping Ibid. p. 27. in his use of the Proverb [...]; of which the Dr. can prove Croesus to be the Author; because when he sent a Message to the Lampsaceni, that if they did not set Miltiades free, he would extirpate 'em [...], the men of Lampsacus understood not the meaning of that Expression: The Phrase, he says, puzzl'd the whole City Ibid.; What if it did? must an Ex­pression needs be New and Vnheard of, be­cause the Mayor and Aldermen of Lampsacus, and perhaps the Recorder too, did not ap­prehend it? But how does he prove, it puzzl'd the WHOLE City? plainly! be­cause One of the Eldest Citizens hit upon't, and told the meaning of it. This is very Nice Reasoning: but he goes on to refine upon it; and suspects that Herodotus himself was the first Broacher of that Expression: for (says he) those first Historians made every-bodys Speeches for 'em. Therefore Herodotus made this, which is no Speech, but only a Message! [Page 136] However, let Herodotus have worded this Message; does the same Herodotus tell us, that the Lampsacenes were puzzl'd with an Ex­pression invented by Herodotus? Were the Men of Lampsacus in Croesus's time at a Loss to understand a Phrase, that was not thought of, till Herodotus an Hundred Years afterwards coin'd it? 'Tis wonderful to Me, how such a Piece of Reasoning as this could ever enter into an Head, that has Brains in it! All the Dr. has to countenance it, is the Title of a Lost Chapter in Gellius: from whence he takes occasion to guess at what's Lost there, and to give us a wrong translation of what's Left: Caesam, which in Herodotus's Greek is [...], he renders Lop'd, instead of Cut down: Now, that a Pinetree perishes by Lop­ping, is, I believe, as he says, News to the Naturalists. I could not avoid taking notice of this little Mistake, because he repeats it over and over agen; and endeavours, in his awkward way, to squeeze Mirth out of it. Gellius indeed, remembring a Passage in Hero­dotus, where it was affirm'd, that the Pine was the only Tree, which would not shoot out after it was cut down, might say, Quòd parùm verè dixerit Herodotus, &c. because he did not nicely examin upon what Occasion this was brought in by Herodotus; or what was said in Herodotus he might in a Quota­tion say well enough, was said by him: but to tell us the Story of the Lampsacenes being at a Loss to understand the Message of Croesus, and yet to think this Expression first broach'd by Herodotus, is such an Instance of Oscita­tion P. 119., as I could not easily imagine, that [Page 137] even Our Dissertator could be guilty of. He tells us of Dreaming Pedants, with their Elbows on their Desks; but surely the Man that writ this must have been fast asleep, for else he could ne­ver have talk'd so wildly. If Herodotus is to be believ'd, Croesus us'd this Expression; if he is not to be believ'd, why is he brought to prove any thing? Herodotus is so far from asserting that Croesus was the Author of this Proverbial Saying, that from this very Story we may gather, that he was not the Author of it. For when he sent a Message to the Lampsacenes, which he expected should imme­diately be obey'd, would he put it into such a Phrase as they were not likely to appre­hend? It stands to reason, that he thought the expression Common enough; or else he would not have us'd it on this occasion. All that we certainly learn from Herodotus is, that this Saying must be as Old, at least, as Croesus; from whence one would be apt to conclude it to be probably as Old as Phalaris, who is plac'd but very few Years above him.

When the Dr's head ran upon Old Say­ings, how came Nihil est dictum quod non dictum prius, to escape him? This One, well ap­ply'd, would have done him more service than all the Greek, Latin, and English Pro­verbs with which he embellishes his Disser­tation; it would have shew'd him how vain it is to pretend to trace the Originals of Words and Phrases; and that even the Aera's of Cities may be fix'd much sooner than They. However the Dr. launches still out into further Discoveries of this kind; he has [Page 138] met with a Sentence of Moral Disser. p. 33., [...], which notable Saying, he tells us, had not Pha­laris modestly hinted that Others had said it be­fore him, we might have taken for his Own. He seems here to blame Phalaris for being modest, and for hinting that he borrow'd this Ex­pression from others, when he might as well have put it upon us for his own: the Dr, I believe, will never be blam'd upon either of these accounts. But would he really have ta­ken this Saying for Phalaris's Own, if there had been no hint of his borrowing it? and yet when Phalaris says, 'tis Older than him­self, will he take it to be Younger? He reckons up several Authors that pretend to it, Democritus, Simonides, and the Lacedaemo­nians; and decides in favour of Democritus, for a very good reason; because otherwise it would be of no use to him in the present Debate. But I am so far from yielding it up to Democritus, that I say Democritus lays no claim to it. Plutarch says, [...]; perhaps he had met with this in some Passage in Democritus's Works; but it will not follow from hence that Democritus was the Author of it. Many Proverbial Gnomae, in all Languages, are to be met with in the Dr's Dissertation; but No-body will allow his Way of Arguing from 'em: Either these Gnomae are Dr. Bentley's own, or else he is a Sorry Plagiary. Laertius, the other Witness produc'd for Democritus, is as far from making Democritus the Author of this Sentence, as Plutarch is. In his Life of Demo­critus we find, [...]. But in another place he tells us Life of Solon., Solon us'd to say, [...]: So that Demo­critus, [Page 139] according to Laertius's account, and Dr. Bentley's Reasoning, must still have filch'd this Saying. And from the Variety of Opini­ons concerning the Original of it, I have more reason to suppose it older than Phala­ris, than Dr. Bentley has to presume it Later. Here are Four Authors, that have an Equal Pretence to it; and if it be given to any of the Four, except Democritus, Phalaris might have us'd it after 'em: but I rather think that none of 'em have any Title to it. It is not an Observation of so deep a Reach, but that it might have been hit upon an hundred Times, by Men no wiser than Dr. Bentley, or my self, before the Pens of Phalaris or Democritus made it famous.

Dr. Bentley goes on detecting Phalaris's Thefts; but for Ornaments sake, the Phrase is varied. He finds him, in the next Para­graph, filching a Moral Sentence Dissert. p. 35.; in the Last, it was a Sentence of Moral: which is the Only Change of Style, that I have observ'd in Dr. Bentley's Dissertation for the better; and therefore I ought to give him the Praise of it. The Moral Sentence is this, [...], which is stollen, he says, from an Iambic Verse cited in Aristotle's Rhetoric, [...]. But why might not this Iambic Verse be as well stolen from Phalaris? or why might not both the Poet and the Prince be equally beholden to a Moral Sen­tence more ancient than either of them? Were there no Moral Sentences before the Days of Phalaris? Or, supposing Phalaris had this Jambic Verse in his Eye, how does it ap­pear, [Page 140] that this Verse was not Older than He? Aristotle, who cites it without a Name, leaves us in the dark, as to the Time of it. And how will the Dr's Conjecturing Faculty help him out here? will he pretend by the Thread and Colour of it's Style to judge to what Centu­ry it belongs? Ay, but it is a Proverbial Gnome, he says, and therefore PROBABLY borrow'd from the Stage; and CONSEQVENT­LY must be later than Phalaris, let it belong to what Poet You please, Tragic or Comic Differ. p. 35.. Why more probably borrow'd from the Stage, than from Archilochus's Iambicks? the Fragments of which are full of those Wise Sayings, which Dr. Bentley calls Proverbial Gnomae; and which do not, I think, look a whit the Wiser for having that Hard Name given 'em. But should I grant him his Probably, yet his Consequently I can never allow: because I am very well satisfied, that there were both Tragic and Comic Poets before the Days of Phalaris. I shall talk with the Dr. about the Age of Tragedy in another Article; here I shall consider Comedy only. The Chronicon Marmoreum informs us, that it was brought into Athens by Susarion; or rather, that a [...], &c. Ep. 40 [...]. in Scen [...] Tabulatâ. Stage for the acting of Comedies was by him first erected in Athens: the Date is indeed worn out of the Marble; but it must be before the Tyranny of Pisistratus, with which the next Epoch begins: and the Ty­ranny of Pisistratus Dr. Bentley owns Differ. p. 41. to have been something before that of Phalaris. Those Learned Men, who have taken pains [Page 141] to illustrate this Chronicle, have by the Con­currence of Other Histories plainly shewn, that the time of Susario must fall between the 610th and 489th Year before Christ. Take fairly the Middle of this account; and it falls out before the Reign of Phalaris. Mr. Selden indeed, and some others, would have Susario the same with Sannyrio, which would bring him down to Aristophanes's time; but the Ex­cellent Bishop Pearson, in his Vindiciae Igna­tianae P. 2, 10, 11., has prov'd beyond all Controversie, that Susario is a distinct Poet from Sannyrio, and older by above 140 Years. But Comedy was yet Older than Susario himself; for it was Older than the Word by which it was call'd in Susario's time, and had the same Common Name with Tragedy, long before the Division of Dramatic Poetry into those Two distinct Branches was form'd; as I shall prove from Atheneus hereafter, in my Enquiry into the Origin of Tragedy. Susario was on­ly the Improver of Comedy, as I shall shew Thespis to have been of Tragedy: He polish'd it first perhaps, and gave it something of a Regular Cast; which was handle enough for Diomedes Grammaticus L. 3., the Scholiast on Aristophanes In Pro­l [...]gom., and Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. l. 1., to attribute the Invention of it to him. But that he was not the Inventor of it, the Mar­ble it self does more than intimate, when it says only of him, that he first erected a Stage in Athens, to act Comedies upon. In­deed the Cities were beholden to the Villages for the Use of both Tragedy and Comedy; as we learn from Aristotle Poet. l. 1: In the Coun­try they began, and continu'd some time [Page 142] rude and unform'd, till the City took 'em out of the Peasants hands, and polish'd 'em. Allowing then Dr. Bentley all his unreasona­ble Demands; that Phalaris had a regard to the Jambic Verse cited by Aristotle, and that That Verse belongs to the Stage: yet we see, it might belong to the Stage, and be more an­cient than Phalaris.

Our Critic himself seems but ill satisfied with this Proof, (a Thing which rarely hap­pens to him!) and therefore casts about for Another; and will find this Saying some­where else. I see the Charge of Thest be­gins to clear up; we shall easily Quash an In­dictment, that is thus laid in Two Places. Well! but who is this Second Author, that Phalaris has purloin'd? why, Euripides, in his Philoctetes. And, says Dr. Bentley P. 36., from Aristophanes the famous Grammarian (who (after Aristotle, Callimachus, and Others) writ the [...], a Work (were it now extant) most useful to Ancient History) we know, that this very Fable Philoctetes was written Olymp. 87; which is CXX Years after the Tyrant's Destruction. Was ever Scholiast urg'd to clear a more Knot­ty Point; or urg'd more Knottily? He might as well from the Chronicon Marmoreum com­par'd with Langbain's Fasti have undertaken to prove, that Thespis was before Dryden. Eu­ripides's Words are,

[Page 143] Now (says the Dr.) to him that compares these with the Words of the Epistle, 'twill be EVIDENT, that the Author had this very Pas­sage before his Pen: there is [...] and [...]; not only a Sameness of Sense, but even of Words, and those not necessary to the Sentence: which could not fall out by Accident. All that is Evi­dent, I think, is, that there is a Sameness of Reasoning runs throughout the Dr's whole Dissertation: let Phalaris shift for himself; I am resolv'd not to answer this Argument. Instead on't, I shall be bold to make an Ob­jection to the Dr, which I desire him to an­swer; and that is, whether it were proper and prudent in him, to accuse Phalaris of a Theft by a Pair of Quotations pillag'd from my poor Notes on this Epistle? and whether, among his other Proverbial Gnomae, he should not have consider'd That about the Old Woman in the Oven?

Hitherto Phalaris has stolen discreetly, and borrow'd Expressions proper for him to use; but now, it seems he steals without Decency or Distinction, out of Callimachus, and Pin­dar. For we find Two Words close together in Him, that are found as near one another in Each of those Authors. Phalaris has [...], Pindar has [...], and Callimachus [...]: the Dr. is in a Quandary here to determin, which of these Phalaris plun­der'd; Pindar he should be inclin'd to guess, but that he is more inclin'd to guess 'tis Callima­chus. Indeed Callimachus, Dorizing in this point, is One Letter farther off from him, [Page 144] than Pindar: but then agen in Another place, which has nothing to do with This place, Callimachus has Two Other Words exactly the same. So that between Pindar and Callima­chus, and Callimachus and Pindar, the Dr. is, as I observ'd, in a Great Quandary. To re­lieve him in this Streight, I take leave to give him my Opinion, that Phalaris might rob neither: for I can see nothing so Extra­ordinary in these Words, but that a much less Man than Phalaris might have hit upon 'em. The Dr. fancies, he sees a Quaintness something Poetical in the Expression; a Man, that dealt less Tenderly with Him than I, would be apt to fancy he saw a Quaintness something Pe­dantical in the Observation. Which of the Words is Poetical, [...] or [...]? [...] has no other Sense here Phalaris's Words are, [...]. Ep. 12., than it has wherever 'tis us'd in any Prose Author: for the Dr. may refine upon it, as he pleases; it signifies here nei­ther more nor less than Ano­ther; tho' being oppos'd to [...], this Other Fortune must, by construction, be un­derstood to mean Ill Fortune. Is [...] then Poetical? 'tis taken here for [...]; in what Author almost is it not taken so? I could be very Learned here in my Citations; and, if I follow'd Great Examples, 'twould be a pro­per occasion, for there's no Need of 'em: I will only in the Margin point out to the Dr. a Place or two from Dionysius Halicarnas­seus [...]. P. 172. — [...]. p. 180., and Aeschines [...]. In Ctesiph. p. 94. Ed. Ox.; and put him in [Page 145] mind of those words of Eustathius, [...], &c.

Tully, in his Third Philippic, has these Two Expressions, Fatum extremum Reipublicae, and Magna Vis est, magnum Numen unum & idem sentientis Senatûs. Fatum extremum and Numen here have, in my Judgment, something more of the Air of Poetry in 'em, than [...]; and accordingly we find the First of'em once, and the Last often us'd in that Sense by Vir­gil. But I suppose No-body will be so wild as to inferr any thing from thence to the dis­advantage of that Philippic. The same is to be said for the Words [...] in the 122d Epistle, which with great Sagacity he finds in Callimachus. The Latin of that Greek, Invenere Tormentum, is in Horace: will he reject at Random any Prose-Writer, in whom I can find these Two Words toge­ther? if he will, I'll engage, at a venture, to find 'em. But till I know his Mind, I desire to be excus'd from the Trouble: for, begging the Dr's pardon, I take Index-hunting after Words and Phrases, to be, next Ana­grams and Acrosticks, the lowest Diversion a Man can betake himself to.

As trifling as these Two Criticisms are, yet Dr. Bentley is so fond of 'em, that, to make 'em immortal, he has lately reprinted 'em, with his Fragments of Callimachus. 'Tis the on­ly part of his Dissertation, which, notwith­standing his Threatnings, he has yet thought sit to put into Latin: and, if I guess right, 'tis the only part that he ever will.

[Page 146]THE Last Sort of Proof the Dr. has em­ploy'd to shew the Epistles Younger than Phalaris, is the use of some Terms, or Words of Art, which were invented, he says, after Phalaris's time: he instances in these Three, Thericlean Cups § III., Philosophy § X., and Tra­gedy § XI..

In the 70th Epistle, among other things with which Phalaris presents his Physician, mention is made of Ten Couple of the Cups of Thericles; whom our Critic thinks he can prove to be a Corinthian Potter, that liv'd an CXX Years after Phalaris. Before he proves it, I beg leave to interpose a Guess, about the true Reading of this Passage; which, if ac­cepted, may save both Him and Us the trou­ble of his Learned Argument. The Text of Phalaris, as it stands now, is, [...]; what if it should heretofore have been [...] &c? 'Tis a very inconsiderable Alteration, and yet it salves all: for that there was such a Cup, nam'd from Hercules, and therefore Old enough for Phalaris to use, we need go no further than Athenaeus to be inform'd; who, in his Catalogue of Cups, mentions the [...] as a distinct sort, in one place P. 469., and [...] in another Vid. Ca­saubo [...] A­nim. p. 782. This small Alteration, which I take the Liberty to sug­gest▪ might easily creep into the Old MSS, which were in Capitals, without any distin­ction of Words: There the Original Read­ing might have been [...]; [Page 147] and afterwards, by a slight Change of an A into an I, it might be corrupted into what it is Now by some Transcriber, whose Head was full of the Thericlean Cup; and who liv'd, when the Heraclean Cup was disus'd and for­gotten. And this is not the Only Instance we have of Copyers mistaking One of these Names for the Other; the Archon in the 61st Olympiad, whose Name in Dionysius Halicar­nasseus [...]. p. 244. is Heracles, in Dio­dorus [...]. Excerpt. è Diodoro. p. 241. is call'd Thericles: and such a Change, I hope, might happen in these Epi­stles, as has certainly hap­pen'd in One of these Au­thors. A Candid Reader, that considers, what ado there is made about the [...] in Greek Writers, and how rarely the [...] is mention'd, will perhaps think this Conjecture not improbable, and grant me the benefit of it. But Dr. Bentley, I believe, will enter his Protest: I remember a Saying of his, with relation to a Word in Tully, which Quintilian read otherwise than He would have had him; Ego verò, says he, Ci­ceronem it a scripsisse ne Ciceroni quidem ipsi assir­manti crediderim Epist. ad Millium in fine Mala­lae, p. 80.: and despairing therefore to get this Poor Guess of mine to pass with him, I must e'en take the Term as I find it in Phalaris, and see how far it affects our present Argument.

To fix the Age of Thericles, from whom these Cups are presum'd to have their Name, the Dr. cites Athenaeus, One Witness indeed, but as GOOD as a Multitude, he says, in a matter of this nature Differ. p. 19.; he might as well, I think, [Page 148] have said as Many: for why should One Wit­ness be as Good as a Multitude in Cases of this Nature? in Other Cases, I am sure, it is not: He may attaint Phalaris indeed upon a Single Evidence, but he can never in the Com­mon Course of Justice convict him; and yet the Dr. promis'd us to give him a Fair and Im­partial Tryal P. 19.. If now there are several ma­terial Circumstances that disparage this One Witness's Testimony; if he liv'd at a great distance from the Time he writes of; if he speaks by Report and Hearsay only, without vouching any Authority; if he expresses him­self so, that we have room to doubt, whether we know his mind; or, should we know his mind, yet if he contradicts himself imme­diately afterward: I say, if these things ap­pear against him, then this One Witness is so far from being as good as a Multitude, that he is as good as None. And I believe That will appear to be the Case, after I have examin'd him.

Had Athenaeus given us an Account of the Author of an Invention in his Own Time, or a little before him, we could easily have cre­dited him upon his Word: but when he speaks of an Invention of 600 Years stand­ing, and pretends nicely to fix the Date of it, without telling us from what Author he drew his Account, we may be allow'd to su­spect his Exactness. His mistakes, where he depends upon his Memory, or even upon his Commonplacebook Saepe A­thenaeum peccare graviter dum suo [...]um Excerptorum fidem sequitur, ne (que) ad fontes ipsos adit, multis locis probatum nobis satis superque. Anim. p. 377., without consulting the [Page 149] very Authors themselves, are frequently taken notice of by his Learned Editor, and he could not mistake in a point that less deserv'd to be remember'd than this. Had he known himself from what Author he drew this account, he would without fail, have told us; for he treads not a single Step without an Authority, if he can have one: and we may therefore conclude, that he had none; and that the only reason, which determin'd him to fix the Age of Theri­cles about Aristophanes's time was, that he had not set down in his Adversaria, nor did at pre­sent call to mind a mention of the Thericlean Cup in any Writer more ancient than He. For observable it is, that among the Several Quo­tations in which he abounds on this head, there is none that runs higher than the Age of that Poet. One there is, and but One, brought from a Lost Play of his, Philonides; where the Theri­clean Cup is mention'd, at large, but not a word said, by which we can make any Guess at the Age of Thericles. Our Critic indeed is of opi­nion, that in all probability Athenaeus had this In­dication [about the Age of Thericles] from some Play of Aristophanes now Lost, where that Corin­thian was mention'd as one then alive Disser. p. 19. But in all probability, Athenaeus had not this Indicati­on from any such Passage, because Then, in all Probability, he would have been so Communi­cative as to have let his Readers have it too. Had Aristophanes nam'd Thericles, as Living, in any of his Plays, and had this been Athenaeus's reason for making 'em Cotemporary, is it cre­dible, that among so many other Passages he produces, relating to Thericles, he would have omitted This, that was worth all the rest, and settl'd that very point of Chronology past di­spute, [Page 150] which he was then laying down? espe­cially, since he had not overloaded us on this Head, with Aristophanes's Verses; having cited him but Once; whereas Alexis, a Writer of much less Character, is produc'd four times to it, within the compass of Twenty Citations? Could he be so Lavish, where there was no need of it? and so Sparing where the very Stress of the Point lay? I have no great Opi­nion either of Athenaeus's Judgment or Exact­ness, (and when I say so, I speak but the Words of Casaubon Ejus Ego quidem Di­ligentiam in nonnullis, Judi­cium in multis requiro. Animadv. p. 375. how­ever I cannot think him Inju­dicious and Careless to such a Degree as this: and therefore I conclude, that he brought no Quotation of this kind out of Aristophanes, because he had none to bring.

Indeed, as he quotes No-body for this ac­count of the Age of Thericles, so he speaks of it himself with distrust. Dr. Bentley, 'tis true, in his Translation, has put him into the Positive Style; and made him roundly affirm, that the Cup WAS invented by Thericles, a Corinthian Potter, in Aristophanes's time: but Athenaeus ex­presses himself with greater Reserve. His Words are [...]. P. 470., One Thericles, a Corinthian Potter [ who liv'd about the Time of Aristophanes the Comoedian] IS SAID, or IS REPORTED to have made this Sort of Cup: and FAMA EST à Corinthio Figulo Thericle factos, says the Honest Latin Tran­slator. Which manner of speaking is the more to be observ'd, because it appears from seve­ral Passages in him, before and after this, that He himself was not satisfied of the Truth of [Page 151] this Report: for he immediately gives us some other accounts of the Original of the Word P. 471., without the least Intimation which he pre­ferrs. I allow that these Derivations are forc'd ones, and to be given up: for that the Name of the Cup came from the Name of a Man, is not to be doubted, I think; at least it was not to be doubted, till Dr. Bentley at­tempted to prove it. Let us step out of our way so far, as to hear his Extraordinary Ar­gument. Does not Common Analogy shew, says he, that as from [...] comes [...], and as from [...] comes [...]; so from [...] (not only may, but) MVST come [...] P. 21.? Wonderful! Who would have thought that such Certain Conclusions could be built on the Rules of Analogy? or that there was so near an Affinity between Logic and Gram­mar? Let us try it, in another Instance: as from [...] comes [...], so from [...] the Philosopher must come [...] Virens: Here is the same Analogy, and yet the Inference from it is stark naught. The Dr. then was too rash in asserting, that [...] must come from [...] by the Rule of Analogy: it does come from it, I grant; but does and must are very different Things. The English Rhime goes a Truer and Surer way to work;

[Page 152] But to return to our Serious and Weighty point; Athenaeus, I say, proposes some other Derivations of [...] beside that from [...]; and tho' Dr. Bentley and I are pretty well agreed, that they are frivolous ones, yet it does not appear any way, that He under­valu'd 'em; or determin'd which had the better claim to [...], They, or Thericles: which is a Sign, I think, that He himself was not fully satisfied in the matter. And ano­ther Shrewd Sign it is, that but a few Lines before this famous Passage, he cites a Frag­ment from a Play of Alexis, where, as he in­terprets it [...] (says he) [...]; and does not Alexis introduce Hercu­les drinking out of a Theri­clean Cup? In the Passage from Alexis, as it now stands in Athenaeus, Thericles is not mention'd: but 'tis plain Athenaeus thought, from some Expressions in it, that this Cup might be intended; or else he would not have ask'd a Question about it., Hercules is brought in, drinking out of a Thericlean Cup: and this he does without taxing the Ab­surdity of the Poet; which he could hardly have omit­ted to do, if he had believ'd the Invention no Older than Aristophanes: for, at this rate, the bringing Hercules, and a Thericlean Cup upon the Stage together, would have been as ridiculous, as if one of Our Dramatic Poets should represent William the Conqueror drinking in Dwight's Ware. A­lexis, one would think, could not have com­mitted such an Absurdity, who liv'd but Threescore Years after Aristophanes; at least Athenaeus could not have pass'd it by uncen­sur'd, if that Report about the Age of the The­riclean Cup had stuck with him.

[Page 153]But that it did not, we have this further Reason to believe; that he qoutes Lynceus Sa­mius, in the 469th page, for a Passage, where­in this Cup is represented (not as a Corinthian, but) an Athenian Invention: for that, I think, is the Natural Construction of Lynceus's words; which I shall produce, and leave the Reader to judge of them Lynceus Samius is brought in by Athenaeus saying, that the Rhodians did ( [...]) work a sort of Cup ( call'd [...]) in imitation of the Thericlean Cup [...], made at Athens. This Expression of Lynceus was probably in his Epistle to Diagoras mention'd in another place of Athenaeus ( p. 647.) where Lynceus does ( [...]) compare the finest Athenian Manufa­ctures with those of Rhodes. This implys, I think, that the Thericlean Cup was an Athenian Invention; at least, we have Lynceus Samius 's word for it, no Contemptible Writer, and of pretty Early Date; as being the Scholar and Acquaintance of Theophrastus. I know the Words ( [...]) are capable of another Sense; but it is a forc'd and unnatural one..

Now if Lynceus Samius's Testimony be re­ceiv'd, there's an end of Athenaeus's Report about the Corinthian Potter. The Authors of that Report, whoever they were, might be as well out in the Time, as in the Country of Thericles: If he were no Corinthian, but an Athenian; he might possibly be no Potter nei­ther, but an Archon, or some Great Man: and the Thericlean Cups (as the [...] and [...] mention'd by Plutarch together with them In Vit. P. Aem [...]l.) might be call'd so from him, that us'd 'em first, and not from Him that invented 'em. Which their Size and Worth also would make us apt to believe: for Athe­naeus tells us, they were Extraordinary Large, [Page 154] and of a Vast Price; and could therefore be the Purchase only of Great and Wealthy men, till the Rhodians found out a way of making 'em Slight and Cheap; and then they grew Commoner Athe­ [...]. p. 469.: and therefore 'tis pro­bable, I say, that some Great Man who first us'd 'em, gave 'em their name; and not He that invented 'em. And if the most Learned Mr. Dodwell's Opinion about the Age of Pha­laris take place, (whom I hear he brings down to the LXX ^th Olympiad) we have the men­tion of an Archon preserv'd in Diodorus, who liv'd early enough to give the Name to these Cups: for he must be, by this account, above Thirty Years Older than Phalaris [...] was Archon in Olympiad the [...]st; as before, Page the 147 of these Pap [...]rs..

But let this be as it will — From what I have produc'd out of Athenaeus, I think, it manifestly appears, that no Weight is to be laid upon what He says in the point, who talks so loosely and waveringly about it; who produces Opinions on one side, and Opi­nions on t'other, who takes up a Report, an Hearsay in one page, and contradicts it by a Substantial Testimony from an Approved Author, in another; and is all over Incon­sistency, and Confusion. A Witness that thus talks forwards and backwards, in a breath, ought to be set aside by consent of Both Par­ties; and leave the Merits of the Cause to be decided by clearer Testimonies.

[Page 155]And now what becomes of the Pompous Character, with which Dr. Bentley introduces this Single Evidence? One indeed, but as good as a Multitude! I agree with the Dr. if he means a Multitude of such Suborn'd Witnes­ses as he has brought to blast the Credit of Phalaris; One good Honest Downright Wit­ness were worth 'em All: but Such, I think, I have prov'd Atheneus not to be in the Pre­sent Debate. However, if after what has been offer'd, the Reader should still be in­clin'd to believe this One Hearsay Witness, I desire him to remember, that his Evidence lies within a Narrow Compass, and that he affects but One Epistle: So that should That, where the Thericlean Cup is mention'd prove Spurious, yet the other 147 may, to our Comfort, be Genuine still. And this Consi­deration I hope the Reader has carried along with him thro' all the Particular Proofs, that they touch only those Particular Epistles from whence they are taken, but do not affect the whole Body of 'em; for a Passage, or Part of a Book may be Spurious, and yet the Book it self not be Spurious: especially when it is a Col­lection of Pieces, that have no Dependence upon one another, as Epistles, Epigrams, Fa­bles; the First Number of which may have been encreas'd by the Wantonness, or Va­nity of Imitators in after-times, and yet the Book be Authentic in the main, and an Original still.

[Page 156]There are some Other Important Contro­versies which Dr. Bentley has occasionally han­dled in this Paragraph; as whether Thericles was a Turner, or a Potter Dissert. p. 18.? whether Bulls and Cows may be properly call'd [...], as well as Lyons, and Tygers Ibid. p. 20.? But these things making neither for, nor against our Argu­ment, I am not at leisure to dispute 'em with him. The Misfortune of it is, that this Great Variety of Reading which the Dr. produces on a very Trifling Point may perhaps mis­chief him in the opinion of an Intelligent Reader; and make him thought a Man, who, with Ill Judgment, employs most of his Time on those things that deserve it least. To take off those Suspicions, and to do his Cha­racter right, I assure the Reader, that he went no further for all this Learning than his Dictionaries, and what One of those [...]esych. in voce [...] and the Notes up­on it. re­ferr'd him to, Casaubon's Notes on Athenaeus. However, since he was so much oblig'd to that Great Man, I wonder that Common Gra­titude, and Common Sense should not hinder him from falling upon Him, as he does, at the very time he is transcribing Him. Casaubon, in a Passage of Athenaeus relating to this Con­troversie, was willing to read [...], instead of [...]; and gave his Reason for it, that he found it so in the ancient Epitomizer of Athenaeus: to which our Dissertator, with an Air of Superiority, replys, One may be CER­TAIN 'twas a Fault ONLY in that Copy of him that Casaubon us'd: for Eustathius, WHO APPEARS NEVER to have seen the true [Page 157] Athenaeus, but only that Epitome, read it in his Book [...], &c. Dissert. p. 20, 21. Which is said with an Equal Degree of Truth, Decency, and Rea­son. For, in the first place, it is certain that Eustathius had seen, and does sometimes quote Athenaeus himself, tho' he generally uses the Epitome of him: and therefore Casaubon says only of Eustathius, that he did SAEPE uti Epitome, integro Athenaei Codice neglecto; and that he did NON RARO sequi lectionem quae in Excerptis, spretâ eâ quae in Contextu longè in­terdùm melior ac verior Ani [...]ad. p. 2.: and I'll tell the Reader One Reason among an hundred, why he should sooner in this case trust Casaubon than Dr. Bentley; it is, that Casaubon had the Excerpta of Athenaeus entire, and could com­pare 'em therefore with Athenaeus himself, and with Eustathius: whereas Dr. Bentley will not pretend, I suppose, ever to have seen the Excerpta; for they are un­printed All, but so much of 'em as supplys the Room of what we have lost of Athenaeus himself. to this day: and when therefore he pronoun­ces it to be apparent, that Eustathius never saw the true Athenaeus, he talks of a thing that he knows nothing of, and can know nothing of, but from Casaubon; and yet ventures to contra­dict him. Had I not reason to make the Itch of opposing Great Names upon very slight or no Grounds, a Chief and Distin­guishing Mark of Pedantry?

But what if Eustathius had seen only the Epitome of Athenaeus? and his Copy of the Epitome had differ'd from Casaubon's? does [Page 158] it follow, that all the Rest did so too? This is our Critic's admirable Inference; because in Eustathius's Copy 'twas [...], and not [...], therefore one may be certain it was so in all the Copies, but that which Casaubon us'd. I can easily bear his Contempt of Me and my Knowledge, when I find him oppo­sing one of the Greatest Men that ever the Commonwealth of Learning produc'd, with­out so much as the Shadow of an argument to back him in it.

The Reader, I hope, will pardon me, if I wander a moment or two from my Subject, to give him a Like Instance of the Unreasona­ble Freedom Dr. Bentley takes in reprehend­ing Learned Men, even where there is no manner of Ground for it. In his Epistle to Dr. Mill At the End of Malala., upon mentioning an Anapaestic Verse of Grotius, [ Prisca domos dedit Indigena] he takes occasion to reprove Him, and with Him Ioseph Scaliger, and All the Moderns, that have written in this sort of Verse, for not knowing the True Measure of it; which, he says, will never admit of a Trochee, or a a Tribrach in the End of it, but when there is some kind of Stop and Rest there: and for this reason Seneca the Tragoedian, he assures us, has not imploy'd a Trochee in that place above once or twice throughout all his Plays, and then only when there was a Full Close of the Sense: and concludes, that if Scaliger, Grotius, and the Rest had liv'd in Athens or Old Rome, and taken this Liberty in their Plays, they would have been hiss'd off the [Page 159] Stage with Infamy for it Tribrachys est Lo'o A­napasti: quod viti [...]m com­mune est Grotio cum Ios. Sca­ligero, Flor. Christiano, Al [...]s (que) opinor Omnibus qui Saeculo hoc & superiore vel Tragoe­dias Graecas Latinè verte­runt, vel ipsi scripserunt no­vas: quibu [...] solenne est Ana­paestos suos passim, ubi nulla Clausula est, nec interpun­ctum, Trib [...]achi, vel Tro­chaeo, vel Cretico terminare. Nae isti, si olim stante Re Grae­câ vel Romanâ suas Fabulas edidissent, Sibilis & [...] Scenâ explosi fui [...]ent. p. 26. Quin & Seneca Tragicus, ut scias eum de Industria tem­ [...]eravisse, semel tantum atque iterum Trochaeo Anapaest [...]s clausit, nec nisi finitâ senten­ [...]iâ: qui scilicet Paroemiaco Locus esset, nisi is Scriptor, nescio cur, versum illum re­pudiâsset. Ibid.. One would think that Dr. Bentley, with all his Stock of Self-sufficien­cy, could not have allow'd himself to use such insulting Language toward such Emi­nent Men, but when he was perfectly sure of his point: and yet nothing can be falser and fuller of mistake than what he has here asserted. It is Usual among the Greek Tragoedians to end their Ana­paestick Verses with a Trochee or a Tribrach, even where there is No Pause; of which I will give him several Instan­ces out of One Play of Aeschy­lus ^(b): and Seneca is so far from having done this not above once or twice, and where there was a full Close of the Sense, that I believe he has done it at least forty or fifty times, where there is either no Close at all, or none beyond a Comma. I shall give the Dr. as many Instances out of Seneca ^*, as I have [Page 160] done out of Aeschylus; and then ask him, how he durst oppose men of Grotius and Sca­liger's Character, with such groundless As­sertions, as it was in every-body's power to disprove, that did but cast their Eye on Se­neca, and the Greek Tragoedians?

But to return to our Business — I have now examin'd, I think, all that is material in Dr. Bentley's Objection about the Theri­clean Cups, as far as the Authority of the Letters is concern'd in it: his Exception against My way of Translating the Word shall not be forgotten in its proper place; when I come to consider the Faults he has found with my Edition and Version.

This has I confess been a Long Article; but the next will make us amends; for I can hardly perswade my self to say any thing to it. He finds fault with the Letters, for making Phalaris, in his Address to Pythagoras, call his Doctrine Philosophy; and Him, in ano­ther place, Philosopher Dissert. p. 38.: why? because Pythagoras himself invented these words Dissert. p. 38.. Could Phalaris therefore pay him a greater Compliment, than by using 'em? Queen E­lizabeth first coin'd the Word Foeminilis in a Speech of Hers, as I remember, to One of the Universities; could that Body have show'd her an handsomer piece of respect, than by using that very Word to Her after­wards as freely, as if it had been of the best Age of Latin? Phythagoras affected to be call'd Philosopher, and fram'd the Term to that very End and Purpose: Before his time, not only the Wise and Learned, but even Or­dinary [Page 161] Artificers, that were Skilful in their Way, were in Common Speech The use in some mea­sure continu'd afterwards, as we learn from Aristotle. Ethic. l. 7, c. 7. stil'd [...] [...], &c. Nic. Geras. l. 1, Arith.; and Pythagoras, I suppose, had a mind to distinguish This I take to be a truer account of his assuming the Name, than the Pretence that is usually made for it, his Modesty. him­self from 'em. Would Dr. Bentley have had Phalaris, when he design'd him an Ho­nour, rob him of the Title he was most fond of? He knew better how to Please the Man he was to Profit by: as little Good Nature as he had left, yet he had some Civility, and a great deal of Sense; and by the help of these, escap'd that Absurd Management, which Dr. Bentley, I find, had he been advis'd with, would have put him upon.

But how came the Fame of so small a Business [as Pythagoras's assuming this Name] to reach Phalaris 's Ear? He may as well ask, how he came to hear his Name was Pythagoras? Fame, that told him the One, must tell him the Other too, after once Pythagoras had set up his Pretensions; and I desire Dr. Bentley to prove that Phalaris ever nam'd him so before: and till he does That, the Epistles are safe from any Harm that this small Objection can do 'em.

Before I go further, I must observe to the Reader an Instance of Dr. Bentley's great Goodness, which deserves to be taken notice of: I could shew (says he) from a whole Crowd of Authors, that Pythagoras first invented the [Page 162] word: but I content my self with Two. To content himself with Two Quotations, when he could produce so Many; and that upon so Clear and Manifest a point, that he need not have produc'd Any, (in which Cases He is usually most Liberal of his Learning) is no Common Favour; and I ought therefore (as I do) thankfully to own it. It almost tempts me to drop a Question or two that I had to ask him here; as, what he means by saying, that Pythagoras first nam'd Philosophy? whe­ther, that he first nam'd That Philosophy, which before was call'd Wisdom? and why, if he meant so, he did not say so [...], says Laer­tius, whom he translates; but it follows presently, [...]: which makes the Expression not so improper in Laertius's Greek, as Dr. Bentley's English.? And what again he would be at, when he tells us, that Pythagoras invented the word first? and who it was that Invented it Last? Something too I had to say to him about Nurses talking Philosophy Dissertat. p. 39.: But he has been very merciful in this Paragraph; and I forgive in my Turn.

There is still behind One Exception to the Credit of the Epistles, taken from the Names of some Tragoedians, there, and no where else to be found; and from the Age and Date of Tragedy it self. The Section in which this Argument is manag'd is a short one, but very fruitful in Mistakes, and those of the First Rate; for which reason, and because it is the Last trouble of the kind I am likely to give the Reader, I shall insist upon it somewhat largely.

[Page 163] Aristolochus and Lysinus, he says, are Two Tragic Poets that No-body ever heard of P. 39., and in another place, with great Humor, he calls 'em Two Fairy Tragoedians P. 120.: tho' methinks One of 'em at least seems not to be of the Race of those Little Beings; one would guess Aristolochus, by his Name, to be rather a Gyant than a Fairy. But to let that pass, — Is he sure, that Neither of these Poets can be trac'd in Old Writers? what does he think of the Numerus Aristo­lochius In the Text, as it stands printed Now, 'tis Archebo­lion: upon which Ludovicus Carrio has this Note, Vulgò Aristolochium, Membranae A­ristodolium: so that Some Edi­tions (from Some MSS, I sup­pose) have it Aristolochium; or if the Editors made this change without the authority of MSS, 'twas because they knew more of this Aristolo­chus than I own I do. in the Nameless Piece usually printed with Censorinus? does it not come from Aristolochus, a Poet; as the Numerus Aristophanius in the same Chapter does from Aristophanes? But because the MSS differ in this passage, I will not insist upon it. I will allow him, for the present, that No-body ever heard of either of these Tragoedians but in Phalaris; and I will give him a good reason for it: neither their Works, nor their Names were worth preserving. Phalaris has drawn their Characters in short; the One of 'em he calls a very foolish Fellow [...] Ep. 97. ▪ and the other a Sorry Poet, and an Impotent Ad­versary [...] Ep. 68.: and the Writings of such Men can never last; nor even their Names, but by the Help of better Writers: and by the way therefore I would advise Dr. Bentley not to be too Vain upon his Performances. Bavius [Page 164] and Moevius had a Scornful Verse bestow'd upon 'em by Virgil; and That it self would have made 'em Scandalously-well known to Posterity, tho' No one else should ever have nam'd 'em. If Sir William Temple should make such a Slighting Mention of Dr. Bentley in any of his Future Writings, He too will Live by that means, and not otherwise. Will the Dr. expunge out of the Catalogue of Mankind, (as his Terrible Words are Dissert. p. 118.) all Poets that have the III Luck to be mention'd but Once in Old Authors? I thought, as a Critic, and a Philologer, he would have had more Regard for an [...]. What, at this rate, will become of Poor Xenocles and Pythangelus? (Two Tragoedians, just of the same size with our Two Fairy ones) whom Aristopha­nes once mention'd with contempt, as Phala­ris does These, and Whom (at least the First of 'em) Dr. Bentley will be hard put to't to find mention'd by any-body besides him. But not having consider'd This Piece of History sufficiently, I will not be positive in it: there is Another, in which I have somewhat better Grounds to go upon; 'tis the Instance of Chlonthachonthlus. He was no Poet indeed, but pretty near akin to one, a Lymaker by Profession, and a famous Misre­presenter. Perhaps the Dr. has never heard of him to this day; and perhaps he'll know as little of him two or three Years hence, as he does now: and yet I assure him He's to be met with in a Celebrated Greek Author, in Whom he lies buried, and unknown to many of the Great Lights of the Commonwealth of Learning, because that Good Author has the [Page 165] Misfortune to be put out without a Good Index. Now I'll undertake to trace Aristolo­chus, or Lysinus, as soon as Dr. Bentley shall Chlonthachonthlus: and when he lights upon him, he'll find, that the Author, where he is, is confessedly Genuine, notwithstanding he mentions this unheard-of Monster of a Man, whom no-body ever mention'd since or be­fore him.

But Dr. Bentley has a better Objection than the Silence of Authors against these Tragoe­dians; he says, they could not have a being in Phalaris's time, because there was then no such thing as Tragoedy it self: neither the Word nor Thing being known, while Phalaris tyran­niz'd at Agrigentum. But Thespis was the first Inventor of it, who acted his First Tragoedy twelve Years after the Death of Phalaris: and both the Name and the Thing were then (and not till then) born together Dissert. p. 90.. In Opposition to this, I shall endeavour to make out these Three things: first, that, granting Thespis to have been the Inventor of Tragoedy, yet he found it out early enough for Phalaris to have the use of the Word from him: in the next place, that Tragoedy was much Older than Thespis; and that He was on­ly the Improver, but not the Inventer of it: and yet further, that the Word Tragoedy was more ancient than the Thing, which we now understand by it. I think these Three Points to be clear beyond dispute: if the Reader, after I have produc'd my Proofs, thinks so too, he will, I suppose, have a less Opinion of Dr. Bentley's Learning and Modesty than [Page 166] even he has already, and be something nearer toward thinking these Epistles Genuine.

Let us suppose for the present, that Thespis was the Inventer, (or as Dr. Bentley Empha­tically speaks) the First Inventer of Tragoedy; 'tis plain, Phalaris might have the use of the word from him. That Thespis was Cotempo­rary with Solon, Plutarch Vit. Sol. and Diogenes Laer­tius in So­lone. expresly affirm; telling us very particu­larly what pass'd between ' Solon and Thespis, in relation to the Plays of the Latter. And this account of Thespis's age Our Dissertator him­self, in his Soft Epistle to Dr. Mill Ne (que) Thespis eâ quâ­rentur tempestate vixit; nam Solonis aequalis suit. P. 46. allows. Now Solon was Archon Olympiad XLVI. 3 Sosicrates, quoted by Diog. Laert. in Solon. Euse­bius in his Chronicon, puts it a Year later.; Phalaris began his Reign Ol. LIII. 3, and end­ed it Ol. LVII. 3, according to the account which Dr. Bentley Dissertat. p. 15. allows. So that between the Beginning of So­lon's and the End of Phalaris's Government there are full 44 Years: Time enough in Conscience, for the Word Tragoedy to come from Athens to Agrigent! And Eusebius's Chro­nicon allows near as much Room for it, pla­cing the Rise of Tragoedy at the 47th Olym­piad, a little after Solon's Archonship. But to take our account at the very lowest, let us suppose that Thespis's first Plays were those that Solon saw, towards the Latter End of his Life. Solon dy'd at the end of the LIII, or the beginning of the LIV Olympiad Plut. Vit. Sol., that is, a Year or two after Phalaris took the Ty­ranny upon him. Take Two or Three Years [Page 167] before Solon's death, when Thespis is suppos'd by this Low account first to have written; and from thence to the End of Phalaris's Reign there is a space of about 17 Years, for Phalaris to hear of Thespis's Tragoedies: for it does not appear, but that those Letters, where the Word [...] occurrs, might have been written at the very End of his Tyranny. However, let 'em have been written in the middle, or at the very beginning of it, yet still there will be time enough for Phalaris to learn this new word in. That Pisistratus seiz'd the Government of Athens some Years before Solon's death, Dr. Bentley, I dare say, will grant me: that he was turn'd out in, or rather before Phalaris's Reign, he will not I hope deny me; because he has own'd it in Terms, p. 41. of his Dissertation. Allowing then that Solon and Thespis were Cotempora­ry, there can be no doubt, whether Phalaris might hear of Thespis's Tragoedies.

All that can startle us in the case is the Authority of the Arundel Marble, which fixes the acting of Alcestis, one of Thespis's Plays, as low as the 60th Olympiad. But that all the Aera's of that Marble are not rightly ad­justed, is certain, and Learned Men have prov'd beyond dispute: and if there be mi­stakes in it, why may not this be one of 'em? when what is said there is contradicted by such an Universal Concurrence of almost all the History of those times, which we have left? Dr. Bentley I am sure ought not to in­sist on the Authority of the Marble in this case, because He himself has quitted it in an Instance of the like Nature. The Arundelian [Page 168] Marble indeed (says he) differs from all these in the periods of Gelo and Hiero; which would quite confound all this argumentation from Notes of Time. But either that Chronologer is quite out; or we can safely believe nothing in History. Dissert. p. 85. The Mistake of the Marble may be in putting Thespis's name instead of Phrynicus his Scholar: and Alcestis the name of the Play would make one think so, which Suidas ex­presly mentions as one of Phrynicus's; but is no where, that I can find, reckon'd among Thespis's. And such a Mistake might easily, I suppose, arise from the Negligence of the Graver, who, when he had gone as far as [...], might throw his Eye up­on a Lower Line, where there was an account of Phrynichus's Age, and finding the Word [...] there exactly in the same Situation, might think himself right, and go on with the rest that follow'd it: which is a Case that is known often to have happen'd in the copying of MSS; and may the rather be supposd to have happen'd here, because the next Aera in the Marble falls as low as Olymp. 67; be­fore which time it is not to be doubted but the Alcestis of Phrynichus (that Phrynichus, who was Thespis's Scholar) was acted.

But without the help of this Conjecture, and without laying aside the Authority of the Marble, what is said there may possibly be true, and yet Plutarch's and Laertius's ac­counts be true too, and the Epistles Ge­nuine. For some of Thespis's Plays might be acted in Solon's time, that is, about the 53d Olympiad; and yet his Alcestis be shown not till about the 60th; which being a Play writ­ten [Page 169] after a great Experience, and when he was in his Maturest Judgment, might be the Best of his Works, for ought I, or Dr. Bent­ley, can tell, and That by which he carried the Prize from his Rivals; and the fittest therefore to be taken notice of to Posterity. The Dr. indeed says, it was his First; and says it in such a manner, as if the Marble had said it before him: but that is only accord­ing to his Usual Way of putting History upon us. All the Inconvenience that arises from hence, is, that Thespis must then be sup­pos'd to have written Plays at the distance of at least Seven whole Olympiads: and what if he be? there was yet a greater distance be­tween Aristophanes's First and his Last Play; even the Interval of Nine entire Olympiads, or 36 Year. And I believe, 'tis much about the same time, since Mr. Dryden wrote his First Play; and the World has lately had a very convincing Instance, that he is not yet disabl'd. Should Dr. Bentley pretend 'tis im­probable, that if Alcestis were Thespis's Best play, it should not be mention'd by Suidas; my answer is, that I think it is as improba­ble, that Suidas should not mention it, if it were his First: and therefore I have told him my Opinion before, that it was neither his First, nor Last; but Phrynichus's Play erro­neously apply'd to him by the Marble-Graver.

I have not mention'd Suidas's Testimony about the Age of Thespis, because I think it of no manner of Consequence; he being so often and so egregiously out in things of this nature, by the faultiness of the MSS we now [Page 170] have of him or the Errors of those Authors which he at a venture transcribes. I con­fess, as he stands now, he seems to bring Thespis somewhat lower than even the Mar­ble may be suppos'd to do; for he says, he flourish'd [...], in the 61st Olympiad: but 'tis observable, that the De­cads in this Number are not express'd by a Word, but a Numeral Letter, which is more liable to alteration; and a [...] therefore might easily creep into the place of a [...]: the restoring of which would make his account consistent with better Autho­rities Ita (que) ut restè monuit Meursius in Solone, graviter errat Suidas, qui in [...] Olymp. 61 eum fabulas pri­mùm docuisse scribit. Menag. Comm. in Solon. However that may be, Dr. Bentley must remem­ber, that He himself has pro­duc'd P. 46. this account in his Letter after Malala, as Con­sistent with Plutarch's Story, which makes Thespis contem­porary with Solon; and is oblig'd therefore to reconcile the One with the Other, as much as I am: and he must remember too, that Sui­das in the same place tells us, that Thespis was the Sixteenth Tragoedian from Epigenes Sicyo­nius; and if he admits This part of his ac­count, he'l lose as much by it, as he gains by the Other.

For whether Thespis was as ancient as So­lon it matters not much, if Tragoedy was yet more ancient than He: and that it was so, there are such Plain and Pregnant Testimo­nies as are not to be withstood. Plato's words on this occasion are very remarkable and full. Tragoedy, says he, is of ancient Vsage in this Country, nor did it take its Rise from Thespis [Page 171] and Phrynichus, as Some Imagine (it seems, for Dr. Bentley's comfort, there were Men Ignorant enough, even in Plato's Time, to think so) but if You consider the thing well, You will find, that it is extremely ancient [...] &c. Plato in Minoc.: and the Reason of his introducing this Re­flection shews, that he thought it almost as ancient as Minos. I was aware of this Objection from the Date of Tragoedy, when I put out Phalaris; and thought therefore that I had prevented it by a short Note on the 97th Epistle, where I referr'd the Reader to this Passage in Plato. Dr. Bentley, who has made so free an use of many Hints in my Book, against Phalaris, should not in Justice have overlook'd this Note, which made so strong­ly for him: but I find he has the Secret of seeing nothing in an Author, but what serves to countenance his Own Opinions.

Plato's Testimony needs no Support with any man that justly esteems him; which for fear Dr. Bentley should not, I will produce another Witness, whose Character and Works, I believe, are better known to him: It is Dio­genos Laertius, who in the Life of Plato has these Words, ANTIENTLY (says he) the Chorus did alone sustain the Tragoedy; AF­TERWARDS Thespis found out One Actor, and gave the Chorus time to breathe [...] &c.: to whom [Page 172] Aeschylus, he tells us, added a Second; and Sophocles, a Third. So that Tragoedy, accor­ding to His Opinion too, was more ancient than Thespis; and He only an Improver of it.

Laertius's account falls in exactly with what Aristotle has said on the same Subject, as far as Aristotle goes; only it is more particular and full. Aristotle In his Poetry., reckoning up the Gra­dual Advances that had been made towards the perfection of Tragoedy, after its First Establishment, tell us, just as Laertius does, that Aeschylus improv'd it mightily, by bring­ing a Second Actor on the Stage; and that Sophocles perfected it by the addition of a Third. Thespis's Invention of a First Actor is here imply'd also, tho' it be not express'd: and indeed it was not to Aristotle's purpose to mention it, when he was considering the Improvements of Tragoedy, as an Artificial Poem, which had a Fable, and an Action di­stinct from that of the Chorus; that is in­deed, as it came out of the Hands of Thespis, who in this respect must be own'd to have been the Founder rather than the Improver of it. The not considering these Two different States and Conditions of Tragoedy is what has bred great Confusion in the Writings of the Criticks, and led Dr. Bentley into all his Numerous Errors in this point. If he will suffer himself to be taught by so Inconside­rable a Writer as I am, I will endeavour to set him right, and to give him a Clearer Ac­count of it.

[Page 173] Tragoedy at first was nothing but an Hymn to the honour of Bacchus, sung by a Num­ber of Peasants, after their Vintage was over, whilst the Goat lay bleeding upon the Altar. The Company that perform'd this Sacred Song, either alternately, or all together, as it happen'd, were what in Succeeding Times was call'd the Chorus; in which there­fore it must be remember'd that the Founda­tion of Tragoedy was laid. Afterwards the Subject of Tragoedy was much alter'd and va­ry'd: for the Composers of those Songs toge­ther with the Praises of Bacchus joyn'd the En­comiums of Great and Famous Persons; and Sa­tyrical Reproofs Ibid. also of the Vicious Men, and Manners of their Times. But still All this was perform'd by the Chorus; and (as Laertius observes) continu'd so to be till Thespis's time. He, to please the Audience, and re­lieve the Chorus, brought a Single Actor upon the Stage; who, at fit Intervals, came out from the Rest, and imitated the Actions of some Illustrious Person, and retir'd agen, when the Chorus had taken breath; which was still the most Considerable Part of the Entertainment. However by this Invention a new Turn was given to Tragoedy, the Busi­ness of the Chorus was lessen'd, and part of it brought into the hands of a single Actor, and something like a Plot, or Fable was intro­duc'd. Aeschylus improv'd upon this Model, and grew still more upon the Chorus, by adding a Second Aeschylus employ'd some­times a Third Actor too, but rarely. Actor, and diversifying the Fable; and Sophocles at last compleated the Poem, by the addition of a [Page 174] Third. And by this time the Chorus, which was at first Essential to Tragoedy, and did all in it, was grown only an Accessory Orna­ment of it; and employ'd to relieve the Actors in the same manner that the Actors were at first found out to relieve That. Nay, to see the fate of things, the Chorus, which was anciently the Play it self, now serv'd only to represent the Spectators, and to suggest such Reflections as They, observing what pass'd upon the Stage, were suppos'd to make.

Tragoedy being now a thing so very diffe­rent from what it was before, and Thespis ha­ving made the first Step towards this great Change, it is no Wonder that He should be call'd sometimes the Author of it; that is, the Author of that Sort of Tragoedy, which consisted in Imitation, and a Fable, ex­clusive to the Necessity of a Chorus; and which had now, among the Men of Art, who spake nicely, and reason'd subtilly about things, almost engross'd the Name. I say, ex­clusive of the Necessity of a Chorus: for tho', in remembrance of the first Rise of Tragoedy, and in complyance with the Ceremonies of Religion, the Chorus was still retain'd; yet it came in only by the bye as it were, and the Action, upon which the Play turn'd, was En­tire and Perfect without it.

What was said of Tragoedy then in the Second and more Confin'd Sense of the word, Dr. Bentley in his great Wisdom and Learning took as said of it at large, and pronounc'd at a venture, that there was no such Thing as Tragoedy before Thespis's time, because there [Page 175] was no such thing as that Sort of Tragoedy which Thespis invented: which is as if I should say, the Italians first found out Opera's, a Ba­stard Sort of Tragoedy, in these Latter Days; and therefore the Italians first found out Tra­goedy. There is no difference in the case but this, that what the Italians did was a Debase­ment of Tragoedy, whereas Thespis's Inventi­on was an Improvement of it; but still Tra­goedy it self was equally before the Improve­ment of the One and the Debasement of the other.

Our Critic was not contented to make but One Mistake on this Point; He has doubled it, by urging also a mistaken Authority for it: for those Verses of Horace, which He, out of the Depth of his Reading, produces on this occasion, are far from countenancing his Rash Assertions. At first sight indeed he might think they did; but a Second Thought (and such Thoughts, one of his Greek Proverbs says, are the Best) would have inform'd him, that Horace had express'd himself with the utmost Caution in this matter; and distin­guish'd Critically between that Sort of Tra­goedy, which was before Thespis's time, and That which Thespis himself introduc'd.

It was Ignotum Genus Tragicae Camaenae, an Un­known Kind of Tragic Poetry, which Thespis found out; and that implys, I think, that there was Another Kind of Tragic Poetry in use before him. And that this is no New [Page 176] Interpretation of the Words, made to serve a Turn, the Dr. may be satisfied, if he plea­ses to consult the Commentators on the place: they are not in Greek indeed, but they speak as Good Sense, as if they were; and some of the Best of 'em give this very account of it.

Upon this Bottom we can answer for all the unwary Expressions, that may have dropt at any time from the Pens of Old Writers, in relation to Thespis; particularly for that Passage in Plutarch In the Life of So­lon., where he represents Thespis, and those of his time as [...] What he means by that Am­biguous Phrase, may be disputed; whether it be not, that They first gave Life and Motion to Tragoedy, as they certainly did, by taking it in some measure out of the Hands of the Chorus, and making it an Imitative, or Dra­matic Poem: but whatever he means, I think I have prov'd, that he could not mean, con­sistently with History, that there was no such thing as Tragoedy of any kind before the days of Thespis. I add, that neither could he mean this, and be consistent with Him­self: for he expresly tells us in another place In the Life of Theseus., that the Acting of Tragoedies was One part of the Funeral Solemnities which the Athenians perform'd at the Tomb of Theseus.

The Reader may remember a Reflection quoted from Vellejus Pate [...]culus towards the beginning of this Discourse, where Homer is represented as the Author of Epic Poetry, and Archilochus of Iambicks, or the Epode: not that they were either of them so, strictly speaking; for Aristotle tells us, that there [Page 177] were many Epic Poems before Homer, tho' they happen'd to be lost; and that Homer's Margites was written (interchangably in Heroic and Iambic Verse) long before Archilochus. Paterculus's meaning was, or should have been, that they each of 'em brought the several Sorts of Poetry they practis'd, and which be­fore them were rough and unfinish'd, to such a degree of perfection, as that they justly de­serv'd to be call'd the Fathers of 'em. And in This Sense it is that we must understand those Authors, who make Thespis the Inven­tor of Tragoedy; or allow, that they spake inconsiderately, and against the Clear Truth of History. I question not, but some Hun­dreds of Years hence, Butler will be thought the Author of English Burlesque, tho' there were many Little things written in that way, be­fore His Hudibras: but He having so far outstripp'd those that wrote before him, and carried that Sort of Verse up to such a Pitch of Excellence, will probably be esteem'd and call'd the Inventer of it; and his Predecessors not be thought worth mentioning or remem­bring.

By this time I hope the Reader is satisfied, that Two of the Three points which Dr. Bent­ley has advanc'd on this head, are altogether mistaken; that, allowing Thespis to have been the Author of Tragoedy, yet he might have invented it time enough for Phalaris to hear of it; and that Thespis was not the first, but (to comply with the Dr's manner of speak­ing) the Second Inventer of it. His Third Assertion is yet more extravagant, and fur­ther from all Colour of Truth, than either of [Page 178] the former: it will be easie to confute it, if we can but understand it.

Neither was the Name of Tragoedy (says he P. 40.) more ancient than the Thing — What does he mean? Names I thought were invented to signifie Things; and that the Things them­selves therefore must be before the Names by which they are call'd: but he opens himself, — as sometimes it happens when an Old Word is borrow'd and apply'd to a New Notion. Right! it sometimes happens that a Word is Older than the Thing to which it is apply'd; but Names can never be before the Things they belong to. But to forgive him This want of Exactness, among a Thousand, I agree per­fectly with him, that the Word Tragoedy was not more ancient than the Thing; they were, as he says, born together, or at least pretty near one-another: but for that very reason I inferr, that the Word Tragoedy was long be­fore Thespis, because I have prov'd that the Thing it self was: and he could not therefore favour my pretensions more, than by allow­ing that they were born together. However, this Twin-Birth must be understood of Tra­goedy in its first Infant State, as it took its rise from the Dithyrambicks of Bacchus; for the Name of Tragoedy was undoubtedly more ancient than the Thing, that is now, or has generally been for Two thousand Years un­derstood by it. It cannot reasonably be que­stion'd, but that those Bacchic Hymns they sung in Chorus round their Altars (from whence the Regular Tragoedy came) were call'd by this Name; the Etymology of the word shews that it belong'd to 'em; for whether it be de­riv'd [Page 179] from [...] [ vindemia] or from [...] [ hircus], joyn'd with [...] in which the Gram­marians are divided There is a Third Etymo­logy of the word from [...], the Lees of wine, and [...]: but the Reason of it falls in with that of the first.) either way it very naturally expres­ses some of the Great Cir­cumstances of that Solemni­ty: according to its First Derivation, it points out the Time of it, which was upon the Gathering in of their Vintage [...] Exce. Athen. p. 40.; accord­ing to its Second, the Sacrifice it self, at the Offering of which these Odes were sung.

But as to This we are in the dark, and have only Probabilities to guide us; it may with more assurance be said, that under the word Tragoedy both Tragoedy and Comoedy were at first comprehended: which double Use of the Word continu'd also, after these Two Sorts of Dramatic Poetry were suffici­ently distinguish'd; as we may learn from Athenaeus [...] &c. as above., from Aristophanes, and his Scho­liast In his Notes on this Verse in [...], Act. 2, Sc. 5. [...] And again in his Notes on this Verse in [...] &c. p. 476. And in the 12th book of Athenaus, c. 13, there is a Fragment of Aristophanes's [...] pre­serv'd, where [...] signifies a Comoedian, — [...] — [...] The same word [...] signifies Tragoedy, properly so call'd, in this Passage of Aristophanes, [...]— [...] ( [...]. Act. 2, Sc. 3.) for This is spo­ken of Euripides. Beside These, there are Two other Passages in the Prolegomena to Aristophanes: — [...] &c. Prol. ad Arist. [...] — [...] Ibid. and from Hesychius Hesych. in Voce [...] If This be so, [Page 180] and Comedy was more ancient than Thespis, as I have prov'd before P. 140, 141. in these Papers, it is clear that the Word Tragoedy was be­fore Thespis too. I will detain the Reader no longer upon so plain and known a point, and which I did not think any man, that had the least Skill in these matters, would have put me to the trouble of proving.

I have mention'd once or twice the Early Mixture of Satyr and Ridicule that crept in­to this Serious Poem; it certainly did so, and continu'd very long in it, even after Comoe­dy set up for a distinct sort; and it is to be thought, even to the days of Thespis himself, if not afterwards. His movable Stage, a Cart, was not probably free from that Scurrility and Buffoonery which were so usually utter'd from that place, that [...], and ( b) [...], [...].— Demosth. contrà Aesch. § 37. be­came Proverbial Expressions for Satyr and Jeering. I de­sire this may be observ'd, be­cause it gives us an easie and natural account of that expression in Phalaris [ [...]] which Dr. Bentley has made such hi­deous work with: for the meaning of that is no more than this, that they wrote Lampoons, or Satyrical Verses upon him; with which the Tragoedies before and about his time (I have said) were usually twisted. So that tho' Phalaris could not be the argument of Tragoe­dy while he liv'd, (as our Critic learnedly ob­jects) yet he might be the argument of that Sort of Satyr which usually accompanied Tra­goedy: and the Dr. may perhaps, before he dies, have a convincing Proof, that a Man [Page 181] may be the Subject of such Tragoedies, while he is Living.

And now, upon the whole, is not Dr. Bent­ley a most Discreet Writer? who has chosen out such an argument to prove Phalaris Spu­rious, as his best Friends would have pitch'd upon to prove him Genuine? for [...] in the days of Phalaris took into its signification somewhat of a Lampoon, or Abusive Copy of Verses, according to the Use of it in the E­pistles: but it had nothing of that Sense in the Sophist's time, let the Dr. place him as high as he can.

I have nothing more to say to the Dr. up­on any of his Arguments against the Autho­rity of Phalaris; I have consider'd 'em All, with great Fairness, I am sure, and, I fear, with more Exactness than they will be thought to deserve. I will not follow his Pattern so far, as to shut up these Reflections by saying, that I have had too much Regard to him in giving him the Honour and Patience of so long an Exa­mination Dissert▪ p. 65.: the Regard I had was to my Self, and to those Excellent Persons, who were in­jur'd on my account; and, to do right to Them, averse as I am to Employments of this nature, I could think no Trouble too great, no Task too mean.

If I am capable of judging either of Dr. Bentley's Performances, or my Own, the Case stands thus between us: Of the Five General Arguments he has produc'd, the Four first are Evidently against him; neither the Dialect, nor the Age of the Greek, nor the way of Count­ing by Talents, nor the Matter and Business of the Letters, can in the least shock a Considering [Page 182] Reader; the Only Point that can possibly prejudice him, is that of their Lying hid for a Thousand Years: and how far I have taken off the Force of this Objection the World must judge.

Among his Particular Proofs, That which re­lates to the Towns is so involv'd in Obscurity, that I must own 'tis perfectly clear'd on nei­ther Side: that Three of 'em, notwithstanding what He has said▪ may be as Old as Phalaris, I think I have made out; and for the Fourth, Tauromenium, I have shewn that the Single Author he depends upon gives Inconsistent Accounts of it: and should either of those accounts be admitted, I have further shewn, that the Epistles no where necessarily imply, that there was such a Town when They were written.

The Proverbs and Expressions found in La­ter Authors, are such Slight and Insignificant Objections, that 'tis no piece of Vanity to say, I have effectually remov'd 'em

And as to his Words of Art, the First of 'em, about the Thericlean Cups, has indeed a Shew of Proof, but no Proof at the bottom; the Next, taken from the Term Philosophy, has not so much as the Shew of a Proof: and the Last, from Tragoedy, is indeed a Proof, and a Good One; but it makes directly against him.

There are then in his Whole Dissertation but Three Points, that can be thought to affect the Epistles even by a Careless Reader; That of their Lying hid for a Thousand Years, that of Tauromenium, and that of Thericles: Of these [Page 183] the Two First he borrow'd from Me —Sunt cur dubi­tem an Phalaris jure ven­dic [...]t suas. Ne (que) enim facile po­terant Li­terae & à Viro tam insigni scriptae, & in suo genere absolutae, ultra mille annos ignotae penitus latere — Quòd si vera refert Diodorus Siculus, Tauromenium, ad cujus cives hic Auctor scribit, & conditam fuisse, & eo nomine donatam post Naxum a Dionysio Juniore dirutam, actum est de Phalaridis Titulo, & ruit omnis male sustentata Conjecturis Authoritas. Praef. Phalar., with­out acknowledging the Debt, or making the least Improvement of Either; the Last he was probably so happy as to light upon in turning a Dictionary: all that Glitter of Quotations, with which he shines upon this Article, was drawn from Honest Hesychius, one of the great Storehouses of his Alphabetical Learning.

The only thing in his Piece, that is clearly made out, and may seem material, is his Proof of Ocellus Lucanu [...]'s being Genuine: but 'tis such an one, as proves at the same time, that Phalaris too may be Genuine, and destroys the force of all he said upon the Article of the Dialect; and is so far from being New and his Own (as he has the Modesty to pretend) that 'tis taken Word for Word out of an Au­thor Vizza­nius. that writ above fifty Years ago; the Scarcity of whose Book, and the Probability of not being trac'd, encourag'd him to set up for a Discoverer.

This is a Short and True Account of Dr. Bentley's Whole Performance: if he be of Opinion, that I have undervalu'd any of his Arguments, I am willing, Weary as I am, to try 'em upon Another Subject; to propose 'em in their Natural Light and Force, and see whe­ther he will admit the Conclusion.

[Page 184]IF Dr. Bentley's Dissertations should outlive some Centuries, which I am far from thinking they will; and should be read, which I am still farther from suspecting: and should the Criticks of succeeding Ages start an im­pertinent Dispute, whether they be Genuine or not; I am of opinion as Strong and Con­cluding Arguments may be brought to prove 'em Spurious, and falsly ascrib'd to Dr. Bentley, as any the Dr. has us'd to shew the Letters now in Debate to be a Thousand Years Later than Phalaris. They may carry the Dr's Name in the Front of 'em, as the Letters do that of the Tyrant; but Those who examine 'em closely, and try 'em by the Rules of Cri­ticism, which the Dr. has here establish'd, will easily Discover the Imposture. For we will suppose, that after those Papers have lain hid and neglected for some Ages, they may un­luckily fall into the hands of a Critic, who has Leisure and Ill Nature enough to trouble Himself and the World with a Nice Enquiry, whether they are Genuine, or not: I think he would, or might, in Dr. Bentley's Way and Manner, and for the most part in his very Words too, argue against their being truly His to whom they are ascrib'd. The lines that have Comma's on the side are in Dr. Bentley 's own Lan­guage. The Sophist, whoever he was, that wrote these Loose Dissertations in the Name and Cha­racter of Dr. Bentley, (give me leave to say this now which I shall prove by and by) had not so bad an Hand at humoring and personating, but that Some may be­lieve [Page 185] it is the Librarian himself who talks so big; and may not discover the Ass un­der the Skin of that Lyon Disser. p. 11. in Criticism and Philology. But I shall examine Dr. Bentley's Title to these Dissertations, and shall not go to dispossess him by an Arbi­trary Sentence in his own Dogmatical Way, but proceed with him upon a Lawful Evi­dence, and a fair Impartial Tryal. And I am very much mistaken in the Nature and Force of my Proofs, if ever any man here­after that reads them persist in his Opi­nion of making Dr. Bentley the Author of these Criticisms Ibid p. 13. .

Had all other ways fail'd us of detecting this Impostor, yet his very Speech had be­tray'd him, for it is neither that of a Scho­lar, nor an Englishman; neither Greek, Latin, nor English, but a Medley of all Three: He had forgot that the Scene of these Writings was London, where the En­glish Tongue was generally spoken and written; as, besides other Testimonies, the very thing speaks it self in the Re­mains of London Authors, as the Gazetts, the Cases written by London Divines, and others. How comes it to pass then that our Dr. writes not in English, but in a Lan­guage farther remov'd from the true En­glish Idiom than the Doric Greek was from the Attic Ibid. p. 40, 41. ? Why does Dr. Bentley, an Englishman, write a New Language, which no Englishman before ever wrote or spoke? How comes his Speech neither to be that of the Learned, nor that of his Country? but a mix'd particolour'd Dialect, form'd out of [Page 186] both? Pray, how came that Idiom to be the Court-language at St. Iames's Dissert. p. 41. ?

But should we allow, that in some Past Age such a Manner of Speech might have pre­vail'd among Englishmen, yet there will still lye another Indictment against the Credit of these Dissertations, on the account of the English of the true Age of Dr. Bentley not being there represented, but a more Recent Idiom and Style, that by the whole Thread and Colour of it betrays it self to be written in an Age very distant from His. Every Living Language, like the Perspiring Bodies of Living Creatures, is in perpetual Motion and Alteration; which in Tract of time makes as observable a Change in the Air and Features of a Language, as Age makes in the Lines and Mien of Face. All are sensible of this in their own Native Tongues where continual Use makes every man a Critic: so that there is no English­man but thinks himself able from the very Turn and Fa [...]om of the Style to distin­guish a fresh Composition from another an hundred Years old Dissert. p. 57. . Now when we compare these Dissertations with the Writings of Archbishop Tillotson, Bishop Sprat, Sir Wil­liam Temple, and Others, we find the Style of that Age had quite different Turn and Fa­shion from that of our Dissertator. Should I affirm that I know the Novity of these Dis­sertations from the whole Body and Form of the Work, none perhaps would be con­vin [...]d by it, but those that, without my Indication, could discover it by themselves. I shall let that alone then, and point out [Page 187] only a few Marks and Moles in 'em, which every one that pleases may know them by Dissert. p. 52. . In the 14th page, the most timid; for which the Ancients would have said, the most doubtful, or scrupulous: in the 46th, Negoce; for which they would have said Dealing, Commerce, or Intercourse: in the 47th, repudiated their Vernacular Idiom; for which they would have said, laid aside their Mother-Tongue: in the 16th page, a small Dose of Sagacity; for which they perhaps would have said a small Share: in the 59th, Manufa­cture, for the forging of a Story; never us'd by the Ancients in that Sense, but always for the work of the Hand, not that of the Brain. They that will make the search, may find more of this sort, as brittle Compliments P. 22., incurable Botches Ibid., broaching of expressions P. 28., lopping off branches of Evidence P. 29., a Scene of Putid Formality P. 58.; Men springing up like Mu­shrooms out of Rotten Passages of Authors P. 118., and many others of the same Strain: but I sup­pose these are sufficient to unmask the Re­cent Sophist under the Person of the Old Librarian P. 53.

But were it possible to produce an Author of the same Country and Age with Dr. Bent­ley, who wrote in the Language of this Disser­tation, yet still it is absurd to think that one of his Education, Character, and Station should be the Author of it. For Dr. Bentley is known to have appertain'd to the Family of a Right Reverend Prelate, who was the Great Ornament of that Age, to have had an University-Education, to have convers'd much in the City and at Court; and with [Page 188] these advantages he could not but be more refin'd than the Writer of this piece of Cri­ticism: who by his manner of expressing him­self shews, that he was taken up with quite other thoughts and different Images from those that use to fill the Heads of such as have had a Learned and Liberal Education. For this Sophist is a perfect Dorian in his Language, in his Thoughts, and in his Breed­ing. The familiar expressions, of taking one tripping P. 27., coming off with a whole Skin P. 32., minding his hitts P. 34., a friend at a pinch P. 36., going to blows P. 57., setting horses together P. 65., and going to pott P. 63.; with others borrow'd from the Sports and Employments of the Country, shew our Author to have been accustom'd to another sort of Exercise, than that of the Schools.

Some Persons perhaps may Gratuitously undertake to Apologize for Dr. Bentley a­bout this matter of the Dialect Dissert. p. 43. : they may plead in his behalf, that he was born in some Village remote from Town, and bred among the Peasantry while Young; and for that rea­son might ever after have a Twang of the Country Dialect. Now if any one know an Express Testimony that he was bred in the Country, he can teach me more than I at present remember. This I know in ge­neral P. 45. from Anthony Wood, and others, that many have come from the Employments of the Country to be Doctors in the University; and so He may come in among the rest. But then must his Language be ever after­wards Doric, because he had once Footing in a Country Town Ibid. ? The same Author [Page 189] tells us of several born and bred in the Coun­try, who yet in Process of Time have learnt to speak a different Dialect from that of their Mother-Village. Why then must Dr. Bentley's Dialect still needs be Doric? and that so tenaciously, that twenty Years living in the Universities and City could not at all alter it in one of that Education P. 46. ? He was part of that time a Library-keeper to a Learned Dean, and afterwards to His Maje­sty; a Member of one University, and a So­journer in the other; a Chaplain in Ordinary to the King, and a Tutor in Extraordinary to a Young Gentleman: and could not that Perpetual Negoce and Converse with Gen­tlemen and Scholars bring his Mouth by degrees to speak a little finer? Would not he that aim'd at the Reputation of a Polite Scholar, and for that reason had ap­ply'd himself in a particular manner to the belles Lettres, have quitted his Old Country Dialect, for that of a Londoner, a Gentle­man, and a Scholar? and not by every word he spake make the Ridiculous Disco­very of his being a Perfect Stranger P. 46. to all Polite Learning, and Gentleman-like Con­versation?

But let us hear a Second Apology that may be made for the Dorism of Dr. Bent­ley: He may perhaps be defended from the like Practise of others, who being Lon­doners born or bred, have repudiated the Vernacular Idiom of the City for that of the Country; as Sir Roger L'Estrange in his Aesop's Fables, Sir Iohn Suckling in his Bal­lad, and Mr. Dryden in his Harvest home. [Page 190] So that tho' Dr. Bentley be suppos'd to be a Native of London, or bred Liberally, yet here is an Excuse for his quitting the City Language. But I conceive, with submissi­on, that this argument is built upon such Instances as are quite aliene from the case of our Dissertator. For Doric might in­deed be proper for Fables, or Ballads, where Brutes, or Peasants are brought in speaking; or for Scotch Songs, and the Chorus of a Comedy, on the account of the Doric Music: but it has not Grace and Majesty enough for the Subject Dr. Bentley is engag'd in. What affinity then is there between Dr. Bentley's case, and that of Wri­ters of Fables, Ballads, and Comedies? what mighty Motives can Here be for assu­ming a Foreign Dialect? His Pieces are dated in the midst of London, directed to the very next Street, address'd to a Scho­lar, about a Controversie in Criticism, de­sign'd for the view of men of Literature, and not written to express the humor of the Country, or to entertain men of Low Rank and Character. If any will still ex­cuse the Dr. for Dorizing in these Circum­stances, 'tis hard to deny them the glory of being the humblest of his Admirers and Vassals Disser. p. 50, 51. .

The same Apology that is made for the Doric way of speaking may perhaps be urg'd also in favour of that Mix'd Language which runs throughout these Dissertations. The Speech of Alexander Bendo by the Earl of Ro­chester, the Pedant in Ben Iohnson, and other Writers of Comedies, do shew, that the Au­thor [Page 191] of these Reflections, tho' he carries this way of speaking farther than any ever before him did, is not Singular in the Use of it: but this Plea also will admit of a Ready Answer; that tho' this manner of speaking may be pro­per for Mountebanks and Pedants, whose bu­siness it is to appear Learned to the Ignorant, yet that does not justifie the use of it by one, who was reckon'd a Scholar, in a Discourse address'd only to Scholars. 'Tis very strange that a Critic, and such a Critic as Dr. Bentley, should so doat on the Dialect peculiar to Pedantry, who was so eminent­ly [...] — the hater of Pedants Disser. p. 41. ? and so well known to be so, that even our So­phist in these very Dissertations represents him as One whose Aim, Profession, and Im­ployment it was to pull off the Disguise from those little Pedants, that have stalkt so long about in the Apparel of Heroes Ibid. p. 29..

But I love to deal Ingenuously; and will not conceal One Argument, which tho' it will not do the work, let it go however as far as it can P. 25. , in favour of their Opini­on who may ascribe these Dissertations to Dr. Bentley. There is still extant a Letter of Dr. Bentley's to Dr. Iohn Mill, which is con­fess'd to be Genuine, in which there are fre­quent Scraps of Greek intermix'd with La­tin; which might give occasion to our So­phist to think that a Cento of Different Lan­guages was a Characteristic of this Author: but the case of this Epistle is widely different from that of these Dissertations. For the Author of the Epistle writing to One who had a particular Value for the Greek Tongue, [Page 192] shew'd an Excellent Judgment in passing such a Compliment on that Language, as to use it instead of Latin, even where Latin would have done as well. But besides, he had occasion to express himself in Terms of Archness and Waggery, which the Latin Tongue would not come up to. For Iohannule was not in use, and therefore [...], or Little Iacky, was the only word that could serve to express that in short, which the Latins cannot say but by a Periphrasis. Whereas these Disser­tations were design'd for the benefit of En­glish Readers, who had as great an Esteem for their own Tongue, as either for Greek, or Latin; and the Uncouth Words here in­terspers'd do not add any Beauty to the Style, nor do they convey the Author's thoughts to our Understanding with more Dispatch or Clearness than plain English would do.

I doubt not but our Sophist had that Letter of Dr. Bentley to Dr. Mill before his Pen P. 36., when he counterfeited these Dissertations in the Name of that Reverend Doctor. For 'tis very observable that the Preface of this Let­ter to Mr. Wotton is borrow'd from the Pre­face of that to Dr. Mill; which begins with the Author's remembring a Discourse be­tween Him and Dr. Mill about Malela Or Malelas, or Mala­la, or Malalas: for that weighty Controversie about the right Spelling this Word is not yet fully decided., and a Promise that Dr. Bentley had upon that occasion made to his Friend, of which he was to acquit himself in that Letter: this our Sophist transcribes, changing only the Names, and ascribes it to the same Dr. Bent­ley. Had that Dr. really wrote these Disser­tations, [Page 193] his Invention was not so narrow and stinted, that he should be forc'd to borrow from Himself; especially having so large an Acquaintance, as he appears to have had, with Works of the same Stamp and Character with the Epistle he was writing; as Prefaces, Prolegomena, Apparatus's, Introductions, &c: but it was Natural Enough for a Sophist in his Mock-Bentley to filch an Exordium from the Undisputed Writings of the true Dr. Bent­ley.

The same Letter to Dr. Mill, which has furnish [...]d us already with one Detection of the Imposture, will, if strictly examin'd, make a Second Confession from these Words. Haec habui, Milli Iucundissime, quae de Alcmaeone & Alcmaeonide, ore ut opinor alio indicta dicerem: non enim placet eorum ratio, qui cùm merae Corni­culae sint▪ emendicatis hinc inde Plumis germanos Pavones se pollicentur P. 20.. Now here agen am I concern'd for our Sophist, that he is taken tripping. For he values himself highly, and expects great Thanks for a Dis­covery P. 47. about Ocellus Lucanus, which had been long before made and publish'd by Viz­zanius, in his Edition of that Author; and whence 'tis evident it was transcrib'd by our Sophist into his Dissertation. Now would Dr. Bentley, who professes himself such an E­nemy to borrowing, have thus plum'd him­self in borrow'd Feathers? It is a very Notable Discovery, and we are much oblig'd to the Author of it: but then there was either a strange Jumping of Good Wits, or the Dissertator is a Sorry Plagia­ry. What shall we say to this matter? [Page 194] Dr. Bentley had the Character of a man of Probity and Parts, who had neither Incli­nation nor Need to filch the Sayings of Others P. 33. . Those must be unacquainted with his Character, who think he would say in his Own Name what he found said to his Hands. In the Letter to Dr. Mill he omits several things very proper to his purpose, ne sortè qui Me minùs norunt, Pauli me Leopardi Scrinia compilare existiment Ep. p. 4.. Would he be there so afraid of being thought to transcribe Leopardus? and would he here value himself upon Discovering first what he plainly copies from Vizzanius? Must those who think he could borrow be such as did not know him? and can we, when we know him upon his Own Declaration to be so averse from bor­rowing, imagine he would borrow That from another, for which he solemnly bespeaks Thanks from the Learned World? This bears hard upon the Author of the Disser­tations: but how can we help it? he should have minded his Hitts better, when he was minded to act the Doctor.

But that Letter to Dr. Mill will afford us still greater Conviction that this Dissertation could not be the Genuine Work of Dr. Bent­ley. For that Letter, in the Page above men­tion'd represents Dr. Bentley proving, that he could not easily be deceiv'd in knowing whether a Greek Verse were ascrib'd to its proper Author: Nam in his Rebus verba mihi dari haud facilè patior; qui, ut scis, Fragmenta omnium Poetarum Graecorum cum Emendationibus, ac Notis, Grande Opus, edere constitueram: nùnc, ut ajunt, [...] Ep. p. 20.. Now is it [Page 195] probable, that One who had collected the Fragments of all the Greek Poets, amended them, and wrote Notes upon them, could mi­stake Empedocles for an Epic Poet? But I shall not insist upon this; since the Passage pro­duc'd carries in it a more Direct and Express Proof that Dr. Bentley could not write these Dissertations. He had design'd once it seems, to publish his Grand Work, the Fragments of the Greek Poets: but he was now, he tells us, engagd in another way of Life, and must therefore apply himself to another sort of Studies: for that I take to be the Import of the Greek Proverb. Now the Dissertations in dispute bear date after this Declaration; they pretend to be written by Richard Bentley Dr. of Divinity, and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty; they would be thought to come into the world some time after his Le­ctures were printed in Defence of Religion. He was now therefore engag'd in another Profession; and would not, we may be sure, meddle with a Subject to foreign to the business of a Divine, nor handle it in a manner so ill becoming that Character. He who scrupl'd publishing those Fragments, which might have been of good Use to the Learned, and might some of them have fallen in with Divinity, would much less have taken up with such Thin Diet, and mispent so much of his pre­cious Time upon so fruitless Enquiries as those are which are pursu'd in these several Disser­tations. There is another thing, besides a pretty Invention, useful for a Lyar, and that is a Good Memory. We will suppose our Author to have once known something [Page 196] of this Declaration of Dr. Bentley; but he had, it seems, unhappily forgot it, when he ascrib'd these Pieces to him Dissert. p. 17. .

The Sophist is not more happy in persona­ting Dr. Bentley, when thro' the whole Course of those Dissertations he represents him as a Fierce and Angry Writer; and One, who when he thinks he has an advantage over another Man, gives him no Quarter. For the Writer of the Epistle to Dr. Mill, when he had just occasion to be very Severe on some, who had taken wrong measures in deducing the Etymology of a Greek Word, thus repres­ses his Indignation: Sed nolo aliquid inclementer dicere; non nostrum est [...] Ep. p. 4.. This shews him to have been a Man of Temper, and Good Nature: but our Sophist represents him as one that has no Mercy upon his Ad­versary, when he thinks he has him in his power. The suppos'd Editors of Phalaris for an imagin'd mistake in a point of Criticism are expos'd as Nonsensical Blunderers, Persons who had neither Skill nor Industry, neither Knowledge nor Ingenuity; to be like Leucon's Asses, a degree below Sorry Criticks, to write di­rectly against Grammar and Common Sense; and are set out to the world under this Low and Rude Similitude: Here are Your Workmen, to mend an Author, as bungling Tinkers do Old Ket­tles! What a difference is there between the Two Letter-writers? Mr. Bentley is calm and forgiving, but Dr. Bentley is furious and un­relenting: Dr. Mill's Friend scorns to insult over the Prostrate; but Mr. Wotton's friend pursues his Blow: and don't You yet begin to suspect the Credit of the Dissertations Diss. p. 62 ?

[Page 197]Dr. Bentley was celebrated amongst the Learned Men of his own and other Countries for one, who was much vers'd in the Learn­ed Languages: and, as it appears by his Let­ter to Dr. Mill, he was very conversant in Suidas, Hesychius, and other Greek Vocabula­ries, Onomasticons, Etymologicons, Lexicons, Glos­saries, Nomenclators, and Scholia; so that he must at least have been acquainted with the Significations of Greek Words: but it appears from what this Sophist offers about the Sense of some Greek words From the 62 d to the 68 th page of this Book. which he finds in Phalaris, that he was not only a perfect Stran­ger to the best Classic Authors, but that he wanted that Light which any Ordinary Dictionary would have afforded him. The Librarian was so well read in One of these Instructive Writers, Hesychius, as to assure Dr. Mill, between Verse and Prose, that whenever a New Edition of that book came forth, he could, if he would, correct five thousand faults in it, more or less. ‘Id Tibi de plano possum promittere, Milli, Quinque plus minus millia mendorum M [...] cor­recturum esse, s [...] libucrit, quae aliorum [...] & laboriosam diligentiam hactenùs illuserunt Ep. p. 39..’ Now could any thing that actually is in Hesy­chius, escape his knowledge, who had such a Deep Insight into what is not, but ought to be there? could He who had discover'd what had escap'd the Utmost Diligence of Others, miss what was obvious to every one that look'd into Hesychius? Would Dr. Bentley have given us such a Cast of his Skill in con­struing [Page 198] Greek Words, as to tell us, that [...] anciently signified to pursue, when that which fled fear'd and shunn'd the pursuer; and that it never signified to follow, in any other Sense; when Hesychius gives us no other words for [...], but [...], which are far from a Perse­cuting Sense?

Dr. Bentley is known to have liv'd in the same Age, and at the same Time, that the Edition of Phalaris, with which this Sophist is so angry, came out: it appears, from the Editor [...]s Preface, that the Dr. being then Li­brary-keeper at St. Iames's, deny'd a Common Favour to the Editor, which is complain'd of in that Preface: This doubtless gave occasion to our Sophist to forge these Dissertations in the Dr's name, to show his pretended resent­ments of that Complaint. Now the Dr. him­self could not be ignorant, that this Edition was put forth by Mr. Boyle, whose Name it still bears. But Our Sophist, who liv'd at a greater distance from those Times, supposes it the Joynt-Work of several: he talks of our Late Editors, of those Great Genius's, with whom Learning, that is leaving the World, has taken up her Last Residence; of these Annotators, of our Ingenious Translators Disser. p. 66, 71.: whereas these Edi­tors, Genius's, Annotators, Translators, could not but be known to one that then liv'd, and were known to Dr. Bentley (as appears by a MS Letter of his to Mr. Boyle, now in being) to be one and the same Person. It is true, that in the Preface to the Edition there are these Expressions, Quantum scimus, and Nostro Labore; and in the Dedication, Tuâ ope adjutus, which might lead our Sophist into a mistake, [Page 199] that this Edition was the Work of More than One; and that the Person, to whom it is de­dicated, had assisted in it: as if it were un­usual for the Plural Number to be put for the Singular; or as if a Person in that Station could no otherwise assist a Young Gentleman of his College in the Edition of a Book, than by collating Manuscripts, translating the Text, and writing Comments.

Dr. Bentley is known to have enjoy'd the advantage of a Public Lecture instituted by the Honourable Mr. Robert Boyle, and by rea­son of that Post must be suppos'd to have had a due respect for his Name and Family; so that it cannot rationally be presum'd, he would treat a Gentleman, who had the Ho­nour to be nearly related to that Noble Per­son, with so much Contempt and Indignity, as is plainly express'd in several parts of that Dissertation.

Dr. Bentley did also flourish during the Life of Sir William Temple, whilst that Eminent Person was in great Reputation for the Signal and Extraordinary Services he had done for the Protestant Interest, to the English Nation, and to the King who then reign'd; as also for his Learned Writings, which were then in very great Esteem amongst all those who had a true relish for Sound Sense, and Noble Thoughts, express'd with all the Beauty and Force of proper and significant Language. Now tho' the Dr. might without any offence differ in his Sentiments from that Worthy Gentleman, yet it is not credible that a Scho­lar, a Courtier, and a Divine would so far break in upon all the Rules of Modesty, De­cency, [Page 200] and Civility, as to insult over a Per­son of Sir William's Character, and Merit, as an Ignorant and Illiterate Pretender to Lear­ning; who could neither discover the true Time, nor the true Value of his Authors; and whose Choice of Phalaris and Aesop, as then extant, for two great inimitable Originals, was a piece of Criticism of a peculiar Complexion, and must pro­ceed from a Singularity of Palate and Iudgment.

It must needs be a great Wonder to those who think these Dissertations Genuine, how or where they have been conceal [...]d; and in what Secret Shop, or unknown Cor­ner of the World they have lain hid, so that no one has ever taken notice of 'em for so many Ages. Had these Dissertations been seen and read, somebody sure would have quoted somewhat out of 'em; espe­cially since so many have had occasion to do so Disser. p. 63. : for all those who have written concerning Sophisms, and Ill Consequences in arguing, might have furnish'd themselves from hence with all Kinds of Loose and Incoherent Thinking. And those that have publish'd their Censures upon the Incongruities of Lan­guage, and Innovations in Speech, might from every Page of this Author have fetch'd pro­per Instances of the Grossest Improprieties. So that, by their Silence and Praetermission, they do as good as declare expresly, that they never saw our Dissertation Disser. p. 64. .

But that which ought to weigh most with those who have any Honour for Dr. Bentley, toward clearing him from any suspicion of having written these Pieces, is this Considera­tion; that That Learned Doctor was chosen [Page 201] out by the then Fathers of the Church, as a fit person to vindicate the Truth of Religion against Atheists, Deists, and all other Oppo­sers of Divine Revelation: whereas this So­phist is found to make use of such Argu­ments Vide p. 121 st of his Book. to disprove the Epistles of Phalaris, as are of Equal weight to prove the Writings of Moses and the New Testament to be of much Later date, than they can be consistent­ly with the Pretences of the Jewish and Christian Religion. So little regard had this Bold Writer to fit his Discourses to the Character of that Reverend and Lear­ned Person; and I have had too much Re­gard to Him, in giving him the Honour and Patience of so Long an Examina­tion Disser. p. 65. .

[Page 202]SInce I have had the Patience to examine all the tedious Proofs Dr. Bentley has heap'd together against the Epistles, which I was not in the least concern'd to vindicate; I am oblig'd to say something to his Criticisms upon the Edition that relate entirely to my Self. I shall consider 'em with the same In­difference that I did his Arguments: for as I never profess'd my self a Patron of Phalaris, so neither was it ever in my Thoughts to set up for Exactness in that Dry Sort of Learning. I enter'd upon the Work meerly as an Exercise of my Pen; I saw that Life and Smartness, which I still relish in these Epistles, quite lost in the Loose Periphrases, and plain Country Latin (as the Dr. calls it) of the former Interpreters. This put me upon trying whether I could express the Style as well as the Sense of the Original in another Language; and represent it with such advantage, that They who are no Ma­sters of Greek might see some faint resem­blance of the Author's Spirit and Genius, in a Translation: in which whether I have been successful, and to what degree, must be left to the different Humors, and Opinions of Readers. I abhorr Vanity, and the more since I have read Dr. Bentley's Book, where I see it makes so unbecoming a Figure: yet This I will be bold to say, that even in those Translations of the Greek Authors, which are esteem'd the Best, would a man of some [Page 203] knowledge in Criticism exercise all the spite and skill he has that way to find out Mistakes, he might be able to muster up such a Plentiful Number of 'em as would keep my Poor Ver­sion and Notes in Countenance. I question not but there are Errors and Oversights enow in my Translation; I was very Young when I did it; and, to confess the Truth, after I had got a little way into it, and made my first Essays, went thro' the Rest of it without any Great Gust: and 'tis no wonder therefore if I should not be awake sometimes in a Work that I was not very fond of. However, as Many, and as Easie to be found as my Faults are, Dr. Bentley has yet had the Ill Luck to miss 'em; and to except against such Passages as can, I think, to any Unprejudic'd Man, be fairly accounted for. The Town I own is Weak and Defenceless enough in conscience; but he has had the Judgment to attack it on that side, where perhaps it lies least expos'd. Upon Scouring the first Epistle (as he Cleanlily expresses himself) he finds these Words there, [...] &c. [...]. Which, in my Latin, runns, [ Animi autem Morbum M [...]dica Sanat Mors, quam quidem nulli gravem, &c. expecta]. He is pleas'd to render it thus, [ For a Disease of the Soul the only Physician is Death: do You there­fore expect a most painful one] and says, My Translation of [...] [by nulli gravem] produces a flat and far-fetch'd Sense Disser. p. 69.. I must own I do not yet see why it is more flat to say a Villain shall dye an Vnlamented Death, that that he shall dye a Painful one: and I as little apprehend why he calls this a far-fetch'd [Page 204] Sense; I suppose he cannot mean by a far-fetch'd Sense, a Sense that the Word [...] is not commonly us'd in, because I never could meet with it us'd in any other Sense, till Now he has thought fit to translate it most painful. All the Criticks before him render it by non gravis, non invidiosus, or by some word Equivalent to these: and Hermogenes thought this a proper sense of the word, when he in­titul'd a Chapter [...]; which I would advise the Dr. to read, not on­ly to get a better acquaintance with the Word in question, but to learn too the modesty and discretion not to commend himself so often, with so very ill a Grace. I am sure he wants to be taught this; and since he has just now taught me what I knew nothing of before, I could do no less than make him this Grateful Return.

He goes on to instruct me. The Greek, says he, is in the Superlative degree, let 'em put it then, nulli gravissimam, and 'twill shew 'em the Error of their Version Dissert. p. 69.; that is, let Me translate it for 'em, and I'll undertake to make neither Grammar nor Sense of it. But if he will give me leave to translate it my self, since it must be in the Superlative degree, instead of nulli gravem, I would put minimè invidiosam; and then I do not yet see any Error in the Version: and I am the more inclin'd to think there's none, because the Dr. slides off, and takes Refuge in his Strong and Secret Hold, the MSS. The MS, he says, reads it [...]; and They (as he calls Me) might have embrac'd this Reading, when they saw it there. What MS. is this? None of the Bodly-MSS read it so; [Page 205] nor the Arundel, a Collation of which the Learned Dean of York sent me, after my Edi­tion was finish'd▪ Sure the Dr. cannot mean the King's MS; he knows I never saw That my self; and I hope I am not answerable for my Collator's Eyes. And, since No-body can see it but Dr. Bentley, I have no great Reason to depend upon His Ingenuity. However, if this be the Reading of the King's MS, 'tis fri­volous and fit to be neglected: for to Me the Common Reading seems to have rather a Quicker Sense, and (having shewn Dr. Bentley to be no great Master in Propriety of Speech) I may venture to say, as much Propriety. Per­haps the Dr. might have thought so too, but that he has a Peculiar Fondness for the Para­pleromatick Particle [...], which he takes to be a rare and quaint usage Disse [...]. p. 70.: and having met with it Here therefore, is resolv'd not to part with it. To diminish his fondness for it, I promise to furnish him upon demand with 30 or 40 Instances from Homer, and the Greek Testament (to go no further), where the Parti­cle [...] is us'd as Parapleromatically every whit as it would be here, should his Reading pre­vail.

But to wave entring into a Controversie with him about Particles; let us see whether he be not as Exquisite a Judge in Latin as he is in Greek: He charges me with Barbarism, Nonsense, and New Discoveries in Language for translating [...], Scelera non in­vita; for he is very positive that Invitus al­ways means the Agent, is always spoken of the Person, never of the Thing, &c. But I hope Propertius, who liv'd in the Purest Age of La­tin, [Page 206] may be presum'd to understand his own Tongue as well as Dr. Bentley: He ( El. 16; L. 1.) expostulating with an Unkind Mistress, says, that tho' she was Cruel and Unrelenting, yet if she did but hear his Complaint,

Is Invitis here joyn'd with the Person or the Thing? if Propertius had said, as he does in other places, that Tears would flow ab Invi­tis Oculis; tho' an Eye be improperly call'd a Person, yet in that case I might allow it to be taken Personally: or had he attributed any Action to Tears; as, if he had said, invitae sur­gent Lacrymae, Lacrymae might be consider'd as an Agent: but as it stands here, Invitae Lacry­mae must be render'd Involuntary Tears; and to explain it otherwise is, I think, contrary to Good Sense and Good Language too. Were Dr. Bentley as well acquainted with the Latin of the Great Men in Augustus's Age, as with that of the Pedants in This, he would have another Tast, and another Style: To know the Grammar of a Tongue, and to have a just sense of the Proprieties and Elegancies of it, are two different things; as different almost as Construing Euclid's Words, and being Master of his Demonstrations. Any-body that will take the pains may be Critically exact in the Signification and Syntax of Words; but to enter into the Spirit and Beauty of good writing is an Happiness that None have but those who are Born with it; nor All of them neither: for a Long Conver­sation [Page 207] with Bad books may destroy a good Natural Tast. I don't say, this is Dr. Bentley's case; for I am not a Judge whether he ever had any.

To come a little nearer to his Ages of La­tin, I will give him a Couple of Instances of the same kind out of Statius; One of them from the 9th Thebaïs, where Young Drya [...], after he was mortally wounded, sends this Message to his Mother,

Invita is here apply'd not to the Person his Mother, but to the Thing Arms taken up a­gainst her Will. In the 7th Thebaïs the Grae­cians are encourag'd by Iupiter to make a furi­ous assault upon Thebes; and Bacchus in his Speech to Iupiter on this occasion, says,

Iupiter, by his Vow to S [...]mele, was oblig'd, against his own Inclination, to grant what she ask'd: and therefore the destruction he brought upon her was Involuntary: I think In­vitum can bear no other sense here, and I therefore leave these Passages with Dr. Bentley to consider at his Leisure; Let him try his Skill upon 'em next time the angry Fit of Cri­ticism returns.

I see there is no way of pleasing an In­cens'd [Page 208] Dissertator; I have just clear'd my self from the Imputation of using a Word in a different sense from other Writers; and now he accuses me for using a Word in the same sense with all the Authors that ever writ. I translate [...] Hortaris, which I inter­pret by Provocas, as Budaeus does; who in his Learned Commentary has these words, [...], provocant, cient; & usuc est satis frequens: and I translate it so, because I could find no other Signification of it in any Greek Wri­ter; and Dr. Bentley himself owns as much, that it is not otherwise us'd by any of the An­cients. Now I never designing to make a Noise with the Corrections and Improve­ments of Old Vocabularies; was contented to use words in the same Sense that every-body had us'd 'em before me; and for this Error of mine my Indictment runs, that I am an Illite­rate Fatherer of an absurd, ridiculous, and incon­gruous Sense upon my Author. My plea is▪ that it seems to Me no more absurd, or ridiculous, that Phalaris should say to one of his Enemies, You provoke me to be cruel, than that he should say (as Dr. Bentley would have him) You up­braid me with Cruelty. And I believe his Cavil against the Syntax of [...] is no bet­ter grounded than that against the Sense. He won't indeed find [...] in his Grammar with a Dative Case, but he may please to inlarge it from this very place Dissert. p. 75.: and as for his [...], or [...], we have no occasion for either of 'em: in the days of Sophocles [...] was no more absurd and incongruous, than Quae me hortaris was in Tully's. But Dr. Bent­ley thinks he has shewn already, that [...] sig­nifies [Page 209] to reproaoh Dissert. p. 71.; where has he shewn it? he has no where said any thing of it, but in the 52d page; and there he only says, that [...], to accuse, is an Innovation in Language, for which the Ancients us'd [...]: so that po­sitively to averr, and assume the thing in que­stion is in his Language to shew, and prove it. Let us see how whether his Second Thoughts furnish him with any better proof of [...] signifying to accuse. One would expect that he should produce the Authority of some Greek Author, that uses [...] in this sense: but he has given this argument quite another turn, and proves, that 'tis us'd so here, because 'tis never us'd so by any ancient Author before the Sophist Ibid. p. 72.; he might have ad­ded too, nor by any Modern Author since. This is a surprizing way of arguing, but I find it familiar, to Dr. Bentley; he has ano­ther just of this strain in the 115th page: he says there, One may know Sabirius Pollo to be a Roman; how so? does he find any such Fami­ly among the Romans? no, that [...]s too Obvi­ous a Way of arguing for a man of his Parts: he knows him to be a Roman, because he does not find such a Family as the Sabirli, or such ae Sirname as Pollo: and he improves this Ac­quaintance with Sabirius so far, that within Three pages he calls him his Friend Sabirius Pollo. Such are the New Ways of Reasoning made use of by this Incomprehensible Author: He has furnish'd us with several; and, to shew that he is not yet exhausted, he brings This argument to prove that [...] signifies to reproach: [...] and vitio vertere signifie to re­proach; therefore [...] does so too: and [Page 210] in the same Paragraph, he after the same man­ner makes it out, that [...] is no perservere; is not [...]. exactly the same with pertendo? (meaning, I suppose, that [...] is per, and [...] tendo) and is not pertendo to p [...]rsevere? I al­ways thought that Vse was the only Rule and Measure of the Signification of words; but Dr. Bentley, a great Adventurer in new ways of thinking, will determine it by dint of Ar­gument. Would he allow Others to argue as He does, from One Compound Word to Another, and from One Language to Ano­ther, we might enlarge our Dictionaries with­out End; and soon produce not only (what he pretends to Epistola in [...]ine Malalae, p. 39.) five thousand, but five Mil­lions of Emondations and Additions to Hesy­chius; tho' not Such as are worthy to keep Company with the Admirable Bishop Pear­son's Observations on that Author: and there­fore should they hereafter come together (as 'tis said they will); and should the Bishop's Name not happen to be set to His part (as 'tis possible it may not); it will be no difficult matter to distinguish between 'em. According to the Dr's Rule (not to go far from the words he plays with) because [...] signifies to differ, therefore by a Like Metaphor, and Analogy, we may use [...] to express the same notion Dissert. p. 13.: And thus agen I can prove, that praeverio is to exhort; for is not praeverto exact­ly the same as [...]? and is not [...] to exhort? or that [...] is to pe [...]severe; for is not [...] exactly the same with persisto? and is not pesisto, to persevere? So that for ought I can see, it must be allow'd, either that all words may be us'd e'en as we please, [Page] or else that [...] must signifie, as it has done for above Two thousand years, hortari; that is, not always to Exhort, (a Word he makes such wretched Mirth with) but to ex­cite by any other methods: unless when Vir­gil says, Iam Vitulos hortare; and Ovid, Horta­túr (que) Canes, they mean, that Dogs and Bullocks are to be made tractable by good Advice and Exhortation.

If our Critic is unalterably determin'd, that the Sense of this Passage must be [ the Crimes which You upbraid me with] why should he not chuse rather to read [...] than [...]? for tho' I no more know an Instance of [...] than of [...] being us'd for [...], yet the Formation of the Word will more easily and naturally allow of this use: [...] may well enough signifie, quae mihi vitio vertis; but [...], in that sense, is, I think, a very improper and unnatural In­novation in Language.

One would wonder that Dr. Bentley should be so eager in imputing this Mistake to my Translation, which he is so little capable of making out; but he had a double End in it: My Explication of the Word offended him so much the more, because it spoilt an Argu­ment that He urges, to prove the Epistles Spurious: I shall draw it up in short, but in its full force and strength; and leave it to the Consideration of the Reader. [...] was never us'd for [...] in any ancient Author before the Epistles, nor by any modern Author since the Epistles; nor in the Epistles themselves: therefore the Epistles are Spurious. This Weighty Point is shut up with a Piece of Hi­story, [Page 212] that is worse founded than his Criti­cism; and proceeds from Something which was always thought a greater Blemish to a Divine, than want of Judgment. He says, The edition of ascrib'd to Cujacius, and another of Aldus, tho' the Two Principal of All, and Both of 'em in the Public Library at Oxon, had yet the Odd Fortune to lye all the while conceal'd from our Late Editors that liv'd there Disser. p. 73.. I am at a Loss how to deal with a man of this Extraor­dinary Confidence, that can so boldly assert what 'tis impossible he should know. What shall I say to One, who will face me down, that I never saw, what I know my self to have often seen and us'd? nay, and will prove this to me out of my own Preface? the place he quotes is this, Codices Impressos quatuor prae manibus habui qui eodem planè Textu utuntur; apud quos Versiones sunt duae, altera à Naogor­go, altera in Usum Schol. Soc. Jes. edita Vide Praef. p. 3.. Two of the Four Books I here particularly mention'd, how does he know but those he mentions are the Other Two I mean? as in­deed they are. I had no occasion to name 'em, because I found little Difference in 'em from those which I had in my Own Study: the Version ascrib'd to Cujacius, is exactly the same with That, put out for the Schools of the Iesuites, which I have expresly said I made use of. A man of any Candour and Fairness, or indeed of any Common Modesty, would not have presum'd, upon so slight Grounds, so positively to assert, that I had overlook'd what lay so plainly in my way: but I am the less surpriz'd to hear this from Dr. Bentley, who would fain perswade me that I never saw my Own Edition.

[Page 213]In the Body of this Dissertation there are Two other Mistakes, which the Dr. has found in my Version: I took no notice of 'em where they lay; but, to avoid Confusion, reserv'd 'em for this place. The First is, my rendring [...], poculorum Vitreorum, as Suidas, Etymologicon Magnum, and Favorinus had done before me. These are Eminent Names in that Sort of Learning, which Dr. Bentley seems best acquainted with and most to value himself upon; and therefore, one would think, should be able to excuse me with him: but his Maxim is, to value nothing any further than it is to his purpose. When Suidas is brought in for preserving some few Fragments of Babrius Dissert. p. 140., then he is a man that converses with Writers of Size and Quality: but when he is produc'd for that, which will leave us not the least Footstep of our Corinthian Potter Ibid. p. 27., and whereby the argument about Thericles would vanish into no­thing Ibid.; then he is a trifling Scribler, his Lexicon consists of Excerpta from Scholiasts and Glossaries Ibid.. If once he begins to quarrel thus with his Good Friends the Lexicogra­phers, I can expect no mercy from him: But I would ask him, why he says that in the par­ticular passage before us neither the Vse of Lan­guage nor Good Sense will allow [...] to be translated Glasses? When Phalaris is said to send Cups of Gold and Silver, and besides [...] Ep. 70. Ten Couple [...], to me it seems agree­able to Good Sense, that these Cups, which are here distinguish'd from Cups of Gold and [Page 214] Silver, should not be as Dr. Bentley conceives, Silver at least, if not of a more precious Metal: unless there be some other Metal, besides Gold, more precious than Silver. He may be as Mer­ry upon these Glasses as he pleases, and call 'em Odd and Stingy Presents, Cheap and Brittle Compliments; I am not answerable for Phala­ris's Generosity. Besides I freely own my self Ignorant how cheap Glasses were in Sicily two thousand Years ago; for ought I know, they might be Great Rarities, and fit to bear the Rest of his Presents Company; especially be­ing of so Vast a Size as they appear to have been, and sent in so much greater Number than the Other Presents were: for the Epistle tells us, there were but Two Cups of Silver, and Four of Gold; and Ten Couple of those of Thericles. From whence one would be apt to conclude, that they were of a Baser, and not of a more Precious Metal than Silver and Gold, as the Dr. imagines. I can bear all his Rail­lery upon Phalaris here for a Stingy Present: but why is he offended with Me too for a Pre­sent I never design'd him? He says I have presented him with an Emendation of P [...]ulo­rum Vitreorum, whereas the former Interpre­ters honestly translat [...]d it, Thericlean Cups. But I must put the Dr. in mind to quote those Honest Translators honestly: he knows One of the Two translates it Poculorum Vitreorum, as I do; I mean Cujacius (or whoever else be the Author of that Version ascrib'd to him) whom the Dr. is pleas'd to say, I never saw.

With the same Sincerity he tells me, that whereas I have render'd [...], in morem [Page 215] arundinis Ep. 92.; the Translation in the former Editions was, instar pinûs Disser. p. 29.. Here again I have follow'd the Version, which he advises me to consult in my next Edition Ibid. p. 75., the Version of Cujacius, which has it, in morem Arundinis: and this I did, because I thought it would be a greater piece of justice to my Author, to make the Passage in him Clear and Intelligible, than to translate a Greek Proverb Literally, which would have been no Proverb in Latin. Dr. Bentley would pro­bably have interpreted it Literally, on pur­pose to have had an occasion of explaining it; I could have done so too, and have cramm'd a Page of Erasmus into my Notes, as He has here into his Dissertation: but I am glad I translated it as I did; for 'tis pity the Dr. should have wanted an Opportunity of shewing how excessively Witty he could be upon this Proverb. [...], says Phalaris, I will extirpate them like a Pine-Tree; and this Tree (according to the Dr's Natural History) perishes by Lopping. He takes this Hint to tell me, that I have lopp'd off a Branch of his Evidence P. 29, 30., that I have executed this Proverb upon it self, and extirpated the Pine-Tree out of my New Version P. 29, 30.; that I have rooted up the Pine-Tree, and transplanted Reeds P. 29, 30. thither: which he confesses is above his Small Vnderstanding in Gardening P. 29, 30.. What a Deluge of Wit is here! all these fine things are said within the Compass of half a Page: who can resist a Writer, that thus takes care, that his Fancy shall sti [...]l keep pace with his Judgment; and that the One shall not In­struct You more than the Other Entertains [Page 216] You? However, after he has refresh'd him­self a little, he must give me leave to tell him, that his Vnderstanding in Gardening is indeed very Small (as small as his Knowledge in Na­tural History) if he thinks that it has any thing to do either with Reeds or Pines; which, I take it, grow as rarely in Gardens as Mushrooms arise out of Rotten Passages in Authors. Dr. Bentley must indeed be allow'd to understand Some parts of Gardening very well; particularly Transplanting and Weeding: The First of these he has prov'd his Skill in by those Few Notions that are worth any thing in his Piece; for they are transplanted from Other Mens Prefaces, the Nurseries of all his Critical Learning: His Skill in the Second is made out by all the Rest of his Appendix; which is nothing else but a Col­lection of Ill Weeds, pull'd up out of Good Writers. There is, I remember, a Passage in Athenaeus, where this Happy Talent of Weed­ing Authors is very well express'd: I shall give it the Learned Reader, together with three or four Lines that introduce it; be­cause it is, all together, one of the Shortest and Liveliest Accounts I have met with of a Man possess'd with the Spirit of Criticism. [...], says Cynulcus to Vlpian, [...] The E­pitomizer of Anthenaeus, at the very entrance, tells us, this Vlpian was such an in­sufferable Pedant, that he would neither Eat nor Drink any thing, till he had ask'd the Questions [...]? and satisfied himself in what Greek Author the Word, by which it was call'd, was to be found; from whence, he says, he got the Name of [...]: which I desire Dr. Bentley may be added to Chlonthachonthlus, as a Like Istance of the Name of a man but once mention'd in old Authors.; [...]; [Page 217] [...],

[...] L. 3, C. 17. A Character, which will fit the Vlpians of Our Time, as well as those of Athenaeus's; for the Race of 'em is not yet ex­tinguish'd.

I have follow'd our Dissertator thro' a long Scene of Impertinence; and am come at last to That Part, where he places his greatest Strength; that is indeed, the most Trivial Part of all, the MSS▪ I told the Reader in my Preface, that I only made use of such dif­ferent Readings in the MSS, as conduc'd to the better understanding the Text; for I al­ways thought it a Ridiculous piece of Pedan­try to load a book with Various Lections to no purpose: but this I find Dr. Bentley calls Skill in using MSS. He and I differ in our Notions about these matters; and I hope we always shall.

In the 64th Epistle, the Printed Copies read [...] I saw the MSS here had a Various Reading [...], which I pass'd over with that Contempt it deserv'd, and guess'd it should be [...]; a Reading, that with a very small Alteration made my Author speak Sense: Let us see, what Dr. Bentley, and his MSS make of it. Phalaris says, [...] Which I would render thus, I am not so much as seen by my Nearest Relations; and I [Page 218] now the more carefully avoid mankind, because I have found no Faith nor Trust, not only among Other Persons, but even among my Friends themselves. Dr. Bentley says▪ we must take [...] here for a certain Correction. But since the Tyrant is giving a reason for his present Recluse way of Living in opposition to his former freedom and openness, methinks [...] can't well be spar'd here. Besides [ I avoid all mankind less than I ought t [...] do] seems to Me a very improper expression; especially after a Man has said, that he avoided all man­kind to such a Degree as not to be seen by his Nearest Relations, would he add immediately, that he avoided Company less than he ought to do? What would Dr. Bentley have him do more? or how can a Man be more re­tir'd than by seeing no-body? I desire the Dr. to have Some Regard to Sense, as well as to MSS.

This [...] returns agen in the 68th Epi­stle, [...] Now here too, he says, Every one of the MSS have it [...]. As for the King's MS, no body knows what it has, or has not; and this Epistle is wanting in one of the Bodly MSS: so that all these MSS that I have overlook'd prove at last to be but One; in which per­haps I might not observe this Various Read­ing. But if I had observ'd it, I think I should scarce have made use of it; for if we put [...] in the room of [...] must be an Adverb, and referr'd to [...]: and the Rules of good Language will hardly allow, that the Adverb should be joyn'd in Place to [Page 219] one Verb, and in Sense to another, at such a distance: not to insist on the Ambiguity that arises from its Neighborhood to [...], to which it seems to be naturally joyn'd as an Adjective; and 'tis with some difficulty, that we bring our selves to understand it other­wise, even after the Correction of [...] into [...] is allow'd to prevail. Had the Author in­tended [...] for an Adverb, he would pro­bably have put it after [...], and not before it. I am so us'd to Dr. Bentley's Language, that I can easily bear his telling me here, that I make meer Nonsense of the Context: whether I do or no, must be left to those who will take the trouble of considering it. Indeed such a fair and ingenuous Translator as Dr. Bentley, that renders [...], than I want Mony to give, may make Nonsense of any thing.

There is yet one Instance more of Unskil­fulness that he charges upon me, [...], I translate, perpendens suam Conditionem, considering the Circumstances he is in, as Naogcorgus had translated it before me; the Dr. renders it, persistens in proposito, proceeding in his present ways, according to Cujacius: nei­ther of us produce any Instances of our Use of the word [...], nor pretend to do it; we are meerly upon the Guess, what it must sig­nifie, by its relation to the Sentence; and which of us guesses best, is to be determin'd by our Readers. Had I been never so much out, he might have taken a more Courtly way of letting me know it, than by saying, that Leucon carries one thing, and his Ass ano­ther; that is, the Writer of the Greek Epistle [Page 220] means differently from the Ass his Editor: This is such a Compliment as there is but one Proper Way of Returning; Gentlemen do not use to resent such Language with their Pens only. But I forgive him; 'tis a Mode of Speech familiar to him, I find, and which he bestows on every one he has to deal with. In the 11th page, the Sophist is an Ass under the Skin of a Lyon; in the 59th, Phalaris him­self is a meer Asinus ad Lyram. Since he is so fond of Asinino Proverbs, I will throw him in One out of Aristophanes, to compleat his Col­lection. It is, [...]; upon which Erasmus has this Remarkable Gloss; Asinus portans Mysteria, in eos dicebatur qui praeter dig­nitatem in Munere quopiam versantur; velut siquis ignarus literarum Bibliothecae praeficeretur: in English thus, The Proverb of an Ass carrying Mysteries was apply'd to Those who were preferr'd to some Place they did not deserve, as when a D [...]nce was made a Library-keeper. And if that Library-keeper should so far mistake his Office, as to think he was put there, not to shew Books to Gentlemen that came to see 'em, but to keep the Door shut, he would be still more unfit for the Place. I have had Worse Treat­ment than this from Dr. Bentley: for he has not only deny'd my Collator the use of the King's MS, but dealt with me all-along, as if I had seen it, a [...]d us'd it my self; once before, in the case of [...], and here agen in relation to [...]. Having no Au­thorities to countenance my Version of [...] by expedens, I laid hold of a different Reading in the King's MS, sent me by my Collator, where he assur'd me it was [...] ▪ [Page 221] Dr. Bentley puts on his Critical Spectacles, and finds, that tho' it be [...] now, it was ori­ginally [...]; and that the [...] has been eras'd by a modern hand, as appears by a Void Space: and upon this he triumphs over my Skill in perusing the MS, when he knows it was fifty Miles off of me, all the Time of the Edition. What Void Spaces now appear in that MS, how many Erasings there are, or by what Hand, it matters not much to dispute or enquire. I own I overlook'd the false accenting of these words, which he charges me with: but to set down my translation of [...], ob ea, and at the same time to say, I make it an Interroga­tive, is according to Dr. Bentley's way of re­presenting things: he should either have been less severe with Me Nos Phalarin Gram­maticum habemus, qui per­peràm scripta etiam capite punit. Cic. in Pison. on the account of My mistakes of this kind, or have taken more care to prevent his Own; Some of which, since he condescends to these Trifles, I shall so far comply with him, as to give the Reader an account of.

P. 8. [...] for [...]. P. 19. [...] for [...]. P. 18. [...] for [...] P. 21. [...] for [...]. P. 35. [...] for [...]. P. 45. [...] for [...]. P. 48. [...] for [...]. Ibid. [...] for [...]. P. 61. [...] for [...]. P. 70. [...] for [...]. P. 94. [...] for [...]. P. 129. [...] for [...]. P. 138. [...] for [...]. P. 139. [...] for [...]. Ibid. [...] for [...]. Ibid. [...] for [...]. Ibid. [...] for [...]. P. 146. [...] for [...] &c.

[Page 222]The Reader will think the Controversy runs low when we begin thus to dispute about Ac­cents and Encliticks; and indeed I think so too: but how can I help it? My Excuse must be, that I was oblig'd to engage the Dr. in what way he lik'd best, and had not the Choice of my Own Weapons.

And now are not These, which I have gone thro', Mighty Blemishes to my Edition? and fit to be insisted on by the Dr, in order to Humble Me and my Teachers? He takes care to tell me, that he can produce more Instan­ces of this kind; I question not but he may: but if he can find out no more Considerable Mistakes than these, I think he may leave off Criticising upon this Subject.

For my part, I am not much concern'd what the Men of Letters think of my Skill in Languages or Manuscripts: but it concerns Dr. Bentley to consider what the Men of Sin­cerity will think of his false and disingenu­ous Dealing; what the Men of Modesty and Humility will think of his Lofty Insulting Language; what the Men of Good Nature and Candor will think of his Fierce and Vin­dictive Temper: how the Men of Taste and Breeding will relish his Scurrilous Language, his Frigid Jests, his Low and Clownish Ex­pressions; how the Men of Reason and Judg­ment will approve his Weak and Inconclu­sive Ways of Arguing: it is a mighty Impu­tation upon Him, to have any of these Bad Qualities, or to want any of these Good ones: but it is no Great Blot upon Me, if I should appear not to be exactly well skill'd in the Learned Languages.

[Page 223]I was satisfied from some Books lately writ­ten, what a wide difference there is between a Man of Close Arguing, and Rambling Lear­ning; and how unnatural a Step it is for an Amanuensis to start up a Professor of Divini­ty. This indeed made me not expect much from Dr. Bentley in the Reasoning Way: but when he came to Matters of Pure Criticism, I thought One, who had bent all his Thoughts and Reading that way, One who has now the sole Use and Power of the King's Library, and had for many Years attended upon one of the Greatest Scholars in Europe; One that set out with all these Advantages, I thought, might easily have confounded a Young Wri­ter, that never aim'd at being a Critic in the Greek Tongue, or made the Niceties of it his peculiar Study and Business. But, to con­sult the several Editions, to collate the Ma­nuscripts, to turn over Dictionaries, nay, and to make 'em; and all this ado, only to find a false Accent, and an Escape in perusing a Manuscript (which I have shewn to be the utmost of the Dr's Atchievement on this Ar­ticle) seems to Me to savour too much of the Character of those men, who, as he himself makes the Observation, without considering whom it hits, love to make a Noise about Trifles; or (not to wrong him of his Own more Elevated Expression) to make a Tide and a Flood in a Basin of Water.

Nothing has done Learning more disservice among the Sensible part of Mankind, than that indiscreet Value, which Men of Letters oftentimes put upon the most trifling parts of Knowledge; that [...] in the way [Page 224] of Scholarship, of which Theophrastus has gi­ven us a Character, as it relates to Human Life and Affairs 'Tis this that has brought so ill a Report upon Criticks and Criticism, and sunk extreamly the Value of that Sort of knowledge, which has been of such Excel­lent Use to the World when wisely em­ploy'd.

A Good Critic is a Name that deserves Ho­nour; for it carries in it Probity, Learning, Relish, Good Nature, and Good Sense, with a great many Other very desirable Qualities: but as the Word is now generally employ'd to signifie a Captious, Vain, Opinionative, Half-learn'd, Ill-natur'd Censurer of other Mens Labours, I must confess, I think nothing can be more despicable. Let us stop a while, e'er we take our Leave of this argument, to con­sider their several Characters.

A Good Critic distinguishes himself always by the Choice of his Subject; it is some Point of Importance, and worth determining: an Ill One is ever busied in things of no manner of Use nor Consequence; and yet is as full of Himself, and his Performances, as if the Commonwealth could not subsist, without 'em.

A Good Critic is Modest and Decent in his Censures, Candid and Impartial; he treads warily, uses his Judgment much, but distrusts it more: speaks with Respect of those he dif­fers from; never takes a pleasure in insulting over their Mistakes, or lessening their Repu­tations. Isaac Casaubon, Ger. Vossius, and Gro­tius, were all men of this Cast; and so was Menage too, till Baille [...], toward the Latter End of his Life, provok'd him. The Cha­racter [Page 225] which our Excellent Pearson In his Letter to Menage before Diogenes Laertius. gives of him, is very remarkable, and fit to be consi­der'd by Dr. Bentley before he appears agen in the way of Criticism. Quanta animi modera­tio! quantus Candor! veram Criticam cum nullius famae dispendio exercere▪ nullius Existimationem loedere, nullius Erroribus insultare, nusquam ex Mustaceo Laureolam quaerere; per quos profeccris apertè profiteri; à Viris Doctissimis non, nisi salvo eorum honore, apertè dissentire: ut exclamare cogar, O Iecur verè Criticum sine Splene! In which also he drew his Own, as well as Menage's Character.

Salmasius and Scaliger had nothing of this in 'em, they were all Gall, and Pride, and Pedantry; which made the Vast Learning they were Masters of sit so ill upon 'em, that the World hated and despis'd 'em, at the same time that it was profiting by 'em: Mr. Wotton tells us, There are some now alive whose Fame will one day equal that of the ▪ Scali­gers (or, as it is in his Last Edition, the Salmasius's) and Grotius's of other Nations Reflect. upon Anc. and Mod. Learning, p. 385.. If he had put Salmasius into Grotius's, and not into Scaliger's Room, I would so far have agreed with him, that there are some now alive, who will inherit Their Fame, as to One great Part of their Character; for they have All their Ill Qualities in Perfection — with but a slight Mixture of any of their Good ones. For my part, were Dr. Bentley as great a Scholar, as Some say he is, or even as He thinks himself to be, yet I had rather not know the Greek Alphabet, than have his Knowledge and his Manners together: for as [Page 226] much as I value Learning, I value Good Sense, and Common Civility more.

A Good Critic is rich in his own Store; he has a sure Fund of Good Judgment and True Knowledge, which he can trust to up­on all Occasions, without needing to rifle his Neighbours: but an Ill Critic, who sets up the Trade without a Stock to manage it, must be perpetually upon the Plunder: the great Employment of his Sagacity is, to find out Hints in Odd Corners of Books, where 'tis probable no-body else will look for 'em; the chief Exercise of his Iudging Talent lies in distinguishing, what Borrow'd Notions he may most safely put off for his Own, and with the least danger of being Discover'd.

A man of a sound and well-weigh'd Judg­ment is afraid always of standing by himself in a New Opinion; but a Smatterer in Criti­cism is bold, and forward; loves to maintain Paradoxes, and to defie the World. 'Tis enough to make him think a thing true or false, that every-body else has thought the contrary: for he has no way of Distinguish­ing himself, but by being Singular.

A Critic Really such, always proportions his pains to the difficulty of the matter he is engag'd in, and dwells upon things more or less, as they want more or less to be dwelt on: but a Pretender is constantly improper and impertinent in his Learning; where the Knott of a Dispute is, there You find him very reserv'd and silent; but he lets loose all his Criticisms upon You in plain points, that No-body is in danger of misunderstanding.

To compleat the Character of a Critic, it is requisite, that he should write well in that Way he pretends to censure, and be a Good Pattern, in order to be thought a Good Judge. The Ancient Criticks were generally so, as Aristotle, and Longinus, Tully, and Quintilian: but Some now alive have ventur'd to Criticize upon the Performances of very fine Pens, while they themselves had the worst in the World; and have set up for Judges of Good Writing by a Tast form'd upon the Opinions, and in a Style drawn from the Expressions of Modern Prefaces and Comments.

'Twere endless to reckon up all the Parti­culars that distinguish their Characters; in­stead on't, take a Reflection or two which Monsieur St. Euvremont Oeuvres mêleés, Troisieme Tome, p. 28., (a Fine Writer, and a Good Judge) has made on this Subject.

I have seen (says he) of Late Years, Great Criticks in abundance, but few Good Iudges. That Learned Tribe is my Aversion, who are per­petually busie in restoring corrupted Passages, that when restor'd are at last worth nothing. They set the highest Price on such Knowledge, as one would chuse to be without, and know least of those things which most deserve to be known. Having no fine way of thinking and speaking themselves, they can never enter into the Delicacy of another Man's Thought or Expression. They would succeed very [Page 228] well in explaining and commenting upon a Gram­marian; for His mind is thrown into much the same Mould with Theirs, and his Studies have lain the same way; but when they come to one of the Sensible and Wellbred Writers of Antiquity, they neither relish, nor understand him: his Sense and way of Thinking must needs be lock'd up to 'em, 'tis so very different from their Own. In History, they know nothing of Men, or Affairs, they turn all to Chronology; and so they be but able to tell You, what Year Such an One was Consul, they care not whether they are acquainted with his Cha­racter, or the Great Events that happen'd in his Time. Cicero with them goes only for a Maker of Orations, Caesar for a Writer of Commenta­ries; the Consul, and the General are lost to 'em. The Genius that animates their admirable Writings is not felt; the Remarkable and Instru­ctive Passages there are not observ'd.

I beg the Dr's Pardon for leading him into such Writers as Bruycre, and St. Euvremont, who think well, and speak Justly, and quote little; I know, upon all these Accounts, they are not for his Tast: to oblige him therefore, I will throw in a Little Latin here from the Preface of a Modern Critic; and I hope it will go down with him the better for the sake of the Place where I find it. Hic Criticum, says my Author, non Poedagogico Fastu tumentem, aut Farragine quâdam Iejunae Eruditionis onustum for­mare aggressus sum, sed non minùs Iudicio quàm Memoriâ suâ utentem; & qui probè cal'e t, quàm pauca penitùs in Veterum Monumentis intelligamus, ideó (que) Modestè de alii, judicet, & ab Omnibus di­scere sit paratus. Volo e [...]m [...]ante omnia niti intelli­gere [Page 229] quid Veteres velint; & sibi diligenter cavere, ne Opinetur se Scire quod Nesciat Le Cler. Praef. ad Art. Crit.. Which Good Measures had Dr. Bentley, in his Criti­cal Studies and Attempts, vouchsaf'd to ob­serve, he had sav'd himself and Me the trou­ble of this Public Dispute about Phalaris: He had not rashly enter'd the Lists upon an Ar­gument which he is by no means a Master of; nor begun an Indiscreet Controversie, without considering where it might End.

He threatens me and the World with some further Remarks of this kind in Latin: I am not, I confess, very apprehensive of that; be­cause, if he had intended to write in that Tongue, it had been proper to have done it at first: for in that Tongue the Reflection, that has given him all this Uneasiness, was written; and in that Tongue therefore one would think it should have been answer'd, and this whole Controversie manag'd. But whatever He may do, I cannot promise him that No other Language will be employ'd against him; nor that the Enquiries of Some, whom he has affronted, will not be extended a little farther than these Dissertaetions.

I was indeed in hopes, when I first put pen to paper, that the Dispute would have lain purely between Us Two, and have been deci­ded by an Appeal to the Learned Men of our Own Nation: but I find the matter is not likely to rest here; Dr. Bentley's Boasts of his Correspondence abroad, and of the Compli­ments that from thence have been paid him, have made it necessary to set Him and his Per­formances in as true a Light towards Foreign­ers, as they do or will appear in here at Home: [Page 230] particularly to let Monsieur Spanheim, and Monsieur Graevius know how mistaken they have been in placing their Civilities upon One that does not deserve 'em; and can never be valu'd, but where he is not known.

If therefore I have not made use of all the Advantages against Dr. Bentley, which he has given me, nor display'd Him fully in all his Colours, those Defects, I hope, will soon be supply'd by a Better Hand, that intends to do right to the Subject, and to the Dr's Cha­racter, in a Tongue that will last longer, and go further: for since Dr. Bentley has appeal'd to Foreign Vniversities, to Foreign Universities he must go.

I Had laid together some Short Remarks upon the Rest of the Dr's Appendix, which were intended to accompany These: but I shall be oblig'd to leave England before I can put 'em into Or­der. However, I cannot part with the Dr, till I have given him my Thoughts of his Performance on Aesop; and examin'd, whe­ther he has any better Grounds for opposing his Judgment to Sir William Temple's, in the case of the Fables, than in that of the Epistles. I cannot stay long enough on the Subject to do right to it; but what I shall be able to say, will, I hope, sufficiently prove, that the Reasonings and Discoveries in this latter part of his Work are perfectly of a piece with those we have already had to do with; and, let him dispute against Phalaris, or Aesop, or [Page 232] what else he pleases, that Dr. Bentley will be Dr. Bentley still.

He sets out well — I am glad, says he, to find a good part of the Work done ready to my hand. For Monsieur Bachet, Sieur de Meziriac, has writ the Life of Aesop in French Dissert. p. 35.. Which Life the Reader now supposes that Dr. Bentley has read, and found to agree exactly with his own Sentiments; but to his Surprize 'twill ap­pear, that the Dr. has neither read it, nor seen it: for in the Next Line he confesses that he could never meet with it. So that he finds his Work done to his hands in a Book that he has not yet found: Books Lost, and Books not yet come to his View, are as instructive to Him as any Books in his Study. There is no dealing with such a Profound Scholar as this, who is as well read in what he has not seen, as in what he has. But perhaps here, as in Other cases, he has his accounts at Se­cond Hand: not so neither, he is purely up­on the Conjecture; and can guess from the great Learning of the Author known to him by his Other Works, that he has in a manner exhausted the Subject. That is, by his Mathematical Notes upon Diophantus he can guess what he says upon Aesop's Fables. But, methinks, 'tis a little nicely guess'd, that Meziriac has in a manner exhausted the Subject: why should not a Man that had written so well upon Diophan­tus, have quite exhausted it? I begin now to guess something too, and may be able to make out my Guess e're I am a Month Older: I am going into a Country where Meziriac is, I suppose, to be had; and when I have seen him, perhaps I shall find, that Dr. Bentley has [Page 233] seen him too — tho' he has forgotten it. For he pretends to present us here only with such Things as have escap'd the Observation of Others, and I now know him so well, that I suspect him a Course whenever he sets up for Discoveries. The Business of Ocellus has given us One Remarkable Instance of this kind; and this small Piece we are upon will presently, even without the help of Meziriac, afford us Another.

The first of his few loose Things which he fan­cies have escap'd the Observation of Others, is, that 'tis very uncertain if (he would say whether) Aesop himself left any Fables behind him in Wri­ting. This Hint has I believe escap'd the Ob­servation of Others: for they that have ob­serv'd any thing about it have observ'd the contrary. The Phrase of Antiquity is the same when they mention any thing of Aesop's, as it would have been, had they thought Aesop really to have wrote it; the Ancients quote him just as they do Other Authors: When Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Galen, The­mistius, Gellius cite any thing from him, 'tis [...], inquit, &c: and how would they have express'd themselves otherwise, if Aesop's Wri­tings had confessedly lain before them? Dr. Bentley sure will not be so Captious as to say, that these Forms of Speech are not express enough; among all Authors that quote from others, [...] and [...], are Equivalent, and us'd indifferently. Bishop Pearson has largely prov'd this, in his Vindiciae Ignatia­nae Par. 1, p. 83., against Dailleé, who laid hold of this C [...]l to disparage the Epistles of Ignatius: [Page 234] And I the rather referr the Dr. to that Incom­parable Work, because he confesses with some Shame, that he had either never read it, or utterly forgot it Dissert. p. 113. A good account of his Acquain­tance with One of the First Books in the World, in the Way of his Profession! They that read Books at this rate, will be sure to write Books that will be so read. But not to forget our business — The Word [...] it self is apply'd to Aesop, as an Author, by Suidas, Aphthonius [...] and others: What Suidas says deserves a Reflection; his Words are, [...]. he wrote Two Books of what befel him at Delphos; but Others are rather of Opinion that he wrote nothing but Fables Suidas explains [...] by [...], in that very place.. So that tho' some doubted whether he wrote any account of what happen'd to him at Delphos, yet, ac­cording to Suidas, no-body doubted but that he wrote Fables. Eustathius calls him expresly not [...] only, but [...]; expounding the one by the other Ad ini­tium Ilia­dis A.. The Words too of the Old Scholiast on Aristophanes are so full, I think▪ as not easily to be eluded; [...], says he, [...] Sch. in Plut. 11▪. That Few say in Terms, he was a Writer, is because No-body had any Suspicions to the contrary: and when the Doubt was not started, nor thought of, there was no need to guard against it. I have produc'd some Ancients that say, he did write; Dr. Bentley does not pretend to instance in any that say, he did not: in­stead [Page 235] of that, his best Arguments for this New Point are These that follow.

The Old Man in Aristophanes (says he P. 136.) learnt his Fables in Conversation, [...] In which of his Dictionaries does [...] sig­nifie Conversation? Or is it necessary, that what was learnt at a Feast must be learnt in Conversation? might it not be a part of their Festival Entertainments, to have some agreeable Book read to them? and might not Aesop sometimes be that Book? If this might be the Case, then the Old man might learn his Fables at a Feast, and yet learn 'em out of a Book too. But suppose he did not, allow­ing that he learnt 'em in Conversation; what follows from thence? that, because the Fa­bles of Aesop were in every-bodys Mouth, and told at their Meals, by way of entertain­ment, therefore there was no written Collecti­on of 'em, they were preserv'd all by Memo­ry. If this be Criticising, I am sure, Criti­cising has nothing to do with Reasoning. By the same way of Deduction will I prove, that we have not a Written Creed now, nor ever had one: for have not all People from the Rise of Christianity down to this Time learnt it, without the help of a Book? and is it not plain therefore that the Creed is pre­serv'd by Memory only, and has never been committed to Writing?

The Dr. produces a Second Passage in Ari­stophanes, where one man reproaches anothers Ignorance thus, [...], You have not read so much as Aesop; for so he himself translates it: from whence, he says, one might conclude that Aesop wrote his Own Fables. If [Page 236] they were his Own Fables, one might pret­ty safely conclude that he wrote 'em; for those Writings are the most properly a man's Own, which he writes. But Dr. Bentley, it seems, concludes from this very Passage, (I cannot imagine How) that Aesop did not write 'em. Till he tells us by what Wonderful Means he got to this Conclusion, I can say nothing to it. But as for his Occasional and Weighty Debate, whether or no [...] be a Proverbial Saying spoken of Illiterates Dissert. p. 136., I can see no manner of reason why it was brought in here, but meerly for the pleasure of con­tradicting Erasmus and Scaliger: Proverb, or no Proverb, I think, it equally proves, that there were Fables at that time, which went under the Name of Aesop; and what advan­tage can be made of this, must be against Dr. Bentley.

The Closing Argument, that winds these Proofs up into a Demonstration is a Passage in Plato's Phoedo, where Socrates says, [...]: Among the Fables of Aesop I had at hand, and remember'd or, knew to be His, I put those into Verse that first occurr'd to me: from whence the Dr. shrewdly observes, that Socrates does not say he made use of a Book of Fables; and from his not saying so would have us believe that there was no such thing as a Book of Aesop's Fables in Socrates's time. Socrates was now in Prison, and in obedience to a Divine Admonition thought himself oblig'd to do something in Poetry: he pitch'd upon Aesop, putting into Verse such of his Fables as occurr'd to him; and, if we may guess by what we have left of [Page 237] his doing, such Fables occurr'd to him as were nearest his Own Cafe. Now what need was there of having recourse to a Written Aesop for that which he and every-body re­member'd? or what wonder was it, that he had not the Book by him in Prison? why, we are not sure that at the particular point of time, when he did these Fables in Prison, he had so much as Pen and Ink allow'd him.

This is the Irresistible Evidence, with which Dr. Bentley has taken upon him to confront the Opinion of Two Thousand Years; such Evidence as one would not admit against Sim­mias Rhodius, to rob him of the honour of his Egg, or his Hatchet. Is it fit, that men should make use of their little Skill in Letters, their Conjectures, their Fancies, their Dreams, to attack the Reputation of our first Masters in good writing? is it grateful with such groundless Suspicions as these to fall upon the Father of Moral Fable, whose happy way of conveying knowledge has been ever spoken of with so much Respect, and been of such standing Use to Mankind? Has Dr. Bentley sworn to be at defiance, with every man that writes Masterly in his way? Sir William Tem­ple may be at Ease, he sees he is affronted in Good Company. Let me tell our Critic, what I have heard from Wise Men, that Con­fidence and Paradoxes are not the true way to a Lasting Reputation; that the first point of Modesty and Sense is, never to Contradict the whole World Needlesly, and the next to that, to be sure never to do it without very good Grounds.

[Page 238]The Dr. often gives me an Occasion to put him in mind of this Truth; and more than Once in the very Passage we are upon: where he has laid hold of a Careless Expression in Laertius (a Writer of his Own Form) to op­pose Plato's Account of Socrates, or rather So­crates's Account of himself. Laertius, he says, seems to hint that Socrates did but One Fable: and this seeming Shadow of an Hint, even from Laertius, is to bear down the Express Authority of Plato, who says he did Seve­ral See the Passage be­fore quoted p. 236.. The very Spirit of Athenaeus is got in­to him, who L. 2, c. 15. undertook to disprove some of the most Remarkable Particulars of Socrates's Life recorded in Xenophon and Plato, by the very same Negative Way of Arguing, that Dr. Bentley makes use of against Phalaris and Aesop; the Silence and Praetermission of Au­thors Disser. p. 64.: nay, and expresses himself in the same Mannerly Way too, calling Plato, the best-bred Man in the World, Dog and Lyar; covertly indeed, whereas Dr. Bentley has be­stow'd much the same Ti­tles Leucon carries one thing, and his Ass another. P. 74. — something useful to a Lyar besides a pretty Invention — p. 17. on those He disputes against, bluntly and openly. But the Impartial Casaubon takes the part of those Great Men against his Author; re­proves his Rudenoss, and con­futes his Reasonings; and shews him to be, as Confident Clowns generally are, all over mistaken Dr. Bently has ventur'd to make use of these very Exploded Arguments of Athenaeus, to discredit Socrates 's Epistles; and ushers 'em in with this Glorious Cha­racter, Among Other Errors in Chronology for which Athenaeus cha­stises Plato. Diss. p. 93.. The Men of Letters, I hope, [Page 239] will excuse this Freedom; No man is readier than I am to value Athenaeus for what he ought to be valu'd, the Fragments and Remains of An­tiquity which he has preserv'd: but to see him insolently trampling on Great Names, is what I cannot bear without Indignation.

I need no Transition from hence to Dr. Bent­ley; who taking it now for granted, that Aesop did not write his Own Fables, will tell us Who wrote 'em for him. Demetrius Phalereus he thinks to have been the first that committed them to Writing P. 138.: And if Others should think that he was not the First, they would have some­what better Ground for their Thought than He has; for they have Aristophanes, and his Scholiast (either of whose Words may be ta­ken in this case, I hope, a little sooner than Dr. Bentley's) to countenance their Opinion. Aristophanes, in the Passage mention'd by Dr. Bentley, plainly intimates, that there was a Book of Aesop's Fables in His time; and His Time was before Demetrius's. [...], is, ne Aesopum quidem legisti: thus the Scholiast interprets it; [...]; thus the use of the word [...] in other Authors Plato, in his Phoedrus, has employ'd it just in this manner, [...] p. 273. i. e. Tisiam ipsum accuratè trivisti, per­legisti. Serranus has mista­ken the Sense of it, and tran­slated it Graviter pessum de­disti. proves it ought to be translated; and, which is more than all, Dr. Bentley him­self has thus render'd it, You have not read so much as Aesop. How could Aesop be read at a time▪ when he supposes, that there was no Collection of of Aesop's Fables committed to writing? It happens indeed now and then, that Books are written without [Page 240] being Read (Some of Dr. Bentley's Works will be a Proof of this) but it can never hap­pen I presume, that any Book should be read, without being written. The same Scholiast quotes in [...], p. 134. another Passage out of Aristophanes's [...], tho' upon a Cursory View of that Play I do not now find it there. The Poet is Speaking of the Eagle; which Bird, he says,

The Fable he referrs to is that of the Eagle and the Scarabaeus, which is in the present Col­lection; and I think he manifestly quotes a Collection of Fables extant in His Time: I'm sure, had he intended to quote such a Colle­ction, he could not have us'd Words that would more plainly have express'd his Mean­ing. To return to my point therefore, if there was a Written Aesop in Aristophanes's time, then Demetrius Phalereus could not be the First who committed Aesop 's Fables to Writing.

All the mention we have of this Perfor­mance of Demetrius is in Laertius, who says it was call'd [...], and [...]; by which it seems to Dr. Bentley, that they were in Prose; and if it should seem to any­body else, that they were in Verse, they have just as much Reason for their Fancy, as he has: unless by his Divining Faculty, he can, from the Title's being in Prose, smell out that the Work was so. Some, he says, may imagine, that they are the Same that are now extant: Some! who? not Meziriac I hope, because he has not seen him. But whoever these Some be, [Page 241] Dr. Bentley is against 'em. I wish (says he) they were [the same that are now extant] for then they would be well writ with some Genius and Spirit Disser. p. 138.. How are we to take him? Would Demetrius's Fables have been better than they were, if they had been still extant? or would the Fables that are extant, and by some ascrib'd to Demetrius, be better than they are, if Demetrius had wrote 'em? Had Dr. Bentley wish'd that Demetrius's Fables were still ex­tant, it had been a Kind Wish, because Deme­trius is thought a better Writer thah He that compos'd these Fables: but to wish Deme­trius's the same that are now extant, is to wish his Fables no better written, nor with more Genius or Spirit, than those we have.

Whom have we now after Demetrius? why, Some-body, that wrote the [...], and might, for ought any-body knows, be before him. For Suidas, the only Man the Dr. finds that mentions these [...], giving no Intimation of the Author's Age, we are utterly at a loss where to fix him; unless Dr. Bentley can help us out here, and by looking into his Mouth tell us of what Age his Greek is. Probably he was of no One Age; the [...] or [...] in Verse, like our Present Collection in Prose, were, 'tis natural to think, made up from se­veral Authors that wrote in several Times; amongst which Babrius himself (the next Au­thor he mentions) might have but a Share tho' a very large one [...], says Suidas.: for we find him of­ten quoted together with, and as it were under the Common Title of [...] or [...] [...]. Suidas in [...]. Suidas in [...]. Suid. in [...]. Suid. in [...].; and [Page 242] by the bye, not to Scazons only, but Hexame­ters too ^†; which, if it were a Mistake of Suidas, might probably arise from his finding him mix'd with the Other Writers of the [...]: but I am very unwilling to think it a Mistake, because the Verses are fine ones, and worthy of Babrius. Whether this Guess of mine be right or no, 'tis somewhat better founded than the Dr's, who judges these [...] to have been written all in Elegiac Verse, be­cause he finds under this Title Two Pentame­ters quoted; and besides, in Three different Places, Three Hexameters, which might have no Pentameters after them; and (to strengthen his Inference yet farther) another Instance of Two Hexameters together. This the Reader will find to be a true State of the Case, if he will take the trouble of consulting the Para­graph, where this New Thought is in as New a Manner surprizingly well handl'd.

I had like here to have overlook'd One Con­siderable Branch of the Dr's Discovery, where he informs us, that these Fragments of the [...] belong to the Aesopic Fables, which, he says, have not yet been observ'd that he knows of Disser. p. 139.. I believe no-body ever read these Fragments, but observ'd it; however they kept their Observation to themselves, because they knew no-body could read 'em without observing it. For to what else could Frag­ments of Fables written after the manner of [Page 243] Aesop belong, but to the Aesopic Fables? which Title is known to comprehend not on­ly the Fables suppos'd to have been written by Aesop himself; but all Others, fram'd after his Model.

The Reader remembers, that after Deme­trius came Some-body, who might as well, for any thing we know of his Time, have come before him. Now after this Some-body comes One Babrius Dissert. p. 140., who has the Advantage indeed of our Last Author in having a Name, and no otherwise: for his Time is equally a Secret to us. Avienus, 'tis true, by the Order he has plac'd him in, seems to think he was before Phoedrus; but how little, or how long before, no-body can determin. So that this Babrius, that liv'd we don't know When, comes after an Author we don't know Who, and equally living we don't know When.

The Chronology of Babrius being thus settl'd, the Dr. proceeds to his Character; and says, he was a Writer of Size and Quality: I agree with him in his Meaning, tho' his Wording of it be a little Particular. Babrius was indeed, as far as we can guess by the Small Remains we have of him, a very valua­ble Author, and deserv'd to have liv'd as well as Phoedrus himself: He has not been lost so long as Phoedrus was; may he be recover'd as entire! His Draughts are all Natural, his Expression Lively, and his Turn of Verse Nu­merous and Proper. But the Dr. has by no means done right to his Character in the In­stances he has given us to judge him by; which are cited imperfectly Both, and the Last of [Page 244] 'em extreamly to his disadvantage. The First, about the Sick Lyon, which the Dr. has thus quoted,

he may please thus to supply,

To the next, [...], He may add these Two Beautiful Verses.

and this (to his Eternal Scandal be it spoken) is a Plain Proof that he has not read over all Suidas. Nay, I have reason to suspect, that he is got no further than [...], which I ob­serve here to be the utmost Line of his Cita­tions. I would not have the Reader slight this Discovery of mine, for 'tis as considera­ble as any of Dr. Bentley's, that are purely his own.

To oblige Our Critic, who is so fond of New Hints, I will suggest One to him, that [Page 245] he may, if he pleases, improve at his Leisure. In the Scholia on Thucydides ( p. 266.) there is a Passage quoted, [...]; and the words of it are,

Now here's a New Author for Dr. Bentley, one that writ Fables alternately in Scazons and Iambicks; or here's a Proof at least that Babrius (whose Verses these seem to be) did not write All his Fables in Scazons unmix'd: which may also be further confirm'd from this passage in Suidas in [...]., quoted by him out of Ba­brius, [...]; for it runs naturally into these Verses,

I suggest this Thought to the Dr. to enrich his Dissertation with, when he puts it into Latin. After he has done so, Some-body per­haps may shew him, that 'tis founded on a Mistaken Reading of those two Passages; but till then, I shall leave 'em as I found 'em.

After these Light Skirmishes, Dr. Bentley comes at last to his Main Point, pretty early, I thank him; for he is not yet got quite Half way in his Remarks (that should be) upon Aesop. He now draws all his Forces against the Present Sett; and his arguments, I find, (making allowance for a few Straglers, which I shall fetch into their Ranks) march in this Order. First he attempts to prove That [Page 246] Parcel of the Present Sett which Nevelet put out, to be younger than Aesop § VI.; in the next place, that it is even recenter than Babrius § VII.: and lastly, that the Other Parcel of 'em, which he ascribes to Planudes, is yet Younger than Nevelet's § VIII..

Upon the First Article he performs very notably; he is to detect the whole CXXXVI to be Spurious: Now would I willingly Com­pound for the Odd XXXVI (if our Critic will give me leave to call an Even Number so); but How Many do You think he has dis­prov'd? No less than One! and here endeth this Argument.

Not being able to proceed any farther here, he draws back, and falls once again upon his First Preliminary, that Aesop wrote no Fables; which, having now waded deep in the Con­troversie, he clearly perceives, because the CXCIII ^d is told by Aristotle differently from what it is in Aesop, and in Lucian differently from what it is in Aristotle. Now here's a Long Chain of desperate Consequences; for if Dr. Bentley has prov'd any thing, he has prov'd Ten times more than he is aware of. If Aesop did not write this Fable, because Ari­stotle gives different Circumstances of it; then neither did Aristotle write it, because Lucian's Account of it is as different from His, as His is from Aesop's. Nay, according to Dr. Bent­ley, neither has Lucian told this Fable, tho' we find it in his Works; because it is otherwise told in our present Sett, which the Dr. sup­poses written by a Man more Modern than He. All that can be gather'd from the Little Varieties in the same Fable is, that they who [Page 247] had occasion to tell it, went no further than their Memory for it, where the Main of the Fable, and as much as was for their Purpose, lay. And as for the Nice Circumstances of it, they either mistook 'em by accident, or thought they could vary 'em for the bet­ter.

This Digression has kindly supply'd the Room of his First Attempt; in the Next, he endeavours at something that is really to his Purpose; and if his Proof were Full, and were his Own, I for my part should thank him for the Discovery: but as it is neither, I shall take the liberty to shew both That and Him in their Proper Colours, and to do Justice to the Dead whom he has pillag'd.

His Pretence, and his Words are, that the Author of the Parcel which was publish'd by Neve­letus did nothing else but Epitomize Babrius, and put him into Prose Disser. p. 143.. Granting he didn't, whom are we to thank for this thought? Dr. Bentley says, Himself; for He discover'd it Ibid. p. 142.. But there's an Honest Editor of the Dr's Acquaintance, a Man of a Fair Character, and who has not yet been convicted of any Trick, that puts in for the Discovery: let us hear what he says, and what the Dr. can an­swer to it.

A Discovery, at this time of Day! why, I found it out Fourscore Years ago, and publish'd it to all the World in my Edition of Aesop.

What care I for Your Edi­tion? I found it out my self.

Not care for my Edition? You constantly referr to't, and make use on't, and quote my Preface P. 141.: don't all your Dispute turn upon Nevelet's Parcel? how can You pre­tend Ignorance?

I pretend to publish such Things only as have escap'd the Observation of Others; I have done so, and I'll stand to't.

Stand to what You will, 'tis My Observation, and I'll unmask You. Have not I said, after quoting a Scazon out of the Prose-Fables, Redolent haec ut plurima alia harum Fabu­larum Versus Iambicos: at (que) utinam exstarent hi Versus unde haec desumpta sunt; Babriam ipsum, quantum video, Integrum haberemus, cujus jam Vmbram tantùm & Epitomen habemus Not. in Fab. 175. What have You said more than this comes to?

Yes, I don't call 'em, as You do, barely Iambicks, I call 'em Choliambicks, and Scazons: besides, You speak doubtfully, redolent haec, ut plurima alia, Versus Iambicos; but I speak posi­tively, My Expressions are, There are most Vi­sible Footsteps, This is a manifest turning out of Choliambicks; Who doesn't discover here a Sca­zon?

You have indeed a Peculiar Way of Speaking; but what else have You added to my Discovery, besides Confidence? You endeavour what You can to disguise what You take from me; but after all, there appears upon You here and there not only a Sameness of Sense, but a Sameness of Words too, which could not fall out by Accident Dissert. p. 36.: and this is Your Own Way of tracing a Plagiary. The most [Page 249] Remarkable Hint of mine, Cujus jam EPITO­MEN habemus, don't you translate it literally, and say, that the Author of that Parcel did nothing but EPITOMIZE Babrius?

I don't go upon Hints; I have de­monstrated, 'tis my Thought, by shewing the very manner in which I found it out. I dis­cover'd it by this means; I observ'd in 'em several Passages, that were not of a Piece with the rest, but had a Turn and Composition plainly Poetical, as in the CCLXIII ^d Fable, which begins thus, [...] This I saw was a Choliambic Verse Disser. p. 143..

I know where you saw it; 'twas in my Notes upon this Fable, where I have these Words, [...] &c. Versus Iambicus Scazon —

But I improve upon this, and say — I presently suspected that the Writer had taken this out of Babrius.

That's the very Translation of my Words, that follow, — Quales Babrias scripsit, nec satis scio num Babriae ipsius. Now, suppose You had observ'd several Footsteps of Scazons in the Fables, is it credible that You should take Your First Hint from that very Fable I did, which comes so Late in the Book Fab. CCLXIII.; when the same Hint might as well have been taken from several Fables before it? Come, come, Dr. this bears hard upon You; the Footsteps of Babrius are not near so plain in the Fables, as the Footsteps of my Notes are in Your Remarks.

I tread in No man's Footsteps; 'tis well known, I have declar'd loudly against Filching; do you think I'd turn Filcher my Self? Foreign Professors know me better.

Vizzanius, and I know You better than They do; and the World in a little time shall know You as well as We do. You thought You might safely injure the Dead; but the Living shall do us Right upon You, strip You of all Your borrow'd Plumes, and return 'em to their several Owners: You may read Your Fate out of these Verses of Virgil.

The Case between Nevelet and Dr. Bentley is fairly represented in this Dialogue; and if any-body still thinks that the Dr. struck out this Hint purely by his Own Sagacity, I'm sure I shall take no further Pains to convince him; but go on to examine, how far the Discovery reaches.

Dr. Bentley has instanc'd in Six Several Fa­bles, in which he finds the Traces of Babrius's Scazons. In the Two First he has pretty good Colour for what he says; because Suidas has preserv'd Three Scazons of Babrius, the Words of which are most of 'em to be found in these Two Fables, and very near in the [Page 251] same Order. In the Four next he does not go upon so good Grounds; but indulges his Fancy, without having the Authority of Suidas to back him in it. He finds out some Words, that will run into Scazons, or Pieces of Sca­zons; and, without any more ado, concludes from thence, that These were design'd for Scazons, and those Scazons were Babrius's. That the Two first of the Four have some­thing of a Poetical Turn I agree with him; particularly the Conclusion of the Second, methinks, is Noble, and not unbecoming Ba­brius.

The Rest are so Flat, and so Unmusical, that I can scarce ever think 'em design'd for Ver­ses; or if they were, yet I have too great a Regard for Babrius, to think 'em His. Others beside Babrius might happen to turn a Fable the same way; Dr. Bentley ought to know, that Callimachus did so. As for One of 'em, the CLXV ^th, Dr. Bentley very unluckily pitches upon it, to prove it transpros'd from Babrius. It begins in the Prose, [...], which the Dr. supposes to have been in Babrius, thus,

A Good Judge of these things easily perceives, that the First of these Verses has nothing Har­monious in the Numbers, or Poetical in the [Page 252] Expression of it; and would conclude there­fore that this Fable was not taken from Ba­brius's Scazons, tho' he had no other Evi­dence of it. But it happens, that Two Ver­ses, truly Babrius's, and relating to this Fa­ble, are preserv'd in Suidas, which utterly overthrow Dr. Bentley's Criticism; for the Wording of 'em does not in the least fall in with That of the Prose. The Verses are,

If the Prose Fable had trac'd Babrius so nearly in the beginning, it would have carried some Resemblance to him throughout: and there­fore in One of his Six Dr. Bentley is Evidently mistaken; and must guess again, before he can make up his Number.

In the mean time I desire the Reader to take notice, that there are in Suidas Frag­ments of Babrius belonging to above Twenty Several Fables; and out of all these Dr. Bent­ley has been able to produce but Two that have the least Agreement with our Prose Sett: the Rest are widely d [...]fferent in their Expres­sion, as appears by comparing 'em with the particular Fables to which they belong; which in most Cases may be done with Certainty. Nay, we have One Entire Fable of Babrius, about the Swallow and Nightingale, and another Large Fragment of Nine Lines, about the Priests of Cybele; and the Fables that answer to these in the Prose are now extant; and are so far from resembling Babrius's Verses, that they have scarce a Word the same with 'em. [Page 253] With what Face therefore could Dr. Bentley pronounce it, Evidently apparent, that the Au­thor of these Prose Fables did nothing else but Epi­tomize Babrius P. 143.? 'Twould be full as good a Consequence, should one say; because we find, that Two or Three Fragments of Ennius, are with some little Difference plainly inserted into Virgil's Aeneid; therefore 'tis Evident, that Virgil did nothing else but transcribe Ennius.

After Dr. Bentley's way of Arguing, I could easily prove, that all Nevelet's Parcel is trans­pros'd, or (as he would call it) traduc'd P. 147., not from Old Babrius's Scazons, but the Modern Gabrias's Iambicks. That they are more Recent than Gabrias I discover'd by this means, I observ'd in 'em some Passages that had a Poetical Turn, as in the 173d Fable,

This I saw was an Iambic Verse; and (ha­ving first seen it observ'd in Nevelet's Note upon this Fable) I presently suspected that it was taken from Gabrias, and was soon confirm'd in my Judgment: for upon con­sulting his Version of the Fable, I found this Verse there. Whence it Evidently ap­pears, that the Author of this Parcel did nothing else but enlarge upon this Sorry Poet, and put him into Prose. I could go on producing Other Instances of the kind, which would make out the Point about Ga­brias much more clearly and plainly than Dr. Bentley has made out His about Babrius; but I have a greater regard for my Own, and [Page 254] for my Reader's Time, than to throw it away upon such Trifles.

'Tis so far from being a Mark of Acuteness to point out a few Scazons or Iambicks in the Compass of a Book, that, on the contrary, 'tis hard to find a page of Greek Prose any where without 'em. Aristotle has long ago observ'd for the Greek, and Tully for the Latin, that those Languages run naturally into this Sort of Metre: and that 'tis difficult even in Com­mon Discourse to avoid it [...]. Arist. 3, Rhet. c. 8. And agen — [...]. Senarios & Hipponacteos (i. e. Iambicks, and Scazons) effugere vix possumus; mag­nam enim partem ex Iambis nostra constat Oratio. Cic. Orator.. Nay, to shew how little can be made of such Conjectures as These, I dare undertake to find in these Fables any Sort of Verse that Dr. Bentley shall pitch upon; and many more Verses of Some Sorts, than the Dr. has produc'd Scazons. I will give him an Instance or two of this kind, to shew, how very fanciful 'tis possible for a man to be in these matters, with how very small Grounds.

The Fable of the Fly, in the Greek Prose runs thus, [...]. Now 'tis the Easiest thing in the World to re­solve these Words into Hemijambs, or Ana­creonticks, with some Slight Allowances in the Measure.

And this Conjecture, I might say, is so much the more probable, because not only the Num­bers, but even the Humor and Matter of the Fable is Anacreontical.

Agen, in the Fable of the Nightingale and the Hawk, we have these Trochaïcks,

In the Conclusion of the Fable of the Frogs, we have these Words,

Who doesn't see that this Fable was written in Long and Short Verses?

That of the Lover and his Two Mistresses is told twice in the Present Collection; in the Parcel printed before Nevelet thus, [...]. Now the greatest part of this will run naturally into Long and Short Verse,

[Page 256] But notwithstanding these near Resemblances of several Sorts of Verse, that are to be met with in our Prose Fables, I am far from think­ing that the Fables in which they they are found were written first in Anacreontic, Tro­chaic, or Elegiac Measure, and from thence made Prose; and should any one pretend to prove it from hence, they would engage I think in a Ridiculous Attempt. The Compo­sers of these Fables might accidentally so range their Words as to fall into these Mea­sures; the Best and the Worst Writers often do so, without being aware of it: In Sir Wil­liam Temple's and Dr. Bentley's English, how many Blank Verses are there, which they them­selves never thought of, or intended? and therefore nothing, I say, can be built upon such Vain and Empty Conjectures.

However, so well satisfied is the Dr. with his Performances of this kind, that he trium­phantly concludes, Thus have I prov'd One Half of the Fables that carry the Name of Aesop to be a Thousand Years more Recent than He Dissert. p. 146.. His Proof, without any manner of Misrepresenta­tion, or Ridicule, stands thus.

‘If out of an 136 Fables, Two, by leaving out Some, and putting in Other Words, and changing the Order of 'em, look like Two Fragments of Babrius preserv'd in Sui­das, then 'tis evident that these were trans­pros'd from Babrius: and if in Four more there are some Resemblances of Scazons, of which no Footsteps appear any where else, then these also were transpros'd from Sca­zons; and those Scazons must be Babrius's: and if the Passages in these Six Fables are [Page 257] borrow'd from Babrius, then the whole Parcel of an 136 (among which these Six chance to be found) are certainly Later than Babrius: and if they are Later than Babrius, (whose Age we certainly know no more of than that he liv'd before Avienus) then they are certainly above a Thousand Years more Recent than Aesop.’

Having by this Subtle Chain of Consequen­ces drawn down the Date of Half the Fables a Thousand Years below Aesop, he goes on with the same Clearness and Strength of Rea­son to prove the Other Half more Modern than They. That they are not from Aesop' s Own Hand; we may know, he says, from the LXX ^th of the Serpent and the Crabfish, which is taken from a Scolion, or Catch, much older than Aesop Disser. p. 146. That this Scolion is Older than Aesop, he has no manner of Authority to say; Athenaeus, who cites it, intimates nothing of the Age of it; and if it were Older than Aesop, might not Aesop take Occasion from it to raise a Fable of his Own? So that the Dr's Proof has these two small Defects, that the bottom on which he goes is a Precarious As­sertion, and the Inference he draws from thence wild and unreasonable.

After this, he objects against a New Beast, and a New Bird, to be met with in our present Sett, which were utterly unknown to all the Ancient Naturalists. As to his Beast, [...], 'tis I own a New Sort of Monster; and so New, as not to be met with in the Elder MSS of Aesop, nor even in several of the Modern ones. Vossius's MS, and Two in the Bodly-Library, [Page 258] instead of [...] read [...]: this [...], 'tis likely, might be [...] at first, (which may be observ'd through­out the Fables to be the Prey the Lyon gene­rally feeds upon From hence the Epithet of [...]. Suidas in [...].) and from the Confusion of those Two Words, [...] and [...], our New Sort of Beast might easily arise.

Perhaps too the Original of the word [...] may be trac'd from the same heedles­ness of a Transcriber. It might formerly have been [...], the same with [...], (as [...] is with [...] [...]. Hesych. in [...]: for which Nicander uses [...] if [...] in Hesychius may be inter­preted Aves Pensiles, Birds hung up in Cages, the Wording and Matter of the Fable will fall in very naturally with this Guess about [...]; for it begins thus, [...] —) and the B, which stood there for the Number of the Fa­ble, being joyn'd to the first word [...], might create this New Species of a Bird.

But whether or no This be the way in which these Words crept into the Text is not worth insisting upon; it seems plain to me that they sprung from some Corruption of it, since they are not to be met with, that I can find, in any other Author, Ancient or Mo­dern, or in any Other Fable of Aesop, but these Two only. And if a Modern Corrupti­on of any place in a Book prove the Book it self Modern, there is no Book but may be prov'd so.

Upon the same false Ground his next Obje­ction about the Hebraism is built: instead [Page 259] of [...], Vossius's MS. reads, [...]. Dr. Bentley, who pretends to such a Sagacity in the way of Critic, and talks as if he had consulted all the MSS of Aesop upon this occasion, should methinks have observ'd these Various Readings, and have had the Skill to make use of 'em.

There are yet Two Fables more in this Sett, which the Dr. will prove not to be Aesop's, One, because he finds it word for word al­most in Apthonius (he means Aphthonius): and it may be Aphthonius found it word for word before in Aesop; and then we are as we were. The Other, he says, is a Paraphrase on the CCLXXXIV ^th in Neveletus's Parcel: and why may not that in Nevelet be as well an Abridg­ment of This?

Having laid down these Undeniable Premi­ses, he solidly Concludes thus, This Collection THEREFORE is more Recent than that Other Dissert. p. 147.. Never was the poor Particle therefore so mi­serably abus'd; he has mention'd but Six Fa­bles out of an Hundred and fifty, and has given us no tolerable proof that any One of those Six are Modern; and yet in the Strength of what he has done ventures to pronounce the Whole Sett to be so. Either Dr. Bentley must be a very Thoughtless Writer, or he must hope to meet with very Thoughtless Readers: and such I am sure they must be, if these ways of arguing pass upon 'em.

What has Our Critic then been doing all this while? he pretends to prove, that the whole Three hundred Fables are at least a Thou­sand Years Younger than Aesop; he has attempt­ed this Proof particularly but upon Twelve of [Page 260] them; and that in a very Weak Inconclusive manner. However, should I give him up these Twelve, and add Two hundred more to the account, and allow all these to have been Later than Aesop; yet still there are Enow left, to support Their Pretences, who make Aesop an Author, and take Some of these Fa­bles to be Originals of His Composing. No­body imagin'd that All, or Half the Fables, that have gone under the Name of Aesop, are His; or that Any of 'em almost are in the very same Words and Syllables, that they were in, when they came out of His hands. They have doubtless undergone some more, some less Alterations: but if under all these Changes still the Same Little Story in its Chief Circumstances, and the same Simplicity in telling it; the same Humorous Turn of Thought, and in good measure the same Words too have been preserv'd; there is Enough of Aesop left, whereby we may make a true Judgment of his Spirit, and Genius, and manner of Performance. When Dr. Bent­ley shall clearly have made out, either that None of these Fables came from Aesop him­self; or, if they did, yet that in the very Form and Cast of 'em, as well as the Expres­sion, they have been since so totally alter'd, that they deserve not to be call'd the Same; it will then be time enough to own▪ that we are unable to judge of Aesop's merit by any thing in the Present Collection: but till that is done, we may safely enjoy our Opinions, and They that have admir'd Aesop, may ven­ture to go on, and admire him still.

[Page 261]All that Dr. Bentley has hitherto offer'd upon the subject of Aesop is so slight and in­considerable, that one would naturally ima­gine it to be his Own, and believe him when he says, that he intended to give us nothing, but what had escap'd the Observation of others Dissert. p. 135.: and yet 'tis certain that Nothing almost which he has said could escape the Observation of any man that look'd into Nevelet; in whose Preface, and Short Notes, the very same Re­marks are made, without any thing of the Ostentation and Ill-reasoning that here ac­companies 'em. The Reader will know whe­ther I have injur'd Dr. Bentley in this Imputa­tion, after he has given himself the trouble of viewing the following Accounts, wherein I have compar'd Nevelet's Old Observations with Dr. Bentley's New Ones.

I must stop a little here to commend the Dr. for being so true to his Author, as even to copy his Mistakes. Nevelet did not know of any Writer before Natalis Comes, where this Fragment was to be met with; and there­fore our Dissertator, that goes no further than Nevelet, could know no more than He did. However he Ought to have known somewhat more; because he pretends Dissert. p. 140. to have read what Tzetzes says of Babrius ▪ Had he done as he pretends, he would have found Babrius mention'd in Tzetzes together with this very Fragment; and that in such a manner, that 'twas impossible to see the one, and yet over­look the other. For thus Tzetzes enters upon the mention of Babrius Par. 47 [...],

Thus far I have had leisure to trace the Dr. in Nevelet; and I need trace him no farther; for These Hints. which appear to be taken from thence are the only ones that he pretends to build any thing upon. Whatever he has added of his Own (if he has added any thing) has been already shewn to be either a Mistake, or nothing to his Purpose. And now let me put a Grave Question to him; with what Modesty, or Conscience, he could tell his Reader, at the Entrance of this Dissertation, that he in­tended to offer such things only, as had escap'd the Observation of Others? when 'tis manifest, that, as far as we have hitherto gone in his Remarks (that is in Three Quarters of 'em) he has done nothing but plunder'd Nevelot. 'Tis true, as he wittily observes Dissert. p. 33., Good Wits jump sometimes: however I should think it a pretty Nice matter for the Best Wits in the World to jump so often together, so very evenly!

What he has put together in the next Para­graph, concerning the Life and Manners of [Page 265] Aesop, with a great Shew of Reading was al­ready collected to his hand, out of Eustathius, Plutarch, Agathias, Philostratus, Pliny, Herodo­tus, Suidas, and Strabo; and the passages from thence printed at large in the End of Camera­rius's Fables. Dr. Bentley presents these to us with the same Pomp and Pleasure, as if he had been the first Producer of 'em; and makes no addition to their Number, but by One Poor Quotation out of the Scholiast on Ari­stophanes, and another known passage of Phoe­drus.

When he was mentioning Disser. p. 135. Meziriac, Vavasor, and Bayle, as Men that had gone be­fore him on this Subject, it would have been honourably done of him, not to have forgot­ten Those, whom he was so much more be­holden to, Nevelet, and Camerarius. But I find he's asham'd of his Nearest Acquaintances; and, after such Instances of his Ingenuity, I believe his Nearest Acquaintances will be asham'd of Him.

Our Critic having spent his Small Artillery here and there upon a Fable, without much Success, grows Peevish, and is resolv'd to be reveng'd on the Poor Monk that collected 'em, Planudes; who, as much a Monk as he was, never, I believe, gave any man such Gourse Language from his Cell, as he now receives from Court. He is call'd here an Ideot of a Monk, that has given us a Book [the Life of Aesop] which perhaps cannot be match'd in any Language for Ignorance and Nonsence Ibid. p. 147. As for Planudes himself, I must confess I have not the Deepest Veneration for his Character; [Page 266] but neither can I think so despicably of him, as the Lofty Dr. Bentley does, because I find him well spoken of by men of Good Know­ledge and Judgment, and even by his Adver­saries Themselves The Learned Cardinal Bessario, in a Treatise he wrote against Planudes long after his Death, has this A­postrophe to him, [...] &c. Opusc. Aurea, p. 622. Arcudius, the Collector of these Pieces, and who differs as much in his Sentiments from Planudes, as Bessario does, has in his Preface, this Honourable Character of him: Planudem, Monachum Groecum, celeberrimum Philo­sophum, & Theologum, & in utràque Linguâ versatissimum. And the Epithet [...] which Bessario bestows upon him, is given him also in the Titles of his Manuscript Pie­ces, [...]. &c.— which shews, that tho' Planudes was a Monk, yet the Scholars of those Times were far from thinking him an Ideot.. Nay, Dr. Bentley, I think, gives an account of him, not at all to his disadvantage, where he says, that That Sett of Fa­bles he put out was of his own drawing up; amongst which, there are several so well turn'd, so exactly copled from Nature, and built on such a true knowledge of Human Life and Affairs, that 'tis plain he was neither an Ideot, nor a Monk, that compos'd 'em. This is an Honour therefore misplac'd on Planu­des, and which he deserves as little as he does that Scurri­lous Language; which the Dr. (ever happy in Inconsistencies) has in that very Page bestow'd upon him. Nevelet, and Va­vasor were a little too hasty in their Conclusions on this matter, and spake too large­ly, when from some Fables that relish'd of Planudes's Style and Way, they inferr'd that All were of His Compo­sing. Dr. Bentley has taken up the same In­ference from an argument of as little weight: [Page 267] the Reason (and the only Reason he gives) for his believing 'em drawn up by Planudes, is, that there is no MS. any where above 300 Years old, that has the Fables according to that Copy. No MS! any where! Very Extensive Words; 'tis pretty difficult to answer for All the Libraries of Europe: for, as a Late Critic observes, Saepe non licet Viris doctis MSS. adire, seu ob Distantiam Locorum, seu ob Praefectorum Bibliothecis invidiam, seu ob alia Impedimenta quae memorare nibil attigit Ars Crit. p. 172.. Learned Men are often debarr'd the Vse of MSS, either by their Distance from 'em, or by the Envious Temper of those that have the Custody of 'em; or by some Other Sort of Hindrances — as for Example, when they expect to have those kind of Favours gratui­rously done 'em. But supposing he had an Exact Account of All the Europaean MSS, yet how does he know, but that there may be one at Fez? the most inaccessible Library in the World, next to that at St. Iames's.

This was an Assertion fit to be laid down by Dr. Bentley, because impossible to be prov'd; and, I believe, not difficult to be disprov'd: for, as much out of the way of those things as I live, I have casually heard of a MS, Older than Planudes, that has the Fables according to His Copy; Vossius's MS. I mean, which tho' I have not seen my self, yet better Judges than I am, who have seen it, assure me, that it is about 500 Years Old, and that Vossius himself always esteem'd it so. 'Tis now at Leyden, I think; and might have been nearer, but for Some-body's management. I need look out for no more Instances; against a Negative, One [Page 268] is as good as a Thousand. If all the MSS, that have the Fables according to Planudes's Copy were evidently Younger than He, yet we could not from thence certainly collect, that He was the Author of 'em; whereas if One of 'em happens to be Older than He, we may be pretty sure he was not.

As for Planudes's Life of Aesop, I can't in­deed think it a Book not to be match'd in any Language for Ignorance and Nonsense Dissert. p. 147.; because in some Languages I think it may: however I have no Great Opinion of it. There are in it Several Idle Trifling Stories, told in such a Fabulous Way, that one would think Planudes meant to suit the Life to the Book which fol­lows; and writ out of his Own Invention for want of Authorities. And yet neither dare I reject every Circumstance of his Account as fictitious, that I do not find confirm'd by El­der Authors: he might make use of Books that never came down to us; a great deal of Good History perish'd in the sacking of Con­stantinople: or he might from the Same Books which we have now in our hands, take some Hints, which we have not yet observ'd in 'em; and which it would be very Rash and Immo­dest in Us to pronounce not to be there, till we have read over all the Greek Authors care­fully, and sisted 'em throughly. And this is particularly fit to be said to Dr. Bentley, who, for want of such a Prudent Distrust of his own Knowledge, has been guilty of a Gross Mi­stake. The Circumstance in Planudes's Ac­count, which he pitches upon to expose, is that of Aesop's Vgliness. He had met with a [Page 269] Large Collection of Testimonies concerning Aesop in Camerarius's Fables; in none of which there was any Hint of his Deformity: and he concluded therefore, that there must and could be none any where else; and that This was certainly a Fiction of Planudes. And now how does he insult over the poor Ignorant Monk Dissert. p. 149. on this occasion? how unmercifully does he use him? he asks him, what Revelation he had about Aesop 's Deformity? for he must needs learn it, he says, by Dream and Vision, and not by Ordinary Methods of Knowledge. He liv'd a­bout Two thousand Years after Aesop; and in ALL that Tract of TIME there's not ONE SINGLE Author, that has given the LEAST HINT that Aesop was Vgly Ibid.. Casaubon, or Gerbard Vossius, who had either of 'em read Ten times as much as Dr. Bentley, would not have talk'd at this rate; because Neither of 'em, as Learned as They were, had read All that was written, or remember'd all they had read. But Dr. Bentley, in the strength of Ca­merarius's Collections, is positive, that not ONE SINGLE Author before Planudes's time, has given the LEAST HINT of Aesop's Ug­liness. If he would not be Angry, I would venture, out of my small Stock of Reading to supply him with One, and Him an Author of great Note, Eustathius; who in the beginning of his Comment on the Odysses ( p. 17.) de­rives the word [...] from [...], and [...], says he, [...]. I contend not for the Goodness of the Etymo­logy, let it shift for it self: but it is evident­ly built on a Supposition that Aesop was Ugly; [Page 270] and implys, that That Opinion was Common in Eustathius's time, that is, about Two hundred Years before Planudes was born. Doubtless, that Learned Parecbolist (to speak in Dr. Bent­ley's Phrase) could have produc'd Authorities enow for this Opinion, tho' they are since lost: however He himself is a sufficient Authority to Us in the point, since he is not, as far as I can find, expresly contradicted in it by any One Ancient Writer; at least, he must be allow'd to screen Planudes from the Imputati­on of having invented this Particular to the Dishonour of Aesop: which he was so far from doing, that we have reason to think he might have this very passage of Eustathius in his Eye, where he tells us, that [...] and [...] are the same [...]. Vit. Aes. in initio. Planudes here intimates the same Derivation of [...] with Eustathius; that is, as to the Words them­selves, from whence it comes: tho' he takes [...] in the Sense of Uro, and not of Splendeo; which he thinks the Easier Ety­mology, as needing no Anti­phrasis to justifie it., and that Aesop took his Name from his Ug­liness. The Groundwork of this Story then Planudes had either from Eustathius, or from some Elder Accounts, which both Eustathius and He equal­ly transcrib'd; and upon this Groundwork it is probable he enlarg'd, in his Fanciful Way, and being satisfied that Aesop was Ugly in the main, was resolv'd to make him as Ugly as he could possibly, and to dress up a Monster in all ima­ginable Kinds of Deformity.

Whether there be any Author, besides Eu­stathius, extant, who has made express men­tion of Aesop's Ugliness, I am not now at lei­sure to enquire: sure I am there are in other [Page 271] Writers Remote Hints and Intimations of this Matter, such as may fairly be suppos'd to imply it. When, in Plutarch's Feast, one of the Guests thus rallies Aesop, [...], he seems to reflect upon his Ill-shape and Unweildiness. Lucian, in his Vera Historia says, they us'd Aesop in the For­tunate Islands for a [...], a Buffoon, or Iester, one that made 'em Sport [...]. p. 397.; meaning I suppose that he did it as well by his Person and Outside, as by his Ingenious and Divertive Fa­bles; and indeed rather by the First than the Latter; for his Fables, of themselves, tho' they entertain and please us extreamly, yet do they not give us that Sort of Pleasure which causes Laughter. Dion Chrysostome therefore, in the Passage produc'd by Dr. Bentley, seems to distinguish between the [...] of Aesop, and his [...], says he, [...], implying, I think, that the One was not exactly the same with the Other. 'Tis true Every-body knows, that the Aesopic Fables were after Aesop's time fre­quently call'd [...] by the Greek Writers, and from thence Ridicula by Avienus: but 'tis not unlikely that the Original of this Use of the Word was from something Ridiculous in the Gesture, Look, and Mimical Wit of Aesop that accompanied 'em, when he first told 'em; rather than from the Structure of the Fable it self, which does not seem contriv'd to ope­rate that way. I am willing to think there­fore that the Name usually given to these Fa­bles, [Page 272] [...], and the Office of [...] ascrib'd to Aesop, carry in 'em some small Hint of Ae­sop's Ugliness; for nothing is so Divertive, or raises Laughter so much as Deformity, espe­cially when Wit goes along with it. We may observe therefore, that when Homer has a mind to excite this Light Passion in his Se­rious Poem, he does it by the means of an Ugly Man ^(*), and an Ugly God ^(†); Ther­sites and Vulcan are, as I remember, the only Two [...] in the whole Iliad; the One on Earth, and the Other in Heaven.

'Tis dangerous conversing long with Dr. Bentley; for I find I have slip'd here, e're I was aware, into his manner of arguing: however, in this I will still differ from him, that I offer these things as slight Guesses on­ly, without laying any manner of Stress up­on 'em. I need 'em not, in order to shew the Dr. his Error, and this is not a place to do justice to the Argument: Eustathius's Single Testimony, without other Help, is sufficient to bring Confusion in our assuming Critic, who challeng'd Me and all the World to pro­duce One Single Author before Planudes, that had given the Least Hint ▪ that Aesop was Ugly.

Vavasor, who started this thought to him (for This too is one of the Things that have escap'd the Observation of Others) mentions it [Page 273] with Distrust, and as a Suspicion only; Ther­sitem, says he, Homericum reserebat Aesopus oris habitu, & reliquâ facie, nisi & híc quoque imponit Planudes ( p. 25). Had Our Critic, when he took the Hint it self from Vavasor, taken also his Wary way of proposing it, he might have sav'd himself the Shame of being confuted: but it was a proper Occasion for Dr. Bentley to be Peremptory, when even a Iesuit was Modest.

The Method he has taken of improving Va­vasor's Suspicion into a Demonstration, is, by running over Camerarius's Testimonies, and shewing, that in None of 'em there is any account of Aesop's Deformity, and that most of 'em are (as he thinks) inconsistent with it. The Learning here is not his Own, but the Logic most certainly is; for I dare say, never any man so reason'd before him. I will give the Reader some account of it, after I have desir'd him to remember, that the Point in Debate between Dr. Bentley and the World, is, not whether Aesop was Ugly to that Degree Planudes has merrily represented him to be (No-body was ever Silly enough to imagine it, nor did Planudes himself dream of being thus far credited): but the Dispute is, in general, whether Aesop were Ugly, or not? Our Cri­tic denies that he was, in Vertue of his Old Argument, the Silence and Praetermission of Au­thors; and the Sum of whatever he has said on this occasion comes to thus much. It does not appear from Ancient Authors, that he was a Lump of Deformity, and a Scarecrow; therefore it is certain, he was not any ways [Page 274] deform'd; and therefore it is probable he was very handsome P. 157. . His Particulars are as follow.

In Plutarch 's Convivium, No-body, he says, drolls on Aesop 's Vgly Face, which could hardly have escap'd, if he had such an Ill one P. 149.. I own No-body there drolls on the Mien of his Face (to use a Bentleyism); but the Mien of his Bo­dy, and his Natural Unweildiness, I have shewn to be touch'd on: and their mentioning any One Instance of his Ugliness, is a sure a Sign of his being Ugly, as if they had reckon'd up All. Had Aesop been so very Handsome as Dr. Bentley tells us he was P. 157., the [...] of Chilo had been a Piece of Raillery very ill apply'd.

But ‘ Philostratus has given us in two Books a Description of a Gallery of Pictures, One of which is Aesop, with a Chorus of Ani­mals about him. There he is represented smiling, and looking toward the Ground in a Posture of Thought, but not a Word of his Deformity; which, were it true, must needs have been touch'd on in an account of a Picture P. 149, 150.’ The Dr. imposes upon us; the Picture he mentions is not design'd to represent Aesop, but his Fables; and by Their Name it is call'd [...].. In it, indeed Aesop has a Place; and he is so far describ'd there as Phi­lostratas had need of him, to express the Sub­ject of his Piece; to have gone farther would have been an Impertinence, utterly inconsistent with Philostratus's Character, who is a Short Writer, and exactly proper in his Circum­stances. His Words are, Aesop seems there, as [Page 275] if he were actually framing a Fable; His Smiling Face, and his Eyes fix'd upon the Earth, declare as much: the Painter knew very well that Fables are the Work only of Easie Minds [...].. Would the Dr. have had a Particular of Aesop's Deformi­ties inserted here? to what purpose? when in the very mention of his Name they were sufficiently understood; and would have been of no manner of use towards imprinting an Image of that Thoughtful Posture of Aesop the Artist chiefly design'd to express.

Philostratus's Intention was, to describe a Gallery of Pleasure, hung round with fine and delightful Paintings: in his Account of One of these, he had occasion to mention Aesop, and with good Judgment omitted those Par­ticulars in his Description of him which were neither Taking to the Eye, nor at all Instructive, with relation to his Design in in­troducing him. Dr. Bentley, I find, would have been improper enough to have describ'd him Capape on this occasion; but Philostratus, tho' a Sophist, knew better. There is a Like piece of Address observable in his First Pi­cture, where Vulcan's Engagement with Sca­mander, and his Victory over him is represent­ed out of Homer; and which, I suppose, he plac'd in the Front of his Book, for the Ho­nour of Lemnos, his Native Island: And for the Honour of That too, and to make his Draught perfectly pleasing, he gives us a Vul­can [Page 276] as handsome, for ought appears to the contrary, as any Figure in his Gallery. In­deed he Ingeniously excuses the God's not ap­pearing to be Lame, by saying, that the Ra­pid Motion, with which he seems to come from Heaven to the Combat with Scamander, must be suppos'd to cover that Defect: But he intimates nothing of his Other Deformi­ties; tho' Vulcan was, according to the Poet's ^(†) account of him, as Ugly every way as Aesop was according to Planudes.

This, I hope, sufficiently accounts for Phi­lostratus's Omission; and as for the Statue e­rected to Aesop, at Athens, and made by the fam'd hand of Lysippus, it will be no argument of his Handsomness, till the Dr. can prove, that this was an Honour done to Handsome Men only; which it will be no Easie Matter to do, because there is an Unquestionable In­stance of a Statue, made by this very Lysippus, and erected by order of the Athenians, to the Memory of a Man, full as Ugly as we need allow Aesop to have been: I will give it the Dr. immediately, e're I part with this Argu­ment.

The Greeks, he says, have several Proverbs about Deform'd Persons, as [...], &c. but none upon Aesop P. 150, 151.? All that follows from hence, is, that Aesop was not Vgly to a Proverb; which I willingly grant him, and am ready to leave Planudes's account [Page 277] as far as this comes to: but he might be Ugly enough for all that; several have been so, that were never made Sayings of: I know Some, at this day, who Write as Uglily as ever Aesop Look'd; but their Style is not yet got into a Proverb, tho' perhaps hereafter it may; and therefore This instance I will not insist on.

Agen, Aesop, he tells us, was Croesus's Am­bassador to Delphi Ibid.: he means, that he was sent of an Errand by him [...], says Plutarch, in Conviv. if that piece may be al­low'd to be quoted se­riously for good Hi­story. thither; for such Mighty Monarchs as Croesus did not use to make Other Mens Slaves, Their Ambassadors. But let his Title be as Glorious as the Dr. pleases, his Person might nevertheless be Con­temptible; unless the Dr. can prove, that the Delphians were as Nice of Temper as the Turks, and would pay no Regard to the Pub­lic Minister of a Prince, unless he were Tall and Comely. Whatever Aesop's Person, or his Character were, They shew'd, I am sure, no great Veneration for Either, when they tumbl'd him down their Precipice.

After all, the Dr's Reasoning upon this Circumstance must be allow'd to be Just; if Aesop were Short and Ugly, it is plain, as he pleasantly observes, that he could never make a Proper Ambassador.

There is another Objection drawn from Aesop's being a Polite Courtier, and a Man of Address: what if he were? Many, I suppose, have been so, who were no Beauties! Yes, but he was so, to that degree, as to rebuke Solon for his Gruff and Clownish Behaviour with Croesus, and tell him, that he must converse with Princes, [...], either Agreeably, or not at all P. 151.. The [Page 278] Thing he said was Handsome, I grant; but must He needs be Handsome that said it? I thought Ugly People had sometimes been as Witty and as Wise as their Neighbors. But since he has mention'd this Aphorism of Ae­sop's, and professes to approve it, I must tell him, 'twere well if he'd follow it too, when the Itch of contradicting Great Men is upon him; and resolve to oppose his Betters [...]; either not at all, or with De­cency.

Dr. Bentley has yet One Reflection behind in behalf of Aesop; he has reserv'd it for the very Last Place in his Book; and we know him to be such a Master in Good Writing, that we may from thence be sure 'tis a fine one. Rhodopis, Aesop 's fellow-Slave, was, it seems, the greatest Beauty of her Age: if therefore (says he) we may guess him by his Companion and Con­tubernalis, we must needs believe him a Comely Person P. 152.. This puts me in mind of his Ar­gument about Alaesa Vide p. 124 of this Book., which he proves to be upon such a Coast of Sicily, because it hap­pens to be mention'd with some Towns that are certainly upon that Coast; and which I have prov'd for that very Reason not to be there, because it is mention'd elsewhere, with some Other Towns, that are certainly not up­on that Coast. If Rhodopis were extreamly handsome, Aesop, her fellow-Slave must be so too! which is as if I should say, it was impossible that Little Ieffery should be such a Dwarf as he is represented to be, because the Tall Porter and He were fellow-Servants. Must Aesop's Master needs buy his Slave as we do Coach­horses [Page 279] in Pairs? and be as careful exactly to match 'em? Perhaps Xanthus, or Iadmon, or whoever he was, (for Authors disser) might be a little wantonly inclin'd; and having pur­chas'd Rhodopis for his Own Use, might fear, lest his Wife should return the Injury he did her; and so took Aesop into his House, who he knew would be no Temptation to her: or perhaps he pitch'd upon an Ugly He slave, that he might be sure to keep the Fair She­slave to himself; and made use of Aesop as a kind of Kuzlir-Aga, to inspect his Seraglio. After all, what if I should turn the Tables, and say, That Herodotus and Pliny's mention­ing this Little Particular, is a confirmation of the receiv'd Opinion about Aesop's Deformi­ty? If He were as remarkably Ugly as She was Handsome, the Observation indeed was pretty, and not unworthy of those Authors; but Otherwise, 'tis Flat enough to have been made by Dr. Bentley.

One would think the Dr. in Jest, when he puts such things as These upon Us for Argu­ments; whereas He prop [...]ses 'em seriously and in good earnest, and fancies he has done wonders in the strength of em. To convince him, if it be possible, of the Weakness and Absurdity of his Proofs, I will (as I did once before In the Answer to the Di [...]s [...] ­ [...]i [...]n on P [...]ala is.) try 'em upon Another Subject; and see how far they will be allow'd to hold.

Whatever Aesop was, Socrates, we are sure, was excessively Ugly: Thus he is in short de­scrib'd by Xenophon in [...]. 4▪5., and St. Ierome Adv. [...] l. 1, p. 51.: Flat-nos'd, Goggle-ey'd, Wide-mouth'd, Thick-lip'd, Pot-belly'd, Bandy-leg'd All these particulars, but the Last, are taken from Xenophon..

[Page 280]Notwithstanding this, in that way of Ra­tiocination Dr. Bentley has made use of, I will prove him to have been a very Lovely and Beautiful Person. I will do it by Every One of the Arguments he has urg'd, except the First, taken from Philostratus's Gallery; in which Socrates, the Famous Persecuter of So­phists, we may be sure, could have no place: but I shall make amends for the want of This Proof, by a New one of my Own, every whit as much to My Purpose as This is to Dr. Bently's.

Thus then Our Man of Criticism has taught Us to Speak, and Argue— The Athenians set up a Noble Statue Diog. Laert. in Socrate. Tertul. in Apol. to the Honour and Me­mory of Socrates: had he been so Ugly as some would make him, it had been kinder to his Memory to let that alone. But the Fa­mous Lys [...]ppus was the Statuary [...] Laer. ibid. that made it. And must so great an Hand be employ'd to dress up a Lump of Deformity?

The Greeks have several Proverbs about Persons deform'd, [...] &c: Our Socrates, if so Ugly, had been in the first Rank of 'em: especially when his Statue had stood there to put every body in mind of it.

He was so far a Favorite of Archelaus, King of Macedonia, that he courted him to come, and live with him Arist. Rhet. l. 2. : but would such a Mon­ster have been a fit Companion for a Prince? He is known to have been one of the best Speakers, and a Man of the greatest Address and Insinuation of any in his time; he had all the Chief Persons of Athens continually about him, and was ever instructing 'em in the Du­ties of Humanity and Courtesie, and all man­ner [Page 281] of Sociable Virtues: Could such a Cha­racter, such a Station, or such Discourses be­fit Socrates if he was truly that Scarecrow he is represented to have been?

He sung, he play'd upon the Music Cic. in Catone., he danc'd Xen. in Symp., he wrote Verses Plat. in Conviv.: he was every way an Accomplish'd Person; and his Conver­sation therefore was coveted by those that were so themselves. He made One often at the Meetings of the Beaux Esprits, and sate up Drinking and Laughing with 'em till Morn­ing Ibid.: Is it credible, that a Man of such De­formity could be so Acceptable, so Polite, and so Pleasant?

But of all things, that which ought most to prevail with us to pronounce him not-Ugly, is, that he was the greatest Lover of Beautiful Persons, and the most Belov'd by 'em of any of his Age: Alcibiades, Critias, Agatho, Phoe­drus, and the rest of his Acquaintances, were all remarkably Handsome: so that if we may guess him by his Companions and Con­tubernales, we must needs believe him to be a Comely person.

His Thoughts, his Discourses were all of Love; every thing he said and did tended to inspire people with it; his Philosophy was no­thing but the Doctrine of Love: and can we think he would have dwelt upon this Passion so much, and inculcated it so often, if He himself had been so very Unlovely and Disa­greeable?

Plato, and Xenophon, have wrote Set-apologies for him, wherein they defend him, among o­ther things, from the Imputation of corrupt­ing the Youth of Athens by Unlawful Love: [Page 282] had he been so deform'd, as he is said to be, how could they better have clear'd him of it, than by Urging the Improbability of his at­tempting such Impurities, in which he was so unlikely to prevail? But having said nothing of this kind in his behalf, it must be pre­sum'd that they had nothing of this kind to say.

Aristophanes, who has expos'd and ridicul'd him upon twenty Other Accounts, has not a word, as I remember, of his Deformity; tho' this was the most Natural Subject for him to exercise his Comical Wit upon, and so Obvi­ous, that, one would think, he could not have miss'd it.

I appeal now to any Indifferent Judge, whe­ther I have not prov'd Socrates handsome by as good Arguments at least as our Critic has ad­vanc'd to prove Aesop so? Indeed, they are most of 'em the very same; only urg'd fur­ther, and with more strength (if I do not de­ceive my self) in the Case of Socrates, than our Dissertator has been able to carry 'em in relation to Aesop. And yet after all I have said, I freely own, that the Testimony of any Ancient Writer concerning Socrates's Ugli­ness, tho' it stood Alone, and we had no Other to back it, would weigh more with Me than all these Negative Authorities. So weak an Argument is the Silence and Praetermission of never so many Authors in a Point where any Sin­gle Writer of Note has plainly declar'd him­self, and his Account has been generally re­ceiv'd and credited by Succeeding Ages.

[Page 283]But I offend in dwelling so long on these Trifles, which deserve rather to be Laugh'd at, than Confuted: I will trouble the Reader no further on this Argument than till I have suggested One Observation to him about Dr. Bentley's odd Conduct in relation to Aesop. He is extreamly concern'd to have Aesop thought Handsome, at the time that he is endeavouring all he can to prove him no Author. He hopes by his Civilities to his Person to atone for the Injuries he does him in his Writings: which is just such a Compliment to Aesop's Memory, as it would be to Sir William Davenant's, should a man, in defiance of Common Fame, pretend to make out, that he had always a Good Nose on his Face; but however, he did not write Gondibert.

Our Critic's Two Attempts are so very in­consistent, that 'tis hard to imagine why a Man should venture upon both of 'em at once: but Dr. Bentley had a good Reason for it, they were Both Paradoxes; and he cares not What, or Whom he writes for, or against, so he can but advance something which no-body ever ventur'd to maintain before him; and which he is sure always to manage at such a rate, as that No-body will ever take it up after him.

I have done with what I intended to offer on Either of these Dissertations; and, upon a Review of what I have said, am asham'd to see, to what a Bulk this trifling Dispute has swoln. However, as Large as I have been upon it, I assure the Reader, that, unless I had spar'd Dr. Bentley very often, I must have been much Larger; for his Absurdities are not yet [Page 284] near exhausted. But I am not likely to be the Last whose Pen will be employ'd on this Subject; and 'tis fit therefore that Some Mat­ter should be left for Those that come after me.

In that Dissertation where I am chiefly con­cern'd, Dr. Bentley takes his Leave of the Ar­gument, with Some particular Civilities to Me. He heartily wishes he could do any Service to that Young Gentleman of great Hopes whose NAME IS SET TO THE EDITION: but he can do him no greater at present, than to remove some Blemishes from the Book that is ASCRIB'D to him; which he desires may be taken aright, to be no disparagement to Himself; but a Reproof only to his Teachers Disser. p. 68.. I would not willingly be behindhand with the Dr. in any Instance of Courtesie, and therefore, in return, will, e're we part, bestow some Cha­ritable Advice upon him: the rather, be­cause I have reason to believe, that he has very little Advice from any Other Quarter. If he had, he would certainly never have written on the Subject, in the Manner he has done: for I have not so ill Thoughts of any One Man I know in the World, as to imagin, that he would have advis'd Dr. Bentley to do as he has done, had His Opinion been ask'd in it. Young as I am therefore, I will take the freedom to do that kind Office to him, which his Friends, I find, either do not care, or are not allow'd to perform.

[Page 285]And the first piece of Advice that I will venture to give the Dr. is, that he would know his own Talent; and resolve for the future not to venture upon any way of wri­ting that Nature never design'd him for. Wit, and Ridicule, are either the most Di­verting, or the most Insipid things in the World. I have the Opinion of good Judges, that he has no true Taste of either of these, and performs very untowardly in 'em. He would do wisely therefore to forbear 'em; and so he would, methinks, tho' he should have some little Knack at 'em: for Grimace, and Banter, and Quibbles, even when luckily hit off, are not very suitable to the Cha­racter of a man in Holy Orders. And to give him my opinion what he is fit for, I think, (if he resolves always to be doing something out of his Profession) that the Col­lecting Greek Fragments, or Proverbs, would be a proper Employment for him. He has succeeded well in One of these, and would doubtless be as happy in the Other: for his Genius seems to lye very strongly that way; as one would guess by the Multitude of Pro­verbs in all Tongues, (English, Latin, and Greek, but chiefly in the Last) of which he has empty'd himself into these Dissertations. And I am the rather apt to think, that such Works as these might thrive in his hands, because the well executing 'em depends chie­fly on Two Qualities, which he must be al­low'd to possess; Application, and a Wil­lingness to be employ'd in such Sorts of Stu­dies, [Page 286] as only load the Memory, without im­proving the Understanding.

It is Another piece of Advice I should chuse to give the Dr, that he would, against he writes next, make use of that Relation he has to a Court, so far, as to get a little Good Language, and Good Manners; without which, had he waded through all the Greek Scholia, and turn'd over every Lexicon extant, he would never write any thing that will either please or last. When he is making Reflecti­ons on Style, it is very proper, I think, that he should be well skill'd, not only in the Tongue he writes of, but in That too which he writes in: else, he will only make Sport for his Reader, if while he is correcting a Fault in One Language, he himself makes Ten New ones in another.

And till he understands his Own Tongue a little better than he does, he would do well to forbear Minting any New Words in it; which is the Work of Great Masters, and a Privilege allow'd only to Writers of the First Rate, who know the Compass of a Language, and see thro' all its several Beauties and Blemishes. Sir William Temple may say, Suffi­ciency, and the World will speak after him: Indeed we are convinc'd from some things that have come out a late, that there is such a mixture of Vanity, Indecency, and Igno­rance, in some Mens Writings, as No One Word in our Tongue would perfectly an­swer; and there was need of a New one therefore to express it. But if Dr. Bentley [Page 287] should take the same Liberty, he would be sure to be oppos'd in it; His Commentitious, and Putid, and Vernacular, and Negoce, will be hiss'd off the Stage, as soon as they come on: for the Fine Speakers will never endure that a man should take upon him to coin New Words, who doesn't know how to use the Old ones.

Another thing I mightily recommend to him, is, that when he next pretends to fix the Age of Greek Words, and Phrases, he would vouchsafe, among his other Greek Books, to read the Bible: least he should happen to pronounce Some Modes of Speech to be of Late Date, which are familiarly to be met with in those Sacred Pages. For af­ter all, should his knowledge in Greek Lear­ning prove never so great, yet it would not redound to his honour as a Divine, to appear well read in all Sorts of Books, but those it best becomes him to be acquainted with, the Old and New Testament.

I am of Opinion too, that it would not be amiss, if for this Twelvemonth next to come, he read over Dr. Hody's Vow once every mor­ning: 'tis a Good One; and those who pre­tend to understand Secret History tell us, it was made upon a very Proper Occasion. I will insert it here, both for Dr. Bentley's Be­nefit, and Dr. Hody's Honour; who, it must be own'd, has acted up to it always, as a right good-natur'd Man, and an Excellent Scho­lar.

Next to this Short Vow of Dr. Hody's, I know no small Piece that will deserve his Re­flections better, than Lucian's Lexiphanes Lexi­phanes is the Name of a Fa­mous Pe­dant, fond of Hard Words, and Affected Expressi­ons. Lu­cian, in a Dialogue of his, gives a Vomit to him, and brings 'em all up, one after another. His Disease is excellently well describ'd by Lucian in these words; [...]. Luc. in Lexiph.. If he would read it often, take the good Ad­vice that Lucian gives there, of Sacrificing to the Graces, and to Perspicuity [...]. Id. ibid.; and suffer some Skilful Friend to administer to him the Emetic Draught there prescrib'd, it would do him a World of Service: by the help of this Physick, and these Directions, well pursu'd, he might in time become a Sound Man agen, and speak and write like the rest of his Neighbors.

[Page 289]But if he be too far gone in his Distemper to have a Thorough Cure made upon him, yet at least it is very possible, and very requi­site, that he should advance so far towards it, as to purge his Style of all Insulting Unbeco­ming Terms, and Injurious Reflections: for if he carries on this Critical War in that Un­souldierly Way he hath hitherto done, and throws out his Rudenesses without Decency or Distinction, he may happen to draw some Inconveniences upon himself that he is not aware of.

Especially he should take care, when the Angry Fit is upon him, not to vent it upon Great Bodies of Learned Men. A Single Wri­ter may be trampl'd upon now and then, and receive Correction from his Hand, without endeavouring to return it: but among Num­bers, there will alwa [...]s be found Some, who have Ability, and Inclination, and Leisure enough to do Themselves and their Friends right upon the Injurer; tho' he were a Cham­pion of ten times as much Strength and Prow­ess, as Dr. Bentley thinks himself to be. Be­sides, Single Adversaries dye, and drop off; but Societies are Immortal: their Resentments are sometimes deliver'd down from hand to hand; and when once they have begun with a man, there is no knowing when they will leave him.

'Twere well too, if he would think it a point of Prudence to observe some Measures of Decency towards the Dead as well as the Living; and not give himself that insufferable Liberty of attacking their Reputation and [Page 290] their Works, in hopes that no-body will be generous enough to stand up in their behalf, and speak for those, who cannot speak for themselves. He has defy'd Phalaris, and us'd him very coursely, under the assurance, as he tells us, that he is out of his Reach Dissert. p. 40.: Many of Phalaris's Enemies thought the same thing; and repented of their Vain Confidence after­wards in his Bull. Dr. Bentley is perhaps by this time, or will suddenly be satisfied, that He also has presum'd a little too much upon his Distance: but 'twill be too late to Repent, when he begins to Bellow.