mation and powers of argument, that he remarked to the Bishop, after dinner, "My Lord, that chaplain of yours is certainly a very extraordinary man." "Yes," said Stillingfleet; "had he but the gift of humility, he would be the most extraordinary man in Europe."*

In 1694 he was again appointed to preach Boyle's lectures; but this series of discourses his friends could never prevail upon him to publish, nor has it been ascertained that the manuscript is preserved. He had now made great progress in preparing editions of Manilius and Philastratus. He appeared to have been chiefly deterred from sending them to press, by the increased expense of paper and printing in England. He was induced, by the cheapness of German typography, to adopt the plan of printing his edition of the Greek sophist at Leipzig, and there one sheet was actually printed as a specimen; but he was so disgusted with the meanness of its appearance, that he resolved his learned animadversions should not be exhibited in so unsuitable a dress. "It may be remarked," says Dr. Monk, "that Bentley always placed a high value upon typographical elegance, and was more fastidious upon this head, than might have been expected, from one who so well understood the intrinsic merits of a book." In this respect we are, however, more inclined to commend, than to censure his taste; the elegance of typography is, in most cases, a harmless luxury; nor do we perceive any difficulty in supposing that a competent judge of good printing, may also be a competent judge of good writing.

It was in a great measure owing to his zeal and perseverence, that the Cambridge University Press, which had never recovered the shock of the civil wars, was restored to respectability. A sufficient sum having been raised for defraying the necessary expenses, the charge of providing types was solely entrusted to Bentley. We are expressly informed, that the subscriptions were principally procured by his exertions. The types were cast in Holland; and some well-known books, which afterwards issued from that press, particularly Taylor's Demosthenes, Kuster's Suidas, and Talbot's Horace, afford sufficient evidence of the commission having been placed in proper hands.

In the year 1695, his patron, the Bishop of Worcester, gave him the

• Very likely :—the gift of humility would make any man extraordinary, though he should possess “small Latin, and less Greek." The modesty to decline, the pride to disdain an invidious display of talents or acquirements-the good sense that soberly appreciates the abilities of self—the candour and generosity that does willing justice to the merits of others—are frequent, though not constant accompaniments of true genius, and of genuine learning. But true humility is something very different from all these: it is not a gift, but a grace,-only bestowed on such as have made the soul a temple for the Father of light and love. C.

K

rectory of Hartlebury, to be held till his pupil should arrive at the canonical age. This preferment he retained for the space of three years: the interest of the same prelate had, about that period, procured him the nomination of Chaplain in ordinary to the King. It was also about this period that he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. We must here record it as an instance of scandalous ingratitude, that when the Bishop's grandson, Benjamin Stillingfleet, was left an orphan, and was sent, in the humble capacity of sizar, to Trinity College, Bentley refused to give him a fellowship, and preferred several competitors of inferior attainments.

At the commencement of the year 1696, he ceased to reside in the Bishop's house, in Park-Street, Westminster, and took possession of the librarian's apartments in St. James's Palace; and in the month of July, he was created Doctor of Divinity, at Cambridge. He was appointed to preach the commencement sermon, and the subject which he selected was that " of Revelation, and the Messias ;" a subject which he treated in a manner not unworthy of his reputation.

Dr. Bentley was now making a rapid approach to the full height of his literary fame, and his principal efforts were more the results of accidental excitements, than of his own deliberate plans. In the year 1692, SIR WILLIAM TEMPLE, one of the most fashionable writers of the age, had published "An Essay on Ancient and Modern Learning," in which he strenuously opposed the opinions of Fontenelle and Perrault, who had given a very decided preference to the moderns. Sir William had caught the contagion of the then prevalent literary controversy, in which the first scholars in Europe were engaged, and he was of opinion that the ancients possessed a greater force of genius, with some peculiar advantages; that the human mind was in a state of decay; and that our knowledge was nothing more than scattered fragments saved out of the general shipwreck. But Temple's learning was of that gentlemanlike quality which fitted him rather to admire than to judge; and his preference of the ancients probably arose more from long familiarity, and pleasant associations, than from a fair estimate of comparative value. Had he advanced the names of Shakspeare, Milton, Bacon, Newton, he would have furnished his French antagonists with powers they knew not of. The fables of Esop, and the epistles of Phalaris, which he believed to be the most ancient pieces of prose written by profane authors, doubtless appeared much more to the purpose.

DR. ALDRICH, the learned dean of Christ Church, was accustomed to employ some of his best scholars in preparing editions of classical works; and of these publications, which were generally of a moderate compass, it was his practice to present a copy to every young man in his college.

The task of editing the epistles of Phalaris was committed to the Hon. CHARLES BOYLE, a young gentleman of pleasing manners, and of a relish for learning, creditable to his age and rank. He had profited by the tuition of DR. GALE, the dean of York, who had long cultivated Grecian literature; and on his admission at Christ Church, he was under the tuition of ATTERBURY, who, if not a profound, was at least an elegant scholar. In his editorial labours he was aided by his private tutor, John Freind, then one of the junior students, and afterwards a physician of no small celebrity. The editor of Phalaris wished to procure the collation of a manuscript belonging to the Royal library; but, instead of making any direct application to the librarian, he had recourse to the agency of Thomas Bennett, a bookseller, in St. Paul's Churchyard, who appears to have executed his commission with no extraordinary degree of zeal, or despatch. In order to conceal his own negligence, he is supposed to have misrepresented the entire transaction to his employers at Oxford; and the preface to Mr. Boyle's edition of Phalaris, published in the year 1695, contains a sarcastic reflection on Bentley for his want of civility. To the editor he immediately addressed a letter, explaining the real circumstance of the case; but, instead of receiving an answer in the spirit of conciliation, he was given to understand he might seek his redress in any way he pleased. It is, however, dangerous to take a lion by the beard.

. DR. WOTTON had recently engaged in a controversy respecting the comparative excellence of the ancients and moderns, and after he had sent to the press his "Reflections upon Ancient and Modern Learning," Bentley happened to state, in a conversation, that the epistles of Phalaris were spurious, and that we have nothing now extant of Æsop's own composing. This casual remark led to a promise that he would furnish a written statement of his opinions, to be added to the second edition of the Reflections.

A new edition of the "Reflections on Ancient and Modern Learning "being called for, Wotton claimed his friend's promise, that he would demonstrate Phalaris's epistles and Æsop's fables, to be forgeries. Bentley desired to excuse himself, alleging, that circumstances were altered since the promise was made, as the treatment which he had received in the preface to the Oxford Phalaris, would make it impossible for him to write his dissertation, without noticing the calumny propagated against him in that work. This excuse not appearing sufficient, his friend exacted the performance of the engagement. This is his own account, which we find unequivocally corroborated by Wotton. Accordingly, he undertook a dissertation, in the form of letters, to Wotton, in which the main object was, to demonstrate that the

author of "Phalaris' Epistles," was not the Sicilian tyrant, but some sophist of a more recent age; reserving to the conclusion his remarks on Boyle's edition, and the personal reflection upon himself.

There still remained the Æsopian fables, the other great object of Sir William Temple's admiration; and to dispossess the old Phrygian fabulist of the credit, or rather the discredit, of having written the collection, was no difficult task. "This section of Bentley's performance," says Dr. Monk, "exhibits little novelty or research, and bears greater marks of haste than any other part of the dissertation. It is probable that the printer was too urgent, or his friend Wotton too impatient, for the publication of the book, to allow more time for the Appendix. The history of the fables, though not generally known, had in fact been told before, and Bentley only contributed greater precision and accuracy, together with a few additional circumstances."

On the publication of this joint work, the sensation in the literary and academical circles was without parallel. In the large and distinguished society of Christ Church, it produced a perfect ferment. The attack upon the Phalaris was considered an affront to the dean, under whose auspices it was published, and the college, for whose use it was designed. It was therefore resolved that the audacious offender should experience the full resentment of the body whom he had provoked; and the task of inflicting this public chastisement devolved upon the ablest scholars and wits of the college. The leaders of the confederacy were FRANCIS ATTERBURY and GEORGE SMALRIDGE, both of them, in process of time, members of the Episcopal bench. Each was nearly of the same age as Bentley, and they were regarded as the rising lights of the University. Mr. Boyle, in whose name and behalf the controversy was carried on, seems to have had but a small share of the actual operation, having then quitted academical pursuits, and entered upon the theatre of active life. But as Bentley's opponents were likely to obtain little triumph in matters of erudition, they determined to hold up his character to ridicule and odium; to dispute his honesty and veracity; and, by representing him as a model of pedantry, conceit, and ill manners, to raise such an outcry as should drive him off the literary stage for ever. Accordingly, every circumstance which could be discovered respecting his life and conversation, every trivial anecdote, however unconnected with the controversy, was caught up, and made a topic either of censure or ridicule.

Rumours and conjectures are the lot of contemporaries. Truth seems reserved for posterity, and, like the fabled MINERVA, is born at once. The secret history of this volume has been partly opened in one of WARBURTON's letters. Pope, it appears, was "let into the secret."

The principal share of the undertaking fell to the lot of Atterbury. This was suspected at the time, and has since been placed beyond all doubt, by the publication of a letter of his to Boyle, in which he mentions that "in writing more than half the book, in reviewing a good part of the rest, and in transcribing the whole, half a year of his life had passed away." The main part of the discussion upon Phalaris was from his pen. That upon Æsop was believed to be written by John Freind, and he was probably assisted in it by Alsop, who at that time was engaged on an edition of the fables. But the respective shares cannot now be fixed with certainty. In point of classical learning, the joint stock of the confederacy, bore no proportion to that of Bentley: "their acquaintance with several of the books upon which they comment," observes Dr. Monk, "appears only to have begun upon this occasion; and sometimes they are indebted to their knowledge of them from their adversary; compared with his boundless erudition, their learning was that of schoolboys, and not always sufficient to preserve them from distressing mistakes. But profound literature was at that time confined to few; while wit and railery found numerous and eager readers.* It may be doubted whether BUSBY himself, by whom every one of the confederate band had been educated, possessed knowledge which would have qualified him to enter the lists in such a controversy."

There was another individual in whom Bentley's dissertation excited a still deeper feeling of resentment. Sir William Temple had already been chagrined at the favourable reception of Wotton's reflections, the work of a young and unknown author, but his mortification was increased tenfold by Bentley's appendix, which it must be confessed placed him in an uncomfortable predicament. He now saw it demonstrated by arguments, not one of which he could refute, that the two productions believed by him to be the oldest, and pronounced to be the finest in existence, were the fabrications of some comparatively recent hand.

It was at this time that JONATHAN SWIFT made his first attack upon Bentley, in the "Tale of a Tub." The greater part of this celebrated piece of humour had been composed, as the author informs us, in the preceding year. The first design of the tale was only to ridicule the corruptions and extravagances of certain religious sects. The sections containing his ridicule of criticism, and of whatever else he disapproved in literature, were written upon the appearance of Wotton's and

Wit and invective obtained an apparent triumph. "The bees of Christ Church," as the confederacy was called, rushed in a dark swarm upon Bentley, but only left their stings in the flesh they could not wound. He merely put out his hand in contempt, not in rage. Doubtful whether wit could prevail against learning, they had recourse to personal satire.