Dr. Bentley's Dissertations on the Epistles of Phalaris, and the fables of Æsop, examin'd by the Honourable Charles Boyle, Esq.

Dr. BENTLEY'S Dissertation UPON THE Epistles of Phalaris, &c. EXAMIN'D.

DR. Bentley, in the Piece I am about to examine, among several other Liberties, has taken this, of wri∣ting without any Method. Great Genius's indeed are above ordina∣ry 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

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 lear∣ned 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. How∣ever 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 dis∣guis'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 Li∣brary 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 Manu∣script, and desir'd him to apply himself to

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 Stati∣on 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 perfect∣ed: 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 inser∣ted these words, [Collatas etiam curavi us{que} ad Epistolam 40 cum MS^o in Bibliothecâ Re∣giâ; 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;

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 em∣ploy'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 con∣cern'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 op∣portunity 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 sup∣ported 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 con∣vinc'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 Cir∣cumstance

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,* 1.1 I went voluntarily and offer'd it him, bidding him tell the Collator not to lose any time; for I was short∣ly 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 en∣tirely false. He drew up the Matter of Fact in writing, and set his Hand to it; gi∣ving me liberty to make it publick, and to assure the World, that he was ready to ju∣stifie 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 Colla∣tor, 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,

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.

WHereas the Reverend Dr. Bentley has thought fit, in the Appendix to Mr. Wotton's Reflexions on Ancient and Modern Learning, (p. 66, & 67.) to insert the following words as Matter of Fact,* 2.1 [viz. A Bookseller came to me in the name of the Editors, &c.] I think my self oblig'd to give the World the fol∣lowing account, wherein I have faithfully related what passed on that occasion.

I was imploy'd by the Honourable Mr. Boyle, (and by him only) to borrow the MS. of Phalaris from Dr. Bentley. After about Nine Months sollicitation, it was deliver'd into my custody, with∣out any time limited for the return of it. Within few days after, Dr. Bentley call'd upon me, to have it restor'd, and Then told me, that he was to go into the Country. He staid till I sent to the Collator, and word was brought by the Messenger, that it was not collated. I then beg'd him to let me have it but till Sunday Morning, (it was Saturday Noon when he came) and I engag'd to oblige the Collator to sit up all Saturday Night, to get it finish'd. But he utterly refus'd to leave it with me any longer, demanding to have it sent that Day to Westminster, (which was done ac∣cordingly) and not giving me any the least hopes,

that if I apply'd to him upon his return out of the Country, I shou'd have leave to get the Collation perfected. These Circumstances I am thus parti∣cular in, because I had occasion to recollect 'em not long afterwards, when Mr. Boyle's Book came out, and Letters pass'd between him and Dr. Bent∣ley, concerning the Passage in his Preface.

It may not be proper, considering my Imploy∣ment, for me to add an account of the Reflections. Dr. Bentley was pleas'd to make from time to time, when I spoke to him from Mr. Boyle, for the Vse of the MS. He has represented me as having said too much on that subject. But, by good fortune, Dr. King was present at one of the Meetings, and heard all that pass'd there. I hope he will do Iustice on this occasion.

Thomas Bennet.

Iuly 13. 1697.

I Very well remember, that Mr. Bennet sent his Man to me for Phalaris's Epistles, whilst I was collating 'em; and being unwilling to part with them, before I had gone through 'em, I sent the Man back without them. But he presently return'd, and told me, that the Gentleman, that own'd them, staid at their Shop for them, and cou'd not spare them any longer: This is the true reason, why I cou'd collate no more of the abovesaid Epistles.

Witness my Hand, Geo. Gibson.

Iuly 15. 1697.

SIR,

I Am bound in Iustice to answer your request, by endeavouring, as far as I can, to recollect what pass'd between Mr. Bennet and Dr. Bent∣ley, concerning a MS. of the Epistles of Phala∣ris. I cannot be certain as to any other Particu∣lars, than that, among other things, the Dr. said, that if the MS. were collated, it wou'd be worth nothing for the future. Which I took the more notice of, because I thought a MS. good for nothing, unless it were collated. The whole Discourse was manag'd with such Insolence, that after he was gone, I told Mr. Bennet, that he ought to send Mr. Boyle word of it: that, for my own part, (I said then what I think still) I did not believe that the Various Readings of any Book were so much worth, as that a Person of Mr. Boyle's Honour and Learning, shou'd be us'd so scurvily to obtain 'em. That scorn and contempt which I have naturally for Pride and Insolence, makes me remember that, which otherwise I might have forgot. Believe me, Sir, to be

Your faithful Friend, and humble Servant, William King.

Doctors Com∣mons, Octob. 13. 1697.

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 Per∣sons 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 de∣termine 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. Ben∣net, is full and home; and I do assure our Lear∣ned Critic, that whatever becomes of Pha∣laris's Letters, this of Dr. King's is not spu∣rious. I have the Original of it by me un∣der 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 plea∣ses 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 fa∣vour, and spoken of me with so much con∣tempt, I was at Liberty, I think, to have re∣turn'd his Civilities in what way I pleas'd, and to have given him any Language what∣ever that it was not below me to give. And

that is a Restraint which, I hope, I shall al∣ways 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 immediate∣ly enter'd upon the Honourable and Christian Design of exposing me; and resolv'd, what∣ever 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 Obser∣vation from Nature, when he said, We often pardon those that injure us, but we can never for∣give 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 intend∣ed as a disparagement to me; to show his Rea∣der, I suppose, that he had as mean an Opi∣nion 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 Gentle∣man,

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 Af∣front, 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 a 4.1, weak Detraction a 4.2, Injustice a 4.3, Forgery and Slander a 4.4; with the basest Tricks b 4.5, and a vile Aspersion b 4.6: He tells me, that a certain Person, tho' a sorry Critic, was yet a degree above me c 4.7; and, that Printing is a Sword in the hand of a Child d 4.8; meaning, I suppose, his humble Servant.

He likens me, by a very elegant Simily, to a Bungling Tinker mending Old Kettles e 4.9, in one place; and, by the help of a Greek Proverb, calls me downright Ass f 4.10 in another. The correcting the faults of my Version is, in his polite way of writing, the cleansing of Au∣geas'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

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 Phala∣ris. 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 proba∣bly always want it as much as they see he does now. So that if I needed further Vou∣chers than those which I have already brought, I wou'd call in his own Dissertation to wit∣ness 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,* 4.11 (whose Books in time I may be fit to read) wherein these very same words [pro singulari

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 use∣ful 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.

There was, not many Years ago, a Dispute about a Point of History, between an Inge∣nious 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 Au∣thorities. 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

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 whe∣ther 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 ex∣plain'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 per∣son that had oblig'd the World with it. The Edition came out, it was dedicated to Dr. Bent∣ly,

the honour of the Publication given to him; and not one word of Sir Edward Sherburn said in it. The Sophists are every where pelt∣ed 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. Bent∣ly told him plainly, that the MS. was put into his hands under that express Condition: But if the Dr. only gave some slight inti∣mation 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 after∣wards? 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? No∣thing 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 wil∣ling that it shou'd prevail.

Upon a view of this Story, I am apt to re∣tract my Suspicions about Dr. Bently's Letters from Learned Professors. He may perhaps have Testimonials of his Courtesie by him,

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, with∣out 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 grea∣ter 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 whe∣ther 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 Re∣marks to add on some Passages in the Sto∣ry 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 40th Epistle, and would have done so throughout, but

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 Col∣lated. My words are, Collatas etiam [viz. Epistolas] curavi cum MS^o in Bibliothecâ Re∣giâ, &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 col∣lated 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 con∣venient Turn to his Matter of Fact at the En∣trance, which might best serve to counte∣nance his Criticisms that follow.

With this View, he makes an unfair and broken citation of my words in the Mar∣gin; placing there only thus much out of my Preface, [MS ^o 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 Sen∣tence is imperfect, and unintelligible.

Dr. Bently could not have given us a bet∣ter Earnest of his Integrity, at his first set∣ting 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 Edi∣tors, to beg (he would say, desire) the use of the MS. He knows very well, that Mr. Ben∣net went to him in my name only; Mr. Ben∣net himself is positive in the point: but least

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 Gen∣tleman, 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 plea∣ses to explain himself. Whatever his mean∣ing be, the Reader is desir'd to take notice, that there was about Nine Months Sollicitati∣on 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 Col∣lator;

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, transla∣ted into English, is, bidding him let the Colla∣tor 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 Ficti∣on; 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 col∣late it in. It was a mighty Treasure it seems; the Credit of the King's Library de∣pended 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 Col∣lation. This is roundly averr'd; but the Rea∣der has Mr. Bennet's and Mr. Gibson's Certifi∣cates; and after comparing 'em with this Passage, may believe as he thinks fit.

Well, (says he) the Collation, it seems, was sent defective to Oxon, and the blame, I sup∣pose, 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 Edi∣tion, 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 Li∣brary-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 consi∣derable, that I should make a second Ap∣plication 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

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 in∣timates 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 En∣quiries into his private Conversation.

The Reader will excuse this Tedious De∣scant 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 be∣came me to do it, the Matters of pure Cri∣ticism 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,

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 be∣tween '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 pub∣lickly, 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 * 4.12 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 mea∣sure disus'd. Which I suppose he would ne∣ver

have done in some of the last Pages of his Book, if he had then known of the Disser∣tation that immediately follows it.

A Gentleman of my acquaintance was ob∣serving to me, what a Motly, Unequal work, these two Pieces made, as they now lye to∣gether. 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 mo∣tive 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. (con∣tinued he) is modest and decent; speaks ge∣nerally with respect of those he differs from, and with a due distrust of his own Opi∣nions: Dr. Bentley is Positive and Pert; has

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 run∣ning through it, where there is no ostenta∣tion 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 com∣mending 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 Plea∣sure of their mutual Civilities, I shall go on to the rest of my remarks on Dr. Bent∣ley'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 ob∣serv'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 In∣vention 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

not very considerable; and who besides, does not say that for which he's produc'd; especi∣ally 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 prai∣sing 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 re∣periemus 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 Scrib∣lers, should yet think fit to grace the very Entrance of his Work, with vouchng the Authority of as errant a Sophist and De∣claimer 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 Pha∣laris 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 pro∣ceed

from a singularity of Palate and Iudg∣ment.

For Aesop it will be time enough to ac∣count when I come to the entire Disserta∣tion 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 suspe∣cted their being Genuine, yet allow'd 'em to be finish'd things in their way, and excel∣lently well counterfeited. And therefore the value which Sir W. Temple professes for 'em cannot be said to proceed from a Singulari∣ty 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, most admira∣ble 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. Bent∣ley, 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 oc∣casion,

be apt to say, that both the Criti∣cism and the Critic too are of a Peculiar Com∣plexion?

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 gene∣rally 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 Per∣gamus and Alexandria rivalling one another in the Magnificence and Copiousness of their Libra∣ries, gave great Rates for any Treatises that car∣ried the names of Celebrated Authors; and this he proves out of Galen upon Hippocrates, de Naturâ Hominis.

There are other Old Writers that tell this Story, and tell it more truly, than Galen did, tho' a Native of Pergamus. He positively af∣firms, 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 a∣greeable to what Dr. Bentley tells us in the case, that the Practice of forging Books was al∣most 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 Rea∣der: 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 Pe∣tronius found at Buda. He does not, I sup∣pose, mean that from Alba Graeca, which any of his Dictionaries would have told him was Latin, not for Buda, but Belgrade: and there∣fore

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 fur∣ther 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 Victo∣ry, 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. (a) 4.13

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 men∣tion'd too by (b) 4.14 Photius in his Epistles, that they are quoted by Nonnus (c) 4.15 in his Histori∣cal Comment on St. Gregory's Invectives, and by the (d) 4.16 Scholiast on Aristophanes; that very

Scholiast, whom, one would think, the Dr. by his citing him so often (e) 4.17, had thorough∣ly read. The Latest of these is some Cen∣turies older than either Suidas or Tzetzes. Indeed Tzetzes, who liv'd but in the 12th Century, deserves not to be call'd an An∣cient; and Dr. Bentley himself is of this mind in another part of his Dissertation (f) 4.18, where he stiles him a Later Greek. But it was con∣venient, that he should be an Ancient here, and a Modern there, in order to the diffe∣rent 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 tran∣scrib'd, as it is again in the Collection of An∣tonius and Maximus the Monks, which accom∣panies Stobaeus. Had Dr. Bentley had these Authorities in his view, he might with bet∣ter Grounds, tho' not with more Assurance, have pronounc'd, that * 4.19 The Epistles have the general Warrant and Certificate for this last thou∣sand years, before the Restoration of Learning. And thus far I can agree with him: but when he further assures us, that † 4.20 All the Scholars of those Ages receiv'd 'em for true Ori∣ginals; 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

the Epistles of Plato, Aristotle, and Demosthe∣nes: but withal intimates his Suspicions that they are not Genuine, when he calls 'em the * 4.21 Epistles that are attributed to Phalaris, and joyns 'em, with those that (as he speaks) are ascrib'd to † 4.22 Brutus.

With these Ancients, he tells us, many Moderns have concurr'd in Opinion; parti∣cularly, that Fazeltus and Iacobus Capel••us, two very Learned men, have asserted the credit of the Epistles; and that Selden himself de∣pended 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 mis∣fortune to live before him. In spite of what the Learned men of so many Ages and Na∣tions have thought and said, Dr. Bentley knows (a) 4.23, and will demonstrate (b) 4.24, 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 (c) 4.25. I will own to the Reader, that had these words offer'd themselves to me be∣fore I had been acquainted with Dr. Bentley's Manner, they would have given me some un∣easiness. 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

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 ven∣tur'd to try, whether the Dr's Proofs would overbear me with that weight of Demonstra∣tion they threatned. I read 'em, I weigh'd 'em; and I found, to my satisfaction, that Pha∣laris 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. Bent∣ley's Dissertation, are much lessen'd; and if he should write once more upon the Subject, per∣haps 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 Con∣fusion 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 over∣look a great many of his Pages for the pre∣sent; 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

against the Dialect Phalaris uses; who reign∣ing in Sicily, and being, as he tells us (a) 4.26, born there, should have spoken Doric, the prevai∣ling 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 (b) 4.27.

Tho' it be no very material point, yet I cannot grant the Dr. that the Language of these Letters is properly Attic. There are in∣deed several Attic ways of speech in 'em; but so there are in other Authors, who con∣fessedly 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 Pedan∣dantry and Solaecism (c) 4.28. A very deep Refle∣ction! 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 gi∣ven me a clear Notion what it is to be af∣fected even to Pedantry, but the being affected even to Solaecism, and in Attic too, is to Me, I confess, a very incomprehensible degree of

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 ap∣prehend 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 * 4.29, 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 Si∣cilian born; for two good Reasons: because the Natives of Sicily (and so of other places) did not always write in the prevailing Dia∣lect 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

prove it from Good Authors† 4.30: 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 (a) 4.31 says, that Phalaris was by birth a Sicilian; but he gives this, to∣gether with some other Impertinent and Ri∣diculous 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 him∣self.

But whether Phalaris were of Sicily, or no; the Dr. is positive (b) 4.32, that he was not of Astypalaea, a City in Crete, as I have re∣presented 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

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 com∣pleater one by far than Ptolemy's and a migh∣tier 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 (a) 4.33 and Fazellus (b) 4.34 made this Discovery before me: the Last of these Dr. Bentley has vouchsaf'd to call a very Learned Man (c) 4.35; and I'll venture to call the Other so. So that if I did mistake, I mistook after Great Names: and Dr. Bentley is unpardona∣ble, for not knowing, or not owning, what One of these had said; for he quotes (d) 4.36 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

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 * 4.37. 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 pur∣pose, that the Letters have mention'd this Astypalaea. If Dr. Bentley will discard all Places, that occurr but once in Ancient Wri∣ters, he'l make mad Work in Geography. What does he think of Trinacia, the Sicilian Town in Diodorus? what of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 lon∣ger. And, therefore to shorten the Work, and save my self, and the Reader, the trou∣ble of more Instances, I'll put the Dr. in mind of what the Learned Palmerius says up∣on this place in Scylax: Ejus Loci seu Regiun∣culae (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 a∣mong 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

yet a Town in Crete, and in Sicily too? Stra∣bo 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; how∣ever 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 Co∣lour 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 Asty∣palaea, yet says it must be that among the Spo∣rades; for this convincing Reason; because this Latter was nearest to Crete, whither Phala∣ris's Wife and Son are suppos'd to have fled. Ep. LXIX * 4.38. Giving the Dr. Leave to suppose this Flight from Astypalaea to Crete, why must it needs be from the Astypalaea that was near∣est? Those that fly are usually glad to get as far as they can out of the reach of their Pur∣suers. 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 Bet∣ters?

Is the Pleasure of inventing a Circum∣stance, 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. su∣spect 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 Pro∣fessor call'd the Island but as Scylax (a) 4.39 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. Profes∣sor had been guilty of a Fault not to be for∣given by Gratuitously undertaking to Apologize for the Epistles of Phalaris (b) 4.40, in his Elaborate Edition of Euripides: that is, (for I can make no other sense of it) by defending the Au∣thority 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 Phala∣ris 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 Au∣thors writing in a Dialect different from that

of their own Country; and not a few Instan∣ces 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 Do∣rian 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 (a) 4.41, where we find the Common word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 imploy'd instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Grammarians tell us (b) 4.42 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 in∣deed pretends in some measure to account for this by saying, that the Lyric (or, as He loves to speak, the Melic) Poets chose the

Doric Dialect for the sake of the Doric Har∣mony, 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, Mora∣lists, 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 (a) 4.43; or such, as they thought suited best with their Subject: and very often they took up with that Dia∣lect, which was in Fashion a∣mong 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 (b) 4.44. I propose this only as probable, Dr. Bentley

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 Wri∣ters 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. Dio∣dorus 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 writ∣ten their Epistles in such a Dialect, as if (to use Dr. Bentley's Gentlemanly Phrase) they had gone to School at Athens * 4.45.

Nay some of the Princes and States of Si∣cily, and other Dorian Countries, have caus'd Coins to be struck, whose Inscriptions are not

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 * 4.46.

But the most remarkable Instance of all is that of Zaleucus, King of the Locrians, a Do∣ric Colony; the Preface to whose Laws is preserv'd in Stobaeus, an exact and faithful Copier of Old Authors; and has plainly no∣thing 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 Sto∣baeus.

And now, upon a View of these Instances, (and others of this kind, which I could pro∣duce; but I spare the Reader) I might be-speak the Dr. in his own pert way of Enqui∣ry; Pray, how came Attic (or any other Dia∣lect 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 Demo∣craty (a) 4.47? How is it that those Little Prin∣ces of Sicily, as Arbitrary and Jealous of their Prerogative as the Mightiest Monarch what∣ever, 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 equal∣ly serve to give us an account, why Phala∣ris

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 In∣stances 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 pro∣per indeed for Mimes, Comedies, and Pastorals, where Men of Ordinary Rank are represented, &c. but not to be us'd in HEROIC, without great dis∣advantage (a) 4.48.

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 seve∣ral 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.

Aristotle would have inform'd him, that Em∣pedocles 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: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (says he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (a) 4.49 There is nothing that Ho∣mer 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,* 4.50 even his Friend Mr. Wot∣ton, who would have taught him the Distin∣ction 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 Pha∣laris, for confounding 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (b) 4.51, should have taken care not to have given Pha∣laris's Friends an Opportunity of making Re∣prisals. The Fatal Mistake in this case was, that Suidas, the Dr's Oracle, calls him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 distin∣ction.

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 Trea∣tise of Expiations (c) 4.52, why would it not have born being written in Doric, as well as Theocri∣tus's

Pharmaceutria? especially since Laertius intimates, that the Subject of that Treatise was in great measure drawn from the Pytha∣goreans: 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 Coun∣try 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 Sagaci∣ty than Dr. Bentley, to tell us, for what rea∣son 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 Pha∣laris?

Dr. Bentley has had very ill Luck in bring∣ing off the Poet, let us see whether he has bet∣ter in what he has to say for the Historian. * 4.53 Diodorus Siculus, he tells us, and the other Historians of Dorian Nations, had great reason to decline the Vse of their Vernacular Tongue, as im∣proper 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.

The Reader cannot but observe in this Pas∣sage the particular Beauty and Happiness of the Dr's Expression: but it matters not much how he Writes, let us consider how he Rea∣sons.

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 Per∣spicuity, 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 * 4.54, 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 ex∣cellently well himself, and with great Per∣spicuity.

'Tis true, as the Doric Dialect grew out of Use and Request, their Writings grew less Easie and Perspicuous; and Porphyry had rea∣son 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

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 pre∣tends. He was a Publican (says the Dr.) or Collector of Taxes; could not that Perpetual Ne∣goce and Converse with the Dorians bring his Mouth to speak a little broader (a) 4.55? No doubt it could; and perhaps it did: but the Questi∣on is, whether, notwithstanding his learning Doric, he might not retain another Dialect with it; and speak it, and write it occasio∣nally? But would not He that aim'd at Mo∣narchy, 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 be∣fore he got into Power; but afterwards there was no need of courting the People, for he govern'd by his Blew coats * 4.56. And I think he could not have taken a more proper way of shewing his Tyrannical Temper, than by

throwing off the Language of the Country, and using a Foreign Dialect in all his Di∣spatches. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an hater of Tyrants (a) 4.57. Was not Doric too the Language of the La∣cedaemonians? 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 Pi∣sistratus, his Brother Tyrant? I see Dr. Bent∣ley 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 Wran∣gling rather than Truth, I might further di∣spute it with the Dr. whether Doric were

the Language of Agrigent, or no, and that upon no less an Authority than Strabo's; who expresly says, that Agrigent was a Colo∣ny of the Ionians (a) 4.58. And Monsieur Menage (b) 4.59 rely'd upon this so far, as to ac∣count from hence for the Ionic of Empedocles. How∣ever, I must freely own my Opinion, that this Passage is corrupted, and that we ought to read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the account which that most Exact and Faithful Writer Thucydides has given us; not to mention Polybius, and the Scholiast on Pin∣dar. And this Conjecture is the more pro∣bable, 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 Casau∣bon's observation. Not to insist upon this therefore; but allowing Dr. Bentley, that A∣grigent 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 Pha∣laris was oblig'd on this account to speak Do∣ric 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;

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 * 4.60. This the Dr. has irrefragably prov'd in the very Article we are upon, to have been the case of Ocellus Lucanus's Book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: 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 be∣fore Stobaeus's time think the same of our Ty∣rants Letters, and do the same to 'em? and why, after this was done, might not the Original Phalaris be lost, as well as the Ori∣ginal 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, with∣out imagining in the least that they could not be Genuine, because they were not in Doric. Such a Consequence as that never en∣ter'd into his Head: He had met with seve∣ral 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 re∣serv'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 Do∣ric, and yet were in another Dialect in his time: for instance, the Pieces of Perictyone, and

Aristoxenus, two Pythagoreans; and who very probably wrote Doric, because they were Py∣thagoreans; 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 * 4.61) 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 Au∣thors 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 ei∣ther 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 justi∣fie Dr. Bentley's hardy assertion, that the Py∣thagoreans would sooner have lost their Lives, than have written out of Doric (b) 4.62; and that, if they had done it, it is most certain they would have been banish'd the Society (c) 4.63. And there∣fore Dr. Bentley. I suppose, to make himself Consistent, (a very hard Task!) will choose rather to grant, that these Writers were ori∣ginally 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.

And here I should take my leave of this tedious Article, but that I hear Dr. Bentley crying out 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and calling loudly on the Learned World to listen to a mighty Discove∣ry. He undertakes to prove, that Ocellus Lucanus did not repudiate his Vernacular Idiom, nor compose his Book [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in the Dress that it now wears, but in his own Country fashion * 4.64; that is, in plain English, that he did not write it in the Common Dia∣lect, 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 Disco∣very, are Expressions that carry in 'em an Extraordinary Air of Satisfaction; and seem a little too Pompous for the Matter they in∣troduce, 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 † 4.65; and in his Prolegomena to that Piece has said every thing that Dr. Bentley has pro∣duc'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 Edi∣tor's Preface, without making the least Im∣provement 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

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 com∣paring 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. * 4.66) it was agreed and co∣venanted among the Scholars of that Italian Sect, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Jambl. Vit. Pyth.) I can tell him, where he found it, it was in Vizza∣nius: who says the same thing, and quotes the very same Authority for it. Id certè as∣serendum crediderim Ocellum Doricâ Dialecto suum Opus conscripsisse, tùm quia Pythagoraeos quoslibet illi studuisse comperio, tùm quia id Py∣thagorae 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 Au∣thor of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nor even by Iamblichus, while he is writing this Account of the P••tha∣goreans; no nor by Pythagoras himself, if Dio∣genes Laertius may be credited.

'Tis true, Vizzanius speaks a little unwari∣ly, and may be understood to intimate, that the Use of this Dialect among the Italian Sect was from the institution of Pythagoras him∣self: 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 Pythago∣ras (a) 4.67, 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 In∣junction of this kind, from what he himself had told us out of Iamblichus but Three Lines before; that this Use of the Dialect proceed∣ed from a Covenant and agreement among the Scholars (b) 4.68 themselves: For they who know what an Implicit Regard was paid to Pythago∣ras's Orders by all his Scholars, will easily a∣gree, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ci∣ted by Stobaeus. Vizzanius too cites this Frag∣ment of Ocellus's Piece 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from Stobaeus,

and makes the same Use of it: Ocellum scil. Lucanum scimus Librum de Legibus scripsisse — hujus fragmentum exhibet Stobaeus — Doricâ Dia∣lecto expressum, &c.

Dr. Bentley goes on, But, which is plain De∣monstration, Four Citations are brought by the same Writer out of this very Book, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 dubi∣tet? Si enim primum respiciamus Caput, textum ejusdem ultimum; si secundum caput, textum sex∣tum; 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 Lear∣ned Men have doubted of from this very business of the Dialect. So does Vizzanius in the pas∣sage 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 si∣nit; & tamen Dorico Idiomate videmus conscri∣ptum, cujus nec minima in hoc [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] opere conspiciuntur vestigia: ideó{que} an verè Ocellus aureum hoc opus conscripserit, jure quemcunque suspicari contingat — hinc tamen cer∣ta potius quibus illi operi fides conciliatur, erumpunt argumenta. The only difference between Viz∣zanius

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 Lan∣guage, 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 Atti∣cam traducta Dialectum? and in the Words before quoted [Hinc certa potius, &c.] He an∣swers the Cavils of those who suspected Ocel∣lus 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 Frag∣ments cited by Stobaeus exactly agree with

Ocellus, as we now have him, therefore 'tis cer∣tain, that every Word of the True Book is faith∣fully preserv'd. This was a Consequence re∣serv'd for Dr. Bentley, which a Common Cri∣tic, who reasons but like other men, would never have thought of: and it being the on∣ly 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 acknowledg∣ments 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 pur∣pose, does he think, that Dr. Gale set those Four Passages out of Stobaeus before his Editi∣on, 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 ano∣ther Man's Labours, either with, or without naming him.

I am glad of this Opportunity of mention∣ing 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

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 pro∣ving 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 Ridi∣cule. For, could he make out what he aims at, and produce some Expressions from these

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 Revoluti∣ons 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 (a) 4.69 which, he says, betray the Epistles to be a Thousand Years younger than Phalaris (b) 4.70, 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the sense of accusing, is, he says, an Innovation in Language, for which the Ancients us'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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. de∣clares,

that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which in the XVII. Epist. must signifie, having given before, was never so us'd by the Ancients, but always for ha∣ving betray'd. And this is One of the Instan∣ces that is to bring down the Date of the Letters a Thousand Years lower than their pre∣tended 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 us'd in the very same sense by the Best Writers of Anti∣quity, Xenophon (a) 4.71, Demosthenes (b) 4.72, and Ari∣stotle (c) 4.73, if the Oeconomicks be his.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, put for following; which, he says, an∣ciently 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 Expressi∣on in Ezra (ix.4.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? by which however the LXX, I suppose, were far from meaning, Every one that persecutes the Word of God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as I remem∣ber, is us'd once only by Phalaris in this sense; but I'm sure 'tis frequently so em∣ploy'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: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rom. XII.13, 14. Now let Phalaris shift for himself; but I am agen con∣cern'd to put in one word for our Apostle. Would Dr. Bentley give himself Time to con∣sider, he would find, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in all its va∣rious 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,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

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,

— Lupus ipse Capellam, Florentem Cytisum sequitur lasciva Capella.

where the Word sequitur, which is of it self Indifferent, is, as the Greek Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, where∣ever he has occasion to express a pursuit after Honour, Riches, Pleasure, Virtue, and many such Objects, which are under no fearful ap∣prehensions of the pursuer. If Dr. Bentley be not yet convinc'd, I refer him for his far∣ther satisfaction to Plato (a) 4.74, and Dionysius Halicarnasseus (b) 4.75; and I desire him particularly to consider those Words of Xenophon in the Memoirs of Socrates, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which, according to the little Skill I have in Greek, is to be tran∣slated thus, We ought to fly the Men of a Troublesome Temper▪ and to court the Candid. But if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here signified to pur∣sue:

then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Mean∣ing, and was therefore not fit to be us'd. I'm sure, I can give a better reason for my con∣jecture, than the Dr. can for his; and it is this: Whenever Phalaris has occasion to ex∣press the Scandalous Love of Boys, he does not use this word, as Later Authors do; he calls Lysinus (Ep. VIII.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 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 be∣stowing the very Worst Names he could think of upon his Adversaries. Besides, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sound very diffe∣rently; and if we take the Whole Sentence in Phalaris together, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Connexion plain∣ly

shews, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 can have no ill meaning. Nay, long after Phalaris's time, we have Instances where these Words are em∣ploy'd in a Vertuous Sense: Plato uses 'em so al∣most every where; particularly in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they recurr often, and under a Chaste mean∣ing * 4.76, 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 con∣siderable 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 Wri∣ter. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Ep. CXLII.) is us'd for Mai∣dens: this, he says, is a most manifest token of a Later Greek; even Tzetzes interprets it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: that is, (if I can make any Sense of what he says) this Use of the Word is so mo∣dern, that even Tzetzes himself was asham'd so to employ it, and therefore put 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the

room of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (Prov. xxxi.29.) where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Evan∣gelists, where they tell us what our Saviour said to the Woman that touch'd the Hem of his Garment; St. Matthew has it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and St. Mark, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I need not go farther for Instances, since 'tis probable that this Criticism is altoge∣ther founded on a mistake; and what we now read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the modern MSS. of Phalaris, was in the more ancient ones contractedly written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which might be read either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Copyer chanc'd to hit upon it. Tzetzes therefore might truly read, and not interpret, it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 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 Pas∣sage 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 occasi∣on; and that is, Whether he thinks, that his Philosophical Lectures serve more to the esta∣blishment of Religion, than his Criticisms do to overthrow it? For is he not Positive, that the Idioms of the Letters prove them to be

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 cor∣rected by every one that can turn an Index, or a Lexicon (a) 4.77. By such Helps as these, 'twould be easie to collect Authorities in abundance against every In∣stance 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

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 En∣glish Composition from another a hundred Years old. Now there are as real and sensible Differen∣ces 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 * 4.78. I can easily grant, that the English Tongue has undergone very consi∣derable 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 Mo∣desty 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 wri∣ting 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

Greek, as a moderate Critic may in the En∣glish, 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 af∣ter 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 ad∣mit of some few Alterations in Every Age; but 'twas incomparably the most fix'd and enduring of any that we are generally acquain∣ted 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 Harmoni∣ous 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

benefit, or entertain Mankind. The Natural Perfection of their Tongue, and the distin∣guishing 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 bor∣row'd from Them, but They had that Con∣tempt 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 fami∣liar 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,

to Compare the Greek, the most Holding Tongue in the World, with the English, the most Fickle and Fleeting of any; and to In∣ferr 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 (a) 4.79; and in this, I dare say, he is not mistaken. For 'tis some∣what hard to imagine, how a Man should en∣ter 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 oc∣casion 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

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 Epi∣stles; however not so often, as that an Ar∣gument 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 re∣nounce, 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 Ta∣lent: and this Mistake of his, he, with his usual Gaiety, calls a Slippery Way of telling Mony (a) 4.80; and therefore cautions us against dealing with him (b) 4.81. He explains himself thus, — That the Sicilian Talent was the Low∣est of any; that Phalaris promising in his Epi∣stles to several of his Countrymen Talents in General, must be understood to mean Sicilian

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 * 4.82. 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 ma∣ny Pounds, which he expected to be made good in the Pounds of the Country, and re∣ceiv'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 Perple∣xity and Confusion? We have great hopes indeed that the Intricate Accounts of this Pa∣ragraph 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 sport∣ed 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, con∣tain'd no more in Specie than Three Attic Drachms,

or Roman Denares; as plainly appears from Ari∣stotle * 4.83, 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, Syracusa∣num trium denariûm. What an Immense Diffe∣rence! 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 ano∣ther thing? Without Question, if the true Pha∣laris 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 alone, without the addition of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (a) 4.84.

Now, in opposition to the Dr's Reasonings and Authorities about this matter of the Ta∣lents, 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, ad∣mitting what they say, or what the Dr. makes 'em say, to be true, the Letters may be never∣theless Authentic: if these things can be

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 in∣deed 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 Trea∣tise of Aristotle which, the Dr. says, is now Lost, was ever sound. That Aristotle wrote 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or accounts of the State and Polity of several Particular Cities, and of several Sicilian Cities among the rest, is sufficiently known * 4.85: but that he wrote any thing which bore such a Title as a Treatise of the Sicilian Go∣vernment, 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

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 Spe∣cie than three Attic Drachms, or Roman De∣nares. But tho' the Sicilian Talent be there mention'd, 'tis neither adjusted to Attic Drachms, nor Roman De∣nares (a) 4.86. Two sorts of Si∣cilian 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 So that be∣fore 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be∣cause that is a Species of Mony we are Stran∣gers 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 * 4.87, where he makes Mu∣shrooms to grow out of a Rotten Passage in Suidas). Some therefore for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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

our own Conjectures, or from other Authors. When we have put 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, '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 Ro∣man 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Pollux means the Roman Nummus; or Sestertius, and then adjust the obscure word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (by changing it into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) to the known value of the Sesterius. But Pollux tells us, that tho' (a) 4.88 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Si∣cilian 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 ab∣surd to think that Aristotle, those words (b) 4.89 are here ci∣ted for the value of the Ta∣lent, should give it us in Ro∣man Sestertii, which were a Coin not stamp'd at Rome, till after Ari∣stotle's

time (a) 4.90. So that the Ground upon which the re∣ceiv'd Computation of the Si∣cilian 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rightly substituted, which we have no reason to grant: yet after all Dr. Bentley has impos'd upon us in his va∣luation of the Sicilian Talent. For the Value of the more Ancient Sicilian Talent, which is equal to 24 Nummi or Sestertii, will be equi∣valent 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 (admit∣ting 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 on∣ly of the Later one; yet the difference be∣tween 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

that was worth no more than Six Roman De∣nares, or Attic Drachms. The value of a De∣nare, 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 can∣not admit. He tells us from Aristotle (a) 4.91, that the Sicilians reckon'd that Two Brass Pie∣ces (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) were equal to Six Litrae; and that Six Brass Pie∣ces were equal to half a Litra. Now, that Two should be twelve times as much as Six, is not according to the re∣ceiv'd Rules of Arithmetic: To puzzle us still more, Pollux tells us in another place (b) 4.92, 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 ex∣cus'd, if I cannot believe Pollux, that Aristotle

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 Ta∣lents, informs us (a) 4.93, 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 Sici∣lian 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 hun∣dredth part of that minute Summ, i. e. more than three and thirty times less than our Farthing. Now it cannot ea∣sily be imagin'd, that the Si∣cilian Drachm, which was a Coin current amongst them, should be so unconceivably little as it must be, if its va∣lue were but the three and thirtieth part of our Farthing: and yet we

must not stop here, but must carry our Ima∣gination further, and still break that Particle of Metal into Two Parts, if we would reach the Littleness of that other Drachm which an∣swers 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 Mi∣croscopes. So that when we have occasion hereafter to express the Value, or rather worthlesness, of any contemptible Perfor∣mance, 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 Si∣cilian Talent appears clearly to him from a Lost Treatise, which he owns has long since disap∣pear'd, and which I think never did appear. That part of Pollux, where he finds the Re∣mains 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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.

If this Plea (for the Length of which I beg the Reader's pardon) is sufficient to invali∣date 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 (a) 4.94, 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 Judg∣ment upon Festus, for having abridg'd Flaccus, that his Epitome was Epitomiz'd by so Igno∣rant 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 Dena∣riûm, we ought to read, Syracusanum, trium millium Denariûm. Which Error may be sup∣pos'd easily to have crept into the Copies of Festus, by leaving out the Capital Let∣ter M, between the Words Trium and Dena∣riûm.

I have consulted all the Editions of Festus I could meet with; and find none (a) 4.95 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 Ta∣lent by good Authorities taken from ap∣prov'd Sicilian Writers, or others that pur∣posely treat of Sicilian Affairs. But, whether the Dr. knows it or not, he had good rea∣son 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.

Diodorus a Sicilian, writing of Sicilian Af∣fairs, frequently uses the word Talent▪ with∣out any Addition; which therefore, accord∣ing 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 men∣tion'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 (a) 4.96. Here a Sicilian Writer speak∣ing of a Contract between the Prince of one Sicilian Town, and People of another, men∣tions Talents, which must be the Sicilian, according to Dr. Bentley's Reasoning; but must not be Sicilian, according to his Computa∣tion. For by his Reckoning, a Garrison, up∣on 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 fa∣mous Rhetorician of Leonti∣um (b) 4.97, had One hundred Mi∣nae 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 (c) 4.98 for so great a Master; unless we may suppose, that he taught at different Prices, in proportion

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 Pur∣chase even at that rate.

From the same Author we learn (a) 4.99 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 Sici∣lian: 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 Estima∣mation, the moiety of Three Farthings. A No∣ble 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 speak∣ing (b) 4.100 are two Syracusian Ladies;* 4.101 they talk

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 O∣ther 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 Holi∣day-clothes.

In the same Idyllium we have an account of Five Fleeces (*) 4.102 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 Market∣man (as we find she doth) if the Whole Pur∣chase fell short of the Eighth Part of a Far∣thing.

It would be easie, if pardonable, to multi∣ply Instances of this Nature from Sicilian Writers, or such as treat of things transacted in Sicily. A Neighbouring State (a) 4.103 is by a Bribe of 15 Talents (b) 4.104 prevail'd with to forsake the Agrigentines, their Allys. Sixty Talents (c) 4.105 are offer'd by the Egestani of Sici∣ly for a Months pay (d) 4.106 for 60 Ships, which they had oc∣casion to borrow. Timoleon (e) 4.107 the Restorer of Syracuse to its Liberties and

Rights, was magnificently buried by the State, which he had deliver'd, at the Charge of (a) 4.108 200 Minae. A vast Fund of (b) 4.109 a Thousand Ta∣lents is rais'd by letting out Ground and Houses to 60000 men, for the Recruit of Syra∣cuse, after it had been ruin'd by a War (c) 4.110. Dion's Estate, (d) 4.111 which lay at Syracuse, is reckon'd a Great one; and its full value said to be an Hundred (e) 4.112 Talents. Two Sicilian Princes (f) 4.113 send 75 Talents to the Rhodians (g) 4.114 for their Relief, after they had been ruin'd by an Earthquake; but could not raise so great a Sum at once, and there∣fore sent it by Parcels. In short, after some search into this matter, I am perswa∣ded no one Instance can be produc'd of Ta∣lents, or other Moneys mention'd by any Si∣cilian Writer, or any one that writes of Sici∣ly, which will countenance or admit of the Low Valuation of the Sicilian Talent, that Dr. Bentley espouses.

But because I find the Modern Dea∣lers in ancient Monies go into the Opinion of a Sicilian Talent of Low Value, with∣out any other Authority, as I can find, but the obscure and interpolated Passa∣ges of Pollux and Festus, I shall lay no stress upon the Exceptions that have been made against that Opinion: since we may freely ad∣mit such a Low Value of this Talent, and yet

think these Letters Genuine. For there might be a Low Value of the Sicilian Ta∣lent in some other Age, and yet the Ta∣lent of Phalaris's time might be higher. Or there might be a Talent of his Low Va∣lue in other parts of Sicily, and yet the Ta∣lent of Agrigentum, a distinct State, might be higher. Or there might be a Low Ta∣lent of baser Metal (a) 4.115, suppose Brass, equal to a Litra; and yet the Sil∣ver Talents, which Phalaris's are expresly said to be (b) 4.116, 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 Si∣cilian, 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 Suppo∣sitions 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

of these matters (a) 4.117, and give us this low Value of the Sicilian Talent, that where∣ever the Word Talent is us'd by Greek Writers, without any addition, the Attic Ta∣lent 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 no∣tice of it: and never have said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 alone, without the ad∣dition of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For They, who were conversant in o∣ther Books beside Dictiona∣ries were sensible, that Sicilian Writers fre∣quently us'd the Word Talent in the Attic sense of it, without any such express Li∣mitation. 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 ac∣count. 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 In∣dictment against Phalaris, will pronounce him Not Guilty.

HItherto Dr. Bentley has kept himself pret∣ty well within his Province, and criti∣cis'd chiefly upon Words and Phrases and Dialects; in his next General Proof he ven∣tures to criticise upon Things, and to shew the Letters an Imposture, from the Matter and Business of 'em * 4.118. 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 EMPTI∣NESS 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 Stateli∣ness, and Operoseness of Style, &c. which is quite aliene from the Character of Phalaris, a Man of Business and Dispatch † 4.119.

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 Li∣brary-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 Sub∣ject,

than another Man who did never purposely bend his Thoughts that way; provided they be both Men of Equal Parts * 4.120. Sir William Temple has spent a good part of his Life in transact∣ing Affairs of State; He has written to Kings, and They to Him: and this has qualified him to judge how Kings should write, much bet∣ter than all Dr. Bentley's Correspondence with Foreign Professors; especially if they be such Professors, as have the Judgment to ad∣mire Him and His Humanity. I shall not there∣fore 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 Wil∣liam Temple expresses his Sense of this mat∣ter; 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 Pas∣sages of Life and Government; such Freedom of Thought, such Boldness of Expression; such Boun∣ty 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 Re∣venge 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 Scho∣lar, 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 Dream∣ing Pedant, with his Elbow on his Desk: and

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 (a) 4.121 very Liberal in distributing the Reproach of Pedantry; which is to Me, I confess, a plain Proof that he has no just No∣tions of it: for if he had, it is so high an Offence a∣gainst Good Manners, and Good Sense, that methinks he should impute it more sparingly. I will en∣deavour therefore to set him right; which perhaps I shall be the better able to do, be∣cause having convers'd much a late with some Writings, where this Beauty of Style pre∣vails, I have very strong and sensible Impres∣sions 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 Pedan∣try 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

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. Bent∣ley's Scraps of Callimachus, Notes and all.

The Soil intended for Pierian Seeds Must be well purg'd from rank Pedantic Weeds. Apollo starts, and all Parnassus shakes At the rude Rumbling Baralipton makes. For none were e'er with Admiration read, But Who, beside their Learning, were well bred. Ess. on Transl. Verse.

How Dr. Bentley will, on these Articles, ex∣cuse his Familiar Treatment of Sir William Temple (a) 4.122, and his Course Complements to Me (b) 4.123; how he will bring off his Greek and Latin Proverbs (c) 4.124, 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 King∣dom depended upon it, is Pedantry. And so is an Assuming and Positive way of deliver∣ing ones self, upon Points especially not worth our Concern, and not capable of being per∣fectly clear'd: and whether Dr. Bentley be guilty in this respect or no, the Reader will

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 Per∣formances (a) 4.125: and withal, how fond he is of Negatives, (a very dangerous way of Speech!) and that in Cases oftentimes where the Con∣trary Affirmative is most certainly true; as it is, and shall be prov'd to be, in all those Instances, which this Mark † 4.126 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

and Modern Writers. Dr. Bentley has re∣form'd our Spelling, and will have it Tauromi∣nium, 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 na∣ture: Mr. Wotton tells him, with great Plain∣ness of Speech, that He, of all men, ought not to have arraign'd the Modern Ignorance in Gram∣mar, who puts Delphos for Delphi, every where in his Essays * 4.127: A Capital Mistake, and wor∣thy to be chastis'd by the Acute Pen of Mr. Wotton! But is he sure that putting Del∣phos 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 in∣deed be against some General Rule of Gram∣mar: 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 Exce∣ption 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 (a) 4.128; which, tho' they are worse Poetry than the rest, yet are in Cor∣recter English: by Mr. Dryden, four or five times, in his Life of Plu∣tarch (b) 4.129; by Mr. Duke (c) 4.130, and Mr. Creech (d) 4.131 often in their several Lives of Theseus, and Solon: and

(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 (a) 4.132. Mr. Wotton might have said indeed, that Del∣phos, 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 Pas∣sages 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 Com∣pany.

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 whe∣ther Dr. Bentley has not offended this way, by those Familiar Expressions of Mother Clito the Herbwoman, and Going to Pott, and setting Hor∣ses 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

Grotius and Scaliger for not knowing the mea∣sure of an Anapaestic Verse (a) 4.133, when 'tis plain (as I shall shew, before I lay down my Pen (b) 4.134, that the Dr. would never have censur'd 'em, if he had known it himself (c) 4.135. Castelvetro, an Italian Pedant, was famous for such a Snar∣ling Faculty as this; He was (as Balzac says very well of him (d) 4.136) 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 * 4.137; 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 (e) 4.138, 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 (f) 4.139 the Vnknown Authors Diodorus transcrib'd, as so many Witnesses on his side: and, in another place (g) 4.140, 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 Con∣jecture.

These are all the Marks and Moles of Pedan∣try 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 (a) 4.141, 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. Col∣lectors they are, Transcribers, Plagiaries; They never Think, themselves; they tell You only what Others have thought before them. They heap to∣gether 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 Vse∣less; 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 Scho∣lars; 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 a∣gain into it, and consider the Particular In∣stances Dr. Bentley has brought to justifie his General Assertion, that the Matter and Busi∣ness of the Letters betrays 'em not to be Ge∣nuine.

The first is an Improbable and Absurd Story * 4.142 (as he thinks) about Stesichorus; who dying at Catana, the Himereans desir'd to have his Ashes brought back into his Native City Hi∣mera; but the Cataneans would not part with them. This occasion'd a fierce Contest be∣tween the two Towns, which Phalaris ap∣peas'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 ei∣ther Absurd, or Improbable? that the Himere∣ans 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 re∣trieve, as A. Gellius informs us (a) 4.143; and that, not in a Lost Chapter. And after the Denial of this Request, we learn from Pausanias (b) 4.144, 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 (c) 4.145, 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 ho∣nour'd with such Contentions as these, after their Deaths, why might not Stesichorus?

Ay, but says the Dr, a Temple, and Deifica∣tion, were a little too Extravagant an Honour to be paid to a Poet's Memory (d) 4.146. I thought such things as these could not have surpriz'd a

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 (a) 4.147, and Aelian (b) 4.148 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 confir∣mant: ita{que} etiam Delubra Ejus in Oppido collo∣caverunt. 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 (c) 4.149.

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 me∣thinks 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 * 4.150. I believe it was not; because Tully himself as∣sures us, that Himera and Thermae were two Different Towns; and the Latter built at some Distance from the Ruines of the For∣mer

(a) 4.151. 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 Car∣thaginians, it continu'd alto∣gether uninhabited, even to His Days (b) 4.152: which could not be True, if Himera and Thermae were the same; for, that Thermae was well inhabi∣ted in Diodorus's time, is past Dispute. I will not deny, but that some care∣less 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 E∣pistle, 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 * 4.153. As if it were necessary that these Epistles should have been written just in the same Order that they stand; which is diffe∣rent in the Printed Copies from what it is in the MSS, and different in one MS from

what it is in another. Upon such an unrea∣sonable Supposition as this, how many Incon∣sistencies 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 Spuri∣ous. First he supposes, that Erythia was poi∣son'd by Python, not long after Phalaris's Ba∣nishment; 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 Ele∣ments 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 disco∣ver'd a Scene of Putid and Sensless Formality * 4.154. A Man of Quality in Syracuse, whose Wife

was lately Dead, sends his Brother to Phala∣ris, 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 In∣stance of another Sicilian Gentleman. I pro∣test, I can see no Harm in all this: there may indeed, for ought I know, be Putid For∣mality in it, because I can't well tell what those Hard Words mean; but I see nothing Unna∣tural 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 * 4.155? As Low thoughts as the Dr. has of the Epistles, I find he has very high ones of Phalaris: he seems to have re∣presented him to himself, as some Mighty Monarch, that had Vast Dominions, and was too Great and too Busie, to attend such Tri∣fles: 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 be∣low him. Indeed the Dr. has, for the Ho∣nour of Phalaris, represented that Town as exceeding Populous; for Diodorus, he says, counts 200000 Souls in Agrigent, and Others 800000 † 4.156. 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

the Learned, as a Gross Mistake; which Bo∣chart supposes to have risen from the change of a Numeral K into a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: or however that may be, the Account, he says, is incredible, and utterly false * 4.157. 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 Mil∣lion of Subjects † 4.158: 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 Com∣mand, 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 Ho∣race? 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 Importuni∣ty, 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 Ob∣server; could not the Syracusian have written to Stesichorus, and at the pri••e of some Present met with Success * 4.159? I agree with the Dr. that a Present is sometimes an Expeditious Method of doing Business; I have known se∣veral 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 Bro∣ther

Helianax was a Lawgiver [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Suidas tells us; and He himself probably in the Government of Himera; or at least con∣sulted by 'em in Extraordinary Cases, as ap∣pears by his Apologue in Aristotle's Rhetoric: And the true way of prevailing with such a man to employ his excellent Pen was to of∣fer him not Mony, but a Subject that de∣serv'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 ex∣press'd himself properly, and not have call'd the same Copy of Verses 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which are as different from one another as Theognis is from Pindar (a) 4.160: 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 Scho∣lar. So that from this very Mistake, if it were one, I should have inferr'd something

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (a) 4.161, when he asks it of Stesi∣chorus, and did not know in what Verse it would be compos'd by him; and he calls it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 afterwards (b) 4.162, when he had it, and found it was in Lyric Measures. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 originally signified only a Mournful or Funeral Song (c) 4.163 an Ele∣gy, as we say in English: re∣ferring to the Subject of the Song, and not to the Mea∣sure. But Elegies being gene∣rally writ in Hexameters, and Pentameters, the Word came afterwards to be apply'd pure∣ly to the Measure, without any Regard to the Subject. However this Second Sense of the Word did not so far prevail, as ab∣solutely to extinguish the First; still 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were now and then employ'd in a Looser Meaning than what the Grammari∣ans put upon 'em; and of this I will give the Dr. one plain Instance, from a Darling Au∣thor of his, Dion Chrysostome, who in his 4th Book de Regno calls the Heroic Verses written on Sardanapalus's Tomb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: And Ari∣stophanes speaking of the Nightingale, has this Passage:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

In 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 can signifie nothing, but a Me∣lancholy

Tune, or Mournful Song (a) 4.164; unless our Gram∣marian can prove, that the Nightingales in that part of the World sung in Elegiac Measure. And the Misfor∣tune of it is, that these very 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but a few Verses before.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

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 Dissertati∣on, 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 (b) 4.165. 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 ac∣quainted (c) 4.166. '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 Pythago∣ras,

the most celebrated Scholar of his Time (a) 4.167; and after Him, there needed no other Instan∣ces. 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 Cir∣cumstantial 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 (b) 4.168, been graciously pleas'd to al∣low.

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 (c) 4.169. 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 ac∣quainted; 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 O∣mission: Phalaris's Name was detested and in∣famous in Sicily; and to have brought him in therefore among his other Instances, would

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; espe∣cially One, who could not but be conscious to himself, that he had made use of His Me∣thods, 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 ne∣ver heard of his Extraordinary Dearness with Stesichorus; for the sake of which, Pindar, had he known it, would certainly have for∣born giving him so Vile a Character (a) 4.170. This indeed is Demonstration, and not to be with∣stood! I will not Attempt to answer it; on∣ly 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 (b) 4.171. 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

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as from the passage he has pro∣duc'd. He has lam'd it in his Quotation; I will give it the Reader entire. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 Op∣posite 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 * 4.172, and none of the Disobliging Rude Qualities of Him at St. Iames's?

After all, the Dr's Opinion and Mine up∣on 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 Stesi∣chorus, out of Vanity, or a Real Esteem of his Merit. And Stesichorus could not but pay

some Regard to Phalaris, on this account; tho' he could never Love Him, or his Cha∣racter: nor is there any Proof from the Epi∣stles, that he did. Phalaris, after he had gi∣ven 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 Mis∣chief. We have a Lively Account of just such a management as this between Iulius Cae∣sar 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 ne∣ver 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 be∣comes of Dr. Bentley's Harangue about the Si∣lence of Authors, in relation to this fancied Intimacy and Dearness? Good Writers must needs say nothing of that which never hap∣pen'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 en∣quire.

IN my Preface to Phalaris, among the Ob∣jections that might be rais'd against the E∣pistles, 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 Demonstra∣tions: an Honour which, I must own, it no ways deserves. For, tho' he has taken this occasion of shewing his Extraordinary Ta∣lent 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 * 4.173: yet I suppose he does not in good Earnest think it any great Wonder, that Mortal Vel∣lum 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. Bent∣ley 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

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 Perse∣cutorum, 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 fa∣mous Library of Colebert, and made it pub∣lick. Now, as our Dissertator learnedly argues, if these Books lay untouch'd and un∣stirr'd, they must have moulder'd away: if they were us'd during these Ten Centuries, Some∣body 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 ano∣ther, 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 toge∣ther here Two or Three Paultry Proofs, that would make no Figure by themselves, I shall take 'em as they lye before me. The Diffe∣rent Relations concerning Phalaris given by Lucian, and the Epistles, I urg'd formerly * 4.174 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

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 of∣ten 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 Phala∣ris did his Letters; for Lucian equally contra∣dicts Both; and for that reason is a Bad Evi∣dence against either of them. Now if Lucian himself be of no Authority in this point, much less are those Authors he follow'd * 4.175, 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 Lu∣cian, 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. him∣self confesses in another place † 4.176; 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

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 Epi∣stles. 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 * 4.177, and yet came at last: why might not this be the case of Abaris? This is a very easie way of re∣conciling Phalaris with Iamblichus; and he does not differ so widely from Heraclides nei∣ther, but that They too may be brought

(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 Soluti∣on 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 Agri∣gent, if Phalaris fled alone from Astypalaea, neither Wife nor Child, nor any Relation following him, according to the Epistles * 4.178? I do not re∣member 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 prosecu∣ting this Point any further. Only I must ob∣serve to the Dr, that either he uses some Co∣py 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 Dis∣sertation, he tells us, that Heraclides affirms Phalaris to have been burnt by the Agrigen∣tines; whereas he only says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 '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 Misunderstand∣ing or Misrepresenting Authors, to serve a Turn, that he does it, even when it is of no service to him.

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 Approa∣ches, 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 * 4.179.

In∣stead 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. Hie∣rome, and Suidas) Phalaris's Government com∣menc'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 Co∣temporary with Stesichorus and Pythagoras † 4.180. But by his Niceness in Computation he con∣futes 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 af∣ter

Phalaris dy'd. And yet Pythagoras had a great Name in Greece many Years before he came into Sicily. So that Dr. Bentley has ma∣nag'd this Point with a particular Dexteri∣ty; and prov'd that Pythagoras and Phalaris could not be acquainted, by that very ac∣count which he accepted of meerly to coun∣tenance their acquaintance. A most auspici∣ous 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 Consisten∣cy 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 Ex∣pedition 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 be∣liev'd, (and he always believes him, when it is for his Turn to do so (a) 4.181) Xerxes's Expedi∣tion was neither in the 73d, nor 74th, but 75th Olympiad. If Dr. Bentley be so Quar∣relsome, 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 intricate∣ly, that 'tis hard to know which way he is determin'd, I'll take the most receiv'd Ac∣count,

and go on to shew, that notwith∣standing 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 Ci∣ties are so very ancient, that it would puz∣zle 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 con∣fus'd and contradictory, that No-body but a Man of Dr. Bentley's Judgment would pre∣tend 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 Histo∣ries 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 in∣to this Dark Scene, I will consider a little the Tendency of this way of arguing in Ge∣neral. He would prove that Phalaris could

not possibly be the Author of these Letters, because some Places are mention'd there un∣der 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 fa∣mous 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 Crude∣ly, without informing his Reader, how far it held, and where it fail'd? what Excepti∣ons 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 Sa∣cred 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 Ar∣guments. 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 Coun∣tries were no longer known. And this Plea therefore I might fairly lay hold of for Pha∣laris, if there were any need of it; and pre∣sume, 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,

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; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and says, the Sophist was care∣ful to mention such Cities (he means, People) as he knew were in Sicily (a) 4.182 Which is un∣luckily 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Indeed I guess'd it should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and am there∣fore oblig'd not to bear hard upon him for making use of my Conjecture. Granting it therefore to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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; ima∣gining, 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 * 4.183: but there's another Phintia, which both Ptolemy (b) 4.184, and Pliny (c) 4.185 tell us is a Mediterranean Town. Now if Phalaris's Friends should be as Positive as Dr. Bentley

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 Dio∣dorus 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 * 4.186.

From Phintia the Dr. marches on victori∣ously to Alaesa; where he finds Stesichorus in danger of being snapt † 4.187, in his intended Jour∣ney from thence to Himera. And here agen he appeals to Diodorus, whether there was any such place as Alaesa in the Days of Phala∣ris. Diodorus gives him a less satisfactory an∣swer 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 Ci∣ty 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

Arbitrary Power can confine us to Archoni∣dium. He says he can, and by this Stratagem: Alaesa is here joyn'd with Himera and Alu••ti∣um; 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 Surpri∣zing 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, Hale∣sini, Catanenses, Tyndaritani, &c. * 4.188 'Tis Evi∣dent therefore that Alaesa is upon the same Coast with Catana; that is, upon the Coast directly opposite to Aluntium. I could con∣found 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 Ar∣chonides must be meant in the Epistles, because there was no other Town of that name in the days of the Sophist † 4.189. 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••

there was no other Town of that name in the days of the Sophist: i. e. If a Sophist writ these Let∣ters, he must needs mean the Alaesa of Archo∣nides, because there was no other then stand∣ing. But the Dr. forgets that he is dispu∣ting 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (a) 4.190 Phalaris in the 85th Epistle says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and inscribes the 21st Epistle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; upon which Dr. Bent∣ley makes this Remark: Here we have mention made of Zancleans and Messenians, as if Zancle and Messana were two different Towns (b) 4.191: and agen, the Zancleans, by the reckoning of Pausa∣nias, had been an obsolete forgotten Word 100 Y••ars before the date of these pretended Epi∣stles

(a) 4.192. If the Author had mention'd Zan∣cle 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 Messa∣nians, 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 pro∣nouncing their Name forgotten and obsolete might have Suspected, and a man better ac∣quainted with History might have Known, that they continu'd many Ages in a Distinct Body, and under the same Name. Pausa∣nias (b) 4.193, where he observes, that, during the Messanians absence from Peloponnese, but Two of their Nation won the Prize at the Olym∣picks, adds, that the Sicilians say, these were not Messanians, but descended from the old Zancleans * 4.194. This implys, that the Zancleans were not swallow'd up by the Messanians, but kept their Families unmix'd with their new Conque∣rors. And this appears more clearly from Diodorus, who tells us † 4.195, that in the 79th Olympiad the Zancleans recover'd their City out of these Strangers hands, that had pos∣sess'd it so many Years. Nay, so far were the Zancleans from being obsolete 100 Years before Phalaris, that we are sure they pre∣serv'd themselves in a Separate Body even till * 4.196 Pliny's time, who expresly distinguishes

'em from the Messanians; and tells us, Messa∣na was a Free City, but the Zancleans were Tributaries. These Testimonies will suffi∣ciently justifie Phalaris for mentioning the Zancleans; and if we can bring him off as well for mentioning the Messanians, that in∣excusable 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 be∣sieg'd Zancle, and took it; and call'd it Messana. Thucydides * 4.197 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 misre∣presenting 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 He∣rodotus; whereas what Herodotus † 4.198 says, is so far from being the same, that it contra∣dicts both the Story which Thucydides him∣self 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

would be surpriz'd to hear him profess, im∣mediately after these Two fair Citations, that he loves to deal ingenuously (a) 4.199: but I be∣gin now to understand his Figurative Ex∣pressions; when he offers an argument, that has no Consequence, or Meaning in it, then his Phrase is, 'tis Evident: When he has tran∣scrib'd two or three Pages together from another man, then he crys out, a Discovery: and when he would put a false Colour up∣on 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 questi∣on is about the Date of this Change. Thu∣cydides fixes upon no date: Diodorus places the Death of One Anaxilaus in the 76th Olympiad, but does n't say, this was the A∣naxilaus▪ 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 Mi∣letus was taken; that is, about the 70th O∣lympiad: 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

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 In∣terpretation of another Pas∣sage in Herodotus * 4.200, (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 posi∣tive Testimony about the Time of Zancle's changing its Name. Pausanias is the only Au∣thor, 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 Circum∣stance. He says, the Flight of those Messa∣nians [who nam'd Messana] was after the ta∣king of Ira by the Lacedaemonians, in the 28th Olympiad, when Chionis the Spartan carried the Prize the first time (a) 4.201: that, upon their Flight, Anaxilaus Prince of Rhe∣gium, who had War with the Zancleans, in∣vited 'em to joyn with him; that they did so, and together with his Forces took Zan∣cle; 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 Se∣cond time (b) 4.202. That this Anaxilaus was the Great Grandson of Alcidamidas, who fled with his Family from Messene to Rhegium, af∣ter the taking of Ithome, and the Death of Aristodemus (c) 4.203; which happen'd (he tells us

in another place * 4.204) the first Year of the 14th Olympiad, that is about Threescore Years be∣fore; so that all the little particulars of Pau∣sanias's whole Story are adjusted with the ut∣most exactness. He speaks home to the point, so, as to leave no possible room for interpret∣ing his Words to any other Sense: and we have as much reason to depend upon him in This, as in Any Aera of Chronology what∣ever 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 * 4.205, 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 consi∣der'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 Counter∣poyse 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 re∣serve) fall in with this account of Pausanias.

Vbbo Emmius follows it, in his History of An∣cient Greece (a) 4.206; Lydiat, in his Notes on the Chronicon Marmoreum; Ioseph Scaliger, in his Animadversions upon Eusebius (b) 4.207; and in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉† 4.208 so does Petavius too (c) 4.209, who never agrees with Scaliger when he can help it; and Meursius (d) 4.210, 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 Hero∣dotus, 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 Zan∣cleans; [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] upon which I expected, that when he had dispatch'd the Zancleans, he would have fallen upon the Tauromenites: but to shew his Aver∣sion 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

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 plant∣ed 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 plant∣ed 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 ac∣counts 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 (a) 4.211, that there were of old People that inhabited the Hil∣ly parts about Naxos: and 'tis not improba∣ble, that These might be call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, before they were form'd into any Politick Body; and afterwards, when they were col∣lected

together, and a City was built (tho' we don't know when that was) that City might be call'd Tauromenium. 'Tis observa∣ble that Phalaris, tho' he has very often oc∣casion to mention these People, yet never names any such Town as Tauromenium; ne∣ver calls 'em Citizens, nor uses any such Ex∣pression 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 cre∣dited, who says the Town had its Name from thence) before there was a Tauromenium. So that Dr. Bentley would have no reason to tri∣umph 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 Tauro∣menium was ever thought of (a) 4.212? E're I an∣swer 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 Pha∣laris'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,

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 Disser∣tation into Latin, 'twill receive a Great Ad∣vantage.

TWas not to be hop'd, that these Ob∣scure Points concerning the Building and Peopling Ancient Towns should be so far clear'd and settl'd, as to make 'em a∣mount 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 Chronolo∣gy 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 al∣most tempted to break my promise, and leave this part of his Dissertation unexa∣min'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

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 be∣lieve, that there should be so strange a Iumping of Good Wits, without some silching * 4.213 and therefore concludes, these Letters must be writ, not by Phalaris himself, but by a Se∣cretary (a) 4.214 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 (b) 4.215 in his use of the Proverb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the men of Lampsacus understood not the meaning of that Expression: The Phrase, he says, puzzl'd the whole City (c) 4.216; What if it did? must an Ex∣pression needs be New and Vnheard of, be∣cause the Mayor and Aldermen of Lampsacus, and perhaps the Recorder too, did not ap∣prehend it? But how does he prove, it puzzl'd the WHOLE City? plainly! be∣cause 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!

However, let Herodotus have worded this Message; does the same Herodotus tell us, that the Lampsacenes were puzzl'd with an Ex∣pression 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he renders Lop'd, instead of Cut down: Now, that a Pinetree perishes by Lop∣ping, 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 Hero∣dotus, 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 Quota∣tion 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 Oscita∣tion (a) 4.217, as I could not easily imagine, that

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 ne∣ver 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 imme∣diately be obey'd, would he put it into such a Phrase as they were not likely to appre∣hend? 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 Say∣ings, how came Nihil est dictum quod non dictum prius, to escape him? This One, well ap∣ply'd, would have done him more service than all the Greek, Latin, and English Pro∣verbs with which he embellishes his Disser∣tation; 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

met with a Sentence of Moral (a) 4.218, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which notable Saying, he tells us, had not Pha∣laris modestly hinted that Others had said it be∣fore 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 Ex∣pression 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 ta∣ken this Saying for Phalaris's Own, if there had been no hint of his borrowing it? and yet when Phalaris says, 'tis Older than him∣self, will he take it to be Younger? He reckons up several Authors that pretend to it, Democritus, Simonides, and the Lacedaemo∣nians; 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 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 Demo∣critus we find, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But in another place he tells us (b) 4.219, Solon us'd to say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: So that Demo∣critus,

according to Laertius's account, and Dr. Bentley's Reasoning, must still have filch'd this Saying. And from the Variety of Opini∣ons concerning the Original of it, I have more reason to suppose it older than Phala∣ris, 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 Para∣graph, filching a Moral Sentence * 4.220; 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is stollen, he says, from an Iambic Verse cited in Aristotle's Rhetoric, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 Sen∣tence 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 ap∣pear,

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 Centu∣ry it belongs? Ay, but it is a Proverbial Gnome, he says, and therefore PROBABLY borrow'd from the Stage; and CONSEQVENT∣LY must be later than Phalaris, let it belong to what Poet You please, Tragic or Comic (a) 4.221. 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 * 4.222 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 Ty∣ranny of Pisistratus Dr. Bentley owns (b) 4.223 to have been something before that of Phalaris. Those Learned Men, who have taken pains

to illustrate this Chronicle, have by the Con∣currence 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 Ex∣cellent Bishop Pearson, in his Vindiciae Igna∣tianae (a) 4.224, 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 on∣ly 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 (b) 4.225, the Scholiast on Aristophanes (c) 4.226, and Clemens Alexandrinus (d) 4.227, to attribute the Invention of it to him. But that he was not the Inventor of it, the Mar∣ble it self does more than intimate, when it says only of him, that he first erected a Stage in Athens, to act Comedies upon. In∣deed the Cities were beholden to the Villages for the Use of both Tragedy and Comedy; as we learn from Aristotle (e) 4.228: In the Coun∣try they began, and continu'd some time

rude and unform'd, till the City took 'em out of the Peasants hands, and polish'd 'em. Allowing then Dr. Bentley all his unreasona∣ble 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 an∣cient than Phalaris.

Our Critic himself seems but ill satisfied with this Proof, (a Thing which rarely hap∣pens to him!) and therefore casts about for Another; and will find this Saying some∣where else. I see the Charge of Thest be∣gins to clear up; we shall easily Quash an In∣dictment, 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 * 4.229, from Aristophanes the famous Grammarian (who (after Aristotle, Callimachus, and Others) writ the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Knot∣ty Point; or urg'd more Knottily? He might as well from the Chronicon Marmoreum com∣par'd with Langbain's Fasti have undertaken to prove, that Thespis was before Dryden. Eu∣ripides's Words are,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —

Now (says the Dr.) to him that compares these with the Words of the Epistle, 'twill be EVIDENT, that the Author had this very Pas∣sage before his Pen: there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 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 Evi∣dent, 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 Ob∣jection to the Dr, which I desire him to an∣swer; 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 Pin∣dar. For we find Two Words close together in Him, that are found as near one another in Each of those Authors. Phalaris has 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Pindar has 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Callimachus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: the Dr. is in a Quandary here to determin, which of these Phalaris plun∣der'd; Pindar he should be inclin'd to guess, but that he is more inclin'd to guess 'tis Callima∣chus. Indeed Callimachus, Dorizing in this point, is One Letter farther off from him,

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 Callima∣chus, and Callimachus and Pindar, the Dr. is, as I observ'd, in a Great Quandary. To re∣lieve him in this Streight, I take leave to give him my Opinion, that Phalaris might rob neither: for I can see nothing so Extra∣ordinary 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 Pe∣dantical in the Observation. Which of the Words is Poetical, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 has no other Sense here * 4.230, than it has wherever 'tis us'd in any Prose Author: for the Dr. may refine upon it, as he pleases; it signifies here nei∣ther more nor less than Ano∣ther; tho' being oppos'd to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this Other Fortune must, by construction, be un∣derstood to mean Ill Fortune. Is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 then Poetical? 'tis taken here for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 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 pro∣per 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 Halicarnas∣seus (a) 4.231, and Aeschines (b) 4.232; and put him in

mind of those words of Eustathius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and accordingly we find the First of'em once, and the Last often us'd in that Sense by Vir∣gil. But I suppose No-body will be so wild as to inferr any thing from thence to the dis∣advantage of that Philippic. The same is to be said for the Words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 toge∣ther? 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 Ana∣grams 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 on∣ly part of his Dissertation, which, notwith∣standing his Threatnings, he has yet thought sit to put into Latin: and, if I guess right, 'tis the only part that he ever will.

THE Last Sort of Proof the Dr. has em∣ploy'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 (a) 4.233, Philosophy (b) 4.234, and Tra∣gedy (c) 4.235.

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 ac∣cepted, may save both Him and Us the trou∣ble of his Learned Argument. The Text of Phalaris, as it stands now, is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; what if it should heretofore have been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as a distinct sort, in one place (d) 4.236, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in another * 4.237. This small Alteration, which I take the Liberty to sug∣gest▪ might easily creep into the Old MSS, which were in Capitals, without any distin∣ction of Words: There the Original Read∣ing might have been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;

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 for∣gotten. 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 Halicar∣nasseus (a) 4.238 is Heracles, in Dio∣dorus (b) 4.239 is call'd Thericles: and such a Change, I hope, might happen in these Epi∣stles, as has certainly hap∣pen'd in One of these Au∣thors. A Candid Reader, that considers, what ado there is made about the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek Writers, and how rarely the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, Ci∣ceronem it a scripsisse ne Ciceroni quidem ipsi assir∣manti crediderim † 4.240: 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 (c) 4.241; he might as well, I think,

have said as Many: for why should One Wit∣ness 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 Com∣mon Course of Justice convict him; and yet the Dr. promis'd us to give him a Fair and Im∣partial Tryal * 4.242. If now there are several ma∣terial 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 him∣self so, that we have room to doubt, whether we know his mind; or, should we know his mind, yet if he contradicts himself imme∣diately afterward: I say, if these things ap∣pear 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 cre∣dited him upon his Word: but when he speaks of an Invention of 600 Years stand∣ing, 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 su∣spect his Exactness. His mistakes, where he depends upon his Memory, or even upon his Commonplacebook † 4.243, without consulting the

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 Theri∣cles about Aristophanes's time was, that he had not set down in his Adversaria, nor did at pre∣sent call to mind a mention of the Thericlean Cup in any Writer more ancient than He. For observable it is, that among the Several Quo∣tations 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 Theri∣clean 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 opi∣nion, that in all probability Athenaeus had this In∣dication [about the Age of Thericles] from some Play of Aristophanes now Lost, where that Corin∣thian was mention'd as one then alive (a) 4.244 But in all probability, Athenaeus had not this Indicati∣on from any such Passage, because Then, in all Probability, he would have been so Communi∣cative 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 cre∣dible, 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 di∣spute,

which he was then laying down? espe∣cially, 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 Opi∣nion either of Athenaeus's Judgment or Exact∣ness, (and when I say so, I speak but the Words of Casaubon (a) 4.245 how∣ever I cannot think him Inju∣dicious 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 ac∣count 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 ex∣presses himself with greater Reserve. His Words are * 4.246, 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 Tran∣slator. Which manner of speaking is the more to be observ'd, because it appears from seve∣ral Passages in him, before and after this, that He himself was not satisfied of the Truth of

this Report: for he immediately gives us some other accounts of the Original of the Word * 4.247, without the least Intimation which he pre∣ferrs. 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 at∣tempted to prove it. Let us step out of our way so far, as to hear his Extraordinary Ar∣gument. Does not Common Analogy shew, says he, that as from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 comes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and as from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 comes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; so from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (not only may, but) MVST come 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 † 4.248? 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 Gram∣mar? Let us try it, in another Instance: as from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 comes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Philosopher must come 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Virens: Here is the same Analogy, and yet the Inference from it is stark naught. The Dr. then was too rash in asserting, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must come from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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;

As from Goose comes Goslin, So from Sir Pos. comes Sir Poslin.

But to return to our Serious and Weighty point; Athenaeus, I say, proposes some other Derivations of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beside that from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and tho' Dr. Bentley and I are pretty well agreed, that they are frivolous ones, yet it does not appear any way, that He under∣valu'd 'em; or determin'd which had the better claim to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, They, or Thericles: which is a Sign, I think, that He himself was not fully satisfied in the matter. And ano∣ther Shrewd Sign it is, that but a few Lines before this famous Passage, he cites a Frag∣ment from a Play of Alexis, where, as he in∣terprets it (a) 4.249, Hercules is brought in, drinking out of a Thericlean Cup: and this he does without taxing the Ab∣surdity of the Poet; which he could hardly have omit∣ted 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. A∣lexis, one would think, could not have com∣mitted such an Absurdity, who liv'd but Threescore Years after Aristophanes; at least Athenaeus could not have pass'd it by uncen∣sur'd, if that Report about the Age of the The∣riclean Cup had stuck with him.

But that it did not, we have this further Reason to believe; that he qoutes Lynceus Sa∣mius, in the 469th page, for a Passage, where∣in 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 * 4.250.

Now if Lynceus Samius's Testimony be re∣ceiv'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 nei∣ther, but an Archon, or some Great Man: and the Thericlean Cups (as the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mention'd by Plutarch together with them (a) 4.251) 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 Athe∣naeus tells us, they were Extraordinary Large,

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 (b) 4.252: and therefore 'tis pro∣bable, 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 Pha∣laris take place, (whom I hear he brings down to the LXX^th Olympiad) we have the men∣tion 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 (c) 4.253.

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 Opi∣nions 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 Incon∣sistency, and Confusion. A Witness that thus talks forwards and backwards, in a breath, ought to be set aside by consent of Both Par∣ties; and leave the Merits of the Cause to be decided by clearer Testimonies.

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 Witnes∣ses as he has brought to blast the Credit of Phalaris; One good Honest Downright Wit∣ness were worth 'em All: but Such, I think, I have prov'd Atheneus not to be in the Pre∣sent Debate. However, if after what has been offer'd, the Reader should still be in∣clin'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 Consi∣deration 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 Col∣lection of Pieces, that have no Dependence upon one another, as Epistles, Epigrams, Fa∣bles; the First Number of which may have been encreas'd by the Wantonness, or Va∣nity of Imitators in after-times, and yet the Book be Authentic in the main, and an Original still.

There are some Other Important Contro∣versies which Dr. Bentley has occasionally han∣dled in this Paragraph; as whether Thericles was a Turner, or a Potter * 4.254? whether Bulls and Cows may be properly call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as well as Lyons, and Tygers † 4.255? But these things making neither for, nor against our Argu∣ment, 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 mis∣chief 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 Cha∣racter right, I assure the Reader, that he went no further for all this Learning than his Dictionaries, and what One of those (a) 4.256 re∣ferr'd him to, Casaubon's Notes on Athenaeus. However, since he was so much oblig'd to that Great Man, I wonder that Common Gra∣titude, 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 Con∣troversie, was willing to read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 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 CER∣TAIN 'twas a Fault ONLY in that Copy of him that Casaubon us'd: for Eustathius, WHO APPEARS NEVER to have seen the true

Athenaeus, but only that Epitome, read it in his Book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. * 4.257 Which is said with an Equal Degree of Truth, Decency, and Rea∣son. 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 in∣terdùm melior ac verior † 4.258: 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 com∣pare '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 un∣printed (a) 4.259 to this day: and when therefore he pronoun∣ces 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 contra∣dict him. Had I not reason to make the Itch of opposing Great Names upon very slight or no Grounds, a Chief and Distin∣guishing 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

it follow, that all the Rest did so too? This is our Critic's admirable Inference; because in Eustathius's Copy 'twas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 oppo∣sing one of the Greatest Men that ever the Commonwealth of Learning produc'd, with∣out 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 Unreasona∣ble Freedom Dr. Bentley takes in reprehend∣ing Learned Men, even where there is no manner of Ground for it. In his Epistle to Dr. Mill * 4.260, 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

Stage with Infamy for it (a) 4.261. One would think that Dr. Bentley, with all his Stock of Self-sufficien∣cy, could not have allow'd himself to use such insulting Language toward such Emi∣nent 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 Ana∣paestick Verses with a Trochee or a Tribrach, even where there is No Pause; of which I will give him several Instan∣ces out of One Play of Aeschy∣lus (b) 4.262: 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 * 4.263, as I have

done out of Aeschylus; and then ask him, how he durst oppose men of Grotius and Sca∣liger's Character, with such groundless As∣sertions, as it was in every-body's power to disprove, that did but cast their Eye on Se∣neca, 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 Theri∣clean 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 ano∣ther place, Philosopher * 4.264: why? because Pythagoras himself invented these words * 4.265. Could Phalaris therefore pay him a greater Compliment, than by using 'em? Queen E∣lizabeth 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 after∣wards 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 Or∣dinary

Artificers, that were Skilful in their Way, were in Common Speech (a) 4.266 stil'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (b) 4.267; and Pythagoras, I suppose, had a mind to distinguish (c) 4.268 him∣self from 'em. Would Dr. Bentley have had Phalaris, when he design'd him an Ho∣nour, 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

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? whe∣ther, that he first nam'd That Philosophy, which before was call'd Wisdom? and why, if he meant so, he did not say so (a) 4.269? 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 (b) 4.270: 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.

Aristolochus and Lysinus, he says, are Two Tragic Poets that No-body ever heard of * 4.271, and in another place, with great Humor, he calls 'em Two Fairy Tragoedians † 4.272: 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 Aristo∣lochius (a) 4.273 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 (b) 4.274▪ and the other a Sorry Poet, and an Impotent Ad∣versary (c) 4.275: 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

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 † 4.276) 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. What, at this rate, will become of Poor Xenocles and Pythangelus? (Two Tragoedians, just of the same size with our Two Fairy ones) whom Aristopha∣nes once mention'd with contempt, as Phala∣ris 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 Misre∣presenter. 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

Misfortune to be put out without a Good Index. Now I'll undertake to trace Aristolo∣chus, 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 be∣fore him.

But Dr. Bentley has a better Objection than the Silence of Authors against these Tragoe∣dians; 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 tyran∣niz'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 † 4.277. 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 on∣ly 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

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 Empha∣tically speaks) the First Inventer of Tragoedy; 'tis plain, Phalaris might have the use of the word from him. That Thespis was Cotempo∣rary with Solon, Plutarch * 4.278 and Diogenes Laer∣tius † 4.279 expresly affirm; telling us very particu∣larly what pass'd between 'Solon and Thespis, in relation to the Plays of the Latter. And this account of Thespis's age Our Dissertator him∣self, in his Soft Epistle to Dr. Mill (a) 4.280 allows. Now Solon was Archon Olympiad XLVI. 3 (b) 4.281; Phalaris began his Reign Ol. LIII. 3, and end∣ed it Ol. LVII. 3, according to the account which Dr. Bentley (c) 4.282 allows. So that between the Beginning of So∣lon'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 Chro∣nicon allows near as much Room for it, pla∣cing the Rise of Tragoedy at the 47th Olym∣piad, 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 (d) 4.283, that is, a Year or two after Phalaris took the Ty∣ranny upon him. Take Two or Three Years

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Cotempora∣ry, 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 ad∣justed, is certain, and Learned Men have prov'd beyond dispute: and if there be mi∣stakes 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 in∣sist on the Authority of the Marble in this case, because He himself has quitted it in an Instance of the like Nature. The Arundelian

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 ex∣presly 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, might throw his Eye up∣on a Lower Line, where there was an account of Phrynichus's Age, and finding the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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; be∣fore 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 ac∣counts be true too, and the Epistles Ge∣nuine. 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 writ∣ten

after a great Experience, and when he was in his Maturest Judgment, might be the Best of his Works, for ought I, or Dr. Bent∣ley, 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 accord∣ing to his Usual Way of putting History upon us. All the Inconvenience that arises from hence, is, that Thespis must then be sup∣pos'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 be∣tween 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 im∣probable, 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 improba∣ble, 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 erro∣neously 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

have of him or the Errors of those Authors which he at a venture transcribes. I con∣fess, as he stands now, he seems to bring Thespis somewhat lower than even the Mar∣ble may be suppos'd to do; for he says, he flourish'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the 61st Olympiad: but 'tis observable, that the De∣cads in this Number are not express'd by a Word, but a Numeral Letter, which is more liable to alteration; and a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 therefore might easily creep into the place of a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: the restoring of which would make his account consistent with better Autho∣rities (a) 4.284 However that may be, Dr. Bentley must remem∣ber, that He himself has pro∣duc'd (b) 4.285 this account in his Letter after Malala, as Con∣sistent with Plutarch's Story, which makes Thespis contem∣porary 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 Sui∣das in the same place tells us, that Thespis was the Sixteenth Tragoedian from Epigenes Sicyo∣nius; and if he admits This part of his ac∣count, he'l lose as much by it, as he gains by the Other.

For whether Thespis was as ancient as So∣lon it matters not much, if Tragoedy was yet more ancient than He: and that it was so, there are such Plain and Pregnant Testimo∣nies 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

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 (a) 4.286: and the Reason of his introducing this Re∣flection 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 strong∣ly 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 Dio∣genos Laertius, who in the Life of Plato has these Words, ANTIENTLY (says he) the Chorus did alone sustain the Tragoedy; AF∣TERWARDS Thespis found out One Actor, and gave the Chorus time to breathe (b( 4.287: to whom

Aeschylus, he tells us, added a Second; and Sophocles, a Third. So that Tragoedy, accor∣ding 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 * 4.288, reckoning up the Gra∣dual 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 bring∣ing 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 di∣stinct from that of the Chorus; that is in∣deed, 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 Inconside∣rable a Writer as I am, I will endeavour to set him right, and to give him a Clearer Ac∣count of it.

Tragoedy at first was nothing but an Hymn to the honour of Bacchus, sung by a Num∣ber 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 there∣fore it must be remember'd that the Founda∣tion of Tragoedy was laid. Afterwards the Subject of Tragoedy was much alter'd and va∣ry'd: for the Composers of those Songs toge∣ther with the Praises of Bacchus joyn'd the En∣comiums of Great and Famous Persons; and Sa∣tyrical Reproofs † 4.289 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 re∣lieve 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 Busi∣ness 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 intro∣duc'd. Aeschylus improv'd upon this Model, and grew still more upon the Chorus, by adding a Second * 4.290 Actor, and diversifying the Fable; and Sophocles at last compleated the Poem, by the addition of a

Third. And by this time the Chorus, which was at first Essential to Tragoedy, and did all in it, was grown only an Accessory Orna∣ment 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 diffe∣rent from what it was before, and Thespis ha∣ving 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, ex∣clusive 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, ex∣clusive 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 En∣tire 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

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 Ba∣stard Sort of Tragoedy, in these Latter Days; and therefore the Italians first found out Tra∣goedy. There is no difference in the case but this, that what the Italians did was a Debase∣ment of Tragoedy, whereas Thespis's Inventi∣on was an Improvement of it; but still Tra∣goedy it self was equally before the Improve∣ment 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 distin∣guish'd Critically between that Sort of Tra∣goedy, which was before Thespis's time, and That which Thespis himself introduc'd.

Ignotum Tragicae Genus invenisse Camaenae Dicitur, & Plaustris vexisse Poemata Thespis.

It was Ignotum Genus Tragicae Camaenae, an Un∣known 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

Interpretation of the Words, made to serve a Turn, the Dr. may be satisfied, if he plea∣ses 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 * 4.291, where he represents Thespis, and those of his time as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What he means by that Am∣biguous 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 Dra∣matic Poem: but whatever he means, I think I have prov'd, that he could not mean, con∣sistently 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 Him∣self: for he expresly tells us in another place † 4.292, 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

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 be∣fore them were rough and unfinish'd, to such a degree of perfection, as that they justly de∣serv'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 Inven∣tor of Tragoedy; or allow, that they spake inconsiderately, and against the Clear Truth of History. I question not, but some Hun∣dreds of Years hence, Butler will be thought the Author of English Burlesque, tho' there were many Little things written in that way, be∣fore 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 remem∣bring.

By this time I hope the Reader is satisfied, that Two of the Three points which Dr. Bent∣ley 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 speak∣ing) the Second Inventer of it. His Third Assertion is yet more extravagant, and fur∣ther from all Colour of Truth, than either of

the former: it will be easie to confute it, if we can but understand it.

Neither was the Name of Tragoedy (says he * 4.293) more ancient than the Thing — What does he mean? Names I thought were invented to signifie Things; and that the Things them∣selves 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 per∣fectly 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 be∣fore Thespis, because I have prov'd that the Thing it self was: and he could not therefore favour my pretensions more, than by allow∣ing that they were born together. However, this Twin-Birth must be understood of Tra∣goedy 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 un∣derstood by it. It cannot reasonably be que∣stion'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 de∣riv'd

from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [vindemia] or from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [hircus], joyn'd with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in which the Gram∣marians are divided * 4.294) either way it very naturally expres∣ses some of the Great Cir∣cumstances of that Solemni∣ty: according to its First Derivation, it points out the Time of it, which was upon the Gathering in of their Vintage † 4.295; accord∣ing 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 suffici∣ently distinguish'd; as we may learn from Athenaeus (a) 4.296, from Aristophanes, and his Scho∣liast (b) 4.297 and from Hesychius (c) 4.298 If This be so,

and Comedy was more ancient than Thespis, as I have prov'd before (a) 4.299 in these Papers, it is clear that the Word Tragoedy was be∣fore 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 in∣to this Serious Poem; it certainly did so, and continu'd very long in it, even after Comoe∣dy 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and (b) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,(a) 4.300 be∣came Proverbial Expressions for Satyr and Jeering. I de∣sire this may be observ'd, be∣cause it gives us an easie and natural account of that expression in Phalaris [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] which Dr. Bentley has made such hi∣deous 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 Tragoe∣dy while he liv'd, (as our Critic learnedly ob∣jects) yet he might be the argument of that Sort of Satyr which usually accompanied Tra∣goedy: and the Dr. may perhaps, before he dies, have a convincing Proof, that a Man

may be the Subject of such Tragoedies, while he is Living.

And now, upon the whole, is not Dr. Bent∣ley a most Discreet Writer? who has chosen out such an argument to prove Phalaris Spu∣rious, as his best Friends would have pitch'd upon to prove him Genuine? for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 E∣pistles: 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. up∣on any of his Arguments against the Autho∣rity 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 Exa∣mination * 4.301: the Regard I had was to my Self, and to those Excellent Persons, who were in∣jur'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 Count∣ing by Talents, nor the Matter and Business of the Letters, can in the least shock a Considering

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 re∣lates to the Towns is so involv'd in Obscurity, that I must own 'tis perfectly clear'd on nei∣ther 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 La∣ter 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

the Two First he borrow'd from Me (a) 4.302, with∣out 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 Au∣thor (b) 4.303 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 whe∣ther he will admit the Conclusion.

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 im∣pertinent Dispute, whether they be Genuine or not; I am of opinion as Strong and Con∣cluding 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 Cri∣ticism, 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 un∣luckily 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. * 4.304 The Sophist, whoever he was, that wrote these Loose Dissertations in the Name and Cha∣racter 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 be∣lieve

it is the Librarian himself who talks so big; and may not discover the Ass un∣der the Skin of that Lyon (a) 4.305 in Criticism and Philology. But I shall examine Dr. Bentley's Title to these Dissertations, and shall not go to dispossess him by an Arbi∣trary Sentence in his own Dogmatical Way, but proceed with him upon a Lawful Evi∣dence, and a fair Impartial Tryal. And I am very much mistaken in the Nature and Force of my Proofs, if ever any man here∣after that reads them persist in his Opi∣nion of making Dr. Bentley the Author of these Criticisms (b) 4.306.

Had all other ways fail'd us of detecting this Impostor, yet his very Speech had be∣tray'd him, for it is neither that of a Scho∣lar, 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 En∣glish Tongue was generally spoken and written; as, besides other Testimonies, the very thing speaks it self in the Re∣mains 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 Lan∣guage farther remov'd from the true En∣glish Idiom than the Doric Greek was from the Attic (c) 4.307? 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

both? Pray, how came that Idiom to be the Court-language at St. Iames's * 4.308?

But should we allow, that in some Past Age such a Manner of Speech might have pre∣vail'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 English∣man but thinks himself able from the very Turn and Fa••••om of the Style to distin∣guish a fresh Composition from another an hundred Years old † 4.309. Now when we compare these Dissertations with the Writings of Archbishop Tillotson, Bishop Sprat, Sir Wil∣liam Temple, and Others, we find the Style of that Age had quite different Turn and Fa∣shion from that of our Dissertator. Should I affirm that I know the Novity of these Dis∣sertations from the whole Body and Form of the Work, none perhaps would be con∣vin••••d by it, but those that, without my Indication, could discover it by themselves. I shall let that alone then, and point out

only a few Marks and Moles in 'em, which every one that pleases may know them by * 4.310. 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, Manufa∣cture, 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 (a) 4.311, incurable Botches (b) 4.312, broaching of expressions (c) 4.313, lopping off branches of Evidence (d) 4.314, a Scene of Putid Formality (e) 4.315; Men springing up like Mu∣shrooms out of Rotten Passages of Authors (f) 4.316, and many others of the same Strain: but I sup∣pose these are sufficient to unmask the Re∣cent Sophist under the Person of the Old Librarian (g) 4.317

But were it possible to produce an Author of the same Country and Age with Dr. Bent∣ley, who wrote in the Language of this Disser∣tation, 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

these advantages he could not but be more refin'd than the Writer of this piece of Cri∣ticism: who by his manner of expressing him∣self 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 Breed∣ing. The familiar expressions, of taking one tripping (a) 4.318, coming off with a whole Skin (b) 4.319, minding his hitts (c) 4.320, a friend at a pinch (d) 4.321, going to blows (e) 4.322, setting horses together (f) 4.323, and going to pott (g) 4.324; 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 a∣bout this matter of the Dialect * 4.325: 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 rea∣son 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 ge∣neral † 4.326 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 after∣wards Doric, because he had once Footing in a Country Town * 4.327? The same Author

tells us of several born and bred in the Coun∣try, 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 † 4.328? He was part of that time a Library-keeper to a Learned Dean, and afterwards to His Maje∣sty; a Member of one University, and a So∣journer 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 Gen∣tlemen 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 ap∣ply'd himself in a particular manner to the belles Lettres, have quitted his Old Country Dialect, for that of a Londoner, a Gentle∣man, and a Scholar? and not by every word he spake make the Ridiculous Disco∣very of his being a Perfect Stranger * 4.329 to all Polite Learning, and Gentleman-like Con∣versation?

But let us hear a Second Apology that may be made for the Dorism of Dr. Bent∣ley: He may perhaps be defended from the like Practise of others, who being Lon∣doners 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 Bal∣lad, and Mr. Dryden in his Harvest home.

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 submissi∣on, that this argument is built upon such Instances as are quite aliene from the case of our Dissertator. For Doric might in∣deed 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 Wri∣ters of Fables, Ballads, and Comedies? what mighty Motives can Here be for assu∣ming a Foreign Dialect? His Pieces are dated in the midst of London, directed to the very next Street, address'd to a Scho∣lar, about a Controversie in Criticism, de∣sign'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 ex∣cuse the Dr. for Dorizing in these Circum∣stances, 'tis hard to deny them the glory of being the humblest of his Admirers and Vassals (a) 4.330.

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 Ro∣chester, the Pedant in Ben Iohnson, and other Writers of Comedies, do shew, that the Au∣thor

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 pro∣per for Mountebanks and Pedants, whose bu∣siness 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 eminent∣ly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — the hater of Pedants (a) 4.331? and so well known to be so, that even our So∣phist in these very Dissertations represents him as One whose Aim, Profession, and Im∣ployment it was to pull off the Disguise from those little Pedants, that have stalkt so long about in the Apparel of Heroes (*) 4.332.

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 (b) 4.333, in favour of their Opini∣on who may ascribe these Dissertations to Dr. Bentley. There is still extant a Letter of Dr. Bentley's to Dr. Iohn Mill, which is con∣fess'd to be Genuine, in which there are fre∣quent Scraps of Greek intermix'd with La∣tin; which might give occasion to our So∣phist to think that a Cento of Different Lan∣guages 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,

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Disser∣tations were design'd for the benefit of En∣glish Readers, who had as great an Esteem for their own Tongue, as either for Greek, or Latin; and the Uncouth Words here in∣terspers'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 (a) 4.334, when he counterfeited these Dissertations in the Name of that Reverend Doctor. For 'tis very observable that the Preface of this Let∣ter to Mr. Wotton is borrow'd from the Pre∣face of that to Dr. Mill; which begins with the Author's remembring a Discourse be∣tween Him and Dr. Mill about Malela (b) 4.335, 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. Bent∣ley. Had that Dr. really wrote these Disser∣tations,

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. Bent∣ley.

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 Corni∣culae sint▪ emendicatis hinc inde Plumis germanos Pavones se pollicentur (a) 4.336. 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 Dis∣covery (b) 4.337 about Ocellus Lucanus, which had been long before made and publish'd by Viz∣zanius, 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 E∣nemy to borrowing, have thus plum'd him∣self 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 Plagia∣ry. What shall we say to this matter?

Dr. Bentley had the Character of a man of Probity and Parts, who had neither Incli∣nation nor Need to filch the Sayings of Others (a) 4.338. 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 (b) 4.339. 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 bor∣rowing, 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 Disser∣tations: 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. Bent∣ley. For that Letter, in the Page above men∣tion'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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (c) 4.340. Now is it

probable, that One who had collected the Fragments of all the Greek Poets, amended them, and wrote Notes upon them, could mi∣stake Empedocles for an Epic Poet? But I shall not insist upon this; since the Passage pro∣duc'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 Le∣ctures 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 pre∣cious Time upon so fruitless Enquiries as those are which are pursu'd in these several Disser∣tations. 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

of this Declaration of Dr. Bentley; but he had, it seems, unhappily forgot it, when he ascrib'd these Pieces to him * 4.341.

The Sophist is not more happy in persona∣ting 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 repres∣ses his Indignation: Sed nolo aliquid inclementer dicere; non nostrum est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 † 4.342. 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 Ad∣versary, 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 di∣rectly 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 Ket∣tles! What a difference is there between the Two Letter-writers? Mr. Bentley is calm and forgiving, but Dr. Bentley is furious and un∣relenting: 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 * 4.343?

Dr. Bentley was celebrated amongst the Learned Men of his own and other Countries for one, who was much vers'd in the Learn∣ed Languages: and, as it appears by his Let∣ter to Dr. Mill, he was very conversant in Suidas, Hesychius, and other Greek Vocabula∣ries, Onomasticons, Etymologicons, Lexicons, Glos∣saries, 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 * 4.344 which he finds in Phalaris, that he was not only a perfect Stran∣ger 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•• cor∣recturum esse, s•• libucrit, quae aliorum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & laboriosam diligentiam hactenùs illuserunt † 4.345.

Now could any thing that actually is in Hesy∣chius, 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 con∣struing

Greek Words, as to tell us, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which are far from a Perse∣cuting 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 Li∣brary-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 resent∣ments of that Complaint. Now the Dr. him∣self 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 (a) 4.346: whereas these Edi∣tors, 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,

that this Edition was the Work of More than One; and that the Person, to whom it is de∣dicated, had assisted in it: as if it were un∣usual 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 rea∣son 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 Ho∣nour to be nearly related to that Noble Per∣son, 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 Scho∣lar, a Courtier, and a Divine would so far break in upon all the Rules of Modesty, De∣cency,

and Civility, as to insult over a Per∣son of Sir William's Character, and Merit, as an Ignorant and Illiterate Pretender to Lear∣ning; 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 pro∣ceed 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 Cor∣ner 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; espe∣cially since so many have had occasion to do so (a) 4.347: 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 Lan∣guage, and Innovations in Speech, might from every Page of this Author have fetch'd pro∣per 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 (b) 4.348.

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 Considera∣tion; that That Learned Doctor was chosen

out by the then Fathers of the Church, as a fit person to vindicate the Truth of Religion against Atheists, Deists, and all other Oppo∣sers of Divine Revelation: whereas this So∣phist is found to make use of such Argu∣ments (a) 4.349 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 consistent∣ly 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 Lear∣ned Person; and I have had too much Re∣gard to Him, in giving him the Honour and Patience of so Long an Examina∣tion (b) 4.350.

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 In∣difference 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 Ma∣sters of Greek might see some faint resem∣blance 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

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 Ver∣sion 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 there∣fore expect a most painful one] and says, My Translation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [by nulli gravem] produces a flat and far-fetch'd Sense † 4.351. 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

Sense; I suppose he cannot mean by a far-fetch'd Sense, a Sense that the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 in∣titul'd a Chapter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which I would advise the Dr. to read, not on∣ly 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 † 4.352; 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 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;

nor the Arundel, a Collation of which the Learned Dean of York sent me, after my Edi∣tion 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 fri∣volous 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. Per∣haps the Dr. might have thought so too, but that he has a Peculiar Fondness for the Para∣pleromatick Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he takes to be a rare and quaint usage (a) 4.353: 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 Parti∣cle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is us'd as Parapleromatically every whit as it would be here, should his Reading pre∣vail.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Scelera non in∣vita; for he is very positive that Invitus al∣ways 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 La∣tin,

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,

Non — ipsa suos poterit compescere Ocellos Surget & invitis spiritus in Lachrymis.

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 Invi∣tis 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 sur∣gent Lacrymae, Lacrymae might be consider'd as an Agent: but as it stands here, Invitae Lacry∣mae 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 Conver∣sation

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 La∣tin, 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,

— Merui, Genetrix, poenas; invita capessens Arma Puer rapui, nec To retinente quievi. v. 891.

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

Esto olim invitum jaculatus nubibus ignem; Credimus: en iterùm atra refers incendia terris, Nec Styge juratus, nec Pellicis Arte rogatus? v. 158.

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 In∣vitum 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 Cri∣ticism returns.

I see there is no way of pleasing an In∣cens'd

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hortaris, which I inter∣pret by Provocas, as Budaeus does; who in his Learned Commentary has these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, provocant, cient; & usuc est satis frequens: and I translate it so, because I could find no other Signification of it in any Greek Wri∣ter; and Dr. Bentley himself owns as much, that it is not otherwise us'd by any of the An∣cients. Now I never designing to make a Noise with the Corrections and Improve∣ments 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 Illite∣rate Fatherer of an absurd, ridiculous, and incon∣gruous 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 up∣braid me with Cruelty. And I believe his Cavil against the Syntax of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is no bet∣ter grounded than that against the Sense. He won't indeed find 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in his Grammar with a Dative Case, but he may please to inlarge it from this very place * 4.354: and as for his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we have no occasion for either of 'em: in the days of Sophocles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was no more absurd and incongruous, than Quae me hortaris was in Tully's. But Dr. Bent∣ley thinks he has shewn already, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sig∣nifies

to reproaoh * 4.355; 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to accuse, is an Innovation in Language, for which the Ancients us'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: so that po∣sitively to averr, and assume the thing in que∣stion is in his Language to shew, and prove it. Let us see how whether his Second Thoughts furnish him with any better proof of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying to accuse. One would expect that he should produce the Authority of some Greek Author, that uses 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 † 4.356; he might have ad∣ded too, nor by any Modern Author since. This is a surprizing way of arguing, but I find it familiar, to Dr. Bentley; he has ano∣ther 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 Fami∣ly among the Romans? no, that••s too Obvi∣ous 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 Ac∣quaintance 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to reproach: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and vitio vertere signifie to re∣proach; therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 does so too: and

in the same Paragraph, he after the same man∣ner makes it out, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is no perservere; is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. exactly the same with pertendo? (meaning, I suppose, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is per, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tendo) and is not pertendo to p••rsevere? I al∣ways 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 Ar∣gument. Would he allow Others to argue as He does, from One Compound Word to Another, and from One Language to Ano∣ther, we might enlarge our Dictionaries with∣out End; and soon produce not only (what he pretends to * 4.357) five thousand, but five Mil∣lions of Emondations and Additions to Hesy∣chius; tho' not Such as are worthy to keep Company with the Admirable Bishop Pear∣son's Observations on that Author: and there∣fore 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to differ, therefore by a Like Metaphor, and Analogy, we may use 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to express the same notion † 4.358: And thus agen I can prove, that praeverio is to exhort; for is not praeverto exact∣ly the same as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? and is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to exhort? or that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to pe••severe; for is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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,

or else that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 ex∣cite by any other methods: unless when Vir∣gil says, Iam Vitulos hortare; and Ovid, Horta∣túr{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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? for tho' I no more know an Instance of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 than of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being us'd for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet the Formation of the Word will more easily and naturally allow of this use: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may well enough signifie, quae mihi vitio vertis; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in that sense, is, I think, a very improper and unnatural In∣novation 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 Argu∣ment 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was never us'd for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Hi∣story,

that is worse founded than his Criti∣cism; 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 (a) 4.359. I am at a Loss how to deal with a man of this Extraor∣dinary 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 Naogor∣go, altera in Usum Schol. Soc. Jes. edita (b) 4.360. 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 in∣deed 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.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 * 4.361, 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 (a) 4.362, and whereby the argument about Thericles would vanish into no∣thing (b) 4.363; then he is a trifling Scribler, his Lexicon consists of Excerpta from Scholiasts and Glossaries (c) 4.364. If once he begins to quarrel thus with his Good Friends the Lexicogra∣phers, I can expect no mercy from him: But I would ask him, why he says that in the par∣ticular passage before us neither the Vse of Lan∣guage nor Good Sense will allow 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be translated Glasses? When Phalaris is said to send Cups of Gold and Silver, and besides † 4.365 Ten Couple 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to me it seems agree∣able to Good Sense, that these Cups, which are here distinguish'd from Cups of Gold and

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 Mer∣ry upon these Glasses as he pleases, and call 'em Odd and Stingy Presents, Cheap and Brittle Compliments; I am not answerable for Phala∣ris'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 be∣ing 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 Rail∣lery upon Phalaris here for a Stingy Present: but why is he offended with Me too for a Pre∣sent I never design'd him? He says I have presented him with an Emendation of P••••ulo∣rum Vitreorum, whereas the former Interpre∣ters 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in morem

arundinis (a) 4.366; the Translation in the former Editions was, instar pinûs (b) 4.367. Here again I have follow'd the Version, which he advises me to consult in my next Edition (c) 4.368, 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 pro∣bably have interpreted it Literally, on pur∣pose 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 (a) 4.369, that I have executed this Proverb upon it self, and extirpated the Pine-Tree out of my New Version (a) 4.370; that I have rooted up the Pine-Tree, and transplanted Reeds (a) 4.371 thither: which he confesses is above his Small Vnderstanding in Gardening (a) 4.372. 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 In∣struct You more than the Other Entertains

You? However, after he has refresh'd him∣self 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 Na∣tural 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 Col∣lection of Ill Weeds, pull'd up out of Good Writers. There is, I remember, a Passage in Athenaeus, where this Happy Talent of Weed∣ing Authors is very well express'd: I shall give it the Learned Reader, together with three or four Lines that introduce it; be∣cause 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, says Cynulcus to Vlpian, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (*) 4.373; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 ex∣tinguish'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 dif∣ferent Readings in the MSS, as conduc'd to the better understanding the Text; for I al∣ways thought it a Ridiculous piece of Pedan∣try 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I saw the MSS here had a Various Reading 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which I pass'd over with that Contempt it deserv'd, and guess'd it should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Which I would render thus, I am not so much as seen by my Nearest Relations; and I

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 man∣kind 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 re∣tir'd than by seeing no-body? I desire the Dr. to have Some Regard to Sense, as well as to MSS.

This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 returns agen in the 68th Epi∣stle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Now here too, he says, Every one of the MSS have it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 per∣haps I might not observe this Various Read∣ing. But if I had observ'd it, I think I should scarce have made use of it; for if we put 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the room of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be an Adverb, and referr'd to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and the Rules of good Language will hardly allow, that the Adverb should be joyn'd in Place to

one Verb, and in Sense to another, at such a distance: not to insist on the Ambiguity that arises from its Neighborhood to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 other∣wise, even after the Correction of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is allow'd to prevail. Had the Author in∣tended 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for an Adverb, he would pro∣bably have put it after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, than I want Mony to give, may make Nonsense of any thing.

There is yet one Instance more of Unskil∣fulness that he charges upon me, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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: nei∣ther of us produce any Instances of our Use of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nor pretend to do it; we are meerly upon the Guess, what it must sig∣nifie, 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 ano∣ther; that is, the Writer of the Greek Epistle

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 him∣self 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 Col∣lection. It is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; upon which Erasmus has this Remarkable Gloss; Asinus portans Mysteria, in eos dicebatur qui praeter dig∣nitatem 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 Treat∣ment 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and here agen in relation to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Having no Au∣thorities to countenance my Version of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪

Dr. Bentley puts on his Critical Spectacles, and finds, that tho' it be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 now, it was ori∣ginally 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ob ea, and at the same time to say, I make it an Interroga∣tive, is according to Dr. Bentley's way of re∣presenting things: he should either have been less severe with Me (a) 4.374 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 P. 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. 35. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. 45. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. 48. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. 61. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. 70. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. 94. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. 129. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. 138. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. 139. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. 146. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.

The Reader will think the Controversy runs low when we begin thus to dispute about Ac∣cents 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 Instan∣ces 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 Sin∣cerity will think of his false and disingenu∣ous 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 Vin∣dictive Temper: how the Men of Taste and Breeding will relish his Scurrilous Language, his Frigid Jests, his Low and Clownish Ex∣pressions; how the Men of Reason and Judg∣ment will approve his Weak and Inconclu∣sive Ways of Arguing: it is a mighty Impu∣tation 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.

I was satisfied from some Books lately writ∣ten, what a wide difference there is between a Man of Close Arguing, and Rambling Lear∣ning; and how unnatural a Step it is for an Amanuensis to start up a Professor of Divini∣ty. 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 Wri∣ter, 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 con∣sult the several Editions, to collate the Ma∣nuscripts, 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 Ar∣ticle) 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the way

of Scholarship, of which Theophrastus has gi∣ven 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 Excel∣lent Use to the World when wisely em∣ploy'd.

A Good Critic is a Name that deserves Ho∣nour; 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 con∣sider 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 dif∣fers from; never takes a pleasure in insulting over their Mistakes, or lessening their Repu∣tations. Isaac Casaubon, Ger. Vossius, and Gro∣tius, were all men of this Cast; and so was Menage too, till Baille••, toward the Latter End of his Life, provok'd him. The Cha∣racter

which our Excellent Pearson * 4.375 gives of him, is very remarkable, and fit to be consi∣der'd by Dr. Bentley before he appears agen in the way of Criticism. Quanta animi modera∣tio! 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▪ Scali∣gers (or, as it is in his Last Edition, the Salmasius's) and Grotius's of other Nations † 4.376. 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

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 up∣on 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 Judg∣ment is afraid always of standing by himself in a New Opinion; but a Smatterer in Criti∣cism 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 Distinguish∣ing 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.

So have I seen the lost Clouds pour Into the Seas an Vseless Shower; Whilst the vex'd Sailors curs'd the Rain, For which Poor Shepherds pray'd in vain.

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 Parti∣culars that distinguish their Characters; in∣stead on't, take a Reflection or two which Monsieur St. Euvremont * 4.377, (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 per∣petually 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

well in explaining and commenting upon a Gram∣marian; 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 Cha∣racter, 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 Commenta∣ries; the Consul, and the General are lost to 'em. The Genius that animates their admirable Writings is not felt; the Remarkable and Instru∣ctive 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 for∣mare 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 di∣scere sit paratus. Volo e••m••ante omnia niti intelli∣gere

quid Veteres velint; & sibi diligenter cavere, ne Opinetur se Scire quod Nesciat * 4.378. Which Good Measures had Dr. Bentley, in his Criti∣cal Studies and Attempts, vouchsaf'd to ob∣serve, he had sav'd himself and Me the trou∣ble of this Public Dispute about Phalaris: He had not rashly enter'd the Lists upon an Ar∣gument 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; be∣cause, 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 deci∣ded 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 Compli∣ments that from thence have been paid him, have made it necessary to set Him and his Per∣formances in as true a Light towards Foreign∣ers, as they do or will appear in here at Home:

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 Cha∣racter, 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.

Notes

• * 1.1

  P. 68.
• * 2.1

  See the Pas∣sage at length, p. 5.
• a 4.1

  p. 66.
• a 4.2

  p. 66.
• a 4.3

  p. 66.
• a 4.4

  p. 66.
• b 4.5

  p. 71.
• b 4.6

  p. 71.
• c 4.7

  p. 75.
• d 4.8

  p. 67.
• e 4.9

  p. 76.
• f 4.10

  p. 74.
• * 4.11

  P. 68.
• * 4.12

  P. 415, & 416.
• (a) 4.13

  P. 11.
• (b) 4.14

  Epist. 207.
• (c) 4.15

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. p. 144.
• (d) 4.16

  Plut. vers. 142. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (e) 4.17

  P. 100, 117, 118, 119, 137, 140, 148, &c.
• (f) 4.18

  P. 53.
• * 4.19

  P. 12.
• † 4.20

  P. 11, & 12.
• * 4.21

  Ep. 207. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• † 4.22

  Ib. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (a) 4.23

  P. 64.
• (b) 4.24

  P. 5.
• (c) 4.25

  P. 13.
• (a) 4.26

  P. 44.
• (b) 4.27

  P. 41.
• (c) 4.28

  P. 41.
• * 4.29

  Ne{que} cum Siculis Scripto∣ribus placuerit semper Diale∣ctus Dorica, Agrigentinorum (qui antiquitus Dores erant) Tyrannus alia uti debuit. p. 2.
• † 4.30

  P. 44.
• (a) 4.31

  In Greg. In∣vect. p. 143.
• (b) 4.32

  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.
• (a) 4.33

  Hist. Sicil. & Mag. Gr. ex Numism. p. 126. Patre Cretensis, Vrbe Asty∣phalide.
• (b) 4.34

  Rer. Sic. Dec. 1, L. 6, C. 1. Phalaris Cretâ Insulâ Vrbe Astyphalide ortus.
• (c) 4.35

  Dissert. p. 12.
• (d) 4.36

  Dissert. p. 12.
• * 4.37

  Diss. p. 44
• * 4.38

  P. 44.
• (a) 4.39

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (b) 4.40

  Differ. p. 14.
• (a) 4.41

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (b) 4.42

  Ioh. Philop. de Dialectis▪ Corinthus, de Dialectis▪
• (a) 4.43

  This probably was the Case of Callimachus, in his Hymn upon the Baths of Pal∣las, compos'd by him in Do∣ric, to compliment the Ar∣gians (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.
• (b) 4.44

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. D. H. in Thucyd.
• * 4.45

  Diss. p. 43.
• * 4.46

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Cretan mony; in some other Inscriptions it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Inscription of a Coin, be∣longing to Velia, a Town in Magna Gracia.
• (a) 4.47

  Disser. ••. 41.
• (a) 4.48

  Disser p. 49.
• (a) 4.49

  Poet. c. 1.
• * 4.50

  Comp. of anc. and mod. Lear. p. 32.
• (b) 4.51

  Disser. p. 59.
• (c) 4.52

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 4.53

  P. 50.
• * 4.54

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. T. 2. p. 70.
• (a) 4.55

  P. 46.
• * 4.56

  P. 39.
• (a) 4.57

  P▪ 41.
• (a) 4.58

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. L. 6, p. 272.
• (b) 4.59

  Certè ut erat Agrigen∣tum Ionum Colonia, teste Stra∣bone, Agrigentini licet Siculi (qui quidem Siculi Dores erant) Ionico sermone forsan uteban∣tur. Notae in Diog. Laert. l. 8, sect. 60.
• * 4.60

  P. 49.
• * 4.61

  Porph. in Vitâ Pyth. p. 15. Diod. Sic. l. 12, p. 84.
• (b) 4.62

  Disser. p. 47.
• (c) 4.63

  Ibid. p. 48.
• * 4.64

  Dissert. p. 47.
• † 4.65

  Bononiae 1646.
• * 4.66

  Dissert. p. 47.
• (a) 4.67

  P. 47.
• (b) 4.68

  P. 47.
• (a) 4.69

  Disser. p. 52.
• (b) 4.70

  P. 51.
• (a) 4.71

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (in margine rectiùs 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Which Leunclavius rightly translates, Praterea Cyrus & Stip••ndium priùs illis debitum persolvit, & menstruum aliud ante tempus numeravit. Xen. Hellen. l. 1, p. 441.
• (b) 4.72

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Orat. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• (c) 4.73

  — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Oecon. l. 2.
• (a) 4.74

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ('Tis Socrates speaks) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Phoed.
• (b) 4.75

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Faustulus follow'd Romulus into the City. P. 52.
• * 4.76

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Says one of the Persons in that Dialogue — Who immediately afterwards professes, that he meant not these Words of a Lascivious Love: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. p. 192. In the same manner 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which generally had a Scandalous Sense, is by Plato often us'd in a Good one: particu∣larly in his Phoedrus; where Socrates calls Lysias the Orator 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Phoedri Deliciae, because of Phoedrus's admiring and delight∣ing in Lysias's Orations. See p. 236.
• (a) 4.77

  N••c sanè quisquam est tam procul à cognitione eorum remotus, vt non In∣dicem certè ex Bibliothecâ sumptum transferre in Li∣bros suos possit. Quint. In∣stit. l. 10, c. 1.
• * 4.78

  Diss. p. 52
• (a) 4.79

  Disser. p. 52.
• (a) 4.80

  Disse•• p. 5••.
• (b) 4.81

  Ibid. p. 54.
• * 4.82

  Dissert. p. 54.
• * 4.83

  Pollux, l. ix, c. 6.
• (a) 4.84

  Disser. p. 54, 55.
• * 4.85

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

  Diog. in Vitâ Arist.
• (a) 4.86

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 * 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

  Poll. l. 9, c. 6.
• * 4.87

  Dissert p. 118.
• (a) 4.88

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 L. 9, C. 6.
• (b) 4.89

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. ut suprá.
• (a) 4.90

  Who dy'd Olymp. cxiv, 3. according to Laertius. And Pliny tells us, Argen∣tum signatum est Anno urbis 585, (others read 485) Quin∣to Fabio Consule, 5 annis ante primum Punicum bel∣lum. Nat. Hist. l. 33.

  Now A. U. C. 585, falls in with Ol. 153. A. U. C. 485, with Ol. 128.
• (a) 4.91

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 L. 4, C. 24.
• (b) 4.92

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. L. 9, C. 6.
• (a) 4.93

  He tells us expresly, that the Mina of each Coun∣try is divided into an hundred Drachms of that Country. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 L. 9, C. 6. And if the Drachmae of each Country rise and fall in propor∣tion to the Talent, it is evi∣dent, 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 con∣tinebat▪ Talentum Omne, proprias sc. l. ejus regionis, cujus Talentum esse diceba∣tur. De Nummis, p. 26.

  Talentum quodvis s••xmil∣lia Drachmarum sui generis habet, quae ad Atticas re∣ductae variant. Gron. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Vet. c. 3.
• (a) 4.94

  Paulus Longobardus, homo confidentissimus ac in∣eptissimus; nihil Festo pejus potuit accidere, quàm quòd in hujus Pauli manus incide∣rit. Ios. Scalig. in Ep. Ded. ad Castigationes in Fes••um.
• (a) 4.95

  Vide Notas Gothofredi ad Schedas Festi frag∣mento de∣tractas, 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 Talen∣tum, ubi dicit; Mendosus hic Locus est, & qui non patitur Emen∣dationem. Hoc unum certum est, Talentorum non unum esse Ge∣nus, & 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.
• (a) 4.96

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

  Diod. Sic. l. 19.
• (b) 4.97

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 L. 12.
• (c) 4.98

  It amounts to 3 s. 1. l. ob. of our Mony.
• (a) 4.99

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 L. 11.
• (b) 4.100

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Idyll. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 4.101

  Stephens in the margin reads 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• (*) 4.102

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —
• (a) 4.103

  Diod. Sic. l. 13.
• (b) 4.104

  Less than 30 Shillings.
• (c) 4.105

  Thucyd. p. 353.
• (d) 4.106

  A Talent 1 s. 10 d. ob. for a Months pay of a Ship.
• (e) 4.107

  Plut. in Vitâ Timo∣leontis.
• (a) 4.108

  6 s. 3 d.
• (b) 4.109

  Less than 100 pounds.
• (c) 4.110

  Plut. ibid.
• (d) 4.111

  Plato, Ep. 7.
• (e) 4.112

  Less than 10 pounds.
• (f) 4.113

  Polyb. p. 249.
• (g) 4.114

  Less than 7 pounds.
• (a) 4.115

  The Talents in Pollux, being compar'd to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and being, according to the present reading of Pollux, lower in Value than They, seem to be Brass rather than Silver.
• (b) 4.116

  Epp. 118, 95.
• (a) 4.117

  Talentum sine adjecti∣one Scriptoribus antiquis passim pro Attico.

  Gronov. de Pec. Vet. c. 3.

  Talentum Atticum pro∣priè 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in scriptis Grae∣cis Latinisque.

  Bernard. in Ep. ad Pocock.

  Semper in Auctoribus (praeter Sacros) ubi Nomen Talenti occurrit, hoc ipsum (Atticum, 6000 Drachma∣rum Atticarum) intelligen∣dum est, si Nomen Talenti absolutè positum sit, ne{que} di∣stinctionis causâ aliquid ad∣jiciatur.

  Brerewood de Num. p. 27.
• * 4.118

  Dissert▪ p. 55.
• † 4.119

  Dissert. p. 62, 63.
• * 4.120

  Reflect. upon an∣cient and modern Learning, p. 20.
• (a) 4.121

  Those Little Pedants, that have stalkt about in the Apparel of Heroes. Dissert. p. 29.

  — that wretched Pedan∣try in the matter, p. 65.

  — affected to excel each other, even to Pedantry. p. 41, &c.
• (a) 4.122

  Could neither dis∣cover the true Time, nor true Value of his Au∣thors. p. 6.

  — Criticism of a Peculiar Complexion, and must proceed from a Singularity of Palate and Iudgment. P. 7.
• (b) 4.123

  Sorry Critic, Bungling Tinker, Lucian's Ass, &c.
• (c) 4.124

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Asinus ad Lyram, &c.
• (a) 4.125

  —even Demon∣strated, 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.
• † 4.126

  There was no such thing as Tragedy while be tyranniz'd at Agri∣gentum. P. 40.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Contro∣versie, whether they are Spurious. P. 89.

  There is No MS. above CCC Years old, that has the Fables accor∣ding 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.
• * 4.127

  Reflect. upon anc. and mod. Learning, p. 59.
• (a) 4.128

  P. 269, 263.
• (b) 4.129

  P. 6, 33, 41, 46, 48.
• (c) 4.130

  P. 4, 20, 23, 36, 42, 59.
• (d) 4.131

  P. 280, 288, 310.
• (a) 4.132

  T. 2•• p. 364.
• (a) 4.133

  Bentl. Ep. ad Millium in sine Malalae, p. 26.
• (b) 4.134

  In the Article of the Thericlean Cups.
• (c) 4.135

  Madestè & circumspe∣ctè de tantis Viris pronun∣tiandum est, ne fortè (quod plerisque accidit) damnent quae non intelligunt. Quint.
• (d) 4.136

  Cestoit une Enemie Public, qui ne pouvoit sous∣frir le merite, ni la reputa∣tion de personne. L. 5, Lettr. 5.
• * 4.137

  Dissert. p. 55.
• (e) 4.138

  P. 135.
• (f) 4.139

  P. 26.
• (g) 4.140

  P. 28.
• (a) 4.141

  Les Caract. ou les Moeeurs de ce Siecle. Chap. des Ouvrages de'l' Esprit.
• * 4.142

  P. 56.
• (a) 4.143

  L. 15, C. 20.
• (b) 4.144

  L. 1, P. 2.
• (c) 4.145

  Conv. Sap. p. 162
• (d) 4.146

  Disser•• p. 57.
• (a) 4.147

  L. 14, p. 646.
• (b) 4.148

  Var. Hist. l. 13, c. 23.
• (c) 4.149

  Smyrna Homerum Vatem sibi vendicabat; Sepulcrum, Templum, & Statuas ipsius ostentans, Varro.
• * 4.150

  Dissert. p. 57.
• (a) 4.151

  Himerâ deletâ, quos Cives belli Calamitas reli∣quos secerat, ii sese Thermis collocarant, in ejusdem agri sinibus, ne{que} longè ab Oppi∣do antiquo. Or. 7. in Verr.
• (b) 4.152

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 L. 11, p. 38.
• * 4.153

  P. 57.
• * 4.154

  Dissert. p. 58.
• * 4.155

  Dissert. p 59.
• † 4.156

  Dissert. p. 58.
• * 4.157

  Cùm res planè superat fidem adeóque sit falsissima. Phaleg. p. 553.
• † 4.158

  Dissert. p. 58.
• * 4.159

  Dissert. p. 60.
• (a) 4.160

  Disser. p. 59.
• (a) 4.161

  Ep. 144.
• (b) 4.162

  Ep. 79.
• (c) 4.163

  —Elegeia, flebile Carmen: Ah! nimis ex vero nùnc tibi nomen habes!

  Ovid.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

  Eust. in Hom. Il. Ω. paulo ante sinem.
• (a) 4.164

  Accordingly the Scho∣liast thus interprets it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (b) 4.165

  Disser. p. 140.
• (c) 4.166

  Ibid. p. 60.
• (a) 4.167

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

  Luc. Phal. 1.
• (b) 4.168

  Disse••▪ p. 15.
• (c) 4.169

  Ibid. p. 6••.
• (a) 4.170

  Disser. p. 61.
• (b) 4.171

  Ibid.
• * 4.172

  Mr. ••aughton.
• * 4.173

  Dissert. p. 63.
• * 4.174

  Preface to my E∣dition of Phalaris.
• * 4.175

  Dissert. p. 65.
• † 4.176

  Dissert. p. 62.
• * 4.177

  Ep. LXXIV.
• * 4.178

  Dissert. p. 65.
• * 4.179

  Dissert. p. 14.
• † 4.180

  Ibid. p. 15.
• (a) 4.181

  Vide Diss. p. 88.
• (a) 4.182

  Disser. p. 15.
• * 4.183

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• (b) 4.184

  Geogr. l. 3, c. 4.
• (c) 4.185

  Nat. Hist. l. 3, c. 8.
• * 4.186

  Dissert. p. 50.
• † 4.187

  Ibid. p. 16.
• * 4.188

  Orr. in Verr.
• † 4.189

  Dissert p. 17.
• (a) 4.190

  Disser. p. 30.
• (b) 4.191

  Ibid p. 24.
• (a) 4.192

  Disser. p. 27.
• (b) 4.193

  Eliac. p. 346.
• * 4.194

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• † 4.195

  Lib. 11.
• * 4.196

  L. 3, c. 8.
• * 4.197

  L. 6, § 5.
• † 4.198

  L. 6.
• (a) 4.199

  Disser. p. 25.
• * 4.200

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

  L. 7, § 164.
• (a) 4.201

  P. 259, 260.
• (b) 4.202

  P. 260, 261.
• (c) 4.203

  P. 260.
• * 4.204

  P. 251.
• * 4.205

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

  Eliac. p. 340.
• (a) 4.206

  L. 1, p. 18.
• (b) 4.207

  P. 27.
• † 4.208

  It was compos'd by Sca∣liger himself, tho' many Lear∣ned Men have quoted it since, as an Ancient Piece.
• (c) 4.209

  Rat. Temp. par. 1, p. 38.
• (d) 4.210

  Lect. Att. l. 2, c. 23.
• (a) 4.211

  L. 6, § 15.
• (a) 4.212

  Disser. p. 31.
• * 4.213

  Dissert. p. 33.
• (a) 4.214

  Ibid. p. 38.
• (b) 4.215

  Ibid. p. 27.
• (c) 4.216

  Ibid.
• (a) 4.217

  P. 119.
• (a) 4.218

  Disser. p. 33.
• (b) 4.219

  Life of Solon.
• * 4.220

  Dissert. p. 35.
• (a) 4.221

  Differ. p. 35.
• * 4.222

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Ep. 40 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. in Scen•• Tabulatâ.
• (b) 4.223

  Differ. p. 41.
• (a) 4.224

  P. 2, 10, 11.
• (b) 4.225

  L. 3.
• (c) 4.226

  In Pro∣l••gom.
• (d) 4.227

  Strom. l. 1.
• (e) 4.228

  Poet. l. 1
• * 4.229

  P. 36.
• * 4.230

  Phalaris's Words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ep. 12.
• (a) 4.231

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. 172. — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 180.
• (b) 4.232

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In Ctesiph. p. 94. Ed. Ox.
• (a) 4.233

  § III.
• (b) 4.234

  § X.
• (c) 4.235

  § XI.
• (d) 4.236

  P. 469.
• * 4.237

  Vid. Ca∣saubo•• A∣nim. p. 782
• (a) 4.238

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 244.
• (b) 4.239

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Excerpt. è Diodoro. p. 241.
• † 4.240

  Epist. ad Millium in fine Mala∣lae, p. 80.
• (c) 4.241

  Differ. p. 19.
• * 4.242

  P. 19.
• † 4.243

  Saepe A∣thenaeum peccare graviter dum suo••um Excerptorum fidem sequitur, ne{que} ad fontes ipsos adit, multis locis probatum nobis satis superque. Anim. p. 377.
• (a) 4.244

  Disser. p. 19.
• (a) 4.245

  Ejus Ego quidem Di∣ligentiam in nonnullis, Judi∣cium in multis requiro.

  Animadv. p. 375.
• * 4.246

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. P. 470.
• * 4.247

  P. 471.
• † 4.248

  P. 21.
• (a) 4.249

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (says he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and does not Alexis introduce Hercu∣les drinking out of a Theri∣clean 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.
• * 4.250

  Lynceus Samius is brought in by Athenaeus saying, that the Rhodians did (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) work a sort of Cup (call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 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 (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) compare the finest Athenian Manufa∣ctures 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 (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) are capable of another Sense; but it is a forc'd and unnatural one.
• (a) 4.251

  In Vit. P. Aem••l.
• (b) 4.252

  Athe∣••••••. p. 469.
• (c) 4.253

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 was Archon in Olympiad the ••••st; as before, Page the 147 of these Pap••rs.
• * 4.254

  Dissert. p. 18.
• † 4.255

  Ibid. p. 20.
• (a) 4.256

  ••esych. in voce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the Notes up∣on it.
• * 4.257

  Dissert. p. 20, 21.
• † 4.258

  Ani••ad. p. 2.
• (a) 4.259

  All, but so much of 'em as supplys the Room of what we have lost of Athenaeus himself.
• * 4.260

  At the End of Malala.
• (a) 4.261

  Tribrachys est Lo'o A∣napasti: quod viti••m com∣mune est Grotio cum Ios. Sca∣ligero, Flor. Christiano, Al••••s{que} opinor Omnibus qui Saeculo hoc & superiore vel Tragoe∣dias Graecas Latinè verte∣runt, vel ipsi scripserunt no∣vas: quibu•• solenne est Ana∣paestos suos passim, ubi nulla Clausula est, nec interpun∣ctum, Trib••achi, vel Tro∣chaeo, vel Cretico terminare. Nae isti, si olim stante Re Grae∣câ vel Romanâ suas Fabulas edidissent, Sibilis & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 re∣pudiâsset. Ibid.
• (b) 4.262

  ........... 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 122 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 156. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 191. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 565. — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1084.
• * 4.263

  Trucibus monstris stetit imposita Pelion Ossa — Agam. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 337. — Spargeret astra Nubes{que} ipsas. Med. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 334. Nos Cadmaeis Orgia serre Tecum s••litae. Oet. v. 594. Nec Parrhasiâ lentior arce Soevâ cessit — Oet. v. 1282. — Núnc Corybantes Arma Ideâ quassata manu. Oet. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1877.
• * 4.264

  Dissert. p. 38.
• * 4.265

  Dissert. p. 38.
• (a) 4.266

  The use in some mea∣sure continu'd afterwards, as we learn from Aristotle.

  Ethic. l. 7, c. 7.
• (b) 4.267

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

  Nic. Geras. l. 1, Arith.
• (c) 4.268

  This I take to be a truer account of his assuming the Name, than the Pretence that is usually made for it, his Modesty.
• (a) 4.269

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, says Laer∣tius, whom he translates; but it follows presently, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: which makes the Expression not so improper in Laertius's Greek, as Dr. Bentley's English.
• (b) 4.270

  Dissertat. p. 39.
• * 4.271

  P. 39.
• † 4.272

  P. 120.
• (a) 4.273

  In the Text, as it stands printed Now, 'tis Archebo∣lion: upon which Ludovicus Carrio has this Note, Vulgò Aristolochium, Membranae A∣ristodolium: so that Some Edi∣tions (from Some MSS, I sup∣pose) have it Aristolochium; or if the Editors made this change without the authority of MSS, 'twas because they knew more of this Aristolo∣chus than I own I do.
• (b) 4.274

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

  Ep. 97.
• (c) 4.275

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

  Ep. 68.
• † 4.276

  Dissert. p. 118.
• † 4.277

  Dissert. p. 90.
• * 4.278

  Vit. Sol.
• † 4.279

  in So∣lone.
• (a) 4.280

  Ne{que} Thespis eâ quâ∣rentur tempestate vixit; nam Solonis aequalis suit.P. 46.
• (b) 4.281

  Sosicrates, quoted by Diog. Laert. in Solon. Euse∣bius in his Chronicon, puts it a Year later.
• (c) 4.282

  Dissertat. p. 15.
• (d) 4.283

  Plut. Vit. Sol.
• (a) 4.284

  Ita{que} ut restè monuit Meursius in Solone, graviter errat Suidas, qui in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Olymp. 61 eum fabulas pri∣mùm docuisse scribit. Menag. Comm. in Solon.
• (b) 4.285

  P. 46.
• (a) 4.286

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.

  Plato in Minoc.
• (b( 4.287

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• * 4.288

  In his Poetry.
• † 4.289

  Ibid.
• * 4.290

  Aeschylus employ'd some∣times a Third Actor too, but rarely.
• * 4.291

  In the Life of So∣lon.
• † 4.292

  In the Life of Theseus.
• * 4.293

  P. 40.
• * 4.294

  There is a Third Etymo∣logy of the word from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Lees of wine, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: but the Reason of it falls in with that of the first.
• † 4.295

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Exce. Athen. p. 40.
• (a) 4.296

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. as above.
• (b) 4.297

  In his Notes on this Verse in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Act. 2, Sc. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And again in his Notes on this Verse in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. p. 476. And in the 12th book of Athenaus, c. 13, there is a Fragment of Aristophanes's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pre∣serv'd, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a Comoedian, — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies Tragoedy, properly so call'd, in this Passage of Aristophanes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 2, Sc. 3.) for This is spo∣ken of Euripides. Beside These, there are Two other Passages in the Prolegomena to Aristophanes: — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Prol. ad Arist. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ibid.
• (c) 4.298

  Hesych. in Voce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• (a) 4.299

  P. 140, 141.
• (a) 4.300

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.— Demosth. contrà Aesch. § 37.
• * 4.301

  Dissert▪ p. 65.
• (a) 4.302

  —Sunt cur dubi∣tem an Phalaris jure ven∣dic••t suas. Ne{que} enim facile po∣terant Li∣terae & 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.
• (b) 4.303

  Vizza∣nius.
• * 4.304

  The lines that have Comma's on the side are in Dr. Bentley's own Lan∣guage.
• (a) 4.305

  Disser. p. 11.
• (b) 4.306

  Ibid p. 13.
• (c) 4.307

  Ibid. p. 40, 41.
• * 4.308

  Dissert. p. 41.
• † 4.309

  Dissert. p. 57.
• * 4.310

  Dissert. p. 52.
• (a) 4.311

  P. 22.
• (b) 4.312

  Ibid.
• (c) 4.313

  P. 28.
• (d) 4.314

  P. 29.
• (e) 4.315

  P. 58.
• (f) 4.316

  P. 118.
• (g) 4.317

  P. 53.
• (a) 4.318

  P. 27.
• (b) 4.319

  P. 32.
• (c) 4.320

  P. 34.
• (d) 4.321

  P. 36.
• (e) 4.322

  P. 57.
• (f) 4.323

  P. 65.
• (g) 4.324

  P. 63.
• * 4.325

  Dissert. p. 43.
• † 4.326

  P. 45.
• * 4.327

  Ibid.
• † 4.328

  P. 46.
• * 4.329

  P. 46.
• (a) 4.330

  Disser. p. 50, 51.
• (a) 4.331

  Disser. p. 41.
• (*) 4.332

  Ibid. p. 29.
• (b) 4.333

  P. 25.
• (a) 4.334

  P. 36.
• (b) 4.335

  Or Malelas, or Mala∣la, or Malalas: for that weighty Controversie about the right Spelling this Word is not yet fully decided.
• (a) 4.336

  P. 20.
• (b) 4.337

  P. 47.
• (a) 4.338

  P. 33.
• (b) 4.339

  Ep. p. 4.
• (c) 4.340

  Ep. p. 20.
• * 4.341

  Dissert. p. 17.
• † 4.342

  Ep. p. 4.
• * 4.343

  Diss. p. 62
• * 4.344

  From the 62d to the 68th page of this Book.
• † 4.345

  Ep. p. 39.
• (a) 4.346

  Disser. p. 66, 71.
• (a) 4.347

  Disser. p. 63.
• (b) 4.348

  Disser. p. 64.
• (a) 4.349

  Vide p. 121st of his Book.
• (b) 4.350

  Disser. p. 65.
• † 4.351

  Disser. p. 69.
• † 4.352

  Dissert. p. 69.
• (a) 4.353

  Disse••. p. 70.
• * 4.354

  Dissert. p. 75.
• * 4.355

  Dissert. p. 71.
• † 4.356

  Ibid. p. 72.
• * 4.357

  Epistola in ••ine Malalae, p. 39.
• † 4.358

  Dissert. p. 13.
• (a) 4.359

  Disser. p. 73.
• (b) 4.360

  Vide Praef. p. 3.
• * 4.361

  Dissert. p. 140.
• (a) 4.362

  Ibid. p. 27.
• (b) 4.363

  Ibid.
• (c) 4.364

  Ibid.
• † 4.365

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ep. 70.
• (a) 4.366

  Ep. 92.
• (b) 4.367

  Disser. p. 29.
• (c) 4.368

  Ibid. p. 75.
• (a) 4.369

  P. 29, 30.
• (a) 4.370

  P. 29, 30.
• (a) 4.371

  P. 29, 30.
• (a) 4.372

  P. 29, 30.
• (*) 4.373

  The E∣pitomizer of Anthenaeus, at the very entrance, tells us, this Vlpian was such an in∣sufferable Pedant, that he would neither Eat nor Drink any thing, till he had ask'd the Questions 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: 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.
• (a) 4.374

  Nos Phalarin Gram∣maticum habemus, qui per∣peràm scripta etiam capite punit. Cic. in Pison.
• * 4.375

  In his Letter to Menage before Diogenes Laertius.
• † 4.376

  Reflect. upon Anc. and Mod. Learning, p. 385.
• * 4.377

  Oeuvres mêleés, Troisieme Tome, p. 28.
• * 4.378

  Le Cler. Praef. ad Art. Crit.