106 DODWELL, wise prepared annals of Welleius Paterculus, of Quintilian, and of Statius; he published them a l l together i n 1698, i n 1 vol. 8vo. These critical works i n history, have done more t o support his reputation than a l l his other works together. Speaking o f his “Annales Quintiliani,” Gibbon says, “Dodwell's learning was immense. I n this part o f history especially, (that o f the upper empire) the most minute fact o r passage could not escape him; and his skill i n em ploying them, i s equal t o his learning.” Of his style and method, however, Gibbon entertained a very unfavourable opinion, and calls the one, “perplexed beyond imagina tion;” and the other, “negligent t o a degree o f barbarism.” He afterwards wrote a n account o f “Geographicae veteris Scriptores Graeci Minores,” printed i n Hudson's edition o f their works. I n 1704, appeared his account o f the Greek and Roman Cycles, the most elaborate o f a l l h i s works, which must have occupied a large share o f his attention during a great part o f his life. I n the same year appeared his “Chronology o f Dionysius Halicarnas sensis,” prefixed t o the Oxford edition o f Dr. Hudson; and h e also took part i n the famous dispute between Bentley and Boyle, i n “Two Dissertations o n the Age o f Phalaris and Pythagoras.” Theological subjects, how ever, still occupied a considerable share o f his attention, and h e continued t o publish such ideas a s the state o f the church suggested. Although h e still declined commu nion with the established church, yet h e was not willing that the schism should b e perpetuated; accordingly h e was a warm supporter o f the bill for preventing occa sional conformity; and i n 1705, finding the number o f the deprived bishops very much reduced, h e wrote “A Case i n View considered; i n a Discourse, proving that (in case our present invalidly deprived Fathers shall leave a l l their Sees vacant, either b y Death o r Emigration) w e shall not b e obliged t o keep u p our Separation from those Bishops who are a s yet involved i n the Guilt o f the Pre sent unhappy Schisin.” I n 1707, h e vindicated this work, i n “A farther Prospect o f the Case i n View,” &c.
