The Battle of the Books; with selections from the literature of the Phalaris controversy/Appendix 6
A DISSERTATION
UPON THE EPISTLES OF PHALARIS.
WITH AN ANSWER TO THE OBJECTIONS OF
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES BOYLE, ESQUIRE.
By Richard Bentley, D.D.
[1699]
[pp. iii–xxxviii]
In the former edition of this Dissertation, (A.D. 1697), I thought myself obliged to take notice of a certain passage in a preface to Phalaris's Epistles, published at Oxford two years before, which I did in these words:
"The late editors of Phalaris have told the world in their Preface, that, among other specimens of their diligence, they collated the King's manuscript, as far as the XLth epistle, and would have done so throughout, but that the Library-keeper out of his singular humanity denied them the further use of it. This was meant as a lash for me, who had the honour then and since to serve His Majesty in that office. I must own 'twas very well resolved of them, to make the preface, and the book, all of a piece; for they have acted in this calumny both the injustice of the tyrant, and the forgery of the sophist. For my own part, I should never have honoured it with a refutation in print, but have given it that neglect that is due to weak detraction, had I not been engaged to my friend to write a censure upon Phalaris; where to omit to take notice of that slander, would be tacitly to own it. The true story is thus: 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, I went voluntarily and offered it him, bidding him tell the collator not to lose any time; for I was shortly to go out of town for two months. 'Twas delivered, used, and returned. Not a word said by the bearer, nor the least suspicion in me, that they had not finished the collation; for, I speak from experiment, they had more days to compare it in, than they needed to have hours. 'Tis a very little book, and the writing as legible as print. Well, the collation, it seems, was sent defective to Oxon; and the blame, I suppose, laid upon me. I returned again to the Library some months before the edition was finished: no application was made for further use of the manuscript. Thence I went for a whole fortnight to Oxon, where the book was then printing, conversed in the very College where the Editors resided. Not the least whisper there of the manuscript. After a few days, out comes the new edition, with this sting in the mouth of it.’Twas a surprise indeed, to read there, that our manuscript was not perused. Could not they have asked for it again, then, after my return? ’Twas neither singular nor common humanity, not to inquire into the truth of the thing before they ventured to print, which is a sword in the hand of a child. But there’s a reason for everything; and the mystery was soon revealed. For, it seems, I had the hard hap, in some private conversation, to say the Epistles were a spurious piece, and unworthy of a new edition, Hinc illae lacrimae. This was a thing deeply resented; and to have spoken to me about the manuscript had been to lose a plausible occasion of taking revenge.”
This I then thought was sufficient to vindicate myself from that little aspersion. But I am now constrained, by the worse usage that I have since met with from the same quarter, to give an account of some particulars, which then I omitted, partly out of an unwillingness to trouble the public with complaints about private and personal injuries, but chiefly out of a tenderness for the honour of the Editor.
The first time I saw his new Phalaris was in the hands of a person of honour, to whom it had been presented; and the rest of the impression was not yet published. This encouraged me to write the very same evening to Mr Boyle at Oxford, and to give him a true information of the whole matter; expecting that upon the receipt of my letter, he would put a stop to the publication of his book till he had altered that passage and printed the page anew, which he might have done in one day, and at the charge of five shillings. I did not expressly desire him to take out that passage, and reprint the whole leaf: that I thought was too low a submission. But I said enough to make any person of common justice and ingenuity have owned me thanks for preventing him from doing a very ill action.
I am sorry I have not the letter itself to produce on this occasion; but I neither took any copy of it, nor was I careful to keep the gentleman’s letter which I received in answer. I had no apprehension at that time that the business could have been blown to this height. But the gentleman, it seems, had something at that time in his view, and was more careful to keep my letter, a part of which he has thus published, “Mr Bennet desired me to lend him the manuscript Phalaris to be collated; because a young gentleman, Mr Boyle of Christ Church, was going to publish it. I told him, that a gentleman of that name and family, to which I had so many obligations and should always have an honour for, might command any service that lay in my power.” These he acknowledges to be civil expressions; and I dare trust my memory so far as to aver that all the rest were of the same strain. Nay, as the Examiner has given us this fragment of my letter, because he thought he saw a fault in’t, which I shall answer anon; so, if there had been anything else in that letter, either in the words or the matter, that he could but have cavilled at, without doubt he would have favoured us with more of it; for we may easily see his good will to me, both from his Preface and his Examination.
But what return did he make me for my expressions of great civility? After a delay of two posts, on purpose, as one may justly suspect, that the book might be vended (as it was) and spread abroad in the meantime, I received an answer to this effect: that what I had said in my own behalf might be true; but that Mr Bennet had represented the thing quite otherwise: if he had had my account before, he should have considered of it: and now that the book was made public, he would not interpose, but that I might do myself right in what method I pleased. This was the import of his answer, as I very well remember: there was not the least hint that he had or would stop the publication of his book till the matter was farther examined.
The gentleman himself, in his late treatise, has been pleased to give some account of the same letter; and he represents his expression thus: that if the matter appeared as I had told it, he meant to give me satisfaction as publicly as he had injured me. But I am sorry that his civility comes three years too late. Less than this would have passed with me for good satisfaction. But it was not, that he would give me satisfaction, but that I had his free leave to take it: which was in answer to a paragraph of my letter, that perhaps I might think myself obliged to make a public vindication. And this, as I take it, was so far from being a just satisfaction, that it was plainly a defiance, and an addition to the affront.
The gentleman and I here differ a little about the expression in his answer; but I suppose the very circumstances will plainly discover whose account is the truer. For what probability is there that he should promise such fair satisfaction, and yet let the book be published, when it was in his power to stop it? If he had writ me word the very next post, that he had stopped the books in the printing-house, and would suffer no more to go abroad till the matter was fairly examined, this had been just and civil. And then, if he had found himself misinformed by his bookseller, he might have cut out the leaf, and printed a new one; which in all respects had been the fairest, and cheapest and quickest satisfaction.
Several persons have been so far misinformed by false reports of this story that they think the Editor himself desired the MS. either by letter to me, or by a personal visit. I heartily wish it had been so; for then all this dispute had been prevented. But the gentleman was not pleased to honour me with his commands. If he had favoured me with one line, or had sent his desire by any scholar, I would not only have lent the book, but have collated it myself for him. But it was both our misfortunes, that he committed the whole affair to the care, or rather negligence, of his bookseller: and the first application himself made to me, was by that compliment in his printed Preface.
I am surprised to see an honourable person think he has fully justified himself for abusing me, by reasons that he has found out since the time of the abuse. For even take his own account, and when he printed that Preface, he had heard nothing but on one side. And was that like a man of his character, to put a public affront upon me, upon the bare complaint of a bookseller, who was the party suspected of the fault? What! never to inquire at all, whether he had not misinformed him, when there was such reason to suppose that he might lay the blame upon me, to excuse his own negligence? when he had such opportunities of asking me, either directly, or by some common friends? Turn it over on every side, and the whole conduct of it is so very extraordinary, that one cannot but suspect there were some secret reasons for this usage, that are not yet brought above-board. Be it as it will, ’tis in vain to hope to justify that calumny in his Preface, by such testimonies as he knew nothing of, when he ventured to print it. He is fallen under his own reproof, that he wrote his Preface first, and finds reasons for it afterwards.
When his Phalaris came first abroad, ’twas the opinion of my friends (who were soon satisfied that the thing was a calumny), that it was the duty of my place, as Keeper of the Royal Library, to defend the honour of it against such an insult. But yet out of a natural aversion to all quarrels and broils, and out of regard to the Editor himself, I resolved to take no notice of it, but to let the matter drop.
Thus it rested for two years; and should have done so for ever, had not some accidents fallen out, which made it necessary for me to give a public account of it. I had formerly made a promise to my worthy friend Mr. Wotton, to give him a paper of some reasons, why I thought Phalaris's Epistles supposititious, and the present Æsopean Fables not to be Æsop's own. And upon such an occasion, I was plainly obliged to speak of that calumny: for my silence would have been interpreted as good as a confession: especially considering with what industrious malice the false story had been spread all over England; for as it's generally practised, they thought one act of injustice was to be supported and justified by doing many more.
The gentleman is pleased to insinuate, that all this is pure fiction; and that I writ that dissertation out of revenge, and purely for an occasion of telling the story: the very contrary of which is true; for I was unwilling to meddle in that dissertation, because I should be necessitated to give an account of that story: as it will plainly appear from Mr Wotton's own testimony, which I have by me under his hand:
I do declare, that in the year 1694, when my Discourse about Ancient and Modern Learning was first put to the press, Dr Bentley, at my desire, undertook to write a dissertation about Phalaris and Æsop, to be added to my book. But being called away into the country, he could not at that time be as good as his word. Afterwards, when the second edition of my book was in the press, I renewed my request to him, and challenged his promise. He desired me to excuse him; because now the case was altered, and he could not write that dissertation without giving a censure of the late edition at Oxford. But I did not think that a sufficient reason, why I should lose that treatise to the world, by receding from the right and power that he had given me to demand it.
The reader will please to observe, that Mr Wotton’s Discourse was first printed 1694, and Phalaris the year after. A plain argument that the Examiner is quite out in his reckoning; when he pretends, that I first engaged in that dissertation, purely to fall foul on his book. I was so far from harbouring such vengeance in my heart, that if the Editor, or anybody from him, had but given me leave to say in his name, that he had been misinformed; all this story, and all the errors of his edition had slept quiet in their obscurity.
About nine months after my Dissertation was printed, the editor of Phalaris obliged the world with a second piece, called Dr Bentley's Dissertations examin'd. He has begun that elaborate work with stating an account of this story in opposition to what I had said of it: and that he does upon the credit and testimonies of the bookseller and the collator, and of a third informant, who overheard some discourse of mine. I will give a clear and full answer to every part of their depositions; and I question not but to make it plain, that the Examiner has been imposed on, not only by the author of Phalaris's Letters, but by others that are every way of lower qualifications than he.
The bookseller avers, "that he was employed by the Hon. Mr Boyle, and by him only, to borrow the MS. of Phalaris from Dr. Bentley. And after about nine months solicitation, (says he,) it was delivered into my custody, without any time limited for the return of it." I now perceive I had more reason than I was then aware of, when I said in my Dissertation, that a falsehood about time was the truest and surest method of detecting impostures. And Mr B. I hope, will allow that a chronological argument will be a good proof against his bookseller, though he will not admit it against his book. The bookseller, we see, is positive that I did not lend him the MS. "till after about nine months solicitation." And Mr B. himself repeats it that there was about nine months solicitation used to procure it: and in another place he affirms that the bookseller gave him liberty to assure the world that he was ready to justify it with his oath, when it should be duly required of him. Now, if instead of these nine months, I make it appear beyond contradiction, that from my very first admission to the office of Library-keeper, to the time that the bookseller not only had, but returned the MS., there was but one single month; I humbly conceive, the world will be satisfied that not the word only, but the very oath of this witness is little to be regarded.
The Royal Patent, which constitutes me Keeper of His Majesty's Libraries, (which may be seen not only in my own hands, but in the Patent Office,) bears date the 12th day of April 1694. The words are, "In cujus rei testimonium has literas nostras fieri fecimus patentes, testibus nobis ipsis apud Westmonasterium, duodecimo die Aprilis, anno regni nostri sexto." Now, I may appeal to anybody, that has ever been concerned in a Patent, if by reason of the delays that necessarily attend a thing of that nature, it may not fairly be supposed that the remaining part of that month expired, before all could be finished. I find in a book of my private accounts, that I took, the Patent out of the Patent Office the 18th day of that month: and the several offices to be attended after that, before I could have admission to the Library, maybe allowed to take up the rest of the month. But I shall prove the thing directly by two witnesses beyond all exception, the worthy masters of St Paul's and St James's Schools, who gave me this account under their own hands:
Some time after the death of Mr Justell, late Library-keeper to His Majesty, we were desired by his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, then Lord Bishop of Lincoln, in pursuance of a command from the late Queen, of blessed memory, to take a catalogue of the Royal Library at St. James's. We began it in October 1693; finished, and had it transcribed, and presented to Her Majesty by the Easter following; during all which time we had the key of the said Library constantly in our keeping, as also some weeks longer. And then, as we were directed, we delivered it up to Sir John Lowther, now the Right Hon. the Lord Lonsdale, who was at that time Vice-Chamberlain to His Majesty.
Jo. Postlethwayt.
Rich. Wright.
It is plain then, from the date of a public record, joined with Mr Postlethwayt's and Mr Wright's testimonies, that I had not actual custody of the Royal Library before May. For in that year Easter fell upon April the 8th. And it's deposed here, that the key of the library was not delivered to the Vice-Chamberlain, from whose hands I was to receive it, till some weeks after Easter. And in the same May I delivered the MS. to the bookseller; for, as I had said before, as soon as I had it in my power, I went voluntarily to the bookseller and offered it him. The bookseller has not yet thought fit to deny, that the book was delivered to him in May; and to save him from the temptation of denying it hereafter, I will prove by another record, that the book was used and restored to me again, and lodged in His Majesty's Library before the end of that month. For the reason why I insisted to have the MS. speedily returned, was because I was obliged to make a journey to Worcester, to keep my residence there as Prebendary of that church: and that I was at Worcester by the 1st of June following, the following certificate will prove, the original of which I have by me:
It appears by the Chanter's rolls kept to note the presence of the Dean and Prebendaries of the Cathedral Church of Worcester, that Dr Richard Bentley, Prebendary of the said Cathedral Church, was present at prayers in the quire there on the first day of June in the year 1694, and continued his attendance there till September the 26th following, not absenting more than two days at any one time all the while. Witness my hand this 25th day of May, 1698.
We have seen and examin'd the Chanter's rolls above mentioned, and do find them, as he hath above certified; and we did see him sign this certificate.
Jo. Price, Chancellor,
Ch. Moore, Pub. Not. Reg.
Tho. Oliver, Pub. Notary.
I must crave leave to observe to the reader, that the residence-roll for the month of May, though diligently sought for, could not be found. But if it ever happen to come to sight, I make no doubt, but it will appear by it, that I was present at Worcester some part of that May. For it's great odds, that the first day of my being there would not fall upon the first of June. The last note of time, before I took my journey, that I can now find among all my papers, is the 15th day of May. And I find a letter to me out of Surrey, dated May the 10th, that then wishes me a good journey. All which makes me believe, that I left London upon Monday, May the 21st, and that the MS. was returned to me the Saturday night before.
But not to insist upon that, I suppose it's sufficiently manifest from His Majesty's Patent, Mr Postlethwayt's and Mr Wright's testimonies, and the residence-rolls of the Church of Worcester, that the MS. was delivered, used, and returned, within the space of one month after I had the custody of the Library. So that the deposition of the bookseller, that he could not obtain the MS. till after about nine months solicitation, is demonstrated to be a notorious falsehood: and since he has further declared that it was in his intention a perjury, he has pilloried himself for't in print, as long as that book shall last.
I have been informed by several good hands, that when the starters of this calumny heard how I could disprove, from the very date of the Patent, this story of nine months solicitation, they betook themselves to this refuge, that though the Patent was not finished till about May, yet I had the power and trust of the Library for nine months before. But besides the folly of this evasion, which is visible at first view (for how could I demand the key of the Library before I had a right to it?), Mr Postlethwayt and Mr Wright give a direct evidence, that they had the key constantly in their keeping all the time from October to May; so that I had not the MS. in my power, till the very time that I lent it. Nay, the very warrant, where His Majesty first nominated me to that employment, was but taken out of the Secretary's office, December 23, 1693. There were but five months, therefore, in all from the first rumour of my being Library-keeper to the time that they had the MS. And the bookseller even by this account was plainly guilty of an intended perjury; when he was ready to swear, 'that he used about nine months solicitation!' But suppose it were true, that nine months had elapsed from the date of the warrant to my admission to the Library; yet what an honest and ingenuous narrative is here, of 'nine months solicitation'! That word carries this accusation in't, that I could have lent them the book if I pleased; which appears now to be a mere calumny and slander, since it lays that to my charge, which was not in my power.
By his talking of solicitation, one would be apt to imagine, that he had worn the very streets with frequent journeys to solicit for the MS. I had said in my former account, that a bookseller came to me in the name of the Editors: which is a word of more concession, than the pains he was at deserved. For to the best of my memory, he never asked me for the MS. but at his own shop, or as I casually met him. Neither can I call to mind, that either he or his apprentice came once to my lodgings or to the Library for't; till the time that he sent for't by my appointment, and received it.
I had said that I ordered him to tell the collator, not to lose any time, for I was shordy to go out of town for two months. Now this was to be denied by the bookseller, or else his whole deposition had signified nothing, for the blame would still lie at his own door. He resolutely affirms therefore, that no time was limited for the return of it. What can be done in this case? Here are two contrary affirmations; and the matter being done in private, neither of us have any witness. I might plead, as Aemilius Scaurus did against one Varius of Sucro. Varius Sucronensis ait. Aemilius Scaurus negat; utri creditis Quirites? I hope, upon any account, my credit will go further than this bookseller's; especially after his manifest falsehood, in his story of the nine months.
But let us inquire into the nature of the thing. Is it likely, or probable, that I should put the MS. into his hands, to be kept as long as he pleased, without any intimating that after a competent time for using it he should restore it again? They must certainly have an odd opinion of their readers, that expect to make such Stuff as this pass upon them for truth. Besides, it appears upon record that I took a journey soon after the lending of it: which was not a sudden and unexpected one: for the time of my residence had been fixed six months before. I must needs know then of my intended journey, when I lent the MS. to the bookseller: and 'tis very unlikely that I should omit to give him notice of it; unless it be supposed that I had then a private design to disappoint them of the use of the MS.
But that I had no such design, but on the contrary, a true intention and desire to give them full opportunity of using it, I conceive the very circumstances of the affair, besides my own declaration, which I here solemnly make, will put it out of all question. For I pray, what interest, what passion, could I serve by hindering them? I could have no pique against the Editor, whom I had never seen nor heard of before; and who, as soon as I heard of him, both deserved and had my respect, upon account of his relation to a person of glorious memory. Neither could I envy him the honour of publishing the MS. or repine that such an opportunity of getting fame was taken out of my own hands; for I suppose my Dissertation alone is a convincing argument, that I myself had never any design of setting out Phalaris.
But I have a better proof still behind, of my sincerity in lending the MS. though I cannot produce it without accusing myself. For it's the duty of my place to let no book go out of the King's Library without particular order. This the learned Dr Mill and several others know, who having occasion for some books in the time of my predecessor, were obliged to procure His Majesty's warrant for them. If it were my design, then, to keep the book out of the Editor's hands, what fairer pretence, what readier excuse, could be wished than this? 'that I was ready to serve the gentleman to the utmost of my power; but it was a rule with my predecessors to let no book go abroad without a Royal Warrant. And I durst not venture to transgress the rule at my very first entrance upon my office. If the gentleman would obtain an order in the usual method, I would wait upon him the first moment, and deliver the book.' I could have refused the MS. in this manner, with all the appearance of civility: but out of a particular desire of obliging the Editor, I ventured beyond my power, and lent the book privately without any order. I confess I have justly suffered for it since; and the very men I aimed to oblige, were my enemies, (as they give it out), only on that account. Had I kept myself firm to the rules of my office, without straining a point of courtesy beyond the bounds of my duty, all their calumnies had been avoided. But I hope I shall have caution enough for the future, to know persons a little better, before I put myself in their power.
I had said that I had no suspicion that the collation was not finished. In opposition to this the bookseller deposes that I called upon him for the book upon Saturday at noon; and stayed while he sent to the collator, and word was brought by the messenger, that it was not collated. That I called then at the bookseller's shop, I believe may be true: for having business to despatch in St Paul's Churchyard, and some friends there to take leave of, before I began my journey, I took that occasion to call upon this bookseller, and to mind him of his engagement to restore the book on Saturday evening; but that I stayed there till his messenger returned from the collator, I do not remember. But suppose that I did stay; what then? the message he says was brought at noon, that the book was not then collated: but the bookseller well knows that I did not require the book till the evening, nor was it returned before. The collator indeed might be behind-hand at noon, and as I might suppose, want about two or three pages. But must I needs think him still behind-hand at nine a clock at night? That's a sort of consequence that I am not used to make; for if he had not done one page of the book at noon, yet he had time more than enough to have finished it by the evening. For, as I said before, it is as legible as print, being written in a modern hand, and without abbreviations; and wants one-and-twenty Epistles that are extant in the printed copies, which is a seventh part of the whole book; so that the work of collating is so much the shorter. I had a mind, for the experiment's sake, to collate the first forty Epistles, which are all that the collator has done. And I had finished them in an hour and eighteen minutes, though I made no very great haste. And yet I remarked and set down above fifty various lections, though the Editor has taken notice of one only. Now, if forty Epistles can be collated in an hour and eighteen minutes, the whole MS. which contains but one hundred and twenty-seven Epistles, may be collated in four hours. The collator then, had he been diligent, might have finished the whole collation twice over between noon and the close of the evening, when the book was returned.
As for the collator, I am utterly a stranger both to his person and character, and have nothing to say to him but that his testimony is as useless and imperfect as his collations. Indeed it's hard to conjecture, to what purpose it is produced. The sum of it is that the MS. was sent for before he had finished; which is confessed on all hands. It had been more to the purpose, if he had told us what he was doing all that time that the MS. was in his hands. I say, "five or six days"; the bookseller says, "a few"; Mr Boyle, "not nine." By the shortest account it now appears, as I said before, that he had more days to compare it in, than he needed to have hours. And how did he spend the last afternoon, which was more than sufficient to do the whole work in? Whether he undertook it for a reward, or out of kindness, the Editor was not very much obliged to him.
The bookseller adds further that I utterly refused to leave the MS. with him beyond Saturday, though he begged but to have it till Sunday morning, and engaged to oblige the collator to sit up at it all Saturday night. How false and silly this is, the sagacious readers must needs see and acknowledge. This was spoken on Saturday at noon, by the bookseller's own confession. And he had then free leave to keep it, and did keep it till the evening. And the whole collation was but the work of four hours, as I have proved by experiment. And yet he has the face to tell the world that he would engage the collator to sit up all night to finish it: when the whole might be done from the beginning to the end, twice over, before candlelight. Why I would not have spared it till Sunday morning, suppose I had been asked, there might be several good reasons. I was to take coach for Worcester by five a clock on Monday morning, and I could have no leisure on Sunday to put the book into the Library; for at that time I lived with the Right Reverend the Bishop of Worcester, at a good distance from the Library. The key, too, of the outward door, was then in custody of another, who perhaps might not be met with upon Sunday. Besides that there was time enough and to spare before Saturday evening: and what obligation had I to neglect my own business to humour others in their laziness?
But (he says) I gave him not the least hopes that if he applied to me upon my return out of the country, he should have leave to get the collation perfected. That I gave him not any hopes of it by an express promise, I verily believe. For how could I do that, when I was fully persuaded they would finish the collation before I went into the country? But what he saw in me that forbade him to hope it, if there should be occasion, I cannot imagine. He knew the reason why I then demanded the book, was my journey into the country. I was to make so long a stay there that it was not fit to expose the book all that while to the hazard of being lost. I told the bookseller then that I was to be absent for two months: but it appears now upon record, that I was four months at Worcester. And how many accidents might have happened in that time? Should I, who was under a trust, and accountable to God and man, run such a risk without any warrant? The Editor and his witnesses may calumniate as they please; but I wish I could as well justify my lending the MS. out, as my calling it in.
The bookseller concludes that I made some reflections from time to time, when he spoke to me from Mr B. but, considering his employment, it may not be proper to add an account of them. So that he puts off that piece of work to one Dr King, of the Commons, as the Examiner styles him. Now, what he means by "reflections," or what harm there is in "making reflections," I do not understand. A great person, one of the Examiner's family, made a whole book of "Reflections," and I never yet heard it was counted a crime in him. I am as much to seek, too, for his meaning, that his employment makes it not proper for him to add an account of those reflections. His employment as a bookseller I think a very reputable one, if he himself be not a disgrace to't. And if that make it "not proper" for him to bear false witness against his neighbour, by a pretended "account of those reflections," methinks the profession of the Doctor, to whom he refers himself, is more improper for that work. The Doctor indeed, by his profession, may be enabled to do it with more cunning, but he would do it with the greater crime. But let us hear the Doctor's testimony; the air and spirit of it is so very extraordinary; the virulency and insolence so far above the common pitch; that it puts one in mind of Rupilius King, a great ancestor of the Doctor's, commended to posterity by Horace under this honourable character—
Horat. Sat. i. 7.
The filth and venom of Rupilius King.
And if the Doctor do not inherit the estate of Rupilius, yet the whole world must allow that he is heir of his virtues, as his own writings will vouch for him: his deposition here against me, his buffoonery upon the learned Dr Lister, and some other monuments of his learning and his morals.
"I have endeavoured," (says the Doctor), "as far as I can, to recollect what passed between Mr Bennet and Dr Bentley concerning a MS. of the Epistles of Phalaris. I cannot be certain as to any other particulars than that, among other things, the Doctor said that if the manuscript were collated, it would be worth nothing for the future." Now the reader may please to take notice, that the Doctor here publicly owns that he cannot be certain as to any other particulars; and yet he endeavoured to recollect, as far as he could; and the scorn (he says) and contempt which he has naturally for pride and insolence, made him remember that, which otherwise he might have forgot. Now if the Doctor, even whetted with his "scorn and contempt," could but call to mind one particular, and if that particular have nothing at all in't about Mr B. nor anything that borders upon "pride and insolence," what pretence has he for traducing me here as a proud and insolent man, and an abuser of Mr Boyle? If the Doctor, as he owns, has but one particular from his memory, the rest he must have from his invention. I am obliged, indeed, to the Doctor; for he has effectually disproved himself in his own deposition. For he first declares he knows but one particular; and yet presently runs into a charge, whereof nothing can be made out from that particular. And would such an evidence as this is, pass in Doctors' Commons? I am much mistaken, if the worthy persons that preside there would dismiss such a witness as this without marks of their dissatisfaction.
To account, then, for that one particular that the Doctor is certain of, the reader must give me leave to tell him a short story. After I was nominated to the Library-keeper's office, (before the Patent was finished), I was informed that one copy of every book printed in England, which were due to the Royal Library by Act of Parliament, had not of late been brought into the Library, according to the said Act. Upon this I made application to the Master of the Stationers' Company, to whom the Act directed me, and demanded the copies; the effect whereof was, that I procured near a thousand volumes, of one sort or other, which are now lodged in the Library. While this was transacting, I chanced to call upon Mr Bennet (whom I had several times obliged), and acquainted him with it, not questioning but he would be very ready to comply as far as his share went, which was then but very little. But, to my surprise, he answered me very pertly that he knew not what right the Parliament had to give away any man's property; that he hoped the Company of Stationers would refuse, and try it out at law; that they were a body, and had a common purse; and more to this purpose. Some little time after, calling there again, upon a fresh discourse about the MS. Phalaris, which I had formerly promised to lend him, as soon as I had power, I asked him upon what account he could refuse to give the Royal Library its due settled on it by Act of Parliament; and at the same time expect a favour out of it that would make his own book more vendible, and the MS. less valuable? For after the various lections were once taken and printed, the MS. would be like a squeezed orange, and little worth for the future. Since, therefore, he was resolved to try the law against the Library, he ought in justice to present to it some book of competent value, to make amends for the damage it would sustain by his using the MS.
This discourse I very well remember, and I believe I can bring a witness that heard me relate it, long before the Doctor's deposition came abroad; and I take it for certain, that this was the very same conversation which Dr King overheard. 'Tis true, there is some small difference in the account: I said that the MS. would be "worth little for the future," and the Doctor says, "worth nothing." But that is no material change, and may be excused in the Doctor, who is not over nice in his expressions. But do I remember that the Doctor was present then? No, nor any time else; for I know him not, if I meet him; and perhaps my "pride and insolence" might lie in that, that I did not know a person of such known credit in the world. Allowing, then, that this was the "free conference" (as the Examiner calls it) which the Doctor overheard, I have a few things to observe in the narrative that he has made of it.
It appears first, that his pert reflection which he thought carried such a sting in it, is very silly and insipid—"Which I took the more notice of," (says he), "because I thought a MS. good for nothing, unless it were collated." Wonderful remark! and worthy of such eaves-droppers, that are prolling after that which does not concern them, and catch at little scraps of other men's discourses. 'Tis true. Sir, a MS. not collated is upon that account worth nothing to the rest of the world; but to the owner, 'tis the better for it, if a price was to be set on't. And I think, with submission, that a fresh MS. newly brought out of Greece, and never yet printed, would sell for more, ceteris paribus, than another already printed. Do you think the Alexandrian MS. of as great a value now, since the edition of the English Polyglot, as when Cyril the Greek Patriarch first presented it to King Charles the First? But what do I talk to him of MSS. who has so little relish and sense of such things as to declare deliberately that he does not believe the various readings of any book are so much worth, as that Mr Boyle should be used so scurvily to obtain them. And this he says when he is giving evidence; where all declaimings and rhetorical aggravations above the naked and strict truth are unlawful, and border near upon perjury. But we must not expect from the Doctor that he should know the worth of books; for he is better skilled in the catalogues of ales, his Humty Dumty, Hugmatee, Three-threads, and the rest of that glorious list, than in the catalogues of MSS.
But, pray, what was that scurvy usage that I gave to Mr Boyle? The Doctor remembers but one particular, and that has no relation to Mr Boyle. I am almost persuaded that Mr Boyle's name was not once mentioned in that conversation. For this talk was not had the last time, when I called for the MS., but long before, when my Patent was not yet passed, and before I had the custody of the Library. But suppose Mr B. was named then, I am sure it must be with respect. For how could I use him scurvily in denying him a MS. which was not then in my power to give? Before the time of that discourse, I had promised that the MS. when I could come at it, should be at Mr Boyle's service; and in such words as Mr Boyle himself owns to be expressions of great civility: that a gentleman of that name and family, to which I had so many obligations, and should always have an honour for, might command any service that lay in my power. That I really used these expressions, even the bookseller himself is my witness: for if it had not been true, he would never have let it be printed, without contradicting it. Now, how is it credible that I should use a man so "civilly," and yet so "scurvily" too? A man must be dosed with Humty Dumty, that could talk so inconsistently. And how could I abuse a young gentleman whom I had never heard of before, without any provocation, in a public place, and before his own friends? I dare appeal to any that ever was acquainted with me, if he think me capable of doing so.
All the discourse, then, that the Doctor overheard, had relation only to the bookseller. Mr Boyle was sure of the MS. which I had promised before. But I had a mind to make the bookseller sensible of his ill manners in denying justice to the King's Library, at the same time that he asked favours. And I do further declare, that I was but in jest when I told him that he should give a book to the Royal Library, to recompense for the use of the MS. And I had no design in't, but to mortify him a little for his pertness about going to law. For when the time came that I could lend him the MS. he had it freely, without giving to the Library the value of a printed sermon. Though I remember, when I once told this story to a very great man, his answer was, that if I was not in earnest I ought to have been so.
The bookseller says his employment makes it not proper for him to give an account of the reflections I made, as we talked about Phalaris. But I'll help him out for once, and give an account of one that I very well remember. The bookseller once asked me privately that I would do him the favour to tell my opinion, if the new edition of Phalaris, then in the press, would be a vendible book: for he had a concern in the impression, and hoped it would sell well, such a great character being given of it in . . . . Essays as made it mightily inquired after. I told him he would be safe enough, since he was concerned for nothing but the sale of the book: for the great names of those that recommended it, would get it many buyers. But however, under the rose, the book was a spurious piece, and deserved not to be spread in the world by another impression. His "employment," it seems, could suffer him to betray this discourse to some concerned in the edition, as I was informed from a very good hand; and this I meant, when I said in my former account that it was my hard hap in some private conversation to say the Epistles were spurious, and unworthy of a new edition. What influence this might have towards the civility in the preface to Phalaris, I leave others to judge. But I dare say this was all the "reflection" that I had ever made at that time to Mr Boyle's disadvantage. Si hoc peccare est, fateor. If there be no way of gaining his good opinion, but to believe Phalaris a good writer, I must needs submit to my fate, that has excluded me from his friendship.
Mr B. is pleased to observe that Mr Bennet is so little interested in this dispute, that he may entirely be depended on. So very little, that the best part of his interest and his trade lay at stake. For is not this the plain state of the case? Mr Boyle commits the affair of collating the King's MS. to his bookseller. The bookseller, by his own neglect, having failed in his trust, for fear of losing the gentleman's favour and custom, lays the fault upon me. This occasioned a private grudge against me, which terminated in an affront in print. I verily believe that the bookseller did not think at first that Mr Boyle would have carried his resentment so high, otherwise perhaps he would have invented some other excuse of his negligence. But the business was afterwards past recalling; and he must go on of necessity, being once engaged in the cause. The whole of his trade and business seemed to depend upon Mr B. and his friends. The temptation indeed was strong, and I pray God forgive him.
Having now, as I humbly conceive, given a full and satisfactory answer to all the matters of fact that the Examiner's witnesses lay to my charge, I am very little concerned at the inferences he draws from them, or the satire and grimace that he plentifully sprinkles. All these must drop of themselves, and fall down upon the author of them, when the foundation that they stood on is taken away . . . .
[pp. lxxxii-xciv]
The Examiner has given two descriptions, one of a pedant, and another of a good critic; designing to draw the first as my picture, and the latter as his own. But perhaps, if we compare the pictures with the originals, he may be forced by his readers to change one of the places here with me, as he voluntarily did with the sophist in the case of Leucon and his ass.
1. His "first and surest mark of a pedant is, to write without observing the rules of civility or common decency, and without distinguishing the characters of those he writes against." Upon this article he accuses two expressions of mine, and yet both of them are both civilly worded and truly said. Then he mentions some coarse compliments upon himself, which I have already accounted for: only here he says I compare him with "Lucian's ass," which, were it true, would be no "coarse compliment," but a very obliging one; for "Lucian's ass" was a very intelligent and ingenious ass, and had more sense than any of his riders. He was no other than Lucian himself in the shape of an ass; and had a better talent at kicking and bantering, than ever the Examiner will have, though it seems to be his chief one. Let the reader too observe, by the way, that Mr B. in this place has it "Lucian's ass"; but in another he cites it truly, "Leucon's ass": and yet we are told the very same hand wrote both the passages.
But to bring the Examiner near to the picture, if perhaps it may have some little resemblance to himself. Has he observed the rules of "civility," in writing the most scurrilous and virulent book that the age has yet seen? Has he kept to the measures of "decency," in raking up so many tales and hearsays, that a man of honour would scorn to repeat? Has he distinguished the "character of him he wrote against," in abusing and vilifying upon the falsest surmises a man in Holy Orders, a Doctor in Divinity, a domestic servant to one of the greatest of Kings, and the first that was employed to preach the Lecture established by the great Mr Boyle, a relation of the Examiner's? If these be against all rules of civility, and decency, and distinction of characters, then I suppose his first and surest mark of a pedant, will be thought to hit himself.
2. "A second mark is to use a Greek or Latin word, when there is an English one that signifies the very same thing." Now if this be one of his marks, himself is a pedant by his own confession: for in this very sentence of his, signify is a Latin word, and there's an English one that means the very same thing. We shall do the Examiner therefore no injury in calling him pedant upon this article. But if such a general censure as this forward author here passes, had been always fastened upon those that enrich our language from the Latin and Greek stores, what a fine condition had our language been in! 'Tis well known it has scarce any words, besides monosyllables, of its native growth: and were all the rest imported and introduced by pedants? At this rate, the ignominy of pedantry will fall upon all the best writers of our nation; and upon none more heavily than the Examiner's great relation, the incomparable Robert Boyle, whose whole style is full of such Latin words. But when the Examiner is possessed with a fit of rage against me, he lays about him without consideration or distinction, never minding whom he hits, whether his own relation or even himself. The words in my book, which he excepts against, are commentitious, repudiate, concede, aliene, vernacular, timid, negoce, putid, and idiom, every one of which were in print before I used them; and most of them before I was born. And are they not all regularly formed, and kept to the true and genuine sense that they have in the original? Why may we not say negoce, from negotium, as well as commerce, from commercium, and palace, from palatium? Has not the French nation been before hand with us in espousing it? And have not we negotiate and negotiation, words that grow upon the same root, in the commonest use? And why may not I say aliene, as well as the learned Sir Henry Spelman; who used it eighty year since, and yet was never thought a pedant?—But he says my words will be hissed off the stage as soon as they come on. If so, they would have been hissed off long before I had come on. But the Examiner might have remembered, before he had talked thus at large, who it was that distinguished his style with ignore and recognosce, and other words of that sort, which nobody has yet thought fit to follow him in; for his argument, if it proved any thing, would prove perhaps too much; and bring the glory of his own family into the tribe of pedants: though I must freely declare, I would rather use, not my own words only, but even these too, (if I did it sparingly, and but once or twice at most in one hundred and fifty-two pages), than that single word of the Examiner's—cotemporary, which is a downright barbarism. For the Latins never use co for con, except before a vowel, as coequal, coeternal: but before a consonant they either retain the n, as contemporary, constitution; or melt it into another letter, as collection, comprehension. So that the Examiner's cotemporary, is a word of his own coposition, for which the learned world will cogratulate him.
3. "Another token of a pedant, is the use of Greek and Latin proverbs."
But, however, I'll run the risk of it once more, and make bold to use one proverbial saying—
Qui nisi quod ipse fecit, nihil rectum putat.
Why, forsooth, is it more pedantry in me, to use Latin proverbs in English discourse, than in Cicero to use Greek ones in Latin? Nay, do not even Greek proverbs make as good a figure now in English, as then they did in Latin? If Mr B. can spare any time from his Phalaris's Epistles to look into Cicero's, he will find him in every page among the herd of pedants. If I had used proverbs in my Sermons against Atheism, or upon any solemn argument or occasion, the Examiner's censure had been more just: but to blame the use of them in an epistle or a dissertation, which have been always allowed to be their proper places, is itself a very ill mixture of ignorance and pedantry. For if they cannot be used there without pedantry, they must be banished out of all sorts of writings. So that Aristotle, Theophrastus, Chrysippus, Aristarchus, and some others of the best wits of old, and among the moderns, the great Erasmus, and the great Scaliger, made collections of proverbs, merely to serve pedants. Erasmus's own writings are full of them; and he will be thought to have had as much wit, and as little pedantry, as Mr B. and his Directors. And the great treasuries from whence he collected them, are the writings of Plato, Plutarch, and Lucian; who "among some little men may go for" pedants, "but among the wise and sensible part of mankind" will pass for men of wit.
4. "To over-rate the price of knowledge is another sign of pedantry." And let the world judge between the Examiner and me, whether of us is most concerned in this character of a pedant. I have never published anything yet, but at the desire of others: my Sermons in Mr Boyle's Lecture were required for the press by the Honourable the Trustees; my Epistle about Jo. Antiochensis was desired by the Right Reverend the Bishop of Lichfield; my Notes on Callimachus by Mr Graevius; and my Dissertation upon Phalaris, by Mr Wotton. The only book that I have writ upon my own account, is this present answer to Mr B.'s objections: and I assure him I set no great price upon't; the errors that it refutes are so many, so gross and palpable, that I shall never be very proud of the victory.
But then, a man that over-rates the price of his performances, acts the very reverse of this: he engages in matters where he has no concern; he obtrudes his notions upon the world, though neither his friends desire him nor the business oblige him to meddle. And is not this the picture of the Examiner? He has writ a large book in behalf of Phalaris's Epistles, which has hitherto been the public diversion, and will be so too hereafter, but in a different way; and yet he professes that he was not in the least concerned to vindicate them.
5. "But an assuming and positive way of delivering one's self, upon points, especially, that are not capable of being perfectly cleared, is pedantry." Now to take no notice of the rest of his book, which is nothing but heaps of errors delivered in the most arrogant and insulting language, I'm content to be tried by this very paragraph of his, which of us two seem to have sat for this picture. He has cited here fifteen passages out of my whole Dissertation, which he pretends are delivered in an "assuming and positive" way, and yet (he says) are "certainly false." Whereas every one of them are true, and may be "perfectly cleared," except one small mistake about προδεδωκότα, and that, too, is delivered without any "assuming" expression. But let us see Mr B.'s behaviour: "Where the contrary (says he) is most certainly true; as it is, and shall be proved to be, in all those instances here referred to." Now if this be not an "assuming and positive way," what is? And yet in fourteen of his fifteen instances he is miserably mistaken.
6. "To depart from the common ways of writing, on purpose to shew exactness, is a piece of affectation that savours of pedantry." Upon which article he accuses my spelling Taurominium; for he says, "it's generally writ Tauromenium, both by ancients and moderns." Now if the contrary of this be "certainly true," who will then be the pedant? The learned Cluverius, who made it his business to search all the books and MSS. that relate to Sicily, says "It's sometimes spelt Tauromenium, and sometimes Tauromenia, but generally Taurominium." And Mr B. must write at another rate than yet he has done, before the world will prefer his testimony before that of Cluverius.
Mr B. here goes a little out of his way to do right to . . . . against Mr Wotton, who had taken notice of an absurd usage of Delphos for Delphi. And because it lies a little in my way, I will do right to Mr Wotton: for indeed the case is my own; because I too have called it Delphi, and rejected the common error. Mr B. defends his Delphos upon this only pretence that it has been the "common custom" of our English writers, five of whom he names there, to call it so. An admirable reason, and worthy to be his own! As if the most palpable error that shall happen to obtain and meet with reception, must therefore never be mended. One would think he had borrowed it from the popish priest, who for thirty years together had read Mumpsimus in his Breviary instead of Sumpsimus; and when a learned man told him of his blunder, "I'll not change" (says he) "my old Mumpsimus for your new Sumpsimus." 'Tis a known story, but I will give it him in the words of Sir Richard Pace who was "a man of business, and an ambassador too," and upon those accounts will have more authority with the Examiner. If Mr B. then, will not change his old Delphos for our new Delphi, he shall have leave to keep his Mumpsimus as long as he pleases. But when he would put it upon us for good English, for that we must beg his pardon. The word is not yet so naturalized in England, but it may, and certainly will, be sent back again to Barbary, its native country. We have instances of other words that had both longer continuance and more general reception than he can plead for his Delphos; and yet they were "hissed off the stage" at last. In the old editions of the English Bibles in Henry the Eighth's time it was printed Asson and Mileton; afterwards, under Queen Elizabeth, it was changed into Asson and Miletum; but in the last review, under King James the First, it was rectified Assos and Miletus, Here's a case that's exactly parallel with this of our Examiner: Miletum and Asson were at first supposed to be nominative cases; just as Delphos was mistaken to be like Argos, Samos, and Delos. But we see, upon better information the words were discarded. Neither the stamp of royal authority, nor the universal use in every parish, nay, almost every family of England, for two or three generations, could protect them from being exploded. A most certain argument that the whole kingdom then believed that analogy and reason ought to have a greater force than vulgar error, though established by the longest and commonest custom. In the old translation of Vergil set out by Phaer and Dr Thyne, they are called the twelve books of Vergil's Æneidos; and the running title of every page is, the first, or second, or third book of Vergil's Æneidos. Without question, that was the language in those days all over the nation. So that if the Examiner's Mumpsimus should pass for an argument, the Æneidos should be the current language at this day; and those that call it Æneis must be run down for pedants. I dare venture to foretell the Examiner, that his Delphos in a few years will be thought as barbarous as Æneidos: and if his book shall happen to be preserved anywhere as an useful common place book for ridicule, banter, and all the topics of calumny, this very page about Delphos may, perhaps, before he grows an old man, be made an unwelcome evidence against himself. I see here that the excellent Bishop of Lichfield (who, as appears by his most admirable dictionary to the great Bishop Wilkins's Real Character, has the largest and nicest knowledge of the English language, of any man living) calls it Delphi in his printed, though unpublished, Chronology which I had the honour to see; and so did the learned gentleman Mr Stanley long ago, in his Lives of the Philosophers. I do not here disparage those excellent pens that have, unawares, fallen into the common error; but to defend it against manifest reason, and to vilify those that would reform it, is a plain instance of a positive and pedantic genius.
I must take hold of this occasion to do another "piece of right" to Mr Wotton. For the Examiner says it is hoped Mr W. will publicly declare, that he neither assisted nor approved my Dissertation. But I myself can save him half that labour; and therefore here I do aver that neither Mr Wotton nor any one else assisted me, either in that work, or in this: so that I alone am accountable for the errors in them both . . . .
[pp. xcvii and xcviii]
7. Another mark, he says, of a pedant, is "an itch of contradicting great men upon very slight grounds." I must own, that I am sometimes forced in my writings to contradict great men, by correcting such oversights as they made through inadvertency or want of information. But then I do it without any diminution to their character; and if that modesty be observed, the contradicting them in this way deserves the highest commendation, and is such a sort of pedantry as the Examiner and his Director will never be accused of. But the instance he charges me with, is my brisk censure of Grotius and Scaliger, for not knowing the measure of an anapaestic verse: and whether I did that upon very slight grounds, this very answer will shew. But let us see the Examiner's words here, if perhaps this last character of a pedant may not prove to be his own picture: "When 'tis plain," says he, "as I shall shew before I lay down my pen, that the Doctor would never have censured 'em if he had known it himself." What a formidable threat, and what a miserable performance! The stuff that he has brought there, is so shameful and scandalous, so inexcusable in a very school-boy, betrays such ignorance of the commonest rules of prosodia and syntax, that if he has but learning enough to know when he's confuted, (which is not everybody's case,) he may have the wisdom to take his leave of the press as long as he lives, for that part of learning.
[pp. cii–cxii]
Mr B. is pleased to bestow his next favour upon Lodovico Castelvetro, whom he calls "an Italian pedant, famous for his snarling faculty, and contradicting great men upon very slight grounds;" and he thinks "Balzac says very well of him that he was a public enemy." But whether somebody else will not be "infamous for his snarling faculty," we may predict from this very instance. This pedant, as our modest author calls him, was one of the most ingenious, and judicious, and learned writers of his age; and his books have at this present such a mighty reputation that they are sold for their weight in silver in most countries of Europe. I will mention but three testimonies of him. The famous Lilius Giraldus says he had seen some of his pieces, which fully satisfied him that he was "Judicio sane quam acerrimo, et eruditione non vulgari." Henricus Stephanus dedicated a book to him; "and (says he) I refer the censure of a piece of poetry—Sagaciae et emunctae tuae nari, Ludovice κριτικώτατε et ποιητικώτατε." And he has this character given him by Menagius—"Ludovicus Castelvetrius in Commentariis illis suis eruditissimis et acutissimis;" and again—"Omnium optime acutissimus Castelvetrius." I am persuaded our Examiner has never read one line of this author, whom he abuses thus out of Balzac, a writer, without undervaluing him, many degrees inferior to Castelvetro. I had the fortune some years ago to meet with most of the pieces of Castelvetro and his antagonists; and I find that the sole occasion of all his troubles in Italy was a copy of verses made by Annibal Caro in praise of the House of France: so that the very subject of it was enough to bias the judgements of Balzac and some others of that nation. These verses were dispersed over Italy and France, and received with mighty applause; and being sent to Castelvetro by a private friend at Rome, who desired his judgement of them, he returned him some short censures, desiring they should neither be published, nor shewn to any one as his. But by chance they got abroad and were printed, and brought such a violent faction against him as made the poor man weary of Italy. The very first lines of Caro's verses are—
Venite à l'ombra de' gran gigli d'oro,
Care muse, devote a' miei giacinti:
where the Muses are invited to come under the shade of flower-de-luces. Upon which Castelvetro remarked that the Muses must be less than pigmies, if they could be shadowed by flower-de-luces, which were scarce shelter enough for little insects. Who can have the folly to deny that this censure was just?—"Quis tam Lucili fautor ineptus Ut neget hoc?" And yet this fault, and others as plain as this, were stoutly maintained by Caro and his party. For the advantage of Caro was that he was member of an Academy, and a whole College was engaged for him; and when neither reason nor truth was of their side, they confided in their numbers—
Defendit numerus, junctaeque umbone phalanges.
Their way of refuting Castelvetro was by pasquils, lampoons, burlesque dialogues, public speeches in the Academy, declamations of school-boys, and, in the close of all, "A short account of Messer Lodovico Castelvetro, by way of index," full of the most virulent abuses. These were the fair and honourable methods of managing their controversy: and though their adversary, while he lived, suffered much from their malice, yet posterity has been just to him, and has set an extraordinary value upon all his performances; while theirs upon this argument, (for in other things they were men of some worth), have nothing that now makes them inquired after, but the great reputation of the man they abuse. And such a man will never be called "an Italian pedant," but by those that copy after his adversaries in their infamous way of writing.
It's now time to draw towards a conclusion of this preface, which I shall do by informing the reader that when these papers were put to the press, I designed to have brought into this volume the Dissertations about Æsop and the rest; but this of Phalaris alone taking up more paper than I expected, I am obliged to put off the others to another opportunity. There are a few things, therefore, referred to in this part, which do not appear here; but they shall be all made out in the next. I have it already by me, and when I can have leisure to transcribe it for the press, the Examiner shall have it.
He has been pleased to say more than once that I spent two or three years of my life in writing my first dissertation; and yet he owns he never once saw my face; much less can he have any knowledge of the course of my studies. But he has a singular way of talking, as he says, "at a venture." I drew up that dissertation in the spare hours of a few weeks, and while the printer was employed about one leaf, the other was a-making. 'Tis now, I think, about forty weeks since his Examination came abroad, eight of which I spent in the country, where I had no thoughts of him and his controversy. And if in the rest of that time I have published this book, and have the second ready for publication, I conceive the world will be satisfied that I could not spend three years in the other book of nine sheets only. And yet I'll assure him, but for the delays of the press, which I could not remedy, he had had this answer some months ago. In a small part of the last of those three years which he says were all laid out upon Phalaris, I wrote my notes on Callimachus; and Mr Graevius, perhaps, will thank Mr B. if in six years time he will send him the like upon any other author. But suppose his accusation true; I had rather have spent all that time in discovering truth, than have spent three days in maintaining an error.
But he says the whole thing is "a very inconsiderable point, which a wise man would grudge the throwing away a week's thought upon." And I doubt not but many others, whose designs and studies are remote from this kind of learning, will follow this censure. To such men as these I must answer that if the dispute be quite out of their way, they have liberty to let it alone; it was not designed for them, but for others, that know how to value it; who, if the principal point about Phalaris were quite dropped, will think the other heads, that are here occasionally handled, not unworthy of a scholar. But that the single point, whether Phalaris be genuine or no, is of no small importance to learning, the very learned Mr Dodwell is a sufficient evidence; who, espousing Phalaris for a true author, has endeavoured by that means to make a great innovation in the ancient chronology. To undervalue this dispute about Phalaris, because it does not suit to one's own studies, is to quarrel with a circle because it is not a square. If the question be not of vulgar use, it was writ, therefore, for a few: for even the greatest performances upon the most important subjects are no entertainment at all to the many of the world.
I will venture here before-hand, and to give this character of Mr B.'s performance upon Æsop, that though it is not wholly unworthy of its author, yet it seems a little below him. The style of it is something worse than that of the defence of Phalaris; and the learning of it, which he ought to take for a compliment, a great deal worse. If there be one thing which he's said right in his Phalaris, about προδίδωμι and διώκω, I'll pass my word, there will not be one good thing in his Æsop, when I call it to account. His observations there about Babrius's verses, will be found worse than those here about the anapæsts of Æschylus and Seneca; his accusing me there as a plagiary from Nevelettus and Camerarius, will appear much more unjust, than what he says here about my pillaging Vizzanius and his own poor notes; his grimace there about Socrates will be shewn more impertinent, if possible, than his long banter here, "that Dr B. cannot be the author of the Dissertation." Which insipid banter seems rather to have been writ in a tavern than in a study; and is not fit to be answered by me. But if another should answer him in his own way, and pretend to prove that Mr B. is not the author of the Examination, from the variety of styles in't, from its contradictions to his edition of Phalaris, from its contradictions to itself, from its contradictions to Mr B.'s character, and to his title of Honourable, and from several other topics; it would be taken perhaps for no railery, but too serious a repartee; or at least might pass for a true jest, though intended only for a merry one.
Mr B. has been pleased to threaten me with the resentments of "a whole society," and "a great body of learned men." I must own I do not well know what apprehensions to have of this threat. For as I have done no injury to any society, so I think I have no reason to be afraid of their resentments. It does not appear to me, that Mr B. has any commission to threaten thus in their name: and if he has not, his making use of their authority is a sort of libel upon them, which would represent a great body of learned men as the partakers and patrons of the faults of his book. I have a true honour and great esteem for that noble and flourishing society which is supposed to be meant here; and I should think I did them a great injury to suspect they will interpose in Phalaris's behalf. For when a cause cannot be defended, the numbers of those that engage in't make it only the more scandalous.
But since Mr B. has been so free as to threaten a reply, even before he sees what I say in my defence; though I will not prescribe to so great a genius any method of his answer, yet I think I may make bold to tell him what I shall look upon to be no answer.
1. If he pretends that he did not maintain that his Phalaris is genuine; but only that my arguments do not prove him to be otherwise, I shall look upon this as a shuffle, and no answer at all. For if he suspects whether he's genuine, and yet allows none of my arguments, the world desires to have his reasons, why he has that suspicion of him. I observe, indeed, that there's one argument against him, proposed by Mr B., which I had not taken notice of—that the names of those whom the Epistles are directed to, seem sometimes to be feigned on purpose, according to the subject of those Epistles. Till Mr B. shall think fit to give us other grounds of his suspicion, the world will take the liberty to think that this is all he has. So that we are to take the measure of his great judgement by this scale: that all my reasons go for nothing with him, and his own single and substantial one goes for all.
But perhaps he will now be more loyal than ever to his Sicilian prince, and have no scruples at all about his true title to the letters. For he "assures the reader, that his doubts about the authority of the Epistles, since he read my Dissertation, are much lessened; and if I write once more upon that subject, perhaps the point will be clear to him." Agreed and contented on both sides! I have writ once more against them, and Mr B. for that reason will more firmly believe them. I desire no greater punishment to him for all his ill usage of me, than that he would maintain them to be genuine as long as he lives.
2. Or if he comes with more testimonies of his bookseller or his Humty Dumty acquaintance; I shall take those for no answer. For a man that is once convicted of an intended perjury, is no longer a lawful witness: and a man that has declared publicly that "his memory could but serve him for one particular," can have no benefit in law allowed him of strengthening it afterwards either with Three-threads or Four-threads.
3. Or if he brings any new stories and hear-says about me, that are foreign to the business, I shall look upon those as no part of an answer. For after I have so fully disproved his capital accusations about the King's MS. and that of Sir Edward Sherburn, I shall not think myself concerned at any calumnies that he shall start hereafter.
4. Or if he thinks fit, or any friend for him, to reply to me in Latin, (for he threatens me with a Latin book, in the imperious style of Festus—Hast thou appealed to foreign universities? to foreign universities thou shalt go), I may look perhaps upon that as an answer, but such a one as will need no answer from me. For if I may guess at what's to come, by the present performance; a Latin book from any hand, that has been yet concerned in the defence of Phalaris, will carry its own answer in itself.
5. But if he chooses to reply in English, and meddle once more with the matter of learning; if he do not mend his hand a little, and bring a piece with fewer faults in't than the last, I shall not take that for an answer. For my whole life might be spent at that rate in refuting the merest trash. And he has clearly the advantage of me in this point; for he may commit more mistakes in five weeks time, and in five sheets of paper, than can be throughly refuted in fifty sheets, and in a whole year.
Besides this, I may justly expect that if he proceeds further upon the subject of Phalaris, he should freely acknowledge those faults, that I have refuted in his last work. I have done the like myself; and I here sincerely declare, that I am not conscious of one error, that he observed in my Dissertation, which I do not own in my answer. I design nothing but a search after truth, and will never be guilty of that mean disingenuity, to maintain a fault that I am convinced of. I require therefore the same candour from him; and if he does not perform it, I shall not reckon it as an answer. For if he has not either judgement enough to know when he's confuted, or sincerity enough to confess it, it is to no purpose at all to continue the controversy.
6. But if he thinks to drop the main subject, or but slightly to touch upon it; and to give, as he says, "a view of the Doctor's picture in miniature," by way of burlesque, and ridicule, and banter, which his genius is so strongly bent to; I shall look upon that to be least of all an answer; because 'tis no part of the dispute; for I will never contest that point with him, but allow that he has no ill talent at farce and grimace. And if there be neither truth, nor learning, nor judgement, in his book, it shall be cried up for those other accomplishments, as much as he pleases.
Mr B. thought fit in his second edition to rake up all his affronts upon me together, under the title of "A short account of Dr B. by way of index." And in an imperfect imitation of so great an example, I had drawn up an "account," not of Mr B. but "of his performance, by way of synopsis." But when I saw such a multitude of errors concentred together, the sight was so deformed and disagreeable, miseranda vel hosti, that no resentment could prevail with me to return him his own compliment.
[pp. 487-506]
Mr B. begins the examination of this article [XV], with a pedantic digression and common place about pedantry; which I will not now meddle with, but reserve for a more proper place; that I may not, as he has done, interrupt the business of this section with an impertinent excursion, that has no manner of relation to't.
The first absurdity that I noted in the matter of the Epistles, was the Himeraeans going to war with the Catanaeans about Stesichorus's ashes, and calling in Phalaris to their assistance, against Stesichorus's own advice in a case exactly like it. Now the Examiner pretends to answer this; but, with greater craft than ingenuity, he drops the principal part of it. "What is there," says he, "in this story either absurd or improbable, that the Himeraeans should be so concerned to get the ashes of Stesichorus, and the Catanaeans to keep them?" What I, from the Epistles, called a war and sacking of a city, and a dependence upon the most brutal of tyrants, our Honourable Examiner styles 'a concern,' and says not one word about the going to war. But he tells us, this very thing happened afterwards in the case of Euripides, whose bones the Athenians sent a solemn embassy to Macedonia to retrieve, but their request was denied. And is this the very thing, and the same case with that in the Epistles? It's so far from being the very thing, that one can hardly pick out a more proper instance to refute the Epistles. For as the Athenians met with a denial when they demanded Euripides's ashes, and yet declared no war upon that account, nor committed the least hostilities; so likewise the Himeraeans would never go to war upon so slight an occasion, especially against a powerful city, that had the same original with their own, both colonies being founded by the Chalcidians of Euboea. After this he informs us from Pausanias, that the Athenians built a noble monument to Euripides: but neither Pausanias nor Thomas Magister, who are the only authors, I suppose, that speak of it, say a word of its nobility; but the one calls it barely μνῆμα Εὐριπίδου κενὸν, and the other κενοτάφιον, without a word in its commendation. Then he tells us out of Plutarch, that the Orchomenians endeavoured all they could to get Hesiod's bones, but the Locrians, that had 'em, would not be prevailed upon to part with 'em. And here again he puts a force upon his author, and makes him say more than he really does but though the case were so as he represents it, it would be, as the most of his are, a good argument against himself. For as the Orchomenians did not go to war upon't, though the very oracle advised them to fetch Hesiod's bones; so the Himeraeans would not have run that hazard for the sake of Stesichorus's.
I had blamed the epistles for raising a temple to Stesichorus; which the Examiner justifies from the several temples erected to Homer at Smyrna and in other places; "which the Doctor," says he, "knew nothing of, though it be no secret even to the first beginners of learning." 'Tis a good proof indeed, that the first beginners may know this thing because our Examiner knows it. But there's another thing, that I perceive even he knows nothing of, that Homer's case and Stesichorus's have no relation to one another. For, I pray, at what time were the temples built to Homer? 'Twas a long time before he was honoured with so much as an epitaph. He was buried, says Herodotus, in the island Ios, καὶ ὕστερον πολλῷ χρόνῳ, and a long time after, when his poems became famous, they made an epitaph upon him. As for his temple at Smyrna, which Strabo, Cicero, and others mention, it must needs be as recent as the city itself, and that was built by Antigonus and Lysimachus six or seven hundred years after the poet's time, the old city having been ruined and desolate for four hundred years together. And then the temple at Alexandria, that Ptolemee Philopater erected to his memory, was later than that at Smyrna: and the marble of Homer's apotheosis which is published with an ample commentary by the very learned Cuperus, may be reasonably supposed to be later than them both. What has the Examiner got therefore by his instances of Homer's temples? They are all near three hundred years younger than Phalaris and Stesichorus; and if a custom obtained in this latter age, will he infer, that it was used too in the former? or will he compare the fame of Stesichorus with the glory of Homer? or will he suppose that Stesichorus could immediately obtain those honours, which Homer did not, 'till his books had lasted six centuries, when he was numbered among the ancient heroes? This is so poor an excuse for the sophist, that it's a further detection of him. For since he lived after Ptolemee's time, and had heard of Homer's temples at Alexandria and Smyrna, it might easily come into his head to build the like for Stesichorus: but the true Phalaris, in whose days even Homer himself had no temple erected to him, would never have thought on't.
But what a morose piece of critic is that, where he will not give me leave to say, as others have done, that Himera was afterwards called Thermae because, forsooth, Diodorus and Cicero say they were not built upon the same spot of ground? And yet Diodorus himself expressly calls the inhabitants of Thermae, Himeraeans: and Scipio, when he gave them the statues that formerly belonged to Himera; and Cicero, when he tells that story of Scipio, do both as good as declare, that they looked upon them as the same city. Polybius therefore, joins both words together, and calls them Θερμῶν τῶν Ἱμεραίων; and so Ptolemee, Θερμαὶ Ἵμεραι πόλις, which Cluverius corrects Ἱμεραῖαι; and so an inscription in Gruter, "COL. AUG. HIMERAEORUM THERMIT." And if I may not say Himera was called Thermae, because they were not upon the same spot, I must not say neither, what everybody has said, that Naxos was called Taurominium; nor that Sybaris was called Thurii; no, nor that Smyrna was called Smyrna, nor Magnesia called Magnesia; for the new towns of those names were as remote from the old ones, as Thermae from Himera.
I had charged the letters with an inconsistency, because the fifty-first makes Phalaris's wife to have been poisoned at Astypalaea, soon after her husband's flight, but the sixty-ninth makes her alive in Crete many years after, when Phalaris was grown old in the monarchy at Agrigentum. Mr B. is pleased to reply, that here I make an unreasonable supposition, that the letters must have been written in the same order that they now stand; for if that do not take place, there's no manner of inconsistency between these two Epistles. Now what name ought to be given to such a writer as this is, who prevaricates so notoriously in a case as plain as the sun? Did I ever make such a supposition, that the letters were written in the order they are printed? Had I not expressly supposed in the fourth article, that the eighty-fifth letter might be written before the eighty-fourth, nay before the twentieth, nay before the very first of all? And is it not visible and plain to any man of sense, that I place the inconsistency here, not upon the order of the Epistles, but upon the differences of place and time? I would ask him now in his own language, was the pleasure of forging this imaginary supposition, which is worthy of himself, and none of mine, an equivalent to the shame of being told on't?
But he tells me, I make four other suppositions; which have not the least countenance from the Epistles, or any other history. What the Examiner will grant or deny, to me is indifferent: but I appeal to others, if every particular that I said there, may not be fairly gathered from the letters themselves. Phalaris fled from Astypalaea; his wife endeavouring to follow him, was poisoned by Python, who courted her to a second marriage. Again, his wife is alive in Crete, when Phalaris had long possessed the government of Agrigentum. All this is plainly affirmed in the letters. Now if Astypalaea was not a town of Crete, but an island of the Sporades, as I have proved already against Phalaris's Editors; then, if she was poisoned at Astypalaea, she could not afterwards be alive in Crete. And if she was poisoned for endeavoring to follow her husband, which cannot reasonably be supposed to be very long after his flight, she could not be yet alive, when he was grown old in Sicily. I must confess, that these two accounts are still in my opinion inconsistencies. But Mr B. and I may have very different notions of what deserves to be called by that name. For his Examination flatly contradicts his own index to Phalaris; and his margin, in more places than one, is directly opposite to his text; and yet he seems not to apprehend them to be inconsistent one with another: for he has made no retraction of his index to Phalaris; and has made his margin keep company with his text, as if they were very good friends.
My other exception against the Epistles was the Sophist's absurd conduct about Nicocles's address to Phalaris to obtain by his intercession a copy of verses from Stesichorus. But the Examiner protests, he can see no harm, nor any thing unnatural in't. Now this being a matter of mere judgement, and no controversy of fact, I am not surprised to see Mr B. and myself have such different opinions about it. And when a thing is once brought to that issue, 'tis in vain to dispute further about it; but we must refer the whole matter to the readers that have taste and skill. I shall only take some short notice of the particulars that his argument is built on. He says, "Phalaris was not successful in a second attempt upon Stesichorus, at the instance of a Sicilian gentleman." But it's plain from the Epistle itself, that Phalaris refused to make a second attempt; so that the gentleman was unsuccessful with Phalaris, not Phalaris with Stesichorus. Mr B., it seems, does not know his own favourite book; and yet if I, that despise it, and believe it not worth the reading, had made such a mistake about it as this is, he would have given us two whole pages in aggravation of the fault, and have poured out his grimace and banter profusely upon so worthy a subject.
But he finds I have high thoughts of Phalaris, because I said that such stuff as Stesichorus's verses did not busy his head. They were not high thoughts of his great monarchy, but hard ones of his cruelty and barbarity, that made me suppose such matters did not busy his head. Mr B., then, might have saved that diminishing character that he gives here of Phalaris's power. One may guess it was much against his mind, to depress his Sicilian prince; but his anger against his antagonist was stronger here than his sense of loyalty. But let us see how he manages! "He was only a petty prince," he says, "of one town in Sicily." I perceive, he has not lost all his former respect for him; he will make him a prince still, though it be but a petty one. But why so ill natured as to allow him but one single town Agrigentum; and in that single town, too, to take away half of his subjects? What will he do therefore with Suidas, who makes him tyrant of all Sicily? or with Diogenianus, who affirms, that he subdued the city and country of Leontini? or with Polyaenus, who makes him conquer the Sicanians and take Ouessa (or rather Inessa) their capital city? or with Diodorus, who informs us, that he had two castles, Ἔκνομος λόφος, and Φαλάριον, in the territories of Gela, a day's journey from Agrigentum? or lastly, what will he do with the Epistles themselves, which pretend he vanquished the Leontini, and the Tauromenites, and Zanclaeans their allies? If Mr B. pleases to take all these into the account, he may allow his prince to have been master of a million of subjects; though Agrigentum should not be so populous as Laertius represents it. And why now would Mr B. deal so unkindly with him, to make him a petty prince of one city only, when such credible authors assign him many more? Is there not, as I have often observed, a certain fatality in this gentleman's errors, so that whether he talks for Phalaris or against him, on both sides he is always mistaken?
He goes on and tells me, that there have been tyrants with many millions of subjects that have employed themselves about poems. "Has not the Doctor seen," says he, "the fragments of Augustus's letters to Horace, pressing and obliging that poet to write?" Never was piece of history more aptly applied: I can heartily now forgive him all he has said about me, when I see how judicious and exact he is in bestowing names and characters. Phalaris is a Sicilian prince with him, and Augustus is a tyrant. Methinks that Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse, had been a nearer and properer comparison; for he was so concerned with poets and poems, that he not only had several poets in his court, but himself made several tragedies, though even this or any other such instance had been wholly impertinent; for, as I said, 'twas not Phalaris's greatness, but his barbarity and ignorance, (being an illiterate publican, before he usurped the tyranny,) that makes dealings with Stesichorus for copies of verses to be so improbable and absurd.
But "a present," he says, "had been an improper means to obtain verses of Stesichorus; for he was one of the greatest men of Sicily." This is a new piece of history, and to be sure he takes care to make it out well. Yes, by two very good arguments; first, because, as Suidas tells him, his brother Helianax was νομοθέτης, a lawgiver. Ay, no doubt on't, if he was a lawgiver, he must consequently be a Member of Parliament. But it fails out unfortunately, that the legislative power was not always in such great hands, as it's nowadays. The best law-makers, says Aristotle, were of the middle rank of citizens; for Solon was such a one, as appears by his poems; and Lycurgus, for he was no king; and Charondas, and most of the rest. Even Aristotle himself, whose nobility was not extraordinary, made laws for the Abderitans. Zaleucus, as we have seen above, was but a shepherd and a slave. Eudoxus the Cnidian made laws to his own citizens; and yet he was so poor, that Theoniedon a physician bore his charges at Athens; and his friends made a purse for him, when he was to travel to Egypt. And Protagoras was lawgiver to the Thurians, and yet at first he was no better than a porter to carry burdens. Why then must Stesichorus be one of the greatest men in Sicily, because he had a brother a lawgiver? The Examiner, we see, will still be true to his old way of reasoning: for one may fairly infer the very contrary from it, that he was but of middle and ordinary quality. Well, but he must needs be one of the greatest men there; because he made an apologue to the Himeraeans against Phalaris, about the horse and his rider, and the stag. And is that such a proof of his wealth and greatness above the low temptations of money and presents? Menenius Agrippa made such another apologue to the Romans, and yet he was so very poor that he left not enough to bury him. There's another apologue too of Æsop's, mentioned by Aristotle in the very place where he tells Stesichorus's. And if Æsop, a poor slave, could make apologues at Samos, relating to public affairs, why must Stesichorus's apologue at Himera prove him one of the greatest men in Sicily? The Arundel marble gives us a date, when Stesichorus the poet εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα ἀφίκετο went into Greece. Now εἰς Ἑλλάδα ἀφικέσθαι, means to travel into Greece to get money, as his brother poets did, who were to make their fortunes by their pen. When Homer was very poor, says Herodotus, some persuaded him εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα ἀπίκέσθαι to go into Greece; and he designed it, but died in Ios, before he began the voyage. And the readers will be apt to suspect, for all the greatness that Mr B. dreams of, that Stesichorus had no other errand to Greece, than Homer had before him, and Simonides and others after him.
I had made another censure upon the Epistles for calling the same copy of verses both μέλος and ἐλεγεῑον. The Examiner replies, that by the different cast of his head, he should have reasoned just the other way, and have inferred something in favour of the letters. First, he says, a Sophist would not have confounded the words. True, a learned Sophist would not have written such sorry Epistles, as a judicious man would not have published them: but our mock Phalaris is a Sophist of that size, that no kind of blunder is below his character. But a prince, says Mr B. might not think himself obliged to write with all the exactness of a scholar. This is just the second part of his compliment to queen Elizabeth: he's resolved, it seems, to stand up for princes, and maintain for them a royal prerogative of speaking improperly. But let Mr B. be as good a courtier as he pleases; I am now to consider him only in his capacity of a critic. I shall proceed therefore to his next remark, that Phalaris called it an ἰλεγεῑον, when he asked it of Stesichorus, and knew not what measure it would be in: but when he had it, and saw it was lyric, he then called it μέλος. Who can deny now, but this is sharply observed? but there's one inconvenience in't, that while he's careful of the prince's reputation, he betrays the poet's. For if an elegy in the proper sense of the word (as this excuse supposes) was bespoken of Stesichorus; why should he make a lyric poem instead on't? This had been just like the sign-painter, that whatsoever was bespoken of him. whether a lion or a dolphin, always painted a rose. But Mr B. will prove that ἔλεγος and ἐλεγεῖον had a looser sense than what the grammarians put upon them; because Dion Chrysostome calls heroic verses on Sardanapalus's tomb ἐλεγεῖον. But there's a figure of rhetoric here, called self-contradiction, that's very frequent in our Examiner's reasonings. For he had newly said, a sophist could not mistake ἐλεγεῖον, the distinct sense of which was so well settled before his time by the grammarians: and now he produces Dion Chrysostome, (who, as he tells us, was as errant a Sophist and declaimer as ever was) employing it in a looser meaning than what the grammarians put upon it. But to let this pass; what he teaches us here about the distinct sense that the grammarians settled upon't, is but a cast of his own loose and unsettled sense. For the grammarians knew well enough, that ἐλεγεῖον was taken for epitaph, even without a pentameter in't. They could learn that out of Herodotus, among others, when he tells 'em, that the people of Ios τὸ ἐλεγεῖον τόδε ἐπέγραψαν, wrote this elegy on Homer's tomb—
ἀνδρῶν ἡρώων κοσμήτορα δῖον ῞Ομηρον.
But his next proof perhaps may be better; for a nightingale, he says, in Aristophanes's aves, is said to sing ἔλεγοι, and by and by those very ἔλεγοι are called μέλη. This indeed carries both surprise and demonstration along with it. What a strange reach of fancy has our Examiner? Who but he could ever have thought on this pretty argument from a nightingale? Let us put it into a syllogism—A nightingale sings μέλη, a nightingale sings ἔλεγοι, ergo μέλη and ἔλεγοι are the same. Very quaint indeed, and out of the common way! But it has one little fault, that if a nightingale can sing more tunes than one, his syllogism must then be hushed. Mr B. seems to bring this argument with a very serious air; as if because the poet metaphorically calls the singing of a bird by the several names of human music, we may infer that all those names may signify one and the same thing. But in the very same page Aristophanes says, that the upupa, which we call the hoopoe, no very melodious bird, chanted a μέλος—
Mr B. therefore, by the very same reasoning, may give us another syllogism—The nightingale sings a μέλος, the hoopoe sings a μέλος, ergo the hoopoe sings like the nightingale. And by the same argument blackbirds will sing like them, for their notes too are μέλη—
Nay the very frogs will croak like nightingales—
τῷ δ᾽ ἐγὼ οὐ φθονέοιμι, τὸ γὰρ μέλος οὐ καλὸν ᾄδει.
But what is still more extraordinary, the same nightingale in Aristophanes a little after begins to chant a lesson of anapaests—
ἄρχου τῶν ἀναπαίστων.
So that by Mr B.'s powerful argument, both μέλη, and ἔλεγοι, and ἀνάπαιστοι, may be all used in the same signification. And if Mr B. had but produced some anapaests of nightingales to confute my observation about the measures of that verse, they might have done him perhaps much better service than those of Æschylus and Seneca.
I had declared, that I suspected all to be a cheat, about the friendship between Phalaris and Stesichorus; because the poet himself never mentioned it, nor any other writer; though several, had it been true, had fair occasion to speak of it. Now the Examiner accounts for Lucian's silence; because he had said enough, in naming Pythagoras, and to have added Stesichorus's name, would have made the piece look stiff and unnatural. Wonderfully nice and exact: he can tell you to a single word, when a treatise will be stiff; like the gardener that could determine to a minute, when his melons were ripe. How many have I saved, says Phalaris in Lucian, who plotted against me, and were convicted, as Acanthus that stands here, and Timocrates, and Leogoras his brother? Now according to the letters, Stesichorus too was taken plotting, and yet the tyrant saved his life, and made him his friend. But, says Mr B., if Lucian here had added Stesichorus to the other three, that single name would have made the discourse as stiff as any buckram. And yet allowing that Lucian himself had as nice a sensation of stiffness as Mr B. appears to have, and therefore would not put down four names, but three only, yet methinks, he might have spared one of those three, and put Stesichorus in his room; unless Mr B. will shew that Timocrates or Leogoras (whom nobody ever heard of) were as famous as Stesichorus, and their examples as memorable. But Mr B. adds further, that "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 Jamblichus, been graciously pleased to allow." Now without the Examiner's telling us, we might guess, that he was not awake sometimes in his work; for surely the man that writ this must have been fast asleep, or else he could never have talked so wildly. There is not one word in that place that his margin refers to, about Phalaris's friendship with Abaris. And how could I allow it for the sake of Aristotle, who says not the least syllable of it, or if I should allow it for the sake of Jamblichus, what would that be to Lucian? for according to Jamblichus, the tyrant was killed by Abaris's means upon their first acquaintance; how then could Phalaris in Lucian have magnified himself to the Delphians upon the past friendship of that Hyperborean? If Lucian had believed the story, as Jamblichus tells it, that the tyrant was deposed by Pythagoras and Abaris at their first visit; his mentioning Abaris or Pythagoras in Phalaris's speech at Delphi, had been very absurd. But Stesichorus had been a proper instance, if the letters be true; for he was twelve years the tyrant's friend, and died too before him. So that Lucian's not mentioning him, shews he knew nothing of the Epistles; as on the contrary his mentioning Pythagoras, shews he knew nothing of that story of his deposing Phalaris.
In the next place, Mr B. accounts for Plato's silence about the friendship of Stesichorus and Phalaris; because Plato mentions nothing there of the acquaintance between Pythagoras and Phalaris. An admirable account indeed! Plato, says Mr B., might omit the mention of Stesichorus's friendship with Phalaris, and yet might believe it true; because he mentions not another friendship, that in all probability is as mere a fiction as that. Which is as just as if he reasoned thus, the ancients in their accounts of Æsop, say nothing of his ugliness, and yet they might believe it: because they say nothing neither of Xanthus the philosopher with his company of scholiastics. But, says Mr B., the Pythagoreans all agree that their master and Phalaris were acquainted; and Dr B. grants it. I granted they were contemporaries; and by a familiar sleight of hand, he turns the word into acquaintance; as he once did before. But how knows he that all the Pythagoreans agree, when the only men that speak a word of it are Lucian and Janiblichus; and they were neither of them Pythagoreans? or, suppose the Pythagorean story true, as Jamblichus reports it, that Phalaris blasphemed the gods, despised philosophy, and designed to murder Pythagoras; would this have been as proper and domestic an instance for Plato, as the twelve years friendship with Stesichorus? What a master of decency is Mr B. and what a relish has he of dexterous management, who goes about to excuse Plato for not numbering Phalaris's and Pythagoras's enmity (for so it's represented by those Pythagoreans he speaks of) among the celebrated friendships of learned men with tyrants?
As for the argument from the silence of Pindar, he will not attempt to answer it; which is a better sign of discretion, than he usually shews. However, he'll put me in mind of one false colour that I have given to my argument: for I said, Pindar exhorts Hiero to be kind to poets and men of letters: but, says he, there's not a word of that in the verses themselves, whatever guess the Scholiast may make at their remote meaning. So that the Doctor might as well prove his point from ἄριστον μὲν ὕδωρ. What shall we say now to such a hardy writer as this is; who can deny with such an air of confidence, what everybody's eyes can witness to be true? The very words of Pindar immediately preceding the passage I cited, are—
which, by the nicest translation, means men of letters, and poets. And to be kind to such the poet exhorts Hiero in the paragraph just before
εἴπερ τι φιλεῖς ἀκοὰν ἁδεῖαν ἀ-
εὶ κλύειν, μὴ κάμνε λίαν δαπάναις.
That is, continue your generous temper, and if you desire immortal fame, do not be weary of being bountiful.
After he has denied that to be in Pindar, which is evidently and expressly there; the next and last advance he makes is to deny that to be in the letters, which he himself once knew to be there, if it was he that translated them. "The letters," he says, "do not imply that there was any extraordinary dearness between Stesichorus and Phalaris; there's no proof from them, that Stesichorus loved him; his friendship was desired, and he only out of prudence did not stand off." This is spoken with a good measure of assurance; let us see with what measure of truth. The tyrant declares, that though he gave Stesichorus twelve years of life, yet still he was in debt to him; for he alone of all mortals gave him courage, and taught him to despise death; and that for the sake of Stesichorus, he's ready to encounter certain destruction. And the fame of Phalaris's kindness to him was so great, that the Tauromenites applied to Stesichorus to intercede with the tyrant, that he would remit the price of their captives. Stesichorus dies before he could do it for them; but he leaves it in command to his daughters to ask that favour in his name. The tyrant upon the first notice of the request immediately returns the money, with this protestation, that he would not only do that for his sake, ἀλλ᾽ εἰ καί τι καὶ τῶν ἀδυνατων ἐστὶ μεῖζον, but any thing else, though 'twere more than impossible. And yet it appears, from another letter, that the sum he remitted here was no less than a hundred talents, or eighteen thousand pounds sterling, the greatest sum by much that appears in the whole set of Epistles, and six times as much as, in another letter, he was forced to borrow for himself. This, I presume, is a pretty good token of an extraordinary dearness on Phalaris's side: and this alone would be argument enough, to prove Stesichorus was not insensible on his part; for Mr B. surely will not make such a ninny of his Sicilian prince, as to suppose him so prodigal of his highest favours without suitable returns of friendship. But besides this, the very letters are as express for Stesichorus's love as for Phalaris's. For as the Tauromenites addressed to Stesichorus, to obtain favours of the tyrant; so Pelopidas, and Nicocles apply themselves to the tyrant to get favours of Stesichorus, which in his way were copies of verses. And the argument that Phalaris uses to persuade the poet to do that favour, is, to confirm the received opinion that the world had of their friendship. And he tells us both there and once more, that Stesichorus desired leave to celebrate him in his poems. But the tyrant begs he would not do it, πρὸς ἑταιρείου Διὸς καὶ κοινῆς ἑστίας, by such obtestations as are used among the dearest friends and relations. And it's sufficient, he says, for him to be written ἐν αὐτῷ Στησιχόρῳ, in Stesichorus's own heart. Now if these do not imply a friendship on Stesichorus's part, as well as Phalaris's, let the reader be judge: and at the same time let him reflect, what an odd-sighted Examiner I have to deal with; that at some times can see in books what never was there; but at other times cannot see the plainest things, not only in other men's books, but even in his own.