TO THE Author of the Remarks UPON Dr. Bentley's Fragments OF CALLIMACHUS.
THAT part of your Book which I have now under consideration bears this Title.
An Honest Vindication of Tho. Stanley, Esquire, and his Notes on Callimachus. To which are added some other Observations on that Poet. In a Letter to the Honourable Charles Boyle, Esquire. With a Postscript, in relation to Dr. Bentley's late Book against him.
This Title promises two things.
First, An Honest Vindication of Tho. Stanley, Esquire, and his Notes on Callimachus.
Secondly, Some other Observations on the same Poet.
But withal here is special care taken to give the Reader notice of a certain Postscript in Relation to Dr. Bentley's late Book against Mr. Boyle: by which late Book of Dr. Bentley against Mr. Boyle, I understand the Doctor's late Book in Vindication of Himself, and his Dissertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris from the Objections made by the Honourable Charles Boyle, Esquire, against Both
Though 'tis your Honest Vindication of Mr. Stanley and his Notes on Callimachus I am principally concerned with: yet since you have been pleas'd to bless the world with some Things of your Own; P. 34. lin. 7. Those your own Observations I shall separate from those of Mr. Stanley, and, to make them the more observed, present them to the view of the Reader in a place by themselves. And as for the Postscript, it will give me as little trouble, as I believe it did you.
That the Vindication of the Dead,P. 25. and speaking for them who cannot speak for themselves, is a Generous and Honourable Undertaking, I freely grant you. But if this Vindication of the Dead was wholly Unnecessary; if there was not the least manner of Injustice offered by Dr. Bentley to the Manes of Mr. Stanley requiring such a Vindication;P. 74. the Doctor never omitting the mention of his Name, where there was just occasion for it, nor ever mentioning it without the regard due to his Merit;Dr. Bentley's Answer to Mr. Boyle, pref. p. 93. p. 232. & Epist. ad fin. Malel. p. 45. if this your Vindication of the Dead be in reality nothing else than an Accusation of the Living, and that Accusation altogether frivolous, false and malicious; if upon due Examination this should appear to be the truth of the case: an indifferent Reader will be much tempted to doubt, whether or no [Page 3]in the whole management of this Affair you were indeed acted by those noble Principles you profess of Conscience, Honour, and Religion,Pref. p. 1, 2, and P. 25, 76, 77. and not rather put upon it by some very unjustifiable Motives of a quite different Nature. As perhaps the mean view of making your Court (though at the Expence both of your own Modesty, and your Neighbours Good Name) to a Young Gentleman,P. 54. or the vain-glorious Ambition of falling in with a Triumphant Party and dividing with them the Spoils of a [...] already (as you too soon thought) conquer'd Enemy.
But the Controversie in which I am engaged is too trifling to bear the Solemnity of an Introduction. I shall therefore without farther Ceremony forthwith enter into the Merits of the Cause; which I hope in not many words to dispatch with that Clearness and Evidence, that even you your self shall be willing to let the matter drop, and wish it had never been started.
To try the force of your Allegations against Dr. Bentley upon the account of Mr. Stanley's MS. I shall begin with the first of them,Callimach. op. Edit. Graevian p. 305. Vindicator. p. 34. Harpocrat. Suidas. and under that plead to the whole Indictment.
‘ [...]—as in Dr. Bentley, p. 305.’
‘This Citation out of Suidas (which Mr. Stanley only hinted at) the Doctor hath transcribed and printed in words at length.’
These are your words. By the Parenthesis here (which Mr. Stanley only hinted at) is imply'd, I suppose, that if Mr. Stanley had not hinted at it, Dr. Bentley had not transcribed it.
Thus have you drawn up the Charge, which reduced into form lies thus.
The Citations out of Harpocration and Suidas are in Mr. Stanley.
The Citations out of Harpocration and Suidas are in Dr. Bentley: ergo,
Dr. Bentley stole the Citations out of Harpocration and Suidas from Mr. Stanley.
Now of the self same stamp are all and every one of your Proofs that follow; as thus.
The Citations, Num. 2, 3, 7, 8, 12. and so of the rest, are in Mr. Stanley.
The Citations, Num. 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, &c. are in Dr. Bentley: ergo,
Dr. Bentley stole the Citations, Num. 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, &c. from Mr. Stanley.
Thus lies your Argument, nor can you say, but that I give it its whole force.
And these are those Proofs, to which you give the Epithet of Ʋndeniable, and upon which you pronounce the Doctor a Convict of Notorious Plagiarism.P. 76. Were I minded to express my self ingeniously upon this occasion, I could not do it in better words than in those of an Approved Author, for whom you doubtless have a particular Esteem. Either our Vindicator must be a very Thoughtless Writer, Mr. B. p. 259. or he must hope to meet with very Thoughtless Readers; and such I am sure they must be, if this way of arguing passes upon them. Never was that bold Epithet, Undeniable, more miserably abused in the Press, or placed in a Post where it could less maintain its Ground. But it hath been the peculiar Happiness of some Books to meet with very Thoughtless Readers. Nor can I imagine what other Consideration could have given our Honest Vindicator also the Heart to set up for an Author. I could pinch you somewhat close upon this your Ʋndeniable. But I scorn to take a weak Enemy at Advantage. That would be a Disparagement [Page 5]to the cause I have in hand: and Dr. Bentley might well think himself a man as unhappy in his Advocate, as he is happy in his Adversary, were this the best defence I could make for him, that your Proofs against him are not Undeniable. No, Sir, I'll freely abate you that strong word. If you can but make them, even to the lowest degree of Probability, Probable; I'll allow you a little heightning of your Stile, and you shall call them Ʋndeniable.
Now the Probability of your Proofs depends upon the Probability of the Supposition upon which they stand: and that Supposition is this; That Dr. Bentley never met with those Citations which you charge upon him as stoln from Mr. Stanley's MS. either in the Authors themselves, in whose Names they are publish'd, or in any other Book whatsoever, save in your MS. For had he met with them any where else, he might as well have transcribed them from thence as from your MS.Mr. B. p. 101, &c. Now to suppose this reduces the industrious Dr. Bentley's Polymathy and multifarious Reading into a very narrow compass. Or else you must suppose, that though he might have met with them elsewhere, yet he would never have observed them, so as to have drawn them together, and presented them to the World in the manner he hath done, had he not found them readily collected to his hands by Mr. Stanley; which to prove will put you as hard to it as the former.Concess. 8.9, infr. p. 11, 12. This I think is a clear case. So that the Controversie depending between us is plainly this. Whether it be more probable that the Doctor should have both seen and observed those Citations in some other Books besides your MS. which is that part of [Page 6]the Question I take. Or, whether it be more probable, that he had never met with them any where else, or never would have observed them, had not your MS either presented him with them in words at length, or at least directed him to the Books where he might find them; which is the point you are to maintain.
Having thus, I think, very fairly and clearly stated the Case, and as much as possibly could be done to your advantage; let us calmly and deliberately argue it out. In the doing of which, for method sake, I shall proceed in this Order.
First, I shall produce your own, and your Friends Concessions on behalf of the Doctor.
Then I shall compare your Concessions with your Assertions, and from thence raise some just and reasonable Exceptions deeply affecting the whole Body of your Proofs. Which being, in the last place, applied to the particular instances, I shall think this Controversie at an end.
But this one thing I must observe to you before I go any farther, that hitherto I am but upon the Defensive, nor as yet any farther concerned in the Doctor's interests, than barely to discharge him of the Accusation you bring against him; so that I am willing to stand upon the very lowest Terms with you, and shall be content to take up with that indifferent Account of the Doctor, which you and your Friends are pleased to give me, and make the best I can of it.
To begin therefore with your Concessions. And here I am forced to Subpoena in two or three Witnesses for the Doctor, whose Testimonies will be of so much the greater weight in [Page 7]this cause, by how much the less they can be suspected of Partiality in his Favour. As for that Honourable Gentleman, whose name I must somewhat often make use of upon this occasion, considering how necessary his evidence is to me, and ho will I could have spared it, I hope he will the more readily pardon my presumption in producing it.
CONCESSION I. Dr. Bentley is a Person of Singular Industry.
Witness 1. The Honourable Charles Boyle, Esquire, Examination of Dr. Bentley, p. 285.
And to give him my opinion, what He (sc. Dr. Bentley) is fit for, I think that the collecting of Greek Fragments and Proverbs would be a proper Employment for him.
And presently after, I am the rather apt to think, that such works as these might thrive in his hands, because the well executing them depends chiefly on two Qualities, which he must be allow'd to possess; Application and a Willingness to be employ'd in such sorts of Studies, as only load the Memory without improving the Understanding.
Witness 2. Honest Vindicator, p. 42. Notwithstanding his (sc. Dr. Bentley's) Accuracy and great Diligence in searching after the Fragments of Callimachus.
Witness 3. The Author of the Postscript to the Honest Vindication of Tho. Stanley, Esquire, lin. antepenult. I am neither afraid, nor ashamed to declare that I have a great Esteem for Dr. Benley's Learning and Industry.
Next to Industry, in order to the carrying on any great design is required Leisure, and the opportunities of pursuing it. And that I think 'tis well known the Doctor's Circumstances have happily afforded him. But since we have an express Testimony for it, I'll make that
CONCESSION II. Dr. Bentley is a Person who hath enjoy'd Leisure and the other Opportunities of pursuing his Studies.
Witness Mr. Boyle, Pref. p. 3. where these words lin. 5. The Person, who by the help of Leisure and Lexicons shall set up for a Critick, are manifestly design'd as part of the Doctor's Character, vide & p. 187, 189. But how was this Industry and Leisure employ'd? why, which makes Concession the third.
CONCESSION III. Dr. Bentley is a Person well read in Dictionary-Learning.
In turning over Greek Vocabularies, Onomasticons, Etymologicons, Lexicons, Glossaries, Nomenclators and Scholia.
Witness 1. Mr. Boyle, loco jam dicto, Concess. 2.P. 197, & 208, 213, 223, 286, &c. and the places referr'd to in the Margin. But two of these Lexicographers are singled out from the rest, and therefore well deserve it, to have a particular mark set upon them, sc. Suidas and Hesychius.
- [Page 9]1. With Suidas the Doctor is very conversant, p. 197, and
- 2. Hesychius is one of the great Store-houses of his Alphabetical-Learning, p. 183.
Witness 2. Honest Vindicator, p. 9. A Volume as big as the Lexicons he designs to publish.
ANd if he designs to publish them, surely he must very throughly have Read them. Conser cum Mr. B. p. 223.
Idem iterum, p. 33. Dr. Bentley is the man who hath sisted the Lexicographers and Scholiasts, both printed and in MS.
Witness 3. One A. Alsop late Batchelor of Arts of Christ-Church College in the University of Oxford, Prefat. to his Fabularum Aesopicarum Delectus Gr. Lat. è Theatro Sheldoniano, 1698, lin. 3, 4 RICHARDUM quendam BENTLEIUM virum in volvendis Lexicis satis Diligentem, i.e. One Richard Bentley, a Man Diligent enough at turning over Lexicons. For this Sir Alsop's Richardum quendam Bentleium, I take to be the very self same Person, whom Mr. Boyle, p. 195, more respectively stiles Richard Bentley, Doctor of Divinity, and Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty: and that R. Bentley, D. D. is most certainly Mr. Graevius's RICHARDUS BENTLEIUS Potentissimo Regi GULIELMO à Bibliothecâ, novum sed splendidissimum Britanniae Lumen, i.e. RICHARD BENTLEY, that New but Brightest Star of Britain, Keeper of the Library to the most Potent King WILLIAM.
CONCESSION IV. Dr. Bentley is well vers'd in the Indexes of Books.
Witness 1. P. 68, 145, 165. Mr. Boyle in the places referr'd to in the margin, and more especially that Quotation out of Quinctilian, as apply'd to Dr. Bentley. Nec sanè quisquam est tam procul à cognitione eorum remotus, ut non Indicem certè ex Bibliothecâ sumptum transferre in Libros suos possit: which words it was designed, I suppose, we should understand to this purpose. No man can be so great a Dunce, P. 220. but that by turning to Indexes in a Library he may collect Authorities in abundance, p. 68. Confer cum Dr. B's Answer, p. 421.
Witness 2. Honest Vindicator, p. 83. — Harduin, whose Indexes directed Dr. Bentley to those Quotations, sc. out of Pliny.
CONCESSION V. Quotation was once thought the Doctor's peculiar Province; and particularly the Quoting things lying out of the common way of Reading.
And if once so, I see no reason why his after Performances should sink his Reputation upon that Account.
Witness Mr. Boyle. I thought Quotation had been the Doctor's peculiar Province, p. 29. Confer cum Dr. B's Answer, p. 5, & 13.
Idem, p. 45. As much out of the way as the Doctor loves to read; and p. 226. The Doctor is one that distinguishes himself, by finding out Hints in the odd Corners of Books, where 'tis probable, no body else would look for them.
CONCESSION VI. Dr. Bentley consults the several Editions of Books.
Witness Mr. Boyle, to consult the several Editions, to collate the MSS, to turn over Dictionaries, p. 223. This is spoken of Dr. Bentley.
CONCESSION VII. Dr. Bentley is presumed to have read all Authors in Critick.
Witness 1. Honest Vindicator, p. 38. in the words now named.
Witness 2. Mr. Boyle, a man of the Doctor's Polymathy, and great Reading, p. 101, 23, & al.
CONCESSION VIII. In reading the Ancients, Dr. Bentley digests his Observations and Collections into the method of Common-place.
Witness Mr. Boyle. For so I suppose he would have us understand him, when p. 27. he joyns Stobaeus and Suidas together, the one an eminent Common-Placer, the other a no less eminent [Page 12]Dictionary-Writer, as the two sorts of men for whom the Doctor hath a particular Regard, q.d. the Doctor hath no less a Talent at Common-placing than he hath at Dictionary-making. Confer cum p. 223.
CONCESSION IX. Dr. Bentley had long since formed a Design of Collecting the Fragments of all the Greek Poets.
How long since to a point of time we cannot tell. That he had not onely formed the Design, but made considerable Progress in it before the year 91, is certain.
Witness 1. Mr. Boyle, p. 194. where he quotes, and by building an argument upon it, subscribes to the following passage out of the Doctor's Letter to Dr. Mill, printed at the end of Malela, Anno 1691, p. 20. Nam in his rebus verba mihi dari haud facilè patior; qui, ut scis, fragmenta omnium poetarum Graecorum cum Emendotionibus ac notis, grande opus, edere constitueram. In which words (as Mr. Boyle truly and fairly represents the meaning of them) the Doctor boldly declares his opinion of himself that he thought he could not easily be deceived in knowing whether a Greek Verse were ascribed to its proper Author, and that because he once had it in his intentions to have published the Fragments of all the Greek Poets, with Emendations and Notes upon them; which, should he have finished it, would have made a large Work.
Nor had he formed the design only, but made considerable Progress in it. Witness the many [Page 13]pregnant Instances of it in the fore-named Epist. ad fin. Malel. and more particularly the Specimen there given upon the Tragic Poet Ion, p. 50, & seqq. and Mr. Boyle's own Confession, p. 285. In one of these [...]s [...]. the collecting of Greek Fragments) he hath succeeded well.
Witness 2. Honest Vindicator, who, p. 94, calls the Collecting Greek Fragments, the Doctor's old beloved Studies.
CONCESSION X. Dr. Bentley hath been Critically exact in Correcting the Fragments of Callimachus.
Witness Honest Vindicator, p. 42. Notwithstanding his Accuracy, his great Diligence in searching after the Fragments of Callimachus, and strictness in Correcting the Failures of others.
CONCESSION XI. Dr. Bentley hath made some Additions of his own to Mr. Stanley's MS.
Witness Honest Vindicator in the place just now referr'd to, p. 42. It ought to be confest that Dr. Bentley hath made some Additions of his own, to what was collected to his hands so readily. And p. 33. It ought to be acknowledged that Dr. Bentley hath made some Additions to Mr. Stanley's Collections; and it must have been a Prodigy, if a Man, who had sifted the old Lexicographers and Scholiasts both Printed and in MS, should not have found out some Passages, which had escaped [Page 14]the Diligence of that Learned Gentleman; of whose Notes it must be observed, That they are an imperfect Draught of a more complete work.
Mr. Stanley's MS. being but an imperfect Draught of a more compleat work; from a Man who had sifted the Lexicographers and Scholiasts both Printed and in MS, and sifted them with a design of Collecting the Fragments of all the Greek Poets, one might reasonably have expected Additions deserving a better Title than that Diminutive Epithet SOME; SOME Additions, sc. some few inconsiderable ones, here and there an odd Quotation. So cautiously do you express your self. But as I am as yet upon the receiving hand, I must content my self with what you are pleased to give me, onely desiring of you, that what you here not over liberally grant, you would not elsewhere retract, but still allow these some Additions to be the Doctor's own.
I shall make bold to borrow of you yet one Concession more, in which, though the Doctor be not immediately concerned, yet it will be of some use to me in the managing of his Cause. And that is this.
CONCESSION XII. That besides what had been formerly printed upon this Author, the Illustrious Spanheim hath done some service to Callimachus both in his Collection of Fragments, and in an entire Volume of Learned Annotations upon that Poet; hand in hand, with whose Collection Dr. Bentley's Collection appears, and in multiplied Instances concurs.
Witness Honest Vindicator, p. 32. in the words here express'd.
Thus have I gained of you a competent number of Concessions, with which I am got up to the very Throat of the Cause, and have little more to do now, than to summ up the Evidence, and apply it to the matter in hand. And if you do not by this time apprehend the danger which threatens all your Ʋndeniables, you are a person of that happy Constitution, which renders a man secure and fearless.
Dr. Bentley is a Person of singular Industry and Application, V. supra the several Concessions, and the places there referr'd to. and by the very make of his Nature particularly addicted to these sorts of Studies, upon which he is now called into Question: hath met with the most encouraging opportunities of pursuing them: Is extremely well vers'd in the old Lexicographers; Nor less familiar with the Scholiasts: Knows no man better how to make his Advantage of an Index: Quotation is his peculiar Province: When he reads an ancient Author, Greek or Latin, is for consulting the several Editions of him, and Collating the MSS: Is a man of vast Polymathy, and presumed to have read all Authors in Critick: Digests his Lections and Observations into the method of Common-place: Had long since formed the design of Collecting the Fragments of all the Greek Poets: Hath been critically exact in correcting those of Callimachus in particular: hath made some Additions of his own to Mr. Stanley's Collection: Was in this work of Collecting the Fragments of Callimachus, as preceded by Vulcanius and Dacier, so accompanied with his Excellency Spanhemius; [Page 16]Hand in hand with whose Collection the Dr's Collection appears, and in multiplied Instances concurs. All which notwithstanding, after all this Industry and Leisure, so employ'd as is before described, and upon a design so long since formed: this self same Dr. Bentley is a most notorious Plagiary. But how so? why because Mr. Stanley also had fallen upon the same design of Collecting the Fragments of Callimachus, and had made some little Beginnings in the work, an imperfect Draught of which is still preserved: and this imperfect Draught of Mr. Stanley's Collections the Doctor had the Misfortune to have put into his hands; and in this imperfect Draught there are (in a considerable number of Instances) the same Quotations, and (in some very few) the same Corrections as are in the Doctor's more finished Piece. Building upon this, you conclude your work is done, and to place the matter beyond Dispute, invite the Reader to Mr.P. 32. Bennet's Shop in St. Paul's Church-yard, where he will see the self same words and Syllables in Mr.P. 76. Stanley's Manuscript as in Dr. Bentley's printed Collection. This seems so fair an Appeal that the unwary Reader is presently taken with it. For what farther satisfaction would one desire in such a case than Ocular Demonstration? What fuller Conviction than so apparent matter of fact? All which notwithstanding, I shall not scruple to pronounce that Reader very Thoughtless upon whom this way of arguing shall pass for Demonstration. For both Mr. Stanley and the Doctor having fallen upon the same Thought of Collecting the Fragments of Callimachus, that there should be some of the same Quotations in the one as in the other [Page 17]is so far from being a convictive Evidence of the Latter's having Transcribed them from the Former, that the nature of the thing render it impossible to have been otherwise: unless we must suppose some strange chance so to have divided the course of their Reading, that they should not so much as have dipt into the same Books. For if they both read the same Authors, and both with a design of collecting the same Fragments; it is impossible, but that so far as from the time of their having enter'd upon that Design, they kept pace with each other in the course of the Reading, they must also (allowing for here and there an oversight) have transferred into their Collections the same Quotations. And had Mr. Stanley carry'd on his work farther, Dr. Bentley's Collection must also of necessity, though without his ever having seen Mr. Stanley's, have fallen in with it oftner than now it doth, and his some Additions, as you call them, have been proportionably fewer than now they are. So that (to remind you of the state of the question) to make good your Accusation of Plagiarism against Dr. Bentley upon the account of Mr. Stanley's MS. one of these two points ought to have been more particularly insisted upon; either that Mr. Stanley's Collection was a very complete one, those some Additions of the Doctor's being but few and inconsiderable in comparison of what he is supposed to have found readily Collected to his hands by Mr. Stanley; the direct contrary to which is the truth of the case: Or else, that those other some Quotations, which you charge upon him as borrow'd from Mr. Stanley, were such chosen pieces, and lying so much out of the way of [Page 18]the Doctor's Reading, that he would certainly have miss'd of them, had he not found them in your MS. of which I say the same as of the former; the Citations of Mr. Stanley's MS. being the most easily come at of any in the whole Set, and lying so full in the Doctor's daily walks, that he could not but have stumbled upon them, even whether he would or no. And yet you run on from the beginning to the end upon your wild and groundless Supposition, Sup. p. 5. which you take for granted, without offering one Syllable in proof of it, That the Doctor had never met with those Citations any where else, or never observed them, till he lit upon them in your MS. This is that grand Supposition which supports all your Proofs: which therefore, when upon a Review of the Concessions before laid down, you shall see so miserably betray'd, you will find cause to blame your own Incircumspection, and wish you had been more sparing of your Complements.
And now Sir, as for the Promise which I made you of a comparison between your Concessions and your Assertions; I think I may save my self that labour, and leave it to the Reader from what hath been already said to collect how far those Liberal Encomiums bestow'd upon the Doctor for his Industry, and the several other peculiarities of his character, so happily qualifying him for Undertakings of this nature, will go to discharge him of the foul Imputation of Plagiarism; and how inconsistent the one part of the character you give us of him is with the other part of it.
'Tis not for that the necessity of the cause requires this Precaution and Exactness, that I am [Page 19]thus grave, and (if I may so say) Mathematical in making my Approaches to the Argument, but out of the respect I bear to your person, whom being altogether unknown to me, I would not willingly Affront; which construction might be made of it, should I answer your Suggestions in so slighty and superficial a manner, as if they did not deserve a more thorow Consideration. And besides, those so Emphatick terms in which you press on your Accusation upon the Doctor, will plead my excuse, if I be at more pains than otherwise could have been judged necessary to bestow upon it so serious and operose a Reply. Undeniable Proof, Ocular Demonstration, matter of Fact, Manifest Conviction: These, sure, are too weighty things to be pass'd over with a loose Harangue. The nature of your Evidence in general, I think hath been already sufficiently consider'd. I proceed now in due form and manner to lay in (which was the next thing proposed) my Exceptions against your Proofs in particular. All your Allegations therefore against the Doctor I admit to pass for good Evidence, (or if you will have it so) Ʋndeniable Proofs; those only which fall under these Exceptions following, excepted.
Exception I.
The several Passages taken out of the old Lexicographers and Scholiasts: Supr. p. 8. & seqq. with whom the Doctor being so familiarly acquainted, cannot be supposed to have overlooked those Quotations with which those Authors must needs have supply'd him.
Exception II.
The Passages mark'd out in the Indexes of Books. For the Doctor being presumed to be so well vers'd in Indexes, cannot be presumed, when he was upon Collecting the Fragments of Callimachus to have been at a loss for such of them, as those Indexes would most readily have directed him to.
Exception III.
The several Fragments or Testimonia relating to Callimachus extant in Vulcanius and Dacier's Editions of that Author.Antw. 1584, 12o. Paris, 1675, 4o. For the Passages there extant the Doctor, whose practice it is to consult the several Editions of Books, must needs have seen: which yet make up a considerable part of the instances you produce against him, as Proofs of his Plagiarism from your MS.
Exception IV.
Those Quotations which the Doctor had actually printed before ever he saw your MS or which are taken from Authors with whom it plainly appears he was before then very familiarly acquainted.In Ep. ad fin. Malel.
Exception V.
Those Citations or Corrections in which Mr. Stanley's Collection, Mr. Spanheim's, and the Doctor's concur. For if Mr. Spanheim could without the help of your MS. light upon [Page 21]many of the same things which are in your MS. Why, might not Dr. Bentley do the like? unless we must suppose the Doctor to have been less diligent in searching after the Fragments of Callimachus, or less curious in correcting the failures of others: which both your own words, and the plain matter of Fact (as will appear to any one that shall compare the Doctor's Collection with any of the other Collections printed together with his) manifestly confutes.
Exception VI.
Such Passages which are not to be met with in any Book whatsoever, whether printed or MS. save only in Mr. Stanley's Collection. For the Doctor taking such delight in Quotation, having been so long upon this Collecting Design, Treasuring up his collections into Common-place, being presumed to have read all Authors in Critick, spending his time in turning over old MSS, and fetching his Quotations out of the odd Corners of Books, where scarce any body else would look for them: I cannot imagin what One of all your Proofs may be presumed to have escaped so Diligent a Search; unless produced out of some such Books, whether printed or MS, which the Doctor never had the Possibility of seeing.
Exception VII.
And lastly, I except also out of the number of Proofs those few Corrections in which Mr. Stanley's Manuscript Collection, and the Doctor's printed one concur, though not to be [Page 22]shewn in any Book in the world, saving in those two. For the Doctor having been so Critically exact in correcting the Fragments of Callimachus, and having proved the exactness of his Judgment upon so many difficult places untouch'd by Mr. Stanley, he cannot reasonably be presumed to have over-look'd those other so manifestly corrupt Lections, which noAs that of [...] for [...], n. 52. v. Spanhemii fragm. p. 278. man that understood any thing belonging to Callimachus, could have pass'd by unobserv'd; nay, which any School-Boy, that had but Grammar enough to scan a Greek Verse, would haveAs that of [...] for [...], n. 49. rectified. And of this kind are most (if not all) of those Corrections, which you charge upon him as stoln from Mr. Stanley. Though both Mr. Stanley's and Dr. Bentley's Talent at these sort of studies being well known, it had been so such strange jumping of Wits, if they had in more Instances of this kind hit upon the same Conjectures, which: yet they have so rarely done (and then only in places of the most obvious Emendation) that there was no need of laying in this Caveat.
And thus much for the Exceptions I had to make against your Proofs, all of them founded upon your own Concessions; which you cannot in honour retract: though indeed you have given little more than what I might honestly have assumed for the Doctor without becoming your Debtor. But since you were so over and above obliging, I was willing to close in with you upon your own Terms. Especially most of those things being delivered with such a peculiar Gracefulness and Decency of Stile, which my unpractis'd Pen could never have attain'd to. Nor can you now say, that I have any-where [Page 23]abused or misrepresented you, having all along recited your own Words and Syllables, put no forc'd Interpretation upon them; nor charged them with consequences which they do not naturally bear. And 'tis but agreeable to the Law of Arms, if one can make ones self Master of the Enemy's Artillery, to turn it upon themselves: and if your Testimonies for the Doctor must be of no weight; 'Tis a most unequitable demand, that your Testimonies against him should be of greater. So that till you can produce some such Proofs as will not fall under some or other of these Exceptions, the Doctor may still be, for all his having seen your MS, as free from the Crime of Plagiarism as the man that never saw it.
There are some sorts of Transactions, wherein the Preliminaries rightly adjusted, the whole Affair is soon brought to a Conclusion: of which kind I take to be our present Controversie. The Reader, who understands any thing of the nature of the Subject we are upon, cannot but by this time begin to perceive how the case stands between the Doctor and your MS. and where things are like to end. I must however, were it only for form sake, enter into the Detail of particulars, which I shall do in this method.
First, I shall take some Decads of your Proofs just in order as they lie, and try them by the Rules before given, subjoyning to them at convenient Distances, some proper Remarks, which added to those general Observations already made, you will have no cause to think your self neglected, or complain that I have done my work but by halves. And by that I shall have taken this course with three or four Decads of [Page 24]your Proofs (for they are a great number of them in all) I shall presume upon it, that both you and my Reader will be well enough content I should hold my hand, and dispatch the rest of them by whole-sale. To place things under an easie view to the Eye, I must make use of two of the Letters of the alphabet, the one to represent (as it were) the Plaintiff, and head the Allegations, the other to represent the Defendant, and father the Replications. The former shall be V. standing for Vindicator, the other, from its order in the Alphabet, W.
The First Decad of Proofs.
V.Proof 1. The Citation out of Harpocration, [...]— as in Dr. Bentley, p 305. n. 1.
W. And as in Mr. Spanheim, p. 293. n. 11. Exception 5. Harpocration is a Lexicographer. Exception 1. 'Tis marked out in the Index to Harpocration.L. B. 1683. 4to. Exc. 2.
V.Pr. 2. The same Citation out of Suidas, ibid.
W. With Suidas the Doctor is very conversant, Conc. 3. Exc. 1.
V.Pr. 3. An Epigram out of Martial, n. 2.
W. In Dacier's Callimachus inter Testimonia Veterum, Exc. 3.
V.Pr. 4. The Citation out of Clemens Alexandrinus, n. 2.
W. Index to Clem. Alex. Exc. 2.
V.Pr. 5. Another of the same, n. 3.
W. Index again.
V.Pr. 6, 7. Two Citations out of Didymus upon Homer, n. 5.6.
W. Not Proofs.
V.Pr. 8. A Quotation out of Servius upon Virgil, n. 7.
W.4to, 1648. Index to Servius upon Virgil, Exc. 2.
V.Pr. 9. Another of the same, n. 8.
W. Index again.
V.Pr. 10. A Citation out of Stobaeus, n. 11.
W. Index again, Exc. 2. in Vulcanius his Callimachus, p. 138. or in Dacier's p. 152. Exc. 3.
Remarks upon Decad 1.
Leaving the rest of your Proofs to answer for themselves to the several Exceptions clap'd upon the back of them;Remark 1. two of them there are of so peculiar a Complexion, that I cannot but make a stop at them, sc. Pr. 6, 7. The two Citations out of the Scholiast upon Homer, Dr. B. fr. n. 5, 6. To which I returned no other Answer than Not Proofs. Which whether it were sufficient let the Reader judge from what follows. With them therefore I begin my Remarks.
Remark I.
Putting your sense into words at length, and making it intelligible, you alledge them in this [Page 26]Form.P. 35. From Parrhasius, to whom the Doctor is refer'd by Mr. Stanley's MS. he had his Information that the Scholiast upon Homer often cited the Aetia of Callimachus. From whence the Inference is; ergo, Dr. Bentley stole his two Citations out of Didymus upon Homer, n. 5, 6. from Mr. Stanley's MS But how so? Are they in your MS? No, not so. But Mr. Stanley directed him to Janus Parrhasius, and so he came by them. To Janus Parrhasius therefore I go, and by the help of Gruter's Index to the first Volume of his Fax Artium, I readily turn to the place you intend, and there, p. 874. I find these words, Ex Aetiis praetereà Callimachi vetustus & innominatus interpres Homeri, qui in Publica Vaticana Bibliotheca Romae legitur, saepissimè testimonium petit, i. e. ‘There is to be seen in the Vatican Library at Rome, an old nameless Scholiast upon Homer, who often quotes Callimachus's [...].’ And this is every word that Parrhasius says to the matter. And now let us see how deeply the Doctor is endebted to your MS. upon the account of these two Quotations. Just thus much and no more. Mr. Stanley, he sends him to Parrhasius; and Parrhasius, he sends him to Rome, telling him withall, that 'twas but going into the Vatican Library, and enquiring there for a certain old nameless Scholiast upon Homer; and so, if he had the luck to hit upon the right Book, he would meet with somewhat to his purpose in it: And so the Doctor came by his two Citations out of Didymus. An Information much like that which the old man in the Fable gave to his Son of a Treasure buried under ground in the Vineyard, but not telling him the place where, the young [Page 27]Heir was fain to dig the Vineyard all over, and so he found his Treasure indeed, not what he expected, Pots of Money, but what his Father designed, the fruit of good Husbandry. After the same manner, the Dr. having (by the help of your MS.) heard somewhat of an old Scholiast upon Homer, that quoted somewhat out of Callimachus his Aetia, was resolv'd, whatever it was, and whatever pains it cost him, he would have it. But that Scholiast upon Homer being a nameless one, least he should not hit upon the right, he turns over all the Scholiasts upon Homer: and so he gets not only these three Citations belonging to Callimachus his [...] (for there's another of them to follow in the next Decad) but about half an Hundred more some way or other belonging to the same Author: but all by the help of your MS. which first put him upon the Quest. For had not your MS. sent him to Janus Parrhasius, the Doctor had never thought of any of the old Scholiasts upon Homer. But to be serious with you, Sir; would you have offer'd such things as these for Proofs against the Doctor, but upon the presumption that no body would have been at the pains of tracing you? The Doctor is a Notorious Plagiary. And why? why, because the Doctor hath three Quotations out of Didymus upon Homer, referring to Callimachus his [...]; and before the Doctor had printed his Fragments, he had seen Mr. Stanley's MS; and Mr. Stanley's MS. takes notice of Parrhasius, who takes notice of an old Scholiast upon Homer, who takes notice of Callimachus his [...], ergo Dr. Bentley is a Plagiary. A surprizing Consequence! But, Sir, before you can bring this Proof to bear, there [Page 26] [...] [Page 27] [...] [Page 28]may be made several Queries, to which it behooves you to give a punctual Answer. As do you think the Doctor would never have look'd into Didymus upon Homer, had it not been for this special Information, which at second hand he received from your MS? Or would not Gruter's Index, which literâ C. hath these words, Callimachi Aetia, quo argumento Parrhas. p. 873. have sent him as strait to Parrhasius as your MS. could have done? Or are you sure that Parrhasius his old nameless Scholiast of the Vatican was ever yet committed to the Press? or that Didymus was it? For there are several old Scholiasts upon Homer both printed and in MS. As besides Eustathius and Didymus, whom every body hath heard of, Gruter's Index to the 5th Volume of his Criticks refers me to H. Stephani Schediasmata, lib. 4. c. 21. where I find mention of Quaedam in Homerum Scholia, quae nondum edita sunt, & quae quàm paucissimis legere datur. In the Epistle printed at the end of Malela's Chronology, p. 63. I find the Doctor himself quoting Joannes Tzetzes his Ilias interpretata Allegoricè, quae nondum edita est. And in num. 135. of this his Collection, I find him producing a Fragment of Callimachus with a large Quotation out of Porphyrius in Homericis Quaestionibus. And these indeed have been printed over and over, but in Holstenius his Notes upon Porphyry's Life of Pythagoras you will find mention of other old Scholia upon Homer, bearing also the name of Porphyrius, which have never been yet printed. And other old MS. Scholia upon Homer undoubtedly there are in the world more than either you, or I, or the Dr. or Mr. Stanley, or Parrhasius, or any one man else whatsoever [Page 29]may have seen. Now to which of all these did Parrhasius send the Doctor? To that which is now known by the name of Didymus you suppose, but it might be to any other nameless Scholiast as well as to him I might farther ask you, Sir, how many Quotations out of all or any one of these Scholiasts are there in your MS? In the Doctor's Collection, taking them all together, there are (for I have been at the pains of counting them) above half an hundred Quotations out of the old Scholiasts upon Homer. As far as you have carried on the comparison, I find not so much as one single reference directly out of your MS. to any one of all these Scholiasts, and therefore very much question, whether in the drawing up this Imperfect Draught Mr. Stanley made any use of any one of them. And yet by a strange fetch these three Quotations must be stole from your MS. But if he came by these three by the help of your MS. how came he by the other half hundred? were they from your MS too? a compendious way of making him as Notorious a Plagiary as you please. For you might as well have charged him with the whole as with part. And do such Proofs as these deserve a better answer than what I gave them? Not Proofs, nor any thing like Proofs, but mere Suggestion, and altogether groundless. And now as for that Sentence out of Parrhasius with which, as it were by way of Epiphonema, you back these two Proofs, and by the help of which translated into English, you call the Doctor Plagiary in two Languages, I have no more to say to it, than that I believe the Transtation to be your own: which is more than I dare venture to say for that choice piece [Page 30]of an Aesopick, which adorns your Title-page. There seems to be too much of the Spirit and Stile in that for a person of your Gravity and Seriousness. I am almost as confident as if I had seen the hand that did it; that in your Title-page and Postscript you had the assistance of some Second. 'Twas pity he did not take the same care of you throughout your whole Book. Your Stile stood in great need of mending. I fear I have already detained the Reader too long upon this particular. But I was willing to let him see how resolved you were to make the most of your Cause. And Remark the second, as for another instance of your plain dealing, and a bold stroak of the Pen, he'll find not at all inferiour to the first; but (as to the former part of it at least) of a more general Concern.
Remark II.
Just after the Titulus [...], you have these words. ‘The two Epigrams out of the Anthology are omitted by Mr. Stanley, with which the Doctor makes a flourish; but the Epigram out of Martial is in Mr. Stanley's Collections.’
With which the Doctor makes a flourish.
Which the Doctor quotes you mean; for the one of which he produces of fresh Authority, and upon the other of which he bestows a Correction. this is all the flourish the Dr. makes with them; and this is the Dr's way of making a flourish: scarce any thing passes through his hands, but he leaves it better than he found it. Nor can you your self forbear now and then offering at such kind of flourishes: with what success we shall [Page 31]see in its proper place. But whether the Doctor hath the same things with your MS. or hath not the same things; something must be said to him. I might also ask you, since we are here allow'd to suppose the Doctor to have fought these two Greek Epigrams out of the Anthology it self, why may we not also suppose him to have fought Martial's Epigram out of Martial himself? Is it because Martial is a common Book, and the Dr. loves to read out of the way? So let it be then. But this Paragraph is fruitfull of Observations of a more important consideration. I shall deliver them as succinctly as I can; yet so as to make my self throughly understood, and set things in a full Light.
First then I observe that we are but just got over two of your Proofs against the Dr. (sc. the Quotations out of Harpocration and Suidas) but that he matches them with two Additions of his own, (sc. the two Epigrams out of the anthology) to the one of which the new Authority added makes the Dr's some Additions, Three; to this supposed Plagiarisms, Two. You see, Sir, you have lost ground at the starting-Post, and I dare say you'll be distanc'd out and out e'er you reach half the Course. I might farther observe that this new Authority produced by the Dr. (which if any body had done before him, 'tis more than I know) for part of one of these Epigrams, gives it with something of difference in the reading from that of the Anthology. 'Tis true, that difference is not in this place very material, the sense in both coming to the same And yet this cannot be said to be an Insignificancy; since though not here, yet in many other places the same Fragments produced [Page 32]out of several Authors, what from the variety of the Lections, and other circumstances is rescued from that obscurity in which it must otherwise for ever have remained unintelligible. And this is a case which happens so very often in the Dr's Collection, that there are but few Pages, which afford not instances of it in abundance; proving at the same time the compass of his Reading, and the exactness of his Judgment. Or however if any one should (as none that understands any thing in Affairs of this nature will) censure this multiplying of Authorities to the same purpose for a vain and fruitless Curiosity: yet at least it clears him from the Imputation of Plagiarism. For if in some, nay in many places, the Dr. and your MS. fall in with the same Quotations: Supr. p. 17. that, as hath been before said, the nature of the thing renders impossible to have been otherwise: But if your MS. produces a Fragment attested (as is generally the case) with only one Authority, or suppose two, and the Dr. adds one, two, or three more; how is he a Plagiary? if he could out of his own Stores produce four, three, two, nay or but one Authority to which your MS. directed him not; why may we not suppose him as able to have produced those other also which are to be seen in your MS? Since the same Reading of the Ancients required for the former would have done his work for the latter
And here I cannot but give the Reader notice of a common Fallacy put upon him throughout the whole course of your Book: which is this, That you generally alledge your Proofs against the Dr. by the Tale of the Number of the Fragments: and these Figures in many places [Page 33]stand crowded together so thick one upon the other, that they make a formidable appearance. Thus p. 36. under the Title AITION A' ( [...] it should have been, as in Dr. Bentley, [...]) you run on strangely with your Numbers; as, N. 12, 13, 14, are taken from Mr. Stanley, as is also the 17th; the 18th from Parrhasius, to whom he was directed; 21st from Mr. Stanley; 27, 28, 29, from Mr. Stanley. But what a Shoal of them is there in p. 42, No. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60. And what of all these? Why all taken from Mr. Stanley. But this is a most Notorious Illusion; the Quotations produced by your MS. under the several Numbers, or other References to the Dr's Collection making sometimes not the halfAs N. 2, 27, 38, 40, 42, 46, 50, &c., sometimes not the QuarterAs N. 52, 67. tit. [...], n. 86, &c., nay sometimes not the 10thAs tit. [...], vid. Dr. B. p. 324. & 228, & Graevii Pro [...]m. p. 5. & tit. ΙΒΙΣ Dr. B. p. 345., nay sometimes not the 20th [...], ut supra, & (notwithstanding our Vindicator's Caveat, p. 54.) tit. [...], Dr. B. from p. 327, to p. 337. part of those produced by the Dr. in the places so referr'd to. He that thinks I am upon the stretch let him collate the Dr's Collection with Mr. Stanley's MS. upon the places pointed out in the Margin; where under the first of those References he will find the Dr's Additions to be at least three to two, under the second at least five to one, under the third at least ten, and under the fourth twenty to one to what he is supposed to have found ready collected to his hand in Mr. Stanley's MS. And yet so have you printed the Case that the Reader who understands no more of the matter than what he sees of it in your Book, and never [Page 34]gives himelf the trouble of looking into the Dr's Collection, takes it as if all that was under those Numbers were transcribed from Mr. Stanley: and goes away satisfied of your Ingenuity, because you acknowledge the Dr. to have made some Additions of his own; sc. the addition of those simple Numbers omitted in your Tale; as between Number 50 and 60, the Addition of that single Number 56. whereas the Addition of the simple Numbers doth not upon the whole (and I am sure I speak within compass) make up a quarter part of these some Additions which you ingenuously allow the Dr. to have made to Mr. Stanley's MS. Nay I am inclined to believe, that upon a just Calculation, all that is in your MS. will scarce be found to bear the proportion of one to twenty to what is in the Dr's Collection: taking in all, I mean, that the Dr. hath done upon Callimachus, either by way of Addition of fresh Epigrams, Fragments, or Testimonia; or the Addition of fresh Authorities to those already produced (as effectual an Addition as any) or by way of Emendation and Explication of the Text in his Notes upon the several parts of that Author: his Translation of almost all the Fragments, and many of the Epigrams I put not into the accounts, though a work requiring the exercise of some other faculty besides that of Memory. Sup. p. 7. All these things, I say, laid together, I am pretty confident the Dr's some Additions will be found more than twenty to one to what is in your MS. But there is no need of my running things so high. Suppose we stood upon the Par, and the Dr's Additions did but just keep up with your MS. yet even so, why must he have stole his half share from Mr. Stanley? Since the same Industry that supply'd [Page 35]him with the one half part, not in your MS. would in course have supply'd him with thy other half which is in your MS. As for instance, in p. 37 of your Book, the quotation out of the Scholiast upon Sophocles, n. 21. you charge upon the Dr. as directly stoln out of your MS. in these words, n. 21. from Mr Stanley. But another Quotation out of the same Scholiast, P. 310. and standing in the same page of the Dr's Collection, n. 26. you leave him in full possession of: nay, and yet another Quotation out of the same Scholiast, n. 209. you allow him to have transcribed from that Scholiast himself, adding in express terms, whom the Dr. had consulted. P. 71. But what reason can you give for the difference here? why n. 26. and n. 209. should have been (as you elegantly express it,P. 30.) the genuine Offspring of the Doctor's own Brain; but n. 21. directly taken, as you positively aver, from Mr. Stanley? So again, in p. 42. I find you bringing in the Dr. Debtor to Mr. Stanley for a Quotation out of the Scholiast upon Apollonius Rhodius, n. 49. but another Quotation out of the same Scholiast, Dr. B. p. 355. you frankly allow to be his Own. But why the one rather than the other? your words in that place are so very express and significative, that I think them worth the transcribing, p. 68. under the Title [...].P. 68. the passages out of Athenaeus and Harpocration are transcribed from Mr. Stanley; the other two out of the Scholiast upon Apollonius and Eustathius are the Product of Dr Bentley's own Observation in reading the Ancients. And with this you conclude (as to the Fragments) your Detail of Particulars: and more unluckily you could not have done it. Thus [Page 36]much I must needs say for you, that you are no Artist at managing an Accusation, nor much practised in this way of writing; which I assure you I am far from objecting against you as a Disparagement. I wonder that some or other of the Party did not spy this flaw, and put some better Disguise upon the matter for you. But 'tis plain, from the many mistakes in the first Edition of your Book not corrected, or coloured over in the second, that they took no manner of care of you. 'Twas ungratefully done of them thus to neglect a person who had discovered so forwardly a Zeal for the cause;P. 21. and ventured his all to serve them. But 'tis strange, that you your self should not have perceived it, that these last words overthrow all that you had been doing before. For I cannot conceive any Reader so very Thoughtless, as not to catch you up here of his own accord: If the Passages out of the Scholiast upon Apollonius and Eustathius were the Product of the Dr's own Observation in reading the Ancients; why then, why might not the two Passages out of Athenaeus and Harpocration be so too? Or by what strange fate were the Dr's fingers directed, that should thus have led them directly to the very Book, Page, and Line, where lay any of those Fragments of Callimachus, which Mr. Stanley had not meddled with; but bound them up from so much as once touching upon any one of those which Mr. Stanley had before impropriated? This is so obvious a Reflection, that upon second thought you cannot but blame your own Indiscretion in laying it so full in view. The untoward way of your concluding your Detail of Particular puts me in mind of the words with which you [Page 37]conclude your whole Book,P. 95. If this will not convince and amend him, I resign him to better management. And really, Sir, that you must do. If it be resolved that Dr. Bentley shall be confounded, it must be done by some hand more accustomed to these sorts of Exercises.
This Article of the Dr's some Additions I look'd upon to be a most material point, and such wherein the very substance of the cause is very nearly concern'd; and therefore gladly laid hold on the first opportunity of considering it somewhat particularly.
At the beginning of this Remark, I made mention of a bold stroke of the Pen, and what that is we shall see in the observation I am now going upon. It naturally arises from this same Paragraph, and is one of the choicest of the whole Set: and therefore I cannot but usher it in with a special Recommendation.
I observe therefore, that the other Book, besides the Anthology, out of which the Dr. fetches part of one of these Epigrams, is that known Lexicographer, Suidas; nay, but Suidas in the Letter [...]? If you remember a certain passage in your Book, the very mention of these words cannot but a little startle you: perhaps you have forgot it: turning therefore to your 82d page, you will find your self thus directing your Speech to your Honourable Patron.
These two Quotations (your meaning plainly is, the Omission of these two Quotations) from so known a Lexicographer incline me to believe, that the Remark is very true, p. 245. (m. 244.) of your Learned Examination of his Dissertation, that he is got no further than the Letter [...] in Suidas.
Those two Quotations you speak of are out of Suidas, lit. K. vv. [...], which being in Mr. Stanley's MS but not in Dr. Bentley's Collection; from thence you infer, that the Dr. hath not read Suidas beyond the Letter [...]: now from thence should I have inferr'd, That the Dr. did not transcribe Mr. Stanley's MS. for had he transcribed Mr. Stanley's MS. he could not have miss'd of those two Quotations. How these two passages out of Suidas came to be wanting in the Dr's Collection I know not. 'Tis most likely it was purely by oversight in his digesting and transcribing his Collections for the Press,Summâ festinatione, not. in Epig. 49. P. 40. which he tells us was done in great hast. And I am the rather inclin'd so to believe, because in the Dr's Collection I find the Title ΓΛΑΥΚΟΣ (as you well observe) wanting in its proper place: which can have been only an oversight; that Title, with several others being preserved by Suidas, v. [...]: and accordingly, though wanting in the Body of the Collection, yet we find it standing among the rest in the Catalogue which the Dr. hath given us of all the Works of that Poet.P. 304.
As you refer us to the very page where that Remark is to be found, and indeed that Honourable Gentleman himself seeming desirous that his Penetration upon a like occasion should be taken notice of; I presume I shall oblige you Both by transcribing it. Not every one that reads these Papers may have that Book by him: and besides, I were ambitious of having in this silly Piece of mine some few Lines at least, that will be Unexceptionably Good.
And this (to his Eternal Scandal be it spoken) is a Plain Proof that he hath not read over all Suidas.Mr. B. p. 244. Nay, I have reason to suspect, that he is got no further than [...], which I observe I see that little word here, and guess at the meaning of it; but how that alters the case, I see not. here to be the utmost Line of his Citations. I would not have the Reader slight this Discovery of mine, for 'tis as considerable as any of Dr. Bentley's, that are purely his own.
No, Sir, I do not slight it, nor did I at the first reading of it. And though there be so many Peculiarities in that ingenious Gentleman's way of writing, that no man who hath read through (so as to know what he is doing) but one half quarter part of his Book can be much surpriz'd at any thing that follows: yet when I came to this particular passage, both the matter of it, and that Air of satisfaction with which it is delivered, struck me with fresh Admiration. How! thought I; the Dr. so very familiar with the Lexicographers, Vid. p. 197. so conversant with Suidas in particular; and yet not got beyond the Letter [...] in Suidas? 'Tis strange. I cannot suppose that Honourable Gentleman, when he wrote his Examination of Dr. Bentley, not to have thoroughly read that Piece of the Dr's which he so often quotes, P. 147, 158, 166, 170, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, &c. sc. his Letter to Dr. Mill, printed at the end of Malela's Chronology: where he could not but have seen the Dr. p. 32. upon the Letter λ. in Suidas, v. [...], and p. 62, 68. upon the Letter o. vv. [...]: upon the Letter π v. [...], p. 85. and p. 12. upon the Letter σ v. [...]. After all which I cannot see what reason he had to suspect that the Dr. was got no further than the Letter [...] in Suidas.
But there is a certain Proverbial Gnoma in our Language,Mr. B p. 140, 285. Vind. p. 26. which by the help of an Extensive Charity will cover a Multitude of that Ingenious Gentleman's [...], viz. Good Wits have short Memories. How you should have been so forgetfull, is a thing not so easie to be accounted for. With what Grace could you say, That you are inclined to believe, that the Dr. is not got beyond the Letter [...] in Suidas, when in the very first page of his Collection, you find him in the Letter [...]? 'Twould be unmannerly in me to say, to your Eternal Scandal be it spoken: but if your Complexion will bear a Blush, you cannot read these Lines without changing Countenance. You tell us, that the Dr. ought not to be angry at it, if he be greated as he deserves, P. 30. and that you have done it in a plain unaffected Stile,P. 95. calling a Spade by its right Name. Should I, upon this and the several other occasions, which almost every Page of your Book presents me with, treat you as you deserve, and call things by their Right Names; I know what I should be called my self: unmannerly would be too sost a word for me,Mr. B. p. 220. and perhaps the Pen too gentle a Weapon for my Chastisement. But I am for sleeping in a whole skin, and therefore shall only in the plain unaffected Stile tell you; That what you say you are inclined to believe, you are not, you can not be inclined to believe: at least you cannot be inclin'd so to believe upon the Reason here given. For if the Dr's having omitted those two Quotations out of Suidas, vv. [...], inclined you to believe, that he was not got beyond the Letter [...] in Suidas: then his having quoted Suidas in v. [...], should have as strongly [Page 41] inclined you to believe, that he was got as far as the Letter [...] in Suidas. Give me leave here to trifle with you a little, Sir, and answer you in your own way: For why may not I now and then make a flourish with my Numbers as well as you? Turning to Num. 245. in the Dr's Collection you will find him upon the Letter λ. in Suidas. In Num. 46, 144, 350. and p. 431. Upon the Letter μ. Upon the Letter ν. Num. 345. and p. 431. In Num. 2. and 92. upon the Letter ο. In Num. 48, 84, 227. and 344. upon the Letter π. In Num. 49, 59, 71, 299. upon the Letter σ. In Num. 210. upon the Letter τ. In Num. 42. upon the Letter υ. In Num. 50. and p. 349. upon the Letter Φ. In Num. 193. upon the Letter Χ In Num. 184. upon the Letter Ψ. And lastly, in pag. 352. upon the Letter [...].
And now, Sir, what think you of the matter? Are you still inclined to believe, that the Remark is true, That the Dr. is got no further than the Letter [...] in Suidas? Is not this what I called in the beginning,Sup. p. 3. making your Court to a Young Gentleman at the Expence of your own Modesty? Nay, and is not that Honourable Young Gentleman himself most deeply oblig'd to you for your bringing the scapes of his Pen also under a review?
I wonder what the Reader thinks of me. Certainly 'tis that I am an Idle Man. What a parcel of Figures have I been at the pains of drawing together here? And to what end or purpose? What's any body the better for reading such stuff as this? Upon my word I am perfectly ashamed of my self. But who can help it? If men will put such things as these into [Page 42] Print, in Print they must be told of them again. For there is no reason in the world for it, That Impertinence should be a Protection to Impudence: or that Men of worth should be made the Mock of Fools, because they that make them so write things so wretchedly trifling, that a man of any Regard to his own Reputation, would be ashamed of the Scandal of having so mis-imployed his time as to answer them.
To come off handsomely with your [...] Observation, you have no other way left you, than to plead that the Dr. stole all his Quotations out of Suidas, beyond that Letter from Mr. Stanley's MS. In answer to which, I need give my self no farther trouble than to turn you back to except. 1. to the special mark standing at the top of p. 9th,Supr. p. 19. to the Dr's familiarity with this Lexicographer before ever he saw your MS. Except. 4. and to several other things before said. But the case of SUIDAS is somewhat particular, and therefore I cannot think it foreign to our purpose to bestow upon it a special consideration.
This Undertaking therefore of collecting the Fragments of Callimachus I have reason to suspect was not with that Learned Gentleman, Mr. Stanley, Supr. p. 12. as it was with Dr. Bentley, a Design long before premeditated, and therefore of a long time carry'd on throughout the whole course of his reading; but a late and sudden Thought taken up upon some special occasion, as probably upon a prospect of publishing a new Edition of the Works of that Poet; which had he finished, it would in all probability have superseded the Labours of those Learned Persons that came after him,Dacier. Graevius. and Mr. Stanley's Callimachus [Page 43]might have stood to this day (as his Aeschylus still doth, and is like long so to do) the last Edition of that Poet.
His first Essays toward this work appear in those Papers with which you make such a stir, which were once (without his seeking) put into the Dr's hand, and which are now put into other hands to be shewn as Evidence against the Dr. at the sign of the Half Moon in S. Paul's Church-yard.Sup. p. 14. That they are an imperfect draught of a more compleat Work you your self acknowledge. But the method in which he proceeded in drawing up this imperfect Draught, is perhaps more than what you may have yet observed. I must confess I could willingly have seen the Original it self, but as I think I can do my work without it, I were not over eager of satisfying an unnecessary Curiosity at the hazard of venturing into a place where 'tis so dangerous a thing to express one's self too familiarly. I think I have even without the sight of your MS. made a Discovery, which if I can make out; let me tell you, Sir, I shall not a little value my self upon it, but judge it altogether as considerable as that upon which your Learned Friend so much applauds his own Sagacity: and as it is purely my own, I hope the Reader will not slight it.
Mr. Stanley therefore having once entred upon this design of Collecting the Fragments of Callimachus, he doth, as upon the like occasion another man would have done; that is, he fetches in his first Materials from such places where they were the most readily found: he turns over the Indices Authorum at the end of severalAs Clem. Alexandrinus, Stobaeus, Strabo, Athenaeus, Etymolog. Magn. Stephan. Byzant. &c. Books, and from thence hastily transcribes into his Papers the several passages pointed out [Page 44]to him, v. Callimachus, reserving (as you your self in part acknowledge) a more diligent perusal of the Authors themselves,P. 60. and a more accurate Examination of the passages taken out of them to his second Thoughts. There was not any one Author more proper to his purpose than Suidas. But Suidas having no Index Authorum annexed to him, with him Mr. Stanley begins, and turns over all that Lexicographer himself fro the beginning to the end: as for the rest contenting himself, for a time, with what the Indexes supply'd him with. This I confess is mere Conjecture: but a Conjecture so manifestly founded upon matter of fact, that I dare boldly pronounce it next to a Certainty: and whether I am too confident, I shall submit to the Judgment of the Reader upon an instance or two by and by to be produced. Now Mr. Stanley having taken this course with Suidas in particular, it is impossible but that the far greatest part of the Quotations out of Suidas in the Dr's Collection should have been anticipated by Mr. Stanley. And had that Learned Gentleman in these Papers of his taken the same course with many other Authors, you would have had, though not more of Truth, yet a better Colour for your Accusation. But if you will still resolutely maintain it, that the Dr. having seen your MS. therefore all the Quotations out of Suidas in the Dr's Collection shall have been transcribed from Mr. Stanley, I know not how to clear my self of you, but by the help of a Distinction. And this Distinction of mine, Sir, I desire you well to consider, and withal to remember, that it will perform the same upon any other Author, as upon Suidas: and therefore [Page 45]though Suidas be the name we are here upon, yet the Argument extends to the whole body of the cause: which will excuse me in insisting the more particularly upon it.
Of the Quotations out of Suidas therefore I observe some of them to stand in that Lexicon with the name of Callimachus affixed to them in words at length: others of them to contain some Fragments of that Poet, or to refer to some passages in him, but without express mention of his Name. Those of this later sort (as they are not numerous) I will be at the pains of marking out to you; viz. one Quotation, Num. 2. one of the Quotations (sc. that v. [...]) Num. 42. another Num. 48. Two Quotations, Num. 50. and another 88. Now, Sir, there are in the Dr's Collection (as far as you have carried on the comparison, that is from Num. 1. to Num. 103. in all about thirty Quotations out of Suidas, to every one of which, saving those in the Numbers here mention'd, you will find added the Name of Callimachus standing in words at length: and every one of those Fragments, to which the Name of their Author is so added, I find you charging upon the Dr. as stoln from Mr. Stanley; that single one v. [...], Dr. B. p. 352. excepted, though even that also (however by you omitted) I am apt to believe upon further search would be found in your MS. But of these latter sort, which have not the Name of Callimachus so added to them, I do not find you mentioning any single one of them as taken from Mr. Stanley, and therefore have some Reason to suspect that Learned Gentleman to have overlook'd them. Upon this point I have endeavoured to express my self as plainly [Page 46]as I could, and I desire the Reader to look over these Lines again, till he fully takes my meaning.
Now, Sir, if this Observation of mine should hold as to all or but the major part of those Quotations, it would do me considerable service, and that upon more accounts than one.
1. It absolutely confounds your [...] observation, since in several of even these Quotations from Suidas, not (as I presume) to be found in your MS. we find the Dr. advanced far beyond [...], as in the Letter o. Num. 2. π. Num. 48. ν. Num. 42. φ. Num. 50. with others I could name. But of this I think you have had enough already.
2. It effectually clears the Dr. from having stoln from your MS. those Quotations which are in your MS. For if he could of his own Sagacity fetch out of Suidas such Fragments of Callimachus as had not the name of their Author joyn'd with them, he cannot be supposed to have overlook'd those where the very word [...] staring him in the face, could not but have put him in mind of his Common-place Book.Supr. p. 11.
3. We have here yet another instance of what I have so very often observ'd in the Writings against Dr. Bentley; That there is scarce any one single Article any where advanced against him by way of Accusation or Reproach; which, when throughly sifted, doth not turn to his Acquitment and greater Approbation. As in the present case, what a plain proof is here of his extraordinary Readiness at these sorts of Studies,Supr. p. 12. and with how just an assurance he might make that Boast (for so, to be sure, you'll call [Page 47]it) beforementioned that he thought he culd not, easily be deceived, in knowing whether a Greek Verse were ascribed to its proper Author; since in so many instances here given, meeting with a poor stragling Fragment of this Ancient Greek Poet, though in a lost, and as it were orphanized condition; yet he presently knew (so well was he acquainted with the whole Race of them) to whom it belonged, and returned it to its right Parent. Thus while you prefer against the Dr. an Accusation of Plagiarism, you do but the more fully prove to any one that will be at the pains of examining into the matter, how rich he is in his own Stores, and how little a loser by being placed in any comparison.
Cease therefore, let me beseech you, this your Critical War, or rather go on still writing till you shall have made him, as generally observed and admired at home as he is abroad.
4. But fourthly, and that which I principally intended in making this Observation, it hath given me that hint of putting the Reader, who is minded to be satisfied in this Affair into the method of doing it for himself more effectually than I could have done it for him. But in order to that, I must put my Distinction upon a little farther Tryal. How the case stands between the Quotations from Suidas of the former and of the later sort; and between the Dr's Collection and Mr. Stanley's upon that Distinction from Num. 1. to Num. 103. hath been already [Page 48]consider'd. From Num. 103. to the end of the Dr's Collection there may be thirty or forty more Quotations out of Suidas; of which all the rest are of the former sort, sc: standing there with the name of their Author added to them: but these few following are of the later sort, sc. referring to passages in Callimachus, but without any mention of his Name. The Quotations under Num. 103, 128, 193, 227. (vv. [...]) 233, and 304. (v. [...]) Now to shew the Use and Application of this Distinction.
In that pithy Peroration which, p. 68. you make upon the main body of your Proofs against the Dr. you have these words. Thus have I pass'd through many of those Fragments that are capable of being placed in their several Classes. — And for the rest the Reader may, as his Inclinations lead him, collate the MS. Copies (in which great variety offers it self out of Athenaeus, the Lexicographers, and Scholiasts) with Dr. Bentley's printed Collection.
With all my heart: most gladly do I joyn with you in your Appeal to the MS. it self, and I hope these Papers may fall into the hands of some Readers, whose Inclinations may lead them to make the Experiment you propose. I would desire no fairer play in this cause than to have the Jury bring in their Verdict upon View.
Let the Reader therefore take these Papers along with him, go to the Bookseller's Shop at the Sign of the Half Moon in St. Paul's Churchyard, call for the Manuscript to be shewn there against Dr. Bentley, and leisurely collate Mr. Stanley's Collection of the Fragments of Callimachus with the Dr's. And though I have never [Page 49]seen that MS. nor know any thing more of it directly or indirectly than what, Sir, I have learned from your Book: yet I fansie I can pretty nearly tell the Reader what he will find there, and what he will not find there.Mr. B. p. 98, 232. A profound Scholar this! (will you say of me now) as well read in what he has not seen as in what he has. But such things may be done, Sir. You haveled me part of my way: and you know the Proverb, ex ungue leonem. How far I go upon sure grounds, sc. upon the Authority of your Book, shall be mark'd out by this stroak (†): and though for what follows, (saving for here and there a Number) I shall be purely upon the Conjecture; yet I hope the Reader will not find me very often mistaken in my Guess.
Of the Quotations out of Suidas in Dr. Bentley's Collection of the Fragments of Callimachus these following Numbers.
In Mr. Stanley.
Num. 1, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 49, 50, 53, 59, 66, 68, 71, 82, 84, 92 †; and 110, 144, 182, 184, 210, 227, 232, 238, 249, 279, 288, 289, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 338, 339, 340, 344, 345, 350. with five or six more Quotations out of Suidas, Dr. B. p. 430, 431.
Note, Some of the Fragments under these Numbers being produced from both the Etymologicon and Suidas, perhaps Mr. Stanley may have contented himself with one of those Authorities for them, and so have omitted the Reference to Suidas: and others of them containing only single and independent words, perhaps he may not have thought them worth the transcribing But this is mere guess.
Not in Mr. Stanley.
The Quotations under. Num. 2, 42, 48, 50, 88, 103, 110, (vv. [...]) 128, 227, 233, 245, 304. supr. p. 45, 48.
And now, Sir, could you your self, had you pursu'd your Topick to the end of the Chapter, have made more of your MS. against the Dr. than I have made of it for you? having scarce left him throughout his whole Collection one single Number not voluntarily surrendred up to Mr. Stanley: which yet is so far from Convicting him of Plagiarism, that the more it appears against him, the more it proves for him. For Mr. Stanley having (as 'tis plain he had) read over all Suidas, and read him with a Design of Collecting the Fragments of Callimachus; few of those Fragments which stood there marked out to him with the Name of their Author written upon them can be supposed to have escaped his Observation: but if many or the greatest part of those of the later sort not so marked out to him; which are to be seen in the Dr's Collection shall not appear in Mr. Stanley's; my Inference is already made:P. 46.47. therefore those Fragments which are in Mr. Stanley the Dr. did not transcribe from Mr. Stanley. For since for the Quotations of this latter sort he must have read Suidas himself, he cannot have wanted the helpe of your MS. for those of the former. So that the Conclusion from the whole is this; That Mr. Stanley had read Suidas thorowly, but Dr. Bentley had read him more thorowly.
'Tis time now that I let you see what I have been doing all this while in making such a stir with the Quotations out of Suidas.
Great variety, say you,P. 68. of the same passages which are printed in Dr. Bentley's Collection will the Reader (whose inclinations shall lead him to make the Tryal) find in Mr. Stanley's MS.
Yes, Sir, great variety of that kind undoubtledly he will find. But have you many Authors that will present him with greater variety than Suidas?
Out of Athenaeus.
Yes; for Athenaeus hath an Index Authorum made to him.
Out of the Lexicographers.
And most of those Lexicographers too have such Indexes printed with them; and some of the Lexicographers (of one 'tis certain) Mr. Stanley may have turned all over.
And out of the Scholiasts.
For some of the Scholiasts also have the like Indexes; and with other of the Scholiasts Mr. Stanley may have taken the same course that he hath with Suidas.
Here therefore to the Reader, who shall have the curiosity to make the experiment you propose, and who shall be endued with the patience to go through with it, I shall offer some few Cautions, by the help of which he may be secured from passing a mistaken judgment.
1. In the first place therefore, he is not to judge of the Dr's Collection by the great variety of its Coincidences with Mr. Stanley's as to those Fragments of Callimachus which are taken from such Books as have their Indices Authorum printed with them. These indeed, were they all muster'd up together, with our Vindicator's — in Mr. Stanley, bringing them up in the Rear would make a terrible shew against the Dr. as.
Harpocration, The Quotations in Dr. Bentley, n. 1. p. 352, 353, 354. † and n. 319. — in Mr. Stanley.
Clemens Alexandrinus, The Quotations. n. 2, 3, 87. p. 337. † and n. 133, 145, 187, 188. — in Mr. Stanley.
Strabo, The Quotations, p. 337, 354. † and n. 104, 112, 113. p. 430, 431. — in. Mr. Stanley.
Hesychius, n. 58. † and 229, 230, 231, 232, 352, 353, 354, 355, 357. — in Mr. Stanley.
Pindari Scholiastes, Q. Is not n. 48. in Mr. Stanley, though omitted in the Vindicator's tale of the Numbers. n 77, 80. p. 352. † and n. 108, 112, 119, 120, 121, 122, 136, 138, 188, 195, 196, 197, 198. — in Mr. Stanley.
Etymologicon, n. 12, 17, 19, 28, 36, 40, 44, 53, 66, 67, 86, 96. p. 349, 351, 467, 469. † and n. 129, 130, 131, 132, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, — 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, &c. in Mr. Stanley.
All or at least the greatest part of these Numbers in the Dr's Collection, with their leading Fragments, I little doubt, but that the Collator will find in Mr. Stanley's MS. with far greater variety of the same kind out of Athenaeus, the Lexicographers, some of the Scholiasts, Servius upon Virgil, Stobaeus, Priscian, Hephestion, and some others. But then he must consider, that all these Authors have Indices to them, in which (v. Callimachus) all these Fragments were ready pointed out to him. So that Mr. Stanley, in drawing up this imperfect draught, [Page 53]having taken (as most certainly he did) that method of fetching in his first Materials from the Indexes of Books, where those Indexes were tolerably perfect: the Dr's Coincidencies with Mr. Stanley must be proportionably frequent; and, as to those particular Authors, far outnumber his Additions to it.
Here therefore the Collator is to apply the Distinction before made upon the Quotations out of Suidas, and the Inference from thence drawn: and to consider whether or no those some Additions of the Dr's own are not such which necessarily imply his having read, and that thorowly too, the Authors themselves, out of whom he produces his Quotations, and consequently such as place him far above, wanting the help either of the Index or of your MS. As for instance; the Fragment, n. 50. is in Mr. Stanley; but in Mr. Stanley (I conjecture) from Athenaeus, whose Index supply'd him with it. Is it in Mr. Stanley from Suidas, vv. [...] (or at least from the later of them) in both which it stands without the name of its Author? The Fragment, n. 48 may be in Mr. Stanley. But in Mr. Stanley from the Scholiast on Pindar, an Index'd Book. Is that manifest reference to this Fragment, Suidas, v. [...] in Mr. Stanley? So that Fragment, n. 227. from Suidas, I doubt not but that the Collator will find in Mr. Stanley, but from Suidas, v. [...] will he find it also from Suidas, v. [...], where it stands without the name of its Author? The Fragment, n. 245 he will find in Mr. Stanley, but from the Etymologicon, whose Index directed him to it: will he find the Authority of Suidas for the same Fragment, who hath it, [Page 54]but without the name of its Author. The Fragment, n. 169. he will find in Mr. Stanley from the Etymologicon; but will he also find the Emendation and Explication of that Fragment from the Scholiast on Theocritus, and from another place in the Etymologicon. If not, therefore that other place in the Etymologicon the Dr. read himself. But this is a thing so very certain, that no man who hath but once dip'd into any chance place of the Dr's Epist. ad fin. Malel. who hath but just glanc'd over some few pages of his late Answer to Mr. Boyle (though as hastily and heedlesly as the man that read it all over in a day) who will but cast his Eye upon this his Collection of the Fragments of Callimachus, Mr. Bennet's Appendix, p. 134. can entertain the least scruple concerning it. However, since I have to do with men who will not be content with a moderate Conviction, I shall desire the Reader, who will be at the pains of making the experiment, to collate, and that somewhat nicely, the Dr. with Mr. Stanley upon these following Numbers.
Num. 13, 14, 18, 29, 32, 51, 54, 55, 57, 75, (v. [...]) †, and n 4, 15, 16, 23, 30, 31, 33, 56, 73, 75, (v [...]) 126, 168, 186, 207, 218, 234, 238, 259, 260, 306, 314, 334, 351, 362, 367, 368, 369, 370, 417.
Upon this List of Numbers the Reader is desir'd to observe, that all the Numbers standing before †, together with the Quotation produced by Dr. Bentley in his Notes on the Epigrams of Callimachus Ep. 39. p. 210. are in Mr. Stanley; P. 36. N. 18. from Parrhasius. n. b. not from Stephanus. excepting Num. 18. (v. [...]) which Fragment I have as great an assurance as 'tis possible for a man to have in a matter of this nature, and which our Vindicator himself with [Page 55]a simplicity truly simple acknowledges, Mr. Stanley transcribed from that forementioned passage in Parrhasius, marked out to him in Gruter's Index. But of the Numbers following † there's not one of them so marked out in the Index to Stephanus. Here therefore Query, How many of these Numbers after † are there in Mr. Stanley? Upon this the Collator is to make the Scrutiny. And if the Experiment answers my expectation my inferences are plain. 1. That Mr. Stanley did indeed take this method of fetching in his Fragments from the Indexes of Books. 2. Dr. Bentley read over the Books themselves, and was above both the Index and Mr. Stanley's MS. Here are in all, Quotations out of Stephanus Byzant. forty; of which Eleven index'd, sc. ten in the Index to Stephanus; and the other in Gruter's Index: all these — in Mr. Stanley. — Not index'd twenty nine, — in Dr. Bentley. — Not, I suppose, in Mr. Stanley.
And if this Conjecture of mine should hold, I think 'tis pretty much to the purpose. But where the Indexes are compleatly drawn, the like experiment cannot be made. In such cases a great part of the Dr's Quotations must of necessity have been anticipated by Mr. Stanley. Nor need I, I think, say more to shew the reasonableness of this Caution, not to judge of the Dr. by the great variety of his Coincidencies with Mr. Stanley, as to his Quotations out of such Authors, where the Fragments of Callimachus are marked out in the Indexes. Nor,
2. Secondly, is he to judge of the Dr. by the great variety of his Coincidencies with Mr. Stanley, as to his Quotations from some few particular [Page 56]Authors, who may have no such Indexes made to them. For with some particular Authors Mr. Stanley may have taken the same course as he hath with Suidas, and if so, the same effects of it will appear in his MS. As for example, I find the Scholiast upon Nicander once produced by Dr. Bentley, n. 60. and that the same Fragment is in Mr. Stanley. Nor within the line of comparison do I find any thing more of that Scholiast. But from after n. 103. I find the Dr. producing out of him several Fragments, as n. 139, 140, 201, 228, 253, 267, 268, &c. Now if Mr. Stanley had after his having began his Collection read over this Scholiast, those Numbers of the Dr's must also be in Mr. Stanley. The like may be conjectured of the Fragments from Ammonius, [...], &c. But the Vindicator hath not carried on his comparison far enough for me to go here upon any certainty. Now such Coincidencies, though never so constant, prove no more against the Dr. than that Mr. Stanley and he had read the same Books, vid. supr. p. 17. And here, since I have been at the foolish labour of drawing them up, I shall present the Collator with a list of Authors.
Apollonius Alexand. Artemidorus, Athenagoras, Censorino adjectus scriptor, Johannes Charax, Cheroboscus, Cicero, Diogenes Laertius, Dionysius Halicarnass. Sextus Empiricus, Erotianus, Eusebius, Fulgentius, I lanciades, Galenus, A. Gellius Helladii Chrestom. Herodiani Parecbol. Hyginus, Julianus, Lucianus, Macrobius. MSS. &c. Codd. inediti, ut Photii Lexicon, ineditum, &c. Phlegon Trallianus, Plinius, Plutarchus, Proclus in Platonis Timaeum, in Parmenid. [Page 57]inedit. in Hesiodum, Chrestomathia. Quinctilian, Solinus, Statius Poeta. Terentianus Maurus, Theodoretus, Tertullianus, Tzetzes (uterque) Varro. Scholiastae in Homerum,Supr. p. 26.Didymus, Eustathius, Porphyrius; in Aeschylum, Aratum, Aristophanem, Euripidem, Ibin Ovidii, Theocritum.
Thus have I chosen rather to expose the Dr. to the repeated Censure of being a Polymathist, Supr. p. 11. (that is, a Great Scholar, and one that hath read a great many Books) than to be wanting in my Instructions to the Reader, whose Inclinations shall lead him to collate the MSS. Out of all these Authors will he find in the Dr's Collection somewhat (more or less) either by way of Fragment or Testimonium, properly belonging to Callimachus. Qu How many of these Authors will appear in Mr. Stanley's MS. and how often? Some of them ('tis likely) will be found there, for some of them (for ought I know) he may have made use of toward his Collection, and some particular Passages out of others of them his course of reading may have casually presented him with. But not many of them, I presume, will appear there, nor very often. If so: then I hope the Reader will see the reasonableness of this Caution; not to judge of the Dr. by the (though constant) Coincidencies of his Collection with Mr. Stanley's MS. as to some few particular Authors, though unindex'd. For if the Dr. shall be found to have turned over so many more Books, than (after his having began his Collection of the Fragments of Callimachus) Mr. Stanley had; surely he may be allow'd to have read those other few of the same with Mr. Stanley.
N. B. I have ventured to insert the name of Plutarch into this List. For though the Quotation out of Plutarch, n. 86. be in Mr. Stanley; yet I rather suppose it to have been taken immediately from the Etymologicon; as n. 103. from Hadr. Junii Animadvers. lib. 4. c. 21. marked out in Gruter's Index to the fourth Volume of his Criticks. Q. is n. 25, 137. there.
The Scholiast upon Aeschylus I have also (though perhaps too boldly) put into this List The Reader will not, I hope, suppose me so unacquainted with the very Titles of Books, as to make a question of Mr. Stanley's having read (and that most thorowly) the Scholiast upon Aeschylus. But the question is, whether he had turned over the Scholiast after his having began this Collection? For I am not here making the comparison between Mr. Stanley and Dr. Bentley, or enquiring which of them had read the most Books; but between Mr. Stanley's imperfect Draught of a Collection of the Fragments of Callimachus, and Dr. Bentley's most finished Collection of them that hath ever yet appear'd;Supr. p. 42. and who had read most Books from after their having began their Collections. And let this answer serve once for all to what I should otherwise certainly have heard of, that I am reflecting upon the Memory of Mr. Stanley; which he that shall say of me, will say a falshood.
These two Cautions preceding will justifie the Reason of the two following, as that,
3. He is not to discount from the Dr. every Number, the Fragment of which he may find in Mr. Stanley's MS. And so without more ado report it abroad, that he hath been at Mr. Bennet's Shop, collated the MS. and finds matters [Page 59]to stand just as the Vindicator hath related them; that out of the 417 Numbers in the Dr's Collection there are so many Hundreds, Tens, and Unites in Mr. Stanley. What a numerous appearance of this kind he will be sure to meet with, I have given him so fair notice of beforehand, that I hope he will not be surprized at it. For where a Fragment is preserv'd but in one Author, and in him correct, there the Dr's Collection and Mr. Stanley's must fall in with the same Words and Syllables: for let two men transcribe the same Quotation from the same Author, I cannot see why it should be to any one,P. 76. as it seems to have been to our Vindicator, a matter of Admiration, that they should hit upon, not only the same sense, but the same words. The reason of this Caution therefore, I hope, the Reader is satisfied in; that he ought not to discount from the Dr. every Number, the whole and only passage under which, without the least Syllable of variation, he will find in Mr. Stanley. Much less is he, in the
4. Fourth place, To abjudge from the Dr. every Number, of which only the leading Fragment is in Mr. Stanley; and so, which is the Vindicator's method, for the sake of half a line in Mr. Stanley's MS. to cashier, it may be, a whole Page, or two, or more, in the Dr. vid. supr. p. 33. But here also he is to remember and apply the distinction before made upon the Quotations out of Suidas, and to take into the account the many Additions of the Dr's own making under every Number, and to consider not only the Quantity of his Additions, but the Quality of them also. And particularly, whether [Page 60]or no those Additions are not such as would have supported the Number it self, though the Fragment, supposed to have been taken from Mr. Stanley, had not been there. As for instance, the Fragment, n. 179. is [...]. This Fragment the Collator will undoubtedly find in Mr. Stanley: for 'tis (with only a little difference in spelling the word [...]) in both the Etymologicon and Stobaeus, and index'd in both these Authors. And yet the Dr. did not steal it from Mr. Stanley; for 'tis in both Vulcanius and Dacier's printed Collections, vid. supr. p. 20. Exc. 3. But in the Dr's Collection this same Fragment is produc'd from a new Authority, sc. Artemidorus his Oneirocriticks: which new Authority is not in any of the other Collections. Qu. Is it in Mr. Stanley? If not: then this Fragment would have been in the Dr's Collection, though it had not been either in the Etymologicon, or Stobaeus, or Vulcanius, or Dacier, or Mr. Stanley: Therefore this Number must not be cashier'd. Changing the name of Artemidori Oneirocritica into Eusebius Praep. Evang. The case is exactly the same with the Fragments from Clemens Alexandrinus, n. 87, 133. Now in such cases, though the Fragment it self be in Mr. Stanley, yet the new Authorities from whence it is produced makes it the Dr's own, and secures to him even the Tale of his Numbers. Instances of this kind I could produce by Scores, where the Fragment it self would have been in the Dr's Collection, though it had not been in any of the others. If therefore so many Fragments would have been in the Dr's Collection, though they should have escaped the Observation of all that went before [Page 61]him; 'tis not very likely that many of those Fragments collected by them would have escaped the Dr.
And thus much by way of Caution to the Collator of the MS. the justness and reasonableness of which I submit to the judgment of the Impartial, nay, or even the most partial Reader. Many more of the like nature and tendency may he collect for himself from the whole Tenour of my Discourse foregoing; but I have satisfied my self in particularizing upon these few. Furnished therefore with these Instructions, let him go to the Half Moon, collate the MS. and speak as he finds. And so good an opinion have I of my own Performance, as to hope, that he will find, that I have done even more than my work, and answer'd as well what I have not seen, as what I have.
This Suidas hath carried me on (such is the Chain of Thought) a wide circumference, and made me lanch out into unknown Seas. But our Vindicator's Appeal to the MS. was a Temptation I found my self unable to withstand: and whether my Discoveries will prove Land or Clouds will soon be known; unless upon some sudden occasion or other the MS. should chance to the called in.
I made a kind of promise of managing three or four Decads of our Vindicator's Ʋndeniables in the same manner I have this first. But the Reader must needs be weary before now of reading such a Parcel of unedifying Lines as these, nor can he think me less weary of writing them. But who can help it? Such is the Book I am answering. And since I am fallen upon so dry a Subject, I were willing to give [Page 62]it a thorow Examination, and write a Book for egregious Dullness, and elaborate Insignificancy, out-doing (if it be possible) even our Honest Vindicator himself. And so, for a Brace of Controvertists I defie the Age to match us. I cannot however pass over this Decad, without bestowing upon it yet one more Remark.
Remark III.
Upon Proof 8, 9. (to return at last to our Vindicator himself) you are pleased, Sir, thus to express your self.P. 35. His two Quotations out of Servius upon Virgil, are transcribed from Mr. Stanley, verbatim. Upon which, I cannot but Remark to you, that you Stile is somewhat too positive and emphatick. Are transcribed from Mr. Stanley:Mr. B. p. [...]09. Nay, verbatim transcribed from Mr. Stanley! I remember I have some where or other met with an hard, and indeed (when rightly placed) just Censure past upon such Writers, with whom positively to aver, and assume the thing in question, Id. p. 67. is to prove it. You must give me leave, Sir, upon this occasion, to ask you, I will not say an insulting question or two, though I know who has been ask'd a great many such: but that would be an unmannerly thing in such an one as I am, to ask you an insulting question: a modest question or two, I hope I may without offence put to you. Did you see Dr. Bentley transcribe these two Quotations out of Servius upon Virgil from Mr. Stanley? Had you a peep-hole into the Dr's Study? Or did you hang your head over his Shoulder, when he transcribed these two Quotations? May he not have transcribed them out [Page 63]of Servius upon Virgil himself? Or are the Dr's shelves, or is the King's Library unprovided of a Servius upon Virgil? Let me tell you, Sir, to be thus positive upon Uncertainties, is, even in the most trifling and indifferent matters, foolish and ridiculous; but in such cases, where my Neighbour's good name is concerned, highly criminal. And yet this, with little variation, is the Stile of your whole Indictment: This, and that, and t'other Number or Quotation, is transcribed from, or taken from, or (with a transcribed, or taken Subintellect) from Mr. Stanley; which the Dr makes his own;P. 46, 64. which the Dr. claims for his own; which Dr. Bentley, without naming his Benefactor, has confidently made his own. Yes, confidently, Sir. But there I shall meet you again by and by. And then will it be seen who is the confident man.
I had also designed to have made something of Remark upon your Proof 4. The Quotation out of Clemens Alexandrinus, n. 2. you positively aver is in Mr. Stanley's Collection. But that Quotation out of Clemens I verily believe is not in Mr. Stanley. That Quotation begins with these words, [...], &c. Now I desire the Reader to collate the MS. Is the word ΙΒΙΣ in Mr. Stanley? If not: then are you taken positively averring not only an Uncertainty, but an Ʋntruth. For if that Quotation be not there the same, as it is in Dr. Bentley, 'tis (as to our present Argument) the same thing as if it were not there at all. If the Dr. both produces it from a new Authority, neither in Mr. Stanley, nor referr'd to by him; and with a Lection materially different both from Mr. Stanley's MS. and from all the printed Copies [Page 64]of Clemens Alex.; the consequences from thence are plain: ergo. 1. The Dr. did not transcribe it from Mr. Stanley; and ergo, you are a false Accuser. 2. The Dr. did not fetch it from the Index; since he gives it differently from all the printed Copies to which alone the Index could have refer'd him. 3. Though this passage had escaped both Mr. Stanley and all the other Collectors, yet the Dr. would have had it, since he produces it from an Authority which none, as far as I can find, ever so much as thought of besides himself. And therefore this Quotation also out of Clemens Alexandr. n. 2. must be added to those two others from the same Author, n. 87, 133. Sup. p 60. and what is said upon them be repeated upon this; which the Dr. would have had, though he had never had the sight of a printed Clemens Alex. vid. Dr. Bentley's Collecion, p. 345. Thus have you again alledged against the Dr. as an Ʋndeniable Proof of his Plagiarism from Mr. Stanley, an instance, which undeniably proves the contrary, and verifies what I have before observed upon the Writings against Dr. Bentley, that the more is alledg'd against him, the more (to any man that will be at the pains of examining into the matter, and is capable of doing it) is proved for him. I have read, Sir, your Page 85. but that is so far from helping you out, that it doth but sink you the deeper in the Mire, and afford still fresh Demonstration against you: as perhaps, if I can find Paper-room for it (for I have almost exceeded my bounds already) I may particularly shew you in a place by it self.
I shall detain the Reader no longer upon this Decad the first, nor trouble him with any more of these tedious Remarks. I may now leave it to himself, to imagin what work might have been made with the Vindicator's Ʋndeniables, should I have examin'd every particular as specially as I have done these few. And there are abundance more of the same kind. I shall now just cast up the accounts, and see how the case stands between the Dr. and Mr. Stanley upon this Decad the first, and then dispatch the remainder of my work with all the expedition imaginable.
The Accounts of Decad the First.
Within the compass of Decad the First, there are in all, Quotations 16. Of which in Mr. Stanley 7. For that Quotation just now named from Clemens Alexandr. n. 2. and those two from Didymus upon Homer, n. 5, 6. for the reasons before given, I shall make bold to bring over to the Dr's side. Of these 7. in Mr. Stanley, every one, (but that from Suidas,) n. 1. Index'd: sc. 5. of them in the Books from whence they are taken; and the other, viz. Martial's Epigram in Parrhasius, by Gruter to his Fax Artium, ut supra.
In Dr. Bentley, Quotations 9. not one of them, that I know of, so index'd. Corrections 5. [...]his right accenting the word [...] I count for one) not in Mr. Stanley. In Mr. St. and Suid. [...]. So that though the Dr's some Additions rise up but very thin here in comparison of what they do in the following part of his Collection, yet they are even here two to one for what is in Mr. [Page 66] Stanley; to which the consideration of index'd and not index'd added will give a farther advantage. Nota speciatim, n. 4. Stephanus Byzantinus, not index'd; in Dr. Bentley: not in Mr. Stanley, vid. supr. p. 54, 55.
The Second Decad of Proofs.
V.Proofs. Pr. 11. A Quotation out of the Etymologicon, n. 12.
W. A Lexicographer, Exc. 1. Index, Exc. 2. in Spanheim, Exc. 5.
V.Pr. 12. Out of Stephan. Byzant. n. 13.
W. Just as before, Exc. 1, 2, 5.
V.Pr. 13. Another of the same, n. 14.
W. Index.
V.Pr. 14. Out of the Etymologicon, n. 17.
W. As Proofs 11, 12. Exc. 1, 2, 5.
V.Pr. 15. Out of Stephanus Byzantinus, n. 18.
W. Gruter's Index, Exc. 2. vid. & sup. p. 54, 55.
V.Pr 16. Out of the Etymologicon. n. 19.
W. Index'd and in Vulcanius, Exc. 1, 2, 3.
V.Pr. 17. A Quotation from Didymus upon Homer, n. 20.
W. N. B. No Proof. Not in Mr. Stanley, vide supr. Dec. 1. Rem. 1. p. 26, &c.
V.Pr. 18. Out of the Scholiast upon Sophocles, in 2 [...].
W. A Scholiast, Exc. 1. in Spanheim, Exc. 5. vide & supr. p. 35.
V. Out of Priscian, or Hephaestion, n. 27.Pr. 19.
W. Index, Exc. 2. Spanheim, Exc. 5.
V. Out of the Etymologicon, n. 28.Pr. 20.
W. As Proofs, 11, 12, 14, Exc. 1, 2, 5.
The Accounts of Decad the Second.
In Dr. Bentley, Quotations 23: in Mr. Stanley 10. or (perhaps) 11. In the Dr. Corrections and Explications 14. not in Mr. Stanley; though indeed several of these Corrections being but the same Emendation repeated (sc. [...] into [...]) I am content to discount half the number.
N. B. Stephanus Byzantinus, n. 13, 14. index'd; in Mr. Stanley, N. 15, 16, 23, 24, not index'd; in Dr. Bentley: not in Mr. Stanley.
The Third Decad of Proofs.
V. Stephanus Byzantinus, n. 29.Pr. 21.
W. Index.
V. Stephanus Byzantinus, n. 32.Pr. 22.
W. Index.
V. Hephaestion, n. 36.Pr. 23.
W. Index. Exc. 2. Spanheim, Exc. 5.
V. Athenaeus, n. 37.Pr. 24.
W. Index, in Vulcanius, Dacier, and Spanheim, Exc. 2, 3, 5.
V. Another of the same, n. 38.Pr. 25.
W. Answer the same, Exc. 2, 3, 5.
V.Pr. 26. Etymologicon, n. 40.
W. Index, Spanheim, as Proofs 11, &c. Exc. 1, 2, 5.
V.Pr. 27. Petronius Arbiter, ibid.
W. Dacier, inter Testimonia Veterum, Exc. 3.
V.Pr. 28. Suidas, n. 41.
W. Suidas.
V.Pr. 29. Suidas, n. 42.
W. Suidas.
V.Pr. 30. Suidas, n. 43.
W. Suidas.
The Accounts of Decad the Third.
Quotations in Dr. Bentley between 30 and 40. in Mr. Stanley 10. Emendations and Explications (direct and incidental) in Dr. Bentley about a dozen, of which, I presume, in Mr. Stanley none.
N. B. Stephanus Byzantinus, n. 29, 32. index'd; in Mr. Stanley. N. 30, 31, 33. not index'd; in Dr. Bentley: not in Mr. Stanley.
The Fourth Decad of Proofs.
V.Pr. 31. Suidas, n. 44.
W. Suidas.
V.Pr. 32. Suidas, n. 46.
W. Suidas.
V. A Quotation out of Suidas, Pr. 33. with a reference to the Scholiast upon Apollonius, n. 49.
W. Of Suidas enough already. As for the reference to the Scholiast upon Apollonius Rhodius, vid. supr. p. 35.
V. A Fragment out of Athenaeus, Pr. 34. (I suppose) n. 50. (Q. is it out of Suidas too? vid. supr. p. 45, 53.)
W. Index to Athenaeus, Exc. 2. in Spanheim, Exc. 5.
V. Etymologicon, n. 51.Pr. 35.
W. Index, in Vulcanius, Exc. 1, 2, 3.
V. Stephanus Byzantinus, n. 51. (repetitò.) Pr. 36.
W. Index.
V. A Fragment from Olympiodorus, n. 52.Pr. 37.
W. In Vulcanius, and Dacier, Exc. 3.
V. Etymologicon, n. 53.Pr. 38.
W. Index, Vulcanius, Exc. 1, 2, 3.
V. Stephanus Byzantinus, n. 54.Pr. 39.
W. Index.
V. Stephanus Byzantinus, n. 55.Pr. 40.
W. Index.
The Accounts of Decad the Fourth.
Quotations in Dr. Bentley between 30 and 40. in Mr. Stanley 10. (or perhaps one or two References more,) Emendations in Dr. Bentley [Page 70]more than a dozen, of which there are three in Mr. Stanley, sc. those two (n. 49, 52. mentioned above, p. 22. marg. and a third of [...] into [...], n. 46. which is also in Mr. Spanheim, p. 275. (vid. Exc. 5.) confirmed by Mr. Spanheim, with one Quotation from the Scholiast upon Homer, by Dr. Bentley with two from the same Scholiast, vide & Except. 7. In Dr. Bentley, Explications several, of which in Mr. Stanley, I presume, none.
These four Decads have taken in more than half of our Vindicator's Proofs. The Remainder of them I promised to dispatch by wholesale.
V. Num. 57, 58, 59, 60, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 87, 92, 93, 96, —from Mr. Stanley.
W. N. 57. Stephanus Byz. Index, 58. Hesychius, The very Store-house of the Dr's Alphabetical Learning. Supr. p. 9.
2. Vide & Mr. B p. 197. and Dr. B's Answer, Pref. p. 80. & Epist. ad fin. Malel. cùm passim, tùm maximè p. 33, 34. & seqq. 'Tis index'd. n. 59. Suidas. 60. Nicandri Scholiastes, Exc. 1. vide & supr. p. 56. n. 65. Scholiast on Callimachus, Exc. 1. But who'd have thought it? The Dr. so busie in collecting the Fragments of Callimachus, and making his Observations upon him; and yet not read the Scholiast on Callimachus? Prodigy! N. 66. Suidas, Vulcanius, Dacier, Spanheim. 67. Etymologicon, index'd. 68. Suidas and printed in all the Editions of Callimachus. 69. Athenaeus; index'd, Vulcanius, Dacier. 71. Suidas. 72. Athenaeus, Index, Spanheim. 75. Stephanus Byz. index'd. 77. Scholiast upon Pindar, index'd, Dacier. 79. Zenobius, [Page 71]a known Paroemiographer, Vid. & n. 360. and the Dr. is a great Dealer in Proverbs of all Languages, especially Greek, Mr. B. p. 285. supr. Concess. 1. p. 7. n. 82. Steph. Byzant. index'd, Spanheim. 84. Suidas. 86. Etymologicon, index'd, Vulcanius, Dacier, Spanheim, (all with the Correction [...]). 87. Clemens Alex. index'd, Spanheim, vid. & supra. p. 60. n. 92. Suidas. 93. Ammonius [...]. a little Alphabetical piece of about an hour's reading and culling, printed at the end of Scapula's Lexicon, Exc. 1. vide supr. p. 56. n. 96. Etymologicon, index'd, Vulcanius.
The Dr.'s some Additions in this part of his Collecion, sc from. n. 57. p. 321. to n. 103. p. 355. are so numerous, and so very unproportioned to those few things in Mr. Stanley's MS. that there's no stating Accounts between them. And yet as I have (after our Vindicator's method) drawn up the Numbers, n. 57, 58, 59, &c. they make an handsome shew against him. But as for that, let the Reader see what hath been said before p. 33. and let the Collator turn to n. 66, and consult Mr. Stanley's MS. p. 35. There he will find a little Scrap of a Fragment from out of Suidas. But the putting this Fragment into its proper measures, the correcting the Etymologicon, the reducing it to its proper place, the confirming it from Tzetzes, and from that place in Plutarch, from whence Tzetzes produces it; this is all the Dr's own. From all which it appears that this Fragment would have been in Dr. Bentley, though it had scaped all the other Collectors, ut supr. p. 60. Then Follows in the Dr. about a Page and half of Quotations, Corrections, and Explications, of which but one Line, and that from the Etymologicon, [Page 72]index'd, in Mr. Stanley; at least but that one line in this place. For I am apt to believe, that all the four Veries of this Fragment, n. 67. as from Stobaeus, may be in Mr. Stanley, but misplac'd, sc. among the Epigrams. Then three Quotations in Mr. Stanley, sc. 68. out of Suidas, printed with all the Editions of Callimachus, 69. Athenaeus, index'd, n. 71. a Fragment out of Suidas, corrected indeed by Mr. Stanley but crudely, and in such a manner as sufficiently shews how hastily and incuriously he drew up this imperfect Draught. For these three Quotations in Mr. Stanley, about as many Pages in Dr. Benthley. N. 75. in Mr. Stanley, one Quotation out of Steph. Byzantinus, index'd, in Dr. Bentley two out of the same Lexicographer, not index'd. Then in Dr. Bentley about 9 or 10 pages, small Letter and close print; for which only a little marginal Reference (by and by to be consider'd) in Mr. Stanly. From thence n. 76. p. 337. to n. 100 p. 345. He will find the Dr's some Additions bearing much the same proportion as before under the several Decads. After n. 96. p. 344. to n. 103. p. 355. The Dr's some Additions do so drown the some Quotations in Mr. Stanley's MS. that one must look very hard to get now and then a sight of one of them, saving some of the large Capitals, that is, the Titles of some of Callimachus his Works from Suidas and Athenaeus, in Mr. Stanley, and in Dr. Bentley, and in Vulcanius, and in Dacier, and very few of them not in every Edition of Callimachus, that hath yet come from the Press, and yet, saith our Vindicator, transcribed from Mr. Stanley; Yes, transcribed from Mr. Stanley, in whom had [Page 73]not the Doctor met them, in vain had they been in every printed Callimachus.
Thus have I gone through all those Proofs of our Vindicator, which lie in the direct line, and examin'd them one by one. I have consider'd them all with great Fairness, I am sure, and, Mr. B. p. 181. I fear, with more exactness than they will be thought to deserve. And now, without mincing the matter, I dare boldly pronounce my self Victor in this Cause. No Reader, I am sure, that understands any thing of the Subject we are upon, can think any one of all these Proofs against the Dr. Ʋndeniable. And as for him that understands nothing of it; let him hold his peace, and not run on (as has been of late the humour of the Town) clamouring upon Dr. Bentley for he knows not what. Only because Mr. B. hath the Talent of telling a Story very prettily, therefore Dr. B. is a Dunce, a Clown, a Pedant, and all the rest of Mr. B's Book.
But one demonstrative Argument you have against the Dr. not as yet so much as once touched upon by me: and that is the method in which his Collection is digested. The Dr's Fragments and Quotations are a great part of them printed in the very self same order and method in which they stand in Mr. Stanley's MS. And though two men might light upon the same Quotations, yet how should they hit upon it to set them down in the same order, without having written the one after the other? This indeed to a man that knows nothing of the matter bears the appearance of an Argument, and you seem to lay a great stress upon it.
I shall prove, say you, that Mr. Stanley's Locks were pick'd, and his Trunks rifled; P. 32. and that (among other things) Dr. Bentley's method, [Page 74]in Marshalling his Fragments, was taken from that very Learned Gentleman. And in the next Page, But it's remarkable, that to manage the affair dextrously, Dr Bentley has in some places (it may be believ'd wilfully, and to conceal the Fraud) inverted the order of the MS. And much to the same purpose, but somewhat more satyrically, do you deliver your self, p. 78.
Now what is this Method? what deep contrivance was there in it, that Dr. Bentley could not have reach'd it himself? This Method is purely Alphabetical; that is, the several Titles of the lost pieces of Callimachus are set down in the order of the Alphabet; as, Α. [...]. Β. [...]. Τ. [...], &c. and under these Titles are placed the several Fragments or Quotations properly belonging to them. But there being many Fragments bearing no Title, nor carrying in them any plain Indication to what Tracts of that Author they belonged, these are thrown together promiscuously at the end of the other, under the common Character of Fragmenta incerti loci. This is that method which our Vindicator makes so strong an Argument against the Dr. than which, a more obvious thought could not have enter'd into any mans head, than to put things which have no dependance one upon the other into the order of the Alphabet. In this Alphabetical order, long before Mr. Stanley drew up his imperfect Draught, were collected and digested the Fragments of Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Theophrastus, Varro, Nigidius Figulus, Lucilius, and several others. So that the Dr. how natural soever it may be to him to transgress the Rules of Method, P. 78. when he is solely under his [Page 75]own Government; yet he had here Precedents enough before him besides Mr. Stanley's MS. to have given him this lucky hint. And this I think may suffice for that mighty Argument of yours, the regular Digestion of his Fragments.
But it's very remarkable, that to manage the affair dextrously, Dr. Bentley has in some places (it may be believ'd wilfully, and to conceal the Fraud) inverted the order of the MS. But this, You say, will be remember'd in due time and place.
In the plain, unaffected Stile, Sir, nothing in the world could have been more nonsensically suggested. Dr. Bentley (to conceal the Fraud) takes the directest course in the world (had there been any Fraud in the matter) to have discovered it. For could he have laid himself more open to a Discovery, than by transcribing Mr. Stanley's Method? and setting down his Quotations in such order, that every one that was so minded, might, without being at more pains for it, than just to turn over the Leaves one by one, trace [...]im line by line? [...]e [...]trous management! Besides, what need at that time had the Dr. of such Precaution? I presume, when that MS. was, in so friendly a manner, put into his hands, he had little apprehension, of its being likely ever to be given in as evidence against him.
But he hath in some places inverted the order of the MS.
Yes, Sir, in some places; and you have been pleased to mark them out: and such they are, as will at the same time sufficiently shew both what a precions Vindicator Mr. Stanley's Manes have met with, and how hastily that very Learned Gentleman (as the wisest men may do) committed [Page 76]his first Thoughts to his private Papers. But the name of Mr. Stanley is too well known to suffer any thing by such a Vindication.
Your Instances are these that follow.
V. That Citation out of Stobaeus, [...], which Mr. Stanley hath given under the head [...].
W. But Mr. Stanley would never have printed it so as you have done it for him. That Citation begins,
[...].
[...] are Hexameters, this is Elegiack. The Dr's Correction of [...] into [...] is certain; your Learned Story of the two Trincavells, p. 48 nothing to the purpose.
To this Class of the Dr's wilfull variations from Mr. Stanley's MS. on purpose to conceal the fraud belongs also that Omission of the Tit. [...], omitted (say you) by the Dr. for what reason I know not.
The case, I presume, exactly the same with that of Tit. [...], supr. p. 38.
V. ΒΑΡΒΑΡΙΚΑ [...], vind. p. 40. So Suidas gives the title agreeable to Mr. Stanley's MS. (Mr. Stanley's MS. you mean, agreeable to Suidas) But Dr. Bentley having made the Citation is own, p. 349. hath inverted the order of the words, for what reason himself best knows.
W. I fansie I can give a shrewd guess at his reason, sc. because such Quotations standing as Titles, whether in Indexes or elsewhere, must stand with the leading word (which is generally the Substantive) foremost. Mausacus in his Dissert. Critic. in Harpocrat. cites this Title at least a dozen times, and always with the word [...] standing first. So doth A. Schottus in his Adagia, p. 164. not. in loc. Callimachus in Nomimis [Page 77]Barbaricis. What Fraud were these two Criticks interested to conceal?
You have another of them, p. 43, 44 which happily afforded you the opportunity of bringing in that most prodigiously Learned Parenthesis of near a page long. I pass it over; leaving Casaubon and Dr. Bentley to maintain their ground against your self and Natalis Comes.
Dr. B's n. 192. is placed by Mr. Stanley under Tit. [...], probably, you say. But there's no other guessin at a Probability here, than than Hephaestion mentions it as an [...], that is, as his design there plainly implies, Numero elegiaco. It may have belonged to his Epigrams or any other piece of Callimachus, written in long and short Verse, as well as to his Book of Elegies properly so called: and therefore Dr. B. had reason to fling it amongst his Fragm. inc. loci.
V. The Quotation out of Steph. de Urbib. (vind. p. 52.) which Dr. Bentley hath omitted, but inserted in his Notes on the entire Epigrams.
W. And to the it belonged, vid. Indicem in Stephan. v. Callimachus.
V. Ibid, Dr. B. n. 103. The Fragment beginning [...]. of which Mr. Stanley saith, Cogitandum an non ad [...] haec pertineant, an ad librum [...].
W. It being but a cogitandum an non, it is still an incertum, and therefore properly placed by the Dr. amongst the Fr. incerti loci.
There is another of them also, p. 51. sc. Dr. B;s n. 142. But upon that Fragment you having bestow'd some Observations of your own, at present I pass it by.
Dr. B's n. 299. of which you say, p. 56. under this Head (sc. of ΙΑΜΒΟΙ & [...]) Mr. Stanley ranks Num. 299. in Dr. Bentley's Collection, ad Choliambos isthaec refero. Certainly, Sir, you must have been mistaken in transcribing your MS. Mr. Stanley could never have held the Pen in his hand in so dreaming a condition, as to have written what you print upon him. Put on your Critical Spectacles, and look on your MS. again. Is it not ad Iambos isthaec refero? That Fragment is only these three words, [...], which is manifestly the end of an Iambick. A Choliambick, Sir, always ends in two long Syllables. And yet thus it stands in your second Edition. No body takes any care of you.
P. 59. you have these words, Why so plain a passage should be transported (transposed another man would have said, but Metaphors are elegant) let the Reader judge.
Innuendo, to conceal the Fraud. This so plain a passage, (a passage so plainly belonging to the Tit. [...], you mean) is in Dr. B. n. 321. [...], which Mr. Stanley with great judgment (say you) hath placed under the foresaid Tit. de Avibus. In great hast would another man have said. For Callimachus his Book of Birds was manifestly (as any one may collect from the Quotations referring to it produced by Dr. B. p. 349, 350.) written in Prose, and this Fragment is as manifestly the end of an Hexameter, as appears both from the Feet and the Epithet [...]. which is purely poetical. So that this Passage plainly appearing not to belong to the Tit. [...]; and it not appearing to what other piece it might belong, [Page 79]Dr. Bentley had good reason to throw it among the Fr. incerti loci.
An instance or two more, of this kind perhaps I may have overlooked: but these already produced, are, I think, sufficient to satisfie the Reader, that the Dr. might have some other reason for inverting (if he did invert, or so much as took any notice of it) the order of your MS. Nor need I say more to this mighty Argument: the Dr's Collection stands in the same order as Mr. Stanley's. Being both drawn up Alphabetically, it must be so, as far as that Alphabetical method holds, and saving in some few places, where Mr. Stanley had not so properly disposed his Collections; and there we find the Dr. hath inverted the order of the MS.
I was speaking e'en now of a confident man, and promis'd you a meeting again upon that point. Though I am somewhat in hast, I am unwilling to balk your Expectation. Let the Reader look over once again this List of Numbers.
Num. 11, 19, 34, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 46, 51, 52, 53, 66, 67, 68, 72, 77, 86, 87, 92, 96.
These Numbers make up at least one third part of your direct Number-Proofs against the Dr. now let the Reader turn to p. 20. Exc. 3. Let him cast his Eyes over the several Decads, and that List of Numbers at the end of them, and observe how often he will find there the name of Vulcanius and Dacier. All and every one of these Numbers are to be met with in the one or the other of those printed Collections: and this methinks is somewhat confidently done of the Vindicator to charge them all upon the Dr. as stole from Mr. Stanley, vid. supr. p. 72. [Page 80]One or two of them, Sir, to explain my meaning by, I shall single out for you.
Upon Dr. B.'s n. 86. you have this Remark, The third out of Plutarch with the Correction [...],P. 56. n. 86. i. e. Both n. 86. and the Correction [...], stole from Mr. Stanley. But, Sir, this Correction [...], is no Correction, nor is it taken from Mr Stanley's MS. [...] it is printed in all the Editions of Plutarch, [...] it is printed in the Scholiast upon Theocritus, [...] it is in Vulcanius, P. 266. [...] in Dacier, [...] in Spanheim, [...] it is I believe in all the Books you can show me, saving in the Text of the Etymologicon (or in other Books as directly transcribed from thence) where the Lection [...] is manifestly corrupt, making neither Sense nor Verse, and accordingly was, long before Mr. Stanley's time corrected by Sylburgius, not. in loc. And yet is this Correction [...] charged by you upon the Dr. as stole from Mr. Stanley's MS. And have I not reason to say of you, that you are either a man of very little Reading, if you did not know this; or if you did know it, then I do not abuse you in giving you the character of a Person of a ver singular Confidence.
To conclude with that which forced me upon making this Animadversion upon you. p. 46. Elegia de com. Berenices, [...], in Mr. Stanley, which Dr. Bentley, say you, without owning his Benefactor, hath confidently made his own. Have you never read any Books, Sir, but Mr. Stanley's MS? Is not this to affront your Reader? To suppose him so careless, so credulous, so unvers'd in Books, as not to know how very common this Quotation out of the Scholiast upon Apollonius, as apply'd to [Page 81]this very passage in Catullus is grown ever since the time of Politian? 'Tis printed in Vulcanius, Miscellan. c. 68. and in Dacier's Callimachus, in Muretus, in Scaliger, in the Catullus cum not. var. In usum Delphini. Is. Vossii. Nay, I very much question, whether there be a Catullus printed for above this hundred years, if with Notes upon him, in which this Quotation is wanting: which Dr. Bentley, without naming his Benefactor, has canfidently made his own.
But there is another Quotation, Sir, just after this is Dr. Bentley, which though common enough in it self, yet as corrected and applied to another passage in this same Elegy in Catullus, perhaps you will not find in any body else save in the Dr. sc. [...], quod sic latinè vertit Catullus, v. 40. — Adjuro teque tuumque caput. And since he could out of his own Observation refer this later Fragment of Callimachus to its proper place in Catullus, which none before him had done; 'tis very probable, he would have done the like with the former himself, had he not been prevented by other hands.
To this Class of Confidentisins I shall also reduce another little parcel of the Dr's Quotations, and with them conclude this tedious work of counting Figures.
The Quotation out of Suidas, v. [...]. Dr. B. p. 339. out of Harpocration, v. [...], p. 352. Out of Athenaeus, Tit. [...]. p. Out of Clemens Alexandr. Tit. ΙΑΜΒΟΙ, & [...]. p. 337.
All these Quotations also I find you charging upon the Dr. as taken from Mr. Stanley. But, Sir, every one of these Quotations are to [Page 82]be met with in the Dr's Epist. ad fin. Malel. And that Epistle was printed before he ever saw your MS. I need not paraphrase any farther upon this. vid. supr. p. 20. Exc. 4. You must give the Dr. leave, Sir, to play the Plagiary a little upon himself.
Vide Mr. B. p. 192. confer cum Dr. B's epist. ad fin. ad Malel. lin. 1. Memini. His Dissertation at the end of Mr. Wotton, lin. 1. I remember. vide & seqq. M. T. Ciceronis Epistolas. ad Fam. lib. 7. ep. 28. Memini. & lib. 5. ep. 13. Quanquàm. lib. 10. ep. 19. Quanquam. & lib. 5. ep. 16. Etsi, ibid. ep. 18, 19. Etsi. & lib. 6. ep. 12. Gratulor tibi. ibid. ep. 15. Tibi gratulor. & lib. 7. ep. 19. vide quanti, lib. 16. ep. 5. vide quanta. & fam. lib. 7. ep. 27. Miror. ad Attic. lib. 13. ep. 10. Minimè miror. ad Attic. lib. 13. ep. 35. O rem indignam! ibid. ep. 38. O incredibilem vanitatem!
As to the Dr's numerous Coincidencies with Mr. Stanley in his Quotations of the Ancients, I think, I have given a tolerably fair account of them. But you have not yet done with him. There are still behind his Notes and Animadversions upon this Poet,P. 32. a great part of which, you assure us, are taken from that very Learned Gentleman. If you could make out this, you would do somewhat. But this great part you speak of, I am inclined to believe the Collator will find to be scarce one in fifty, and those very few, wherein they do concur to be either such with which the Index here also supply'd Mr. Stanley, or else so very obvious in themselves, that no man tolerably vers'd in these sorts of Studies could have miss'd of them, vid. supr. Exc. 7. As you have been mercifull to [Page 83]the Dr. upon this point, and not over-loaded him with Numbers, I will take them in order one by one, as you have given them.
V. In the Dr's note on the Hymn in Jov. (v. 3. p. 458.) the Correction of [...] into [...], upon the Authority of the Etymologicon, P. 69. and Hesychius; from Mr. Stanley.
W. Index'd in the Etymologicon, who sent him in course to the same word in Hesychins. Besides the Quotations from these two Lexicographers, Dr. Bentley hath seven more. Qu. how many of them in the MS? A correction of the Text of Hesychius, sc. [...] into [...]. Q. Is that also in Mr. Stanley? Qu.
V. The Correction of [...] into [...],Ibid. upon the Authority of the Scholiast upon Callimachus, of Aldus's his Edition, and of the like examples from Callimachus himself; all transcribed from Mr. Stanley's excellent Notes.
W. This seems to be spoken somewhat too confidently. May not the Dr. have seen Aldus his Edition of Callimachus? May he not have read over the Scholiast on Callimachus? Supr. p 70 May he not have transcribed those passages out of Callimachus from Callimachus himself? the Dr. alledges Frobenius his Edition also, gives an Authority out of Homer, offers a second Conjecture upon the Text of Callimachus, with a Grammatical reason for it. Is all this transcribed from Mr. Stanley? Yes, all you say. Qu.
V. His third Note of the same Hymn is much [...]f the Complexion with that of Mr. Stanley, as [...]re others that follow.
W. Those that follow make up near eight [...]ages. Are they all in Mr. Stanley? or the [...]reatest part of them? or any of them? For [Page 84]in saying, they are much of the Complexion with those of Mr. Stanley, you speak as much nothing as 'tis possible for a man to speak. Either they are the same, or they are not the same. If the same; undoubtedly we should have heard of it: if not the same with Mr. Stanley, not transcribed from him. That two men, well vers'd in the same sort of Studies, writing upon the same Subject, should not in some, nay in many Instances, hit upon much the same things is next to impossible; which makes me wonder, that even the first strokes of Mr. Stanley's Pen should not, throughout the whole, have afforded you more instances of this kind against the Dr. vid. supr. Exc. 7. p. 21. But a very small variation in matters of this nature, be it but of a Word, or Syllable, or Letter or two, giver a clear different Complexion to the whole. Afther a leap of 8 pages in comes Mr. Stanley again with
V. The Correction of [...] into [...], not. in Hymn Lavacr. Pallad, Dr. B. p. 466.
W. The sense absolutely required this Correction; 'twas to a man never so little vers'd in these Studies, an easie and obvious Correction. The Dr. gives the Grammatical reason for it, and confirms it by two or three Authorities for the like mode of Expression: Q. Are they all in Mr. Stanley?
V. Dr. B. not. ibid. in v. 130. A Quotation out of the Etymologicon magnum with another out of Lactantius.
W. Both which the Dr's own Industry may have supply'd him with, as well as it did with the other Quotations to the same purpose from Athenaus, Hesychius, Nicander, with the Epigram [Page 85]out of Gruter's Inscriptions, an exquisite Correction and Explication of that Epigram, attempted, but not with like Success by Scaliger. Q. Are all these things in Mr. Stanley? Mr. Spanheim's Notes upon the same passage are much of the same Complexion. P. 642. Had he also the hint from your MS? v. Exc. 5. supr. p. 20.
Toward the lower end of the third page following, we meet with Mr. Stanley again.
V. In Dr. B's Notes in Hymn in Cerer. v. 133. p. 469. a Correction of the Text upon the Authority of the Etymologicon, and Hesychius, P. 70. and of an old Edition of Callimachus.
W. Index'd in the Etymologicon; to turn to Hesychius in the same word was no very laboriour Search; in consulting the several Editions of Books Dr. Bentley is not less curious than was Mr. Stanley. In the Dr. I find the Etymologicon it self twice corrected; the Grammatical analogy of the word [...] very nice and particular; a Quotation out of Eusebius; a Censure upon Luc. Holstenius, his mistaken Correction of that passage in Eusebius in his Notes upon Porphyry; a very pertinent Quotation from Theocritus, with an Epigram of Crinagoras never before published. Qu. Are all these things in Mr. Stanley?
Thus much for the Dr's Notes and Animadversions upon the Hymni, wherein the accounts between him and Mr. Stanley stand thus. The Dr. hath upward of 12 pages, for which I very much question, whether the Collator will find [...]o many lines in Mr. Stanley's MS. and even of [...]hem, the first hint (as to the greatest part of [...]hem) taken from the Index to the Etymologicon, [...]nd pursued by turning to the same word in [Page 86] Hesychius. As for the Dr's Notes and Animadversius upon the other part of this Poet (as his Epigrams and Fragments) I pretty confidently presume they will be found to exceed the MS. in yet a far greater proportion. And yet hath our Honest Vindicator the Confidence to say of the Dr's Notes and Animadversions, a great part of them taken from Mr. Stanley. Not a line for a page, one place with another, I dare say. I am not able to comprehend the nicety of your distinction between Notes and Animadversions. P. 32. A great part of his Notes, you say, and some of his Animadversions. But taking them in both together, of the Dr's I know not how many Scores of curious and (if we may believe Graevius) very valuable Notes and Animadversions upon the Epigrams, Praoem. p. 5. I do not find so much as one charged upon him as borrowed from Mr. Stanley: of his I know not how many Scores of the same upon the Fragments within the line of your comparison, as far as I can recollect, but four; three of them already accounted for; sc. that of [...] into [...], of [...] into [...], and that of [...] into [...] in this Quotation out of the Scholiast upon Apollonius.
Scan the Verse, Sir. (vid. & supr. p. 22, 70.) To which you have here added a Fourth.
V. The Critick upon N. 85. is taken from Salmasius de Usuris, p. 494.
W. That Book, Salmasius de Usuris I have not by me, and therefore can say nothing to it.
V. Only the Dr. reads [...] for [...], which might have been spared.
W. Which might have been spared! So far from that, that the whole stress of the Correction lies upon that very word [...], without which there's no sense to be made of that Fragment. And the Correction [...] you allow to be the Dr's own. As for the other part of the Correction, of [...] into [...] he took it (with the easiest change imaginable) from Vossius MS. vid. loc. n. 85. Dr. B. p. 339.
From n. 85. you take a leap to n. 148.P. 26. Was it out of the mercifulness of your Inclinations that you were so forbearing of the Dr. or for want of matter against him? He that is half so well acquainted with you as I am, will suspect the latter.
V. The Reading [...],P. 72. n. 148. is from the same Author.
W. 'Tis not from the same Author, Sir; But from Helladius, in whose very words and syllables the Dr. gives this Lection, Corrigenda sunt ex Helladio. The Correction is of [...] into [...]. Scan the Verse again. 'Tis an Elegiack.
Now from n. 148. another leap to n. 242.
V. [...] for [...], n. 242. which Dr. Bentley assumes (to himself, P. 72. should have been added) is taken from the MSS. of Ammonius.
W. Were I in company with you, I would ask you, how many MSS. of Ammonius have you seen? I believe you mean, from Ammonius in the MS. sc. in Mr. Stanley's MS. not MSS. Such little scapes of the Press your Book is full of.
The Lection [...] was natural, easie, unavoidable, ready pointed out to him in the Etymologicon, and in Ammonius himself.
Thus have you done with all the Dr's Notes and Animadversions stole from Mr. Stanley. Which what they are both for Number and Quality, let the Reader judge, and the Collator farther inquire into. You go on.
V. To which I shall add a probable Correction or two of some other Fragments.
W. Very opportunely! And so have you fairly brought me to those Observations of your own. Which I promised you to set in a place by themselves:P. 2. and 'tis pity I cannot afford them more Room, for they are most incomparable things.
V. Num 128.P. 72. Suppose it were read thus, [...], & silentes sedere, Hesych. [...] And the Pythagorean Silence is too well known to be disputed.
W. 'Twould be a dangerous thing for a person of that old Comic Poet,V. Lucian. [...]. versus fin. Philemon's Constitution, to read such a piece of Criticism as this. Or was it your design to print a Banter upon your self? For had a man premeditated how to write learned Nonsense, he could not have done it more effectually. The Fragment here spoken of is taken from A. Gellius, lib. 4. c. 11. who introduces it thus, Opinio vetus falsa occupavit & convaluit, Pythagoram— ‘It hath been of a long time a current Tradition, but false, that Pythagoras the Philosopher abstained from eating the Flesh of Animals, and from [Page 89]Beans.Ex hâc opinione. 'Twas in Conformity to this vulgar Error, that Callimachus wrote these two Verses.’
In the first of these lines the word [...] is a manifestly false Lection, and makes no possible sense. So that there being a necessity of some Correction, Stephanus gives it thus, [...] Dr. Bentley thus, [...]. These two Corrections of the Dr. and Stephanus agree in exactly the same sense; and which offers the less violence to the Text, the Eye may judge. After them both comes our judicious Vindicator with his Correction And what's that? why, [...], & silentes sedere: for [...] in Hesychius is [...], silentes; and the Pythagorean Silence is too well known to be disputed. But, good Sir, what signifies the Pythagorean Silence to the Pythagorean Abstinence, the only thing here spoken of, which you are content to drop as nothing to the purpose. 'Tis a wonder to me how such a piece of Criticism should enter into an head that has Brains in it. A. Gellius is producing a couple of Verses directly relating to Pythagoras his supposed Abstinence from Flesh: by the help of your Correction they no more relate to it, than they do to his Golden Thigh. What an easie thing were it for me here to ask you an insulting question or two? but I'll not be unmannerly.
V. I am sure [...] in Dr. Bentley's sense is a pure Anglicism, and I cannot think that Callimachus pretended to our Language.
W. Were I the spitefullest man that ever took Pen in hand, I could not retort this Accusation [Page 90]upon you. I must do you that Justice to confess, that of all the Books I have ever seen in our Language, I never yet read one with fewer Anglicisms in it than yours. That the Signification here given to the word [...] is uncommon, Dr. B. owns;Rara quidem, fateor, est, ea verbi significatio: sed, &c. but withal observes, that Callimachus was a great Innovator in Language; and that Suidas after the more common interpretation of the word, gives it this less usual one; [...]. Callimachus therefore being a great Innovator in Language, and Suidas having manifestly some-where or other met with this word used in this sense; 'tis not improbable, but that in writing his Lexicon he might have this very passage of Callimachus in his Eye: an Author whom he refers to more than once without express mention of his name, vid. supr. p. 45. & speciatim Suidam, v. [...], conf. cum Dr. B. n. 48.
V. Num. 200. Dr. Bentley reads it, [...] &c. & solus adolescentum comedebat tutorem, (one of the worst of crimes and worthy the Dr's considering.)
W. What a biting Parenthesis is here? Wit and Satyr all over. But suppose a man should ask you the question; what Thought, Sir, what Meaning had you in your mind when you wrote it down? Could you answer him?
V. But suppose we read, [...].
W. But suppose there be no such Greek word as [...], [...] there is, not [...]. I question, wheter [...] be ever contracted into [...]. then I suppose we must not read it so. And if you cannot maintain your [...], then your [...] falls to the ground of course, and with [...] your Julius Firmicus, and with Julius Firmicus your known Story of Saturn's [Page 91]devouring the Immortal Infants before they were a day old. And thus I think your second Correction is as insignificant as your first was ridiculous.
To fetch in the rest of those learned Observations of your own, I must return to the beginning of your Indictment.
V. Dr. B's Correction of Fulgentius Planciades was needless.P. 35.
W. That Correction was none of the Dr's. The Dr's words are, viri eruditi emendant. So that if it was needless, those learned men are to blame, not Dr. B. But why was it needless?
V. For why should he cite a faulty Edition?
W. The Dr. cites it from the Edition of Jos. Mercerus, Par. 8 vo. 1613. which all men of Learning esteem as the best Edition of that Author. Gothofred did well in correcting the sense of his Author, but in supplanting his words, and making his own Conjecture though just) part of the Text of his Author, he exceeded the Bounds of a Commentator. The Dr. could have done the like upon Malela; but he better understood the Laws of Critick. Another little shrivell'd Observation you have here, at which I cannot afford to make a stop. Perhaps there's nothing in it.
If any Bookseller's Shop in Town could present me with a page more fruitfull of mistakes than is your 38th and 39th, it must be Mr. Bennet's; but I'll defie even his to match you here. Passing by your unintelligible (I am sure 'tis so to me) Story of that old Edition (you are speaking of Hephaestion) and this last; and your idle Cavil upon a scape of the Dutch Printer, in putting a v for an v, I come to your own Remarks, [Page 92]or at least those which you espouse and make your own.
V. The Dr's Quotation out of Terentianus Maurus was long since cited by Lactantius in his Notes on Statius his Thebais, P. 38. Lib. 3. v. 479. and much more correctly, and to better purpose, thus, Branchi meminit Terentianus de metris, ‘Hymnum Branchiadae Phoebo —.’
W. Let the Reader, if he pleases, see it at length in your Book, and compare it with the Dr's out of Terentianus himself, n. 36.
Much more correctly, you say, and to better purpose. How a Quotation could be more incorrectly given, and to less purpose, is scarce to be imagined. If any Mortal can make either Sense of Grammar of it, as it stands in that Lactantius, I'll lose the whole cause.
V. For as the Verses are now read,P. 39. I cannot excuse them: Chronology it self cannot defend them.
W. Chronology! — Stuff.
V. For Branchus could not sing an Hymn of Callimachus. Ibid.
W. Nor could you construe Terentianus, which therefore I'll do for you.
Nec non & memini, And I also remember, Battiadem, that Callimachus, cantâsse, composed, Hymnum, pastorem Branchum, an Hymn (called) Branchus the Shepherd, pedibus quater his repetitis, with these [...] Choriambick feet four times repeated, Phoebo Jovique, in praise of Jupiter and Apollo. And though Chronology will not admit Branchus, who liv'd so many [Page 93]years before Callimachus, to have sung an Hymn composed by Callimachus, yet Callimachus may have composed an Hymn in praise of Jupiter and Apollo, and given to that Hymn, from, 'tis probable, the principal Fable of it, the Title of Branchus. And of that very numerical Hymn there is scarce any doubt to be made, but that this Fragment was part, and probably the first verse, it being in that Metre Terentianus speaks of, and with express mention of Jupiter and Apollo.
Here's the Pentameter, which Hephaestion and Terentianus speak of, after the 4 Choriambics ending in a Bacchius.
V. Branchus, says the same Commentator,Ibid. was a Thessalian. Branchus Thessalus fuit, dilectus Apollini — illinc Branchiades Apollo dictus.
W. But here this same beloved Commentator of yours is no less than twice mistaken. First, Branchus was not a Thessalian, but a Milesian: vide inter Historiae Poeticae scriptores Conon. Narrat. 33,Statii oper. Par. 4to. 1618, Vol. 1. p. 143. & 44. and Bernartius in loc. takes notice of Luctatius (al. Lactantius) as the only Authority for Branchus his having been a Thessalian. Nor secondly, was Apollo ever call'd Branchiades, though you will find it so in some Lexicographers and Epithet-mongers, into whose hands it first came from this Lactantius, and so pass'd downward by Transcription. I find it in Hoffman, but Baudrand hath rectified this mistake. For Apollo to have been called Branchiades, or rather Branchides, he must have been the Son, not the Father of Branchus. For [Page 94]that termination — [...] or — [...] determines the Patronymick to the Descendants. There was indeed an Oraculum called from the Successors of Branchus [...] or [...]. but Apollo, as related to that Oracle, took his name from the place of it, Didymaeus. As is imply'd in this very Fragment.
V. I question not therefore,Ibid. but that Branchiades is the better reading.
W. And I as little question, but that the reading Branchiades is most ridiculously absurd.
V. It carries its own Credentials with it.Ibid.
W. It carries its own Confutation with it. It is against Grammar, Chronology, and common Sense; has been long since condemned by Brodaeus in his Notes on the Anthology, lib. 3. cap. 23. and by Nic. Brissaeus Montevillarius in his Notes upon the passage in Terentianus now produced, Paris, 4to. 1531. Never, I believe, approved of by any man before your self.
V. Nor is there any need of playing the Corrector,Ibid. and changing quum into quem.
W. So much need of it, that without changing quom into quem (an easie change) there's no construing those Lines.
V. And to this head I question not,Ibid. but the Quotation, p. 337. in the Dr's Collection ought to be referred.
W. And upon this point I question not, but that you are again as much as ever mistaken. For most certain it is, That that Quotation cannot belong to this head. For this Poem called [...] was all of it written in that sort of Pentameter just before mentioned, and therefore the Quotation, p. 337. which is Hexameter, cannot [Page 95]belong to this Head. As Virgil's Tityrus being all of it written in long Verse, that cluster of short ones, sic vos non vobis — cannot belong to his Tityrus. Had you construed that Greek you transcribed to the Press in the page just before,P. 38. you could not have fallen into this mistake. [...] ΟΛΟΝ [...]—
I think you have made me work enough in one page: what have we in the next? why another, I question not.
V. The Book ( [...]) was written,P. 40. (I question not) after the example of Aristotle, whose Treatise under that Title is cited by Varro.
W. This is brought in for no other end or purpose, but to create in the Reader a good opinion of your Learning. And therefore purely for the humour-sake, I shall tell him that this Learned Remark is Scaliger's in his Notes upon Varro, which our Vindicator, without naming his Benefactor, has confidently made his own. And yet whether or no Varro did indeed cite any Treatise of Aristotle under that Title, is still a question. The Copies of Varro have it Nomina, and the Nomima is but a Conjectural Emendation of Scaliger, which though not improbable, yet is it not altogether unquestionable. See the fore-mention'd Mausaci Dissert. Critic. in Harpocrat.
V. Natalis Comes, n. 45.
W. I'll have no concerns with Natalis Comes, supr. p. 77.P. 45.
V. Joannes Franciscus Trincavellus, — Victor Trincavellus, — Cardinal Bembo, — with a Tristich.
W. A Tristich, beginning with a short Verse. sed vid. supr. p. 76.
V. The Dr. hath, I doubt not, studiously omitted those entire Epigrams which had been collected by [Himself and] others—.
W. Here the [Himself and] is added in your second Edition; the only instance I have observed in you of a second Thought. But a strange kind of Omission this, methinks; the Omission of the Epigrams collected by Himself: and n. b. collected by Himself; q. d. not by others, ergo the Collection his own, ergo, not stole. Your meaning, I suppose, is he studiously omitted the inserting these entire Epigrams among the Fragments, and, to conceal the Fraud, placed the entire Epigrams among the entire Epigrams. Studiously, I doubt not. This ought to have been referred to the Class of Transportations, supr. p. 78.
V. A Critick so curious in what did not belong to his Poet.P. 50.
W. The name of Callimachus did belong to his Poet: which name therefore being falsely ascribed to a wrong person, 'twas no unnecessary Curiosity in the Dr. but full to the Subject he was upon, to rectifie that mistake: for which a man less litigious than your self, would have thanked him.
V. The Dr. might have been so carefull as to have acquainted the Learned World with what was genuine and presumed to be truly his Authors.Ibid.
W. Which the Dr. hath amply done. But is that Latin Epigram you are here speaking of in Mr. Juret's Collection of Epigrammata veterum [Page 97]genuine, and truly Callimachus's? If you can have had any other meaning in this than purely the contradicting Dr. Bentley, it must have been a very silly one: and in that you all along come off so scurvily, I hope we shall hear no more of you.
V. Natalis Comes, [...].Ibid.
W. I tell you again, I'll have nothing to do with Natalis Comes.
V. Mr. Stanley having—.P. 51.
W. Here begins a Paragraph, but where it ends I know not, nor how to construe it. 'Tis big of Accusations against the Dr.
V. Mr. Stanley reckons the Dr's n. 142. among the Fragments of the Epigrams; which seems very likely.
W. But for what reason, Sir, doth it seem so? I see none.
V. And that the Title of this Epigram was [...], as Suidas averrs.Ibid.
W. Whether your meaning be, upon the skin of a Lion, or upon the skin of Leontius, (for either or neither of these you may mean, for ought I know) Suidas averrs neither the one nor the other. The Greek Preposition [...], Sir, in this place signifies de (de pelle) not in (in pellem.) And all that Suidas averrs, is, that the word [...] is sometimes apply'd to the skin of a Lion, or that the skin of a Lion is sometimes called in Greek by the name of [...]. For which signification of the word he produces the Authority of Callimachus in this Fragment. This is all that Suidas means, Sir, by his [...].
V. As his despised Aemilius Portus had corrected his Author.
W. 'Tis no presumption in Dr. Bentley to despise Aemilius Portus.
V. Dr. Bentley takes it from Aemilius Portus. Ibid.
W. Dr. Bentley takes it not from Aemilius Portus.
V. Not to mention the Doctor's changing [...] into [...].Ibid.
W. The Dr. does not change [...] into [...]. This Fragment stands in two Authors: in Suidas, and in the Scholiast on Sophocles. In Suidas it is given with the word [...]; and therefore with the word [...] from Suidas did Mr. Stanley transcribe it. In the Scholiast on Sophocles it stands with the word [...]; and so from him hath the Dr. given it. So that the Dr. did not change [...] into [...], but as he sound it in his Author; so without any change at all he wrote it down.
V. Whereas both words are genuine.
W. And therefore the Dr. might use either of them. Qu. Is not this cavilling?
V. That the Reader may judge whether the Corrections,P. 52. [...], be Dr. Bentley's, I will transcribe the Fr. n. 103. from the MSS. [MS. write like a Scholar.]
W. I do judge that Dr. Bentley took not those Corrections from Mr. Stanley's MS. As for the [...], the Verse required that Lection, and I do judge that Dr. Bentley knew the Rules of the Greek Prosody before he saw Mr. Stanley's MS. As for the other two Corrections ( [...] and [...]) the Dr. hath many very material variations from your MS. upon [Page 99]which variations from your MS. those two Corrections altogether depend; in Conjunction with which therefore they must have been made. The Dr. comes nearer to Junius his Lection,Had Junii animad. lib. 4. c. 21. Gruter, Vol. 4. than to that of your MS. And therefore if we must suppose him to have been beholding to either of them, it was to the former. The mistaken Lection of your MS. [...], lin. 1. [...], lin. 2. make its true Lection [...] lin. last of no use, and in the same last line the Lection [...], (as you have given it) can never be brought to bear either Sense or Construction. But the Dr. having established every one of his Lections upon Reasons and Authorities rendring them certain, hath thereby made all the parts of the Fragments consistent, and given a very learned and perspicuous Explication of it; which according to the Lections of your MS. could never have been done. So that upon the whole, my Judgment is, That the Dr. was no more beholden to Mr. Stanley for his [...] and [...] here, than he was for his [...] and [...] before.Supr. p 70, &c. But this is the way of you; 'tis but arming forth your Pages with a set of Greek words against the Dr. and throwing them off with a confident Turn; and so, with your Readers, the work's done.
V. The Reader is left to compare the Dr's n. 71. out of Suidas, beginning with these words,Ibid. — [...], &c. with the same Fragment in Mr. Stanley's MS. beginning with these words, [...]; and to pass his judgment upon the Dr's Assertion, Quae anteà corruptissima felicitèr nunc restituimus.
W. And my judgment is, that the Dr. had very good grounds for his Assertion. Dr. Bentley's Lection comes much nearer to the Text in Suidas: and there be almost as many flaws as lines in Mr. Stanley's. He begins with a too licentious [...]nversion of the order of the words; his second line [...] — were there no Exception lay against the Grammar of it, runs, methinks, very heavy and unpoetical.
The word [...] would not make [...] verse 4th, but [...]. The Conjunct [...] (so I suppose it should have been printed) seems in this place somewhat too impetuous for the Verb [...], to which it cleaves, besides that it is a farther departure from the Text ( [...];) instead of which, the Dr's Interj [...]ction of Lamentation [...] seems to be demanded by that expression of Suidas 'ΟΙΚΤΙ'ΖΕΤΑΙ [...], which I take to be as much as miserabiliter repraesentat. What Mr. Stanley means here by his [...], I know not. But Dr. Bentley hath given us a fair account of his [...]. Such is the Justice which is done to the Manes of the Deceased, when their Papers are put into the hands of them that know not how to use them. But 'tis no Imputation to any man that his first thoughts are not correct.
Besides, Sir, if Dr. Bentley were such a Plagiary as you would have us believe of him, what a Prize had here been for him? And why did he not make hast off with it, and forthwith to beating about again for more Prey? That's the way of them that live upon the Plunder. What another instance have you here given us of your [Page 101]unskilfull management? So often telling us of his transcribing your MS? So fully demonstrating how little he regarded it? The character upon which you spend the former part of your Book, a most supercilious Corrector, is not very consistent with what you give us in the latter part of it, a most notorious Plagiary. Who'd imagin both these belonged to the same man?
V. In n. 86. the Correction of [...],P. 56. was long since made to his hands.
W. Nor doth the Dr. lay any claim to that Correction. But the Observation that that fault in the Copies of Plutarch had been of so long standing as to have misled Eusebius and Theodoret the (former of which Praep. Evang. l. 13. and the later Therapeut. Graec. Ser. 2. follow that corrupt Lection of [...]) and consequently the rectifying the mistakes of those Ancient Writers, this was the Dr's own.
V. And whether [...] be not a genuine Reading, and [...] be not as likely as [...],Ibid. I refer him to Sam. Petits Miscellan. observat. l. 1. c. 2. p. 9, 10.
W. And I refer him to Richardus Bentleius, in not. ad Fragmenta Callim. num. 86. p. 340. For, Sir, do you think your so often saying, I refer the Reader to, &c will pass any where, but among your selves, for a Confutation of Dr. Bentley? Though this Sam. Petit being a Critick from whom as little is to be learn'd, as from any of those whose Books have the good luck to bear a price, I am apt to believe you may have read him.
V. Callimachus may have written a Tragedy called Daedalus, of which Tragedy, P. 65, 66. this Fragment, (n. 305.) may have been part.
W. No, Sir, that cannot be. But that you were resolved to be an Author, you might, perhaps, have pass'd for a Scholar. This Fragment is part of an Hexameter, a sort of Metré which a very moderate Antiquarian would have told you the Ancients never made use of in Tragedy.
V. The Dr. n. 139. cites among the Fragment a incerti loci, P. 67. that known passage out of Athenagoras, [...], &c. which Verses are no Fragment, but part of that entire Poem, Hymnus in Jovem
W. This looks like cavilling. Athenagoras his Reflection upon Callimachus is not so vulgarly known, and for the sake of that alone did the Dr. I presume, produce this passage, [...], &c.
Besides these learned Observations of your own, and your many judicious Animadversions upon the mistakes of the Dr. You have been pleased to present the Learned World with some farther Discoveries by way of Supplement to the former Editions of Callimachus. After my having been at such pains to disclose some of your Failures, 'twere Injustice to conceal your Improvements. But before I come to them, there is another part of your charge against the Dr. not immediately concerning Mr. Stanley's MS. upon which I am obliged to bestow some few Reflections.
Not content to have made the Dr. so notorious a Plagiary upon the account of Mr. Stanley's MS. you intermix here and there some Proofs of Plagiarism upon him from some other printed Books. 'Tis resolved, I see, the Dr. shall be a [Page 103] Plagiary. Mr. B. p. 143, 171, 183, & 54, 138, 216, 226, 233, 248, 261, 262, &c. Vid. & Dr. B's Answ. p. 213, 333, 383, &c. The work is begun and it must be finished. If any of the same passages be to be found in any other Books-whatsoever, whether printed or MS. as in the Dr. from thence shall the Dr. have stole them. According to which method I challenge you, Sir, to name that modern Writer, writing upon a Subject wherein the producing the Authorities of the Ancients is necessary, whom I shall not (even without the assistance of a Club, and with no more than one set of fingers to turn over Books) prove a Plagiary. And yet this is the way of these Gentlemens (I'll venture to put it in the Plural number) managing their Controversie with Dr. Bentley. But as for you your self, Sir (such is your reading) you are very sparing of your instances of this kind; and in these few you do produce as obliging to the Dr. as heart could wish.
In p. 72. supr. I took notice of about 9 or 10 pages in Dr. Bentley's Collection, small Letter and close Print, sc. from p. 327. to p. 337. for which only a little Marginal Reference in Mr. Stanley; the consideration of which I then post-poned, and shall here take it up. It is indeed at first sight the most plausible thing against the Dr. in the whole Indictment, and seems to make him directly beholden to Mr. Stanley for a little hint at least, though the working it out was left to himself. Were I at a loss for an answer here, our Vindicator (which,P. 54, 55. I thank him, he seldom fails to do) hath supply'd me with one. But I need not crave his affistance. The case is this
In Mr. Stanley's MS. over-against the Title [...], in the Margin, stands, Meurs. in Antig. c. CXLIV. That Chapter in Antigonus [Page 104]begins thus. [...]; i. e. Callimachus of Cyrene hath made a Collection of things strange and wonderfull, the most remarkable of which I shall transcribe. And so he begins his transcribing, [...], &c. He (Callimachus) saith, that Eudoxus relates that, &c.
Now upon this Mr. Stanley had made this Remark. Quibus ex verbis omnia quae sequuntur usque ad finem libri ex Callimacho deprompta esse conjicere licet; i. e. From which words one may conjecture that all that follows in Antigonus to the end of the Book is taken from Callimachus. And good reason had he so to conjecture; for Antigonus in his cap. 144. entering upon transcribing from Callimachus, and it not appearing (his Book being imperfect) where he ended, the inference is very fair, that all that follows in that Book, as it now stands imperfect, is taken from Callimachus. An instance of the same kind we have before in the same Book, Antig. c 32. [...], cap. 33. [...]. &c. i. e. The several other wonderfull Sagacities of certain Animals one may find most accurately described in the writings of Aristotle, out of which, before I go any further, I shall make this following Collection. cap 33. He saith that the Wolves about the Lake of, &c. And so he goes on still transcribing out of Aristotle to cap. 127. which he thus concludes, [...], &c. i.e. But Aristotle hath left behind him many [Page 105]Books, out of which, what I have here given is all that I could at present recollect. And so he breaks off his transcribing out of Aristotle. After the same manner doth he begin his Collection out of Callimachus, c. 144. But where he ended, his Book being imperfect, we know not. Therefore saith, Dr. Bentley, p. 328. & profectò ut omnia, quae deinceps, &c. As all that is in Antigonus from, cap. 32. to cap. 127. is transcribed from Aristotle, so all from cap. 144. to the end of the Book is taken from Callimachus. And accordingly all those passages he transfers into his Collection. Upon which our Vindicator crys out shame upon him. I cannot acquit him, saith he, either of being vain-glorious, or a Plagiary, when he avers (as 'tis true he doth) that he himself was the first who restored those noble Fragments to their true Author. For how can Dr. Bentley have the face to say, that he was the first, when Mr. Stanley had observed it before him. But had Mr. Stanley also observed the like of Aristotle? But to let that drop. Pray, Sir, will you please to read your own words immediately following your Transcription out of Mr. Stanley. Quibus ex verbis &c. And with Mr. Stanley agrees the Learned Johnsius in his second Book of the Writers of Philosophick History, cap. 12. p. 176.P. 55. If therefore Johnsius had observed it as well as Mr. Stanley, then Mr. Stanley was neither the first man nor the only man that had observed it. And why may not our Learned Critick (a Title, which, P. 61. since some Books lately publish'd against him, no wan will deny to Dr. Bentley) have observed it without the help of Mr. Stanley's MS. as well as had the Learned Johnsius, whose right to the [Page 106]same Title is as little disputed? But in the words immediately following,P. 55. and in several other places of your Book, you tell us over and over, and that very emphatically, that the Dr. had thorowly read that piece of Johnsius. P. 61. & seqq. Mr. B. p. 142. You have over-done your work, Sir, and laid the Indictment in two places. The unhappiest man at managing an Accusation, that ever took such a piece of work in hand. Pray, Sir, will you please to certifie the world in your third Edition, from whom did the Dr. take this hint first? Did he take it from Johnsius first, and afterwards from Mr. Stanley? or first from Mr. Stanley, and afterward from Johnsius? This, Sir, is a point upon which you ought to be very determinate, P. 76. the Province you have taken upon you obligeth you to restore every Paragraph to its right Author. And therefore you must let the world know precisely, if Dr. Bentley's name must be expunged, whose name must be put in the room of it in the next Impression of Callimachus:P. 74. whether Mr. Stanley's or the Learned Johnsius. For without a more particular information than you have yet given, Mr. Graevius will not be able to do justice between them.
But I'll maintain the Dr's right. His name must not be expunged out of the next Impression. I very confidently presume the Discovery was of the Dr's own making, and (not to flatter him) 'tis one of the meanest in his whole Book. Antigonus himself had laid it so full in view, that no body, reading him with attention, especially having that Greek Poet, Callimachus in his thoughts, could have pass'd it over unobserved. Let the Reader cast his eyes back upon [Page 107]the [...]— and the [...]. Callimachus made a certain Collection— He saith that— Now, Sir, dip upon what Chapter you will in Antigonus after c. 144. to the end of his Book, (abating here and there an Intersertion of the Collectors own, easie enough to be distinguish'd from the rest) you will find this [...] either express or subintellect before the Infinitive Mood: for the Dr's Correction of [...] into [...], c. 145, and of [...] into [...], c. 147. with others of the like kind, I suppose no body (unless perhaps your self) will dispute with him: And that [...] must have some Nominative Case, and that Nominative Case can be no other than [...]. So that the utmost of the Dr's Discovery here was only finding out first the principal Verb, and the then Nominative Case to it: which 'tis a strange thing if he could not have done without the help of your MS.
But why then is the Dr. so vain glorious upon his performance here if it was so easie a thing?P. 54. Haud malè, opinor, de Callimacho meritus jum, qui primus tàm luculenta [...] illi restituo. I think Callimachus is not a little obliged to me for being the first who restore to him so fair a quantity of Fragments.
Because the thing is true. For how obvious soever the Discovery might lie, yet no body having before given the Publick any notice of it, (no not, in express terms, Johnsius himself) or taken care to restore these Fragments to their true Author: to the Dr. alone doth Callimachus owe his Obligations. Besides which, Callimachus is not a little obliged to the Dr. for the commendable pains you your self acknowledge him to have bestow'd upon these Fragments:Ibid. [Page 108]For his having restor'd them to their genuine Lection, and for his having justified our Poet's Narrations from the concurring Testimonies of so many other good Authorities. And if you will please to look over the many improvements which (after the learned and accurate Meursius and Xylander) the Dr. hath made upon that part of Antigonus, you will find that he might well think Callimachus not a little obliged to him, and that I spake within compass when I said before,Supr. P. 33. bringing this very instance for a proof of it, that in many places for one single line which you alledge against the Dr. as stoln from Mr. Stanley, the Dr's Additions are more than twenty to one. As in this present case is very manifest, taking in your marginal Reference in its utmost extent.
Ay, that's true indeed, in this place. But to whom is the Dr. obliged for all this? To the learned Johnsius, P. 55. who advised his Reader to consult Stephanus, Pliny, and Suidas. And 'tis plain by the comparison, that Dr. Bentley follow'd his Advice, though he will not own his kindness.
As much as to say; That Dr. Bentley would never have read Stephanus, Pliny, and Suidas, had not the Learned Johnsius put him in mind of it, that there were such Books in the world, and that he ought to read them. For this Advice and Advertisement is it that the Dr. is so deeply obliged to the Learned Johnsius, and (ungratefull man as he is) hath not told the world who told him of those Books.
'Tis plain, by the comparison, you say, that the Dr. follow'd his Advice. That is, To a man that will read over the Dr's Collection it will [Page 109]plainly appear, that the Dr. hath read Stephanus, Suidas and Pliny. As for Stephanus and Suidas we have had enough of them already.Supr. p. 39, 54, 55. But hath the Dr. read Pliny too? Yes, 'tis plain, you say, he hath. Now, pray, Sir, turn to the 83d page of your Book, and there you do as good as say the Dr. hath not read Pliny. For the Dr. having produced several passages out of Pliny, as n. 392, 393, 394, &c. Harduin's Indices, say you, directed Dr. Bentley to these Quotations out of Pliny, q. d. Dr. Bentley did not meet with these Quotations in Pliny himself, but just turned to the Index Authorum, v. Callimachus, and so came by them. But if the Dr. follow'd Johnsius's Advice, and turned over Pliny himself, as 'tis plain he did; what need was there of running to Harduin's Indices? 'Tis a plain case, Sir, from the beginning of your Book to the end of it; that you know not, or matter not what you say, so that you can but fling out somewhat against the Dr. And this is the way of all of you. Calumniare fortiter, is the rule you go by. But there should be a little wit in it. I wonder how your Book comes to bear a second Edition. In p. 65. I find you upon Harduin and Pliny again. His Quotation out of the Scholiast upon Apollonius Harduin in his Notes upon Pliny supply'd him with. Ridiculous! as if the Scholiast upon Apollonius himself were not sooner read over than a Pliny with Harduin's Notes, or as if that were the only Quotation out of the Scholiast upon Apollonius in the Dr's Collection.Vid. supr. p. 35. But that Quotation is not in Harduin's Index. So that all that is in Harduin's Index, from the Index the Dr. stole it: but what is not the Index, [Page 110]for that he is oblig'd to Johnsius, who advis'd him to read over Pliny himself, which Advice, 'tis plain, the Dr. followed. Are you not ashamed, Sir, of putting such stuff as this into print? I do not answer these things, as if they deserved an Answer, but to let the world see how these men manage their Controversie against Dr. Bentley. The Dr. must have what is in the Index, or not have what is in the Author, vid. supr. p. 55.
But you are a person as unlucky in your Memorandum's, as you are inconsistent in your Allegations. Let me lay down this as a rule: 'tis not for a young Writer to despise an Index. 'Tis but comparing the Author of Dr. Bentley's Dissertation, upon the Epistles of Phalaris examined, p. 164. with Dr. Bentley's Answer, p. 229. And with the Index to a very common Book, Aelian. Var. Hist. literâ x. and you'll find out my meaning.
V.P. 57. The Quotation out of the Learned Scholiast upon Aristophanes, n. 101. was ready brought to his hands by the Editor of Aristaenetus his Epistles, ep. 10. p. 229.
W. I had reason to observe of you, that you are the most unhappy man to your Friends, and the most obliging to your Adversary that ever took Pen in hand.
The Dr. stole his Quotation out of the Scholiast upon Aristophanes from the Editor of Aristaenetus his Epistles.
Answ. 1. Compare your Learned Patron, p. 31. Marg. with Dr. B. Answer, p. 21. and Mr. B's p. 164. again with Dr. B's Answer, p. 229, 230. and you will find that the Dr. was too well acquainted with the Scholiast upon [Page 111] Aristophanes, to have borrowed his Quotation out of that Scholiast from the Editor of Aristaenetus.
2. The Dr. in this very place rectifies a mistake of that Learned Scholiast, which the Learned Editor of Aristaenetus transcribes into his Annotations without taking any notice of it. So that you have here marked out an instance for the Reader to reflect upon: That the Dr. how notorious a Plagiary soever, yet he is none of your Pedanious Criticks, a literatim Transcriber of other mens Mistakes, and making them him own. The Dr. is able to correct the faulty Opinions of the Ancients, as well as the faulty Copies of their Works.
3. The Dr. also rectifies a little mistake of that Learned Editor of Aristanetus (Josias Mercerus, Sir, the Father-in-Law to Salmasius) who misquotes this piece of Callimachus under the Title of Aiontius, whereas it should have been [...]; as the Dr. from the Authority of Ovid establishes it. And that I put the Reader in mind of this other second little advantage, which (as to this particular) Dr. Bentley hath over the Learned Mercerus, is owing to your self, who were so friendly to the Dr. as to point it out to me.
4. You. have supply'd the Dr. with a fresh Authority here for that new Lection which he gives of this Fragment, and justified his Correction of the Learned Scholiast upon Aristophanes. The Fragment it self is this.
In the Scholiast upon Aristophanes, for [...] it stands [...]: and as that Lection is admitted [Page 112]by him for genuine; so from him in the same words is it transcribed by the Learned Mercerus: and otherwise than with that Lection I presume it is no where to be found, nor was there ever, perhaps, before the Dr. any suspicion entertain'd concerning it. But the Dr. than whom ('tis plain by the comparison) no man reads Books more intently, discovered some thing of incongruity in this Lection [...], and therefore ventures, by a conjectural Emendation, to restore it [...]. And was at some pains to justifie the Correction both from Reason and Authority: but the most proper Authority in the world to his purpose he had (I know not how) omitted. In comes our most obliging Vindicator here, and supplies him with it. Nor could one that had studied for it, have given a fuller demonstration of the Dr's happiness at a Conjecture, than hath this very man, who is writing a Book against him; having pointed out to us the very place which establishes beyond controul every thing the Dr. hath said, Aristaenet. ep. 10. (m. p. 46, 49.) [...], &c. [...], n. b. [...], not [...], words coming as near to those of the Fragment according to the Dr's Correction of it, as Prose and Verse would fairly admit. Sir, the Dr. is obliged to you, and (in his name) I presume to return you Thanks. This Discovery (the very best in your whole Book, though made without your knowing any thing of it) will, I doubt not, be inserted in the next Impression of Callimachus. And therefore,
5. From hence I infer a Negative directly contradictory to your Affirmative, viz. The Dr. did not take his Quotation out of the Scholiast upon Aristophanes from the Editor of Aristaenetus. For if the Dr. had then had Aristaenetus in his view, he would not have omitted an Authority so direct to his purpose. You may cavil; but the Inference is undeniable.
I have drawn out my Answer to this your Allegation into so many particulars, to shew you, first, How imprudently you have acted in putting one so often in mind of things which were better forgotten: though indeed let the best Pen that can be found engage any farther in this Cause, it will be next to impossible to escape splitting upon the same Rock. And secondly, to let you see how much it turns to the Dr's advantage to have his writings brought under a close Examination.
V.P. 61. The greatest and best part of those numerous Quotations which adorn Dr. Bentley's Edition under the several [...], p. 351. & seq. were before collected by Johnsius.
W. At which least the Reader should be surprized, you spend no less than three pages to shew with what Judgment and Accuracy that Learned Person hath treated of these. Catalogues,Ibid. Indices, or Tables of Callimachus. So that all that you prove here is, that he must be a very extraordinary man indeed, who can so exhaust his Subject as that Dr. Bentley coming after him shall not find room for improvements. And if you could have said not only the greatest and best part, but all and every one of the Quotations in the Dr's Collection were before drawn together by Johnsius, yet even so it would have [Page 114]amounted to no more than this; That two very Learned Persons treating upon the same point of Antiquity, neither of them had made any material Omissions. If you had known how to have managed your cause, you should have spared your elaborate Elogies upon Johnsius, P. 55, 61, &c. with which you have but made a Garland for Dr. Bentley. Like the Monarch, who spent the greatest part of a long Reign in gathering Trophies onely to place them all at last upon his Neighbour's head.
But you will not part with Johnsius so. If you can have read me hitherto without a Blush, prepare for one now.
V. Dr. Bentley to conceal his transferring Johnsius's Correction of Antimachus for Callimachus into his own Stores,P. 64. cites the passage (n. 390.) out of Eusebius, whereas in the Edition of Tatianus, from whom Eusebius had it, the names are as they ought to be read.
W. Good Reader, look over these words again; Dr. Bentley to conceal, &c. Here doth this Man,P. 19, 25, 76. who quotes Scripture and Councils, charge Dr Bentley with having stole a Correction from Johnsius, and with using a certain Artifice to conceal the Fraud. Every Syllable of which is as wilfull a falshood as words can express. Turn to the Dr's n. 390. p. 423. Tatianus apud Eusebium, Praep. Evang. lib. 10. [...], &c. After the Quotation given at large the Dr hath these words. Ex hoc loco Vossius in libello posthumo de Poetis laudat Collimachum, Colophonium: sed lege apud Eusebium [...]. Ut recte habetur apud ipsum Tatianum, sed hoc video doctissimum JOHNSIUM ante me animadvertisse. 'Tis true the Dr. transcribes [Page 115]the passage out of Eusebius, but the tells us how it stands in Tatianus. The reason of his transcribing it out of Eusebius, was, I presume, to take this opportunity of giving the Reader notice of a false Lection crept into the Copies of that Author, and of a mistake from thence transferred into Vossius his posthumous Piece de Poetis. No, saith the Vindicator; he did it on purpose to conceal his having stole this Correction from Johnsius. Oh Confidence! Construe it, Sir. Sed hoc video doctissimum JOHNSIUM ante me animadvertisse. To conceal! as plain as Pen can put down words on Paper, 'tis declar'd that the Learned Johnsius had made that Correction before him. Here are your Writers against Dr. Bentley! And will you still believe them, Reader? But take another instance.
V. The Corrections of the Fragment,P. 71, 72. n. 233. were ready made to the Dr's hand by Salmasius, and in Is. Vossius his MS. The old Translator of Pollux had given the true rendring of [...]. Fluto Aristophanes: which Dr. Bentley calls his own.
W. Confidently! Dr. Bentley doth not call the true rendring [...] his own. So far is the Dr from claiming to himself the Corrections ready made to his hands by others, that in express terms he disclaims them. The Dr's words are these: Qui quidem locus, in vulgatis codicibus mendosissimus, rectè ità emendatus est à [...]iris eruditis. — & ità sanè Codex qui fuit Isaaci Vossii. Is this calling things his own? Twere Charity to believe you cannot construe Latin. But the rectifying the mistakes of the Scholiast, and the correcting the Text of Aristophanes [Page 116]himself: a Correction just and necessary, and which perhaps was never so much as aimed at before the Dr. and without which, neither could the Poet, nor his Commentator, nor J. Pollux have been understood; This the Dr. doth call his own, and his own it is, vid. loc. Fragm. n. 233. p. 395.
V.P. 85. Salvagnius Boessius in his Prolegomena to his Commentary upon Ovid's Ibis, hath inserted the Epigram out of the Anthology (which Dr. Bentley has transcribed num. 2.) with the Emendation of [...] for [...] (claimed as his own by the Dr.) though he confesses that the admirable Critick Eustathius reads it [...].
W. Of all this I do not understand one word. The Emendation of [...] into [...] the Dr. doth (both here Fragm. n. 2. and Ep. ad fin. Malel. p. 71.) claim as his own, and his own I believe it is. In Salvagnius Boessius's Prolegomena I find not a Syllable of that Epigram either with an Emendation or without. Who confesses, that the admirable Critick Eustathius reads it [...]? Salvagnius or Dr. Bentley? in neither of them do I find the least mention of Eustathius relating to this matter. My Salvagnius Boessius is 8vo. Lugd. 1661. There may be some later Edition for ought I I know, in which may be the passages you speak of: but I have never seen any such Edition, nor (as I have a reason, not worth the telling, to believe) hath Dr. Bentley. So that how many soever Editions of Salvagnius Boessius there may be, what Dr. Bentley here calls his own is still his own.
V. In those Prolegomena also is to be found the Epigram of Martial upon the [...].
W. In Dacier's Testimonia veterum also is to be found the Epigram of Martial upon the [...]: and in Farnaby's Martial also is to be found the Epigram of Martial upon the [...]. Stuff!
V. In Salvagnius Boessius his Commentary upon Ovid's Ibis are many other good Observations, which Dr. Bentley hath read.
W. 'Tis more than natural Stupidity: it looks like a kind of Infatuation, that a man should be so constant in confuting himself. Compare, Sir, these two pages of yours; page 35. with page 85.
Page 35. The Epigram out of Martial (n. 2.) is in Mr. Stanley's Collection.
Page 85. The Epigram out of Martial (n. 2.) is in Salvagnius Boessius (m. p. 48.) And Salvagnius Boessius Dr. Bentley hath read.
Page 35. The Quotation out of Clemens Alexandrinus (n. 2.) is in Mr. Stanley's Collection.
Page 85. But Salvagnius Boessius Dr. Bentley hath read: and in Salvagnius Boessius is that Quotation out of Clemens Alexandrinus, verbatim, p. 47.
Page. 35.Supr. p. 62. The Quotation out. of Servius upon Virgil, n. 8. is transcribed from Mr. Stanley, verbatim.
Page 85. Salvagnius Boessius his Commentary upon Ovid's Ibis Dr. Bentley hath read: and in that Commentary, p. 301. is that Quotation out of Servius upon Virgil.
How will you look your Honourable Patron in the face, after having thus discover'd to him [Page 118]how carelesly you read his Book, and how little you minded the caution he gave you, Not to lay your Indictment in two places. Mr. B. p. 142.
And this is what I before promised you to take some particular notice of.Supr. p. 64. Read what is there (p. 63, 64.) written upon that Quotation out of Clemens Alexandrinus, [...], &c. I here repeat my charge against you, Sir, and in the plain unaffected Stile I call you false Accuser, and prepensely such. You knew these several passages to be in Salvagnius Boessius; Salvagnius Boessius you knew the Dr. to have read: how then durst you charge these particular passages upon him as Proofs of his Plagiarism from [...]ir. Stanley's MS. all of which you knew the Dr. to have met with elsewhere; and one of which you knew, you could not but know, your own Eye sight assured you, that the Dr. did actually transcribe, not from Mr. Stanley, but from Salvagnius Boessius? I say, which you could not but know, that the Dr. did not take from Mr. Stanley. For that Quotation out of Clemens Alexandrinas, as it is given us in the Dr's Collection, I am very confident is not now (whatsoever it may be e'er long) in Mr. Stanley's MS. nor, I believe in any other printed Book whatever save in Salvagnius Boessius; and therefore only from him can the Dr. have transcribed it. And this you cannot have been ignorant of, since both Salvagrius Boessius, and Dr. Bentley himself have given express notice of it: Salvagnius, p. 47. Sic & Clemens Alexandrinus, lib. 5. Strom. [...], &c. Sic enim Manuscriptus meus pervetustus Codex cum in omnibus Editionibus desint haec verba [...] ΙΒΙΣ and in Dr. Bentley, p. 345. [Page 119] Tit. ΙΒΙΣ it à Codex MStus Dionysii Salvagnii: in vulgatis ΙΒΙΣ abest. I do therefore again and again repeat it upon you, Sir, though your whole Book be a Proof of it, yet more especially from this particular passage, as being an irrefragable Demonstration; that you are a false Accuser, and that you are prepensely such. First, In telling the World, that that is in your MS. which is not in your MS. and secondly, in placing among your Proofs of things transcribed from your MS. that which you knew was not transcribed from your MS. and upon both these Articles I bring in your own Salvagnius Boessius for Evidence against you. And this you have gotten by over-doing your work, and laying your Indictment in two places. And the Man once convicted of wilfull, I cannot say Perjury, because 'tis not in a Court of Record, though you have kiss'd the Bible upon it more than once; yet of wilfull Prevarication is become for ever afterwards (at least, as to that cause) an incompetent Witness. And how far this Sentence may extend, I leave it to those who are most concerned in it to consider: desiring them withal, out of pure Compassion to themselves, not to be over eager in tempting a no very unwilling man to discover all he knows. For the letting the world know, how far Busie men are to be credited, I take to be doing a good piece of Service to the Publick; which he that shall venture upon, as he must incur the Displeasure-of Many, so he deserves the Thanks of more than One. I have complied (and not many more so obedient Readers can he boast of) with Mr. B's unreasonable Request, with which he concludes his Preface to his Examination of [Page 120]Dr. Bentley. But as for you your self, Sir, I have now near upon the matter done with you. For as for your wre [...]ed common-place Railery, and your blunt [...] upon the Dr. (most of them stole from [...]our Honourable Patron, but spoil'd in the telling: I scorn to take any notice of them. But there is still behind your SUPPLEMENT.
And that Supplement of yours must not be pass'd over in silence Then might you call me a partial Writer indeed, if I took no notice of you Supplement. This Supplement of yours you have set forth in a place by it self; and, the more effectually to draw the Reader's Eye upon it, marked it out into XIII Capital Figures. You introduce it thus.
V I expected, when I look'd on the last beautifull Edition of Callimachus, to have found every little passage of the Ancient Writers, wherein but his Name was mention'd, gather'd to my hands by Dr. Bentley.
W. Then you could not but have expected to have found in Dr. Bentley all those Quotations out of the Ancient Writers which are in Mr. Stanley's MS. whether ever he had seen that MS. or not. 'Tis Fate; The Dr. shall be acquitted by the same Mouth that accuses him.
V. But I have met with a few, which, I presume he either had not seen or forgotten.
W. A few.
V. And because I am perswaded it will not disserve the Learned World, I shall insert them.
W. Sc. By way of Supplement to the former Editions of Callimachus. For otherwise, what service could it be to the Learned World? And so you explain your self when upon Num. XII. you expresly say (p. 49.) that that Epigram, Quaenam haec forma Dei, &c. was (you thought) omitted in the late Edition. Here therefore we may expect to see the whole extent of your Reading, and what Services the Learned World may promise it self from your Pen. I shall take them one by one in order as they lie.
Num. 1. Suidas v. [...], &c. formerly cited at length, p. 42, 43.
W. Supra, p. 38.
V. Num. II. v. [...], &c. in the same page.
W. In the same page.
V. [...] Mr. B. p. 245.
W. [...] supra, p. 39.
V. Num. III. Natalis Comes's his Citation out of Callimachus's Hecate, accounted for already, p. 44.
W. I'll have nothing to do with Natalis Comes.
But why should I be so angry, will you ask me, with Natalis Comes? P. 50, 51. That Italian Critick was a famous man in his Generation, and had read no body knows how many MSS.P. 45.
I'll tell you, Sir, there was a certain Italian Critick, a man of vast Learning indeed,V. Mr. B. p. 225. confer. cum Dr. B's Answ. Praef. p. 100. but withal so horrible unmannerly, that the world ha [...]ed and despised him at the same time that it was [...]rofiting by him; one Joseph Scaliger. And he [...]ath given me such an Idea of this Italian Cri [...]ick of yours, that makes me apt (at first sight) [...] think the worse of any Book (yours I except) [Page 122]wherein I do but meet with so much as the name of this Natalis Comes. 'Tis in one of his Letters to Sethus Calvisius, Scaliger. Ep. 309. where he tells that great Astronomer with what satisfaction all men of Learning received that excellent Book; his Chronology. Upon which he immediately adds; Qui unum, ac cum illis ego, à te petunt, ut scriptorum quorundam minorum gentium mentione, qualis est Natalis Comes, homo futilissimus, abstineas. Dolet enim magnis viris illos pannos tuae purpurae assui: Tu haec in secundâ editione curabis. That it grieved all men of Learning to see the name of so wretched a Trifler as Natalis Comes standing in so excellent a Book as Calvisius his Chronology, and therefore Scaliger begs of him, that in the next Edition he would strike him out; which accordingly was done. This passage of Scaliger, Mausacus in his Dissert. Critic. (referr'd to more than once before) repeats, and expresses himself even to a passion upon it. It raised an indignation in him, that there should be found men in the world so weak as to pretend to establish any thing upon the Credit of such beggarly Scriblers as Natalis Comes, and set up for Criticks and Authors by stuffing out their Books with such borrow'd Authorities. So that whether the Dr. had never seen this passage in Natalis Comes, or whether he had forgotten it, or whether (which is more likely) he neglected it, I am not able to determine: But that this Natalis Comes is an Author with whom you are extremely we acquainted, is a plain case. There's not any one Name in your whole Book come so often over as Natalis Comes. Docto [...] Bentley takes his Fragment, n. 110. from th [...] [Page 123] Etymologicon (Nicas some call him—turn to it, Reader, in the Vindicator's Book, p. 43, 44.P. 43, 44. 'Tis a Learned Parenthesis) but Natalis Comes had published a larger Fragment: Dr. Bentley takes after Cosaubon's Lection;P. 45. but Natalis Comes gives them more correct, and translates them better: and who knows what MSS. Natalis Comes may have seen? Natalis Comes gives another Epigram too as from Callimachus, P. 50. and though I know not, whether that Italian Author was Critick enough to determine the Controversie; [what Controversie?] yet Dr. Bentley might have been so fair, as to have mention'd him. Natalis Comes hath given us a handsome Commentary upon the Fragment, num. 209. int. P. 71. Bentleian. But Dr. Bentley transcribes it (and that but abruptly) from the Scholiast upon Sophocles: and that Book indeed, the Scholiast upon Sophocles the Dr. had consulted: but as for Natalis Comes, one knows not whether Dr. Bentley hath ever so much as seen that Italian Critick. And here again, Num III. we have Natalis Comes: and Num. XI. Natalis Comes again.Mr. B. p. 26. confer. cum Dr. B's Answ. p. 5, 6. And may not a man say of this Natalis, your Darling Author: This Natalis Comes, Sir, is an erranter Pedant than Dion Chrysostom himself. But,
Pro captu Lectoris habent sua fata libelli.
The sense of which words I find happily alluded to in a late excellent Poem.
But each vile Scribler's happy on this Score, Dispensary.
He'll find some Draucus still to read him o'er.
After Natalis Comes your next darling Author is Lactantius Placidus. In page 36. we have had Lactantius, or (as you well observe) Lutatius Placidus; in pag. 38, 39. You have run [Page 124]on score with the same Lactantius Placidus for a considerable parcel of mistakes of the first size. Here n. IV.Supr. p. 93. you are in with your Lactantius again, and n. IX you will even Account with him, making as many mistakes, and as foul ones upon Lactantius, as Lactantius had before made for you.
V. N. IV. Lactantius Placidus, &c.
W. Enjoy it. The other three you are beholden to your MS. for. For though I doubt not, but that Mr. Stanley had read all Suidas over, yet for Mr. Stanley's Vindicator I cannot make out the like Evidence. Lactantius Placidus is a Critick so stooping towards your hight, that I am apt to believe you may have read him. And therefore this Number IV. (though I think I could dispossess you of it) yet I am willing to let pass for your own.
But here (as you cannot forbear him) you occasionally bring in another Remark upon the Dr. which should indeed have been referr'd to the Class of Transportations, supr. p. 78.
V.P. 82. To that Book of Callimachus, entitled, [...]; that is, The foundation of Cities and Islands, and the change of their Names; I would also refer all those passages in Pliny, cited by Dr. Bentley, n. 392, 393, 394, 395, 397. in which there is an express mention of the change of the names of those places.
W. In not one of these passages out of Pliny is there any such express mention. There is indeed express mention of the Names of several Places and People, and sometimes of several Names of the same places: but not of the [...], the Change of those Names. That [Page 125]which comes the nearest to your purpose, is n. 397. Eam (Samothracen) Callimachus antiquo nomine Dardaniam vocat. But to have answer'd your design, it should have been, antiquo nomine. (or rather antiquitùs) Dardaniam vocatam (fuisse) tradit. Express mention, you say, of the change of those Names. But, pray, Sir, what express mention of the change of the Names do you find in this Fragment, n. 393. inter Corcyram & Illyricum Melita; undè Catulos Melitaeos appellari Callimachus Auctor est. Here is, you say, express mention of the change of the Names. Were the Melitaei therefore formerly called Catuli, or the Catuli, Melitaei? For the one or the other of these you must mean. There were, Sir, of old a certain Race of Lap-dogs called Catuli Melitaei; and this name, saith Callimachus, was given them from the Island Melita; that is, from this Island Melita lying near Corcyra (Corfu:) not that other Island of the same name lying near Sicily, now called Malta. And this is all that Pliny means. But by one dash of your Pen are an whole Nation of Islanders metamorphos'd into a breed of Lapdogs. A man that was minded to deal less tenderly with you, than I am, would not have parted with this choice piece of Lap-dog Criticism for two or three pages together. But I cannot imagin you to be so wretchedly ignorant, as to have taken the Catuli Melitaei for a People.Mr. B. p. 45. No, certainly, Sir, you are a greater Scholar than so. This was put down only to carry on the humour of contradicting Dr. Bentley. But as you have got nothing by it hitherto, let me advise you to give it over.
V.P. 83. I am of opinion that the Fragment num. 399. may belong to Callimachus the Statuary.
W. Here you are at it again; Dr. Bentley must be corrected. There can no other reason in the world be given for any mans being of that opinion, but because that Fragment relates to a Statue. Pliny tells us a story of a certain person, that had, during his life-time two Statues, erected to him, both of which Statues, though standing in places far distant the one from the other (the one in Italy, the other in Greece) were struck with Lightning on the same day. This, saith Pliny, Callimachus look'd upon as next to a Prodigy. And might not Callimachus the Poet wonder at so strange an Accident as well as Callimachus the Statuary? But however this serves to expose the Dr. who (with Harduin) was so injudicious as to refer this passage to Callimachus the Poet.
V. Num. V. A Quotation out of Diomedes Grammaticus.
Num. VI. The like out of Atil. Fortunatianus de Priapeio metro.
W. The only Discovery with which you have in these two Numbers obliged the Learned World is, that as among the Romans, Propertius, Tibullus, and Gallus wrote in Elegiac Verse: So before them did Callimachus and Euphorion among the Greeks. And that Callimachus in his Epigrams had, as to the choice of his Metre, some Peculiarities of his own ('tis not said what) as had also Bacchilides, and some other Poets, theirs. And this is one of those Discoveries omitted by Dr. Bentley;P. 49. the bringing of which to light, you are perswaded is no Disservice to the Learned World. Certainly so; [Page 127]Sir, no Disservice. Your Quotation of Atil. Fortunatianus is out of Putschius his Grammatici Veteres, p. 2676. In the Dr's Answer to your Honourable Patron, p. 227. I find him within three pages of you in the same Atil. Fortunatianus, sc. on p. 2679. de Saturnio versu. Which passage in the Dr. with the occasion of his producing it. (p. 226.) I recommend to the perusal of the inquisitive Reader. So lucky are you all along in your Memorandums, though I take notice of but few of them.
V. Num. VII. Atilius Fortunatianus, p. 2680. de Saturnio versu.
W. Much to the same purpose as the two former, only with this difference, That as in them you did no Disservice to the Learned World, so in this you do no Service: this very passage being printed in Graevius's Callimachus, and placed by Spanheim, where it should be, amongst the Testimonia, p. 302.
V. Num. VIII. A Quotation out of Caecilius Minutinnus Apuleius from Caelius Rhodiginus.
W. In the fore-mention'd Salvagnius B [...] essius his Prolegomena, p. 16. which our Vindicator, without naming his Benefactor, hath confidently made his own. But those Prolegomena of Salvagnius Boessius Dr. Bentley hath read,Supr. p. and therefore cannot but have seen this Quotation. 'Tis a known Story, and produced by the Dr. over and over, (p. 345.) and that from far more certain Authorities, than that unknown Caecil. Minutianus Apuleius, upon whom Salvagnius sets this mark; Qui nondum lucem vidit, unique Caelio Rhodigino [...]otus fuit.
V. Num. IX. Lactantius Placidus.
Your darling Author Lactantius Placidus. There was no occasion in the world for your exposing your self here. In the first place you do not contradict Dr. Bentley. In the next, when you were only making a Supplement to Callimachus, you should have let those things alone which were already done to your hand. The passage here produced is printed with a large Commentary upon it, by Spanheim in his Volume of Learned Observations upon this Author, p. 571, 572. And a little Modesty might have taught you not to have medled with a subject before exhausted by so masterly a Pen. But to do you Justice, I verily believe, you did not know of Mr. Spanheim's having said any thing to it.
V.P. 86. Were I allow'd to play the bold Critick, I would for Arcados read Argivi, (for Tydeus, the Father of Diomedes—.
W. Bold Critick! Most properly spoken, and since 'tis an Epithet of your own chusing, may it be your Character. The Bold Critick. Such a number of gross Absurdities crowded into the compass of so few Lines (one short Parenthesis) I defie any man to shew me in any Book in the whole world again. And they are all your own: not one of them here, as before in the case of Branchiades Apollo, borrowed from Lactantius Placidus. Supr. p. 92, 93. In the first place, Sir, Spolium signifies the Spoils (as the Armour, and Badges of Honour) taken from off the Body of an Enemy slain in open fight; as in Virgil, Actoris Aurunci Spolium; and not the Armour worn by a man while living. So that according to your Correction of the Poet. This Diomedes the Son of Tydens must have been (as indeed afterward [Page 129]he was) a famous Warriour, must have perform'd all his Exploits, must have been slain in the Wars; and all this long before he was born; nay, he must, after he was slain, and before he was begotten, have danc'd in Armour at his Father's Marriage. For secondly, Sir, if you had took time to look into the Author upon whom you were commenting, you would have found that these words were timed at Tydeus his Marriage with the Mother of Diomedes. And thirdly, If you had look'd into any of your Poetical Dictionaries, you would have found, that there were two Diomedes, that is, Diomedes the Thracian, slain by Hercules, and this Argian Diomedes the Son of Tydeus; and that 'twas the Thracian Diomedes, who was so famous for his Man-eating, Chimney-nos'd Horses.Impius humano viscere paevit equos, Ovid. And consequent from these Premises you will find;Et Diomedis equi spirantes naribus ignem, Lucret. First, That your Argos [...] is nothing at all to the purpose. Secondly, That Euhippus was substantial Flesh and Blood, and not a mere Noun Adjective. And thirdly, From hence may the Reader take this Information, that a Book may have a great many Greek and Latin words in it, and bear a mighty shew of Learning, though written by a Man that understands nothing of the matter he is writing upon; and withal, that some of the pages written against Dr. Bentley are of this kind.
V. Manuscript — p. 87.P. 87.
W. Stuff!
V. Num. X. A Quotation out of Photius.
W. A bare mention of the name of Callimathus with something of a cenfure pass'd upon [Page 130] him with several other Writers in a Lump.
V. Num. XI. A choice Epigram out of Natalis Comes.
W. Ill have nothing to do with Natalis Comes.
V. Num. XII. An Epigram out of the Collection of the Epigrammata veterum with this Title.
Callimachi Imagini inscriptum Jovis. Quaenam haec forma Dei? cur versa est? Fulgura lucis.
Divinae non fert debilis haec acies, &c.
Which Enigram (p. 49.) if I am not mistaken, the late Editors of Callimachus have not mentioned.
W. You are mistaken, Sir, 'Tis in both the last Edition of Graevius's, and in the Edition last before that of Dacier; in both of them inter Testimonia veterum. Oh shamefull! Not so much as turn'd over the very first Leaves of the Book you were making your Comments upon!
V. N. XIII. A Citation out of Malela.
W. Omitted by the Dr. (I confidently presume) for the same reason, as were those out of Natalis Comes.
V. The Learned Editor of that Historian for Etesiis reads Aetiis.
W. The Learned Editor of that Historian faith not a word of the matter.
V. Perhaps it should be [...].
W. An easie Correction of [...] into [...]. For there be two of the same Letters in both words, [...]. And besides what have the Etesian Winds to do with the Racing-Chariots? [Page 131]Did those Chariots go with Sails? vide loc. Malel. p. 221.
V. Callimachus wrote of Winds, and therefore perhaps the true reading is in the Text, and should be translated de Etesiis.
W. What need therefore of such a forced Correction. [...] we know Callimachus wrote, but I never yet heard of any Book of his Entitled, [...].
V. And 'tis not altogether improbable, (but) that Suidas might mention his [...], if a small Correction be allow'd, and instead of [...], we read [...], &c. But this opinion wants the Countenance of a Manuscript.
W. There was no manner of occasion for this Learning of yours in this place. You'll never meet with any such thing in a MS. Or if you do, I'll venture to tell you before-hand, that MS is faulty. He that hath the least Gust of the Greek Language will tell you, that the [...] and the [...] cannot here be parted. But somewhat you must be a doing. A Critick without his Corrections, Editions, and MSS. is like a Beau without his Wig, vid. Mr. B. p. 146. [...], & Dr. B's Answ. p. 113.
And here ends your Supplement, upon which let us now cast up accounts, and see how deeply the Learned World stands indebted to you.
This Collection of yours, as you call it,P. 88. consists of XIII Capital Figures; of which Num. I, II. transcribed from Mr. Stanley's MS. are somewhat to the purpose, and will, 'tis likely, be inferted in the next Impression of Callimachus. III, VII, IX, XII, printed in the last [Page 132]Edition. IV, V, VI, X. a bare mention of the Name of Callimachus. The Epigram of XI. no more Callimachus's than your own. VIII, XIII. the substance of them both in the Dr's Collection over and over. But as for those indifferent names which you have tack'd to them, Dr. Bentley scorn'd to make use of such Authorities. So that, Sir, not to flatter you, the service you have done to the Learned World by presenting it with this your Supplement is just none at all: or the very utmost you can pretend to, is the having transcribed from Mr. Stanley's MS. the two Quotations out of Suidas. But as for those usefull and accurate Observations which you have added, as that of the Catuli Melitaei, and Diomedes's his Armour, they are purely your own. And if Mr. Graevius, or any one else shall think fit to insert them in the next Impression of Callimachus's Works, 'tis pity but that the world should be inform'd to whom it is obliged for them. P. 74. In the mean time, I have not been wanting in my Endeavours to blazon your. Atchievments, and make the Learned World take notice of them.
I have now performed all that, as far as you are concerned in it, my Title page promises. For upon the former part of your Book I had once designed a separate consideration. But I am weary of my work, and, I fansie, both your self and the Reader think it high time for me to have done with you. Yet since it might look somewhat suspiciously to take no manner of notice of it, I shall, with all the Brevity imaginable, bestow upon it a cursory Reflection or two.
That former part of your Book contains in it a most grievous Accusation. Dr. Bentley's Injustice and Inhumanity to those Authors who have written before him. Upon which I cannot but in the first place observe to the Reader; that had one designed to have written a Panegyrick upon the Dr. one could not have pitch'd upon a more proper Subject for it, than what this man makes choice of for matter of Reproach against him: All this Injustice and Inhumanity of the Dr. to those Authors who have written before him terminating in this point; That Dr. Bentley hath observed some mistakes that have drop'd from the Pens of several Great Men, who have written before him, and corrected them: a service for which he hath received the publick acknowledgment of persons altogether as considerable in the Commonwealth of Learning, as any of the Retainers to the Half-Moon Club. But if the Dr. doth (as indeed he pretty often doth) disagree from the opinions of those Great Men, who have written before him, it is, though sometimes with the assurance of a man that knows what he is speaking of, yet always, with a due respect and deference to the worth of the persons from whom he Dissents. But let us proceed to particulars.
V. Dr. Bentley calls Aemilius Portus, P. 7. hominûm futilissimum, the greatest of Triflers, op ad fin. Mal. p. 51.
W. Aemilius Portus was but a puny Critick, Vide quae de Aemilio Porto Pearsonus in Prolegom. ad Hierocl. Aemilius Portus, qui Suidam adeò infoeliciter transtulit, &c. and to persons of his Character there is no Epithet oftner apply'd, than that of futilissimus. We have had it once before, supr p. 122.
V.Ibid. Nor can Gerard Vossius, and Johnsius escape being treated by him with the like Language.
W. 'Tis a most notorious falshood.
V.Ibid. Who suffer'd themselves to be led into an Error through their Ignorance.
W. In errorem inscii inciderant, D. B. ep. p. 51. The word inscii, here is to be translated unwarily, incogitantly, not ignorantly. And but that these great men were guilty of a strange Incogitancy as to the matter the Dr. was speaking of, is a thing which cannot be deny'd, vide locum. You must learn to construe a piece of Latin, before you write another Book against Dr. Bentley.
V.Ibid. The same most Learned Vossius he severely arraigns in another place of committing a great mistake without Consideration and Judgment.
W. You misconstrue the Dr. again, and turn his words to a sense directly contrary to what they intend, Dr. B. ep. p. 83. non certo judicio, sed inconsideratè, preterque morem egisse videtur. The sense of the Dr's words is plainly this, That though Vossius had written the Name Malela without an s, yet 'twas not his certum judicium, not his own Judgment, or his own standing opinion, that it ought always to be so written; for that his own practice contradicted: but he wrote it so, inconsideratè, praeterque morem, inaccurately, incuriously, or (if you will have it so) inconsiderately; praeterque morem, and contrary to his usual practice. For the whole stress of the Dr's argument is, that 'twas not Vossius's his standing opinion, that the name Malela ought to be written without an s. and consequently, [Page 135]that his writing it so, could not be through ignorance, or mistake, or for want of judgment; but purely either through inadvertency, or rather with a contented unexactness in compliance with some other Authors who had usued that way of writing it. So that you here charge the Dr. with charging Vossius with want of judgment, when the Dr. is arguing directly the contrary, and discharging him from that suspicion. Here's Justice and Judgment joyn'd together!
V.P. 8. He speaks of the most Learned Man of the later Greeks, Leo Allatius, as if he were [a Brute] not so much a Man, as a composition of Ill-nature and Envy.
W. The flourish of [a Brute] is of your own making. The Dr. allows him the Title of eruditissimus, ep. p. 50. As for the other part of his character, ep. p. 51. See how, after Bochart, the Learned Dr. Th. Smith speaks of Leo Allatius in his Narratio de vitâ, &c. Cyrilli Lucarii; as in many other places, so particularly, p. 113. Leo Allatius — suspectae fidei testis, & ad convitiandum propensissimus. An unlucky Quality, Sir, especially where there's no good one (which was not Allatius's case) to counterbalance for it.
V. He endeavours to prove. Erasmus, Ibid. Scaliger, and Grotius, men of no Palate in matters of Learning; or Fools.
W. A most notorious falshood.
V. And accuses them of a most foul error.
W. But 'tis a most foul error in you to say so. He accuses not them of a most foul error, but the Copies of Plutarch of a very faulty Lection, which he wonders indeed none of those [Page 136]great Men should have observed. Here follows your own Correction of the Dr's Correction. 'Tis like all the other things that are your own. You don't understand what the Dr's at, Sir, [...]. The Dr's Criticism runs more upon the [...] than the [...]. And therefore your Marginal Learning is (like every thing else you write) nothing to the purpose.
V.P. 9. He allows not Florus Christianus, Scaliger, or any other of the Moderns to have understood the true measures of an Anapaestick Verse.
W. Of which presumption Mr. Boyle long before your self had accused the Dr. and in a much livelier manner; and before your Book came out had received the Dr's answer to it. Mr. B. p. 159. Dr. B's Answer, p. 132. & seqq. Is not the republishing boffled Objections without taking a Syllable notice of the Answer which had been before given to them, a piece of Impertinence?
V.P. 10. He speaks very coursely of Lilius Gyraldus, and Monsieur Menage.
W. 'Tis false. He never speaks of them otherwise than very respectfully.
V.Ibid. He takes occasion frequently to quarrel with, and correct Isaac Casaubon.
W. That he quarrels with Isaac Casaubon is falsely spoken. 'Tis true, Dr. Bentley hath observed that great Man to have made (as the greatest of men have done) some mistakes; and some of them he takes occasion to correct; but this is not quarrelling with him. Dr. Bentley admires Isaac Casaubon, and never speaks of him out in terms of respect.
V. He censures the Commentators upon Pliny. Ibid.
W. The worst you can make of his censure upon the Commentators upon Pliny is, that they were Learned Men, but not omniscient. He takes notice of a particular passage in that Author of which the Commentators had fail'd to give a right Explication, but saith he, [...], No man seeth all things. A severe Censure!
V. He condemns Meursius of Ignorance.Ibid.
W. 'Tis false. The Dr. hath indeed, p. 40. these words concerning Meursius, Horum versuum ignoratione totâ viâ erravit Joannes Meursius. The meaning of which is this: Julius Pollux, l. 7. c. 33. produces upon a certain occasion the Authority of that Ancient Comic Poet Eubulus, and gives it in Eubulus his own words. That Quotation being written in Iambic Verse (a sort of Metre next to Prose) and having nothing in it of a Poetical Air (as containing only a Catalogue of Names) and standing in Pollux continued with the rest of the Test; Meursius mistakes it for the words of Pollux himself, and not of the Author whose name Pollux cites to it: and horum versuum ignoratione, mistaking this Quotation for Prose, whereas indeed it was Verse; and taking it for the words of Pollux, whereas they were indeed Eubulus's; upon this mistake, totâ viâ erravit, he was quite out in [...]his Explication of that passage. But that, Sir, was a mistake (as any one that shall consult the place will see) more easily committed than corrected. And Dr. Bentley's taking notice of it was no condemning Meursius of Ignorance. Shew me where in any of his writings, Dr. Bentley [Page 138]calls Meursius an ignorant Man, and I'll retract every word I have spoken on his behalf. Sir, I must tell you again, that before you write any more Critical Books, you must understand Latin a little better, and learn to translate properly.
V.ibid. He condemns Quintilian too: As if Quintilian did not know the true reading of a word in Cicero, as well as Dr. Bentley. But I thought Quintilian a creditable Authority.
W. Credible, Sir, you mean. But I have mended your Form for you upon this Article. What you speak of is this passage in Tully, De inventione, hujus constitutionis Hermagor as inventor esse existimatur. And Ibid. Quòd si magnam in his Hermagor as habuisset facultatem. In both these places Quintilian reads it Hermagora. I dare say, the ingenious Mr. Boyle, who, 'tis plain, by his Stile, hath a Musical Ear; after all which (rather than lose a flourish) he hath said upon the matter, is on the Dr's side against Quintilian. With the Dr. stand all the MSS. and so would any man that hath aures non Asininas. But I believe, as to this affair, you are sincere, and do think the Dr. too presumptuous.
V. Nay, the Dr. saith, that though Tully himself should affirm he had written so; yet the Dr. would not believe Tully himself. No, Dr. Bentley would not submit to Tully himself. Tully the Master of Elcquence and Standard of good Language.
W. 'Tis true the Dr. doth say, (p. 80.) Ego verò Ciceronem ità scripsisse ne ipsi quidem Cicernoi affirmanti crediderim. Bold words, I confess. But Sir, you must allow the Dr. to [Page 139] rhetoricate now and then. I have known an whole Book, as large as yours and mine put together, made up of nothing but Rhetorications; and yet it took very well and turn'd to better account to the Bookseller, than the best that ever he printed.
V. He calls Malela a Mule
W. Nay the Dr. is very rude to Malela, P. 11. V. D. D. H. Hodii, Prolegom. in Malel. that's the truth on't. Make a Collection, Sir, of the Dr's Complements upon his Author Malela, and print them by way of a second Appendix to the next Edition of your Book. You'll expose him most terribly. Amabo te, Syrisce; serione haec an joco? Quae te enim larvae atque intemperiae agitabant cum haec scriberes? [...]; Muli sunt ista, non hominis — Os hominis! Oh hominis stuporem! ab ist â pecude, &c. These are the Dr's Civilities to the Author of the foregoing Papers. But as for your own Civilities, Sir, in the following part of the same page (11.) I leave them to be fairly divided between your self and your Friends.
V. He indites and arraigns the Reverend Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Theodoret, and Athenagoras of Forgery.
W. 'Tis a most notorious falshood.
V. He flies higher and brings the Rational and Learned S. Paul under his Pounces.P. 17.
W. Very clumsily express'd, Sir. Dr. Bentley is not the first man that hath offered at a Conjectural Emendation of the Text of the New Testament. I hope, Sir, though you talk so much of Scripture, Fathers, and Councils; yet you are no Clergy-man. I should be very sorry to hear, that a man who takes such delight in reviling his Betters belongs to the Gown.
V.P. 23. He falls foul upon his most beloved Friend Dr. Hody, exposing his Exposition of the Orphic Ericapaeus with an air peculiar to himself.
W. The Reverend and Learned Dr. Hody is Dr. Bentley's most beloved Friend. Amicissimus noster atque eruditissimus HODIUS are the Dr's own words, ep. p. 1. to which he adds, p. 93. cui multum olim debebit historia Ecclesiastica.
But what a strange thing is this! That a man should set up for a Critick and Censor of other mens works, without having ever read so much as the very Title page of the Book upon which he is making his Reflections. Sir, if you had but read so much as the Title-page to Malela's Chronology (as 'tis very plain Latin, I believe you could have construed it) you would have found, that Dr. Hody was no more concerned in this Exposition of the Orphic Ericapaeus than your self. The Title-page of that Book bears, JO ANNIS ANTIOCHENI, &c. cum interpret. & Notis EDM. CHILMEAD [...] — Praemittitur dissertatio de Authore per HUMFREDUM HODIUM. Dr. Hody, you see, Sir, was neither the Interpreter nor Commentator upon that Book, but only the Editor, and Writer of the Dissertation concerning the Anthor. And yet this same most horrible Blunder you have over again, p 89. Or if you had turned to the place it self, that you are speaking of, Malel. Chronogr. p. 90. you would have found, that this Exposition, as it was not Dr. Hody's, so neither was it Mr. Chilmead's, but Mr. I. Gregory's, taken out of his Miscellany Tracts published in English 4 to. p. 147. Here's a Critick for you, as well read in what be has not seen, as in what he has.
V. Despising the Author as well as the Criticism with an, it is not my province to trample on what lies prostrate at my feet.
W. But [...], is, mortuis insilire, Sir. To trample on those that lie prostrate, as dead men in their Graves, not as vanquish'd Enemies at the feet of the Conqueror. You must learn to construe Greek and Latin, Sir, before you write any more Books in Critick. Yet even did this man think himself good enough to undertake Dr. Bentley.
Observe it, Reader, and consider the consequence: when once Banter hath broke in upon a man's Reputation, how securely Ignorance will follow its Leader.
I have done with you, Sir. And I think there is not one single Article advanced against the Dr. throughout your whole Book, of which I have not given a fair account. Or if some little things may have escaped me, I promise you, to give them, upon demand, the regard they shall deserve. As for what I have written, some few little odd Exceptions you may make to here and there a particular passage: I saw them, and I pass'd them over; I was willing to leave you here and there a Cavilling Gap, and 'twere but on purpose to draw you on, and lay before you the Temptation of exposing your self to fresh Disgraces. But take my advice, Sir, Fas est & ab hoste doceri: P. 3. Return your Sword into its Scabbard, and let's hear no more of you. You are not a person made for the humbling of Dr. Bentley. You have not the way of doing these things; The Stile, the Wit, and the Delicate Turn: nothing in you but blunt Confidence. Your Friends (if you have any that will deal [Page 142]freely with you) will tell you the same.
One word to the Postscript, and I have done. That that Postscript is not of your own writing, I have before told you, I am certain. My reason for it is, because 'tis written in English, in a Stile and Language that a man may understand it. Be the Author of it who he will; all that I shall say to him is this; That since he hath so officiously made all the Malice and Ignorance of your Book his own: all that is said to you let him take to himself.
I had designed in imitation of your Honourable Patron's charitable Instructions to Dr. Bentley, to have concluded my Address to you also with two or three Articles of Advice. But I am afraid 'twould be lost Labour. And besides, several hints of this Nature you will find loosely scatter'd abroad in the foregoing Papers, which you may easily draw together, and make what use of them you please. One thing let me most seriously and importunately beg of you, which is this; If you are resolved still to go on writing in this kind, let the Bible alone. For in good earnest, 'tis a most scandalous thing, to see a man so gravely quoting Texts of Scripture, when he is upon so unchristian a work as is that of bearing false Witness against his Neighbour. I am,