Streets is of the Sword And thus much for Mr. Bennet's two first Tesimonies against the Dr these two Letters from Mr. Boyle the Falshood charged upon him in the former and the Rudeness in the latter I might indeed have spared my self the Labour of answering them so particularly it had been sufficient to have excepted against Mr. Boyle as too much a Party in this Cause to be admitted for an Evidence I might withal take occasion to remind the Reader of what is somewhere before hinted to him that we are not now any longer to seek who 't was that began this unhappy Contest and first set the Christ-Church Men upon Dr. Bentley For I cannot yet see what necessity there was for Mr. Bennet's informing Mr. Boyle of the Dr's disobliging Expressions whatever they were as well as his disobliging Delays Let Mr. Bennet write it over his Door Quid de quoque viro cui dicas supe caveto Sup. p. 144. The two Certificates of the Collator Sup. p. I very very well remember and I do declare That another considerable part of Mr. Bennet's Evidence against the Dr. have been already considered Here follows another Certificate against the Dr. This is to Certifie That Phalaris 's Epistles in Greek and Latin put out by the Honourable Charles Boyle Esquire were Printed by me at my own Cost and Charges and neither Mr. Bennet nor any other Bookseller was any ways concerned in it As soon as the Book was Printed I sold near the whole Impression to Mr. Crossly Bookseller in Oxon. Witness my Hand JOHN CROOKE This Certificate of Mr. Crooke is produced to prove another Vntruth upon the Dr. upon Account of a certain passage in his Preface given in these words P. 36. The Bookseller once asked me privately that I would do him the Favour to tell my Opinion if the new Edition of Phalaris then in the Press would be a vendible Book telling me that he was concerned in the Impression and hop'd it would sel well To which the Dr. reply'd That as for the Sale of the Book he need not question it the great names of those that recommended it would get it many Buyers But however under the Rose the Book was a spurious piece and deserved not to be spread in the World by another Impression This private Discourse Mr. Bennet betrayes to the Christ-Church Editors And what follows upon that every Body knows And good reason for it must the methods of a Learned Society be reflected upon Mun Booksellers be whisper'd in the Ear That puts his young Men upon Printing spurious Books Hine illae Lachryma And this the Dr. declares is all the Reflection he made to the disadvantage of Mr. Boyle This Discourse between himself and Mr. Bennet the Dr. very well remembers But here again Mr. Bennet is very positive to the contrary P. 118. I utterly deny saith he That ever I spake a Syllable to him tending that way and 't is improbable to the highest degree that every I should And so comes in Mr. Crooke's Certificate to shew That the Book was Printed altogether at another Man's Cost and Charges and near the whole Impression when finished Sold to Mr. Crossley Bookseller in Oxford from him had Mr. Bennet fifty Books at first and a few more some years afterwards from another hand but in the whole a far less number than he commonly uses of any Oxford Impression Therefore there can have been no such Discourse between him and the Dr. as that He should have asked the Dr's Opinion concerning the Book whether he thought it would be a vendible piece and that he should tell the Dr. That he had a Concern in the Impression and hop'd it would Sell well I utterly deny that ever I spake a Syllable to him tending this way and 't is improbable to the highest degree that ever I should But in the first place that Mr. Bennet should have had so very frequent occasions to Discourse with the Dr. about the Episties of Phalaris when they were in the Press and yet never have asked him his Opinion concerning them that Mr. Bennet I say during his nine MOnths Sollicitation for the manuscript-Phalaris and in all the at least twenty times asking him for it yet all this while should never so much as once speak one Syllable to him tending towards the learning his Opinion concerning the Book This to my Apprehension is improbable even to the highest Degree The Dr. was pleased to consult Mr. Bennet some times in his way of a Bookseller And is it not somewhat strange that Mr. Bennet should never have taken his turn of consulting the Dr. sometimes in his way of a Scholar This was an Omission scarce any Bookseller in England besids Mr. Bennet would have been guilty of And this is the Circumstance upon which the very stress of the Dr's Relation depends Mr. Bennet's asking him his Opinion concerning the Book for 't was that part of the Discourse occasioned the Dr's passing that Reflection upon Mr. Boyle's undertaking Whether Mr. Bennet told the Dr. that he was concerned in the Impression or not and that therefore he hoped ti would Sell well is little material Upon which I must take the Liberty of repeating Mr. Bennet's own words upon this very occasion P. 120 If the Dr. invented these little Unnecessary Circumstances we must believe him to be out of his Wits and that he loves to tell Lyes to no manner of purpose and when 't is in every Bodies Power to trace him But Secondly was Mr. Bennet never concerned in the Sale of a Book and interested to wish it might prove a vendible Commodity which was altegether Printed at the Cost and Charges of another man The Book was Printed at the sole Cost of Mr. Crooke and yet Mr. Crossley ventured to take off near the whole Impression And may not Mr. Bennet himself have had some such Design in his Head And may not that have been the meaning of his asking the Dr's Opinion concerning the Book And may he not thereupon have mentioned his Hopes of its proving a Saleable piece And may not that indifferent Character the Dr. gave him of the Book have made him more wary how he over-loaded himself with Copies of it and have prov'd the occasion of his using a fewer number of them than he commonly doth of other Oxford Impressions And what signifies it whether he said in express and direct Terms I am concerned in the Impression or I think I shall be concerned in it or I would be concerned in it if I had but good Hopes it would prove a vendible Book May not Mr. Bennet as well have express'd himself losely in any tone or other of these or such like Terms as the Dr. hath related it in one of them And what difference doth this make as to the substance of the thing and the occasion for which the Dr. produces it I can only Query Mr. Bennet upon this Head There is not I think
Being order'd and appointed by the Masters and Wardens of the Company of Stationers to Collect from the Booksellers three Books of each sort Printed which were due to the two Vniversities and the King's Library I received of Mr. Tho. Bennet a great many Books upon that Account without any Dispute whatsoever I find likewise by my Accounts that his Books and those from most of the other Booksellers were delivered in before the 13th Day of July 1693. And on that Day part of them were sent to the Universities Nich. Hooper Beadle The Dr. in his Preface P. 30â— upon a certain occasion not worth the repeating had said That after he was nominated to the Library-Keepers Office before his Patent was finished he was informed that one Copy of every Book Printed in England which were due to the Royal Library by Act of Parliament had not of late been brought into the Library according to the said Act upon which passing by for Expedition sake the rest of the Story he called upon Mr. Bennet and demanded his share towards it which was then but very small But Mr. Bennet instead of complying with the Demand answered very pertly That he knew not what Right the Parliament had to give away any Mans Property The Company of Stationers were a Body had a common Purse and he hop'd they would stand it out at Law c. 'T is for the Disproof of this Story that Mr. Bennet got this Certificate of the Beadle Upon which let me only desire the Reader to take particular Notice of First this Expression of it Delivered in and Secondly the Date of the Year when the Books were so Delivered in In both which Particulars we shall find Mr. Bennet guilty of a little slight of hand The Books were Delivered in but who is Mr. Bennet's Deponent here speaking of of the King's Library-Keeper I think And what is he speaking of Of the King's Library And where are we to understand these Books to have been Delivered in Into the Royal Library And when were they so Delivered in before the 13th Day of July 1693. Very few Readers would understand this Certificate of the Beadle in the Connexion it bears and according to the occasion for which it was produced in any other meaning But to our Surprize we find that none of these things were intended by Mr. Bennet This Appendix of Mr. Bennet's had not been long out e're he gets some inkling that all the Abuses offered to the Dr. by that Sawcy Bookseller would scarce be put up so tamely as he expected and fearing thereupon that some Body might re-examine their Beadle upon this lame Account of his Mr. Bennet presently takes care to be before-hand with them and with all speed posts out a Second Edition of his Appendix and there just after this Certificate of his Beadle he slides in by way of farther Explication of himself a little Paragraph wherein the whole Story is new made Since the First Edition of this Book P. 116â— c. Let the Reader that thinks it worth his while see the passage at large and there he 'll find That neither is the Library-Keeper at S. James's at all concerned in this Certificate of the Beadle but the Treasurer of the Stationers Company neither was it the King's Library the Books were Delivered into but the Company 's Ware-house neither had the Dr. any Account of what Books were Delivered in or from what hands they came but the foresaid Treasurer All this appears from Mr. Bennet's own Second Edition The puzzling Account Mr. Bennet had given of this Affair and the Knowledge I had of his methods put me indeed upon making some Enquiry into this Story about the Beadle For seeing such very unfair Dealings from the Half-Moon in all the rest of this Controversie I made no doubt but here was as much trick and faise Colour in this too if I could but come at the Truth And so indeed it prov'd for a Friend of mine of Mr. Bennet's Trade got me this following Certificate from the same Beadle which I have now by me Sign'd by himself It s consistent indeed with what he deposed before but it will fully refute the false Inferences that Mr. Bennet drew from it September 12th ....... I Deliver'd to the Reverend Dr. Benthley then Library-Keeper at St. James ' s a parcel of Books gather'd for the King's Library and I never deliver'd any before either to Him or to any of his Predecessors having been Beadle to the Company of Stationers ever since the 26th of March 1692. Nich. Hooper Beadle The Reader may take notice That the Beadle is positive as to the day of the Month September 12th when he deliver'd the Books at St. James's But he does not tell the Year The Reason was That he had entred the day of the Month in his Book of Accounts but he had omitted the Year and though he believes it was 1694 yet in his Affidavit he would affirms no farther than he could be absolutely sure of In which he acted like a Man of Conscience and if Mr. Bennet had been as scrupulous in his own Testimonies I dare say this Phalaridan Controversie had never been started But however as to the Year when the Books were Deliver'd we need to Testimony of the Beadle for it could not possibly be before 1694. because September 12th 1693. Mr. Justel the Dr's Predecessor was still alive and no Successor then named to him and its certain from the Date of the Dr's Patent and from several other authentick Testimonies that he had no Power nor Custody of the Library till above half a year after Now to Examine Mr. Bennet's Inferences from his Beadle's Certificate and to compare them with this other from the same hand Dr. Bentley had said That he was informed that one Copy of every Book Printed in England which was due to the Royal Library by Act of Parlioment had not of late been brought into the Library according to the said Act. Vpon this I made Application to the Master of the Stationer's Company and demanded the Copies The Effect whereof was that I procur'd near a 1000 Volumes of one sort or other which are now lodg'd in the Library Now the Truth of this is confirm'd by the Beadle himself For he Deposes that he had never Deliver'd one Book to the Library till after the Dr's Application But then comes Mr. Bennet by Dint of Logick to disprove this Account of the Dr's The Dr. P. 114. says he Would be thought to have first set a-foot this Collection due to the Royal Library and again P. 116. he Dr. says he set about this Project of getting the Books due to the King's Library Collected for so he would have us understand him And this he disproves because there was a Collection made in July before 1693. Now this is so exactly like Mr. Boyle's way of refuting the Dr. that one would be apt to suspect the same hand was employ'd in drawing up both
with Dr. Bentley And because it is scarce to be hoped that many should be found who will give themselves the trouble of examining every particular I shall point out some few Instances of our Vindicator's Allegations against the Dr. by which the Reader may give a guess at the whole which upon Tryal I can assure him he will find all of a piece The chief Design of the Vindicator's Book is to charge the Dr. with Plagiarism upon account of a certain MS. from whence it is pretended Dr. Bentley borrowed a great part of his Collection of the Fragments of Callimachus published in Mr. Graevius's late Edition of that Author and put them off for his own As I may pretend to have examined this part of his Accusation more nicely than I can expect many others will do I sincerely declare that I see not the least Reason to believe that the Dr's Collection was one line or hint the richer for his having seen that MS. The true State of the Controversie is given in the first Sheet and half ending at page 23. To which he that shall have the Curiosity of going to the Half-Moon and collating the Original Evidence it self there to be shewn against the Dr. is desired to add the Cautions laid down page 51 c. If he would without losing the time of going over the whole see some particular Exemplifications of our Vindicator's Ingenuity in prosecuting his Charge against the Dr. and of the Validity of his Proofs he may consult these following Passages Remark the first upon Proofs 6 7. p. 25. and p. 33.62 63.116 117 118. and especially p. 79.80.81.86 As for a choice Observation of our Vindicator's though indeed not his own but taken up at second hand from Mr. Boyle upon the Extent of the Dr's Reading I referr him to p. 37 c. He that would take the measure of his Learning and Judgment will find it as in all his most judicious Animadversions upon the Dr's pretended mistakes so more especially in these Observations of his own p. 88 89.91 92.102 c. and in his Supplement p. 120 c. 125.128 c. And here let me give which was omitted in its proper place the English of those two Greek Lines pag. 89. by the help of which even the Wits and the Fools of Parts who are indeed the support of the Cause may be able without the help of more Learning than what their Mother tongue affords them to give some guess at the profundity of our Vindicator's Judgment and how proper a Person he is to set up for a Corrector of other Men's Writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. According to Stephanus and Dr. Bentley's Emendation in English thus I also as well as Pythagoras command you to abstain from the feeding upon Beans or the Flesh of any living Creature But according to our Learned Vindicator's Correction thus I also as well as Pythagoras command you to abstain from feeding upon Beans and that you sit still without speaking a word As for the Veracity of our Honest Vindicator his whole Book is one continued Proof of it The very Design of his Book being to prove that the Dr. stole the best part of his Collection from their MS. But He having perused and collated that MS. with the Dr's printed Collection he could not but know this to be a most notorious Falshood vid. p. 64.118 And he that shall prefer an Indictment the very Matter of which he knows to be false cannot design Truth in his Proofs But to point the Reader to one full clear and undeniable Proof of our Viudicator's Veracity let him turn to pag. 114. line 15. Dr. Bentley to Conceal c. and his very next Allegation against the Dr. p. 115. is much of the same stamp As for the other part of his Accusation against the Dr. Dr. Bentley's Injustice and Inhumanity to the Authors that lived before him I have dispatch'd the whole in so few words that the perusing of it will be but little loss of time p. 133. c. Which when the Reader shall have done to his own Judgment I leave it whether I had not Reason to address my self to him in the manner I there do P. 141. Observe it Reader and consider the Consequence when once Banter hath broken in upon a Man's Reputation how securely Ignorance will follow its Leader Mr. Bennet's Appendix being about that Matter of Fact which hath fill'd the mouths of the Party with such Clamours if any thing I have written shall find a Reader I may presume it will be my Examination of that Appendix to which therefore I shall not here say any more than that I am even amazed at Mr. Bennet's Confidence in concluding his Appendix with so serious and solemn a Protestation P. 133. That those things were written by him with the same Sincerity and Care as if he had been upon his Oath that he had no where made use of any false Colours nor willingly mislead his Readerin any the least trifling Circumstance of that tedious Story Which taking his words in the plain and natural Sense they seem to Design I dare pronounce to be a most notorious Falshood And now upon the whole after all the Pains these Gentlemen of the Half-Moon have taken upon the Dr. and his Writings there is not I think any thing material advanced against him either as to matter of Fact or matter of Learning which hath not received a thorow Examination that part of Mr. Boyle's Book excepted which the Dr. hath reserved to his own farther Consideration though I believe they could be very well content to dispense with him for the performance of his Promise And all the black Accusations hitherto preferr'd against him of Ignorance Plagiarism Falshood c. appearing upon Tryal as I think they plainly do both frivolous false and malicious They may if they please still go on with their landable Design of Printing things upon the Dr. and write a Book against him once a Month as long as he lives I dare say they will neither give him any Disturbance in his own Thoughts nor injure his Reputation with others Since they stand already convicted of so many notorious Prevarications whatsoever they may hereafter advance I shall not scruple to pronounce that Reader not only Simple and Credulous but also Partial and Vnjust that shall trust them upon their own bare words or give any heed to the most specious of their Pages till they have stood a Tryal And what I assume on the behalf of the Dr. the same Priviledge I think I have a Right of claiming for my self who having shew'd my self so fearless of their Displeasure may reasonably expect the worst of Revenges that the Pen can execute V. Mr. B. p. 220. And as for any rougher Instrument I shall soon be placed out of their reach ADVERTISEMENT LATELY publish'd The Epistles of Phalaris translated into English from the Original by the Author of this ANSWER TO
THE Author of the Remarks UPON Dr. Bentley's Fragments OF CALLIMACHUS SIR 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 't is 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 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 Vndeniable 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 Vndeniable But I scorn to take a weak Enemy at Advantage That would be a Disparagement 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 Vndeniable 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
4 to 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 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 't was 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 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 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 quà m 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 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 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 'T was 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 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 't is 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 'T is 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 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 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 half (a) As N. 2 27 38 40 42 46 50 c. sometimes not the Quarter (b) As N. 52 67. tit
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 'T is 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 't is 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 'T is 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T would 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 inclined you to believe that he was got as far as the Letter
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 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 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. Vndeniable 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 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Î’. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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 â—im line by line â—â—eâ—trous management Besides what need at that time had the Dr. of such Precaution I presume when that MS. was in
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 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 't is 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 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 't is 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 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 't is 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 tà m 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. 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
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 haâ—ed and despised him at the same time that it was â—rofiting by him one Joseph Scaliger And he â—ath given me such an Idea of this Italian Criâ—ick of yours that makes me apt at first sight 〈◊〉 think the worse of any Book yours I except wherein I do but meet with so much as the name of this Natalis Comes 'T is 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 Doctoâ— Bentley takes his Fragment n. 110. from thâ— Etymologicon Nicas some call him turn to it Reader in the Vindicator's Book p. 43 44. P. 43 44. 'T is 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. in t 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 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 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
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 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 'T is 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 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 't is 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 't is likely be inferted in the next Impression of Callimachus III VII IX XII printed in the last 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 't is 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 Common-wealth 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. 'T is 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 't was 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 't was not Vossius's his standing opinion that the name Malela ought to be written without an s. and consequently 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 't is 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 great Men should have observed Here follows your own Correction of the Dr's Correction 'T is 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. 'T is 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 'T is 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. 'T is 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 â—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 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
Coll. Truth is one and I am sure these are two Mr Bennet's first account in Mr. Boyle's Book p. 6. I was employ'd by the Honourable Mr. Boyle and by him only to borrow the MS. of Phalaris from Dr. Bentley After about nine Months sollicitation it was delivered into my Custody Coll. Was Dr. Bentley Library-Keeper Mr. Bennet during this nine Months time that you were solliciting for the MS Mr. B. I crave your pardon for that Sir you don't find me saying any such thing Coll. Ay but Mr. Bennet to deal plainly with you here were you guilty of a very fraudulent Concealment No honest man or one that had been minded to do Justice would have express'd himself to loosely when he was speaking as upon Oath This was a very gross Omission Mr. Bennet and 't is to be seared a wilfull one The Dr's being Library-Keeper or not Library-Keeper during that nine Months time is so material a circumtance that it gives a clear different cast to the whole matter of fact and makes all Mr. Boyle's Book run upon a very foul mistake and 't is scarce to be imagined that the Omission of a circumstance upon which so much depended and which express'd would have spoil'd all Mr. Boyle's Book was purely an Oversight Mr. B. This business of the nine Months Sollicitation is fairly stated in my Appendix Coll. Ay Mr. Bennet But that was not till Dr. Bentley had first stated it for you and stated it upon such Authorities there was no contesting Otherwise the Town might still have been by the help of your faithfull relation with Mr. Boyle's Paraphrase upon it no less than eight Months in nine out in their reckoning But let 's see how Mr. Boyle manages your first account and what Explication he gives of it Mr. B. p 2. About four or five years ago the worthy Dean of Christ-Church Dr. Aldrich desired me to undertake an Edition of Phalaris In order to it a Manuscript in the King's Library was to be consulted I sent to Mr. Bennet my Bookseller in London to get the Manuscript and desired him to apply himself to Dr. Bentley in my name for the use of it not doubting in the least a ready compliance with such a Request from one of his Station and Order After an expectation of many Months Mr. Bennet sends me at last a Collation of part of the MS. with this account that he had with a great difficulty and after long delays got the MS. into his hand And again p. 19. The Reader is desired to take notice that there was about nine Months Sollicitation used to procure it a longer time than the Ceremony of his Inauguration to his Library-Keeper's place could require Sparkling Lines in which if there be any design beyond Phrase it must be this to intimate to the Reader that the Dr. was for at least a great part of that nine Months time Library-Keeper and had the MS. in his custody Or if we must not look for meaning here where he is only pouring out words yet in the former passage he seems to speak plain Sense and in the more simple and historical Stile Query Therefore what Station can Mr. Boyle there intend must it not be that of Library-Keeper to his Majesty Nay is not this made the aggravating circumstance of the whole matter of fact that one in the Dr's Station should refuse so common a favour Mr. B p. 9. such Mr. Bayle esteems the use of the King 's MSS. to a person of his Quality That a Library-Keeper should be no more obliging to a Gentleman Scholar Id p 11 17. Id. p. 15 267 conf cum 20 40 105 p. 220. c. passim That the Library at St. James 's should be next to that at Fez a strange leap of Thought the most inaccessible in the world that there should be no approaching the King's Library without a Fee that the King of England's Library should have such a Dunce for it's Keeper so poor a Scholar and so little knowing how to behave himself to a Gentleman that he ought to be turned out of his place But I need not tell any one who hath but once cast his Eyes upon Mr. Boyle's Book how plentifull he is of his Civilities to the Library-Keeper at St. James's So I am sure the Town took it that the whole ground of the Quarrel between Dr. Bentley and Mr. Boyle lay in the Dr's refusing to a person of Mr. Boyle's Quality the use of a Book out of the Library of which he was Keeper and consequently the proper person to whom such an Application was to be made This false representation of the matter of fact was necessary in order to the use Mr. Boyle had to make of it which was to justifie the peculiar Liberties it was resolved that young Gentleman should take with one of his Majesty's Servants This mistake Mr. Bennet's first account favours and upon that first account of Mr. Bennet doth Mr. Boyle build his whole Book The disobliging delays and great difficulties Dr. Bentley put them to in procuring the MS. and when at last they had it the little time he let it lie in their hands All which being a partial disguised and distorted relation of the matter of fact and so contrived on purpose to mislead the Reader he that shall publickly attest it by giving it under his hand in print and make an offer of affirming it upon Oath for a faithfull relation Append. p. 93. deserves as course a Complement as the Dr. gave him But let us proceed to Mr. Bennet's second account and see how he qualifies the matter there Mr. Bennet's Appendix p. 99. There was not a single word in my relation that doth in the least imply me to have thought the Dr. Library-Keeper the whole time I ask'd him for the MS. I only apply'd to him as a Friend very conversant in these things who lived not far from the Royal Library had an interest there and could have procured the MS. for me Idem p. 103. I never went to Dr. Bentley upon the Errant of borrowing the MS. I only spoke to him about it sometimes as he stopt at my Shop or pass'd by it Though I ask'd him so often twenty times at least that I might well say I sollicited for it Idem p. 109. I admit so far of the Dr's account that the MS. was delivered used and returned within a Month or rather five weeks after it was in his Custody But I apply'd to him seven or eight Months before he was Library-Keeper Idem p. 110. He had interest enough to have procured it me c. Idem p. 111. I do not say that the Dr. could have LENT me the Book much sooner than he did But that he could have GOT the Book to 〈…〉 be lent to me or at least that so he pretended and that be did so I most sincerely affirm Upon this first and second account of Mr. Bennet's the Collator might teize him with a world
to which that Letter refers will find it so well attested that he will scarce know how to Charge the Dr. with Falshood without bringing some other very great Names under the same Suspicion And as for the Letter of the aforesaid William King J. C. D. of the Commons a part of it transcribed may serve you for Answer to the whole 'T is reputable both to Men and Books to be ill spoken of by him and a favourable Presumption on their side that there is something in Both which may chance to recommend them to the rest of the World Witness The Journey to London The Dialogues of the Dead and this Letter all supposed to come from the same hand The last of Mr. Bennet's Testimonies the Reverence due to the Memory of the Dead obliges me to forbear medling with At the Entrance of my Examination of Mr. Bennet Sup. p. 143. I was observing that he could not have done the Dr. a greater piece of Service than he hath by writing this Appendix Wherein he hath so fairly driven the Matter to an Head and let such light into the Cause that it can be no longer a Dispute where the Quarrel began and what was that unsufferable Affront which rendred the Dr. an Enemy unfit to receive Quarter For if Mr. Boyle was not affronted by the Dr. or at least not to that high Degree he pretends as I hope by this time sufficiently appears there must have been some other Cause of this Disturbance which what it should have been Mr. Bennet hath been pleased at parting to give us an enlightning Instance The Dr. had P. 131. it seems Let slip some untoward Reflections upon a certain very eminent Person for setting People at work upon c. Nay and that if we may believe Mr. Bennet in very homely Language too Upon which occasion he tells us what he once heard a very great Man say of the Dr. c. And were I for telling Tales out of School as Mr. Bennet is I also could tell what I have heard some not very little Men say upon a certain occasion not hard to be guess'd at concerning a certain very great Man 'T is a Strange thing that the ... of ... should so encourage his young Men in their c. But great Men may make as free with one another as they please P. 132. It becomes me to consider my Distance and so I will for I shall make no Reflections my self But if the Gentlemen of the Half-Moon are resolved to go on in their Insults upon the Dr. at the rate they have hitherto done representing one of the greatest Scholars in the Land for a Dunce Fabular Aescopic Delect p. 128. a Man that neither understands Books himself nor knows how to be Civil to them that do they may perhaps in time as I fancy they begin to do already hear what many very great Men say of Them FINIS ERRATA PAge 47. l. 47. r. writing against Dr. B. I. 21. r. to a B. p. 48. l. 19. r. Copy p. 50. l. 10. after number add out of Suidas p. 54. I. 32. after 210. add as they are in Mr. St. are also marked out in the INDEX to Stephâ—nus c. p. 56. l. 31. r. Fulgentius Planciades p. 57. l. 13. r. M.S. p. 93. l. 12. for u r. v. p. 99. l. 16. r. Eragment p. 100. I. 12. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 111. l. 20. r. Acontius p. 129. l. 6. for Marriage r. Wedding p. 130. l. 19. r. that of p. 131. l. 26. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 138. l. 14. r. Inventione Hujus