to Foreigners.
"His Ingenuity in
–– relating matters of fact.
–– citing authors.
–– transcribing and plundering
notes and prefaces of
–– Mr. Boyle.
–– Vizzanius.
–– Nevelet.
–– Camerarius.
–– Editor of Hesychius.
–– Salmasius.
–– Dr. Bentley.
"His appeal to Foreigners.
–– a suspicious plan.
–– a false one.
"His modesty and decency in contradicting great men.
"(Long list from Plato to Every body).
"His happiness in confident assertions for want
–– of Reading.
–– of Judgment.
–– of Sincerity.
"His profound skill in Criticism
From beginning to
The End."
This is certainly more vindictive than witty.
All the wits rushed madly into the fray, and Swift, in his "Battel fought last Friday between the Antient and Modern Books in St. James's Library," committed himself irretrievably to the wrong side in this way: "A captain whose name was B-ntl-y, in person the most deformed of all the moderns; tall but without shape or comeliness, large but without strength or proportion. His armour was patched up of a thousand incoherent pieces...."
Then look at the leader of the opposing host: "Boyl clad in a suit of armor which had been given him by all the gods immediately advanced against the trembling foe, who now fled before him."
It is amazing that such a perverted judgment should have been given by some of our greatest writers, but all is to be traced to Bentley's defects of temper, so that Dr. King was not altogether wrong in his index.
Sir George Trevelyan in his Life of Macaulay refers to Bentley's famous maxim (which in print and talk alike he dearly loved to quote), that no man was ever written down except by himself, and quotes what the historian wrote after perhaps his tenth perusal of Bishop Monk's life of the great critic: "Bentley seems to me an eminent instance of the extent to which intellectual powers of a most rare and admirable kind may be impaired by moral defects."
Charles Boyle's book went through four editions, and still there was silence; but at last appeared the "immortal" Dissertation, as Porson calls it, which not only defeated his enemies, but routed them completely. Bentley's Dissertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris, with an answer to the objections of the Hon. C. Boyle, Esq., first appeared in 1699. De Quincey described it as one of the three most triumphant dissertations existing upon the class of historico-critical problems, "All three are loaded with a superfetation of evidence, and conclusive beyond what the mind altogether wishes."7
In another place De Quincey points out the line of argument followed by Bentley: "It was by anachronisms of this character that Bentley detected the spuriousness of the letters ascribed to Phalaris. Sicilian towns, &c., were in those letters called by names that did not arise until that prince had been dead for centuries. Manufactures were mentioned that were of much later invention. As handles for this exposure of a systematic forgery, which oftentimes had a moral significance, these indications were valuable, and gave excessive brilliancy to that immortal dissertation of Bentley's."8
The fate which the wits thought to bring upon Bentley fell upon them, and they quarrelled among themselves. It was believed that Charles Boyle, when credit was to be obtained, looked upon himself as author of the book; but afterwards, when it was discredited, he only awaited the public trial of the conspirators to wash his hands of the whole affair. Atterbury, who had much to do with the production of the volume, was particularly annoyed by Boyle's conduct. He wrote to Boyle: "In laying the design of the book, in writing above half of it, in reviewing [revising] a great part of the rest, in transcribing the whole and attending the press, half a year of my life went away. What I promised myself from hence was that some service would be done to your reputation, and that you would think so. In the first of these I was not mistaken—in the latter I am. When you were abroad, sir, the highest you could prevail with yourself to go in your opinion of the book was, that you hoped it would do you no harm. When you returned I supposed you would have seen that it had been far from hurting you. However, you have not thought fit to let me know your mind on this matter; for since you came to England, no one expression, that I know of, has dropped from you that could give me reason to believe you had any opinion of what I had done, or even took it kindly from me."9
In the same year (1698) King turned his attention to a less formidable antagonist than the great Bentley. His Journey to London is a very ingenious parody of Dr. Martin Lister's Journey to Paris, and, the pages of the original being referred to, it forms an index to that book.
The Royal Society in its early years had to pass through a long period of ridicule and misrepresentation. The author of Hudibras commenced the crusade, but the gibes of Butler were easier to bear than those of Dr. William King, who was particularly savage against Sir Hans Sloane. The Transactioneer (1700) and Useful Transactions in Philosophy (1708-1709) were very galling to the distinguished naturalist, and annoyed the Royal Society, whose Philosophical Transactions were unmercifully laughed at. To both the tracts referred to were prefixed satirical tables of contents, and what made them the more annoying was that the author's own words were very ingeniously used and turned against him. King writes: "The bulls and blunders which Sloane and his friends so naturally pour forth cannot be misrepresented, so careful I am in producing them."
Here is a specimen of the contents of The Transactioneer:
"The Tatler's Opinion of a Virtuoso."
"Some Account of Sir Hans Sloane.
–– of Dr. Salmon.
–– of Mr. Oldenburg.
–– of Dr. Plot."
"The Compiling of the Philosophical Transactions the work of a single person.
–– the excellence of his style.
–– his clearness and perspicacity.
–– Genius to Poetry.
–– Verses on Jamaica Pepper.
–– Politicks in Gardening.
–– Skill in Botanicks."
The following appear in the contents of the "Voyage to Cajamai" in Useful Transactions:
Preface of the author—
"Knew
