CHAPTER IV. Bentley made Keeper of the King's library-Second course of Boyle's Lectures-Commences printing an edition of Philostratus-Abandons it to Olearius—Grævius's dedication to Bentley-Controversy on ancient and modern learning—Sir William Temple-Wotton's Reflections-Temple's opinion of Esop and Phalaris-Bentley promises to confute him—Dr. Aldrich, Dean of Christ Church-Hon. Charles Boyle-Undertakes to publish Phalaris-Bennett, the bookseller, applies to Bentley for a manuscript-Causes a quarrel-Boyle makes a reflection upon Bentley— Rejects his explanation—Archbishop Tenison-Lambeth degree-Evelyn -Pepys-Bentley chaplain to the King-Rector of Hartlebury—Apartments in St. James's palace-Earl of Marlborough-State of the Library -Cambridge University Press renovated by Bentley's agency-Takes the degree of D.D.-His Public Act-Commencement sermon. made the King's library. UPON the death of Henry de Justel, Keeper of the CHAP. IV. Royal library at St. James's, it was the particular 1692-93. wish of Bishop Stillingfleet and Bentley's other friends, Bentley that he should fill that situation, for which his know- keeper of ledge of books eminently qualified him; and to effect this object, the greatest difficulties were overcome. Mr. Edmund Gibson, afterwards Bishop of London, was a candidate, supported by the interest of Archbishop Sharpe the place was actually given to Mr. Thynne; but with this gentleman a compromise was effected, Bentley engaging to pay him 1307. out of the salary, which was 2007. a year, during his lifetime'. This transaction, which seems to have been no secret at the time, will account for a delay in filling the vacancy. Justel died in September 1693; Bentley had his appointment under the King's sign manual on the 23d of December: but his patent, 1 These circumstances I discover from two manuscript letters in the Bodleian, one from Gibson, the other from Hopkins, prebendary of Worcester, both addressed to Dr. Charlett. 1694. CHAP. IV. constituting him for life Keeper of all the King's libraries in England, was dated on the 6th of April following: during this interval Queen Mary, who took the sole interest in such matters, directed a catalogue of the library to be made by Postlethwaite and Wright, the respective masters of St. Paul's and St. James's schools2. His second course of ture. In the mean time Bentley was summoned by the Boyle's lec- trustees of Boyle's Lecture, to preach the course for the year 16943. His subject was a defence of Christianity against the objections of infidels. That the eight sermons delivered on this occasion have never been published, is a matter of serious regret: nor is it a little surprising that he should have failed to give them to the world, after the favourable reception and increasing reputation of his former series; particularly when we find their publication continually solicited for more than three years, by Mr. Evelyn, as well as by Bishop Tenison. This prelate, who was shortly advanced to the primacy, and whose countenance and support was important to all Bentley's views in life, appears to have been displeased by the omission; for which, indeed, we hear no apology, except want of leisure to revise the discourses for the 2 These matters are detailed in the Preface to Dissert. on Phal. p. xiv.—xix. 3 There is a mistake in the list of Boyle's Lecturers, given in Nichols' Literary Anecdotes, vol. vi. p. 453; and in Bishop Van Mildert's preface to his Historical Account of Infidelity; where the Lecturer for 1694 is stated to have been Bishop Kidder. 4 Evelyn, Mem. vol. ii. p. 39, says, that he was to pursue his former subject upon atheism. But Bentley, in his letter to Grævius, of May 25, 1694, distinctly says, that his second course of lectures was against the enemies of Christianity. Evelyn's words deserve to be cited. "Dec. 3, 1693. Mr. Bentley preached at the Tabernacle, near Golden Square. I gave my voice for him to proceed in his former subject the following year in Mr. Boyle's lecture, in which he had been interrupted by the importunity of Sir J. Rotheram, that the Bishop of Chichester [read Bath and Wells] might be chosen, the year before, to the great dissatisfaction of the Bishop of Lincoln and myself. We chose Mr. Bentley again." 1694. press 5. As this was no formidable task, I can only CHAP. IV. account for the failure, by supposing that there were some additional topics which he wished to introduce, but was prevented from investigating by a succession of other occupations, until the proper season for printing had too long elapsed. In whose possession the copies are I have never been able to discover. The projected editions of Philostratus and Manilius were now in a state of readiness for the printer; but the increased expense of paper and printing in England, the consequence of war and new taxes, deterred him from publishing books, which from their nature could only meet with a limited sale at home, and for the exportation of which the circumstances of the times were unfavourable". Accordingly, he designed commences to print his Philostratus at Leipsic, and sent thither printing an the early part of his text and notes for that purpose. PhilostraBut when he received the first sheet as a specimen, he was disgusted with the meanness of the printing, and resolved that his labours should not come forth to the world in so unseemly a dress'. Indeed, it may be remarked that Bentley always placed a high value upon typographical elegance, and was more fastidious upon this head, than might have been ex 5 He says to Evelyn, in a letter of Feb. 22, 1694–95: I suppose nothing will reinstate me fully in his Grace of Canterbury's favour, but publishing my sermons; which I could not yet do, for the bustle and distraction that new housekeeping and furnishing brings along with it: but I hope in a week more to have a day or two of leisure to look on them; and if I once begin, 'twill be a short business." He tells Grævius, in Nov. 1695, that they are actually in the press. As late as Jan. 12, 1696-97, he renews his promise to Evelyn: I am now upon a job for our friend Mr. Wotton [the Dissertation on Phalaris and Esop]; then I proceed to pay my debts to you by printing my sermons." The copies of these sermons are said, in Kippis's Biographia Britannica, to be in existence: this was in 1778, in the life-time of Dr. R. Bentley, of Nailstone, who inherited his uncle's papers. • Pref. to Dissert. on Phal. p. lxiii. 7 Letter to Grævius, of May 15, 1694. edition of tus. 1694. CHAP. IV. pected from one who so well understood the intrinsic merits of a book. After some time he abandoned Abandons it altogether the view of this publication, as Professor to Olearius. Wolf remarks, to the joy of Olearius of Leipsic, and of nobody else.' To this German, who undertook to publish the two Philostrati, he sent part of his apparatus, the collation of a manuscript belonging to New College De Vitis Sophistarum, and that of a Baroccian manuscript, both which he had made during his residence at Oxford. The edition of Olearius, which appeared in 1709, contains Bentley's notes as far as p. 11, taken from the first sheet just mentioned, which had been circulated as a specimen 3. dedication to Bentley. 8 In the early part of 1694 the tract of Rubenius, already mentioned, was published by Grævius, who Grævius's prefixed to it an epistle of dedication to Bentley, as the person to whom the world was indebted for its discovery, accompanied with an account of the author and his work. In this epistle the literary patriarch pronounced publicly the same exalted opinion of his new friend's learning and genius, which he had before expressed in private; and speaking in the name of all scholars with whom he was acquainted, he declared the expectations raised by his first performance to be such as surpassed all example and belief. In the midst of these honours and encouragements, Bentley became accidentally involved in that dispute which constitutes so peculiar a feature in his bioControversy graphy, the controversy on the letters of Phalaris. and Modern As this piece of literary story is connected with the Learning. question then agitated upon the comparative merits on Ancient of ancient and modern learning, it may not be disagreeable to the reader to have a short account of a 8 See Olearius Pref. ad Philostr. p. x. xi. Also Fabricius Bibl. Gr. tom. v. p. 555. discussion, which for several years occupied so large CHAP. IV. a share of public attention. 1694. This dispute concerning the rival pretensions of the ancients and moderns, had its origin in France, where about the year 1688, the lively and witty Fontenelle, the author of the Plurality of Worlds,' affixed to his Pastoral Poetry a dissertation, in which he claimed for the moderns a general superiority over the illustrious names of antiquity, making his principal stand upon the ground least favourable to his own clients, that of genius. The same hypothesis found other advocates among the French savans, particularly Perrault, who in his Parallel between the Ancients and Moderns,' bribed the assent and applause of his countrymen, by matching some individual Frenchman against each of the most illustrious ancients. These extravagances were not likely to be long unresisted. Sir William Temple, illustrious as a states- Sir William man, and likewise the most popular writer of that age, who had long retired from public business to the enjoyment of literary ease, came forward as the indignant champion of the ancients. In his Essay on Ancient and Modern Learning,' which first appeared in 1692, he not only combats the positions of Fontenelle and Perrault, whom he charges with sufficiency, the worst composition out of the pride and ignorance of mankind,' but flies himself into the opposite extreme, and boldly maintains the intellectual superiority of former times in every department; not merely in the results of genius and taste, but in the state of philosophy and knowledge, whether physical, moral, or mechanical. Sir William's style of writing is elegant and polished, and his conceptions are neatly 9 For instance, Balsac was opposed to Cicero; Boileau to Horace; Voiture to Pliny; and Corneille to Eschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides combined. Temple. |