[297] Haughtiness was the marking feature of Bentley's literary
character; and his Wolseyan style and air have been played on
by the wits. Bentley happened to express himself on the King's
MS. of Phalaris in a manner their witty malice turned against
him. "'Twas a surprise (he said) to find that OUR MS. was not
perused."--"OUR MS. (they proceed) that is, his Majesty's and
mine! He speaks out now; 'tis no longer the King's, but OUR
MS., _i.e._ Dr. Bentley's and the King's in common, _Ego et
Rex meus_--much too familiar for a library-keeper!"--It has
been said that Bentley used the same Wolseyan egotism on
Pope's publications:--"This man is always abusing _me_ or the
_King_!"
[298] Bentley, in one place, having to give a positive contradiction
to the statement of the bookseller, rising in all his dignity
and energy, exclaims, "What can be done in this case? Here are
two contrary affirmations; and the matter being done in
private, neither of us have any witness. I might plead, as
AEmilius Scaurus did against one Varius, of Sucro. _Varius
Sucronensis ait, AEmilius Scaurus negat. Utri creditis
Quirites?_" p. 21.--The story is told by Valerius Maximus,
lib. iii. c. 7. Scaurus was insolently accused by one Varius,
a Sucronian, that he had taken bribes from Mithridates:
Scaurus addressed the Roman people. "He did not think it just
that a man of his age should defend himself against
accusations, and before those who were not born when he filled
the offices of the republic, nor witnessed the actions he had
performed. Varius, the Sucronian, says that Scaurus, corrupted
by gold, would have betrayed the republic; Scaurus replies, It
is not true. Whom will you believe, fellow-Romans?"--This
appeal to the people produced all the effect imaginable, and
the ridiculous accuser was silenced.
Bentley points the same application, with even more
self-consciousness of his worth, in another part of his
preface. It became necessary to praise himself, to remove the
odium Boyle and his friends had raised on him--it was a
difficulty overcome. "I will once more borrow the form of
argument that AEmilius Scaurus used against Varius Sucronensis.
Mr. Spanheim and Mr. Graevius give a high character of Dr. B.'s
learning: Mr. Boyle gives the meanest that malice can furnish
himself with. _Utri creditis, Quirites?_ Whether of the
characters will the present age or posterity believe?"--p. 82.
It was only a truly great mind which could bring itself so
close to posterity.
[299] It was the fashion then to appear very unconcerned about one's
literary reputation; but then to be so tenacious about it when
once obtained as not to suffer, with common patience, even the
little finger of criticism to touch it. Boyle, after defending
what he calls his "honesty," adds, "the rest _only_ touches my
learning. This will give me _no concern_, though it may put me
to some little trouble. I shall enter upon this with _the
indifference of a gamester who plays but for a trifle_." On
this affected indifference, Bentley keenly observes:--"This
was entering on his work a little ominously; for a gamester
who plays with indifference never plays his game well. Besides
that, by this odd comparison, he seems to give warning, and is
as good as his word, that he will put the dice upon his
readers as often as he can. But what is worse than all, this
comparison puts one in mind of a general rumour, that there's
another set of gamesters who _play him_ in his dispute while
themselves are safe behind the curtain."--BENTLEY'S
_Dissertation on Phalaris_, p. 2.
[300] Rumours and conjectures are the lot of contemporaries; truth
seems reserved only for posterity; and, like the fabled
Minerva, she is born of age at once. The secret history of
this volume, which partially appeared, has been more
particularly opened in one of Warburton's letters, who
received it from Pope, who had been "let into the secret."
Boyle wrote the Narrative, "which, too, was corrected for
him." Freind, who wrote the entire Dissertation on AEsop in
that volume, wrote also, with Atterbury, the body of the
Criticisms; King, the droll argument, proving that Bentley was
not the author of his own Dissertation, and the extraordinary
index which I shall shortly notice. In Atterbury's "Epistolary
Correspondence" is a letter, where, with equal anger and
dignity, Atterbury avows his having written _about half, and
planned the whole_ of Boyle's attack upon Bentley! With these
facts before us, can we read without surprise, if not without
indignation, the passage I shall now quote from the book to
which the name of Boyle is prefixed. In raising an artful
charge against Bentley, of appropriating to himself some MS.
notes of Sir Edward Sherburn, Boyle, replying to the argument
of Bentley, that "Phalaris" was the work of some sophist,
says:--"The sophists are everywhere pelted by Dr. Bentley, for
putting out what they wrote in other men's names; but I did
not expect to hear so loudly of it from one that has so far
outdone them; for _I think 'tis much worse to take the honour
of another man's book to one's self_, than to entitle one's
own book to another man."--p. 16.
I am surprised Bentley did not turn the point of his
antagonist's sword on himself, for this flourish was a most
unguarded one. But Bentley could not then know so much of the
book, "made up by contributions," as ourselves.
Partial truths flew about in rumours at the time; but the
friends of a young nobleman, and even his fellow-workmen,
seemed concerned that his glory should not be diminished by a
ruinous division. Rymer, in his "Essay concerning Curious and
Critical Learning," judiciously surmised its true origin. "I
fancy this book was written (as most public compositions in
that college are) by a _select club_. Every one seems to have
thrown in a repartee or so in his turn; and the most ingenious
Dr. Aldrich (he does not deserve the epithet in its most
friendly sense) no doubt at their head, smoked and punned
plentifully on this occasion." The arrogance of Aldrich
exceeded even that of Bentley. Rymer tells further, that
Aldrich was notorious for thus employing his "young
inexperienced students;" that he "_betrayed_ Mr. Boyle into
the controversy, and is still involving others in the
quarrel." Thus he points at the rival chieftains; one of whom
never appeared in public, but was the great mover behind the
curtain. These lively wits, so deeply busied among the
obscurest writers of antiquity, so much against their will,
making up a show of learning against the formidable array of
Bentley, exhilarated themselves in their dusty labours by a
perpetual stimulus of keen humour, playful wit, and angry
invective. No doubt they were often enraged at bearing the
yoke about their luxuriant manes, ploughing the darkest and
heaviest soil of antiquity. They had been reared--
"Insultare solo, et gressus glomerare superbos."
"Georg." Lib. iii. 117.
"To insult the ground, and proudly pace the plain."
TRAPP.
Swift, in "The Battle of the Books," who, under his patron,
Sir William Temple, was naturally in alliance with "the
Bees," with ingenious ambiguity alludes to the glorious
manufacture. "Boyle, clad in a suit of armour, _which had
been given him by all the GODS_." Still the truth was only
floating in rumours and surmises; and the little that Boyle
had done was not yet known. Lord Orrery, his son, had a
difficulty to overcome to pass lightly over this allusion. The
literary honour of the family was at stake, and his filial
piety was exemplary to a father, who had unfortunately, in
passion, deprived his lordship of the family library--a
stroke from which his sensibility never recovered, and which
his enemies ungenerously pointed against him. Lord Orrery,
with all the tenderness of a son, and the caution of a
politician, observes on "the armour given by the Gods"--"I
shall not _dispute_ about the _gift_ of the armour. The Gods
never bestowed celestial armour except upon heroes, whose
courage and superior strength distinguished them from the
rest of mankind." Most ingeniously he would seem to
convert into a classical fable what was designed as a plain
matter of fact!
It does credit to the discernment of Bentley, whose taste was
not very lively in English composition, that he pronounced
Boyle was _not the author_ of the "Examination," from _the
variety of styles in it_.--p. 107.
[301] This short and pointed satire of Horace is merely a pleasant
story about a low wretch of the name of King; and Brutus,
under whose command he was, is entreated to get rid of him,
from his hereditary hatred to _all kings_. I suppose this pun
must be considered legitimate, otherwise Horace was an
indifferent punster.
[302] A keen repartee! Yet King could read this mighty volume as "a
vain confused performance," but the learned DODWELL declared
to "the Bees of Christchurch," who looked up to him, that "he
had never learned so much from any book of the size in his
life." King was as unjust to Bentley, as Bentley to King. Men
of genius are more subject to "unnatural civil war" than even
the blockheads whom Pope sarcastically reproaches with it. The
great critic's own notion of his volume seems equally modest
and just. "To undervalue this dispute about 'Phalaris,'
because it does not suit one's own studies, is to quarrel with
a circle because it is not a square. If the question be not of
vulgar use, it was writ therefore for a few; for even the
greatest performances, upon the most important subjects, are
no entertainment at all to _the many of the world_."--p. 107.
[303] This index, a very original morsel of literary pleasantry, is at
once a satirical character of the great critic, and what it
professes to be. I preserve a specimen among the curiosities I
am collecting. It is entitled--
"_A Short Account of +Dr. BENTLEY+, by way of Index._
"Dr. Bentley's true story proved false, by the
testimonies of, &c., p. --
"His civil language, p. --
"His nice taste,
in wit, p. --
in style, p. --
in Greek, p. --
in Latin, p. --
in English, p. --
"His modesty and decency in contradicting great
men"--a very long list of authors, concluding with
'_Everybody_,' p. --
"His familiar acquaintance with books he never saw,"
p. --
And lastly, "his profound skill in criticism--from
beginning to THE END."
Which thus terminates the volume.
[304] Cicero ad Atticum, Lib. vii., Epist. xii.
[305] No doubt this idea was the origin of that satirical Capriccio,
which closed in a most fortunate pun--a literary caricature,
where the doctor is represented in the hands of Phalaris's
attendants, who are putting him into the tyrant's bull, while
Bentley exclaims, "I had rather be _roasted_ than _Boyled_."
[306] Sir Richard Blackmore, in his bold attempt at writing "A Satire
against Wit," in utter defiance of it, without any, however,
conveys some opinions of the times. He there paints the great
critic, "crowned with applause," seated amidst "the spoils of
ruined wits:"
"Till his rude strokes had thresh'd the empty sheaf,
Methought there had been something else than chaff."
Boyle, not satisfied with the undeserved celebrity conceded to
his volume, ventured to write poetry, in which no one appears
to have suspected the aid of "The Bees"--
"See a fine scholar sunk by wit in Boyle!
After his foolish rhymes, both friends and foes
Conclude they know _who did not write his prose_."
_A Satire against Wit._