neceflary for him to allot a confiderable portion of his time to bufinefs, and to the affairs of the univerfity. He now refigned the prebendary of Wercefter; but on June 12, 1701, he was collated Archdeacon of Ely.

He was now in poffeffion of leifure and opulence. His enemies for fome years permitted him to enjoy the preferment which he had obtained. He continued his claffical refearches with ardcur, and at the fame time confulted the real intereft of his College.

In 1705, a new edition of Wotton's Reflections appeared. The differtation on the Greek Epiftles, by Bentley, was republished, but the examination of Phalaris was omitted, on account of its length. It had befides been fent into the world as a distinct work a few years before.

In 1706, Julius Pollux was published, under the direction of Fiemfterhuis, who wrote the preface, and the notes to the three laft books. This work was begun by Lederlin, and what was left unfinished, he completed. Hemflerhuis, at this time, was a very young man, but by this performance he acquired confiderable reputation. Bentley was much pleafed with fo early a difplay of Greek erudition, and in a letter to him, communicated his corrections of the paflages of the comic writers, which Pollux had quoted. The circumftance is related very particularly in Ruhnkenius's Elogium Tiberii Hemfterbufi. This performance is not very common in England; as the paffage, therefore, difplays the high opinion which both Ruhnkenius and Hemfterhuis entertained of Bentley's abilities, in very strong colours, we shall tranflate it at length:

"When the learned Lederlin declined completing the edition of Julius Pollux, which was preparing at Amsterdam, application was made to Hemfterhuis, whofe erudition was fuppofed equal to the undertaking. Infligated by the advice of Grevius, he affumed the charge of this work, and his anno-tations, which, though youthful, were the production of fuch a youth as Hemfterhuis, immediately turned the eyes of all the Learned towards their author.

"At fuch an age, few writers regard their own productions with contempt. He was himself sufficiently pleafed with the performance. A fhon time, however, after the publication of the work, he received a letter from Richard Bentley, the Ariftarchus of Britain, in which his labours with regard to Pollux were mentioned in terms of high commendation. In the fame pacquet alfo, the Doctor inferted his own corrections of the patfages which Pollux had quoted from the comic writers, to illuftrate and establish his defcriptions.

"Hemfterhuis himself had beflow. ed great attention on these citations, as he well knew their confequence. When he perufed Bentley's animadver fions, he perceived that every difficulty was explained, as if by infpiration, and was convinced, that his own time had been spent in vain, and that his own conjectures were frivolous.

What effect did this letter produce? Hemfterhuis was fo much hurt, and fo much difpleafed with himself, that he determined to abandon wholly the ftudy of Greek literature; and for fome months he did not dare to open the works of an author in that language."

Kuhnkenius then beftows very juft encomiums upon him, for the candour and opennefs with which he used to relate this story to his fcholars, and in converfation. He thus proceeds:

Hemfterhuis, however, when reflection fucceeded vexation, perceived that he had improperly placed his abilities, young as he was, in competition with thofe of a veteran critic, who held the highest rank; and was foon -reconciled to himself, and to his former ftudies. So powerful, however, was the effect of Bentley's advice, that he determined not to truft himself in the dangerous paths of conjecture or criticifm, until he had ftored his mind with a comprehenfive knowledge of every various art and fcience. He chofe his counsellor, as the great object of his imitation." He looked up to him with the fondeft admiration: placed him continually before his eyes; and preferred him to every other critic.

Nor

Nor did he conceal his refentment, if, in his prefence, the Envious carped at the wonderful talents of this great man, at which they could not poffibly arrive.' In all probability, this letter is ftill extant. If the learned Ruhnkenius be in poffeffion of this literary relic, we hope it may yet be published. If it remains in the hands of Hemfterhuis's friends, or relations, they furely ought not to withhold fo exquifite a fpecimen of ancient criticifm, as this Epiftle must have contained, from the admirers of Greek literature, and of Bentley. In the year 1709, when Davis publifhed Cicero's Tufculance Quæftiones, Dr. Bentley added his annotations to the edition. But on account of fome reflections which have been represented as not very liberal, when this work was republished, Davis omitted the Doctor's remarks. They were, however, again inferted, when the book was reprinted in 1738.

From the Amfterdam prefs, in 1710, was published Kufter's edition of Ariftophanes. Two of the plays were enriched with the annotations of Bentley; which are not very elaborate, but in many inftances difcover that acumen, and penetration, which characterifes his critical difquifitions.

During this period, Le Clerc ranked among the first literary characters. He had diftinguished himfelf by publishing editions of fome claffic writers, particularly Hefiod, with notes and a Latin tranflation. His theological researches, though he is fometimes too daring, had greatly encreafed his rifing reputation; and his Art of Criticifm, written in Latin, had been much commended. His Epiftola critica, to fome of our bishops, and the active part, which he was fuppofed to take in fome of the foreign journals, had rendered his abilities as an author very generally known in England. In fuch high eftimation, indeed, was he held by Lord Hallifax, that he employed his intereft with fome of the nobility, and men in power, in his favour. His chief with was, that fome confiderable church preferment, and even a bishoprick, might be offered to Le Clerc, in order to allure him to come and fettle near our metropolis.

The bishops did not approve this defign. They all efteemed him for his learning and abilities, but as his principles were known to be not very orthodox, and his opinions very free, they oppofed the measure. The oppofition reflects great credit on the bench, as, by feveral articles in his Bibliotheque, he had diffeminated the poifon of free-thinking over the Continent, by his account of several English publications.

While the invitation to Le Clerc was a general fubject of conversation, he publifhed the fragments of Menander and Philemon, in one octavo volume, at Amfterdam, 1709.

Soon after, the intention of Lord Hallifax was mentioned, at Archbifhop Tennison's, while Bentley and fome other men of learning were prefent. Le Clerc's title to the proferred honours was examined: his literary character was difcuffed; among them the late publication of the fragments of the two comic writers was of course included. Bentley afferted immediately, that fuch an edition was a difgrace to a fcholar, and that it was replete with glaring errors.

The company inftantly urged the Doctor to attack it; but he declined the task, as he had long held a correfpondence with Le Clerc. At length, however, the inftigations of his friends prevailed, and he told them that he would foon convince the world, that the author of Ars Critica did not poffefs that depth of erudition which had been afcribed to him by the generality of readers.

Bentley foon compleated his defign; on account, however, of his former intimacy with Le Clerc, he wished his name to be concealed. He, therefore, ftyled himself, in the title-page, Philelutherus Lipfienfis; and intrufted the manufcript to Hare, with whom he then lived in habits of the greatest intimacy. By his intereft, as he was chaplain general to the army, the book was to be tranfmitted in the Duke of Marlborough's pacquet to Barman, with a note, defiring him to publish it, and giving him liberty to write either a dedication, or a preface, as he felt inclined.

Har

Hare difcharged the office, as he fuppofed, with great fecrefy and exactnefs. By fome unaccountable blunder, however, the papers were never put into the Duke's pacquet; but after they had paffed through feveral hands, a Burgomaiter at Amfterdam by accident received the manufcript. He immediately fhewed it to Toland, who was then in Holland. He directly pronounced the notes to be the production of Bentley, and, probably, by his means they were afterwards conveyed intire to Peter Burman, with the direction which configned them to his care, and recommended to him the office of publither.

By Burman, accordingly, thefe remarks were edited, with a long preface, and an addrefs, in Latin verfe, to the manes of Menander and Philemon. The preface is written in a ftrain of the moft virulent abuse against Le Clerc, who was his bitter enemy. To the remarks of Bentley, it offers fome additions: among which a few fraganents of Menander and Philemon, which had escaped the refearches of the too negligent collector, may be confidered as the moft important; though his critical annotations are not deftitute of acumen.

a manner.

Le Clerc undoubtedly merited reprehenfion. Never, perhaps, was an ancient author published in fo carelefs Metrical defects even in the common Iambic meafure, which required little fagacity to correct, appear almoft in every fragment. fides thefe, few pages are wholly free from other errors of different kinds, which difplay at leaft unpardonable negligence, and were imputed by Eentley to ignorance.

Be

Fentley's emendations were the production of a mind highly vigorous, and stored with the mott exquifite and diverfified erudition. His knowledge of the Greek language, and familiar acquaintance with their forms of fpeech and with their metres, were difplayed with uncommon brilliancy. The reputation which he had acquired by his Fpifle on Malela, and the Differtation on Phalaris, immediately difcovered the author of thefe corrections. Eur

man, in his preface, afferted, that there were not above three or four perfons, in the whole republic of letters, to whom they could be afcribed, and in the foreign journals they were immediately afligned to their real author.

The learned Dawes, in his Mifcell. Critic. fays, that Bentley, in this per formance, has paffed over above a hun dred of Le Clerc's miftakes, at the fame time that he is guilty of as many blunders himself. To this affertion too much credit fhould not be given; for it is a mere affertion. It may be attributed in a great measure to the unfriendly fentiments which Dawes entertained towards the writings of this great critic. Thefe fentiments, Burgefs, the ingenious editor of his work, has juftly cenfured, and conjectured, with much probability, that they arofe from Dawes's refidence at Cambridge, while Bentley's measures, as matter of Trinity-College, met with fuch violent oppofition. He, perhaps, did not remain paffive in thefe difputes, as we may conjecture from the eagernefs with which he endeavoured, in his learned work, to blaft the laurels which had fo long adorned the brow of the great Bentley.

Let it not be fuppofed, however, that this pamphlet is to be confidered as a complete examination of all the fragments of Menander and Philemon, or that it is abfolutely faultlefs. Some of its errors have been corrected by our learned countryman Toup, in his notes on Suidas; and by Lambert Bos, a few years after its publication, in his Animadverfiones ad Scriptores quesdam Græcos. Thefe, however, are but few:

eafily find an author who has difplayed fuch diverfified talents, and written with acknowledged abilities on fo many and fuch a variety of fubjects.

For the expofure, however, of Le Clerc's ignorance and negligence, in the prefent inftance, Bentley was confpicuoufly calculated. At an early period of his life, he had formed a scheme of publishing a collection of the remains of the Greek poets, which lie fcattered through the works of ancient writers. Those who are acquainted with the elegancies which feveral of thefe fragments contain, and with Bentley's critical acumen, will unite in lamenting that he never executed his defign. Befides this circumftance, which brought him ready armed into the field, his enemy was expofed in his weakeft quarter. To criticifm, indeed, about Hellenifms, and metrical difquifitions, Le Clerc was almost a stranger, while Bentley was uncommonly fkilful in thefe difcuffions, and far furpaffed all his contemporaries.

The juftice as well as the acutenefs of thefe remarks was univerfally acknowledged, and Le Clerc was fenfible that his character as a critic was loft, if they remained unanfwered. While he deliberated on what measures he fhould adopt, a manufcript was left at his houfe by a ftranger, who in the title page called himfelf Philargyrius Cantabrigienfis. This book contained remarks on the fragments and corrections of feveral errors, which had efcaped Philelutherus Lipfienfis, in his emendations.

In 1711, Le Clerc published this anonymous defence. He prefixed a long preface, in which he attempted to wipe off the ftain which his critical abilities had received. His arguments, however, in general, are feeble. He does not name Bentley as his adverfary, but by feveral hints points out his fufpicions.

This answer to Bentley was written by Pauw, a man of no very extraordinary abilities. He was, however, a laborious critic, and tolerably verfed in Greek literature. The remarks,

do not deferve any exalted commendation. Bentley, in all probability, wholly difregarded them, as a few years afterwards, when he publifhed another edition of his notes in Menander and Philemon, he did not appear, as far as we can remember, to have been influenced in any fingle inftance by the obfervations of Philargyrius Cantabrigienfis. Many of them display acutenefs; but a fettled determination, at all events, to defend Le Clerc, and depreciate Bentley, is too apparent.

It was obferved by the learned Dr. Salter, the late mafter of the CharterHoufe, that the critical remarks interfperfed through this work were of little value; and, in the difcuffion of philological fubjects, his fentiments deferve attention. He was a very

accurate Greek fcholar. His reading was univerfal, and extended through the whole circle of ancient literature. He was acquainted with the poets, hiftorians, orators, philofophers, and critics of Greece and Rome. His memory was naturally tenacious; and it had acquired great artificial powers, if fuch an expresiion be allowable, by ufing no notes, when he delivered his fermons. To this mode of preaching for a long courfe of years he had accuftomed himfelf. So retentive, indeed, were his faculties, that, till a few months before his death, he could quote long paffages from almoft every author whofe works he had perused, even with a critical exactness. were his ftudies confined to the writers of antiquity. He was equally converfant with English literature, and with the languages and productions of the learned and ingenious, in various parts of Europe. But this is not a proper place to enlarge on the claffical erudition, or eminent talents, of Dr. Salter. We could not, however, refrain from drawing this little sketch of his character, as, in his earlier life, he had been acquainted with Bentley, and cherifhed his memory with fond refpect. He preferved many anecdotes of that great critic, which have been published from his papers, and are

Nor

now