turers on the catechism; affixing the college-seal to documents in presence of fewer than sixteen fellows, and sometimes against the remonstrances of the whole seniority; alienation of college estates; expenditure of college property on private objects, and particularly in bribing one of the fellows to withdraw charges against him. In Bishop Monk's remarks all our readers will concur :

In the perusal of the foregoing narrative, some, perhaps, may have remarked that Dr. Bentley might have been an excellent lawyer; others may have thought his talents adapted for military command: but all must agree that such a display suited any character rather than that of a learned and dignified clergyman.-P. 637.

We have already traced the leading points in Bentley's literary career up to the production of his immortal Dissertation on Phalaris. But the great critic had not been wholly employed in making new acquisitions. He had projected new editions of Philostratus, Hesychius, and Manilius; and he produced a collection of fragments, notes, and emendations to Grævius's Callimachus, which our learned author has thus characterized :

Dr. Bentley's notes and emendations upon Callimachus, and his collection of the fragments of that poet, were drawn up, after repeated interruptions, and transmitted to Grævius for publication during the year 1696: the last batch of fragments he sent to Utrecht on his return to town from Worcester, where he had been passing two months with the Bishop. Grævius's Callimachus appeared in the August following, and presented two extraordinary specimens of Greek erudition; differing from one another, but each constituting a monument to the fame of its author: the collection of fragments by our critic, and the diffuse commentary by Ezechiel Spanheim. The inexhaustible stores of knowledge in mythology, antiquities, and philology, which the latter exhibits, are an object of admiration; and though he overlays the poet with his learning, yet his commentary will always be valued as a mine of information upon every subject of which it treats. The merits of Bentley's performance were different: above four hundred fragments, raked together from the whole range of ancient literature, digested in order, amended and illustrated with a critical skill, which had no example, presented a still greater novelty. There existed no collection of Greek fragments which he could have taken for his model; and Valckenaer, one of the greatest scholars who have trodden in his footsteps, speaking of this collection, says, 'qua nihil in hoc genere præstantius prodiit aut magis elaboratum.'-Pp. 58, 59.

In 1701, Bentley married Mrs. Johanna Bernard, daughter of Sir John Bernard, of Brampton, in Huntingdonshire. In the same year he became Archdeacon of Ely, and, by consequence, a member of Convocation. He now projected editions of classical books for the use of his college, and began with Horace. This edition was ten years in preparation, and certainly was not calculated to sustain his richly merited celebrity. Every scholar will agree with Bishop Monk that Bentley's acquaintance with Latin was greatly inferior to his knowledge of Greek; while a stroke of the pen, or the omission of a letter, are much more influential in the latter language than in the former. Accordingly Bentley's Latin emendations are almost every where forced

and considerable; while his Greek corrections are brief, neat, and demonstrative. One idea on which he constantly acted was, that an author must necessarily always have expressed himself with the strictest propriety; and wherever his text appeared to deviate from this, an alteration was accordingly obtruded. This assumption is so manifestly contrary to truth, that it is astonishing how it could have been, for one moment, admitted by the discriminating intellect of Bentley. But it frequently happens that the emendation is as devoid of propriety as the original. Thus in the line cited by the Bishop, "Et malè tornatos incudi reddere versus," where Bentley corrects "ter natos," there is a manifest incongruity between the ideas of “incus" and "natus." Whether Horace inadvertently incurred the impropriety which all MSS. exhibit, or whether he considered the metaphors as of too little importance to require reconciliation, so long as their meaning was evident, or whether some unknown particulars of ancient art would harmonize ideas which appear to us as distinct as those of an anvil and a lathe, are different questions; but Bentley's correction contradicts MSS. and does not effect the consistency for which he contends. Another unfortunate propensity of our great critic was that of seeking a parallel authority for every expression of a classical author, with as much assiduity as if the subject of his criticism had been a modern writer of a dead language. Passages are frequently "slashed" with no better reason than the absence of a similar cast of expression in other writers. Beside these blemishes, which equally affect all Bentley's criticisms on Latin authors, he was, in his Horace, peculiarly unfortunate: having printed his "emended" text before the notes were written, his pride compelled him to the vindication of many "corrections," which consideration must have shown to be indefensible. Upwards of twenty of these emendations he felt it necessary to his reputation to retract. That he has "made Horace dull," is a verdict which, though pronounced by wit, has been fully ratified by judgment.

While employed on his Horace, Bentley had embarked a portion of his fame on an undercurrent of criticism. Mr. John Davies, Fellow of Queen's College, was publishing an edition of the Tusculan Questions. To these Bentley contributed a body of emendations, exhibiting that skill in the old versification of Latium, which enabled him at a subsequent period to clear, to a great extent, the intricate subject of the Terentian metres. Mr. Peter Needham, Fellow of St. John's College, about the same time, published an edition of the Commentary of Hierocles on the Golden Verses of Pythagoras. To this Bentley supplied a body of emendations and conjectures by no means equally felicitous with those on Cicero. Christopher Wolfius, of Leipsic, immediately published a review of them, and demonstrated, from an

less profound, is more widely disseminated; still, so far as classical literature has been less critically studied, less encouraged by the authority of those who assume the tone in affairs of learning, less influential in forming the taste and character of popular writers, has the present age advanced?

To these queries we should return a decided negative. And it is with regret that we are reminded by our limits to refrain from discussing the grounds of our decision; and shewing, as perhaps we some day may, from palpable cases, the evils arising from the neglect of classical pursuits. Our present observations must be confined to the task of introducing our thanks to the learned author, now (we are happy to state) Bishop of Gloucester, for this very choice, minute and valuable piece of biography; to the impartial and attentive consideration of which we strongly invite every candid mind before pronouncing a decision on the futility of classical studies. Not that the "singularis humanitas" of Bentley had any connexion with those "literæ humaniores" with which he was so deeply imbued; but his critical knowledge of these enabled him to confute in his masterly lectures the atheistical spirits of his day; to expose the insidious plausibilities of Collins, and the rhapsodical dogmatism of Boyle; to supply a logical mode of examining those very important questions, the genuineness of a work and the authority of a copy. His classical criticism is not to be regarded as a mere tissue of conjecture, or even of critical facts; it is a lucid display of the principles of critical examination, illustrated by practical instances. In this character of Bentley's writings we have chiefly in our eye the renowned dissertation of Phalaris, the emendations of Philemon and Menander, and Phileleutherus's letter; not that his Horace, or even his Milton, is wholly destitute of this redeeming excellence, though that self reliance, which was so peculiarly the distinguishing attribute of Bentley, has, in these works, unquestionably betrayed him into an audacious and dictatorial effrontery far worthier his earlier opponents than himself. The Terence, with all its extravagances, contains a masterly "oxedíaoμa" on the metres. Nor do we know any of his editions, except the Lucan, from which great advantage cannot be derived. To this we may add, that Bentley applied to the examination of every question which he considered so abundant an apparatus of learning, that it is almost impossible to peruse any of his works without deriving positive information on many topics, beside the advantage of a close intellectual discipline, and the fullest comprehension of the subject examined.

The Bishop of Gloucester has therefore conferred on the literary world a benefit, worthy, both in magnitude and character, of his Lordship's station and literary fame. He has shown that those studies, in the promotion of which he has been so long and so honourably

order, that no two tallies, nor two indentures can agree better. I affirm that these so placed will prove each other to a demonstration: for I alter not a letter of my own head without the authority of these old witnesses.-P. 313.

The latter assertion was intended to obviate an apprehension very generally entertained, and too sufficiently grounded, that the New Testament would be sacrificed to the gratification of the great editor's "slashing" propensities. Indeed, in the very section of Phileleutherus's letter which had suggested to Dr. Hare the peculiar fitness of Bentley for theological criticism, there are some conjectures which, however happy, are certainly bold, considering the field on which they are exercised. Had Bentley indulged his genius on this occasion, perfect as was his adaptation for the work, and brilliant as was the character of his conjectures, every sober Christian would have deprecated intrusting the title-deeds of his heavenly inheritance to one who was thus disqualified. But when we consider the pledge which is here exhibited, it is impossible not to regret that a scheme of such transcendant utility should have been abandoned for objects every way inferior, and some derogatory both to the literary and moral reputation of the projector. That the work would have been conducted with a stoical indifference to conjecture, we may conclude from Bentley's reply to a well intended writer, who solicited him not to omit the disputed verse, 1 John v. 7. He says,

Now in this work I indulge nothing to any conjecture, not even in a letter, but proceed solely upon authority of copies and Fathers of that age. And what will be the event about the said verse of John, I myself know not yet; having not used all the old copies that I have information of.

But by this you see, that in my proposed work, the fate of that verse will be a mere question of fact. You endeavour to prove (and that's all you aspire to) that it may have been writ by the Apostle, being consonant to his other doctrine. This I concede to you: and if the fourth century knew that text, let it come in, in God's name: but if that age did not know it, then Arianism in its height was beat down, without the help of that verse: and let the fact prove as it will, the doctrine is unshaken.-P. 349.

Finding the public mind interested in the question, Bentley chose the litigated verse for the subject of his prælection, or probationary lecture, previous to his admission to the Regius Professorship of Divinity in 1717. Of this Bishop Monk says,

The composition excited great sensation at the time and long afterwards: it was preserved in manuscript, and perused by some scholars little more than forty years ago. I hope and believe that it is still in existence, and may ere long be brought to light: but all my endeavours to trace it have hitherto been ineffectual. It has, however, been in my power to collect such testimony respecting its contents, as must put an end to all the doubts which have been started relative to Bentley's judgment upon the controverted text.-P. 348.

The substance of this testimony is that Bentley rejected the text. The controversy has been enlarged since, but generally with the same result. We may suggest, however, that we ought to await the collation of many more MSS. before pronouncing a decided opinion.