of our common nature, and swept away in its terrible progress all the pardonable prejudices, the amiable sentiments, and the honourable principles of civil life, merely to make giants of the men and Amazons of the women....who should consider war, as the definite object of society, and peace, as the improveable prelude of war.

As Polybius among the ancients, so Machiavel among the moderns, has considered the Spartan constitution as a happy combination of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. In C. 2, B. 2, of his discourses on the first decade of Livy, this illustrious Italian, after observing that prudent legislators have endeavoured in their political systems to unite the three simple principles, and consequently to avoid the defects of each, proceeds to remark, tra quelli che hanno per simili costituzioni meritato più laude è Licurgo, il quale ordinò in modo le sue leggi in Sparta, che dando le parte sue ai re, agli ottimati, e al popolo, fece uno stato, che durò più che ottocento anni, con summa laude sua, e quiete di quella città. Here the immortal founder of modern politicks expressly recognises the division of powers in the system of Lycurgus, which had been before extolled by Polybius; but it may be observed, that his praise is confined to the high renown, which the legislator acquired, to the duration of the scheme, and the tranquillity of Sparta. He does not praise the civil liberty of the citizens, for it did not exist; he does not honour the international policy, for it was full of intrigue, ambition, and war. A civil community ought to have a social relation to other states. It ought to delight in the interchange of such kind offices as its situation will allow, such as mediation in war, commercial intercourse, and

every friendly political arrange ment. It ought, above all, never to thwart the progress of internal civility; never to stop the increase of social relations and institutions; and never to prohibit the introduction and diffusion of the blessings of peace, commerce, letters, and arts. But in Sparta all intercourse with strangers and all foreign travel were forbidden; there was no trade, and no coin, but ponderous pieces of iron; agriculture was considered an ignominious employment, and was expressly confined to the slaves; the mechanick institutions were despised; literature was unknown to these "museless and unbookish" barbarians; their sole delight was in arms, for war was the study of the men, and warlike exercises the play games of the children. A state, thus insulated from the world, except by the continual disturbances which it excited in other communities, and by the ravage of its arms, which it terribly diffused, might well subsist for eight hundred years; for foreign enemies could make no impression on the city from without, and luxury and wealth could spread no refinements within. Sparta therefore existed in civilized barbarism among the Grecian States, not much superiour to the institutions of the Bedoweens in the African deserts at the present day; these marauders appear on the horizontal sands; they soon cry havock, and spread death and desolation in every village; and when fury is satisfied, they sullenly retire with their spoil to the depth of solitude, meditating new pillage, and anticipating new enemies to conquer.

In giving this relation of the Spartan Commonwealth, I have been guided by no prejudice. No writer will deny to the passive pupils of Lycurgus the virtues of

patience, fortitude, heroism, magnanimity, and others of a similar nature. But all these flourish, like palm trees, in a savage community, and when unaccompanied by those qualities or virtues, which exist in a state of refinement, are decisive evidences of a commonwealth barbarous, warlike,and miserable.

As, therefore, Polybius and Machiavel have considered the constitution of Sparta, as a testimonial of the actual union of the advantages of the simple forms of government into one system, and as Tacitus virtually differs from this opinion, by insinuating, that such an union has never existed, I cannot otherwise reconcile these great authorities, but by supposing that the former had reference principally to the constitution itself, and that the latter deduced its nature from the misery of the people, and disregard ed the mere form of the institution, Both were right in their several opinions, and the conclusion must be, that the system of Lycurgus, fortified by the code of civil laws and municipal regulations, was re

ally an example of the combination of the original forms of government, that it lasted long and insured tranquillity, but that it was not formed to advance the comforts,the pleasures, and the refinements of society,and that therefore it did not de-. serve the commendation of Tacitus.

This hypothesis may be praised as more ingenious, than exact, and the discussion may be considered, as more pleasant, than important. But I have never seen any notice of the difference between the historians I have mentioned, and therefore if my conjectures are false, they may easily be pardoned. With regard to the importance of the subject, different readers may form different opinions, but I am disposed to believe that it is always a matter of much concern to reconcile the jarring sentiments of great minds on interesting topicks, for it is surely unpleasant to observe the mighty guides of the world opposed to each other, because their dissension enfeebles their power, while their union gives energy to truth and authority to reason. QUINTILIAN.

PLATO, de Legib. IV.

"Cries havock, and lets slip ther dogs of war !"

and while his resentment was warm published this quaternary of Epistles.

The first of these, which are addressed to Bentley, contains ob

jections to the Latinity of some passages in his dedication and preface to Horace. The purport of the second is similar, and exhibits remarks on the Dr.'s treatment of himself and of former criticks. In these compositions there is some just criticism, but it is mingled with too much ill-nature, and the author's resentment is too apparent. The Latinity is, perhaps§, correct, coldly correct: but the letters merit no commendation for sprightliness of wit, or elegance of Ianguage.

Bentley, in all probability, paid little regard to these publications, or to their authors. Whatever might be his private sentiments, he felt the dignity of his character, and the strength of his abilities too forcibly, to think an answer or a defence necessary.

These attacks did not seem to influence his literary pursuits, or damp the ardour of his genius. In the course of this year he published a new edition of his emendations on Menander and Philemon, without altering the name of Phileleutherus Lipsiensis. He omnitted Burman's preface, and added to these remarks, his Letter to Dr. Mill, which had been published in the year 1691, at the end of the Chronography of Malela.*

SWe say perhaps, for we have not read them with sufficient attention to enable us to speak decisively.

In this new edition of his Epistola Critica, which was his first and, perhaps, his most learned work, the writer of this life observes, that he did not correct the few trifling zaggauala which had escaped him, in the original edition. Among these may be numbered: P. 47. Iv for v. P. 48, in the reference to Atheneus, Lib. XIV. for Lib. X. P. 52. Undecima Ionis fabula, should be decima, as he has only mentioned nine in his disquisitions on Io, the Chian. P. 80, Eungorarov is called Comparativum instead of Superlativum.

A

Of both these admirable pieces of criticism we have already spoken. We cannot, however, quit them, without expressing some regret, that the corrections of Hesychius, which he mentions in this Letter to Dr. Mill, were never written and published. What additional dignity would the splendid edition of this valuable Lexicon have acquired, when it appeared some years ago, at Leyden, under the auspices of Alberti and Ruhnkenius, if the corrections of Bentley had been added to the remarks of so many learned annotators. His vigorous mind was peculiarly adapted to such a task, both on account of his penetration and his boldness. He knew the depth of his own erudition, and seldom paid any regard to the cavils of inferiour criticks.

About this time appeared a book, intituled "A Discourse of Freethinking, occasioned by the Rise and Growth of a Sect, called Free-Thinkers." The dangerous tendency of this work, which was generally read, determined Bentley to answer it publickly, under his assumed name of Phileleutherus Lipsiensis. He addressed his reply to Dr. Hare, although Collins, the author of the book, had been his pupil. The title was, "Remarks upon a late Discourse of Free-thinking; in a letter to F. H., D. D. by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis."

In the address he compliments Hare upon the care and secrecy

Sed hæc levia fortasse. In the additions, at the end of this Epistle, the references are very improperly made to the pages of the old, instead of the new edition. They should have been incorporated into the text, or at least the references should have been altered. is a strange instance of carelessness, and especially, as in the title he says, Editio altera emendation.

It

with which he conveyed his annotations on Menander to the press, which encouraged him to send him these remarks on Collins.

Dr. Salter* has informed us, that Bentley is not serious, when he compliments Hare for his taciturnity and secrecy with respect to the emendations of Menander. He has not, however, declared his authority for such an assertion, and if it was conjecture, there seems no foundation upon which to build such a suspicion. It does not appear, that the delay of the papers was occasioned by any mistake of Hare, or that he ever betrayed the secret. At this time, though they afterwards quarrelled, he almost idolized the Master of Trinity-College; Sciopius scarcely venerated Scaliger in a higher degree. Why then should Bentley pay him any ironical compliments?

These Remarks deserve the highest commendation, whether we consider the design or the execution. Those powers of ratiocination, that lively wit, that quickness of imagination, and that penetrating acuteness, which shone so conspicuously in the dissertation on Phalaris, were now again displayed. Ignorance and perversion were never more thoroughly exposed.

These Remarks, and the introductory letter, afforded Dr. Hare an opportunity of publickly demonstrating his regard for Bentley; and in the course of the year he addressed a pamphlet to him, intitu led "The Clergyman's Thanks to Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, &c." in which he urged the author to continue and complete his remarks.

In his additional notes to the new edition of Bentley's Dissertation on Phalaris, p. 448.

Before the expiration of the year, therefore, appeared the second part of this critique on Collins, with another letter to his friend H. H., in which he assures him, that his request was his only inducement to pursue the subject, as he had many weighty reasons which urged him to remain silent. This publication did not complete his original design, but contains a critical examination of the translations which he gives of his quotations from the ancients. But Collins did not require so acute an examiner to refute his erroneous assertions. Bentley displays his usual penetration, but the subject sinks beneath him: "The former part of the book (he says in his introductory letter) contained matters of consequence, and gave some play to the answerer; but the latter is a dull heap of citations, not worked, nor cemented together, mere sand without lime; and who would meddle with such dry, mouldering stuff, that with the best handling can never take a polish? To produce a good reply, the first writer must contribute something: if he is quite low and flat, his antagonist cannot rise high; if he is barren and jejune, the other cannot flourish; if he is obscure and dark, the other can never shine."

Such is the description which Bentley gives of his situation, when he wrote these remarks. Yet this second part is equal to the former, in point of critical sagacity,and sarcastick ridicule. Nor is it in any degree inferiour with lins gave scope for a display of his respect to learning, as far as Col

wonderful erudition.

These two parts were universally read and admired. Even his enemies were silent. No caviller dared to attack this admirable per

formance. Collins forfeited his reputation for learning and abilities, and his book, which had been held up as a model, sunk into obscurity. Eight editions of these Remarks have been published, and he began a third part, at the desire of Queen Caroline, when she was Princess of Wales. Of this only two half sheets were printed, and not much more was written; for Bentley wrote his remarks sheet by sheet, as the copy was wanted by the printer. During his dispute with the University, in 1717, he gave up this design of finishing his observations; nor could he ever be persuaded to resume the subject. At the same time he declared, with great indignation, that those in whose favour he wrote, were as bad as those he wrote against.

The few pages which are published of this third part contain remarks upon some passages from Lucan, which Collins had quoted, about Cato. It is much to be lamented, that he never finished this piece of criticism, for however trifling was the value of the book, there is such a sprightliness, and wit in his manner of confuting his antagonist, that entertains, while it convinces.

On the fifth of November, 1715, Dr. Bentley preached a sermon* upon Popery, before the University. This deep discourse is replete with erudition, and was calculated for the learned body before whom it was delivered. It, however, afforded an opportunity of beginning a new assault to some of his enemies; who soon after published some remarks on the sermon. This was one of the few

This sermon was afterwards pub. lished, with his sixth edition of Boyle's Lectures, at Cambridge, 1735.

attacks which Bentley did not bear in silence. When these petty scribblers criticised his classical erudition, he felt conscious of his superiority. This pamphlet,

however, was too scurrilous not to provoke notice, and in 1717 he published an answer, intituled : "Reflections on the scandalous aspersions cast on the Clergy by the Author of the Remarks on Dr. Bentley's Sermon on Popery, &c."

In the year before this, 1716, two letters were addressed to him, respecting an edition of the Greek Testament, for which he had long been collecting materials. These were published with the Doctor's answers,in which the publick were informed, that the Doctor did not propose using any manuscript in this edition which was not a thousand years old; and at the same time added, that he had twenty of this age in his library.

The following year produced a new antagonist. Mr. Johnson, a schoolmaster, at Nottingham, attacked with great virulence, and considerable ability, Dr. Bentley's edition of Horace.t

This publication was delayed by Johnson's illness, but however-out of date it might appear, he tells us in a long preface, that he was determined to publish it, because the authors of the former remarks on the Doctor's Horace had not mentioned the most glar ing errors.

At the end of the preface, he has collected Bentley's egotisms, on the passages in which he has mentioned himself; and after

This is the title of his critique, "Aristarchus Anti-Bentleianus qua draginta sex Bentleii errores super Q Horatii Flacci odarum libro primo spissos, nonnullos, et erubescendos: item per notas Universas in Latinitate,lapsus fadissimos nonaginta ostendens."