In another place De Quincey points out the line of argument followed by Bentley: "It was by anachronisms of this character that Bentley detected the spuriousness of the letters ascribed to Phalaris. Sicilian towns, &c., were in those letters called by names that did not arise until that prince had been dead for centuries. Manufactures were mentioned that were of much later invention. As handles for this exposure of a systematic forgery, which oftentimes had a moral significance, these indications were valuable, and gave excessive brilliancy to that immortal dissertation of Bentley's." [8]
[ [7] Rosicrucians and Free-Masons (De Quincey's Works, vol. 13, p. 388).
[ [8] Memorial Chronology (De Quincey's Works, vol. 14, p. 309).
The fate which the wits thought to bring upon Bentley fell upon them, and they quarrelled among themselves. It was believed that Charles Boyle, when credit was to be obtained, looked upon himself as author of the book; but afterwards, when it was discredited, he only awaited the public trial of the conspirators to wash his hands of the whole affair. Atterbury, who had much to do with the production of the volume, was particularly annoyed by Boyle's conduct. He wrote to Boyle: "In laying the design of the book, in writing above half of it, in reviewing [revising] a great part of the rest, in transcribing the whole and attending the press, half a year of my life went away. What I promised myself from hence was that some service would be done to your reputation, and that you would think so. In the first of these I was not mistaken—in the latter I am. When you were abroad, sir, the highest you could prevail with yourself to go in your opinion of the book was, that you hoped it would do you no harm. When you returned I supposed you would have seen that it had been far from hurting you. However, you have not thought fit to let me know your mind on this matter; for since you came to England, no one expression, that I know of, has dropped from you that could give me reason to believe you had any opinion of what I had done, or even took it kindly from me." [9]
[ [9] Memoirs of Bishop Atterbury, compiled by Folkestone Williams, vol. i. (1869), p. 42.
In the same year (1698) King turned his attention to a less formidable antagonist than the great Bentley. His Journey to London is a very ingenious parody of Dr. Martin Lister's Journey to Paris, and, the pages of the original being referred to, it forms an index to that book.
The Royal Society in its early years had to pass through a long period of ridicule and misrepresentation. The author of Hudibras commenced the crusade, but the gibes of Butler were easier to bear than those of Dr. William King, who was particularly savage against Sir Hans Sloane. The Transactioneer (1700) and Useful Transactions in Philosophy (1708-1709) were very galling to the distinguished naturalist, and annoyed the Royal Society, whose Philosophical Transactions were unmercifully laughed at. To both the tracts referred to were prefixed satirical tables of contents, and what made them the more annoying was that the author's own words were very ingeniously used and turned against him. King writes: "The bulls and blunders which Sloane and his friends so naturally pour forth cannot be misrepresented, so careful I am in producing them."
Here is a specimen of the contents of The Transactioneer:
"The Tatler's Opinion of a Virtuoso."
"Some Account of Sir Hans Sloane.
—— of Dr. Salmon.
—— of Mr. Oldenburg.
—— of Dr. Plot."
"The Compiling of the Philosophical Transactions the work of a single person.
—— the excellence of his style.
—— his clearness and perspicacity.
—— Genius to Poetry.
—— Verses on Jamaica Pepper.
—— Politicks in Gardening.
—— Skill in Botanicks."
The following appear in the contents of the "Voyage to Cajamai" in Useful Transactions: