When, with all this blundering and dishonest sophistry, the critic cannot find any thing on which he can build even such ridiculous inferences as these, he boldly and impudently alleges that Sir Egerton Brydges has made assertions directly the contrary to his express words. He accuses Sir Egerton Brydges of a desire to shut out all wealth in the elevation to the peerage; and to regard nothing but descent and historic lustre. Sir Egerton Brydges's words (p. 46,) are the reverse: "the dispensation of these honours should be frugal, incorrupt, impar tial, intelligent, yet generous; not to suffer a candidate to found pretensions on mere descent, however distinguished; nor to be awed and influenced by mere riches, however threatening or powerful!"

The instances which this mock critic exhibits, of arguing in a circle, abound from beginning to end of his article. Against the charge that Reviews are often partial and unjust, and therefore mischievous, he first assumes that they are written by the united power of all the men of talent of the kingdom; then takes it as a necessary consequence that they must be impartial and just; then assumes again that they are popular, because they are impartial and just; and then again infers that they are impartial and just, because they are popular. Such is the huddled mixture of questions begged, and false conclusions. But he is not content with this; he cannot lose the opportunity which this blunder of reasoning gives him to be scurrilous; having first assumed that the Reviews monopolise all the talent of the nation, he assumes, that the person whom he attacks is not connected with these Reviews, and therefore has no talent!

The critic charges Sir Egerton Brydges with inveighing against Reviewers, as a coterie combined into one body to vent their spleen against all other authors. Sir Egerton does no such thing; but, if he did, the critic's auswer to it is sufficiently absurd: "If" says he, "these authors do combine, it is for the purpose of praising, not damning each other!!" But contradictions go for nothing with him; a little before he had said, that their own interest is a sufficient security against partiality; for partiality would effectually disgrace them with that public on which they depend!!!

We next come to the answer to the charge, that anonymous criticism is tempted, by the mask it wears, " to commit wrongs, it would not dare to do if the mask were removed." The critic says, that this mask has the benefit of making the opinions delivered, "frank and fearless," instead of being " dull panegyric." Yet, as if it was impossible for him to advance one step without contradicting himself; he adds, that the identity of the author is, notwithstanding, as well known as if he signed his name !

Sir Egerton had said, (p. 8,) that "the opinion formed of a book, when it is first published, is very seldom the opinion entertained of it after a lapse of twenty or thirty years." The critic answers, that the reputation which can be sustained for thirty years, will then be fixed and unchangeable. Here is another false assumption. This passage does not speak of a reputation of thirty years' endurance; but of an opinion entertained on first publication, which instead of thirty years, does not embrace thirty months!

All the gabble which the critic vomits out, in answer to Sir Egerton's complaints, that the profuse exercise of the prerogative in augmenting the peerage, was abused by Mr. Pitt, is so incredibly ignorant, vulgar,

contradictory, so falsely cited, so full of false assumptions, and false conclusions, so wilfully perverted; sometimes accusing Sir Egerton of blindly omitting what is the very gist of his complaint; that it would be tedious to unravel and confute what is literally base, lying, or nonsensical, in every sentence.

The critic having here attempted a justification of the influence of wealth, proceeds, in conformity to his own habit of self-contradiction, (the only conformity by which he ever abides,) to prove that wealth by itself has very little influence; and his instance is surely a most happy one! He asks if all the riches of the Rothschilds can bring them into high society? Rothschild, who is actually admitted even to all the cabinet-dinners of the French ministry: and then, like a vulgar ideot, he talks of Almack's, as if the dandyism of Almack's was the test of high society!

It seems, by this critic, that the proper habits of a man of genius are not meditation and lonely study; but a constant mixture with the fools and triflers of the crowded walks of life!

But where are this critic's absurdities to end? He justifies an author being an hireling, and working for money by assimilating this payment to that of those who receive rents or interests for their capital! Is it asked why authors are less respectable by working for money? Because their object ought to be the pure, disinterested fame, which results from the propagation of truth!

Fame is the spur, that the clear spirit doth raise,
To scorn delights, and live laborious days!

Bacon was convicted of receiving money from the parties whose causes he adjudged. The defence was, that it never influenced his judgment. It was replied, that his judgment ought not to have been subjected even to the temptation; and ought, like Cæsar's wife, to have been placed above suspicion!

The charge, that Sir Egerton Brydges's NOTE from p. 57 to p. 70, contains double the abuse of Lord Byron to be found in any other publication since the poet's death, requires no confutation, because it is nothing less than a direct and unqualified falsehood.

Then comes another assertion, after the critic's usual manner, that no one would take the trouble to abuse Sir Egerton; followed by this curious reason for the critic's doing so now, that it is to save himself the trouble of doing so hereafter! If not worth abuse, why will it be necessary to abuse him hereafter! And if not hereafter, still less is it necessary to do it by anticipation!

Lastly come reasons why Sir Egerton's critical opinions are not to be trusted, and these very reasons, so assigned, are unqualified proofs that Sir Egerton's critical opinions and taste are sound! For which Irish reason, he presses Sir Egerton to make a bonfire of them!

No notice has been here taken of the consummate ignorance of this critic, who never heard of Lord Surry, the poet, nor of the persone dramatis of Shakspeare's Richard III., nor Flodden field, nor Bosworth battle, nor of Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, who lost his head for his intrigues with Mary, Queen of Scots.

ITALIAN LITERATURE.

Jan 17, 1826.

SIR, If the two articles in your 9th and 13th Numbers, New Series*, on Italian Literature, had appeared either in a less respectable journal, or in some anonymous book of travels, or with the name of some one of those "che non fur mai vivi," I should not have attached any importance to it; being accustomed to treat with merited contempt the numerous productions every day published on Italy, for the mere purpose of getting money from those who are weak enough to form their opinions from such polluted sources, and who swallow as gospel the most stupid and malignant libels on that unhappy country. The literary intercourse with Italy being so shackled, and the circulation of the English periodicals there being so limited, the most erroneous notions are disseminated, and all answer rendered impossible. There was a time when books of this stamp used truly to grieve me: for loving my native land above all things, every thing said against it is a subject of inexpressible grief to me, and I feel it even more than if directed personally against myself. I was a long time at a loss how to account for the strange appetite on the part of some English scribblers, for retailing so many spiteful falsehoods, instead of telling the simple and honest truth: but my eyes were soon opened, when I perceived that the object of the mercenary garreteers was to feed that appetite for detraction which is unfortunately so prevalent; and I ceased to read their works, or only vouchsafed them a passing glance. With these feelings I should have viewed the two articles above mentioned, had they been inserted in any journal less respectable than your's; but finding them there, I could not but read them, and was stung to the quick from my affection for my dear Italy, both because, circulated and read with eagerness as your journal is in the educated classes of the community, the shallow and crude lucubrations of your Correspondent, L. D. C. or D. C. will be widely disseminated; and because from the single circumstance of their appearing in your pages, they will be the more readily believed, as bearing the sanction of your respectable name. The love of truth, the moderation and the judgment which distinguish your labours, placed it beyond doubt that no sordid motives could have induced you to give currency to what you could not believe, against

At random censured-wantonly abused. And I am so satisfied that mere haste, and your not having minutely considered the subject, may have led you to insert the two obnoxious articles, that I address myself to you to beg you to repair the wrong done, by admitting into your next Number this letter from me, in order

The two letters, here alluded to, were written by a foreigner, who has enjoyed excellent opportunities of knowing Italy, and whose literary reputation on the Continent stands deservedly high. This is our exculpation. The Editor of a Magazine is differently circumstanced from the Editor of a Review. The former is a collector of miscellaneous papers; the latter is the speaker or secretary of a tribunal sitting in judgment, and deciding according to certain principles and opinions. In a Magazine the Editor may admit the advocacy of a partisan, for there is liberty of reply-in a Review he must preserve the consistency of a judge, and is responsible for his decision.-ED. MARCH, 1826. 2 C

that the wound may be healed by the same hand that inflicted it, and that all may know that the pursuit of truth, and not the spirit of party, is the great object of your journal. As you have admitted the two articles to give an idea of modern Italian Literature, and as they abound in the grossest misconceptions, I flatter myself that you will insert my observations, as you would an Erratum of a word that changed the whole meaning.

I shall take some of your Correspondent's statements, and answer them one by one, in order that his errors may be more palpably seen; for to go about to refute them all would be a tedious task:

"Not only did Italy make no progress during these 266 years, (from 1530 down to 1796.) She would be positively a gainer, if she would revert to the state in which she was in 1530. . . . The chief occupation of the nation during these 266 years has been to write sonnets in imitation of Petrarch."-(No. 13, p. 21.) "All that appeared during these 266 years is, with the exception of a very small number of celebrated books, worth absolutely nothing."-(ib. p. 22.) "Since the tyranny of Phillip II. Italy has had neither life, nor motion, nor voice, but in the fine arts."—(ib. p. 23.) The following great characters flourished after 1530:

Poets:-Alfieri, Berni, Bracciolini, Caro, Cesarotti, Chiabrera, Filicaja, Fortiguerra, Guidi, Labindo, Maffei, Marini, Mazza, Metastasio, Monti, Parini, Pindemonti Ippolito, Pindemonti Giovanni, Redi, Salvioli, Tasso, Tassoni, Tessi, Varano, &c. &c.

Mathematics:-Boscovich, Cavalieri, Cassini, Conti, Galileo, Grandi, Lagrangia, &c.

Natural Philosophy, History, Medicine, &c.:-Acquapendente, Borsieri, Cirillo, Faloppio, Galvani, Magalotti, Malpighi, Morgagni, Mascagni, Redi, Scarpa, Spallanzani, Vallisnieri, Viviani, Volta, Torricelli, &c.

Laws and Politics:- Beccaria, Filangeri, Galiani, Genovesi, Paruta, Pagano, Verri, (the three brothers,) Vico.

History:-Ammirato, Bentivoglio, Crescimbeni, Davila, Duti, Denina, Giannone, Pallavicini, Quadrio, Sarpi, Vasari, Tiraboschi. Profound Scholars:-Baroni, Carli, Conforti, Facciolati, Forcellini, Gravina, Lanei, Maffei, Morcelli, Morelli, Muratori, Noris, Sigonio, Ughelli, &c.*

These are some of the great men that flourished and wrote between 1530 and 1796. Every one conversant with literary history knows how many I omit. I leave it to you, sir, to judge whether it be just to say that the works left by these illustrious names are absolutely good for nothing; I wait to be told that Farnese, Monteccucoli, Alberoni, and Mazzarini, spent their time in the imitation of Petrarca ; and I wait to be told of an equal number of men, in an equal number of years, that wrote better, or more usefully for mankind, than some of those I have enumerated did in their respective classes.†

* Lagrangia, or Lagrange, was born, educated, and afterwards Professor of Mathematics at Turin, whence he went to Berlin at the invitation of the great Frederick, and afterwards to Paris, where he died, a circumstance which has led many erroneously to believe him a Frenchman. Fra Paolo Surpi, author of the History of the Council of Trent, is for this reason registered among the historians; but he was besides a profound and distinguished divine, civilian, anatomist, and mathematician. As a practical statesman he ranked high, although his political principles were not over good; but he was a counsellor of the Republic of Venice, and, what is worse, he was a friar.

+ Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma, was the famous rival of Henry the Fourth of

The Italian with which you are acquainted-the Italian of the Bassvigliano and the Gerusalemme Liberata, (No. 9, p. 45,) the Italian of Ariosto and of Alfieri, is spoken at Florence, Rome, and Siena, (No. 13, p. 23.) It is true, that in all the other cities of Italy, the newspapers, and advertisements of every kind are printed in what pretends to be Italian. But the pedants of Tuscany are perfectly right when they cry out that this Italian is not Italian. It is the patois of the place translated into Italian with the help of the dictionary, &c., as school-boys say, word by word. The words are translated, but not the turns of the expression, which retain their Piedmontese, Venetian, or Neapolitan character. Will you believe what I am now going to tell you? When I was at Leghorn a very well educated and rich Lucchese said, in my hearing, to a Florentine of the same class: Our government it so bigoted that it obliged us to shut up our boxes (logge) on the eve of such a Saint. The Florentine did not at first understand the word logge and took it to mean shops, (No. 13, p. 25.)

Most excellent critic! Neither Monti, nor Tasso, nor Alfieri, nor Ariosto, were either Florentines, or Romans, or Sienese. The facts are-1st, That at Florence, at Rome, at Siena, different dialects are spoken; so, that unless D. C. will say that there are three Italian languages, it cannot be said that the Italian of Ariosto, &c. is spoken in any one of those cities.-2nd, That there are books published in the Florentine, in the Roman, and in the Sienese dialects, which are not in one language, like that of Monti, &c.-3d, It is so far from being true that the newspapers, &c. throughout Italy, are but a translation of the different patois, that there is not a person who can tell, from the diction, where a well-written newspaper has been composed, -4th, The word logge is not Lucchese nor Italian, nor to be found in any dialect of the Peninsula, in that sense; it is there a Gallicism and inadmissible; throughout all Italy, in all dialects, boxes being called palchi or palchetti;* therefore-But I leave you, sir, to draw the inference.

What is most curious, is to see your Correspondent place Tasso and Monti among those who have written in this famous FlorentineRoman-Sienese language. Every one knows the war made by the Florentine pedants on the former poet in his day, to show that he had not written in Florentine. To see, then, Monti cited, among those who write the Florentine-Roman-Sienese, that very same Monti who has spent his life in declaring, both by mouth and pen, and particularly in the work so ill cited by D. C., "That the language is Italian, and is not either spoken or written better by the natives of one province of Italy than another, without study, but both spoken and written better, in every part, the more attentively its rules are studied." These are

France, whom he frequently defeated. Raimondo Monteccucoli, of Modena, was the truly worthy rival of the great Turenne. The two cardinals, Alberoni and Mazzarini, (or Mazarin, as the French call him,) are too well known to require further mention. They were not, certainly, ignorant blockheads, although their characters were not the best in the world; but for ministers, and above all for cardinals that are ministers, some allowance must be made.

I do not like to deny what is stated to be a fact, but here there must be necessarily some error, for it is impossible that any one should say that an order has been given to close the palchi, or palchetti, or logge, or boxes. To close the THEATRE is a general form of expression in all languages; but that of to close the BOXES is, I believe, admitted in none; most certainly not in Italian, or in any of its dialects. And if I were inclined to be incredulous, I should be disposed to doubt the arguments which D. C. puts into the mouth of Tamburini with respect to the Jesuits and the infallibility of the Pope. (See N. 9 p. 43.) The argument itself is inconclusive, and therefore it is improbable that it emanated from so great a theologian.

+ See Proposta di correzioni ad Aggiunte al Vocabolario della Crusca, and not Proposta di Emendazioni, as D. C. calls it.