Notes and Queries, Number 51, October 19, 1850. VariousЧитать онлайн книгу.
editor of the Biographia Britannica, the rumour as to Berkeley's authorship of Gaudentio ought to have been finally discredited. Nevertheless, it seems still to maintain its ground: it is stated as probable by Dunlop, in his History of Fiction; while the writer of a useful Essay on "Social Utopias," in the third volume of Chambers's Papers for the People, No. 18., treats it as an established fact.
In addition to the remarks of your correspondent L., I may state that the first edition in 1737, 8vo., contains 335 pages, exclusive of the publisher's address, 13 pages. It is printed for T. Cooper, at the Globe, in Paternoster Row. The second edition in 1748, 8vo., contains publisher's address, 12 pages; the work itself 291 pages.
I find no difference between the two editions, except that in the first the title is The Memoirs of Sigr. Gaudentio di Lucca; and in the second, The Adventures of Sigr. Gaudentio di Lucca; and that in the second the notes are subjoined to each page, while in the first they follow the text in smaller type, as Remarks of Sigr. Rhedi. The second edition is—
"Printed for W. Innys in Paternoster Row, and R. Manby and H.S. Cox on Ludgate Hill, and sold by M. Cooper in Paternoster Row."
With respect to the author, it must be observed that there is no evidence whatever to justify its being attributed to Bishop Berkeley. Clara Reeve, in her Progress of Romana, 1786, 8vo., mentions him as having been supposed to be the author; but her authority seems only to have been the anonymous writer in the Gentleman's Magazine, vol. xlvii. p. 13., referred to by your correspondent. The author of an elaborate review of the work in the Retrospective Review, vol. iv., advocates Bishop Berkeley's claim, but gives no reasons of any validity; and merely grounds his persuasion upon the book being such as might be expected from that great writer. He was, however, at least bound to show some conformity in style, which he does not attempt. On the other hand, we have the positive denial of Dr. George Berkeley, the bishop's son (Kippis's Biog. Brit., vol. iii., addenda to vol. ii.), which, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, seems to be quite sufficient.
In a letter signed C.H., Gent. Mag., vol. vii. p. 317., written immediately on the appearance of the work, the writer observes:—
"I should have been very glad to have seen the author's name prefixed to it: however, I am of opinion that it its very nearly related to no less a hand than that which has so often, under borrowed names, employed itself to amuse and trifle mankind, in their own taste, out of their folly and vices."
This appears to point at Swift; but it is quite clear that he could not be the author, for very obvious reasons.
A correspondent of the Gent. Mag., who signs his initials W.H. (vol. lv. part 2. p. 757), states "on very good authority" that the author was—
"Barrington, a Catholic priest, who had chambers in Gray's Inn, in which he was keeper of a library for the use of the Romish clergy. Mr. Barrington wrote it for amusement, in a fit of the gout. He began it without any plan, and did not know what he should write about when be put pen to paper. He was author of several pamphlets, chiefly anonymous, particularly the controversy with Julius Bate on Elohim."
Of this circumstantial and sufficiently positive attribution, which is dated October, 1785, no contradiction ever appeared that I am aware of. The person intended is S. Berington, the author of—
"Dissertations on the Mosaical Creation, Deluge, building of Babel, and Confusion of Tongues, &c." London: printed for the Author, and sold by C. Davis in Holborn, and T. Osborn in Gray's Inn, 1750, 8vo., pages 466, exclusive of introduction, 12 pages.
On comparing Gaudentio di Lucca with this extremely curious work, there seems a sufficient similarity to bear out the statement of the correspondent of the Gentleman's Magazine, W.H. The author quoted in the Remarks of Sigr. Rhedi, and in the Dissertations, are frequently the same, and the learning is of the same cast in both. In particular, Bochart is repeatedly cited in the Remarks and in the Dissertations. The philosophical opinions appear likewise very similar.
On the whole, unless some strong reason can be given for questioning the statement of this correspondent of the Gentleman's Magazine, I conceive that S. Berington, of whom I regret that so little is known, must be considered to be the author of The Memoirs of Gaudentio di Lucca.
Manchester, October 7. 1850.
ENGLEMANN'S BIBLIOTHECA SCRIPTORUM CLASSICORUM
The sort of defence, explanation, or whatever it may be called, founded upon usage, and offered by ANOTHER FOREIGN BOOKSELLER, is precisely what I wanted to get out, if it existed, as I suspected it did.
If your correspondent be accurate as to Engelmann, it appears that no wrong is done to him; it is only the public which is mystified by a variety of title-pages, all but one containing a suppression of the truth, and the one of which I speak containing more.
I now ask you to put in parallel columns extracts from the title given by Engelmann with the substitutes given in that which I received.
I do not think it fair towards Mr. Engelmann, whose own title is so true and so precise, to take it for certain, on anonymous authority, that he sanctioned the above paraphrase. According to the German, the catalogue contains works from 1700 to 1846, published especially in Germany; meaning, as is the fact, that there are some in it published elsewhere. According to the English, all classics printed in Germany, and all the adjacent countries, in all times, are to be found in the catalogue. I pass over the implied compliment to this country, namely, that while a true description is required in Germany, a puff both in time and space is wanted for England. I dwell on the injurious effect of such alterations to literature, and on the trouble they give to those who wish to be accurate. It is a system I attack, and not individuals. There is no occasion to say much, for publicity alone will do what is wanted, especially when given in a journal which falls under the eyes of those engaged in research. I hope those of your contributors who think as I do, will furnish you from time to time with exposures; if, as a point of form, a Query be requisite, they can always end with, Is this right?
October 14. 1850.
SHAKSPEARE'S USE OF THE WORD "DELIGHTED."
I should have been content to leave the question of the meaning of the word delighted as it stands in your columns, my motive, so kindly appreciated by Mr. SINGER, in raising the discussion being, by such means to arrive at the true meaning of the word, but that the remarks of L.B.L. (p. 234.) recall to my mind a canon of criticism which I had intended to communicate at an earlier period as useful for the guidance of commentators in questions of this nature. It is as follows:—Master the grammatical construction of the passage in question (if from a drama, in its dramatic and I scenic application), deducing therefrom the general sense, before you attempt to amend or fix the meaning of a doubtful word.
Of all writers, none exceed Shakspeare in logical correctness and nicety of expression. With a vigour of thought and command of language attained by no man besides, it is fair to conclude, that he would not be guilty of faults of construction such as would disgrace a school-boy's composition; and yet how unworthily is he treated when we find some of his finest passages vulgarised and degraded through misapprehensions arising from a mere want of that attention due to the very least, not to say the greatest, of writers. This want of attention (without attributing to it such fatal consequences) appears to me evident in L.B.L.'s remarks, ably as he analyses the passage. I give him credit for the faith that enabled him to discover a sense in it as it stands; but when he says that it is perfectly intelligible in its natural sense, it appears to me that he cannot be aware of the innumerable explanations that have been offered of this very clear passage. The source of his error is plainly referable to the cause I have pointed out.
It is quite true that, in the passage referred to, the condition of the body before and after death is contrasted, but this is merely incidental. The