458 MONTHLY REVIEW OF LITERATURE. 



contented himself with so slight an alteration of them, as must inevitably have 

 betrayed their Spanish origin ; and we have no doubt, accordingly, that some 

 portions of the work are interpolations of his own. We hold, that the igno- 

 rance of Spanish customs, displayed in some parts of the book, contrasted with 

 the intimate knowledge betrayed in the remainder, go far to prove our position, 

 that Le Sage was a mere compiler of other men's matter. 



We frankly confess our incompetence to enter into this question, though with 

 much personal examination into original sources ; but, in addition to the very 

 strong evidence adduced in two articles ; one in our own Magazine, a few months 

 since ; and the other, in the North American Review, a year or two ago, we 

 have been furnished, by a Spanish gentleman of great learning, with one or two 

 facts, that still further and more decently lay the question at rest. 



The original " Gil Bias" is well known, by the learned in Spain, to have 

 been a satire upon Philip the Third and Fourth ; and its publication was conse- 

 quently prohibited. The MSS. fell into the possession of the uncle of Le Sage, 

 an attache to the French Embassy ; and hence its transference into the hands of 

 Le Sage himself. Now, it is remarkable, that Le Sage, probably ignorant of 

 the satirical intention of his manuscript, has retained, in his fourth volume, the 

 names of certain courtiers satirized ; which indicates its origin satisfactorily 

 enough to the Spanish scholar. But there is another fact. The reader of Gil 

 Bias will, doubtless; remember an episode entitled, or concerning, " The Canon 

 of Valladolid." This is altogether a translation from an obscure Spanish writer, 

 by name Marcos de Obregon, whose works are not so very scarce but they may 

 be met with in the libraries of Spain. Whether, however, the authorship of 

 " Gil Bias" is clearly proved to belong to Querubim (Querubin?) de La Ronda, 

 as Mr. Inglis believes, we do not know. 



A word or two about Mr. Inglis's book. It is written in a very easy and 

 agreeable manner, and with a light and graceful humour, not a little pleasing 

 to the reader. The incidents are many and various, such as occur in the life of 

 a young Spanish scapegrace, Pedro of Penaflor. We must, however, in justice 

 say, that we take no prolonged interest in the fate of any of his characters ; and, 

 whether Mr. Inglis meant it or not, we cannot say, but he has drawn his hero 

 a selfishly light-hearted, light-heeled, light-fingered, and light-principled vaga- 

 bond, whom it is taxing our sympathies rather too highly, to care a pin about. 

 Our hero, indeed, who, like Gil Bias, tells his own story, speaks of murders, 

 deaths, and other matters, wherein he either officiates as minister, or in which 

 he acts as principal, in a procurante style that altogether forbids our concern to 

 expend itself. Mr. Inglis well knows the Horatian precept, " Si vis mejlere," 

 8fc. ; and when a man can paint well in oils, we are disappointed if we are pre- 

 sented with an outline in chalk. 



Mr. Inglis, then, has, in our opinion, failed of making a very interesting novel, 

 but he has given us a very vivid picture of Spanish habits, customs, and man- 

 ners ; and we are very much mistaken if Gil Bias itself does not owe its deserved 

 celebrity to this latter merit, rather than to the interest of the story, or the 

 drawing of his characters. 



THE NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL RIGHT OF PROPERTY CONTRASTED. LONDON. 



1832. 



We have overlooked this book too long, and we proceed to make amends to 

 the author for our unintentional neglect of his effusions. They are presented to 

 the reader in the form of letters addressed to the Lord Chancellor, and are pro- 

 fessedly written with a view to enforce the right of property, as the author is 

 pleased to term them, against the artificial rights or claims of capital. 



Without wishing to insinuate that our epistolary author intends to undermine 

 what the great majority of the world has been hitherto taught to consider the 

 indefeasible rights of property, by which, and property, we take leave to mean 

 that which a man inherits, or attains by his own industry : and certainly, 

 without suspecting that he has the slightest notion that such is the tendency of- 



