328 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 51. 



but her autliority seems only to have been the 

 anonymous writer in the Gentleman s Magazine, 

 vol. xlvii. p. 13., referred to by your correspon- 

 dent. The author of an elaborate review of the 

 work in the Retrospective Review, vol. iv., advo- 

 cates Bishop Berkeley's claim, but gives no reasons 

 of any validity ; and merely grounds his persua- 

 sion upon the book being such as might be ex- 

 pected 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 j^ositive denial of Dr. George Berkeley, 

 the bishoj)'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 suffi- 

 cient. 



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 liave seen the 

 author's name prefixed to it : however, J am of opinion 

 that it is 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. Iv. 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. lie began it 

 without any plan, and did not know what he should 

 write about when he put pen to paper. He was author 

 of several pamphlets, chiefly anonymous, particularly 

 in the controversy with Julius Bate on Elohira." 



Of this circumstantial and sufficiently positive 

 attribution, which is dated October, 1785, no con- 

 tradiction 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 Ilolborn, 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 cor- 

 respondent of the Gentleman's Magazine, W. H. 

 The author quoted in the Remark'^ of Sigr. Rliedi, 

 and in the Dissertatiom, are frequently the same, 

 and the learning is of the same cast in both. In 

 partictdar, Boehart is repeatedly cited in the lie- 

 murk.i 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 cor- 

 respondent of the Gentlemaiis Magazine, I con- 

 ceive 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. 



Jas. Ceossle't. 

 Manchester, October 7. 1850. 



I.NGEI/MANN S BIBLIOTHECA SCRIPTORUM CLASSI- 

 COBUM. 



(Vol. H., pp, 296. 312.) 



The sort of defence, explanation, or whatever 

 it may be called, founded upon usage, and oifered 

 by Another Foreign Bookseller, is precisely 

 what I wanted to get out, if it existed, as I sus- 

 pected it did. 



If your correspondent be accurate as to Engel- 

 mann, it appears that no wrong is done to him ; it 

 is only the j)ublic which is mystified by a vaj'iety 

 of title-pages, all but one containing a suppression 

 of the truth, and the one of which I speak con- 

 taining more. 



I now ask you to put in parallel columns extracts 

 from the title given by Engelmann with the sub- 

 stitutes given in that which I received. 



" Classics . . . that have 

 appeared in Germany and 

 the adjacent countries up 

 to the end of 1846." 



" Schrlftsteller — welche 

 vein Jahre 1700 bis zu 

 Ende des Jahres 1846 be- 

 sonders in Deutschland 

 gedruekt worden sind." 



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 

 1 700 to 1 846, 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 ad- 

 jacent countries, in all times, are to be found in 

 the catalogue. I pass over the implied compli- 

 ment 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 litera- 

 ture, 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, espe- 

 cially 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 witii exposures ; if, 

 as a point of form, a Query be requisite, they can 

 always end with. Is this right ? 



A. De Morgan. 



October 14. 1850. 



