of our own time, have divided her republic of letters, have not been always carried on with the bloodless weapons of scholastic controversy.* That some assertions too unqualified, some errors or prejudices should have escaped, in the course of fifty or sixty pages of remark, is to be expected from the most circumspect pen; but a benevolent critic, instead of fastening upon these, will embrace the spirit of the whole, and by this interpret and excuse any specific inaccuracy. It may not be easy to come up to the standard of our author's principles, it may be his partialities, in estimating the intellectual character of his country; but we think we can detect one source of his dissatisfaction with us, in his misconception of our views, which, according to him, were, that "a particular knowledge of the Italian should be widely diffused in America." This he quotes and requotes with peculiar emphasis, objecting it to us as perfectly inconsistent with our style of criticism. Now, in the first place, we made no such declaration. We intended only to give a veracious analysis of one branch of Italian letters. But, secondly, had such been our design, we doubt exceedingly, or, rather, we do not doubt, whether the best way of effecting it would be by indiscriminate * Take two familiar examples: that of Caro and that of Marini. The adversary of the former poet, accused of murder, heresy, &c., was condemned by the Inquisition, and compelled to seek his safety in exile. The adversary of Marini, in an attempt to assassinate him, fortunately shot only a courtier of the King of Sardinia. In both cases, the wits of Italy, ranged under opposite banners, fought with incredible acrimony during the greater part of a century. The subject of fierce dispute, in both instances, was a sonnet! of panegyric. The amplification of beauties, and the prudish concealment of all defects, would carry with it an air of insincerity that must dispose the mind every ingenuous reader to reject it. Perfection is not the lot of humanity more in Italy than elsewhere. Such intemperate panegyric is, moreover, unworthy of the great men who are the objects of it. They really shine with too brilliant a light to be darkened by a few spots; and to be tenacious of their defects is in some measure to distrust their genius. Rien n'est beau, que le vrai, is the familiar reflection of a critic, whose general maxims in his art are often more sound than their particular application. Notwithstanding the difficulty urged by Mr. Da Ponte of forming a correct estimate of a foreign language, the science of general literary criticism and history, which may be said to have entirely grown up within the last fifty years, has done much to eradicate prejudice and enlarge the circle of genuine knowledge. A century and a half ago, "the best of English critics,”* in the opinion of Pope and Dry'den, could institute a formal examination, and, of course, condemnation of the plays of Shakspeare "by the practice of the ancients." The best of French critics,† in the opinion of every one, could condemn the "Orlando Furioso" for wandering from the rules * "The Tragedies of the last Age, considered and examined by the practice of the Ancients," &c. By Thomas Rymer. London, 1678. "Dissertation Critique sur l'Aventure de Joconde." Euvres de Boileau, tom. ii. of Horace; even Addison, in his triumphant vindication of the "Paradise Lost," seems most solicitous to prove its conformity with the laws of Aristotle; and a writer like Lope de Vega felt obliged to apologize for the independence with which he deviated from the dogmas of the same school, and adapted his beautiful inventions in the drama to the peculiar genius of his own countrymen.* The magnificent fables of Ariosto and Spencer were stigmatized as barbarous, because they were not classical; and the polite scholars of Europe sneered at "the bad taste which could prefer an Ariosto to a Virgil, a Romance to an Iliad." But the reconciling spirit of modern criticism has interfered; the character, the wants of different nations and ages have been consulted; from the local beauties peculiar to each, the philosophic inquirer has deduced certain general principles of beauty applicable to all; petty national prejudices have been extinguished; and a difference of taste, which for that reason alone was before "Arte de hacer Comedias." Obras Sueltas, tom. iv., p. 406. Dar gritos la verdad en libros mudos, &c. † See Lord Shaftesbury's "Advice to an Author;" a treatise of great authority in its day, but which could speak of the "Gothic Muse of Shakspeare, Fletcher, and Milton as lisping with stammering tongues, that nothing but the youth and rawness of the age could excuse!" Sir William Temple, with a purer taste, is not more liberal. The term Gothic, with these writers, is applied to much the same subjects with the modern term Romantic, with this difference: the latter is simply distinctive, while the former was also an opprobrious epithet. condemned as a deformity, is now admired as a beautiful variety in the order of nature. The English, it must be confessed, can take little credit to themselves for this improvement. Their researches in literary history amount to little in their own language, and to nothing in any other. Warton, Johnson, and Campbell have indeed furnished an accurate inventory of their poetical wealth; but, except it be in the limited researches of Drake and of Dunlop, what record have we of all their rich and various prose ? As to foreign literature, while other cultivated nations have been developing their views in voluminous and valuable treatises, the English have been profoundly mute.* Yet for several reasons they might be expected to make the best general critics in the world, and the collision of their * The late translation of Sismondi's "Southern Europe" is the only one, we believe, which the English possess of a detailed literary history. The discriminating taste of this sensible Frenchman has been liberalized by his familiarity with the languages of the North. His knowledge, however, is not always equal to his subject, and the credit of his opinions is not unfrequently due to another. The historian of the "Italian Republics" may be supposed to be at home in treating of Italian letters, and this is undoubtedly the strongest part of his work; but in what relates to Spain, he has helped himself "manibus plenis" from Bouterwek, much too liberally, indeed, for the scanty acknowledgments made by him to the accurate and learned German. Page upon page is literally translated from him. Sismondi's work, however, is intrinsically valuable for its philosophical illustrations of the character of the Spaniards, by the peculiarities of their literature. His analysis of the national drama, as opposed to that of Schlegel, is also extremely ingenious. Is it not more sound than that of the German? We trust that this hitherto untrodden field in our language will be entered before long by one of our own scholars, whose researches have enabled him to go much more extensively into the Spanish department than either of his predecessors. judgments in this matter with those of the other European scholars, might produce new and important results. The author of the Osservazioni has accused us of being too much under the influence of his enemies, the French (p. 112). There are slender grounds for this imputation. We have always looked upon this fastidious people as the worst general critics possible; and we scarcely once alluded to their opinions in the course of our article without endeavouring to controvert them. The truth is, while they have contrived their own system with infinite skill, and are exceedingly acute in detecting the least violation of it, they seem incapable of understanding why it should not be applied to every other people, however opposite its character from their own. The consequence is obvious. Voltaire, whose elevated views sometimes advanced him to the level of the generous criticism of our own day, is by no means an exception. His Commentaries on Corneille are filled with the finest reflections imaginable on that eminent poet, or, rather, on the French drama; but the application of these same principles to the productions of his neighbours leads him into the grossest absurdities. "Addison's Cato is the only well-written tragedy in England." "Hamlet is a barbarous production, that would not be endured by the meanest populace in France or Italy." "Lope de Vega and Calderon familiarized their countrymen with all the extravagances of a gross and ridiculous drama." But the French theatre, modelled upon the ancient Greek, |