suit, and professor in the college at Naples, published in 1688 four volumes of peripatetic philosophy, to establish the principles of Aristotle. The work was exploded, and he wrote an abusive treatise under the Nom de guerre of Benedetto Aletino. A man of letters, Constantino Grimaldi, replied. Aletino rejoined; he wrote letters, an apology for the letters, and would have written more for Aristotle than Aristotle himself perhaps would have done. However Grimaldi was no ordinary antagonist, and not to be outwearied. He had not only the best of the argument, but he was resolved to tell the world so, as long as the world would listen. Whether he killed off Father Benedictis is not affirmed; but the latter died during the controversy. Grimaldi however afterwards pursued his ghost, and buffetted the father in his grave. This enraged the University of Naples; and the Jesuits, to a man, denounced Grimaldi to Pope Benedict XIII. and Cardinal D'Althan, the Viceroy of Naples. On this the Pope issued a bull prohibiting the reading of Grimaldi's works, or keeping them under pain of excommunication; and the cardinal, more active than the bull, caused all the copies which were found in the author's house to be thrown into the sea! The author with tears in his eyes beheld them expatriated, and hardly hoped their voyage would have been successful. However, all the little family of the

Grimaldis were not drowned-for a storm arose, and happily drove ashore many of the floating copies, and these falling into good and charitable hands, the heretical opinions of poor Grimaldi against Aristotle and school divinity were still 'read by those who were not out-terrified by the Pope's bulls. The salted passages were still at hand, and quoted with a double zest against the Jesuits!

We will now turn to writers whose controversy was kindled only by subjects of polite literature. The particulars form a curious picture of the taste and character of the age.

I shall begin by noticing what is said on this subject in the Scaligerana. "There is," "There is," says Joseph Scaliger (that great critic and reviler) " an art of abuse or slandering, of which those that are ignorant may be said to defame others much less than they shew a willingness to defame."

"Literary wars (says Bayle) are sometimes as lasting as they are terrible." On this topic he notices the dispute of two great scholars, so extremely violent, that it lasted thirty years; he -humourously compares its duration to the German war which lasted as long.

Baillet, when he refuted the sentiments of a certain author, always did it without naming him; but when he found any observation which he

deemed commendable, he then quoted his name. Bayle observes, "that this is an excess of politeness prejudicial to that freedom which should ever exist in the republic of letters; that it should be allowed always to name those whom we refute; and that it is sufficient for this purpose that we banish asperity, malice, and indecency."

After these preliminary observations I shall bring forward various examples where this excellent advice is by no means regarded.

Erasmus produced a dialogue in which he ridiculed those scholars who were servile imitators of Cicero; so servile, that they would employ no expression but what was found in the works of that writer; every thing with them was Ciceronianised. This dialogue is written with great humour. Scaliger, the father, who was then unknown to the world, had been long looking for some occasion to distinguish himself; he now wrote a defence of Cicero, but which in fact was one continued invective against Erasmus: he there treats the latter as illiterate, a drunkard, an impostor, an apostate, a hangman, a demon hot from hell! But all this does not exceed the invectives of Poggius, who has thus entitled several literary libels composed against some of his adversaries. Laurentius Valla, Filelfo, &c. and who certainly returned the poisoned chalice to his own lips. From

these various declamations might be formed a lexicon of scurrility, of obscenity, and calumny. Mr. Shepherd has lately given a copious collection of them in his life of Poggius.

Scioppius was a worthy successor of the Scaligers: his favourite expression was, that he had trodden down his adversary.

Scioppius was a critic, as skilful as Salmasius or Scaliger, but still more learned in the language of abuse. He was regarded as the Attila of authors. He boasted that he had occasioned the deaths of Casaubon and Scaliger; and such was the impudence of this cynic, that he attacked with repeated satires our James the First, who, as Arthur Wilson informs us, condemned his writings to be burnt in London. Detested and dreaded as the public scourge, Scioppius, at the close of his life was fearful he should find no retreat in which he might be secure.

The great Casaubon employs the dialect of St. Giles in his furious attacks on the learned Dalechamps, the Latin translator of Athenæus. To this great physician he stands more deeply indebted than he chose to confess, and to conceal the claims of this literary creditor he calls out Vesanum! Insanum! Tiresiam! &c. It was the fashion of that day with the redoubtable and ferocious heroes of the, literary republic, to overwhelm each other with VOL. II. D

invective; and to consider their own grandeur to consist in the bulk of their books, and convert their brother giants into miserable dwarfs.

The heat and acrimony of verbal critics have exceeded all description. Their stigmas and Anathemas have been long known to bear no proportion against the offences to which they have been directed. The late Ritson's language is a singular instance, I would hope in the present age, of the most perfect vituperative style. God confound you, cried one grammarian to another for your theory of impersonal verbs! There was a long and terrible controversy formerly whether the Florentine dialect was to prevail over the others. The academy was put to great trouble, and the Anti-cruseans were often on the point of annulling this supremacy; Una Mordace scritura was applied to one of these literary cannons, and in a letter of those times, the following paragraph appears; "Pescetti is preparing to give a second answer to Beni, which will not please him; I now believe the prophecy of Cavalier Tedeschi will be verified, and that this controversy begun with pens, will end with poignards!"

Fabretti, an Italian, wrote furiously against Gronovius, whom he called Grúnnovius: he compared him to all those animals whose voice was expressed by the word Grunnire, to grunt. This