cording the birth-place of an individual, -a piece of information too frequently omitted by our new biographers. Had it been stated that Ardemans was born at Madrid, the inquisitive reader would at once have been led to the Hijos de Madrid,-where more ample information might be obtained,

12. ARELLANO, (Juan de, 16071670,) a Spanish flower-painter, &c. -This article is from the French of Durdent. It is not worth criticism; but I shall correct the dates, and produce a specimen of the mode of translation. As to dates, D. Juan Agustin Cean Bermudez informs us that Arellano was born at Santorcaz in 1614, and died in 1676. Now comes the specimen of translation :

:

"Arellano mourut à Madrid, en 1670, à l'âge de soixante-trois ans. La chapelle de Notre-Dame-de-Bon-Conseil, dans cette ville, possède quatre de ses tableaux."-Durdent.

"He [Arellano] died in the chapel of Notre Dame de Bon-Conseil, at Madrid, in which city there are four of his pic tures."-N.G. B.D.

The invisible editor has no doubt some very learned and celebrated names on the invisible list of contributors; but it would be impossible to deny, after such a specimen of travesty translation, that the list wants revision.

13. ARFE (Juan de).-The account of this able artist is nearly six times the length of that in the Biographie Universelle, but it is very defective. We have no mention of the interesting wood-cut of Alonso de Ercilla, 1569, -nor of the curious description of the custodia in the cathedral of Sevilla, 1587. The new biographer also omits to notice a publication which even Durdent records. It is entitled, Quilatador de la Plata, Oro, y Piedras, compuesto por Ioan Arphe de Villafañe : natural de Leo: vezino de Valladolid. Valladolid, 1572, 4to. The wood-cut in the title of this very curious book is his own masterly design, and perhaps the initial letters, &c. I have a copy of this book with the autograph of the author.

14. ARFE, (Juan de,) born at Seville in 1603.-This article is a literal translation from the French of Durdent. "Qui se souvient aujourd'hui," says M. Durozoir, "de Durdent et de

ses ouvrages?" The answer is, our new biographers. Now, I maintain that the works which are ascribed to Juan de Arfe were executed by Josef de Arce,-that there is no evidence of his birth at Sevilla in 1603,-nor of his journey to Italy-and, in short, that the article is a piece of fiction. I refer once more to D. Juan Agustin Cean Bermudez, who obtained his information from the archives of the cathedral of Sevilla.

15. ARGENSOLA. Two brothers of this name are entitled to a particular mention in the literary annals of Spain :—

1. Leonardo de Lupercio, (15651613.)

2. Bartholome Juan Leonardo de, (1566-1631.)

The new biographers have sometimes shewn an excessive attachment to groups-but I do not censure, on that score, the writer who has united los dos hermanos. I censure him only for omitting to consult the best source of information, for arrogance of sentiment, and for exhibiting himself rather than his subjects. The best account of Lupercio Leonardo y Argensola, (1563—1613,) and of Bartholome Juan Leonardo y Argensola, (1564— 1631) is that of Pellicer-which is prefixed to the Ensayo de una Bibliotheca de Traductores Españoles, Madrid, 1778, 4to. It occupies 142 pages; and contains inedited letters of Lupercio and Bartholome, of Mariana, Justus Lipsius, the Conde de Lemos, and D. Carlos de Borja. From such materials should the article have been compiled. "Las noticias pertenecientes á las vidas de los dos hermanos Argensolas," says D. Ramon Fernandez, "se hallan recogidas con tanta diligencia en la obra intitulada: Ensayo de una Biblioteca de Traductores Españoles, que no parece se puede añadir á lo que su erudito Autor ha investigado.-Creo, que ningun erudito, amante de nuestra historia literaria, carecerá de esta obra.”—An eminent historian has recently favoured me with his opinion that " lives should consist principally of facts, not criticism." Chardon de la Rochette, who once projected a biographical dictionary, was of the same opinion. If any argument would convert me to that opinion, it would be the critical rhapsody on the two Argensolas.

16. ARGENVILLE, (Ant. Joseph, 1680 -1766,) an amateur engraver and man of letters, born at Paris. His family name was Dezaillier.-The choice of authorities, a point of great importance in biography, receives less attention in this work than it deserves. The account of Argenville may serve to justify the remark. Antoine-Joseph DEZALLIER d'Argenville was a French naturalist; and, like many other naturalists, occasionally made trial of the graver. The new biographers, however, refer to Heineckenthe German biographer of engravers, or rather recorder of their works. Now, mark the consequence. The ARGENVILLE of the New General Biographical Dictionary can scarcely be recognised as the DEZALLIER of the Nécrologe des Hommes célèbres de France, or of the Nouveau Dictionnaire Historique, or of the Biographie Universelle. The new biographers misreport his name, and his claims to commemoration; omit the titles of his works in natural history, and his election as a Fellow of our Royal Society in 1750; and misreport the date of his death. He died the 29th November, 1765. Had they consulted the Biographie Universelle, they would also have given us some account of Antoine-Nicolas DEZALLIER, a miscellaneous writer, who died in 1794.

To these specimens, which need not be augmented, I shall add some short remarks of a general nature.

Our attention has been called to the number of names to be found in the Dictionary. If antiquity is to be wholly revived, if every epigrammatist, if every writer who is known by fragments or a solitary quotation,-if every artist on record is to be admitted-the names may easily be increased. Fabricius will supply those of the former classes; and Sillig, or the Comte de Clarac, those of the latter class. In fact, the catalogue of the Comte de Clarac alone contains as many as sixty names which, on such principles, should appear in the part under consideration. But, do not such names rather belong to a classical dictionary? Is the system practicable with respect to those who lived at subsequent periods? Would the adoption of it promote the declared object of forming ་་ one harmonious whole?" On such

points it becomes the editor to meditate. I commend him for admitting several names which should have appeared in Chalmers; but I could point out other candidates of unquestionable claims-men who have left more interesting traces of their existence than a solitary epigram!

The general superiority of articles written by persons who are "peculiarly conversant with the subjects requisite to illustrate the lives of which they treat," may without hesitation be admitted. Nevertheless, such writers are apt to be very discursive-and without strict control may deviate more from the just model of biography than the mere compiler. I shall venture to note, as an exemplification of this remark, the articles Antagoras, Apollodorus the architect, Apollonius Pergæus, Apollonius of Tyana, Appleton, Mariot Arbuthnot, Thomas Archer the architect, &c.

The bibliography of the articles is very defective: there is indeed no appearance of system. Thus, art. Apollonius, the editions are enumerated; art. Appian, they are omitted. It is not sufficient to give the title and date of a work; the size and number of volumes should also be stated. The student may wish to be informed whether the Register of the Most Noble Order of the Garter is an 8vo. pamphlet, or in two volumes folio.

The references to the Biographie Universelle are numerous; but I can point out articles which have been drawn from that storehouse without acknowledgment, viz. Antenor, Silvio Antoniano, Antoninus de Forciglioni, the Infanta Antonio, Manuel de Aranda, Robert d'Arbrissel, John Arckenholz, Paul Aresi, Argyre, etc.

There are some typographical errors; as p. 3, Agensi for Agnesi; p. 91, Hemper for Hamper, etc. The style is improved; but I rather object to the "steam boiler," p. 4; to the "epitomators," p. 23; to "all Padua," etc. p. 24; to literally buried himself," p. 25; to the "refiction," p. 40; to the "second century A.D." p. 93; to "Livourne," p. 107, etc.

It can be no reflection on the learning and ability of the former editor of the New General Biographical Dictionary, (who appears to proceed with his welcome labours as a contributor,) if

done me the honour to look into some of my literary peccadilloes, and has found out-wretch that I am!-that in the month of October 1839, I did not use the mode of spelling Shakspere which I strenuously advocated in February 1840, and have continued to advocate from that time up to the present moment. His astonishment is unbounded. He sets me down as a mere mercurial scribbler; calls to his aid a whole phalanx of marks of admiration, and declares he cannot imagine "what new lights could have broken in upon me between October and February." It is all very true, Mr. Urban; I am caught in the fact. I must confess the soft impeachment. Until the 1st day of January 1840 I really was wicked enough to spell Shakspere as Mr. Burgon does, and for precisely the same reason-because other people did

so.

But on that 1st January-"a day to do good deeds on,"-I was converted from the error of my way, and I'll tell you how. On that day you sent forth Mr. D'Israeli's first paper upon this subject. I read it; it startled me and set me upon inquiry; it sent me to Sir Frederick Madden's excellent communication to the Archæologia, which, to my shame be it confessed, I had never read; and, in the end, Mr. D'Israeli converted me to Maddenism. My case was like that of the learned Doctor who began by reading A Defence of Periwigs, and ended by throwing his own into the fire. If it be mercurial for a man to quit a practice which he is convinced is wrong, or to defend one which, after investigation, he finds to be right, then truly "I am the guiltiest soul alive." In defence of his way of spelling Shakspere, Mr. Burgon contends :

"It must be right, he's done it from a boy," and almost everybody else does it: on behalf of mine, I tender the conviction of my understanding-the result of an investigation to which I was stimulated by the means I have described. Is the man mercurial who, after the recovery of his sight, leaves off those practices which were proper in his state of blindness? or he who having found that the Strand is the direct way from Temple Bar to Charing Cross, not only ceases himself to wander round by Holborn, but

seeks to set right those who are going astray? If I am mercurial, pray let it be remembered that I am one of Mr. D'Israeli's converts.

And now for the dogmatism: Mr. Burgon sets himself in opposition to what he calls my attempt to write down the established orthographyhe tells you that I say that "a man's own mode of spelling his own name ought to be followed," and he meets this "plausible assertion" by remarking that in the republic of letters no dictatorship is allowed, and that far be it from him and his friends to lay down a rule and then chide mankind because they refuse to fall into what they have asserted "ought to be done in this or that matter."

I do not know that I exactly understand the charge of attempting to write down the established orthography; but if I do, I can only say, that if the established orthography, or anything else is thought to be incorrect, I see no harm in any man's attempting fairly to expose what he conceives to be its incorrectness. The instance of dogmatical enunciation of an opinion which Mr. Burgon has adduced is certainly not mine. I did not in any dictatorial way promulgate the opinion that "a man's own mode of spelling his own name ought to be followed;" I stated it not as a sentence, a dictum, an authoritative expression of opinion, but simply as one of two propositions for the affirmative of which I contended. Is that dictatorial?

But all this is beside the questionought we to write Shakspere? Mr. Burgon's objections, although stated differently, are still the same; i. It would be new. Proper names are to be spelt as they are spelt in the printed books of the majority of well-educated persons that is, as we are in the habit of spelling them, without reference to right or wrong; and ii. The consequences! oh! think of the consequences of an alteration!

The objection of novelty weighs not a grain with me. Is it right? is the question; not, Is it new? The question of right or wrong may be viewed thus.

i. A man's name is the word which we use in speaking or writing, to distinguish him from his fellow men.

ii. He derives that word from his ancestors, or acquires it for himself, and, in either case, what it is, is a fact within his own knowledge.

iii. His evidence upon the subject is testimony of the first class; testimony to a fact, by a witness who has all the particulars within his own knowledge.

iv. Such evidence is the best of which the case admits.

These seem to me to be all mere self-evident propositions, leading convincingly to the conclusion that a man's own testimony is the best evidence as to what his name really is. But then comes the question-what is the most satisfactory form in which a man's testimony upon such a subject can be procured? I answer in the words of Mr. Bolton Corney, in his lucid and excellent paper in your Magazine for April, p. 379, "autographic evidence is to be considered as superior to printed evidence"-certainly, and for the plainest of all reasons. In the autograph you are at once brought into contact with the man himself. You have before you his own direct testimony. In any other form, it may be the testimony of the man himself, but it comes to you second-hand; some critical printer, or injudicious editor, stands between you and the witness, retailing, and perhaps garbling, what he has said.

But suppose the autographs vary? Then inquire into the nature of the variety, and if any man's practice has been continuously various, i. e. (I beg to add for Mr. Burgon's especial information,) if, throughout all those periods of his life during which we possess his autographs, he wrote variously, then the autographs can be no guide and one must be found elsewhere; but if, as is probably Ralegh's case, he wrote variously up to a certain period, and, after that time, was constant to one spelling, it seems but reasonable to follow that.

But suppose the signature is fantastic; an Earl of Pembroke, for instance, signing Pembroke, what is to be done then? I answer-do what is reasonable. The title is the name of a town, the orthography of which was probably well ascertained before it was given to my Lord for a title: do not follow his GENT. MAG. VOL. XIII.

Lordship in his affectation, but spell his title properly.

These considerations seem to me to prove the reasonableness of the adherence to Shakspere's autograph, and, from them, I deduce the two propositions, for the affirmative of which I have stated that I contend.

Oh! but the consequences! only think of Sanjak! I thank Mr. Burgon for the anecdote; it reminds me of a story of the Berbers, who never use water for cleansing themselves, but prefer a little occasional dry-rubbing with sandstone. The consequences may be conceived; and, when one of their chiefs was remonstrated with upon the subject, he replied, that water was given to man to drink, and to cook with, and, however proper it might be to be clean, the proposed use of the precious liquid would be new to the Berbers, and he was afraid that something terrible would happen if they departed from their established practice. So with Sanjak, Mr. Burgon shows the absurdity of the corrupted substitute in a very pleasant manner, but it has got into use, and he will not consent to its alteration. No one will dispute," he says, "that the place ought to be called Sanjak; yet who will call it so?” I shall, for one; and this discussion would not be without its use if Mr. Burgon would derive this lesson from it :"At all times, in all circumstances, and upon all subjects, do what ought to be done, and never fear the consequences!"

"

But you must "alter the orthography of an immense body-almost all in fact-of the proper names in the language." There is a great deal of misunderstanding here. I contend that in the case of every person you should follow his autograph signature, with the qualifications before mentioned. I have no where contended, nor am I inclined to contend, that the practice of an individual is to be the rule for all generations, or all persons of the same family. Let each case stand by itself, and be judged upon its own merits. Mr. Burgon is dreaming when he imagines that I have advocated any principle which would bring back Beaver to Beauvoir: that would be a consequence of the doctrine of 4 G