his may be
inferred from his panegyric on Castilian wit, which he declares equal to
that of Athens; he must have been a dramatic writer, from his repeated
criticisms on the drama, and the keenness with which he sifts the merit
of contemporary dramatic authors; he must have been a great master of
narrative, and thoroughly acquainted with the habits and institutions of
his age and country; he must have possessed the art of enlivening his
story with caustic allusions, and with repartees; he must have been
perfectly conversant with the intrigues of courtiers, and have acquired
from his own experience, or the relation of others, an intimate
knowledge of the private life of Olivarez, and the details of Philip
IV.'s court. All these requisites are united in Solis:--he was born at
Alcala de Henares, a city of Castile; he was one of the best dramatic
writers of his day, the day of Calderon de la Barca. That he was a great
historical writer, is proved by his _Conquista de Mejico_; his comedies
prove his thorough knowledge of Spanish habits; and the retorts and
quiddities of his Graciosos flash with as much wit as any that were ever
uttered by those brilliant and fantastic denizens of the Spanish stage.
He was a courtier; he was secretary to Oropezo, viceroy successively of
Navarre and of Valencia, and was afterwards promoted by Philip IV. to be
"Oficial de la Secretaria" of the first minister Don Louis de Haro, and
was allowed, as an especial mark of royal favour, to dispose of his
place in favour of his relation. This happened about the year
1654--corresponding, as we shall see, exactly with the mission of the
Marquis de Lionne. Afterwards he was appointed Cronista Mayor de las
Indias, and wrote his famous history. These are the arguments in favour
of Solis, which cannot be offered in behalf of any of his thirty-six
competitors. It is therefore the opinion of Llorente that the honour of
being the author of Gil Blas is due to him; and in this opinion,
supposing the fact which we now proceed to investigate, that a Spaniard,
and not Le Sage, was the author of the work, is made out to their
satisfaction, our readers will probably acquiesce.

The steps by which the argument that Gil Blas is taken from a Spanish
manuscript proceeds, are few and direct. It abounds in facts and
allusions which none but a Spaniard could know: this is the first step.
It abounds in errors that no Spaniard could make--(by the way, this is
much insisted upon