ervant of Simon, in the
Inquisition scene, is gravely urged by M. Neufchateau as a proof that
the writer was a Frenchman, as no Spaniard would dare to attack the
Inquisition. This is strange confusion. Not a word is uttered against
the Inquisition in the scene. Some impostors disguise themselves in the
dress of inquisitors to perpetrate a fraud. If a French novel describe
two or three swindlers, assuming the garb of members of the old
Parliament of Paris in execution of their design, is this an attack on
the Parliament of Paris? Is the "Beaux' Stratagem" an attack on our army
and peerage? The argument, however, may be retorted; for had a Frenchman
been the author of the story, it is more than probable that he would
have introduced some attack upon the Inquisition, and quite certain that
the characters brought forward would have deviated from the strict
propriety they now preserve. Some confusion would have been made among
them--an error which M. Neufchateau, in the few lines he has written
upon the subject, has not been able to avoid. We may add that this whole
scene was printed in Spanish, under the eye of the Inquisition, without
any interference on the part of that venerable body, who, though
tolerably quick-sighted in such matters, were not, it should seem, aware
of the attack upon them which M. Neufchateau has been sagacious enough
to discover. To the argument drawn from the geographical blunders, M.
Neufchateau mutters that they are excusable in a writer who had never
been in Spain. The question, how such a writer came wantonly to incur
them, he leaves unanswered. M. Neufchateau asserts, that there is in
Spanish no proverb that corresponds to the French saying, "A quelque
chose le malheur est bon." But a comedy was written in the time of
Philip IV., entitled, "No hay man que por bien no venga." He argues that
_Gil Blas_ is not the work of a Spaniard, because it does not, like _Don
Quixote_, abound with proverbs; by a parity of reasoning, he might infer
_The Silent Lady_ was not written by an Englishman; as there is no
allusion to Falstaff in it.

But it may be said, if Le Sage was so unscrupulous as to appropriate to
himself the works of another writer in _Gil Blas_, how came he to
acknowledge the _Bachelier de Salamanque_ as a translation?

This is a fair question, but the answer we can give is satisfactory. The
originals of all his translations, except _Gil Blas_ and the _Bachelier
de Salamanque_, were printed;