tual attempt to recover some part of his patrimony at Naples, he set out for Rome, and, always unfortunate, fell into the hands of this too notorious brigand, who not only liberated him and his companions, and treated them honorably, but gave him a passport to protect him against all other banditti. The circumstance is mentioned by Marco, I am sure, and I think by Serassi. The original is here, and is expressed to have been given to Torquato Tasso, out of gratitude for the pleasure afforded by his immortal poems, Rinaldo and the Gerusalamme, and to show how different was the treatment he received from Duke Alphonso and the robber Marco Sciarro.' On the back is a note, in Tasso's own hand, stating that he had preserved this paper, esteeming it a singular honor, coming as it did from a man who sealed it with blood.' Part of the paper has perished, and the stain of blood is no longer to be seen, but the hand-writing of Tasso may be considered sufficient to authenticate what would otherwise be certainly difficult to establish, that of Marco Sciarro. The general effect of these Mss. is not merely to elucidate a most curious and obscure part of literary history. It is to increase our admiration for the principal personages concerned. The genius, the love, the imprudence and the misery, of Tassothe noble, gentle, tender, and spirited character of Leonora the heroic generosity of Guarini, and even the feelings of Alphonso, the avenger, and to some extent the victim, of wounded pride and prejudice, make up altogether a most affecting and instructive chapter in the secret annals of the human heart. The reading of these мss. was among the most interesting scenes I ever witnessed. All the company but myself were of those whose mother tongue is Tuscan,' familiar with the known events in the life of the poet, skilled in the delicacies of his language, and giving themselves up to their feelings with the unreserve that belongs to their country. A finer exhibition of true, deep, natural sensibility I never witnessed, and doubt whether one could be seen, out of Italy. But I spare you a description of the company and the reading. It was not for any such purpose I began my letter, but to give you some faint idea of these most interesting papers. You have my consent to make any discreet use of this letter the occasion may require. But if you publish it or any extracts, I beg you to correct the style and the press. I write in haste and without any other change or revision than I can make currente calamo,' and have been held answerable in my time for so much nonsense of other people's, that I would gladly escape farther responsibility even for my own. BEGONE! thou bastard tongue, so base, so broken - Form'd for a race of infidels, and fit To laugh at truth, and skepticize in wit; What stammering, snivelling sounds, which scarcely dare Yet, helped by apes' grimaces, and the devil, Have ruled the world, and ruled the world for evil. T. ORNITHICHNOLOGY RECONSIDERED. “Πάκανθις ἐπειγομένη τυφλὰ τίκτει, SAITH the proverb of the ancient Hellenist; and it contains an important truth, which we endeavored to impress upon the mind of our friend, the learned professor of Amherst College, in a brief review of his Ornithichnology, in the June number of this work. But our benevolent intentions are like to be altogether unavailing, judging from the declarations of his Ornithichnology Defended,' in the number of the Knickerbocker for September, inasmuch as he has passed that fatal climacteric, the fortieth year,' when contradiction ceases to be availing. But we cannot help flattering ourselves, malgré these declarations, that the review alluded to will accomplish its intended and desired effect that it will induce greater care in his composition. Already, indeed, we fancy we can perceive the influence of its operation, in those polished, well-turned periods in his Defence,' in which he has attempted, and not without considerable success, to blend an Addisonian ease and elegance, with a vein of Johnsonian wit and satire. We think, too, that we have a just claim upon him for his thanks; and we should have, were our review less kind than he represents it, for thus giving him occasion to introduce himself into a wide circle, and among new society, by one of his happiest literary efforts. We are sorry the professor has put it out of our power to say as much for his candor and kindness, as for his knowledge of belles-lettres; but this is impossible—and we regret it the more, on account of the position he has taken; for our principles will not permit us to enter into an argument with a man whose first postulate is, I will not be convinced.' A few suggestions, therefore, for the consideration of an enlightened public,' to whom the professor has appealed, will be the only notice we can give the defence. The reader will probably recollect the praise bestowed by the reviewer on the performances of the professor: he will undoubtedly bear in mind the kindness with which he spoke of our author; and he will look in vain for that passage, where any one of the professor's errors are attributed to early disadvantages,' as the professor misunderstood us, and he will find himself in nubibus, before he can discover where those early disadvantages' are 'offered as an apology in his behalf.' Nor was it quite generous in the professor to disclaim at first the proffered meed of praise, in order, as it would seem, to enable him to charge the reviewer with 'enmity; more especially, as he afterward appears to receive and rejoice in the same; but inasmuch as he has passed the Rubicon, and undoubtedly knows his own demerits best, we shall spend no time in contradicting him. Yet, could any possible concurrence of events render it necessary for us to undertake an exculpation of ourselves from the charge of unkindness, or enmity, we should appeal with the utmost confidence to the unbiased judgment of every intelligent reader. We did not, however, bestow upon him quite the extent of decisive authority' he seems to suppose; and hence, by his own rule of judging, we are not chargeable with quite the amount of enmity alleged against us. But we will dwell no longer on this theme. The facts are within reach of the public, to whom the professor has appealed - and we respond, let them decide. Ours is no personal controversy. To elucidate the truth, is our only aim, however short we may fall of accomplishing it. We simply remark, therefore, for the benefit of those unskilled in the Greek, that the termination ite is abbreviated from lite, derived from Oos, a stone, and signifies resembling stone, partaking of the nature of stone, stony; and that ornithichnite literally denotes the track of a bird [in] stone; (the genitive case of ornis being used, according to our ideas of tichnology, in the composition of the word.) We hope, too, that the professor will retain ornithichnite, believing it a better word than the proposed substitute, ornithichnolite. Waiving all further consideration of the second head of the review, we will dwell but a moment on those objections which are of a scientific nature. And here we candidly confess, that the professor's defence has reduced us to a dilemma. Heretofore, we have been accustomed to believe with Professor Silliman, with Gideon Mantell, Esq., with Robert Bakewell, M. De La Bache, and with the North American Reviewers, that Professor Hitchcock's Report on the Geology, etc. of Massachusetts, was 'a great work, the most elaborate and complete in its kind which this country has produced;' and on the supposed accuracy of the statements there made, many and the most considerable of our objections to his ornithichnology were based. From that we learned, that the proof was quite conclusive, that the new red sand stone formation, in which these tracks occur, (American Journal of Science and Arts, v. 29, pp. 307, 308, etc.,) was deposited beneath the ocean, and subsequently elevated; (Rep., pp. 223, 244;) that this elevation probably took place 'suddenly and at once,' (Rep., pp. 219, 224,) and that it was very obvious, that the finer varieties, in which these tracks occur, (American Journal of Science and Arts, v. 29, p. 308,) were deposited in still waters;' (Rep. p. 218.) If these were facts, we could not imagine how 'the eight hundred feet of rock, which overlies the ornithichnites,' (American Journal of Science and Arts, v. 29, p. 334; Rep., pp. 221, 224,) could be deposited in any less depth of water; unless, like the fabled Atalantis, it rose and sunk, as occasion required. But of this we knew of no evidence, and hence could not suppose it to have been the case. We could not, therefore, imagine how a bird of some sixteen feet in height could contrive to make its mark on the bottom of an ocean at least eight hundred feet deep! But we are relieved on this point by the last edition of the professor's opinions, though somewhat at the expense of our former belief- for what we had before understood the professor to assert as matter of fact, is now reduced to a mere theoretical inference.' Inasmuch, therefore, as our supposed facts are likely to prove not to be facts our supposed well established principles in science, to become inferences from some uncertain theory- and the silicious concretions' of the Connecticut valley to be transformed to nodules of limestone we desire the reader to consider that we enter a nolle as to all our objections founded on any thing the professor has said, and that, should occasion require, we might be in readiness to commence de novo. To the charge of misrepresentation, so often repeated, we declare ourselves not guilty, with the exception of saying the O. giganteus had only two toes, for which lapsus lingua we must humbly beg the pro fessor's pardon. A single instance of the facts opposed to the truth of one of his charges, shall suffice. In our review, we alluded to what we conceived an absurd opinion, that Mount Tom and Mount Holyoke were once united, and that the pass between them has been excavated by the waters of the Connecticut, or the currents of a primitive lake inferring, from the language used, that he, the professor, had fallen into this old and extravagant notion.' But he repels the idea, and declares that, for ten years past, he has been in the habit of devoting the greater part of a lecture to a refutation of this opinion, and seemingly complains that we only referred to the topographical part of the report, in proof of our position.' We suppose a man bound to state facts, as well in the topographical as in the scientific part of a geological work. But the reader shall see how grossly we have misrepresented him. Speaking of the Connecticut river, (p. 79,) he says: There it passes directly through the deep opening between Holyoke and Tom, WHICH ITS OWN WATERS, or more probably other agencies, have EXCAVATED in early times.' What these other agencies were, may be seen by a comparision of pp. 82, 88, 222, 223, 224, when it will be seen that the idea of a primitive lake' did not originate with the reviewer. Again: Still higher is South Hadley, with Holyoke and Tom half encircling it on the West and North, except where the Connecticut HAS OPENED a passage between these mountains.' (p. 88.) The professor may again complain of being judged by his topography, and therefore we say, let him be judged by his science. Thus, on pages 133, 134, 218, 225, the scientific part of his report, the reader will perceive that the professor takes it for granted, that not only the pass between Tom and Holyoke, but that of the Deerfield river through Deerfield Mountain, of the Westfield river, at West Springfield, and also the whole valley between Deerfield Mountain and Mount Toby, 'have been excavated by water.' If the reader will carefully peruse all that has been written on this subject, he may find the other misstatements and misrepresentations almost as gross as the foregoing, and he will then be able to judge who has been the most misrepresented. With these remarks, we must bid the professor adieu — assuring both him and our readers, that the reviewer dares to give his name to the public,' and that he will do so, when he shall learn that the knowledge of his name can affect the truth of the facts, or whenever the customs of the world shall require or expect him to do so. LOVE. SHE loved as woman seldom loves; M. |