for acquiring foreign idioms is so strong that he observes and imitates the provincial dialects and accents. He has carried this so far, that, for example, he can distinguish the Hamburgh and Hanoverian German very well. Even of Wendish he is not ignorant. This is, indeed, a gift of no very high order; but it is a gift nevertheless, and, when exercised in its more dazzling points of practice, sets one in amazement. Mezzofanti understands this well. The Italians admire this distinguished and unassuming man, as the eighth wonder of the world, and believe his reputation to be not only European, but Asiatic and African also. He is said to speak some thirty languages and dialects; but of course not all with equal readiness. The Persian missionary, Sebastiani, who, in Napoleon’s time, played an important political part in Persia, was eagerly sought after by Mezzofanti when in Rome, that he might learn modern Persian from him; Sebastiani, however, showed himself disinclined to his society, which pained Mezzofanti much. Mezzofanti has been called the modern Mithridates, and thought very highly of altogether. In an intellectual point of view, many learned men, even Italians, are certainly above him: his reading appears at times shallow, owing to its having been so scattered, and it has occurred that he has often repeated the same thing to strangers; but his great and peculiar linguistic talent, which seems as it were to spring from some innate sense, cannot be denied; his good nature and politeness to the students who frequent the Vatican are very great; and I am therefore unable to comprehend how Blume (Iter Italicum, 1. 153,) can speak of the opposite experience of learned travellers during his residence at Bologna. Mezzofanti is fond of perpetuating his memory in the albums of his friends. He wrote in mine:— Ἔρχεται ἀνθρώποις λαθραίως ἔσχατον ἦμαρ, Oἱ δὲ περὶ ζωῆς πολλὰ μονοῦσι μάτην. Χριστέ, σὺ μὲν πάντων ἀρχὴ, σù δὲ καί τέλος ἐσσί; Ἔν τε σὸι ἐιρήνη ἐστὶ καὶ ἡσυχίη.”[472] I shall leave the greater part of these strictures, from their very generality, to be judged by the facts and statements actually recorded in these pages; merely observing that on all questions which involve the depth and accuracy of Mezzofanti’s knowledge of particular subjects, those only are entitled to speak with authority, who, like Bucheron, Libri, and others elsewhere referred to, took the trouble to test it by actual inquiry. It will be enough to say that, whenever M. Fleck has ventured into details, his criticisms are palpably unjust.