Here we have "jouer le leur," to gamble, rendered by "to mind their own interests;" a rather equivocal method, it must be confessed, of accomplishing that object.

In another place, under the head of "Inquisition,” we meet with the following passage :

The

“Once all were Turks when they were not Romanists. Raymond, count of Toulouse, was constrained to submit. inhabitants were passed on the edge of the sword, without distinction of age or sex."—Ibid.

D'Israeli must have translated this from some French writer; but being unacquainted with the idiomatic, though common, expression,-" passer -un fil de l'épée," which means "to put to the sword," he gives us the words in their literal sense, which in English is no sense at all.

Farther on, speaking of the feudal custom of the French barons, known as the "droit de suzeraineté," in virtue of which they were permitted to cohabit with the new bride, during the first three nights after marriage, D'Israeli remarks:

"Montesquieu is infinitely French when he could turn this. shameful species of tyranny into a bon-mot; for he boldly observes on this :-'C'était bien ces trois nuits-là qu'il fallait choisir; car pour les autres on n'aurait pas donné beaucoup d'argent.' The legislator in the wit forgot the feelings of his heart."

It is inconceivable by what mental process D'Israeli could have tortured Montesquieu's

words into a bon-mot.

Not only is there nothing

of the kind in what he quotes, but there is not even an attempt at it. Montesquieu merely suggests a reason for the preference given to the first three nights; and in doing so he expresses the sentiments of the barons, and not his own. And yet, it is upon grounds like these that D'Israeli lays at the door of that illustrious man the silly imputation of being "infinitely French," and the grave and offensive charge of forgetting, for the sake of a bon-mot, the feelings of his heart!

These are among the very few instances in which D'Israeli, by quoting the original authorities, enables us to test the correctness of his translations; and if he be found inaccurate in these instances, what are we to think of his accuracy in the greater proportion of the Curiosities, where the original sources of information are kept out of view? But his blunders are not confined to his English or to his French. The materials with which he has manufactured some of his "Curiosities," are of the most fallacious character. I shall quote one instance which will abundantly bear me out in this assertion.

It is an article of the Roman Catholic faith, that the Church, as represented by the majority of its bishops in council, is infallible. Upon this point all sections of Catholics are agreed, it being as firmly adhered to by the Jansenists as

by the Jesuits, by the Ultramontanes as by their opponents. You cease to be a Roman Catholic the moment you cease to believe in this infallibility. But there is another species of infallibility with which, it is alleged, the Pope is endowed, and which has occasioned much controversy among the members of that persuasion. Some are of opinion that the Pope is infallible as a private teacher or expounder of the Christian doctrine; others, that his infallibility attaches only to such teachings as are delivered, so to speak, ex cathedrá; and others, again, that he is not infallible, in any character or capacity whatsoever. The whole question, as regards the Pope, is matter of opinion. This opinion was rejected by the Church of France, under the guidance of the illustrious Bossuet, in 1688, and by the clergy of Ireland in 1825. It is an opinion which you may adopt or reject, without ceasing to be a Roman Catholic; and few, indeed, in these latter ages, are disposed to place much trust in the infallibility of any mere mortal man. With these facts and opinions D'Israeli was intimately acquainted. His frequent mention of the scholastic divines and their disputations, his allusions to the quarrels of the Ultramontanes, and his extensive researches among the dusty tomes of ecclesiastical history, are sufficient evidence of this circumstance. What, then, are we to think of a writer who could misrepresent

later

(Err)

these matters, and, by confounding two distinct things, make it appear that the infallibility of the Pope is an established point of doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church? The passage in which this is done is as follows:

Concerning the acknowledged infallibility of the Popes, it appears that Gregory VII., in council, decreed that the Church of Rome never had erred, and never should err. It was thus this prérogative of his Holiness became received till 1313, when John XXII. abrogated decrees made by three Popes, his predecessors, and declared that what had been done amiss by one Pope or Council might be corrected by another; and Gregory XI., 1370, in his will, deprecates Si quid in Catholicâ fide errasset.' The University of Vienna protested against it, calling it a contempt of God and an idolatry, if any one in matters of faith appealed from a Council to the Pope, that is, from God, who presides in Councils, to man. But the infallibility was at length established by Leo X., especially after Luther's opposition, because they despaired of defending their indulgences, bulls, &c., by any other method."-Curiosities of Literature.

I have given the passage with D'Israeli's italics. In the first sentence he puts forth two gross misstatements. He pretends that the infallibility of the Popes is "acknowledged," which it is not, and never was; and he then erroneously asserts that a decree which establishes the infallibility of the Church establishes that of the Popes. He repeats this error in the third sentence, when he says that this prerogative of his Holiness became received in virtue of a certain decree; whereas that decree speaks only of the infallibility of the Church. The Church, therefore, and not any

individual Pope, being held infallible, there is no inconsistency in Pope Gregory XI. deprecating "Si quid in Catholicâ fide errasset," nor in the protest of the University of Vienna. Both, on the contrary, go to establish a distinction between the Popes-who, as men, are liable to error-and the Church of God, against which its Divine Founder promised that the gates of Hell should not prevail. "But," says D'Israeli, "the infallibility was at length established by Leo X." This is the crowning error of this most inaccurate paragraph. Leo X., whatever may have been his private opinion, established no such infallibility. He, or rather the Council of Trent, re-asserted the infallibility of the Church; and as to that of the Pope, every enlightened Roman Catholic is perfectly aware that it remains an open question to this day.

Although these notices relate chiefly to literary blunders, I cannot help citing an instance, that occurs to me, of a practical kind, especially as it has reference to two of the most remarkable literary characters of the last and present centuries. The reader will remember Dr. Johnson's definition of the word "pension."-" Pay given to a state hireling for treason to his country; and how cleverly he was entrapped by George III. into accepting a pension for himself. For this inconsistency Johnson has been sneered at by different writers, and among others by Cobbett,