Such friendship can never be the lot of men of the world; for the source of these lies in the interior affections and the intellectual feelings.  FONTENELLE describes with characteristic delicacy the conversations of such literary friends:  “Our days passed like moments; thanks to those pleasures, which, however, are not included in those which are commonly called pleasures.”  The friendships of the men of society move on the principle of personal interest, but interest can easily separate the interested; or they are cherished to relieve themselves from the listlessness of existence; but, as weariness is contagious, the contact of the propagator is watched.  Men of the world may look on each other with the same countenances, but not with the same hearts.  In the common mart of life intimacies may be found which terminate in complaint and contempt; the more they know one another, the less is their mutual esteem:  the feeble mind quarrels with one still more imbecile than itself; the dissolute riot with the dissolute, and they despise their companions, while they too have themselves become despicable.

Literary friendships are marked by another peculiarity; the true philosophical spirit has learned to bear that shock of contrary opinions which minds less meditative are unequal to encounter.  Men of genius live in the unrestrained communication of their ideas, and confide even their caprices with a freedom which sometimes startles ordinary observers.  We see literary men, the most opposite in dispositions and opinions, deriving from each other that fulness of knowledge which unfolds the certain, the probable, the doubtful.  Topics which break the world into factions and sects, and truths which ordinary men are doomed only to hear from a malignant adversary, they gather from a friend!  If neither yields up his opinions to the other, they are at least certain of silence and a hearing; but usually

  The wise new wisdom from the wise acquire.

This generous freedom, which spares neither reprimands nor exhortation, has often occurred in the intercourse of literary men.  HUME and ROBERTSON were engaged in the same studies, but with very opposite principles; yet Robertson declined writing the English history, which he aspired to do, lest it should injure the plans of Hume; a noble sacrifice!

Politics once divided Boccaccio and Petrarch.  The poet of Valchiusa had never forgiven the Florentines for their persecution of his father.  By the mediation of BOCCACCIO they now offered to reinstate PETRARCH in his patrimony and his honours.  Won over by the tender solicitude of his friend, PETRARCH had consented to return to his country; but with his usual inconstancy of temper, he had again excused himself to the senate of Florence, and again retreated to his solitude.  Nor was this all; for the Visconti of Milan had by their flattery and promises seduced PETRARCH to their court; a court, the avowed enemy of Florence.  BOCCACCIO, for the honour of literature,