This appears to point at Swift; but it is quite clear that he could not be the author, for very obvious reasons.
A correspondent of the _Gent. Mag._, who signs his initials W.H. (vol. lv. part 2. p. 757), states "on very good authority" that the author was--
"Barrington, a Catholic priest, who had chambers in Gray's Inn, in which he was keeper of a library for the use of the Romish clergy. Mr. Barrington wrote it for amusement, in a fit of the gout. He began it without any plan, and did not know what he should write about when be put pen to paper. He was author of several pamphlets, chiefly anonymous, particularly the controversy with Julius Bate on Elohim."
Of this circumstantial and sufficiently positive attribution, which is dated October, 1785, no contradiction ever appeared that I am aware of. The person intended is S. Berington, the author of--
"Dissertations on the Mosaical Creation, Deluge, building of Babel, and Confusion of Tongues, &c." London: printed for the Author, and sold by C. Davis in Holborn, and T. Osborn in Gray's Inn, 1750, 8vo., pages 466, exclusive of introduction, 12 pages.
On comparing Gaudentio di Lucca with this extremely curious work, there seems a sufficient similarity to bear out the statement of the correspondent of the _Gentleman's Magazine_, W.H. The author quoted in the _Remarks of Sigr. Rhedi_, and in the _Dissertations_, are frequently the same, and the learning is of the same cast in both. In particular, Bochart is repeatedly cited in the _Remarks_ and in the _Dissertations_. The philosophical opinions appear likewise very similar.
On the whole, unless some strong reason can be given for questioning the statement of this correspondent of the _Gentleman's Magazine_, I conceive that S. Berington, of whom I regret that so little is known, must be considered to be the author of _The Memoirs of Gaudentio di Lucca_.
ENGLEMANN'S BIBLIOTHECA SCRIPTORUM CLASSICORUM.
The sort of defence, explanation, or whatever it may be called, founded upon usage, and offered by ANOTHER FOREIGN BOOKSELLER, is precisely what I wanted to get out, if it existed, as I suspected it did.
If your correspondent be accurate as to Engelmann, it appears that no wrong is done to _him_; it is only the public which is mystified by a variety of title-pages, all but one containing a suppression of the truth, and the one of which I speak containing more.