two articles in the Essay, before perusing the Chronicles; may be read with great advantage. These are, the General Plan of Froissart's History; and The Inquiries Froissart made to compose his History, and the Pains he took on this Subject.

"I. General Plan of his History.

"The history which Froissart has left us extends from 1326 to 1400.) It is not confined to the events which were passing in France during this long period, but comprehends, with almost as much detail, every considerable affair which happened in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Flanders. It includes also a number of particulars relative to the affairs of the Popes of Rome and Avignon; of Spain, Germany, Italy; some.' times even of Prussia, Hungary, Turkey, Africa, and other countries, in short, of almost the whole known world. But this immense multitude of facts, so different from each other; the chronological order of which is not very clearly made out, frequently presents to the reader only a confused mixture of events taking place at different times, and in different places, of which he cannot form any distinct idea, nor can his memory unite so many scattered objects, which have a necessary con nection among each other.

"There will be found, at the end of this Essay, an abridgment of the principal facts related in the course of the history; and, in order to remedy, at least in part, the disorder which prevails in placing these events, I will dispose of each in the class to which it belongs, as well as point out the chapters which it will be proper to read, to follow the train of causes of a similar nature, as well as the history of the same country, or the same nation. It will be impossible for me to go into a very minute detail. To leave nothing to be wished for, it would be right to make references to every article, of all the preceding passages relative to it, and of all those which follow; but this can only be executed as notes to the original itself, and would require all the attention of an editor who should interest himself for the advantage of his readers."

In the other divisions of the Essay, the author enters into some particulars, rather minute and trifling; and, where his observations are of any considerable interest or importance, they are inferences from what Froissart himself has set down in his Chronicles, for making which an intelligent reader is as competent as La Curne.

In the criticism he reviews the defects and advantages of Froissart's Chronicles. He vindicates him against the charge of partiality to the English, and, in our judgment, completely. "Of all the nations (says La Curne) whom he mentions in his history, there are but few whom he has not sometimes marked with odious epithets. -There is not one part against the French; on the contrary, this brave nation supports itself, according to Froissart, by the vigour and strength of its knighthood, which was never so totally overwhelmed by its misfortunes, as not in the end to find some marvellous resources in its courage." Notwithstanding all that Froissart tells of the care he took to hear both sides, and to compare their dif ferent accounts with each other, La Curne thinks

B 4

"He

"He may be accused of some little negligence on this head. His manner of life allowed him but little leisure to make all the reflections, and all the comparisons, which such an examination would require.→ What he relates of distant countries, such as Africa, Hungary, Tartary, and in general the eastern parts of the world, is full of the grossest blun ders. In his time commerce had not formed any connexion between these countries and our own. What was known of them was founded on the faith of those whom accident had carried thither, and who had resided there too short a time to gain sufficient information respecting the manners, customs, and history of their inhabitants.--All these defects, however, and imperfections, do not prevent his Chronicle from being considered as one of the most precious monuments of our history, and the perusal of it from being as agreeable, as instructive to those who, not confining themselves to the knowledge of general facts, seek, in the de, tails of particular events, and of the usages of that period, to develope the character of mankind, and of the ages which have passed. Froissart was born to transmit to posterity a living picture of an age, which p ferred the hazard of war to the solid advantages of peace; which, amid the intervals of troubles almost continually agitating it, found relaxation only in the most tumultuous pleasures,"

pre

La Curne, having inserted summarily, in his Criticism on Froissart, a sketch of the opinions which different authors have given of him, adds that of an author who knew better than any other the full value of a ready and natural genius.

"I love,' says Montagne, historians unaffected or excellent; the unaffected, who have not wherewithal to add of their own, and who are only careful to collect and pick up every thing which falls within their notice, and to put down every thing without choice, and without sort. ing, give us the opportunity of wholly judging of their truth, Such, for example, is the good Froissart, who has gone on with his work with such a frank simplicity, that, having committed a fault, he is no way ashamed of avowing it, and correcting it at the place where he is informed of it; and who tells us the diversity of rumours which were current, and the different accounts that were told to him. It is history, naked and upadorned; every one may profit from it, according to the depth of his understanding."

Mr. Johnes, at the end of his translation of La Curne's Criticism, informs us, that since it was first printed, he had obtained permission to have it collated; that he has as yet received only the additions to the first volume, which are very extensive, and more important than Mr. de St. Palaye seems to have supposed; that the whole will be published with due speed, in a supplementary volume to the Chronicles; and will, he hopes, effectually clear up all doubts of Froissart's partiality as an historian.

The design, views, and character of Froissart areeasily to be seen in his own writings, in which, without any egotism, but from their form and style, he is naturally led to communicate many particulars respect

ing

ing himself, without these Memoirs, Essays, and Criticisms of Mr. de la Curne de St. Palaye. At any rate, all that was necessary in these might have been compressed in ten or twelve pages, instead of an hundred. Yet, as Mr. Johnes has chosen to translate and prefix them to his work, of which they form no înconsiderable part, we have, out of a deference to the translator (though the microscope of his attention has somewhat magnified its objec) taken more notice of them than in our own judgment they are entitled to*; yet, at the same time, there may be readers, who, like Mr. Johnes, may never be wearied of inquiries and discourses about so celebrated and captivating an historian.

We proceed now, at length, from Mr. de la Curne de St. Palaye, to converse with a much greater man, as well as entertaining a com panion, Froissart, or, as he is called in some MSS. Sir John Froissart himself.

(To be concluded in our next.)

The Political and Confidential Correspondence of Lewis XVI. with Observations on each Letter. By Helen Maria William's. 3 vols. 8vo. Robinsons. 1803.

THESE volumes come to us through the medium of a lady of whom it is difficult to predicate whether she be maid (spinster we mean), wife, or widow. Whether she is to be called miss, or mistress, Williams or Stone, are knotty points which we shall not attempt to unravel. It is enough for us and our readers, that she gives her literary feats of notoriety under her spinster name.

The Correspondence appears under rather a questionable shape. We do not pronounce it to be a fabrication; but there is not certainly sufficient proof of its authenticity laid before the public. There is, indeed, not a grain of proof besides what the matter and manner of the Letters themselves furnish. They might, they may have been written by the unfortunate Monarch; but if the collectors and intended editors of this Correspondence had the means of proving its authenticity, which it is to be-presumed they had, why leave us in the dark with respect to a matter of such importance? The translator and commentator has, indeed, told us, that she has "consulted such persons

These three pieces, though they might have been greatly abridged, if not altogether spared, are introduced as introductory to the History of Froissart, not without propriety. But when, prefixed to the Chroni cles, we find a whole printed sheet concerning the poetry of Froissart, we are apt to suspect that Mr. Johnes, in his enthusiasm, had forgotten his design or subject, which was, the Chronicles of Froissart, not Froissart. himself and his poetry, which does not appear to us to be above mediocrity, amidst the poetry of an age (distinguished chiefly by far fetched, and long spun conceits) below mediocrity.

as were most likely to be informed on the subject-men who now fill eminent offices under the republic! (meaning France under Buonaparte!), and others, who exercised the highest functions under Lewis XVI. and that they had "no doubt whatsoever of the authenticity of the papers." This Helen Maria Williams says; but the public, we suspect, will require something more substantial on which they are to hang their belief, than the mere assertion of this lady. We, for our part, are not disposed to give unlimited credit to this ipse dixit of H. M. Williams: we wish to have seen the names and attestations of the well-informed persons hinted at, and to have had the grounds of their belief fully stated: we should then have been able to form some judgment on the subject.

The translator is rather shy in giving reasons for what she calls "the delay" of the publication, by the collectors of the Correspondence; and equally shy with respect to the means by which these MS. volumes fell into her hands." It is "unnecessary," she says, to mention the former, and still more so the latter, (Pref. p. 18). It is true, the passage says "less" but this is only one of her many blunders in language: her meaning is perfectly clear. Had she employed inexpedient instead of unnecessary, we incline to think that she would have made a nearer approximation to truth. We have our suspicions that the Correspondence, as it was at first intended to have been published (for it does not appear that it ever was published by the compilers), was kept back by the hand of power. Why? because it was accompanied by a preface which spoke well of Lewis XVI. and did not spare revolutions and revolutionists. We are of opinion, too, that it was put into the hands of the translator for the very purpose which she has executed in her commentary, viz.-to blacken the Monarch, and whitewash the Revolution. Shall we go too far if we say, that there might be directions for properly garbling the MS.? Why does not the preface to the MS. appear in Miss Williams's publication? Was that inexpedient, or, according to her, unnecessary? If the lady is not satisfied with our conjectures, it is to be hoped that she will, in some future publication, tell us all the truth. Our conjectures are, however, founded on passages in her own preface, which we shall lay before the public, leaving it to judge how far we have probability on our side.

She makes the French compilers say:

"We dare declare, in the name of future generations, that Lewis XVI. on the throne of the Bourbons, had no other reproach to make himself in the difficult art of governing, than that irresolution which neutralizes every thing, that want of self-confidence which renders the Monarch null, and that weakness which destroys."

To which 'she answers:

These are, no doubt, blemishes in the princely character; and, if nothing farther had been intended in this justification of Lewis XVI. than the display of his private virtues, respect for his misfortunes would have left his faults unnoticed. But to defend the memory of Lewis XVI.

appears

appears less the aim of his friends, than to calumniate the memory of those who have rendered themselves illustrious by rescuing their country from the ignoble servitude under which it was oppressed. This generous effort is stigmatised in the prefatory address, as a series of useless crimes, producing only useless disasters.' The Revolution, by changing all the elements of social order, is stated to have caused the most enlightened nation of Europe to make a retrograde step towards barbarism,' and, which is still more disastrous, to have rendered indocile to the yoke the people whom the King's birth had condemned him to govern.'

"The defence of Lewis XVI. is therefore no longer the point in contest, or at least becomes only a point of secondary consideration. His friends have shifted the grounds on which they might have remained secure, and, by enlarging their means of defence, have left themselves and the object of their idolatry open to attack. It is no longer the King they mean to defend; it is the Revolution they are earnest to criminate. Let them not be displeased, therefore, if in the observations which have suggested themselves on reading these letters, they sometimes discover an attempt to defend that barbarism towards which the most enlightened country of Europe has made a retrograde step."

Here the Lady at once reveals the object of her work. It is to defend the Revolution; and, amidst all its enormities, to hold it forth as the greatest blessing to the human race that the evolution of ages has produced. The actors, therefore, in this "beautiful, subline, terrific, and stupendous" scene, especially the Brissotines, are, with her, the benefactors of mankind, and Lewis XVI. the impotent and guilty impeder of its innumerable blessings-which, unfortunately, are all to come. Rapt in extacy by her revolutionary cogitations, she breaks forth into downright poetry:

"And what period in the annals of mankind more calculated to awaken solemn, rapt attention, to seize every faculty of the soul, to call forth every feeling excited by the sublime and the terrible, than the epocha of that Revolution, which in its effects, will change the condition, and al most the destinies, of man? How long will posterity pause on the solemn page which marks its mighty records! In reading history, we pass rapidly over the common flight of years and ages, like the traveller, who diligently pursues his way through a country which presents only ordinary objects: but, when this astonishing æra unfolds itself to the intellectual view, the reader will feel a sensation similar to that of the same traveller, when, suddenly bursting on his sight, he beholds scenes of overwhelming majesty, and finds himself surrounded by images of nature, the beautiful, the sublime, the terrific, the stupendous, which fill his mind with astonishment, or swell his bosom with enthusiastic emotion."

She afterwards speaks of the " exalted principles in favour of the human race, which the Revolution was destined to establish." Unhappily we are not in possession of her Brissotine Spectacles. "Setting fire to the four quarters of the world" (the boast of Brissot), is certainly terrific and stupendous; but its beauty, as we are not of the initiated, is to us not discernible, Nor can we discover that the French Revolution,