none who have been successful. Even Fontenelle, enchanting as he is in his other works, does not equal Voiture. But the most entertaining, is the correspondence of the Count de Bussy and his friends. By many it is preferred to all that France has produced in this branch of literature. Amongst the Germans, Wiequefort and Liebnitz have been much celebrated; but the latter, who had great influence on the mind of Queen Caroline, consort of George the First, is objectionable for his deistical opinions. One of the most curious of German Epistles, is that of the Emperor, Maximilian. It is addressed to his daughter, and is on the subject of his whimsical project to become Pope :-"I shall send to-morrow to Rome to find some mode of making the Pope (Julius II.) name me as his coadjutor, in order that, at his death, I may be secure of the papacy, and become a priest, and subsequently, a saint; and then you will be obliged to worship me after my death, which will greatly tend to my glorification. The Pope has repeated attacks of fever, and cannot last much longer. The Italians boast the letters of Ganganelli, Bentivolio, and Algarotti. Of the more modern French letters, those of Madame de Sevigné appear to me, to have received an undue share of applause; but they are spirited, evince good sense, and keen observation, sometimes flippant; the style is often farcically concise. When we learn that no persons had more bitter disputes than this lady and her daughter (disputes not settled without a recurrence to the art of pugilism), the charm thrown over her compositions, by her reiterated assurances of affection, vanishes at once: and the partiality which had arisen in our bosoms on a first perusal, no longer warps our judgment. Her description, so celebrated by the French, of the Death of Turrene, and the subsequent events relating to him, appears to me inferior to many of those impressive accounts, which we received from general officers, during the late war. I cannot, however, dismiss her, without advising that her letters should be perused, as they form an antidote to the heavy style which we find in the principal writings of her cotemporaries. La Harpe is as vain as Cicero, but there is much that is interesting in his letters. Baron de Grimm's would not be less desirable, were they free from indelicacy; they are filled with amusing anecdote. The familiar letters of Racine, written in the bosom of his family, exhibit a man impressed with all the duties of domestic life, and by these, regulating his own conduct. His description of the final incarceration of an amiable young cousin in a nunnery, though written with simplicity, amounting to negligence, is truly affecting, and does honour to his feelings. There cannot be found a more perfect specimen of French naiveté, than in the letters of Madame du Deffand; but for their sincerity, take this example. Voltaire in his dotage, wrote a play, entitled the "Laws of Minos," and in expressing her sentiments on the subject to Mr. Walpole, she observes, "Le Kain," (then the first actor,) "read us at Voltaire's desire his last play, and it confirms my idea that, old age can make but feeble efforts. One may read it in private, but he should never again expose himself to criticism. His example will serve as a lesson, not only to people of talent, but to the world in general. In the decline of life, we must no longer expect applause, but consent to be forgotten." To Voltaire himself, she remarks on the same play: Surely, my dear Voltaire, you are but thirty years of age. When the mind is as young as yours, the body must be invigorated; you have no debility whatsoever,-Horace will blush to see himself outdone." Little did she imagine that her excessive duplicity would be publicly exposed. 66 Mademoiselle L'Espinasse, in her letters, is an agree able enthusiast. Madame de Maintenon's are far more valuable, from her fine morals and elevated style, but she betrays the artificial complexion of her mind, when she says of the King, "I always send him from me sighing, but never plunge him into despair." Among the French letters published latterly, those of the Abbé Galliani stand pre-eminent, and, as he himself describes them, they display a charming variety. The best critics of the present age consider them as good models, and they were written for exposure in 1800, though they have but recently appeared. They are chiefly addressed from Naples, where he deplores the total absence of intellectual enjoyment. EARLY ENGLISH LETTERS. 2 The first English correspondence which has met my knowledge is that which is called the Fenn collection, having been preserved by a family of that name. These letters are truly curious from their relation of the latter events of the court and politics of Henry VI., and they proceed through the reign of Edward IV. With regard to style nothing can exceed their tediousness; but the interest they excite from the intimacy we gain with the principal characters of those bustling and sanguinary times, renders the manner in which we obtain it very unimportant. The letter of Anna Bullen from her doleful prison, to her murderer Henry VIII., is dignified and deeply affecting, bearing on it the stamp of perfect innocence. But the first English letter which is divested of the stiff and circumlocutory style adopted by our ancestors, is a very concise, indignant, and pathetic remonstrance from the Earl of Essex to Elizabeth. Another proof that an elegant mind will shake off the trammels of barbarous custom, is his epistle to Lord Egerton. How inferior that of Sir Philip Sydney, dissuading Elizabeth from marrying the Duke of Anjou part of his address is rendered almost unintelligible by the formality and awkward construction of his endless sentences! Sir Walter Raleigh's letter to Prince Henry is able and spirited. Bacon (styled the wisest, greatest, meanest of mankind) has not added to his fame by the few letters which remain from his hand. Those addressed by him to James I. are as ill composed, as his excessive and inappropriate flattery is repugnant to honest feeling. One idea rescues his last letter from the charge of mediocrity. "There is, as I conceive, a kind of fraternity between great men that are, and those that have been, being but the several tenses of one verb." Lord Strafford's advice to his nephew is highly useful, and shews the admirable qualities of his heart and understanding: the style is not commendable. There is internal evidence of his innocence in his letter from the tower, although he makes no attempt to defend his conduct. How frequently may we perceive that innocence, calm, and justly self-sufficient, is at the onset firm and concise in its own vindication, and seeks not to repeat it; whilst guilt, raising a great clamour of protestations, detects itself in the midst of them! Lord Strafford's resignation, his deprecation of revenge, on the part of his family, and the use he makes of his adversity to point out to his son his faithful friends, exhibit in a fine light his sagacity and his virtue. The letters of Charles I. are cramp and uncouth.That which displays the spirit and loyalty of Lord Derby in refusing to deliver up the Isle of Man to Cromwell's general, is still proudly cited as glorious to our country. But the letter of that rare character the Countess of Dorset, Pembroke, and Montgomery, contains as much matter in two lines as half a dozen letters of her contemporaries; and, from the elevation of mind and dauntless spirit it evinces, it is truly worth quoting. The insolent minister of an ungrateful court attempted to compel her to relinquish one of her boroughs. This was her reply,-"I have been bullied by an usurper; I have been neglected by a court; but I will not be dictated to by a subject. Your man sha'nt stand." The letters of this period of anarchy exhibited of course no improvement on the still barbarous style. Those of the Cromwells are worthless; Mr. Boyle's laboured. Sir William Temple, shortly after, had the credit of reforming the phraseology; but his letters are exceedingly disappointing. Lord Clarendon addresses his daughter and her husband-the Duke and Duchess of York, in an improved style; and her replies are replete with noble sentiment. About this period terminated the old English tone of letter-writing, and little in it can be commended. Lost in a labyrinth of words, the good people of England, for two hundred years, seem to have written in order to confuse. I imagine that, at that period, to write a letter was considered a task as grievous as the completion of a journey of thirty miles; and those who could accomplish this marvellous piece of penmanship were accounted truly learned clerks. Redundance, repetitions, parenthesis within parenthesis, like pill-boxes, (as the late Mr. Stevens remarked of an old author), are so numerous, that it appeared as if all writers had been engineers, and had exercised their skill to encompass their meaning with bastions, ravines, portcullis, and every defence which might render it impregnable. One would imagine that people then enjoyed superior strength of lungs to those of the present race, the difficulty of reading aloud their interminable sentences being insurmountable by the human creatures within the circle of my knowledge. FANCY! hast spun thine incantation out To these immortal Ones? Oh, hast thou woo'd Kindled and rapt in thy divinest mood, As bursting from youth's restless, restless sleep, Of which I dream'd, full of the future man! Fancy! dwell in my heart! the race is now began! A. 70 DISCUSSION: WAS THE FEUDAL SYSTEM LESS INJURIOUS IN ITS EFFECTS THAN THE IMPERIAL DESPOTISM OF ROME? IN giving his opinion on the present question, the opener proposed to contend, that the effects of the feudal system had been less injurious than the imperial despotism of Rome. He was aware he should have to contend with a strong prejudice against the feudal system on the one side, and a mistaken respect for the institutions of Rome on the other. It was by no means his intention to represent the former as the best, and the latter as the worst government imaginable; but to submit that, in the peculiar conformation of the former, there were much greater pledges for the happiness of the nation than in the latter. Were he inclined to avail himself of a technical advantage, which the terms of the question gave him, he might with great facility obtain a decision in his favour; for he might compare the feudal system, when the connexion between the lord and his_vassal depended more on gratitude than necessity, with the Roman government, when under the auspices of a Caligula or a Nero. This he should not do, but consider the feudal system when fiefs had become perpetual; when the number of the feudal incidents had increased; and when they were exacted with all the rigour of judicial nicety. As to "the effects" mentioned in the question, he presumed they must be considered as the circumstances in which the people, under the respective governments, were placed. It would be proper to give a short sketch of the history of both governments. During the period that Rome was governed by the kings, the crown was elective, as in the reign of Servius Tullius: the patricians then held the offices of the state, whether sacred or civil; but, in case of any necessity for war, the consent of of the people was required. The government was therefore of a mixed nature. After the expulsion of the Tarquins, the government might be said to have been at first aristocratical, and afterwards popular; since, at first, the patricians only were admitted to the consular dignity; and afterwards, the people enjoyed that privilege. The latter had besides, the tribunes of the people, whose extensive powers might always serve as a check to any attempt on their liberty. this state did the Roman government remain, with the exception of the occasional appointment of a dictator, the mili In |