Retrospect of French Literature—Misceilanies. 
write on other subjects. A style without 
loftiness, and without warmth, provided 
it be sage, and correct, is still of use for 
many other purposes. 
«Let not this historian undertake to 
speak of times too near to his own, A 
grand epoch, like that which we have 
recently witnessed, is equally connected 
with the past, as with the future. The 
historical circle of remarkable, and al- 
most contemporary, events, is considera- 
bly enlarged, and it will no longer be 
possible to speak of Charles XII, and 
Frederic the Great, in the same manner, 
as before that immense revolution in Eu- 
rope, which, by appearing as the com- 
mencement of a new history, demands 
other historians. 
* But, (say M. ‘M. Borelly and Guyot 
Desherbiers, the editors of the works al- 
juded to,) ‘ we do not pretend to write 
any thing else but Memoirs, and why 
therefore would you attack us as his- 
torians?’—Memoirs, I confess, precede 
history ; but why should you hash history 
into. memoirs ?” 
After this introduction, the author at- 
tacks the Life of the Count de Hardt, 
lately written by M. Borelly, and ob- 
serves, that it is ridiculous, because the 
Count’s father had served under Charles 
XII. that all the revolutions of Sweden 
should on this account be detailed in 
regular order. In respect to himself, as 
a military man, he never served but in a 
subordinate capacity; and as a politician, 
he was never entrusted with any diplo- 
matic mission of the least consequence 
by Frederic the Great. 
Still greater severity is used in respect 
to the Memoirs of the Count de Bon- 
neval : : 
**T wish to be informed of the motive,” 
says he, ‘ for reprinting these memoirs. 
Of what utility can it be? What is it that 
it will teach us? M. de Bonneval was a 
good officer, but he never performed any 
great exploits, and he had no influence 
whatsoever over the events that occurred 
during his own time. If he possessed 
any great military talents, he must be 
allowed to have employed them to very 
little purpose. He was a fool-hardy man, 
without prudepee, without conduct, and 
who had nothing eminent in his charac- 
ter, courage alone excepted. . He fought 
well, acted badly, reasoned wrong, and, 
were it not. for his numerous foibles, 
would have long since been forgotten. 
Always morose, continually discontented 
with the king, with the ministers, with 
all the world, and with himself, he speng 
657 
his whule life in complaining of the pre- 
tended injustice which he had constantly 
experienced, Nothing could satisfy him, 
and if the staff of amarshal ot France had 
been conferred upon him, he would have - 
deemed it too little. He writes m the 
style of a captain of Cossacks, white his 
love-adventures resemble those of a Pan~ 
dour. 
“‘ His conduct at Cosmo, in respect to 
a jealous husband, was abominable; and 
if any other officer were to behave in so 
infamous a manner, he ought to be turned 
out of big regiment. But, even if all 
these despicable anecdctes of him were 
true—and I do not believe them to be 
so—for what good purpose are they now 
reproduced? Can one present the Life of 
M. de Bonneval as a model to military 
men? What has he achieved? He was 
brave—and where is the common soldier 
who is not so?—Is he to be considered 
as a friend to his native country? He 
abandoned it.—As a friend to his go- 
vernment? His whole life is but one con- 
tinued revolt.—As one who respected 
religion? He apostatised.—As attached 
to his friends and relations? He aban- 
doned them all.—As amiable, -and re- 
plete with gallantry? He himself acknow- 
ledges that he was neither, and apon 
my word he might have dispensed with 
the avowal. 
“ And, lo! here are two volumes 
swelled into an enormoug size with his 
life and adventures! And behold a com- 
mentator, who immerses the Count in 
the history of his own time, in the same 
manner as a Duke of Clarence was 
formerly drowned in a butt of Malmsey. 
This butt, indeed, was infinitely more 
suitable to M. de Bonneval, than 
those historical notes, so grossly mis- 
placed, by means of which M. Guyot 
Desherbiers contrived to overwhelm both 
his bashaw and his readers.”’ 
On some New Works——Do you love 
fantastical aud. mysterious adventures? 
Do you iike to meet with something in 
the first half’ dozen pages of a book, 
which is not to be explained until the 
end of a third volume? Do you imagine 
this to be a marvellous and yood way of 
exciting and supporting curiosity? Do 
you possess a decided taste for duels, 
forced marriages, and those headstrong 
passions, which would make a savage 
fancy, provided he had learned to read, 
and were to peruse some romances, that 
love, among civilised nations, was no- 
thing more or less than avsort of fury, 
an infernal degree of rage, which aay 
them 
