654 
Leonardo da Vinci and Titian, and the pur- 
chase of a few. bronze castes of antique 
statues. Apparently, however, this slender 
protection—he had too many. ways of spend~ 
ing money to do more—gave rise to the 
French school of painting; and his own 
taste for verse making, with his sister’s 
most decided talents, gave a spur to litera- 
ture, though, if Marot and Rabelais be ex- 
cepted, it will be difficult to discover a name 
that still lives in the records of fame. 
One of the foulest stains in the life of 
Francis, fs the sacrifice of Semblangai. The 
author throws the whole blame upon the 
Duchess’ D’Angouleme, the king’s mother, 
and the Chancellor Du Prat,” her tool ; and 
_ doubtless the evidence is irresistible that she 
was the original demon; but it should not 
be kept out of sight, or in the back ground, 
that Semblangai’s ‘innocence, and the Du- 
chess’s falsehood were made manifest to the 
king, who, nevertheless, suffered him to be 
executed, on a charge of malversation, which 
he knew to be groundless, to gratify his 
mother’s revenge. 
‘Infinite pains too are taken to represent 
in the fairest light, the solicitude of Francis 
—his frank offers of pardon, the amiable 
and earnest manner with which he endea- 
voured to recal the revolting Bourbon to his 
duty; but it should be more distinctly 
marked, and be placed conspicuously in the 
foreground, that he suffered his mother, 
though he knew her motives, to injure him 
deeply in his fortunes, and himself assisted 
in wounding his honour and his pride—that 
the attempt to conciliate was obviously too 
late—that Bourbon had no security, and 
surely could have no reliance on the steadi- 
ness or even honour of a man, swayed as 
that man was, by profligate women. 
£n revanche, the author no where spares 
the Duchess, nay, on one occasion he has 
even hazarded a charge that appears to have 
no specific foundation, on the principle ap- 
parently that no great harm was done by 
the risk. Speaking of her regency during 
her son’s imprisonment, he observes, “ It is 
not improbable that had the regency been 
* Of this man, the author takes a story from 
a MS.,. copied by Gaillard, in his Life of Fran- 
cis:—-Duprat had said in one of the conversa- 
gions with the Emperor’s minister, that he would 
gonsent to lose his head if his sovereign had aided 
Rebert de la Mark against Charles. The Spanish 
chancellor claimed du Prat’s head as forfeited, 
for, he said, be had in bis possession letters which 
»proved Francis’s connivance with Robert de la 
Mark. “My head js my own yet,” replied Du 
Prat, “for I haye the originals of the letters 
‘yon allude to, and they in no manner justify the 
scorn you would put upon them.’ “ If I had won 
your head,’’ replied the imperial chancellor, “ you 
might keep it still. I protest T would rather have 
a pig's head, for that would be more eatable.”"— 
MSS. de Bethune, No. 8179, apud Gaillard. 
Monthly Review of Literature, 
[v UNE, 
in other hands, his confinement might have 
been of shorter duration.” 
The book, however, may be safely com- 
mended as the result of original and close 
inquiry. The writer has carefully and faith- 
fully studied the more obvious sources of 
history, nor has he neglected the cotempo- 
rary and less hackneyed ones—Montluc 
and the two Langeis. The memoirs of the 
elder Langei, contains, he observes, a very 
accurate and faithful narrative (of course, he 
means, apparently) of the principal events 
of the times in which he lived, and ate, 
with those of his brother, Du Bellay, to the 
reign of Francis, what the memoirs of Sully 
are to that of Henry the Fourth. Though 
not duly rewarded by the monarch whom he 
served, Langei’s merit was duly estimated ; 
but the highest eulogium that his political 
memory has received, proceeded from the 
mouth of his enemy. The emperor, when 
he heard of his death, said, “ That man has 
done me more harm than all the people of 
France besides.”” Of Montluc’s commenta- 
ries on the times in which he lived, and in 
which he was a most active performer, the 
author justly remarks—“ His work is ex 
tremely valuable for the light it throws on the 
military history of that period ; and for the 
simplicity, jadiciousness, and grave humour 
with which it is written, can hardly be 
equalled by any of even those cotemporary 
authors whose lives had been less busily 
employed, and whose education had been 
more carefully conducted than that of © 
Montluc. His account of the Dauphin’s 
attempt to recover Boulogne from the 
English is extremely amusing. He is 
sorely perplexed between his reluctance 
to admit that his- party was defeated, 
and the necessity of telling the truth. 
The complacency with which he speaks of 
his knowledge of the English language is 
irresistible :— 
« Tout 4 un coup voici une grande troupe 
@Anglois quai venoient, la teste baissée, droit a 
nous qui estions devant léglise, et en la rae 
joignaut a icelle, criant, ‘ Vuho, goeht there?’ 
c’est a dire, ‘Qui va la? Je leur respondis en 
Anglois, ‘.4frind, afrind :’ qui veut dire, * Amis, 
amis;’ car de toutes les langues qui se sont 
meslées } army nous, i’ai apprins quelques mots, 
et passablement l’Italien et Espagnol; celam’a 
Comme ces Anglois eurent fait 
d'autres demandes, et gue je fus au bout de mon ~ 
Latin, ils’ poursuivirent en criant, ‘Quill Quill 4 
par fois serui. 
Quil!’ c'est a dire, ‘Tue! Tue! Tue?” 
The Library of Entertaining Know- 
ledge. Part I. of Vol. I. 1829.—The 
Society for. the Diffusion of Useful Know- 
ledge, has commenced a new series of pub- 
‘lications, called The Library of Entertaining 
‘Knowledge. 
‘is entitled The Menageries, and is occupied 
“with quadrupeds solely—the dog, wolf, 
The first part, now, before us, 
jackall, fox, hyena, lion, tiger, and cat. 
