96 
ed in France for two or three centuries ; 
and to talk as familiarly about the he- 
roes of Greece and Rome as he would of 
his own Beys and Pachas; what can be 
half so absurd ? 
But if the picture of French manners 
is a good one, it signifies little whether 
the artist is a Mameluke or a French- 
man: the worst of it is, that when a 
man sits down to draw his own portrait, 
he may take a likeness, but it will most 
probably be a flattering one. That is a 
good deal the case here: the French are 
allowed to have a great many foibles and 
fopperies, but the more our Mameluke 
becomes acquainted with them, the more 
impressed he is with the goodness of their 
hearts, the variety and transcendency 
of their virtues. Let us speak of these, 
says he in one of his early letters: the 
Vrench have one that is not sufficiently 
remarked, nor is itesteemed according to 
its value ; it is that in general they never 
do mischief with reflection. To under- 
stand me, observe that it seldom hap- 
pens that.the man inclined to do mischief 
with a premeditated intention, repairs it. 
The French are not wicked; they are 
only mischievous. 
Philosophers have long and idly puz- 
zled themselves about the causes of the 
French revolution : some attribute that 
event to the derangement ofthe finances, 
others to the oppression of an insolent 
nobility ; some to the disorganization of 
the military, others to the introduction 
of commerce ; some seek it in an indi- 
vidual cause, others in the co-operation 
ef many. What philosophers, mora- 
lists, and politicians, however, have 
sought for without satisfaction or suc- 
cess, isat last discovered by an emigrant 
from the banks of the Nile! “ In this 
country,” says he to his friend Giafar, 
“the native inhabitants were called 
Cauls: their originis of the most remote 
antiquity. Who knowsit? noone. Itis 
fifteen centuries since a conquering 
people came and incorporated them- 
selves with them: they called themselves 
Francs. They possessed the same bra- 
very, but not the same manners. It is 
imagined that they have been mixed, 
that every shade of distinction has dis- 
appeared. This is not the case: like 
two rivers, they have flowed in the same 
bed without mixing. During twelve 
years which they have just employed in 
their modern revolution, a thousand 
events appear to them an enigma. ‘they 
are blind: Jet them look, the solution 
is there: the Francs always rough, 
VOYAGES AND TRAVELS. 
always untamed, always licentious: the 
Gauls always frivolous, always incon« 
stant, always superstitious ; and doth 
always terrible in war. There lies the 
whole mystery.” 
“ For fifteen hundred years, ttwo na- 
tions very distinct, inhabit the territory 
of France; a nation of victors, anda 
nation of vanquished; there is the 
grand cause; a compiete mixture has 
never been effected: the present epoch 
is the first moment when it is beginning 
to take place.” Our Mameluke traces 
the relative situation of these two na- 
tions, through the several dynasties of 
France; the Gauls have always conti« 
nued to be the people, and the Franks 
their masters. ‘ From the time of Clovis 
to the end of the eighteenth century, 
what was constantly the favourite ex- 
pression of the monarchs, of the great, 
of the nobles, &c.?. Our brave ancestors 
the Francs ; and what is very worthy of 
remark is, that never, no never, was it 
employed by the people.”” Our Mame- 
luke admits, indeed, that for some cen- 
turies this species of formula was used 
more from habit than from sentiment ; 
and like a true systematist, exclaims, 
* but what signifies that? it is the true 
vestige: our ancestors the Francs!’ So 
that the first grand cause of the revolu- 
tion was a determination on the part of 
the aboriginal Gauls, the people, to 
drive away from their territory the lineal 
descendants, pure and uncontaminated 
no doubt, of those Franks who had ine 
vaded it 1500 years before, and had 
kept in their hands the offices, the ho- 
nours, and emoluments. of state ever 
since!!! 
Although, as we have already ob- 
served, the author of these letters has 
given his countrymen credit for all that 
is generous, brave, ingenious, &c. he 
satirizes with sufficient severity those 
follies and vices which he discerns, or 
rather which he acknowledges, in their 
character; he reprobates very properly 
their singular propensity for duelling, 
which we regret to learn is daily en- 
creasing throughout the republic, and 
which our author thinks has taken so 
deep a root, that it can never be extir- 
pated. The ordinance the most cer- 
tain against duelling,”’ says he, “would 
be an ordinance which should prohibit 
Frenchmen from exercising their wit. 
They fight, say they, to avenge their 
offended honour; this is a mere pretext s 
out of a hundred duels, ninety-nine have 
no other cause than a witty sally or a 
