Retrospect of French Literature—History. 
rible picture. of the. corruption of the 
Romans, which appeared incapable of 
eugmentation, and which was, however, 
but iu its infancy.” 
M. Levesque, next mentions Cesar, 
om he always treats with high respect, 
at of compliment perhaps to his own 
Emperor, while Cicero, and all the 
frrcnds of freedom, are depicted in the 
most odious colours. The Romans, we 
are told, cultivated ‘ the “double fanati- 
cisin o! @ ivve for liberty,, which produced 
the greatest disorders,among them, and a 
love tor their country, which made them 
deem good .and honourable the most 
odious means for augmenting its power 
and grandeur. .In consequence of the 
first. of these, they elevated to the very 
skies the glory of the first. Brutus, who 
himself became the judge of his own sons, 
pronounced with his own, mouth. their 
sentence of death, and beheld their blood 
flow with an unmoved countenance; they 
praised the conduct of the regicide Mu- 
tius Scevola; they vaunted the act of 
Manlius, who, on account of a fault in 
respect to military discipline, ordered the 
head of his victorious offspring to be 
struck off by the hatchet of a lictor; they 
extolled the acts of a Marcus Brutus, 
who piunged his poniard into the bosom 
of Cesar, his friend, his benefactor, and 
perhaps his father !” 
He next considers the effects produced 
by their patriotism, and condemns the 
pertidious stratagems adopted by the 
Romans, in order to procure easy victo- 
ries over the nations which they wished 
either to subject, or-destroy. Few his- 
torical traits, we are told, have been more 
justly odious than those which led to the 
third Punic war, and few politicians more 
profoundly corrupt than that famous 
Cato, whose ‘‘ venomous eloquence” pro- 
duced it. 
Our author concludes as follows: 
“ These vices in the Roman _ history, 
have rendered the perusal of it dangerous 
for ardent minds, and such as reflect but 
little. It inspires them. with disgust, 
as well as scorn, and sometimes hatred 
avainst the institutions of their! native 
country. In fine, by the foolish wish to 
become Roman citizens, they become 
bad citizens. 
“¢ They deem themselves on the high 
road towards the most exalted virtue, by 
taking for their model, a people who re- 
ceived from Greece a degree of know- 
ledge, which enabled them to distinguish 
themselves by their great acquiremeuts in 
poetry, in cloquence, in history, but which 
-605 
4 
never softened them of their pristing 
ferocity, or made them approach the li- 
mits of perfect civilization. Let us ailow 
our enemies to adore, and to imitate this 
nation, while virtues of a purer kind shall | 
animate us.* ; 
“‘ If by the description of the evils, the 
disorders, the atrocities, and the degra- 
dation of the dignity of man, which in 
the Roman republic were the result of 
the national character and constitution, 
I am able to lessen that enthusiasm, 
which has so long taken possession of 
some persons; I shail think myself not 
undeserving of praise, during my old age, 
both on the part of my country and of 
humanity. 
“ The Romans have done great things. 
Yes; but too frequently by the most 
odious means, and they have too often 
also made an use no Jess odious of their 
vood fortune. Does it therefore become 
the French to bow the knee before the 
Roman grandeur? All grandeur dimi- 
nishes, when put in comparison with that 
of our nation, and our hero!” 
M. Levesque commences the work it- 
self, in the same spirit with which he has 
concluded his preface, by insisting that 
the annals of no nation can be relied on, 
unless tradition has given place to the art 
of writing. He divides his subject into ° 
*¢ periods,” rather than chapters, or sec- 
tions; and under the first of these, at once 
recounts and criticises the history of 
Rome, under her kings, Numa Pompilius, 
Tallus Hostilius, Ancus Marcius, Lucius 
Tarquinias, Priscus, Servius Tullius, and 
Tarquinius Superbus, or the Proud. 
Notwithstanding the visible leaning of - 
the whole work, towards the order of 
‘things now subsisting in France, we must 
confess that the reign of the last of these 
monarchs is described with great fidelity 
and truth. But here again, with his 
usual scepticism, the author cannot yield 
any degree of confidence te the story of 
Sextus, theson of the last king,who feign - 
ing a quarrel with his father, retired 
among the Gabii, and after gaining some 
advantages, in.concert with the Romans, 
at length succeeded in cutting off the 
leaders, or chiefs, of the adopted nation, 
after which the people became .easily 
subjugated by their enemies. The author 
supposes the whole to be a fable, com- 
posed after that of Zopyrus and Peri- 
ander, in Perodotus, and merely in- 
tended to show the character and policy 
* Di, meliora piis, erroremque hostibus illum. 
of 
