390 
as those of M. Thomas had heforé done. 
for him; and, like the latter, he did not 
, Quit the lists, till his victories had entitled 
him to a place among the judges of the 
conflict. This glorious struggle, in which 
he justly prided himself on having had 
Thomas, Laharpe, Champfort, Delille, 
and Baiily, for competitors, and, m 
which, to use his. own expressions, he 
was sometimes the victor, at others shared 
in the victory, and at others was van- 
guished, but always followed close at 
the heels of the conqueror, occupied him 
during great part of the ten years subse- 
quent to his reception into the Academy 
of Belles Lettres; and this he always 
considered as the fairest portion of his 
iT Sd 
It might be supposed, that such nu- 
merous rhetorical and poetical composi- 
tions, all of which were finished with the 
utmost care, must have taken up all his 
moments, and left him no leisure for 
other studies. He was, nevertheless, at 
the same time engaged in cultivating the 
sterile soil of the History of the Lom- 
bards, and presented the results of these 
‘researches to the Academy of Belles 
Lettres, which, on this account, forgave 
the triumphs by which it was by no 
means flattered, as they were so foreign 
to the kind of labours for which he had 
been admitted into the number of its 
members; and what appears still more 
incredible, he wrote and published the 
History of Francés I. the restorer of lite- 
rature and the arts in France, and one of 
the principal benefactors of the nation, 
from the light diffused over it by the great 
and noble establishments of which he was 
the founder. 
This history, the four first volumes of 
which appeared in 1766, and the others 
in 1769, m the midst of M. Gaillard’s 
academic triumphs, heightened _ their 
lustre by the idea which it produced of 
his indefatigable industry, of the fertility 
of his mind, and the variety of his ta- 
lents. It was read with avidity; the 
extent of his researches, the happy 
choice of materials, the perspicuity of 
the narrative, the ease, the correctuess, 
and in many places the dignity and ele- 
gance of the style, were highly applaud- 
ed; but the same commendations were 
not bestowed on the manner in which he 
treated his subject, a manner-unknown 
to all the masters of the art, who have 
each employed a different one, with 
which they have accomplished the same 
ebjyect, to please and to instruct. It 
was wished that, after their example he 
a 
glory. 
Memoirs of M. Gaillard, the French Historian. [Nov. 1; 
had blended and intermingled, but withs 
out confusion, events of different kinds 
in the same narrative, and introduced. 
them at the period in which they really 
happened; instead of dividing the reign 
of Francis I. inte civil history, political 
history, military history, ecclesiastical 
and literary history, private life of the 
monarch, &c.; forging five or six dis- 
tinct histories, all of which must be read, 
in order to obtain a complete picture of 
that reign; a picture, the disjoined frag- _ 
ments of which the reader cannot com- 
bine, without experiencing part of the 
difficulty which the historian spared hime 
self by keeping them separate. The 
comparison which did not fail to be made 
between it and Robertson’s Charles V. ; 
of which, a French translation soon after- 
wards appeared, all the parts of which _ 
form a whole, and may be embraced at 
one view, rendered the disadvantages of 
the method adopted by M. Gaillard still 
more striking, and led the numerous ad+~ 
mirers of the Scottish historian to ob-. 
serve, perhaps, with more malice than 
truth, that Francis I. had once more 
been. conquered by Charles V. But, if 
Robertson’s works possess an advantage 
in this respect, justice compels us to say, 
that the performance of M. Gaillard, in- 
dependently of the different species of 
; 
&! 
ye 
< 
t 
¥ 
D 
merit which have been already noticed, 
is richer in details, that it makes the rea- 
der more intimately acquainted, both . 
with the causes of eveuts and most of 
the actors who appear upon the_stage, 
and that it affords more positive and ex- 
tensive information. 
M. Gaillard was, himself, so thoroughly be 
satisfied of the excellence of the plan of 
his History of Francis I. though almost 
the universal! opinion had ‘decided against 
it, that he pursued the same method in the 
History of Charlemagne, which he gave 
to the world in 1782. Of the four vo= 
lumes composing this history, the first is 
entirély taken up with considerations on 
the first race of monarchs, which shew 
in what state Charlemagne found France 
on his accession to the throne; and the 
last, with reflections on the imbecility of 
the successors of that prince, and on the 
rapid decline of the empire which he had 
raised to. the highest pitch of power and 
The introductory abservations 
were read with interest; but, as in ntat- 
- ters of taste, tuo much is as bad as toe 
little, the considerations which terminate 
the work, though equally instructive and 
requally well written with the former, ap= 
peared superfucus and misplaced. These | 
ji defects, 
& 
pr 
-?; 
i 
3 
: 
