tice, the Duc d'Aumale adhered to their principles, and abandoned for his part the rights of his family. This writer is mistaken. He seems to have forgotten the high-spirited letter which the prince addressed to M. Grévy, when the latter countersigned the decree taking from him the dearest of his titles, that of general in his country's service. He had been forbidden to serve on the battle-field at a time when France had dire need of a valiant captain, but he was thought of when a military judge was wanted, in which capacity he performed his duty with an ability and high-mindedness which extorted the admiration of all Europe. He had even been visited in his retirement in order to be asked to place the collar of the Golden Fleece around the neck of the President of the Republic. His duty done and the dictates of courtesy satisfied, the hero of Abder Kader had been struck off the rolls of the army; after his family's banishment had come his own degradation. The cup was full; he repulsed it with indignation, an action which cost him a new period of exile lasting three years.

When the Duc d'Aumale came back, political feeling had no doubt become less strong, for his return gave general satisfaction. He found that great progress had been made with the works at Chantilly under the direction of the architect, Viollet-Leduc. The latter died before finishing his task and was succeeded by M. Daumet, who carried it to completion.

The reconstruction of the château having been terminated, the duke was able to give effect to an idea long entertained by him. He had wished to bequeath the whole estate of Chantilly to that great society, the Institut, to which he belonged in three different capacities. He did better, he made it over irrevocably by a donation in due legal form with the adhesion of all his family, simply reserving to himself the possession thereof during his lifetime, in order to embellish it still further. This arrangement has not been without advantage to Chantilly. The collections, all of which are comprised in the dona

tion, have been increased, especially the library and the picture-gallery. Both were started in England, some masterpieces on canvases and on panels, as well as some rare books, having been acquired by the duke during his exile. They cannot be described here, but we must not omit to mention a few of them. First in chronological order is a painting in tempera by Giotto called "La Mort de la Vierge, a notable work on account of the solemnity of its subject. It contains twenty-one figures within its small frame. This valuable picture belonged to the collection of M. Reiset, a former curator of the Louvre Gallery. The whole of the Reiset collection was acquired by the Duc d'Aumale in 1879. Next, there are some paintings, not striking in appearance, but useful for the history of the art of the early schools of Sienna and Florence. The quattrocentisti appear in a few paintings by Fra Angelico and his school. Then there are a Saint John-Baptist, at once hard, rigid and mystical, by Andrea del Castagno; a charming "mystic marriage of Saint Francis to humility, poverty, and chastity," three figures very touching in their idealism, by Pietro de Sano; a virgin between two saints, by Filippo Lippi, a curious example of realism; a profile portrait of the beautiful Simonetta Vespucci, the friend of Julian de Medicis, which is attributed to Pollajuolo and might also be attributed to Botticelli; a "Vierge glorieuse" by Perugini, formerly in the Northwick collection; an "Annunciation," by Francia; "Autumn," by Botticelli; and "Esther and Ahasuerus," a scene into which Filippo Lippi has put all the grace and savor of his genius.

The examples of the earlier period of the Milanese and Venetian schools show us nothing very remarkable prior to an Infant Jesus by Bernardino Luini, which seems to have come from Raphael's pencil. The "Christ with the reed," by Titian, of which there is a replica at Vienna, was bought by the Duc d'Aumale at Brescia. Much negotiation took place before this picture was allowed to pass the frontier. A

some portraits by Pourbus and Hendrich Pot, we may draw attention to a full-length portrait of Gaston de France, Duke of Orleans, by Van Dyck, This portrait, one of the master's finest, was given in 1829 to the Duke of Orleans, afterwards Louis-Philippe, by King George the Fourth. It is well known in England. By the same painter there are two other portraits; one, half-length, of the famous Count de Berghes, is the figure of a soldier, without fear if not without reproach; and the other, hung alongside to form a contrast, that of the Princess de Barbançon, pretty, gentle, and winning, who is less known than she ought to be. Then come the small Flemings and a picture of the Grand Condé by Teniers Junior.

Here, had we space, we should give a pen-and-ink sketch of that great man, although we should have some difficulty in doing so after the portrait drawn for all time by the author of the "Histoire des Princes de la Maison de Condé." Juste d'Egmont also has painted Louis II., Prince de Bourbon, but at a later age-thirty-five years. This portrait must have been painted from 1654 to 1658, when the prince was serving in Spain. It formed part of Condé's estate, and is therefore the original. Replicas are to be found in France, Belgium, and Spain. There are doubtless some in England as well. We will pass over the remaining pictures of the two schools, although they include some fine sea-pieces and an excellent landscape by Ruisdael, in order to deal with the English school, the examples of which are not numerous, but extremely interesting.

Joshua Reynolds is represented by a portrait of the Duc de Chartres, afterwards Louis-Philippe. He is painted full length, in the uniform of a colonel of Hussars. This picture, of bright coloring, is a reduction of the large portrait which is at Hampton Court, and which has suffered from fire as well as from the restorers. By the same artist there is "the two Waldegraves," mother and daughter, which is one of his masterpieces. Nothing could be more

Among the treasures recently added to the Condé Museum, which is the name given to it by the Duc d'Aumale, we can only mention the forty Fouquets purchased by the prince at Frankfort in 1891, and for which he paid two hundred and fifty thousand francs to Mr. George Brentano, their former owner. They are miniatures extracted from a primer written and illustrated for Etienne Chevalier, treasurer of France. The space at our command would not allow us to do more than indicate the subjects, and a catalogue of this kind would have but a secondary interest. M. Gruyer has made a special study of them, the results of which he has published in a large volume illustrated by forty heliographic engravings from the originals. Unfortunately, this book, which is a very erudite work, has not been put on the market; but it ought at least to be possible to consult it in the great public libraries.

We have said nothing about the pictures of the French sehool, which occupy a very distinguished place in the Musée de Condé. After the works by Fouquet, Clouet, and their pupils, the modern French school takes up the largest space. Ingres, Delacroix, and Meissonier are worthily represented.

The late prince, in making arrangements for the endurance and glory of his life's work, did not fail to provide sufficient resources, not only for its maintenance, staff, repairs, and SO forth, but also for gradual additions to the collections. There is no need for anxiety in this respect. The Chantilly estate is very large. The forest not only produces wood, but contains extensive beds of that limestone of which Paris is built. These might be made to yield a considerable revenue, and the Institute of France can be relied upon to deal prudently with this source of income. What we fear is a danger of

another sort, arising from a different cause, and, in our opinion, of a very threatening character.

France, for more than a century, has been in a permanent state of feverish unrest. She is permeated with a leaven of discord which causes her governments to be uncertain, unsettled, and of short duration. An orator in Parliament well expressed this one day when, in a moment of sincerity, he said: "The present régime is one of perpetual change." The past is no guarantee for the future; the cruellest things are done; injustice and wrongdoing have borrowed the mask of legality, and in the name of the law people have been pillaged and massacred. The same may occur again. In the past, noisy and unscrupulous minorities have seized the reins of power and prepared the way for the advent of despotism, and can any one say we shall not see them again that the mob would not now listen to and follow them?

The Institute of France, consisting of the five Academies, was not created by the convention, as has been said. Before the convention there were six Academies, all of which were dissolved in 1793, and when, two years later, the Convention tried to re-establish them under the name of the Institute, it only allowed three of the old Academies to form part of the new body. It is therefore misleading to try to make it appear that the late duke, in endowing the present Institute, desired to attach his gift to the Convention's narrow and paltry scheme. The Convention put aside the Académie Française on the plea that elevation of character, intellectual worth, poetry, eloquence, and genius were elements hostile to the spirit of the Revolution. This was the reason it offered for having suppressed the company founded by Richelieu.

Since 1795 until now the Institute has continued its way, not without heavy trials, but on the whole with credit to itself and advantage to the community. The Duc d'Aumale, in endowing it with

was that in enriching it he at the same time made it fixed and enduring. But he could not endow it with strength to resist the fluctuations of political power. This very wealth constitutes an attraction for the covetous and а source from which to draw in case of need. Is the Institute necessarily а closed field? May not other classes pass the elastic boundary which has successively been opened or shut to admit new classes or eliminate them? Even at the present moment two satellites are gravitating around it: the Academy of Medicine and the National Agricultural Society. Both have fairly close connections with the government; might not the latter widen the doorway in order to admit them? And, if this were done, is it certain that the Institute would keep entirely the place assigned to it by the prince in his generous designs? All these questions present themselves when one examines the consequences which may unexpectedly result from political changes, or from embarrassments caused by an impending crisis.

al

If politicians were able to abolish the six old Academies by a stroke of the pen, they may just as easily do away, one of these days, with the present Institute and its five Academies. In France the learned societies have ways been an object of suspicion on the part of the government, either because it has feared the influence wielded by those intellectual centres, or because it has met with resistance when it has tried to thrust upon them its nominees. Fear and wounded vanity-no other motives are needed by the powers that be to commit an act of violence. And once the Institute suppressed, what would become of the late prince's magnificent donation? It would revert to the State. If an act of Parliament should be necessary, it would readily be passed by the force of the idea that the State alone is the legitimate guardian and curator of the nation's treasures. Always the raison d'Etat-more powerful in France than human reason.

Whatever else may be the destiny in store for it, the Duc d'Aumale's dona