Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

These

The military, already heated by wine, were intoxicated with joy. The excitement of the scene was indescribable, but when it was over, even the queen felt that such decided marks of enthusiam on the part of the two regiments could not be looked upon with indifference by the national assembly. Then followed the scenes of massacre; the tumultuous indignation of the people, who were reduced to a state of famine, as they were led to believe by the queen's agents, who bought up immense quantities of corn and sent it out of the country-whereas this measure, deeply contrived for her destruction, was the work of her enemies-the Orleans' faction. We pass over the march of the Poissardes to Versailles, the attempt made to assassinate the queen, the return of the royal family to the Thuilleries, and their state of suffering, humiliation, and imprisonment there, until their removal to the Temple. These unhappy events have been too often related to need repetition here, though we may observe that the Princess Lamballe adds many circumstances concerning them, which have been hitherto either not generally known, or at least inaccurately understood. The editor mentions also some curious facts relating to an extensive correspondence which was carried on with the queen through the princess, by Mr. Burke, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Sheridan. eminent statesmen appear to have made several suggestions to her majesty, for the purpose of upholding the monarchy in France. The principal plan, which originated with Mr. Burke, was one for purging the kingdom of all the troops which had been corrupted from their allegiance by the revolutionists. He proposed, that they should sail at the same time, or nearly so, to be colonised in the different French islands, and Madagascar,' and be replaced by a new national guard, who should be bound to the state by having the waste crown lands divided amongst them. With all due deference for that distinguished statesman, we apprehend that such a measure as this, if the king had attempted to carry it into execution, instead of stopping the torrent of the revolution, would have contributed only to accelerate its progress. The insurrection would have certainly begun with the military, as it subsequently did in Spain under similar circumstances, and prepared as the people were for crimes of every description, there is no possibility of calculating the consequences. The scheme, however, was frustrated at once from the want of transports, for procuring which, much secret negotiation was carried on with the British government. The Princess Lamballe was the confidential negociator employed by the queen on this occasion; in the meantime the unfortunate attempt of the royal family to escape had been foiled at Varennes, and such was the anguish which this affair caused to Marie Antoinette, 'that when the princess returned to France, she received a ring from her majesty, 'set with her own hair, which had whitened like that of a person of eighty,' and bearing the pathetic inscription, "Bleached by sorrow!"

In the midst of the perilous scenes in which she was engaged, the Princess Lamballe was earnestly entreated by her relative, the King of Sardinia, by all her family and her friends abroad, to provide for her personal safety by quitting France. Her answer to the king at Turin is a specimen of sublime and disinterested devotion, such as has few parallels in history.

“Sire, and most august cousin,—I do not recollect that any of our illustrious ancestors of the house of Savoy, before or since the great hero Charles Emanuel, of immortal memory, ever dishonoured or tarnished their illustrious names with cowardice. In leaving the court of France at this awful crisis, I should be the first. Can your majesty pardon my presumption in differing from your royal counsel? The king, queen, and every member of the royal family of France, both from the ties of blood and policy of states, demand our united efforts in their defence. I cannot swerve from my determination, of never quitting them, especially at a moment when they are abandoned by every one of their former attendants, except myself. In happier days your majesty may command my obedience; but, in the present instance, and given up as is the court of France to their most atrocious persecutors, I must humbly insist on being guided by my own decision. During the most brilliant period of the reign of Maria Antoinette, I was distinguished by the royal favour and bounty. To abandon her in adversity, Sire, would stain my character, and that of my illustrious family, for ages to come, with infamy and cowardice, much more to be dreaded than the most cruel death.”—Vol. ii. pp. 231, 232.

We regret that our space prevents us from following this truly princely woman through those parts of her journal which communicate the details of the dreadful sufferings that were endured by the royal family from the time of the affair of Varennes, until the death, we may almost designate it the martyrdom, of the princess herself. For these agonizing details, we must refer to her journal; and we shall conclude with the editor's account of the tragic close of the princess's life, which no person of feeling can read without shuddering with horror. After the imprisonment of the royal family in the Temple, the princess was separated from them, and transferred to La Force, where she was confined in September, 1792, when the Marseillois commenced the massacres in the prisons of Paris.

The fiends had been some hours busy in the work of death. The piercing shrieks of the dying victims brought the princess and her remaining companion upon their knees, in fervent prayer for the souls of the departed. The messengers of the tribunal now appeared. The princess was compelled to attend the summons. She went, accompanied by her faithful female attendant.

A glance at the seas of blood, of which she caught a glimpse upon her way to the court, had nearly shocked her even to sudden death. Would it had -She staggered, but was sustained by her companion. Her courage triumphed. She appeared before the gore-stained tribunes.

After some questions of mere form, her highness was commanded to swear, to be faithful to the new order of government, and to hate the king, the queen, and royalty,

"To the first," replied her highness, "I willingly submit. To the second how can I accede? There is nothing of which I can accuse the royal family. To hate them is against my nature. They are my sovereigns. They are my friends and relations. I have served them for many years, and never have found reason for the slightest complaint."

The princess could no longer articulate. She fell into the arms of her attendant. The fatal signal was pronounced. She recovered, and, crossing the court of the prison, which was bathed with the blood of mutilated victims, involuntarily exclaimed, "Gracious heaven! What a sight is this!" and fell into a fit.

'Nearest to her in the mob stood a mulatto, whom she had caused to be baptized, educated, and maintained; but whom, for ill conduct, she had latterly excluded from her presence. This miscreant struck at her with his halbert. The blow removed her cap. Her luxuriant hair (as if to hide her angelic beauty from the sight of the murderers, pressing tigerlike around to pollute that form, the virtues of which equalled its physical perfection), her luxuriant hair fell around and veiled her a moment from view. An individual, to whom I was nearly allied, seeing the miscreants somewhat staggered, sprang forward to the rescue; but the mulatto wounded him. The princess was lost to all feeling, from the moment the monster first struck at her. But the demons would not quit their prey. She expired gashed with wounds.'-Vol. ii. pp. 340-341.

We can go no farther. The remainder of the scene is too dreadful to be transferred to these pages. The manner in which her head was carried about Paris, the pollution of her body, and the cruelty which left it to perish by putrefaction, amid a heap of other carcases, betray the rage not of men, not even of savages, but of demons; and the person who records these foul deeds, must have been more than woman to have held the pen while it traced such a climax as this of iniquity, atrocity, and madness!

We trust that in this, and in some other parts of her labour, Madame Solalle has made use of some other hand than her own, for many expressions, and not a few anecdotes, startled us, as coming from a lady of rank,' which delicacy forbids us to specify more part ticularly. They are the more remarkable, as they form so decided a contrast with the tone of purity and elegance, which pervades the whole of the Princess Lamballe's journal. Some of the editor's remarks on Madame Campan are harsh and flippant, to say the least of them. In the next edition we would recommend her to disencumber her volumes of these unseemly passages. She also speaks very strongly against Madame de Genlis, without adducing a single fact to sustain her invective. In other respects she has, however, discharged her pious duty to her patroness with fidelity. The Journal, which was originally written in Italian, she has translated so well, that it is difficult to trace in it a single idiom foreign to our own language. She takes her rank, we' understand, from her union with an Italian marquis.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

ART. X. Remarks on the supposed Dionysius Longinus; with an attempt to restore the Treatise on Sublimity to its original state. Payne and Foss. London. 1826.

[ocr errors]

THE celebrated Treatise on Sublimity is not the only classical work that ῖς ἀδέσποτος. The Latin history of Alexander is commonly ascribed to Quintus Curtius, but who was Quintus Curtius? The dialogue De Causis Corruptæ Eloquentiæ goes with the works of Tacitus; but who wrote it? So of many other pieces, especially the dona Musarum. Rhesus was long thought to be the property of Euripides, but his title had a flaw in it, and now the estate is without an owner. The Hymns and Batrachomyomachia no more belong to Homer than they belong to King David, and even Homer himself is a sort of stat nominis umbra.

It is not an unamusing sort of employment to try to make out and ascertain the true owners of these literary waifs and strays. There is a kind of honesty too in contributing our endeavours towards "getting the man his mare again," and of benevolence in aiding to put the said mare in her former plight and condition. All these estimable qualities have been displayed by the present writer.

The secretary of Zenobia was long the undisturbed owner of this fine piece of criticism, till Amati started some doubts as to his right to the title, and his example has been followed by the learned Weiske, the latest editor of Longinus, and by the author of the essay now under consideration.

It is strange to see on what slight grounds the scholars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries disposed of literary property. In the Parisian, which is the oldest and best MS. according to the critics, the work is entitled Διονυσίου Λογγίνου περὶ ὕψους; but in the index, which is written in the same hand as the rest of the MS. (which MS. contains, besides, the Problems of Aristotle) it is styled Διονυσίου ή Λογγίνου περὶ ὕψους. The Codex Vaticanus,

which is styled by Amati præstantissimus, gives the author's name in the latter form, and in the MS. Bibliot. Laur. the inscription is Avúμou wegÌ ↓ous, and these are the premises from which it has been inferred that the Treatise on Sublimity was written by Zenobia's secretary, and also that his name was Dionysius Longinus.

Such premises any one may see are too slight to found any reasonable hypothesis on. Accordingly, Amati, Weiske, and the present author, reasoning from the work itself, refer it to the Augustan age, but who the real author was none of them can confidently say. Cassius Longinus, the friend of Antony the orator, is the only celebrated character of the name about that period, but he lived before the time of Augustus, and he`certainly could never have written the comparison between Cicero and Demosthenes, he was evidently, therefore, not the author.

In the case of Zenobia's secretary, the external evidence rests entirely on the MSS. (and we have seen the strength of it), for in the list of his works given by Ruhnken, from Suidas and others, there is no mention made of the Treatise on Sublimity, neither is it mentioned by any ancient author, and his fame seems to rest on the hyperbolical praises of Porphyry

and Eunapius. But of internal evidence there is still less. The author begins by reminding his friend, of their having read over together the treatise of Caecilius on the Sublime. Now Caecilius flourished in the time of Augustus, and Longinus nearly three centuries later. It would be rather strange to see a critic of the present day going about to supply the deficiency of Sydney or Pattenham, or any other critic of Elizabeth's times, and say nothing of the various eminent ones who have written şince. Yet such must have been the conduct of Zenobia's Longinus, if he wrote the work, for no notice whatever is taken in it of the critical essays of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and other grammarians. In the 39th section, the author says, he had already treated of the arrangements of words, and at the end of the 44th, that he had promised to write on figures; but no such treatises occur in the list of the works of Longinus. Again, the historical allusions suit not the time of Longinus, or his character and situation. In the 7th section we are told it is noble to despise riches, a sentiment, says our author, much better suited to a stern and disappointed republican, than to Zenobia's secretary. This is a weak argument, however. Who is more eloquent on such a subject than Seneca? Again, in sect. 44, T5 Tv pihópv is introduced, wondering that while their age produced very eloquent men, and men who excelled in the lighter kinds of composition, there should be none or few of a truly sublime and lofty genius. This dearth of talent the author, in his reply, ascribes to the peaceable state of the world, and the prevalence of luxury. Now let any one turn to Gibbon, and read the state of the world from A.D. 243 to 273, the last twenty years of the life of Longinus, and he will be perhaps a little puzzled to find out this profound tranquillity or unbridled luxury.

Our author's conclusion therefore is, that neither Longinus nor any of his contemporaries, but some writer of the Augustan age, was the author of this treatise, for every circumstance that militates against the one period, is in favour of the other. All that remains is to ascertain who the author was. Amati thinks he may have been Dionysius of Hallicarnassus; but we agree with the present author in thinking that internal evidence is decidedly against this supposition. Whoever he was, he was a pitch above the man of Halicarnassus. We farther coincide in thinking ing that the Codex Laurentinus was right, and that the author is an

ἀνώνυμος.

Our author's hypothesis is, that it is the work of some one strongly imbued with republican principles, and that it was written shortly after the accession of Augustus, that it was not published, being only written confidentially to a friend, as the quotations are given carelessly and from memory, and there is a fairness and candour in it with respect to the literature of other nations, not to be found in Greek authors. Such are the candid comparison between Cicero and Demosthenes, and the acknowledgment of the sublimity of the Jewish Scriptures. We may here observe that the supposition of its having been written in the early part of the reign of Augustus, is strengthened by the circumstance of no notice having been taken of Virgil, which would hardly have been the case if his poem had been in existence at the time the treatise was written.

Our author is farther of opinion, that the work has been interpolated,

« ElőzőTovább »