seemed to be a continuation of, and as it were united with, the principle of the heart. - From Noctes Atticæ.

THE LOVE OF ARTEMISIA.

Artemisia is related to have loved her husband Mausolus beyond all the stories of amorous affection, nay beyond the limits of human attachment. Mausolus, according to Cicero, was King of Caria, or, as some Greek historians relate, he was the governor of a Grecian province, whom the Greeks call a satrap. When this Mausolus died, and was entombed with a magnificent funeral, amidst the tears and lamentations of his wife, Artemisia, inflamed with grief and regreat for the loss of her husband, had his bones and ashes mixed with spices, and beaten to powder; she then infused them into water, and drank them off; and is said to have exhibited many other proofs of her violent love. She erected, at a vast expense of labor, for the sake of preserving the memory of her husband, that very celebrated monument which has been thought worthy to be admitted among the seven wonders of the world. When Artemisia consecrated this monument to the memory of her husband, she instituted likewise a literary contest in his honor, and appointed pecuniary rewards and most munificent presents; and to the celebration of these praises men are said to have come, of illustrious talents and distinguished oratory.-Translation of W. GELOE.

ENLIS, STÉPHANIE FÉLICITÉ Ducrest de COMTESSE DE, a French educator and essayist; born near Autun, Burgundy, January 25, 1746; died at Paris, December 31, 1830. She had a remarkable talent for music, played several instruments, had a fine voice, and a natural facility for versemaking. Her father died, leaving his wife and daugh

ter in poverty, and the Comte de Genlis married the daughter, then scarcely seventeen years old. In 1770 she was appointed governess of the twin daughters of the Duchess de Chartres, and in 1782 governess of the three sons of the Duke de Chartres, the eldest of whom was afterward King Louis Philippe. In the year of her appointment she published Adèle et Théodore, or Letters on Education. Other educational works are Théâtre d'Education; Annales de la Vertu; Les Viellés du Château. In 1787 she published La Religion considerée comme l'unique base du Bonheur et de la véritable Philosophie. During the Revolution she was obliged to emigrate, and took up her abode in Switzerland, where she wrote Précis de la Conduite de Madame de Genlis pendant la Revolution to clear herself from some of the accusations against her. She was expelled by the King of Prussia from his territory, and wandered from place to place, but returned under his successor. During this period she wrote Les Mères Rivales; Les Petits Emigrés, and other works. In 1800 she returned to France, was well received by Napoleon, and was given apartments and a pension. She now busied herself with literary work, and twice a week wrote to Napoleon her Observations on Politics, Finance, Literature, and Morals. The Emperor's favor came to an end when she published the life of Henri le Grand, and he deprived her of her apartments and her pension. On the return of the Bourbons she again received a small pension. She continued to write during the remainder of her life. Among her works not previously mentioned are La Vie Pénitente de la Vallière; Souvenirs de Félicie; Souvenirs de Mademoiselle de Clermont; her best work; Les Vaux Téméraires; Al

phonse; Jeanne de France; and her Mémoires, which she completed after she was eighty years of age.

FRENCH SOCIETY IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.

At this period [about 1779] grand recollections and recent traditions still maintained in France good principles, sound ideas, and national virtues, already somewhat weakened by pernicious writings, and a reign full of faults; but in the city and at court, there were still found that refined taste, and that exquisite politeness, of which every Frenchman had a right to be proud, since throughout all Europe it was universally held to be the most perfect model of grace, elegance and dignity. Several ladies, and some few great lords, were then met with in society, who had seen Louis XIV., and they were respected as the wrecks of a great age. Youth became restrained in their company, and naturally became silent, modest, and attentive; they were listened to with profound interest, for they seemed to be the organs of history. They were consulted concerning etiquette and the usages of society; their suffrage was of the utmost importance to those who were entering into public life; in a word, contemporaries of so many great men of all kinds, these venerable characters seemed placed in society to maintain the ancient feelings of politeness, glory and patriotism, or at least, to delay their melancholy decline. But in a short time the influence of these feelings scarcely appeared except in an elevated style, in a simple theory of delicate and generous conduct. Virtue was retained only from the remains of good taste, which still held in esteem its language and appearance. Every one, to conceal his own way of thinking, became stricter in observing the bienseancs; the most refined ideas were sported in conversation concerning delicacy, greatness of mind, and the duties of friendship; and even chimerical virtues were fancied, which was easy enough, considering that the happy agreement of conversation and conduct did not exist. But hypocrisy always betrays itself by exaggeration, for it never knows when to stop; false sensibility has no shades, never employs any but

the strongest colors, and heaps them on with the most ridiculous prodigality.

There now appeared in society a very numerous party of both sexes, who declared themselves the partisans and depositories of the old traditions respecting taste, etiquette, and morals themselves, which they boasted of having brought to perfection; they declared themselves supreme arbiters of all the proprieties of social life, and claimed for themselves exclusively the high-sounding appellation of "good company." Every person of bad ton or licentious notoriety was excluded from the society; but to be admitted, neither a spotless character nor eminent merit was necessary. Infidels, devotees, prudes, and women of light conduct were indiscriminately received. The only qualifications necessary were bon ton, dignified manners, and a certain respect in society, acquired by rank, birth, and credit at court, or by display, mildness, and elevated sentiments. Thus good taste of itself taught them that to dazzle and fascinate, it was necessary to borrow all the forms of the most amiable virtues. Politeness, in these assemblies, had all the ease and grace which it can derive from early habit and delicacy of mind; slander was banished from the public parties, for its keenness could not have been well combined with the charm of mildness that each person brought into the general store. Discussion never degenerated into personal dispute. There existed in all their perfection the art of praising without insipidity and without pedantry, and of replying to it without either wealth, talent, or personal accomplishments.

The usurping and arrogant circle I have just mentioned, that society so contemptuous to every other, roused up against itself a host of enemies; but as it received among its members every man of well known merit, or of high fashion from his rank or situation, the enmity it inspired was evidently the effect of envy, only gave it more éclat, and the unanimous voice of the public designated it by the title of the "Grand Society," which it retained till the revolution. This did not mean that it was the most numerous, but that, in the general opinion, it was the most choice and brilliant by the rank,

personal estimation, ton and manners of those who composed it. There, in the parties too numerous to claim confidence, and at the same time not sufficiently so to prevent conversation - there, in parties of fifteen or twenty individuals, were, in fact, united all the ancient French politeness and grace. All the means of pleasing and fascinating were combined with infinite skill. They felt that to distinguish themselves from low company and ordinary society, it was necessary that they should preserve the tone and manners that were the best indications of modesty, good-nature, indulgence, decency, accepting or despising it; of showing off the good qualities of others without seeming to protect them, and of listening with obliging attention. If all these appearances had been founded on moral feeling, we should have seen the golden age of civilization. Was it hypocrisy? No- it was the external coat of ancient manners preserved by habit and good taste, which always survive the principles that produced them; but which, having no longer any solid basis, gradually loses its original beauties, and is finally destroyed by the inroads of refinement and exaggeration.

In the less numerous circles of the same society, much less caution was observed, and the ton, still strictly decorous, was much more piquant. No one's honor was attacked, for delicacy always prevailed; yet under the deceitful veils of secrecy, thoughtlessness, and absence of mind, slander might go on without offence. The most pointed arrows of malice were not excluded, provided they were skilfully aimed, and without any apparent illwill on the part of the speaker; for no one could speak of his avowed enemies. To amuse themselves with slander, it required to arise from an unsuspected source, and to be credible in its details. Even in the private parties of the society, malignity always paid respect to the ties of blood, friendship, gratitude, and intimate acquaintance; but beyond that, all other might be sacrificed without mercy. I must add that in the most private of the coteries, it was requisite that the scandal should be as it were divided; for any one person who should have undertaken to retail it would have soon become odious. It was also necessary, even in the commerce