afterwards a daughter, and then again a son; and it was a type, and that type lasted three years. That is not all; the Lord says in the third chapter, Go and take to thyself a woman who is not merely a harlot, but an adulteress.' Hosea obeyed, but it cost him fifteen crowns and eighteen bushels of barley; for you know, there was very little wheat in the land of promise; but are you aware of the meaning of all this?" "No,"said I to him. "Nor I neither," said the rabbi. A grave person then advanced towards us, and said, they were ingenious fictions, and abounding in exquisite beauty. "Ah sir," remarked a young man, "if you are inclined for fictions, give the preference to those of Homer, Virgil, and Ovid." He who prefers the prophecies of Ezekiel, deserves to breakfast with him.

FABLE.

It is very likely that the more ancient fables, in the style of those attributed to Æsop, were invented by the first subjugated people. Free men would not have had occasion to disguise the truth: a tyrant can scarcely be spoken to except in parables; and at present, even this is a dangerous liberty.

It might also very well happen, that men naturally liking images and tales, ingenious persons amused themselves with composing them, without any other motive. However that may be, fable is more ancient than history.

Among the Jews, who are quite a modern people in comparison with the Chaldeans and Tyrians their neighbours, but very ancient by their own accounts, fables, very similar to those of Esop, existed in the time of the Judges, 1233 years before our era, if we may depend upon received computations.

It is proved that the Hebrews did not arrive in Palestine until Canaan had already several cities: Tyre, Sidon, and Berith, flourished. It is said that Joshua destroyed Jericho, and the city of letters, archives, and schools called Cariat Sepher. The Jews were therefore barbarians only, who carried their ravages among a comparatively polished people.

It is said, in the book of Judges, that Gideon had seventy sons born of his many wives; and that, by a concubine, he had another son named Abimelech.

Now, this Abimelech slew sixty-nine of his brethren upon one stone, according to Jewish custom, and, in consequence, the Jews, full of respect and admiration, went to crown him king, under an oak near Millo, a city which is but very little known in history.

Jotham alone, the youngest of the brothers, escaped the carnage (as it always happens in ancient histories) and harangued the Israelites, telling them that the trees went one day to chuse a king; we do not well see how they could march, but if they were able to speak, they might just as well be able to walk. They first addressed themselves to the olive, saying, " Reign thou over us. The olive replied, "I will not quit the care of my oil to be promoted over you." The fig-tree said that he liked his figs better than the trouble of the supreme power. The vine gave the preference to its grapes. At last, the trees addressed themselves to the bramble, which answered: "If in truth ye anoint one king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow; and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon."

It is true, that this fable falsifies throughout, because fire cannot come from a bramble, but it shows. the antiquity of the use of fables.

That of the belly and the members, which calmed a tumult in Rome about two thousand three hundred years ago, is ingenious, and without fault. The more ancient the fables, the more allegorical they were.

Is not the ancient fable of Venus, as related by Hesiod, entirely a fable of nature? This Venus is the goddess of beauty. Beauty ceases to be lovely, if unaccompanied by the graces. Beauty produces love. Love has features which pierce all hearts: he wears a bandage, which conceals the faults of those beloved. He has wings he comes quickly, and flies away the

same.

Wisdom is conceived in the brain of the chief of the

VOL. III.

gods, under the name of Minerva. The soul of man is a divine fire, which Minerva shows to Prometheus, who makes use of this divine fire to animate mankind.

It is impossible, in these fables, not to recognise a lively picture of pure nature. Most other fables are either corruptions of ancient histories, or the caprices of the imagination. It is with ancient fables as with our modern tales; some convey charming morals, and others very insipid ones.

The ingenious fables of the ancients have been grossly imitated by an unenlightened race-witness those of Bacchus, Hercules, Prometheus, Pandora, and many others, which were the amusement of the ancient world. The barbarians, who confusedly heard them spoken of, adopted them into their own savage mythology, and afterwards it is pretended that they invented them. Alas! poor unknown and ignorant people, who knew no art either useful or agreeable to whom even the name of geometry was unknown-dare you say that you have invented any thing? You have not known either how to discover truth, or to lie adroitly.

The most elegant Greek fable was that of Psyche; the most pleasant, that of the Ephesian matron. The prettiest among the moderns is that of folly, who, having put out love's eyes, is condemned to be his guide.

The fables attributed to Esop are all emblems; instructions to the weak, to guard them as much as possible against the snares of the strong. All nations, possessing a little wisdom, have adopted them. La Fontaine has treated them with the most elegance. About eighty of them are master-pieces of simplicity, grace, finesse, and sometimes even of poetry. It is one of the advantages of the age of Louis XIV. to have produced a La Fontaine. He has so well discovered, almost without seeking it, the art of making one read, that he has had a greater reputation in France than genius itself.

Boileau has never reckoned him among those who did honour to the great age of Louis XIV. his reason or his pretext was, that he had never invented anything. What will better bear out Boileau is, the great number of errors in language and the incorrectness of style, faults which La Fontaine might have avoided, and which this severe critic could not pardon. His grasshopper, for instance; who having sang all the summer, went to beg from the ant her neighbour in the winter, telling her, on the word of an animal, that she would pay her principal and interest before Midsummer. To whom the ant replies: "You sang, did you; I am glad of it; then now dance."

His astrologer, again, who falling into a ditch while gazing at the stars, was asked: "Poor wretch, do you expect to be able to read things so much above you!" Yet Copernicus, Galileo, Cassini, and Halley, have read the heavens very well; and the best astronomer that ever existed might fall into a ditch without being a poor wretch.

Judicial astrology is indeed a very ridiculous charlatanism, but the ridiculousness does not consist in regarding the heavens: it consists in believing, or in making believe, that you read what is not there. Several of these fables, either ill chosen or badly written, certainly merit the censure of Boileau.

Nothing is more insipid than the fable of the drowned woman, whose corpse was sought contrary to the course of the river, because in her life-time she had always been contradictory.

The tribute sent by the animals to king Alexander is a fable, which is not the better for being ancient. The animals sent no money, neither did the lion advise them to steal it.

The satyr who received a peasant into his hut should not have turned him out on seeing that he blew his fingers because he was cold; and afterwards, on taking the dish between his teeth, that he blew his pottage because it was hot. The man was quite right, and the satyr was a fool. Besides, we do not take hold of dishes with our teeth.

The crab-mother, who reproached her daughter with not walking strait; and the daughter, who answered that her mother walked crooked, is not an agreeable fable.

The bush and the duck, in commercial partnership with the bat, having counters, factors, agents, paying principal and interest, &c. has neither truth, nature, nor any kind of merit.

A bush, which goes with a bat into foreign countries to trade, is one of those cold and unnatural inventions, which La Fontaine should not have adopted. A house full of dogs and cats living together like cousins. and quarrelling for a dish of pottage, seems also very unworthy of a man of taste.

The chattering magpie is still worse. The eagle tells her that he declines her company because she talks too much. On which La Fontaine remarks that it is necessary, at court, to wear two faces.

Where is the merit of the fable of the kite presented by a bird-catcher to a king, whose nose he had seized with his claws?

The ape who married a Parisian girl, and beat her, is an unfortunate story, presented to La Fontaine, and which he has been so unfortunate as to put into verse.

Such fables as these, and some others, may doubtless justify Boileau: it might even happen that La Fontaine could not distinguish the bad fables from the good.

Madame de la Sablière called La Fontaine a fabulist, who bore fables as naturally as a plum-tree bears plums. It is true that he had only one style, and that he wrote an opera in the style of his fables.

Notwithstanding all this, Boileau should have rendered justice to the singular merit of the good man, as he calls him; and to the public, who are right in being enchanted with the style of many of his fables.

La Fontaine was not an original or a sublime writer, a man of established taste, or one of the first geniuses of a brilliant era; and it is a very remarkable fault in him, that he speaks not his own language correctly. He is in this respect very inferior to Phædrus, but he