was a man unique in the excellent pieces that he has left us. They are very numerous, and are in the mouths of all those who have been respectably brought up: they contribute even to their education. They will descend to posterity: they are adapted for all men and all times, while those of Boileau suit only men of letters.

Of those Fanatics who would suppress the Ancient Fables.

There is, among those whom we call jansenists, a little sect of hard and empty heads, who would suppress the beautiful fables of antiquity, to substitute St. Prosper in the place of Ovid, and Santeuil in that of Horace. If they were attended to, our pictures would no longer represent Iris on the rainbow, or Minerva with her ægis; but instead of them we should have Nicholas and Arnauld fighting against the jesuits and protestants; Mademoiselle Perrier cured of sore eyes by a thorn from the crown of Jesus Christ, brought from Jerusalem to Port Royal; counsellor Carré de Montgeron presenting the account of St. Medard to Louis XV. and St. Ovid resuscitating little boys.

In the eyes of these austere sages, Fenelon was only an idolater, who, following the example of the impious poem of the Eneid, introduced the child Cupid with the nymph Eucharis.

Pluche, at the end of his fable of the Heaven, entitled their History, writes a long dissertation to prove that it is shameful to have tapestry worked in figures taken from Ovid's Metamorphoses; and that Zephyrus and Flora, Vertumnus and Pomona, should be banished from the gardens of Versailles.* He exhorts the school of belles lettres to oppose itself to this bad taste; which reform alone, he says, is capable of re-establishing the belles-lettres.

Other puritans, more severe than sage, a little time ago, would have proscribed the ancient mythology as

* History of the Heavens, vol. ii. p. 398.

a collection of puerile tales, unworthy the acknowledged gravity of our manners. It would, however, be a pity to burn Ovid, Horace, Hesiod, our fine tapestry pictures, and our opera. If we are spared the familiar stories of Esop, why, lay hands on those sublime fables, which have been respected by mankind, whom they have instructed? They are mingled with many insipidities, no doubt, but what good is without an alloy? All ages will adopt Pandora's box, at the bottom of which was found man's only consolation— hope; Jupiter's two vessels, which unceasingly poured forth good and evil; the cloud embraced by Ixion, which is the emblem and punishment of an ambitious man; and the death of Narcissus, which is the punishment of self-love. What is more sublime than the image of Minerva, the goddess of wisdom, formed in the head of the master of the gods? What is more true and agreeable than the goddess of beauty, always accompanied by the graces. The goddesses of the arts, all daughters of memory-do they not teach us, as well as Locke, that without memory we cannot possess either judgment or wit? The arrows of Love, his fillet, and his childhood; Flora, caressed by Zephyrus, &c. are they not all sensible personifications of pure nature? These fables have survived the religions which consecrated them. The temples of the gods of Egypt, Greece, and Rome, are no more, but Ovid still exists. Objects of credulity may be destroyed, but not those of pleasure; we shall for ever love these true and lively images. Lucretius did not believe in these fabulous gods, but he celebrated nature under the name of Venus.

Alma Venus cœli subter labentia signa

Quæ mare navigerum, quæ terras frugiferentes
Concelebras, per te quoniam genus omne animantum
Concipitur, visitque exortum lumina solis, &c.

Kind Venus, glory of the blest abodes,
Parent of Rome, and joy of men and gods;
Delight of all, comfort of sea and earth,

To whose kind power all creatures owe their birth, &c.

CREECH.

If antiquity, in its obscurity, was led to acknowledge divinity in its images, how is it to be blamed? The productive soul of the world was adored by the sages: it governed the sea under the name of Neptune, the air under the image of Juno, and the country under that of Pan. It was the divinity of armies under the name of Mars: all these attributes were animated personifications. Jupiter was the only god. The golden chain with which he bound the inferior gods and men, was a striking image of the unity of a sovereign being. The people were deceived, but what are the people to us?

It is continually demanded why the Greek and Roman magistrates permitted the divinities whom they adored in their temples to be ridiculed on their stage? This is a false supposition. The gods were not mocked in their theatres, but the follies attributed to these gods by those who had corrupted the ancient mythology. The consuls and prætors found it good to treat the adventure of the two Sosias wittily, but they would not have suffered the worship of Jupiter and Mercury to be attacked before the people. It is thus that a thousand things which appear contradictory are not so in reality. I have seen, in the theatre of a learned and witty nation, pieces taken from the golden Legend: will it, on that account, be said that this nation permits its objects of religion to be insulted? It need not be feared we shall become pagans for having heard the opera of Proserpine at Paris, or for having seen the nuptials of Psyche, painted by Raphael, in the pope's palace at Rome. Fable forms the taste, but renders no person idolatrous.

1

The beautiful fables of antiquity have also this great advantage over history: they are lessons of virtue, while almost all history narrates the success of vice. Jupiter, in the fable, descends upon earth to punish Tantalus and Lycaon; but in history, our Tantaluses and Lycaons are the gods of the earth. Baucis and Philemon had their cabin changed into a temple; our Baucises and Philemons are obliged to sell, for the

collector of the taxes, those kettles which, in Ovid, the gods changed into vases of gold.

I know how much history can instruct us, and how necessary it is to know it; but it requires much ingenuity to be able to draw from it any rules for individual conduct. Those who only know politics through books, will be often reminded of those lines of Corneille, which observe, that examples will seldom suffice for our guidance, as it often happens that one person perishes by the very expedient which has proved the salvation of another.

Les exemples recens suffiraient pour m'instruire
Si par l'exemple seul on devait se conduire ;
Mais souvent l'un se perd où l'autre s'est sauvé,
Et par où l'un périt, un autre est conservé.

Henry VIII. the tyrant of his parliament, his ministers and his wives, of consciences and of purses, lived and died peaceably. Charles I. perished on the scaffold. Margaret of Anjou in vain waged war in person a dozen times with the English, the subjects of her husband, while William III. drove James II. from England without a battle. In our days we have seen the royal family of Persia murdered, and strangers upon the throne. To look at events only, history seems to accuse providence, and fine moral fables justify it. It is clear that both the useful and agreeable may be discovered in them, however exclaimed against by those who are neither the one nor the other. Let them talk on, and let us read Homer and Ovid, as well as Titus Livius and Rapin Thoyras. Taste induces preferences, and fanaticism exclusions. The arts are united, and those who would separate them know nothing about them. History teaches us what we are— fable, what we ought to be.

Tous les arts sont amis, ainsi qu'ils sont divins:
Qui veut les séparer est loin de les connaître.
L'histoire nous apprend ce que sont les humains,
La fable ce qu'ils doivent être.

FACTION.

On the Meaning of the Word.

The word faction comes from the Latin facere; it is employed to signify the state of a soldier at his post, on duty (enfaction) squadrons or troops of combatants in the circus; green, blue, red, and white factions.

The acceptation in which the term is generally used is that of a seditious party in the state. The term party in itself implies nothing that is odious, that of faction is always odious.

A great man, and even a man possessing only mediocrity of talent, may easily have a party at court, in the army, in the city, or in literature.

A man may have a party in consequence of his merit, in consequence of the zeal and number of his friends, without being the head of a party.

Marshal Catinat, although little regarded at court, had a large party in the army without making any effort to obtain it.

A head of a party is always a head of a faction; such were cardinal Retz, Henry duke of Guise, and various others.

A seditious party, while it is yet weak, and has no influence in the government, is only a faction.

Cæsar's faction speedily became a dominant party, which swallowed up the republic.

When the emperor Charles VI. disputed the throne of Spain with Philip V. he had a party in that kingdom, and at length he had no more than a faction in it. Yet we may always be allowed to talk of the "party" of Charles VI.

Des

It is different with respect to private persons. cartes for a long time had a party in France; it would be incorrect to say he had a faction.

Thus we perceive that words in many cases synonymous cease to be so in others.