Transcriber’s Note:

New original cover art included with this eBook is granted to the public domain.

BLACKWOOD’S
EDINBURGH MAGAZINE.
No. CCCCLX.      FEBRUARY, 1854.      Vol. LXXV.

CONTENTS.

EDINBURGH:

WILLIAM BLACKWOOD & SONS, 45 GEORGE STREET,

AND 37 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON;

To whom all communications (post paid) must be addressed.

SOLD BY ALL THE BOOKSELLERS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.

PRINTED BY WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS, EDINBURGH.

BLACKWOOD’S

EDINBURGH MAGAZINE.

No. CCCCLX.      FEBRUARY, 1854.      Vol. LXXV.

ABYSSINIAN ABERRATIONS.[^[1]]

Locomotion, profitless and often aimless, is, in the opinion of Continentals, a condition of an Englishman’s existence. Provided with a dressing-case that would contain a Frenchman’s entire wardrobe, and with a hat-box full of pills “to be taken at bedtime,” every son of Albion is supposed to perform, at some period of his life, a distant journey, with the sole apparent object of acquiring a right to say that he has been “there and back again.” An Englishman, in the opinion of Europe, would be a miserable being, had he not continually present to his mind the recollection or the anticipation of a journey to the uttermost parts of the earth—to the North Pole or the South Seas, to the feverish heart of Africa or the scarcely less perilous wastes of Tartary. That opinion will be strongly confirmed by the peregrinations of Mansfield Parkyns.

There can be no reasonable doubt that when the handsome volumes, full of amusing letter-press and neat sketches, and externally decorated with a chubby and Oriental St George spearing a golden dragon, with bossy shields and carved scimitars, and lion’s mane and tail, which Mr Murray has just published, shall have been as generally read as they deserve to be, the tide of enterprising travel will set strongly in the direction of Abyssinia. Everybody will take wing for the land of the Shohos and Boghos; African outfits will be in perpetual demand; sanguine railway projectors will discuss the feasibility of a “Grand Cairo and Addy Abo Direct” line. Mr Parkyns tells us, in his preliminary pages, that he shall estimate the success of his book, not by his friends’ flatteries or his reviewers’ verdict, but by its sale. Sale!—why, it will sell by thousands, in an abridged form, with a red cover, as the “Handbook for Abyssinia.” Persons starting for those parts will ask for Parkyns’ Handbook, just as tenderer tourists, who content themselves with an amble through Andalusia, inquire for Ford’s. That many such starts will be made, we cannot doubt, after reading the book in which are so vividly described the charms of the pleasant land of Tigrè, the delights of the journey thither, and of the abode there. Never was anything so tempting. The mere introduction makes us impatient to be off. Mr Parkyns is resolved to lure his readers, in his very first chapter, not only to read his book, but to roam in his footsteps. Werne’s Campaign in Taka gave us some idea of the advantages enjoyed by those privileged mortals to whom it is given to ramble between the Blue Nile and the Red Sea; but the German’s narrative, which we thought striking and startling enough when we read it, is thrown into the shade by the vivid and lively delineations of the friend and comrade of Prince Shetou. The sanitary, dietetic, and surgical instructions, with which, for the benefit of future travellers in Abyssinia, he preludes his subject, would alone suffice to inspire us with an ardent longing to pass a season in the delightful regions where they are applicable. The preservation of health, he justly observes, should be every traveller’s chief care, since, without it, pleasure or profit from the journey is alike impossible. Then he proceeds to point out the chief dangers to health in Abyssinia, and the means of warding them off. The highlands, he tells us, are highly salubrious, but unfortunately one cannot always abide upon the hills; and down in the valleys malaria prevails, engendering terrible inflammatory fevers, to which four patients out of five succumb, the fifth having his constitution impaired for life, or at least for many years. Parkyns points out a preservative. Light two large fires and sleep between them. They must be so close together that you are obliged to cover yourself with a piece of hide to avoid ignition of your clothes. “Not very agreeable till you are used to it,” says the cool Parkyns, “but a capital preventive of disease. Another plan, always adopted by the natives, is not, I think, a bad one:—Roll your head completely up in your cloth, which then acts as a respirator. You may often see a nigger lying asleep with the whole of his body uncovered, but his head and face completely concealed in many folds”;—a sort of woodcocking which may be pleasant, but can hardly be considered picturesque. Tobacco is indispensable; in that country you must smoke abundantly. On the White Nile no negro is ever without his pipe, which sometimes holds a pound of tobacco. “The largest I now possess,” says Parkyns, somewhat dolefully, “would not contain much more than a quarter of that quantity.” The sun, generally considered formidable to travellers in Africa, is disregarded by him to whom we now give ear. “I never retired into the shade to avoid the noonday heat; and for four years I never wore any covering to my head except the rather scanty allowance of hair with which nature has supplied me, with the addition occasionally of a little butter. During the whole of that time I never had a headache”;—an immunity we are disposed to attribute less to the sun’s forbearance than to some peculiar solidity in the cranium of Parkyns. “In these climates,” he next informs us, “a man cannot eat much, or, even if he could, he ought not.” This probably applies exclusively to foreigners, for we are afterwards introduced to native dinners, where the gormandising surpassed belief, and yet none of the guests were a pin the worse. Indeed, in the course of the book, the Abyssinians are invariably represented as enormous feeders, capable of demolishing four or five pounds of meat, more or less, raw, as one day’s ration, and without ill effects. As long as you are moderate in quantity, the quality of what you eat is evidently unimportant in a sanitary point of view. “A man who cares a straw about what he eats should never attempt to travel in Africa. It is not sufficient to say, ‘I can eat anything that is clean and wholesome.’ You will often have to eat things that are far from being either, especially the former. I have eaten of almost every living thing that walketh, flyeth, or creepeth—lion, leopard, wolf, cat, hawk, crocodile, snake, lizard, locust, &c.; and I should be sorry to say what dirty messes I have at times been obliged to put up with.” As general rules for the preservation of health, we are instructed to avoid bad localities—the valleys, especially after the rainy season, when the sun pumps up malaria from stagnant pools and decayed vegetable matter—to be abstemious in all respects, and to follow the native customs with respect to food, injunctions which appear difficult to reconcile. Should all precautions prove ineffectual, and fever or other ills assail us, kind, considerate Parkyns, who himself, he tells us, has some knowledge of the healing art, instructs us what to do. “Local bleedings, such as the natives practise, are often highly advantageous; and firing with a hot iron may also be adopted at their recommendation. For severe inflammation of the bowels, when you cannot bear to be touched on the part, some boiling water poured on it will be a ready and effective blister,—a wet rag being wrapped round in a ring to confine the water within the intended limits. For bad snake-bites or scorpion stings, bind above the part as tightly as possible, and cut away with a knife; then apply the end of an iron ramrod, heated to white heat. This, of course, I mean supposing you to be in the backwoods, out of the reach of medicines. Aquafortis is, I have heard, better than the hot iron, as it eats farther in.” Actual cautery, boiling-water blisters, and “cutting away” really compose a very pretty basis for a surgical system. Professor Parkyns gives but few prescriptions, supposing, he says, that few of his readers would care to have more, or be likely to profit by them. Judging from the above sample, we are inclined to coincide in his supposition.

Mr Mansfield Parkyns is an amateur barbarian. Leaving England when a very young man, he plunged, after some previous rambling in Europe and Asia Minor, into the heart of Abyssinia, and adopted savage life with an earnestness and gusto sufficiently proved by his book, and by the regret with which he still, after three years’ return to what poor Ruxton called “civilised fixings,” speaks of his abode in the wigwams of Ethiopia, and of his hankerings—not after the flesh-pots of Egypt, but—after the ghee-pots and uncooked beef he so long throve upon in the dominions of the great Oubi, Viceroy of Tigrè. Fancy a civilised Englishman, gently nurtured and educated, pitching his tent for three years amongst filthy savages, adopting their dress and usages, rubbing his head with butter, sleeping with the but of his rifle for a pillow—the grease from his plaited locks being “beneficially employed in toughening the wood”—having himself partially tattooed, eating raw beef, substituting raw sheep’s liver soused in vinegar for oysters, discarding hats and shoes, and going bareheaded and barefoot under the broiling sun and over the roadless wastes of Abyssinia, burning and gashing his flesh in order to produce peculiar scars and protuberances, deemed ornamental by the people amongst whom he dwelt, and, upon his return home (to England, we mean to say, for the home of his predilection is amongst the savoury savages he so reluctantly left, and amongst whom he evidently considers himself naturalised), coolly writing down and publishing his confessions—in most amusing style, we freely admit, but not without a slight dash of self-complacency, as if he would say, See what a fine fellow I am to have thus converted myself into a greasy, shoeless, raw-beef-eating savage for a term of years! We have nothing in the world, however, to do with Mr Parkyns’ peculiar predilections. This is a free country—as the Yankee observed when flogging his nigger—whose natives have a perfect right to exhibit themselves in any character they please, from an Objibbeway to an alabaster statue, so long as they do not outrage decency, or otherwise transgress the law. For our part, we should have been sincerely sorry if Mr Parkyns had not en-cannibaled himself, and told us how he did it. We should have been deprived of two of the most extraordinary, original, and amusing volumes through which we ever passed our paper-knife. We accept the book, and are grateful for it. With the author’s tastes, depraved though we cannot but consider them, we purpose not to meddle. Men of his stamp should be prized, like black diamonds, by reason of their rarity. We are much mistaken, or Mr Parkyns will be the cynosure of all eyes during the approaching spring—particularly if he condescends occasionally to exhibit his tattooed arm, and to bolt a raw beef-steak. Gordon Cumming, on his return from his South-African slaughterings, was the lion of the London season; Mansfield Parkyns will receive much less than his due if he be not made its hippopotamus.

Mr Parkyns started from Smyrna for a tour of the Nile, in company with the poetical member for Pontefract, Mr Monckton Milnes, then pondering his “Palm Leaves.” Of the Nile tour, so repeatedly made and so well described by others, he abstains from speaking, in order the sooner to get to Abyssinia. After an agreeable boat voyage of two months’ duration, he parted from his companion at Cairo. Mr Milnes must surely have regretted quitting so lively and intrepid a fellow-traveller, and Mr Parkyns, we cannot doubt, equally deplored their separation. The cool of the evening would have been so pleasant in the desert. But parliamentary duties summoned one of the travellers northwards; the Wander-trieb, the vagabond instinct, impelled the other southwards, and so they parted. A double-barrelled gun, a single rifle, a brace of double pistols, and a bowie-knife, composed Mr Parkyns’ travelling arsenal; he also took with him three pair of common pistols, a dozen light cavalry sword-blades, some red cloth, white muslin, and Turkey rugs, as presents for Abyssinian chiefs, and in March 1843 he sailed from Suez for Jedda, on board a miserable Arab boat, loaded with empty rice-bags and a hundred passengers. The throng was too great to be agreeable, but Mr Parkyns, who has evidently a happy temper and a knack at making himself popular amongst all manner of queer people, was soon on most friendly terms with the Turks, Bedouins, Egyptians, Negroes, and others who composed the living freight of the clumsy lateen-rigged craft. The voyage from Suez to Jedda varies from nine days to three months. Mr Parkyns was so fortunate as to accomplish it in little more than three weeks. We pass over its incidents, which amused us when we first read them, but which have lost their piquancy now that we recur to them with the highly-spiced flavour of the Abyssinian adventures hot upon our palate, and we go on at once to Massawa Island, on the Abyssinian coast, whose climate may be estimated from the remark made by an officer of the Indian navy to Mr Parkyns, to the effect that he thought Pondicherry the hottest place in India, but that Pondicherry was nothing to Aden, and Aden a mere trifle to Massawa. “Towards the latter end of May I have known the thermometer rise to about 120° Fahrenheit in the shade, and in July and August it ranges much higher.” Indoors, the natives, men and women, wear nothing but striped cotton napkins round their loins. Most Europeans suffer severely from the heat of the place. Mr Parkyns, who is first cousin to a salamander, suffered not at all, but ran about catching insects, or otherwise actively employing himself, whilst his servants lay in the shade, the perspiration streaming off them. He is clearly the very man for the tropics. After ten days at Massawa, he started for the interior, previously getting rid of his heavy baggage, to an extent we should really have thought rather improvident, but which, if he had already made up his mind to content himself with the comforts, and conform to the customs of the people he was going amongst, was doubtless extremely wise. We have enumerated his stock of arms, and his assortment of presents for the natives. The list of his wardrobe, after he had given away his European toggery—partly at Cairo, and partly to Angelo, a Massawa Jew, who made himself useful and agreeable—is very soon made out. When he landed on the mainland, opposite Massawa, it consisted of “three Turkish shirts, three pair of drawers, one suit of Turkish clothes for best occasions, a pair of sandals, and a red cap. From the day I left Suez (25th March 1843), till about the same time in the year 1849, I never wore any article of European dress, nor indeed ever slept in a bed of any sort—not even a mattress; the utmost extent of luxury I enjoyed, even when all but dying of a pestilential fever, that kept me five months on my beam-ends at Khartoum, was a coverlet under a rug. The red cap I wore on leaving Massawa was soon borrowed of me, and the sandals, after a month, were given up; and so, as I have before said in the Introduction, for more than three years (that is, till I reached Khartoum), I wore no covering to my head, except a little butter, when I could get it, nor to my feet, except the horny sole which a few months’ rough usage placed under them.” The sole in question had scarce put its print upon Ethiopian soil when it was near meeting with an accident that would have necessitated the use of the sharp knife and white-hot ramrod. On his way to the house of Hussein Effendi, a government scribe, at the sea-coast village of Moncullou, Mr Parkyns put his bare foot near an object that in the twilight had the appearance of a bit of stick or stone. “I was startled by feeling something cold glide over it, and, turning, saw a small snake wriggling off as quickly as possible. From what little I could distinguish of its form and colour, it seemed to answer the description I had heard of the cerastes, or horned viper, which is about a foot and a half long, rather thick for its length, and of a dirty, dusty colour, mottled. The horns are nearly over the eyes, and about the eighth of an inch in length. This is considered one of the most venomous of the snake tribe, and they are very numerous in this neighbourhood. I tried to kill it, but without success.” He soon came to think very little of such small deer as this. Snakes are as common as rats in those torrid latitudes, and about as little heeded. On his way to the hot springs of Ailat, a day’s journey from Massawa, he killed another horned viper, as it was coolly wriggling across his carpet, “spread in a natural bower formed by the boughs of a species of mimosa, from whose yellow flowers, which emit a delicious fragrance, the Egyptians distil a perfume they call ‘fitneh.’” After this he makes no mention of adventures with snakes on account of their frequency, until he gets to his chapter on the natural history of Abyssinia, towards the close of the second volume, to which we shall hereafter refer. We are at present anxious to get up the country, to the court of King Oubi, whose capital, Adoua, was Mr Parkyns’ headquarters during his residence in Tigrè. There he had what he calls his town-house, of which he presents us with a plan and sketches. He remained for some weeks at Ailat, the Cheltenham of Abyssinia, whose healing springs attract visitors from great distances. There he lodged in the house of a sort of village chief, called Fakak, and passed his time shooting. It was rather an amusing residence, caravans of Bedouins and Shohos frequently passing through on their way to and from Massawa, and he had excellent sport. The evening before starting for Kiaguor, three days’ journey on the road to Adoua,

“I went out to procure a supper for myself and numerous friends and attendants; and, to tantalise my English sporting readers, I will tell them what bag I brought home in little more than an hour. My first shot brought down four guinea-fowl; my second, five ditto; third, a female of the little Ben Israel gazelle; fourth, her male companion; and, fifth, a brace of grouse; so that in five shots I had as good a bag as in England one would get in an average day’s shooting, and after expending half a pound of powder, and a proportionate quantity of shot, caps, and wads. But I feel it my duty to explain that I never shoot flying, considering that unsportsmanlike. A true sportsman shows his skill by getting up to his game unperceived, when, putting the muzzle of his gun as close to the tail-feathers as he possibly can, he blazes away into the thick of the covey, always choosing the direction in which he sees three or four heads picking in a row! At any rate, this is the only way you can shoot in a country where, if you entirely expend your powder and shot, you must starve, or else make more, as I have been obliged to do many a time. I cannot understand how people in Europe can enjoy shooting, where one is dependent on a crowd of keepers, beaters, dogs, sandwiches, grog, &c.... My sole companion on ordinary occasions is a little boy, who carries my rifle, whilst I carry my gun, and we do all the work ourselves. His sharp eyes, better accustomed to the glare than my own, serve me in every point as well as a setter’s nose. The country (about Ailat) is sandy and covered with large bushes. Most of the trees are thorny, being chiefly of the mimosa tribe, and their thorns are of a very formidable description, some of them being about two inches and a half in length, and as thick at the base as a large nail; while another variety, called in Abyssinian the ‘Kantàff-tafa,’ have thin short-curved thorns placed on the shoots two and two together. These catch you like the claws of a hawk, and if they enter your clothes you had better cut off the sprig at once, and carry it with you till you have leisure to liberate yourself, otherwise you will never succeed; for as fast as you loosen one thorn another catches hold.”

Some interesting sporting anecdotes follow (they abound in Mr Parkyns’ book), told in off-hand characteristic style—encounters with wild pigs, rather dangerous animals to deal with—and then we take the road to Kiaguor. A night’s rest there, and we are off to Adoua. Hereabouts Mr Parkyns gives a sketch of “Abyssinian Travelling.” We presume that he himself, somewhat tanned by the climate, is the gentleman mounted on a jackass, with bare head and legs, and a parasol for protection from the sun. Suppress the donkey and supply a parrot, and he might very well pass for the late Mr R. Crusoe.

Vague ideas of columns and obelisks, Moorish architecture and the like, floated in Mr Parkyns’ fancy as he drew near to the capital city of the kingdom of Tigrè, one of the most powerful of all Ethiopia. He found a straggling village of huts, most of them built of rough stones, and thatched with straw. The customhouse—they possess that civilised nuisance even in Abyssinia—gave him trouble about his baggage, which it found exorbitant in quantity, and suspected him of smuggling in goods on account of merchants. He explained that he had a supply of arms, powder, lead, &c., for two or three years’ consumption, besides presents for the prince, but the Tigrè douaniers insisted on examining all his packages. He would not submit, and set off to make an appeal to Oubi—nominally the viceroy, but in reality the sovereign of the country—who was then at a permanent camp, at a place entitled Howzayn. During this part of his travels, Mr Parkyns was in company with Messrs Plowden and Bell; and on reaching Howzayn, which they did in a heavy shower of rain, they went at once to the habitation of Càfty, the steward of Oubi’s household, who had been Mr Bell’s balderàbba on a former visit. “It is customary for every person, whether native or foreigner, after his first audience with the prince, to ask for a ‘balderàbba,’ and one of his officers is usually named. He becomes a sort of agent, and expects you to acknowledge, by presents, any service he may render you—such as assisting you out of difficulties in which you may be involved, or procuring for you admission to his master when you may desire it. Càfty was absent on an expedition. His brother, Negousy, was acting for him, and he volunteered to procure us an audience of the prince without delay.” Meanwhile the travellers were not very comfortable. Some poor fellows were turned out of their huts into the rain to make room for them; but the huts let in water so freely, that the new occupants were scarcely better off than those who had been ejected. Only one hut, about 7 feet in diameter, and 5½ feet high, had a water-tight roof. Imperfect shelter was but one of their annoyances, and a minor one. It is a custom of that country for the king to send food to travellers as soon as he hears of their arrival, and our three Englishmen, aware of this, had brought no provisions. This was unfortunate, for Oubi neglected to observe the hospitable custom, and they were half starved. Instead of obtaining for them an immediate interview with the prince, Negousy, who was fishing for presents, put them off from day to day. They were obliged to send a servant round the camp, crying out, “Who has got bread for money?” and offering an exorbitant price; but even thus they could not obtain a tithe of what they needed. To add to their vexations, Mr Parkyns’ servant, Barnabas, a negro whom he had engaged at Adoua, was claimed as a slave by a man in authority, to whose uncle he had formerly belonged. At last, on the fourth evening after their arrival, Oubi sent them a supper. “It consisted of forty thin cakes, thirty being of coarser quality for the servants, and ten of white ‘teff’ for our own consumption. These were accompanied by two pots of a sort of sauce, composed of common oil, dried pease, and red pepper, but, it being fast time, there was neither meat nor butter. To wash all down there was an enormous horn of honey beer.” On the morning of the sixth day Oubi sent for them, and, escorted by Negousy, they hastened to the Royal Hovel. They had to wait some time for admission, amidst the comments of a crowd of soldiers—comments then unintelligible to Mr Parkyns, but which he afterwards ascertained to be far less complimentary to the personal appearance of himself and companions than he at the time imagined—their eyes being compared to those of cats, their hair to that of monkeys, and their skin, to which the sun had given a bright capsicum hue, being greatly coveted for red morocco sword-sheaths.

Oubi was reclining on a stretcher, in a circular earthen-floored hut, thirty feet in diameter. Although it was the middle of August there was a fire in the apartment, and Mr Parkyns was almost blinded by the wood smoke. When he was able to see, he beheld “a rather good-looking, slight-made man, of about forty-five years of age, with bushy hair, which was fast turning grey. His physiognomy did not at all prepossess me in his favour. It struck me as indicative of much cunning, pride, and falsity; and I judged him to be a man of some talent, but with more of the fox than the lion in his nature. Our presents were brought in, covered with cloths, and carried by our servants. They consisted of a Turkey rug, two European light-cavalry swords, four pieces of muslin for turbans, and two or three yards of red cloth for a cloak. He examined each article as it was presented to him, making on almost every one some complimentary remark. After having inspected them all, he said, ‘God return it to you,’ and ordered his steward to give us a cow.” The cow proved to be what a Far West trapper would call very “poor bull”—a mere bag of bones, which would never have fetched two dollars in the market (the value of a fat cow in Abyssinia varies from 8s. to 12s. 6d.); but, such as it was, the taste of meat was welcome to the hungry travellers, who devoured the beast the same day they received it, so that by nightfall not an eatable morsel was left. Oubi made a better acknowledgment of their gifts by settling their difficulty with the chief of the customhouse, and not long after this Mr Parkyns parted from Messrs Bell and Plowden, their routes no longer lying together. “I prepared for a journey into Addy Abo, a province on the northern frontier of Tigrè, then so little known as not to be placed on any map. My principal object in going there was the chase, and if possible to learn something of the neighbouring Barea or Shangalla—a race totally unknown, except by the reputation they have gained in many throat-cutting visits paid to the Abyssinians.” When recording his parting from his two friends, both of whom he believes to be still in Abyssinia, he intimates his intention of revisiting that country. “It is not improbable,” he says, “that we three may meet again, and do what we have often done before—eat a raw beef-steak, and enjoy it for the sake of good company.”

The road to Addy Abo took Mr Parkyns through Axum, the capital of that part of Abyssinia until supplanted by Adoua. Axum contains a tolerably well-built church, probably of Portuguese construction, and some neatly-built huts, whilst broken columns and pedestals tell of the civilisation of former ages. It possesses, moreover, a beautiful obelisk and a very remarkable sycamore tree, “both of great height, the latter remarkable for the extraordinary circumference of its trunk, and the great spread of its branches, which cast their dark shade over a space of ground sufficient for the camp of the largest caravan. The principal obelisk is carved on the south side, as if to represent a door, windows, cornices, &c.; whilst, under the protecting arms of the venerable tree, stand five or six smaller ones, without ornament, most of which have considerably deviated from the perpendicular. Altogether they form a very interesting family party.” Judging from the present book, antiquarian researches have not much interest for Mr Parkyns, whose sympathies are with the living, his pleasures in the field and forest, and who seems more of a sportsman than of a student. It would be unfair, however, not to mention, that whilst enjoying himself in his own peculiar ways (and some of his ways certainly were extremely peculiar), he kept less selfish aims in view, and exerted himself to make collections of objects of natural history, of costumes, arms, and other curiosities, besides investigating the history and geography of the country. His collections were on a very large scale: unfortunately some went astray upon the road; others, left for years in warehouses, and ill cared for by those to whom they were consigned, were plundered of their most precious specimens. The latter was the case with his first great shipment, of more than twelve hundred birds, sent to England by way of Hamburg. Rats and moths destroyed the contents of another case, left by mistake for four years at Aden; and another, containing arms, silver-mounted ornaments, and zoological specimens, its owner supposes to be either at Bombay, Calcutta, or in some warehouse of the Transit Company in Egypt. These losses are the more to be deplored, that they comprised that of many extremely rare specimens of birds and monkeys, some of them from regions into which it is probable that no European traveller ever before penetrated. To make sure of not losing his collection made in Nubia and on the White Nile, Mr Parkyns himself went out to fetch it, and never lost sight of it till he had it safe at home. It consisted of six hundred birds, and of about a ton weight of negro arms and implements. He was still more unfortunate in geographical than in zoological matters, having lost the whole of the observations, maps, &c. made during his long residence in Tigrè.

The Great Gondar road, along which Mr Parkyns travelled for some distance after quitting Axum, bears about the same resemblance to a civilised European highway that Oubi’s smoky cabin bears to the Louvre or the Escurial. High-roads in Abyssinia are mere tracks worn by passage. “The utmost labour bestowed on any road in that country is, when some traveller, vexed with a thorn that may happen to scratch his face, draws his sword and cuts off the spray. Even this is rarely done. An Abyssinian’s maxim is, ‘I may not pass by this way for a year again; why should I give myself trouble for other people’s convenience?’ The road, however, here as in many parts of Tigrè, is abundantly watered by several tolerably copious streams, which flow all the year round. These are most useful to the numerous merchants who pass constantly between Gondar, Adoua, and the Red Sea, with large caravans of laden animals, offering not only ready means for watering their cattle, but often green food for them near the banks, when all the rest of the country is parched up and dry, and a cool grassy bed for their own weary limbs to repose upon.” Hereupon Mr Parkyns breaks out into rapturous laudation of life in the wilderness, and advises his readers to shoulder their rifles, abandon civilised diggings, and take a few months’ roughing and hardship in a hot climate. Only in such a life, he maintains, is real happiness and enjoyment to be found. His arguments are as original as his book. The principle that he goes upon is, that one enjoys nothing thoroughly until one has suffered from privation of it. Shade, a patch of grass, a stream of water, a cloud, are treasures in Africa, whilst in England they are unheeded, because easily obtainable. A draught of water in the desert, albeit dirty or tar-flavoured, is more precious than the choicest Tokay in epicurean blasé Europe; a piece of scorched gazelle and an ill-baked loaf, made by putting a red-hot stone into the middle of a lump of dough, form a repast more luxurious, when hunger and exercise supply the sauce, than ever was placed before royal gourmet by the most renowned of France’s cooks. There is not much fruit in Abyssinia—but, oh! for a good raw onion for luncheon! Scenting some of those fragrant bulbs, greedy Parkyns, during his residence in the “Happy Valley” of Rohabaita, once ran two miles up a hill, in the heat of the day. How he enjoyed himself in that pleasant province of Rohabaita, hard by the banks of the Mareb, where he abode nine months, and to which he feels disposed to devote many chapters! He had the good fortune, he says, during his long stay, to become considered as one of the country, and to be offered the government of that and another province by H.R.H. Dejatch Lemma, Oubi’s eldest son, who held authority in the north-western districts of Tigrè, but who had been unable to acquire much influence over the Rohabaitese—rough border-men, particularly averse to tax-paying, and who, when pressed for the impost, fled with their movables across the frontier. For, in Abyssinia, inattention to the tax-gatherer’s claim is terribly punished. In the first instance, the offender is subjected to a sort of dragonnade; soldiers are sent to live upon him, waste his substance, and treat him brutally; so that, if he cannot at once borrow money to pay his debt, he is speedily ruined. Another means of extortion is still more barbarous: the insolvent is cast into prison, and chained by the arm. “The iron round his wrist is not clasped, but is merely a strong hoop, opened by force to allow the hand to enter, and then hammered tight between two stones. At first it is only made tight enough to prevent any possibility of the prisoner’s escape. After some time, however, if the sum required be not forthcoming, it is knocked a little tighter, and so, by degrees, the hand dies, the nails drop out, and the poor prisoner is at best maimed for life. Death sometimes ensues from this treatment.” Rather savage work, Mr Parkyns is fain to admit, whilst assuring us that this torture is not often practised, and that his Tigrine friends, with all their faults, have many good qualities. Lofty were the castles he built in Rohabaita (aërial ones, of course, castles of more solid structure being rare in a land whose sovereign is lodged as we have described) whilst waiting for Oubi’s permission, for which Lemma was obliged to apply before installing the Englishman in his government. Besides the payment of a tribute to Lemma, Mr Parkyns undertook to keep in order the neighbouring tribe of the Bàza, whom he more frequently speaks of as the Barea or slaves, that being the name given to them in Abyssinia. He was very desirous to visit that brave and hardy tribe of savages, and had made all his arrangements to do so, when Oubi unfortunately determined on a razzia, in retaliation of numerous recent murders and robberies perpetrated by them in his dominions. In the last of their forays they had pillaged monasteries, and slain their holy occupants, whose blood cried aloud for vengeance. His project of a pacific ramble amongst the Barea being thus knocked on the head, Mr Parkyns hoped that the campaign itself would give him opportunities of obtaining an insight into their manners. He was disappointed. Little or nothing was seen of the natives except at the sword’s point. They appear to be bold and wary warriors, skilled in the stratagems of savage warfare. Mr Parkyns, when at Rohabaita, received a visit and presents from a friend of his, one Obsabius, a hospitable old cock, and man in authority, whom, on his departure, he accompanied for some distance with a small escort, Obsabius, when coming, having seen Barea sign upon the road. He was convinced that the blacks were outlying, and that he had escaped attack only by having joined a number of other travellers.

“Scarcely had we passed the brook of Mai-Chena when one of our men, a hunter, declared that he saw the slaves. Being at that time inexperienced in such matters, I could see nothing suspicious. He then pointed out to me a dead tree standing on an eminence at a distance of several hundred yards, and charred black by last year’s fire. To explain this, I should remark that the rains cause to spring up a thick jungle of grass, canes, and bushes, which cover the whole surface of the country, growing to a height of several feet. When this becomes dry, it is set fire to—in some places by the farmers, as the readiest means of clearing the ground; in others by hunters, to enable them to get at their game with greater facility; and often accidentally.... However, all that I saw was a charred stump of a tree, and a few blackened logs or stones lying at its foot. The hunter declared that neither tree nor stones were there the last time he passed, and that they were simply naked Barea, who had placed themselves in that position to observe us, having no doubt seen us for some time, and prepared themselves.... So confident was I of his mistake, that, telling the rest to go on slowly, as if nothing had been observed, I dropped into the long grass and stalked up towards them. A shot from my rifle, at a long distance (I did not venture too close), acted on the trees and stones as powerfully as the fiddle of Orpheus, but with the contrary effect; for the tree disappeared, and the stones and logs, instead of running after me, ran in the opposite direction. I never was more astonished in my life; for so complete was the deception, that even up to the time I fired, I could have declared the objects before me were vegetable or mineral—anything, indeed, but animal. The cunning rascals who represented stones were lying flat, with their little round shields placed before them as screens.”

The presents brought by the obliging Obsabius were a supply of food—corn and honey—for there was considerable hunger in the Happy Valley just then, the chase being unproductive, and the natives having fled from the apprehension of a tax-gathering visit from the troops of the extortionate Oubi. Abstinence, however, is a good thing in that climate, and Mr Parkyns never felt himself better than during this tolerably long period of semi-starvation. He was never fatigued, and wounds of all kinds healed with wonderful rapidity. He led a rough life in that frontier country, and wounds were common enough. “Once, in running down the stony and almost precipitous path leading to the Mareb, I struck my bare foot against an edge of rock, which was as sharp as a razor, and a bit of flesh, with the whole of the nail of my left foot little toe, was cut off, leaving only the roots of the nail. This latter I suppose to have been the case, for it has grown all right again. I could not stop longer than to polish off the bit which was hanging by a skin, for we were in chase of a party of Barea, who had cut the throats of three of Waddy Hil’s nephews the night before, but was obliged to go on running for about twenty miles that afternoon, the greater part of the way up to our ankles in burning sand. Whether this cured it, I know not, but I scarcely suffered at all from it the next day, and forgot it the day after.” Thorns in the feet—no trifling prickles, but three or four inches long—were picked out by the half-dozen at a time; and such, says Mr Parkyns, is the force of habit and the thickness of skin one acquires, that such an operation is thought no more of than an English sportsman would of kicking away a clod of clay clinging to his shooting-shoes. But to return to the Barea. Oubi remained nearly two months in their country, which he completely traversed—so completely, indeed, as to have unintentionally (?) committed depredations on certain tribes to the north, claimed as tributary by the Egyptians. Although good fighting men, the Bàza have too little idea of united action, and are too ignorant of modern improvements in the art of slaughter, to make head against their Abyssinian enemies when these take the field in force. Their idea of cavalry is very ludicrous. They imagine them to be old or infirm men, carried by horses because they cannot keep up with their comrades on foot! “So in their campaigns, whenever the Bàza are met by cavalry, they amuse themselves at their expense by facetiously plucking handfuls of grass and holding them towards the horses, and calling them ‘Tish, Tish,’ &c. They appear never able to understand how the firearms of their adversaries kill them. Occasionally it has been noticed that when a man has fallen among them by a gun-shot wound, his neighbours will assist him up, imagining him to have stumbled; should life be extinct, they manifest their astonishment at finding him dead from some unseen cause, and when, on examining his body, they discover the small round hole made by the ball, they will stare at it, poke their fingers into it, and absolutely laugh with surprise and wonder.” Notwithstanding these artless ways, the Bàza are ugly customers in a hand-to-hand tussle—one of them usually proving more than a match for two Abyssinians, and Mr Parkyns relates several anecdotes illustrative of their physical superiority. But we feel desirous to take a glance at his town life, which has even greater novelty than his chapters of wild adventure, and so we return with him to Adoua, whither he went to pass the rainy season when he left Rohabaita. He waited several months for Oubi’s consent to his installation as governor; but before it arrived he received long-expected supplies from England, and abandoned his ambitious and philanthropical schemes—unfortunately for the Rohabaitese, to the improvement of whose physical and moral condition they tended, and fortunately for the Barea, against whom he proposed to organise a system of moss-trooping, to result in much profit in ivory and buffalo hides.

The delay of remittances from Europe rendering it probable that Mr Parkyns would be detained for some time in Abyssinia, he resolved completely to domesticate himself with the natives, as the best way of studying their habits and mode of life. This he seems to us to have done from the very commencement; for, as he justly observes, “there is nothing like a civil tongue, and quiet unpretending manners, to get one on in those countries;” so, upon principle, he always showed himself ready to answer questions, and to do the amiable, and even to put up with savage familiarities and intrusions, which he would gladly have dispensed with: as, for instance, during his stay at Addaro, a village of Addy Abo, formerly an important market, but now decayed and almost deserted. It was there that he first saw the snake-killing secretary bird, called Farras Seytan, or the Devil’s Horse, from the astonishing swiftness with which it runs. He was the first white man who had ever entered the place, with the exception of two French medical men, who had passed through some years previously on their way to the Mareb, and one of whom was carried off by fever, and the other by a crocodile, “picked out by the voracious animal from the colour of his skin, whilst swimming between two guides.” So a white skin was a great curiosity in Addaro; and here we come to a plate representing Mr Parkyns reclining on a settle, receiving perpetual visitors, whilst he jots down in his journal the following memoranda:—“Blessed with a swarm of bees that have lodged in the house. They have stung me several times; but I can bear that, especially as they have also stung some of my importunate visitors, who, by this means, are kept away. In fact, the only method I have to rid myself of my friends is to stir up the bees—to rid myself of the bees, I am obliged to stir up the fire, which is kept burning all day for the cooking; but, by the time the bees are gone, the hut is intolerable. Fancy a roaring fire, and lots of smoke, at noon in one of the hottest places in Abyssinia.” His visitors were of a mixed description, and not all of agreeable aspect; and, upon the whole, they bothered him no little with their interminable questionings, attempts to extort presents, and squabbles amongst themselves; but it would have been impolitic to turn them out, except by the indirect agency of the bees; and, moreover, he seems to possess one of those even, insouciant tempers, hard to ruffle, which we take to be a prime requisite for a man who sojourns amongst savages, and without which he certainly would not have been able to say, at the end of his second volume, that, during nine years’ travel, he never met with a companion, of whatsoever colour, station, or religion, who gave him a moment’s cause to quarrel with him, or from whom he parted otherwise than with regret. Far be it from us to doubt the word of Mr Parkyns; but we would ask him if he really grieved at relinquishing the society of an elderly warrior—his “friend,” he calls him—who sat close to him at Addaro, looking over him as he wrote, and begging to be set down in his book? “His name is Welda Georgis. He is naturally very ugly; nor is his appearance at all improved by the want of his nose, which he says he lost in battle. He cannot speak at all without stopping the holes with his fingers; hence his voice, especially when he speaks loud, is, as may be judged, not the most harmonious; and just now he is raising it to a considerable pitch, being excited to wrath by one of his companions insinuating that he was never but in one battle, and that then he ran away before a blow had been struck.” An imputation not to be borne; and, accordingly, in the plate we see Welda Georgis and the other gentleman engaged in single combat upon the floor. Presently Mr Parkyns is disturbed in his writing by a bang, by a scream from a woman who is boiling a pot (a child in a bag on her back), and by a “Wa!” from Welda Georgis, who, ignorant of the dangers of a little knowledge, has been retailing to his friends instructions he had received the day before in the art of cocking double-barrelled pistols. He had cocked both barrels, but had pulled the left trigger whilst holding the right hammer. A gourdful of capsicum paste and a corn-jar were mortally wounded, but no other damage was done. Welda laid down the weapon, which he evidently suspected of foul play, looked gravely at it, and apostrophised it as “a naughty devil!” Easy-going Mr Parkyns took all these trifles with an excellent grace, as became a man of strong nerves, who had gone out to rough it, and who had no desire to leave his bones in Abyssinia, or to have his physical integrity in any way deteriorated. He smilingly put up with intruders, and even with spies. He could not go out for a walk without being followed. There is a notion abroad in those parts that Europeans make money. This was confirmed, in the case of Mr Parkyns, by his happening to have a great many new dollars. When he put one in circulation, the receiver would exclaim, “Wa! this is only just made; see how it shines!” So somebody always accompanied him, when he strolled out with his gun, under pretence of showing him game, but in reality to watch his motions, thinking to catch him in the very act of coining. It does not appear that these scouts took much by their curiosity. “I often retire to the neighbouring hills” (thus runs one of the brief verbatim quotations from his journal, occasionally given by Mr Parkyns) “when about to take an observation, or for some other reason wishing to be undisturbed, and seek out some snug little nook or corner amongst the rocks. Scarcely, however, have I time to make my preliminary arrangements, when, looking up, I find two or three heads curiously peering into my retreat, fully persuaded that they are about to behold the entire process of extracting dollars from the earth, ready stamped with the august head of her Imperial Majesty. Sometimes they were most laughably disappointed in their expectations.” All this was at an early period of Mr Parkyns’ abode in the country; the natives had not got used to him, and he had not yet become a complete Abyssinian; and, as we have already seen, Addaro is an out-of-the-way place, where whites are rare. To see him to advantage, we must accompany him to Adoua, notwithstanding that he tells us he was less happy there, and exerted himself less to write down what he observed, than “in the more genial solitude of the backwoods;” the reason being, that “Adoua is a capital (!), though a small one; and in all capitals, whether great or small, I feel out of my element, losing at once my health, spirits, and energy and disposition for work.” The force of imagination, the magic of a name, can hardly farther go. Let us see what were the employments and pursuits of this wild man of the woods in the village metropolis of Tigrè, in which the houses of the wealthy are square and flat-roofed, whilst those of the poorer classes have a conical thatch of straw. They seem to have consisted in noting native peculiarities, in taking part in native banquets and merry-makings, and in setting the fashion to Young Abyssinia. It is time, by the by, that we should say a word of his intimate friend, Shetou, a fine fellow and daring soldier, but no favourite with his father, Oubi, who took every opportunity of snubbing him, and showed a marked preference for his puny elder brother, Lemma. “Shetou has rather a slang way of dressing, which greatly offends his father. Sometimes he comes in with one leg of his trousers drawn up in the proper manner above his calf, and the other dangling down about his ankle. On such an occasion, it would not be at all extraordinary should Oubi, after looking at him fixedly, and in his usual quiet smiling manner, begin, in the presence of all assembled, ‘Well done, son of a Mahommedan mother! Pretty way of wearing your breeches, isn’t it? Some new fashion of your own, eh?’ And, turning to the agafari (doorkeepers), ‘Turn him out! turn him out!’ The poor lad is put out in the most neck-and-crop manner, and, returning to his tent, he broods over this treatment, and vows vengeance on his brother, Lemma, who, from being the favourite, is partly the cause of it.” A prince of the blood-royal must naturally feel incensed at being ignominiously ejected from the court of his despotic dad, for no greater offence than the fanciful sit of his breeks. But whose fault is it? No one’s, if not that of Mr Parkyns, the Brummel of that foreign court, the promoter of all manner of sartorial extravagances and innovations. “This” (a particular cut of trouser) “was considered so very ultra-fashionable that, except Dejatch Shetou, myself, and one or two others, few dared attempt it. It was I and my friend Shetou who first introduced the habit of allowing the sword to swing perpendicularly from the side, instead of its sticking out horizontally, like a dog’s tail; as well as of wearing the belt over the hips, instead of round the waist, and up to the armpits, as it was worn when I first arrived. These, with the increased length of trousers, reaching, as we wore them, nearly to the ankle, and so tight below that it took an hour to draw them over the heel, gave a very ‘fast’ look.” Mr Parkyns has immortalised his name in Tigrè, and will be spoken of with admiration by future generations, to whom his fame will be handed down by the dandies to whom he set so bright an example. The incompatibility of cleanliness and elegance in Abyssinia rather shocks our European prejudices. The great “go,” we are told, amongst the dandies in those parts, is “to appear in the morning with a huge pot of butter (about two ounces) placed on the top of the head, which, as it gradually melts in the sun, runs over the hair, down the neck, over the forehead, and often into the eyes, thereby causing much smarting.” The grease is wiped from the brow and eyes with the quarry or cloth, a garment compared by Mr Parkyns to the Roman toga, and which it is the fashion to wear dirty, a clean one being considered “slow.” But the town life of the young fashionables of rank in the chief cities of Abyssinia, may best be summed up and exhibited in an extract from Mr Parkyns’ thirty-eighth chapter, where he shows himself to us in all his glory as the D’Orsay of Adoua.

“I was leading,” he says, “the life of an Abyssinian gentleman ‘about town,’ my hair well tressed, my pantaloons always of the newest, frequently of an original cut; in dull weather setting fashions, disputing and deciding on the merits and demerits of shields and spears; in fine weather swelling about the town with a quarter of a pound of butter melting on my head, face, neck, and clothes, and with a tail of half a dozen well-got-up and equally greasy soldiers at my heels; doing the great man, with my garment well over my nose, at every festival and funeral worth attending; ‘hanging out’ extensively when I had a few shillings to spend; sponging on my neighbours when, as was oftener the case, I had nothing;—in fact, living a most agreeable life on a very limited income. I cannot deny that I look back to those times with a certain feeling of regret. It was the only period of my life in which I ever felt myself a really great man. I ‘cry very small’ in England, with a much greater expenditure. The men will not look after me with admiration, nor the girls make songs about me here.”

Poor Parkyns! fallen from your high estate, dwindled from an African savage into an English gentleman! We wretched, civilised Europeans are rather in the nil admirari vein, but we will answer for your being “looked after” with curiosity and wonderment, by all who have read your book, if you will but adopt some distinguishing mark by which you may be recognised when you walk abroad. As to the songs, whose absence you deplore, we can only say that if you are not taken for the subject of romantic ditties by the poetesses of England, as you were by those of Tigrè, it will certainly not be because the theme is unsuggestive. Innumerable incidents in your Abyssinian career deserve to be commemorated in flowing metre, and sung by Ethiopian serenaders to banjo accompaniment, and to the ancient and pathetic melody of “The King of the Cannibal Islands.” And this reminds us to accompany you to one of the festivals you above allude to—a dinner party at Adoua—first advising ladies to have their salts at hand, and permitting squeamish readers to pass over a page if it so please them. Here are a score of Abyssinian gentlemen squatted, sword in hand, on cut grass round a low table. It is perhaps unnecessary to mention that the tablecloth has been forgotten, and that napkins are absent, their place being supplied by cakes of bread, on which the guests wipe their fingers after dipping them in the dish or smearing them with the blood of the raw meat. The cooked dishes are first brought in and their contents distributed by waiters, who cut the meat or tear it with their fingers into pieces of a convenient size. They also take a piece of bread from before each person, sop it in the sauce, and return it to him. “The guests take their bread and sauce and mix them together into a sort of paste, of which they make balls, long and rounded like small black puddings (black enough, we doubt not); these they consider it polite to poke into their neighbours’ mouths; so that, if you happen to be a distinguished character, or a stranger to whom they wish to pay attention, which was often my case, you are in a very disagreeable position; for your two neighbours, one on each side, cram into your mouth these large and peppery proofs of their esteem so quickly, one after the other, that, long before you can chew and swallow the one, you are obliged to make room for the next.” Surely these can hardly be included amongst the “happy moments” Mr Parkyns so pathetically regrets, when recording, towards the close of his work, his tearful parting from his Adoua friends—the first time, he says, since his arrival in the country, that he felt the want of a pocket-handkerchief. Let us, however, proceed with our repast, after a glance at the accompanying plate of the “Dinner Party,” where a favoured guest, with distended jaws, is undergoing the cramming process. This first course, of cooked dishes, is usually mutton; whilst it is being gobbled up, a cow is killed and flayed outside, and as soon as the first course is removed, in comes the raw meat—the broundo, as it is called—brought in by servants in quivering lumps.

“There is usually a piece of meat to every five or six persons, among whom arises some show of ceremony as to which of them shall first help himself; this being at length decided, the person chosen takes hold of the meat with his left hand, and with his sword or knife cuts a strip a foot or fifteen inches long from the part which appears the nicest and tenderest. The others then help themselves in like manner. If I should fail in describing properly the scene which now follows, I must request the aid of the reader’s imagination. Let him picture to himself thirty or forty Abyssinians, stripped to their waists, squatting round the low tables, each with his sword or knife or ‘shotel’ in his hand, some eating, some helping themselves, some waiting their turn, but all bearing in their features the expression of that fierce gluttony which one attributes more to the lion or leopard than to the race of Adam. The imagination may be much assisted by the idea of the lumps of raw pink-and-blue flesh they are gloating over.”

Some still more full-flavoured details follow, which we abstain from extracting, thinking we can fill up the space remaining to us better than by their transcription, and referring those curious in such matters to chapter xxvii., “Manners and Customs,” where they will see how the pepperballs already spoken of are got rid of by those into whose mouths they are thrust, how boys lie under the table and act as scavengers, and how Mr Parkyns expresses his belief that raw meat, eaten whilst yet warm, would be preferred to cooked meat by any man who from childhood had been accustomed to it. In the chapter headed “Religion, &c.,” which “&c.” comprises a variety of strange things, we are told of “a small entertainment” he gave to a select party of friends on the occasion of the great festival of Mascal or the Cross, a season celebrated, like Christmas in England, by hospitality and good cheer. He sent out his cards for an early hour, knowing that his guests would have several other feeds to attend in the course of the day. But when he had done this, his conscience smote him, for he reflected that, with half a dozen other breakfasts and dinners in view, his friends would but take the sharp edge off their appetites in his wigwam, and husband their masticatory and digestive powers for the subsequent banquets. “My rather savage feelings of hospitality,” he says, “were piqued at the idea of their leaving me without being well filled. But truly I was agreeably disappointed; for a fine fat cow, two large sheep, and many gallons of mead, with a proportionate quantity of bread, disappeared like smoke before the twelve or fourteen guests, leaving only a few pickings for the servants.” Mr Parkyns met several of these hungry gentlemen at other dinners in the course of the same day, and was utterly confounded to observe that most of them played as good a knife and fork (we mean sabre and fingers) at every ensuing repast as they had done at his. The capacity of an Abyssinian stomach is evidently incalculable.

The 19th and 37th chapters of Mr Parkyns’ work are amongst those that please us best. In the earlier of the two he is on his way from Axum to Addàro, across a vast open plain, embellished with a great variety of flowers; amongst them a kind of scarlet aloe, met with in most parts of Tigrè, and flowering at all seasons, and countless mimosas, pink, yellow, and white, some of them so fragrant as to scent the whole neighbourhood, adding their perfume to that of a profusion of jessamine. “There is also a beautiful parasitical creeper, growing, like the mistletoe, from the bark of other trees. It has a bright dark-green fleshy leaf, with brilliant scarlet flowers.” But Mr Parkyns is not much of a botanist; zoology, and especially ornithology, are his favourite pursuits, and, a capital shot, he bagged as many specimens as he chose. “Rifle-shooting,” he modestly says, “was about the only thing in the world I could do well.” The was is to be deplored. It is thus accounted for. Near Addàro, a hunter, either accidentally or mischievously, set fire to the jungle. Mr Parkyns was then staying in a hamlet, situated on a small hill. It consisted but of three compounds, one of which he and his servants occupied; another was inhabited by a farmer named Aito Hablo, with his wife and family; and in the third dwelt a cast-off wife and children of the same Aito. Divorces are not difficult to obtain in that country. One morning, all hands were roused by the crackling of flames close at hand. The hillock was surrounded by fire, gradually creeping up the slope. The huts were roofed with sticks and straw, and the ground was covered with long dry grass. There was no time to lose. Tearing down green boughs from the trees, the men, whilst the women and children lit counterfires upon the plan usually adopted in such cases, “made rushes at the flames, whenever a lull of the wind allowed them to approach them, and, by beating them with the boughs, in some measure impeded their progress till the space was cleared and the huts were out of danger. I and one of my servants happened to rush at the fire at an unlucky moment; for a breeze rising drove the flames towards us just as we got near them, and we were badly scorched.” Besides other injuries, the optic nerve of Mr Parkyns’ right eye was damaged, and this spoiled his rifle-shooting. “Formerly,” he says, “I managed occasionally to shoot from my left shoulder—a habit which I found useful in stalking, as in some positions you must necessarily expose yourself before you can bring your right shoulder forward. Now that I am obliged to trust to my left alone, I find it a very poor substitute for the right.” Even after this unlucky accident, however, we find Mr Parkyns very dexterously picking off bird and beast, to supply his table or enrich his collection. He tells some capital sporting anecdotes, and others, equally good, of his queer pets, and of his experience amongst the monkeys. About half-way across the mimosa-scented plain, he came to a well-wooded ravine, the trees in which swarmed with the “tota” or “waag,” a beautiful little greenish-grey monkey, with black face and white whiskers, which allows men to approach very near to it. But the cleverest of this class of animals met with in Abyssinia is the Cynocephalus, or Dog-faced Baboon, a formidable animal, of extraordinary sagacity, to which it is really difficult to refuse the possession of reasoning powers. Mr Parkyns sketches these creatures on a foray. “Arrived at the corn-fields, the scouts took their position on the eminences all around, whilst the remainder of the tribe collect provisions with the utmost expedition, filling their cheek-pouches as full as they can hold, and then tucking the heads of corn under their armpits. Now, unless there be a partition of the collected spoil, how do the scouts feed? for I have watched them several times, and never observed them to quit for a moment their post of duty till it was time for the tribe to return, or till some indication of danger induced them to take to flight.” Outlying one night on the frontier, Mr Parkyns was roused by most awful noises, and started up in alarm, thinking the Barea were upon him. It was but the baboons. A leopard had got amongst them. They habitually dwell in lofty clefts of the rock, whither few animals can follow them; but the leopard is a good climber, and sometimes attacks them. The Abyssinians say that he seldom ventures to attack a full-grown ape—and, judging from the formidable canine teeth displayed in the skull sketched by Mr Parkyns, the leopard is in the right. Driven to stand at bay, these baboons are dangerous opponents, but they have not sufficient courage to act on the offensive. “Were their combativeness proportioned to their physical powers, coming as they do in bodies of two or three hundred, it would be impossible for the natives to go out of the village except in parties, and armed; and, instead of little boys, regiments of armed men would be required to guard the corn-fields. I have, however, frequently seen them turn on dogs, and have heard of their attacking women whom they have accidentally met alone in the roads or woods. On one occasion I was told of a woman who was so grievously maltreated by them, that, although she was succoured by the opportune arrival of some passers-by, she died a few days after, from the fright and ill-treatment she had endured.” We are reminded of Sealsfield’s striking Mexican sketch of the zambos. Mr Parkyns had a female dog-face as a pet. She was young when he got her; and, from the first, her affection for him was ludicrously annoying. As she grew older she was less dependent, and cared less about being left alone. The master of a German brig who went up the country for a cargo of animals, gave Mr Parkyns a copy of “Peter Simple.” Besides the Bible and the “Nautical Almanack,” this, he says, was the first English book he had seen for two years, and he sat down greedily to devour it. “‘Lemdy’ was as usual seated beside me, at times looking quietly at me, occasionally catching a fly, or jumping on my shoulder, endeavouring to pick out the blue marks tattooed there.” The group is suggestive for a sculptor; a thousand pities no Abyssinian Canova was at hand to model it. Mr Parkyns went to light his pipe, imprudently leaving the book and the monkey together. On his return he found the latter seated in his place, and gravely turning over the leaves of Marryat’s novel; but, not understanding English, she turned them too quickly, and had torn out half the volume. “During my momentary absences she would take up my pipe and hold it to her mouth till I came back, when she would restore it with the utmost politeness.” At Khartoum, some time after the termination of his Abyssinian wanderings, Mr Parkyns became very intimate with three large monkeys of this intelligent species, and with their showman—“so much so, that I travelled with them for some days, acting as his assistant, my duty being to keep the ring, which I did by gracefully swinging round me two wooden balls covered with red cloth, and fastened, one at each end, to a rope similarly ornamented—and occasionally to assist the monkeys in collecting coppers. I passed a very agreeable time with him, and he told me many anecdotes of monkeys, as well as the usual tales of ghouls, fire-worshippers, &c., for which all Egyptians, especially of his erratic habits, are celebrated.” If this be not a joke—and there is no reason to take it for one, since Mr Parkyns, who is a sort of African Gil Blas (only more scrupulous in certain respects than his Spanish prototype), was evidently, at that time of his life, eccentric and adventurous enough to adopt on the instant any wild freak that entered his head—we hope to have a more detailed account of his association with the showman when he favours us with the narrative of his post-Abyssinian travels, not forgetting the anecdotes of monkeys (he tells two or three very good ones), and the traditions of ghouls and fire-worshippers. We are sure that he must there have materials for at least one long chapter; and we feel particular curiosity about the traditions, because the supernatural seems to partake, in tropical Africa, of the strange, fantastical, exaggerated character of the animal and vegetable productions of the country. Extraordinary stories are there current of tribes of monsters, semi-human, dwelling in the unexplored parts of the country—such as the Beni-Kelb or Dog-men (mentioned by Werne), “whose males are dogs, and females beautiful women; and the Beni-Temsah (sons of the crocodile), who have human bodies, but heads like those of their ancestor’s family. I have heard of the former of these nations in almost every country I have visited in Africa, from Egypt to the White Nile, including Kordofan and Abyssinia, and even in Arabia, whither their fame has been carried, doubtless, by pilgrims. They are, by most, believed to exist near the Fertit country (south of Darfour), where there are copper-mines, and the people of which file their teeth to points, saw-fashion.... There is no tribe in this part of Africa, indeed scarcely an individual, but believes in the existence of a race of men with tails. For my own part, I have heard so much of them that I can scarcely help fancying there must be some foundation for such very general belief.” Great diversity of opinion exists as to the whereabouts of these tail-bearers, some placing them to the north, others to the south of Bàza, and others in the centre of Africa—convenient, because unexplored. A black Fàky or priest, a speculative genius, whose acquaintance Mr Parkyns made in Abyssinia, gave him some information about his future route across Africa, and warned him against certain cannibal tribes south of Darfour, by whom white meat, being a rarity, is much esteemed, as having a fat delicate look. “He told me that a brown man, a Mahommedan priest, who went there from his country, in the hope of converting the people to Islamism, was—though protected from actual danger by his sanctity—a very tempting object among them, so much so, that whenever he went out the little children came about him, poking him with their fingers in the ribs, feeling his arms and legs, and muttering to one another, ‘Wa-wa, wa-wa!’ (meat, meat), with their mouths watering, and their features expressive of the greatest possible inclination to taste him.” We will back Mr Parkyns against the field for the humorous dressing-up of extravagant stories of this kind, and for an occasional dash of dry comical exaggeration, too obvious to mislead. His choice of pet animals was rather of the strangest. For some time he kept a “tokla” (Canis venaticus), which was as nearly tame as its wild vicious nature admitted.

“In appearance Tokla was more curious than beautiful. He had a little lean body, which no feeding could fatten, covered with a darkish brindly-spotted coat not unlike a hyena’s, and supported by legs as unlike those of any other animal as possible, being in colour white, with dark leopard spots, the hind-legs remarkably long, and so doubled under him that when walking, or rather prowling about, it was doubtful if he touched the ground oftenest with his feet or elbows.... To account for his perpetual thinness, it only requires to state his mode of feeding. He would take a huge piece of meat or offal, and put it into his stomach at once, seemingly entire, for he never appeared aware that his wonderfully muscular jaws and double row of teeth were at all available for mastication. Having thus bolted his dinner, his belly became distended till it nearly touched the ground; then he would go and lie down for twenty-four hours or more, according to the quantity he had eaten; after which he would return to be fed, as empty and starved-looking as ever.”

A useful, profitable, and agreeable inmate must the said Tokla have been. Mr Parkyns’ regard for him seems to have arisen from a sort of sympathetic feeling for the unflinching pluck and endurance displayed on various occasions by the ill-conditioned little brute. A friend of his, knowing his partiality to pet animals, made him a present of a young jackal, which he had knocked over with a stick, when it was labouring under the effects of a surfeit of locusts. Jackal was hospitably received, and a bed of cotton wool made up for him.

“Rising early one morning, I found that he and Tokla had entered into an alliance most offensive to the fowls, one of whom they had caught, and were dragging about the yard—the one holding by a foot, the other by a wing. The moment I appeared, Cobero (the jackal) let go the fowl and limped back to his corner. Tokla, more determined, I had to beat off, which I did with great difficulty, and not until the poor fowl was so lacerated that I was constrained to kill it. Excited by its death-struggles, he again laid hold; so I held up the fowl with him dangling to its wing until I was tired, and then swung him round and round, over and over, in hopes of his jaws tiring; but in this I was disappointed, for he held on till the wing breaking off threw him heavily on his back to a distance of several yards. Even in his fall he was great, for he neither uttered a sound of pain nor loosened his hold, but, getting up, stalked away quite proudly with the wing in his mouth. I was so much pleased with him that I gave him the body and all. In this, perhaps, I acted wrong, for we afterwards found that if we didn’t kill all the poultry he would, and so I gave up ever keeping any more. Poor little Tokla! I grew very fond of him, for, though rough and ugly, he had such pretty winning ways—he seemed always hungry, and would often bite people’s legs, occasionally my own, not at all from vice, but sheer appetite.”

Upon the whole, life in Abyssinia bears much resemblance to life in a menagerie, so familiar and intrusive are the wild beasts of the field. Hyenas prowl about the villages, and enter houses in quest of a supper. They are far from dainty in their diet, and will eat leathern bags and wearing apparel. “It once occurred to me,” says Mr Parkyns, “as it has often to people I have known, to be awakened by one of them endeavouring to steal my leathern bed from under me.” They are too cowardly to attack anything capable of defence, but occasionally they take a bite out of a sleeper and run away—first scratching him with their paw (so the Abyssinians assert) to be sure that he sleeps soundly, and then snatching their mouthful. As for lions, they frequently prowled around Mr Parkyns’ bivouacs, but were not aggressive, and it was not even necessary to light fires to keep them off. The buffalo-hunters of Rohabaita used, upon the contrary, to light their camp-fires in holes, and conceal their glare with branches of trees, that the blaze might neither scare the buffalo nor bring down the Barea.

“I never killed a lion during all my stay in Africa,” says Mr Parkyns, with meritorious candour—seeing that he might, without fear of contradiction, have set down to his own rifle any number of the kings of the forest. “I perhaps should have done so, had I known what a fuss is made about it at home; but in Abyssinia it is not an easy thing to accomplish.... At night I have often watched for them, but generally without success; and when they did come, it was next to impossible to shoot them. Besides, it is an awkward thing for a man, armed only with a single rifle of light calibre, to take a flying shot at a lion in the dark, especially when he has no one to back him on whose courage or shooting he can rely. You hear a lion roar in the distance; presently a little nearer; then you start up at hearing a short bark close by; and if there be a fire or moonlight, perhaps you may see a light-coloured object gliding quickly past from one bush to another. Before you are sure whether or no you saw anything, it is gone. You sit watching for a moment, rifle in hand, expecting him to appear again, when (how he got there you know not) his roar is heard at a considerable distance off in an opposite direction; and thus you go on for an hour or two, when, getting sleepy, you politely request him to take himself off to a certain warm place, and, returning your rifle between your legs, roll over and go to sleep.”

Long habit and strong reliance on the mansuetude of the Abyssinian lions must, we should think, be indispensable to slumber under such circumstances. We can hardly fancy a man’s being lulled to rest by a lion’s roar, and sinking into one of the deep and heavy sleeps common in that country, with the consciousness that when he awakes he may possibly behold a hyena gallopping off with his cheek in its mouth,[^[2]] or find a few scorpions walking over his body, leisurely stinging him. “Scorpions are abundant everywhere in the hot districts; no house but is full of them. I have been stung several times by them, but without any serious consequences, though I have heard of many instances which have ended fatally.” Mr Parkyns, we presume, at once applied the keen blade and actual cautery recommended in his Introduction. What with incidental scars of this kind, his tattoo decorations, and the scars he voluntarily made upon his arm by an Abyssinian process similar to the moxa of European surgery, and which is done by those people partly as ornamental and partly to show their fortitude under pain, his epidermis must have rather a remarkable appearance when exposed by the scantiness of costume in which he informs us that he sometimes travelled—en cueros, namely, when on solitary roads, and with a piece of rag or hide round the loins when in populous districts. We certainly never met with or heard of any traveller who embraced savagery with such earnestness and hearty goodwill as Mr Parkyns; and we sincerely congratulate him upon his escape with trifling detriment from the perils and exposure he not only encountered but enthusiastically sought.

Tigrè is rich in reptiles. Of the extent of this undesirable wealth, a few lines, culled here and there from the chapter on Natural History, will give a vivid idea. “The crocodile is plentiful in every brook or hole where there is water enough to conceal him.” A poor German, who attached himself for a time to Mr Parkyns, and tended him carefully when he was laid up with a terrible attack of ophthalmia, imprudently walked into a river to cool himself, and suddenly disappeared, either sucked in by a whirlpool or carried off by a crocodile—the latter, Mr Parkyns thought, most probably the case; notwithstanding which, we come, a few pages afterwards, to a plate of the bold traveller crossing the same rapid and dangerous stream, aided by half a dozen swimming blacks, and apparently heedless of the fact that crocodiles, like the cannibals south of Darfour, show a decided preference for white meat. “There are many snakes, centipedes, and large venomous spiders, of the tarantula kind, in the hot low districts. There is a great variety in the smaller sort of snakes: the cerastes or horned viper, asp, a species of cobra, the puff adder, and many others of all sizes and colours, from a pale pink to the brightest emerald green, are met with in Abyssinia and the adjacent countries. I was told of a horned serpent that was killed some years ago, which appears to have been a monstrosity, either in reality or in the imagination of my informants. They describe it as about seven feet long, nearly two feet in circumference, with scarcely any diminution towards the tail, and wearing a pair of horns three inches in length. It is commonly reported that dragons, or rather flying lizards of very venomous nature, are to be met with in Walkait.” A pleasant country for pic-nics in the woods. Going one day to shoot at a mark in a long narrow gully close to Rohabaita, where the village wells were, Mr Parkyns had just paced off the distance, and was building a rough target of stones, when his servant started back, and pulled him with him, calling out, “Temen, temen!” (snake). There was a rustling in the jungle that rose abruptly on either side of the watercourse, which was only a few feet wide. Not knowing what temen meant, but supposing it was some wild animal, Mr Parkyns called loudly to his second attendant to bring the gun. “All this passed in a moment’s time; and although only one hundred and fifty yards off, long before the gun arrived I had seen two magnificent boa-constrictors, one about ten yards from the other, quietly leave their places, without attempting to molest us, and ascend the hill, till they were lost in jungle, whither I never cared to pursue them. The first thing I saw after the rustle was a head, which appeared for a moment above the canes, then a body, nearly as thick as my thigh, and then they disappeared, the movement of the canes alone marking the direction they had taken.” What Mr Parkyns says he himself saw we duly credit, whilst fully sharing his intimated incredulity with respect to the winged dragons, and the apocryphal horned monster. Before believing in them, we should like to see them—not, by any means, roaming at large in the state of vigour promoted by their own burning climate, but properly stuffed, or carefully wrapped in flannel and securely caged, in the gardens of the Zoological Society.

Although it may with perfect truth be said that no chapter of Mr Parkyns’ book is devoid of strong interest of one kind or other, all are not equally attractive; and we have preferred dwelling at some length upon the section of natural history to extracting any of the horrible stories of Abyssinian cruelty which he relates under the head of “Anecdotes of Character.” He himself seems to doubt whether they might not have been as well omitted, but perhaps he was right in deciding to give them, in order to supply data for a fair estimate of the national character of that singular people, which he might otherwise have been suspected of placing in too favourable a light. Persons to whom narratives of murder, torture, barbarous mutilation, and savage cruelty are odious and intolerable, have only to treat the pages 187 to 222 of the second volume as the monkey treated those of “Peter Simple”—turn without reading them, although we warn them that by so doing they will miss some very characteristic and curious matter. Portions of the chapter devoted to “Physical Constitution, Diseases, &c.,” may be trying to delicate stomachs, but for such Mr Parkyns has not written—as may be judged from one or two extracts already given. Amongst the traits of character, &c., we find some remarkable anecdotes of Arab swordsmanship. An Abyssinian having treacherously murdered one of the Arab allies of the Tigrè chiefs (merely for the sake of gratifying the exorbitant vanity inherent in all those people, by displaying the barbarous trophies taken from his victim), the murdered man’s friends claimed the assassin’s blood.

“The crime being proved against him, Oubi gave him over to their tender mercies. His punishment was most summary. Before they had left the presence of the prince, one of the relations of the deceased, drawing his heavy two-edged broadsword, cut the culprit through with one blow; and, turning to Oubi, said, in Arabic: ‘May God lengthen your life, oh my master!’—just as he would have done had he received a present from his hands; and then, picking up a wisp of grass from the floor, walked away, wiping his blade with as much sangfroid as if nothing had occurred. Oubi is said to have expressed much admiration at the manly off-hand way in which this was done, as well as at the wonderful display of swordsmanship. I know, from very good authority, that the facts of the Arab being murdered, and the subsequent execution of the criminal, are true, though I was not present when it occurred. I do not dispute the fact; I do not wish any of my readers, who think such a feat impossible, to believe it in the present instance. I have known for certain of the same feat being performed by Turks with their crooked sabres, but never by an Arab with his straight sword.”

Mr Parkyns subjoins a note relating to the campaign in Taka in which Werne shared.[^[3]] Some of the prisoners then made were, as recorded by Werne, treated with great barbarity. We do not remember his mentioning the exact circumstances now recorded; but he separated from the Egyptian army before its return to Khartoum, in order to join the expedition up the White Nile. Certain chiefs, Mr Parkyns tells us, being marched off to be made examples of on the marketplace of Khartoum, paused on the road and refused to proceed. “Suliman Cushif, who commanded the escort, having orders that all such should be put to death on the spot, is said to have practised his swordsmanship on them by cutting them through at the waist as they stood. My friend, Moussa Bey, in the same expedition, unintentionally cut a horse’s head clean off.... Seeing one of his men turn his horse’s head and make for the jungle, he determined to check so dangerous an example by summary means, and so gave chase to the fugitive. Being better mounted, he soon came up with him; but the Arab, not liking his appearance as he stood up in his stirrups with his nasty little crooked olive-brown blade, ready for a back-stroke, threw his horse suddenly back on his haunches, and dropped off; the horse’s head went up just in time to receive the blow aimed at his master”—and dropped off too, it would appear. Mr Parkyns knows, he says, plenty more such anecdotes—and indeed such anecdotes are plentiful enough in other countries than Africa—but nothing is more difficult than to sift the inventions from the verities. Haydon the artist, who seems to have been partial to such tales, and ready enough to credit them, relates some astounding exploits collected from his model life-guardsmen—amongst others a story of a cut received by a French dragoon at Waterloo, which went through helmet and head, so that the severed portion dropped on the shoulder like a slice of apple. We have not the volume at hand to refer to, but this is the substance of the incident, told nearly in the same words. Such cuts as that—like the flying dragons of Abyssinia—we must see before believing in them. At the same time, a swordsman’s power depends so much more upon the mode in which his cuts are delivered than upon mere brute strength—upon skill than upon violence—that it becomes difficult to assign exact limits to the possible effect of a good blade in adroit and practised hands. The cutting through, at the waist, of a slender Oriental, will hardly appear an impossibility to those who have seen the now commonplace feat of severing a leg of mutton at a blow. Moussa Bey’s “nasty little crooked olive-brown blade” must unquestionably have been dexterously wielded to decapitate, at a single blow, his fugitive follower’s charger, allowing even that the latter was the slenderest and most ewe-necked of its race. Oubi’s admiration of the sweeping blow of his Arab auxiliary was not surprising, since his own subjects have difficulty in inflicting a serious wound with their clumsy sickle-shaped falchions, of great length of blade, and with hilts of such awkward and inconvenient construction as to paralyse the play of the swordsman’s arm. These hilts are cut out of solid pieces of rhinoceros horn, at great waste of material, and a handsome one costs as much as £2 sterling. The sword is worn on the right side, that the Abyssinian warrior may not, when he has thrown his lance, have to disturb the position of his shield, and so uncover himself, whilst drawing his weapon across his body. Such, at least, is the explanation Mr Parkyns gives. But the whole military equipment of the Abyssinians is far from formidable. They are tolerably expert in throwing the javelin, but with firearms they are extremely clumsy; and, notwithstanding their large buffalo-hide shields, a European, who has any knowledge of the sword, is more than a match for the best of them.

“It was my original intention” (we revert to Mr Parkyns’ Introduction) “to write solely on the habits of the people, without bringing myself into notice in any part of the story; but from this I was dissuaded by being told that, without a little personal narrative, the book would be unreadable. I have, therefore, divided the subject into two parts—Travel, and Manners and Customs.” Your dissuasive friends, Mr Parkyns, were in the right, and you showed your good sense by taking their advice—in form as regards the first volume, in fact as regards also the greater part of the second. Personal narrative is evidently your forte; a humorous, rollicking, letter-writing style, the one you have most at your command. The “exuberant animal spirits, not dependent on temporary excitement, but the offspring of abstemious habits, combined with plenty of air and exercise—the feeling which inspires a calf to cock his tail, shake his head, kick and gallop about—which swells a pigmy into a Hercules, and causes a young hippopotamus to think of adopting the ballet as his profession,”—which you declare to be the reason of your addiction to savage life, and which you so enjoyed in Abyssinia, had evidently not abandoned you when dressing up your journal for the press within the civilised precincts of the Nottinghamshire County-hall, whence you date your dedication to Lord Palmerston. Your style, of which you unnecessarily deprecate criticism, is spirited, racy, and abundantly good for the subject. When the mass of your book is so highly interesting, it may seem unkind to mention that a few of your jokes are a little the worse for wear, and remind us too strongly of the departed Miller to add much to the originality of your otherwise extremely original and capital volumes; and if we touch on that point, it is merely in the hope that you will take the hint in a kindly spirit, and profit by it when preparing for the press the “ponderous heap of papers” you inform us you accumulated during four and a half years’ travel in Nubia, Kordofan, and Egypt. Prepare them by all means, at your leisure, and with care, and let us have them in type at the earliest convenience of yourself and publisher. After your present work, we shall expect much from them, and do not fear being disappointed. As to attacking your statements, in the way of impugning your veracity, such temerity would never enter our minds. We will not say that we have not at times been startled, almost staggered, as we read with foot on fender, and much enjoyment, the narrative of your strange experience; but, as you justly observe, stay-at-home critics sometimes get hold of the wrong end of the stick, and sneer at truth whilst swallowing exaggerations. We beg, then, to assure you that, until we ourselves have passed a season in Abyssinia, with butter on our hair, and nothing on our feet—until we have dined upon raw beefsteaks, with fingers for forks, and a curved sabre for a carving-knife—we shall never venture to question the strict correctness and fidelity of any portion of your singular narrative—an assurance you may safely accept as a guarantee of impunity at our hands, even though you should draw a far longer bow than we believe you to have done in the case of the country of which you have so pleasantly written. Of one thing we are convinced, and that is, that few who take up Life in Abyssinia will lay it down without reading it through, and without exclaiming, when they come to the end, “What an amusing book this is, and what an agreeable savage is Mansfield Parkyns!”

THE QUIET HEART.

PART III.—CHAPTER XI.

“My patience! but ye’ll no tell me, Miss Menie, that yon auld antick is the doctor’s aunt?”

“She was no older than my father, though she was his aunt, Jenny,” said Menie Laurie, with humility. Menie was something ashamed, and had not yet recovered herself of the first salute.

“Nae aulder than the doctor!—I wouldna say; your mamma hersel is no sae young as she has been; but the like of yon!”

“Look, Jenny, what a pleasant place,” said the evasive Menie; “though where the heath is—but I suppose as they call this Heathbank we must be near it. Look, Jenny, down yonder, at the steeple in the smoke, and how clear the air is here, and this room so pleasant and lightsome. Are you not pleased, Jenny?”

“Yon’s my lady’s maid,” said Jenny, with a little snort of disdain. “They ca’ her Maria, nae less—set her up! like a lady’s sel in ane of your grand novelles; and as muckle dress on an ilkaday as I’ve seen mony a young lady gang to the kirk wi’, Miss Menie—no to say your ain very sel’s been plainer mony a day. Am I no pleased? Is’t like to please folk to come this far to an outlandish country, and win to a house at last with a head owre’t like yon?”

“Whisht, Jenny!” Menie Laurie has opened her window softly, with a consciousness of being still a stranger, and in a stranger’s house. The pretty white muslin curtains half hide her from Jenny, and Jenny stands before the glass and little toilet-table, taking up sundry pretty things that ornament it, with mingled admiration and disdain, surmising what this, and this, is for, and wondering indignantly whether the lady of the house can think that Menie stands in need of the perfumes and cosmetics to which she herself resorts. But the room is a very pretty room, with its lightly-draped bed, and bright carpet, and clear lattice-window. Looking round, Jenny may still fuff, but has no reason to complain.

And Menie, leaning out, feels the soft summer air cool down the flush upon her cheeks, and lets her thoughts stray away over the great city yonder, where the sunshine weaves itself among the smoke, and makes a strange yellow tissue, fine and light to veil the Titan withal. The heat is leaving her soft cheek, her hair plays on it lightly, the wind fingering its loosened curls like a child, and Menie’s eyes have wandered far away with her thoughts and with her heart.

Conscious of the sunshine here, lying steadily on the quiet lawn, the meagre yew-tree, the distinct garden-path—conscious of the soft bank of turf, where these calm cattle repose luxuriously—of the broad yellow sandy road which skirts it—of the little gleam of water yonder in a distant hollow—but, buoyed upon joyous wings, hovering like a bird over an indistinct vision of yonder pier, and deck, and crowded street—a little circle enclosing one lofty figure, out of which rises this head, with its natural state and grace, out of which shine those glowing ardent eyes—and Menie, charmed and silent, looks on and watches, seeing him come and go through all the ignoble crowd—the crowd which has ceased to be ignoble when it encloses him.

And voices of children ringing through the sunshine, and a sweet, soft, universal tinkle, as of some fairy music in the air, flow into Menie Laurie’s meditation, but never fret its golden thread; for every joy of sight and sound finds some kindred in this musing; and the voices grow into a sweet all-hail, and the hum of distant life lingers on her ear like the silver tone of fame—Fame that is coming—coming nearer every day, throwing the glow of its purple royal, the sheen of its diamond crown upon his head and on his path—and the girl’s heart, overflooded with a light more glorious than the sunshine, forgets itself, its own identity and fate, in dreaming of the nobler fate to which its own is bound.

“A young friend of yours?—you may depend upon my warmest welcome for him, my dear Mrs Laurie,” says a voice just emerging into the air below, which sends Menie back in great haste, and with violent unconscious blushes, from the window. “Mr Randall Home?—quite a remarkable name, I am sure. Something in an office? Indeed! But then, really, an office means so many very different things—may be of any class, in fact—and a literary man? I am delighted. He must be a very intimate friend to have seen you already.”

Menie waits breathless for the answer, but in truth Mrs Laurie is very little more inclined to betray her secret than she is herself.

“We have known him for many years—a neighbour’s son,” said Mrs Laurie, with hesitation; “yet indeed it is foolish to put off what I must tell you when you see them together. Randall and my Menie are—I suppose I must say, though both so young—engaged, and of course it is natural he should be anxious. I have no doubt you will be pleased with him; but I was hurried and nervous a little this morning, or I should have postponed his first visit a day or two, till we ourselves were less perfect strangers to you, Miss Annie.”

“I beg——” said Miss Annie Laurie, lifting with courteous deprecation her thin and half-bared arm. “I felt quite sure, when I got your letter, that we could not be strangers half an hour, and this is really quite a delightful addition;—true love—young love!—ah my dear Mrs Laurie, where can there be a greater pleasure than to watch two unsophisticated hearts expanding themselves? I am quite charmed—a man of talent, too—and your pretty little daughter, so young and so fresh, and so beautifully simple. I am sure you could not have conferred a greater privilege upon me—I shall feel quite a delight in their young love. Dear little creature—she must be so happy; and I am sure a good mother like you must be as much devoted to him as your darling Menie.”

Mrs Laurie, who was not used to speak of darling Menie, nor to think it at all essential that she should be devoted to Randall Home, was considerably confused by this appeal, and could only answer in a very quiet tone, which quite acted as a shadow to Miss Annie’s glow of enthusiasm, that Randall was a very good young man, and that she had never objected to him.

“The course of true love never did run smooth,” said the greatly interested Miss Annie. “My dear Mrs Laurie, I am afraid you must have had some other, perhaps more ambitious views, or you could not possibly—with your experience, too—speak with so little interest of your dear child’s happiness.”

Here Menie ventured to glance out. The lady of the house swayed lightly back and forward, with one foot on the ground and another on the close turf of the little lawn, switching the yew-tree playfully with a wand of hawthorn; and the wind blew Miss Annie’s long ringlets against her withered cheek, and fluttered the lace upon her arm, with a strange contempt for her airy graces, and for the levity so decayed and out of date which Menie felt herself blush to see. Opposite, upon the grass, stood Mrs Laurie, the sun beating down upon her snowy matron-cap, her healthful cheek, her sober household dignity. But the sun revealed to Menie something more than the natural good looks of that familiar face. Mrs Laurie’s cheek was flushed a little. Mrs Laurie’s fine clear dark eye wandered uneasily over the garden, and Mrs Laurie’s foot patted the grass with a considerable impatience. Half angry, disconcerted, abashed, annoyed, Menie’s mother could but half-conceal an involuntary smile of amusement, too.

“Yes, my child’s happiness is very dear to me,” said Mrs Laurie, with half a shade of offence in her tone. “But Menie is very young—I am in no haste to part with her.”

“Ah, my dear, youth is the time,” said Miss Annie, pathetically—“the first freshness, you know, and that dear, sweet, early susceptibility, of which one might say so many charming things. For my part, I am quite delighted to think that she has given her heart so early, so many experiences are lost otherwise. I remember—ah, I remember!—but really, Mrs Laurie, you surprise me. I see I must give my confidence to Menie. Poor little darling—I am afraid you have not encouraged her to confide all her little romantic distresses to you.”

“I have always respected Menie’s good sense,” said Mrs Laurie hastily. Then she made a somewhat abrupt pause, and then glanced up with her look of disconcertment and confusion, half covered with a smile. “I am Menie’s mother, and an old wife now, Miss Annie. I am afraid I have lost a great deal of that early susceptibility you spoke of—and I scarcely think my daughter would care to find it in me—but we are very good friends for all that.”

And Mrs Laurie’s eye, glistening with mother pride, and quite a different order of sentiment from Miss Annie’s, glanced up involuntarily to Menie’s window. Menie had but time to answer with a shy child’s look of love out of her downcast eyes—for Menie shrank back timidly from the more enthusiastic sympathy with which her grand-aunt waited to overpower her—and disappeared into the quiet of her room to sit down in a shady corner a little, and wind her maze of thoughts into some good order. The sun was drawing towards the west—it was time to descend to the shady drawing-room of Heathbank, where Randall by-and-by should be received for the first time as Miss Annie Laurie’s guest.

CHAPTER XII.

It is very pleasant here, in the shady drawing-room of Heathbank. Out of doors, these grassy slopes, which Menie Laurie cannot believe to be the heath, are all glowing with sunshine; but within here, the light falls cool and green, the breeze plays through the open window, and golden streaks of sunbeams come in faintly at one end, through the bars of the Venetian blind, upon the pleasant shade, touching it into character and consciousness. It is a long room with a window at either end, a round table in the middle, an open piano in a recess, and pretty bits of feminine-looking furniture straying about in confusion not too studied. The walls are full of gilt frames, too, and look bright, though one need not be unnecessarily critical about the scraps of canvass and broad-margined water-colour drawings which repose quietly within these gilded squares. They are Miss Annie Laurie’s pictures, and Miss Annie Laurie feels herself a connoisseur, and is something proud of them, while it cannot be denied that the frames do excellent service upon the shady drawing-room wall.

Mrs Laurie has found refuge in the corner of a sofa, and, with a very fine picture-book in her hand, escapes from the conversation of Miss Annie, which has been so very much in the style of the picture-book that Menie’s mother still keeps her flush of abashed annoyance upon her cheek, and Menie herself lingers shyly at the door, half afraid to enter. There is something very formidable to Menie in the enthusiasm and sympathy of her aunt.

“My pretty darling!” said Miss Annie—and Miss Annie lifted her dainty perfumed fingers to tap Menie’s cheeks with playful grace. Menie shrank back into a corner, blushing and disconcerted, and drooped her head after a shy girlish fashion, quite unable to make any response. “Don’t be afraid, my love,” said the mistress of the house, with a little laugh. “Don’t fear any jesting from me—no, no—I hope I understand better these sensitive youthful feelings—and we shall say nothing on the subject, my dear Menie—not a word—only you must trust me as a friend, you know, and we must wait tea till he comes—ah, till he comes, Menie.”

Poor Menie for the moment could have wished him a thousand miles away; but she only sat down, very suddenly and quietly, on a low seat by the wall, while Miss Annie tripped away to arrange some ornamental matters on the tea-table, where her little china cups already sparkled, and her silver tea-pot shone. Menie took courage to look at her kinswoman’s face as this duty was being performed. Withered and fantastic in its decayed graces, there was yet a something of kindness in the smile. The face had been pretty once in its youthful days—a sad misfortune to it now, for if it were not for this long-departed, dearly remembered beauty, there might have been a natural sunshine in Miss Annie Laurie’s face.

As it was, the wintry light in it played about gaily, and Miss Annie made very undeniable exertions to please her visitors. She told Menie of her own pursuits, as a girl might have done in expectation of a sharer in them; and to Mrs Laurie she gave a sketch of her “society,” the few friends who, Menie thought, made up a very respectable list in point of numbers. Mrs Laurie from her sofa, and Menie on her seat by the wall, looking slightly prim and very quiet in her shy confusion, made brief answers as they could. Their entertainer did not much want their assistance; and by-and-by Menie woke with a great flush to hear the little gate swing open, to discern a lofty figure passing the window, and the sound of a quick step on the gravel path. Randall was at the door.

And Randall, looking very stately, very gracious and deferential, came through the shower of “delighteds” and “most happys” with which Miss Annie saluted him, with a bow of proud grace and much dignity of manner, to Mrs Laurie’s extreme surprise, and Menie’s shy exultation. Another hour passed over very well. The strangers grew familiar with Miss Annie; then by-and-by they strayed out, all of them, into the sweet evening air, so full of charmed distant voices, the hum and breath of far-off life; and Menie found herself, before she was aware, alone under a sky slowly softening into twilight, in a pretty stretch of sloping turf, where some young birch-trees stood about gracefully, like so many children resting in a game, with Randall Home by her side.

And they had found time for various pieces of talk, quite individual and peculiar to themselves, before Menie lifted her face, with its flush of full unshadowed pleasure, and, glancing up to the other countenance above her, asked, “When is the next book coming, Randall?”

“What next book, May Marion?”

This was his caressing name for her, as May alone was his father’s.

“The next book—our next book,” said Menie. “I do not know much, nor maybe care much, about anybody else’s. Randall—our own—when is it coming?”

“What if it should never come at all?”

Randall drew her fingers through his hand with playful tenderness, half as he might have done with a child.

“Yes—but I know it is to come at all, so that is not my question,” said Menie. “I want to know when—not if. Tell me—for you need not be coy, or think of keeping such a secret from me.”

“Did you never hear that it is dangerous to hurry one work upon another?” was the answer somewhat evasively given. “I am to be prudent this time—there is peril in it.”

“Peril to what?” Menie Laurie looked up with simple eyes into a face where there began to rise some faint mists. Looking into them, she did not comprehend at all these floating vapours, nor the curve of fastidious discontent which they brought to Randall’s lip and brow.

“My simple Menie, you do not know how everything gets shaped into a trade,” said Randall, with a certain condescension. “Peril to reputation, risk of losing what one has gained—that is what we all tremble for in London.”

“Randall!” Menie looked up again with a flush of innocent scorn. He might speak it, indeed, but she knew he could mean nothing like this.

There was a slight pause—it might be of embarrassment—on Randall’s part; certainly he made no effort to break the silence.

“But a great gift was not given for that,” said Menie rapidly, in her unwitting enthusiasm. “People do not have unusual endowments given them to be curbed by such things as that; and you never meant it, Randall; it could not move you.”

But Randall only drew his hand fondly over the fingers he held, and smiled—smiled with pleasure and pride, natural and becoming. He had not been sophisticated out of regard for the warm appreciation and praise of those most dear to him. He might distrust it—might think the colder world a better judge, and the verdict of strangers a safer rule, but in his heart he loved the other still.

But Menie’s thoughts were disturbed, and moved into a sudden ferment. Her hand trembled a little on Randall’s arm; her eyes forsook his face, and cast long glances instead over the bright air before them; and when she spoke, her voice was as low as her words were quick and hurried.

“It does not become me to teach you, but, Randall, Randall, you used to think otherwise. Do you mind what you used to say about throwing away the scabbard, putting on the harness—Randall, do you mind?”

“I mind many a delightful hour up on the hillside yonder,” said Randall affectionately, “when my May Marion began to enter into all my dreams and hopes; and I mind about the scabbard and the harness no less,” he continued, laughing, “and how I meditated flashing my sword in the eyes of all the world, like a schoolboy with his first endowment of gunpowder; but one learns to know that the world cares so wonderfully little about one’s sword, Menie; and moreover—you must find out for me the reason why—this same world seems to creep round one’s-self strangely, and by-and-by one begins to feel it more decorous to hide the glitter of the trenchant steel. What a coxcomb you make me,” said Randall, abruptly breaking off with a short laugh; “one would fancy this same weapon of mine was the sword of Wallace wight.”

Menie made no answer, and the discontent on Randall’s face wavered into various shades of scorn,—a strange scorn, such as Menie Laurie had never seen before on any face—scorn half of himself, wholly of the world.

“When I knew I had succeeded,” said Randall at length, with still a tone of condescension in his confidence, “I was a little elated, I confess, Menie, foolish as it seems, and thought of nothing but setting to work again, and producing something worthy to live. Well, that is just the first impulse; by-and-by I came to see what a poor affair this applause was after all, and to think I had better keep what I had, without running the risk of losing my advantage by a less successful stroke. After all, this tide of popularity depends on nothing less than real ‘merit,’ as the critics call it; so I apprehend we will have no new book, Menie; we will be content with what we have gained.”

“If applause is such a poor affair, why be afraid of the chance of losing it?” said Menie; but she added hastily, “I want to know about Johnnie Lithgow, Randall; is it possible that he has come to be a great writer too?”

“If I only knew what you meant by a great writer too,” said Randall, with a smile. “Johnnie Lithgow is quite a popular man, Menie—one of the oracles of the press.”

“Is it a derogation, then, to be a popular man?” said the puzzled Menie; “or is he afraid to risk his fame, like you?”

The lofty head elevated itself slightly. “No. Johnnie Lithgow is not a man for fame,” said Randall, with some pride. “Johnnie does his literary work like any other day’s work; and, indeed, why should he not?”

Menie looked up with a blank look, surprised, and not comprehending. Even the stronger emotions of life, the passions and the anguishes, had never yet taken hold of Menie; still less had the subtle refining, the artificial stoicism of mere mind and intellect, living and feeding on itself; and Menie’s eye followed his slight unconscious gestures with wistful wonderment as Randall went on.

“After all, what does it signify—what does anything of this kind signify? One time or another appreciation comes; and if appreciation never should come, what then? So much as is good will remain. I do not care a straw for applause myself. I rate it at its own value; and that is nothing.”

It began to grow somewhat dark, and Menie drew her shawl closer. “I think it is time to go home,” she said softly; and as she spoke, a vision of the kindly home she had left—of the brave protecting hills, the broad fair country, the sky and atmosphere, all too humble for this self-abstraction, which answered in clouds and tears, in glorious laughter and sunshine, to every daily change—rose up before her; some tears, uncalled for and against her will, stole into Menie’s eyes. With a little awe, in her innocence, she took Randall’s arm again. He must be right, she supposed; and something very grand and superior was in Randall’s indifference—yet somehow the night air crept into Menie’s heart, as she had never felt it do before. Many an hour this soft night air had blown about her uncovered head, and tossed her hair in curls about her cheeks—to-night she felt it cold, she knew not why—to-night she was almost glad to hurry home.

CHAPTER XIII.

“Randall Home is a very superior young man,” said Mrs Laurie, with quiet approbation. “Do you know, Menie, I had begun to have serious thoughts about permitting your engagement so early?—if my only bairn should leave me—leave me, and get estranged into another house and home, with a man that was a stranger in his heart to me. Whisht, Menie—my darling, what makes you cry?”

But Menie could not tell; the night air was still cold at her heart, and she could not keep back these unseasonable tears.

“But I am better pleased to-night than I have been for many a day,” said Mrs Laurie. “I never saw him so kindly, so like what I would desire. I was a little proud of him to-night, if it were for nothing but letting Miss Annie see that we are not all such common folk as she thinks down in the south country—though, I suppose, I should say the north country here. Menie! he will lose my good opinion again if I think he has vexed you. What ails you, bairn? Menie, my dear?”

“I don’t know what it is, mother—no, no, he did not vex me. I suppose I am glad to hear you speak of him so,” said the shy Menie, ashamed of her tears. The mother and daughter were in their own room preparing for rest, and Menie let down her hair over her face, and played with it in her fingers, that there might be no more remark or notice of this unwilling emotion. It was strange—never all her life before had Menie wept for anything indefinite: for childish provocations—for little vexations of early youth—for pity—she had shed bright transitory tears, but she had never “cried for nothing” until now.

“Yes, I am pleased,” said Mrs Laurie, as she tied her muslin cap over her ears: “what did you say, Menie? I thought this coming to London would satisfy me on the one point which is likely to be more important than all others, and I was right. Yes, Menie, lie down, like a good girl; you must be wearied—and lie down with a good heart—you have a fair prospect, as fair as woman could wish. I am quite satisfied myself.”

But how it came about that Menie only slept in broken snatches—that Menie dreamt uncomfortable dreams of harassment and annoyance—dangers in which Randall forsook her—cares of which he had no part—Menie did not know. A day ago, and Mrs Laurie’s unsolicited avowal of “satisfaction” had lifted Menie into the purest glow of joy, but to-night she cannot tell what makes her so restless and uneasy—what prompts her now and then to fall a-weeping, all unwillingly, and “for nothing.” Alas for Menie Laurie’s quiet heart!—something has come to trouble the waters, but in other guise than an angel’s.

The grass is soft and mossy under the elm trees, and the morning air—a world of sweetness—beautifies their every branch and stem. Down yonder in the hollow, low at your feet, Menie Laurie, the great slave Titan has wakened to his daily toil. Is that the sweep of his mighty arm stirring the heavy mist which hangs above him? Is this the clang of his ponderous tools ringing up faintly into the quiet skies? The children are not astir yet, to seek their pleasure in these precincts. Nothing seems awake in this composed and sober place; but yonder, with many a conflict in his heart, with many a throbbing purpose in his brain, with life and strength tingling to his finger-points, with sighs and laughter swelling in his breath—yonder great vassal of the world is up and doing, holding the fate of a new day undeveloped in his busy hand.

And you, young wondering heart, look out upon him, innocent, ignorant, wistful, like an angel on the threshold of the world—nothing knowing the wiles and snares, the tortures and deliriums that live yonder under the battle-cloud, unacquainted with those prodigious penalties of social life, which yonder are paid and borne every hour; but looking out with your head bent forward, and your innocent eyes piercing far in the dreamy vision of reverie, making wistful investigation into the new marvels round you, pondering and bewildered in your own secret soul.

Randall—looking out thus through the morning light upon the city, one can see him in so many aspects;—the light shines upon his lofty head, reaching almost to the skies, like the hill of his quiet home—and Menie lifts her eyes to follow that noble daring look of his, piercing up through mortal clouds and vapours to do homage with the gifts God has given him, at his Master’s throne and footstool; but anon there steals a cloud round the hero of Menie’s vision—a dim background, which still reveals him, not less clearly, nor with less fascination, but with a sadder wonder of interest—for Randall’s eyes are bent earthward, Randall’s lofty head is bowed, and Menie, though she watches him with yearning curiosity, can never meet his downcast look to read what is there—can never fathom what lies within the veiled heart and self-abstracted soul. You would think now that her eyes are caught by the sunshine yonder making such mischievous confusion among the city vapours: Not so; for Menie’s eyes, under that troubled curve of her forehead, are studying Randall, and see only an incomprehensible something in him, overshadowing all the earth and all the skies.

With her little basket in her hand, with her dainty step, and fluttering muslin gown, Miss Annie brushes the dew from the grass, as she draws near the elm trees. But though Miss Annie has been very confidential with her grand-niece on the subject of her own juvenile occupations, one little piece of daily business Miss Annie has forborne to tell of, and that is a morning visit she pays to a poor pensioner or two in the village, where, if perhaps her charity may be sometimes intrusive, it is always real. For poor Miss Annie’s heart, though it figures so much in her common talk, and is overlaid with so many false sentimentalities, has a true little fountain of human kindness in it, spite of the fantastic pretences that hide it from common view. Absorbed with her new thoughts, Menie neither heard nor saw her aunt’s approach, till she woke with a start to hear a gay laugh behind her, and to feel the pressure of those long thin fingers upon her eyelids. “Dreaming, Menie? ah, my pretty love! but not ‘in maiden meditation fancy free.’”

Startled and abashed, Menie drew back, but Miss Annie’s ringlets had already touched her forehead, as Miss Annie bestowed the morning salutation upon Menie’s cheek; and now they are seated side by side under shadow of the greatest elm.

“My dear, I am afraid your mamma does not encourage you to confide in her; you must tell me all your little trials, Menie,” said Miss Annie, fluttering with her finger-points upon Menie’s hand; “and now, my darling, speak to me freely—you were delighted to meet him last night.”

But Menie had no voice to answer, and could only bend down her flushed face, and pluck up the grass with her disengaged hand.

“Don’t be shy, love. I am so much interested; and tell me, Menie, you found him quite unchanged?—just as devoted as he used to be? I am sure one only needed to look at him—and how delightful to find him quite unchanged!”

“How far is it to London, aunt?” said Menie, with confusion.

“So near that your thoughts have travelled there this morning to find him out, I know,” said Miss Annie,—“so near that he can come out every night, so we need not talk of London: but come now, darling; have you nothing to tell me?”

“You are very good,” said Menie, with a slight falter in her voice. “I—I should like very well to take Jenny, if you please, to see some of the great sights.”

Miss Annie shook her head—“Ah, Menie, how mischievous! Don’t you think I deserve your confidence?”

“But, indeed, I have no confidence to give,” said Menie, almost under her breath.

“My dear, I was just like you: the Scotch system is so restrictive—I was afraid to speak to any one,” said Miss Annie; “and so you see I had a little misunderstanding; and he was angry, and I was angry; and first we quarrelled, and then we sulked at each other, and so at last it came about that we were parted. Yes, Menie, dear! just now you are happy; you do not care for a sympathising heart; but if you should chance to be disappointed—I trust not, my love, but such things will happen—you will then remember that I too have been blighted—oh, my dear child!”

And with a wave of her hand, expressing unutterable things, Miss Annie arranged her light silken mantle over this same blighted heart of hers, as if to hide the wound.

But Menie, whose mind already had recovered its tone—Menie, who now only remembered Randall unchanged, unchangeable, towering high above all vulgar quarrels and sullennesses, a very fortress for a generous heart to dwell in—Menie sprang lightly up from the elastic turf, and stood with her slight young figure relieved against the morning sky, and all her frame vibrating with pride and joy in her worthy choice. What chance that she should ever give this wished-for confidence—should ever turn to seek such sympathy—should ever find comfort or solace in hearing of Miss Annie Laurie’s kindred woe?

CHAPTER XIV.

“It is two years now since Randall came to London. From Dumfriesshire we send out a great many cadets into the world, Miss Annie; and some one who knew his father found a situation here for Randall Home. He brought his book with him, and it was published, and very successful; then he came home, and sought my consent to his engagement with Menie. That is all Randall’s history in connection with us. The other young man you expect to-night, Miss Annie, is only a cottager’s son—very clever, I hear, but not in any way, I fancy, to be put in comparison with Randall Home.”

And Mrs Laurie took up her work with a little quiet pride, resolved to be very kind to Johnnie Lithgow, but by no means pleased to have him mentioned in the same breath with her future son-in-law.

“I adore talent,” said Miss Annie, opening her work-table to take out a tiny bit of “fancy” work. “I could not describe the delight I have in the society of people of genius—self-taught genius too—so charming; and both of these delightful young men must be self-taught.”

Mrs Laurie drew herself up with a little hauteur.

“Mr Home has had an excellent education; his father is a very superior man. Johnnie Lithgow, as I said before, is only a cottager’s son.”

But Miss Annie could not see the distinction, and ran on in such a flutter of delight in anticipation of her guests, that Mrs Laurie quietly retired into the intricacies of her work, and contented herself with a resolution to be very kind and condescending to the popular editor, the cottager’s son.

The drawing-room is in special glory—the pinafores discarded from the chairs, the little tables crowded with gay books and toys and flowers, and everything in its company dress. Mrs Laurie—who never can be anything but Mrs Laurie, a matron of sober years, and Menie’s mother—sits, in her grave-coloured gown and snowy cap, upon the sofa; while on a stool low down by her side, in a little tremor of expectation, Miss Annie perches like a bird, waiting the arrival of her visitors. Mrs Laurie, with her Dumfriesshire uses, quite believes what Miss Annie says, that only “a few friends” are coming to-night, and has not the slightest idea that the lady of the house will be greatly mortified if her rooms are not filled in an hour or two with a little crowd.

And up-stairs, resplendent in Jenny’s gown, Menie Laurie stands before the glass, fastening on one or two simple ornaments, and admiring, with innocent enjoyment, her unusually elegant dress. You may guess by this glimpse of these well-known striped skirts, full and round, revealing themselves under cover of the curtains, that Jenny too has been admiring her own magnificent purchase. But Jenny by this time has grown impatient, and jealous that Menie’s admiration prolongs itself only to please her, Jenny; so, giving premonition by sundry restless gestures of the advent of a “fuff,” she has turned to look out from the window upon the sandy road which leads to ’Eathbank.

“Eh, Miss Menie! that brockit ane’s a bonnie cow,” said Jenny; “I never see onything else in this outlandish place that minds me of hame, if it binna the mistress and yoursel. I’ll just bide and look out for the young lads, Miss Menie. Ye needna clap your hands, as if Jenny was turning glaikit; if they werena lads frae our ain countryside, they micht come and gang a twelvemonth for me.”

“But the ladies and the gentlemen will see you from the window, Jenny,” said Menie Laurie.

“Ise warrant they’ve seen waur sichts,” said Jenny briskly; “I’m no gaun to let down my ainsel, for a’ I have a thraw; and I would just like to ken, if folk wanted to see a purposelike lass, fit for her wark, wha they could come to in this house but me? There’s my lady’s maid—set her up!—in her grand gown, as braw as my lady; and there’s the tither slaving creature put off a’ this morning clavering to somebody, and no fit to be seen now; for a’ they scoff at my short-gown and good linsey coats. But they may scoff till they’re tired, for Jenny; I’m no gaun to change, at my time of life, for a’ the giggling in London town.”

“But you’ll put on your gown to-night, Jenny,” said Menie persuasively, patting her shoulder. “There’s Randall did not see you last time he was here; and Johnnie Lithgow, you would like to see him. Come, Jenny, and put on your gown.”

“It’s no muckle Randall Home heeds about me, and you ken that,” said Jenny; “and for a’ he didna see me, I saw him the last time he was here. I’ll just tell you, Miss Menie, yon lad, to be a richt lad, is owre heeding about himsel.”

“You’re not to say that, Jenny; it vexes me,” said Menie, with simple gravity; “besides, it is not true. You mistake Randall—and then Johnnie Lithgow.”

“I wadna say but what I micht be pleased to get a glint of him,” said Jenny. “Eh, my patience! to think of Betty Armstrong’s son sitting down with our mistress. But I’ll be sure to ca’ them by their richt names afore the folk. I canna get my tongue about thae maisters. Maister Lithgow! and me minds him a wee white-headed laddie, hauding up his peeny for cakes on the Hogmanay, and pu’ing John Glendinning’s kailstocks at Hallowe’en. What would I put on my gown for, bairn? As sure as I gang into the room, I’ll ca’ him Johnnie.”

But Jenny’s scruples at last yielded, and Jenny came forth from her chamber glorious in a blue-and-yellow gown, printed in great stripes and figures, and made after an antediluvian fashion, which utterly shocked and horrified the pretty Maria, Miss Annie Laurie’s favourite maid. Nor was Miss Annie Laurie herself less disconcerted, when honest Jenny, the high shoulder largely developed by her tight-fitting gown, and carrying a cake-basket in her brown hands, made her appearance in the partially filled drawing-room, threading her way leisurely through the guests, and examining, with keen glances and much attention, the faces of the masculine portion of them. Miss Annie made a pause in her own lively and juvenile talk, to watch the strange figure and the keen inquiring face, over which a shade of bewilderment gradually crept. But Miss Annie no longer thought it amusing, when Jenny made an abrupt pause before her young mistress, then shyly endeavouring to make acquaintance with some very fine young ladies, daughters of Miss Annie’s loftiest and most aristocratic friends, and said in a startling whisper, which all the room could hear, “Miss Menie! ye micht tell folk which is him, if he’s here; but I canna see a creature that’s like Johnnie Lithgow of Kirklands, nor ony belanging to him, in the haill room.”

Miss Annie Laurie, much horrified, rose from her seat somewhat hastily; but at the same moment up sprang by her side the guest to whom her most particular attentions had been devoted—“And Burnside Jenny has forgotten me!”

Burnside Jenny, quite forgetful of “all the folk,” turned round upon him in an instant. Not quite Johnnie Lithgow, the merriest mischief-doer in Kirklands parish, but a face that prompted recollections of his without dispute—blue eyes, dancing and running over with the light of a happy spirit—and a wisp of close curls, not many shades darker in colour than those of the “white-headed laddie,” whose merry tricks Jenny had not forgotten. “Eh, man! is this you?” said Jenny, with a sigh of satisfaction. “I aye likit the callant for a’ his mischief, and it’s just the same blythe face after a’.”

Randall Home stood leaning his fine figure against the mantelpiece, and took no notice of Jenny. Randall was somewhat afraid of a similar recognition; but Johnnie Lithgow, who did not affect attitudes—Johnnie Lithgow, who was neither proud nor ashamed of being a cottager’s son, and who had a habit of doing such kindly things as occurred to him without consideration of prudence—drew her aside by both her brown hands, out of which Jenny had laid the cake-basket, to talk to her of home. A slight smile curled on the lip of Randall Home. How well he looked, leaning upon his arm, his lofty head towering over every other head in Miss Annie’s drawing-room, with his look of conscious dignity, his intellectual face! Menie Laurie and Menie Laurie’s mother did not find it possible to be other than proud of him; yet the eyes of both turned somewhat wistfully to the corner, to dwell upon a face which for itself could have charmed no one, but which beamed and shone like sunshine upon Jenny, greeting her as an old friend.

“Your friend is a literary man?” said somebody inquiringly, taking up a respectful position by Randall’s side.

“Yes, poor fellow; he spins himself out into daily portions for the press,” said Randall.

“A high vocation, sir; leader of public opinions and movements,” said the somebody, who professed to be an intellectual person, a man of progress.

“Say rather the follower,” said Randall; “and well for those who have the happy knack of following wisely—chiming in, before itself is fully aware of it, with the humour of the time.”

Menie Laurie, who was close at hand, and heard all this, ventured a whisper, while Randall’s companion had for the moment turned away.

“Your words sound as if you slighted him, Randall, and you too call yourself a literary man.”

“Good Johnnie Lithgow, I like him extremely,” said Randall, with the half-scornful smile which puzzled Menie; “but he is only a literary workman after all. He does his literature as his day’s labour—he will tell you so himself—a mere craft for daily bread.”

And just then Lithgow turned round, with his radiant face—he who had no fame to lose, and did an honest day’s work in every day, not thinking that the nature of his craft excused him from the natural amount of toil—and again Menie felt a little pang at her heart, as she thought of Randall’s jealous guardianship of Randall’s youthful fame.

CHAPTER XV.

“I have been thinking of bringing up my mother to live with me,” said the Mr Lithgow in whom Mrs Laurie and her daughter were beginning to forget the humble Johnnie: “I see no reason why she should live in poverty in Kirklands, while I am comfortable here.”

His face flushed slightly as he concluded, and he began to drum with his fingers in mere shyness and embarrassment upon Miss Annie Laurie’s work-table. Randall, a little distance from him, was turning over with infinite scorn Miss Annie’s picture-books. The two young men had grown familiar in the house, though it was not yet a month since they entered it first.

“And I think you are very right,” said Mrs Laurie cordially, “though whether Mrs Lithgow might be pleased with a town life, or whether—”

She paused; it was not very easy to say “whether your mother would be a suitable housekeeper for you.” Mrs Laurie could not do violence either to her own feelings or his by suggesting such a doubt.

“I think it would be a great risk,” said Randall, “and if you consulted me, would certainly warn you against it. Your mother knows nothing of London—she would not like it; besides, a young man seeking his fortune should be alone.”

“Cold doctrine,” said Lithgow, smiling, “and to come from you.”

His eye fell unconsciously upon Menie; then as he met a quick upward glance from her, he stammered, blushed, and stopped short—for Johnnie Lithgow was as shy and sensitive as a girl, and had all the reverence of youthful genius for womanhood and love. With compunction, and an idea that he had been jesting profanely, Lithgow hurriedly began again.

“I am so vain as to think I myself would be London to my mother—old ground long known and well explored. If she would not like the change, of course—but I fancy she might.”

“I advise you against it, Lithgow,” said Randall; “in your case I should never entertain such an idea. There is my father—no one can have a greater respect for him than I—but to bring him to live with me—to bring him to London—I should think it the merest folly, injurious to us both.”

“Your wisdom is very safe at least,” said Mrs Laurie, with a little asperity, “since there is no chance of your good father leaving his own respectable house for an unknown and strange place in any case; but I think your wish a very natural one, and very creditable to you, Mr Lithgow; and whether she comes or not, the knowledge that you wish for her will be joy to your mother’s heart.”

With his usual half-disdainful smile Randall had turned away, and there was a slight flush of anger upon Mrs Laurie’s face. Indignation and scorn,—there was not much hope of friendliness where such unpromising elements had flashed into sudden existence. Menie, looking on with terror, and perceiving a new obstacle thrown into her way, hastily endeavoured to make a diversion.

“Do you know, Mr Lithgow, that July Home is coming up to London to see me?”

There came a sudden brightening to all the kindly lines of the young man’s face. “July Home! if I am too familiar, forgive me, Randall—but I have so many boyish recollections of her. She was such a sweet little timid simple womanly child too. I wonder if July minds me as I mind her.”

Randall stood apart still, with his smile upon his lips. True, there had been a momentary curve on his brow at Lithgow’s first mention of his sister’s name, but his face cleared immediately. Poor little July! Randall might know her sufficiently timid and simple—but July was a baby, a toy, a good-hearted kindly little fool to her intellectual brother—and any higher qualities sweet or womanly about her remained to be found out by other eyes than his.

“And Miss Annie has promised us all the sight-seeing in the world,” said Menie with forced gaiety, anxious to talk, and to conciliate—to remove all trace of the little breaking of lances which had just passed. “July and Jenny and I, we are to see all manner of lions; and though they will be very dull at Crofthill when she is gone, Mr Home and Miss Janet have consented—so next week July is to come.”

“Poor July! she will have enough to talk of all her life after,” said her brother.

“Yes; our kindly country seems such a waste and desert place to you London gentlemen,” said Mrs Laurie; “and it is wonderful, after all, how we manage to exist—ay, even to flourish and enjoy ourselves, in these regions out of the world.”

But Randall made no response. A shivering chill came over Menie Laurie; this half-derisive silence on one side, this eager impulse of contradiction and opposition on the other, smote her to the heart. It had been rising gradually for some days past, and Menie, without being quite aware of it, had noticed the bias with which her mother and her betrothed listened and replied to each other; the unconscious inclination of each to give an unfavourable turn to the other’s words, a harshness to the other’s judgment, an air of personal offence to a differing opinion, of grave misdemeanour to a piece of blameless jesting. Lithgow, stranger as he was, discovered in a moment, so quick and sensitive was his nature, the incipient estrangement, and grew embarrassed and annoyed in spite of himself—annoyed, embarrassed, it looked so much like the last ebullition of some domestic quarrel; but Lithgow was a stranger, and had no interest farther than for the harmony of the moment in any strife of these conflicting minds.

But here sits one whose brow must own no curve of displeasure, whose voice must falter with no embarrassment. She is sitting by the little work-table in the window, her eyes, so wistful as they have grown, so large and full, and eloquent with many meanings, turning from one to the other with quick earnest glances, which are indeed whispers of deprecation and peace-making. “He means something else than he says; he is not cold-hearted nor insincere; you mistake Randall,” say Menie’s eyes, as they labour to meet her mother’s, and gaze with eager perturbation in her face, deciphering every line and wrinkle there. “Do not speak so—you vex my mother; but she does not mean to be angry,” say the same strained and ever-changing eyes, as they turn their anxious regards to Randall’s face. She sits between us and the light—you can see her girlish figure outlined against the window—her face falling from light to shadow, brightening up again from shadow to light, as she turns from one to the other; you can see how eagerly she listens, prompt to rush forward with her own softening gentle speech upon the very border of the harsher words, whose utterance she cannot prevent. The very stoop of her head—the changeful expression of her face, which already interprets the end of the sentence ere it is well begun—her sudden introduction of one subject after another, foreign to their former talk—her sudden interest in things indifferent, and all the wiles and artifices with which she hedges off all matters of personal or individual interest, and abstracts the conversation into the channel of mere curiosity, of careless and everyday talk—are all sufficiently visible exponents of Menie’s new position, and new trials. She is talking to Lithgow now so rapidly, and with so much demonstration of interest—you would almost fancy this poor loving Menie had caught a contagious enthusiasm from Miss Annie Laurie’s juvenile delights—talking of these sights of the great unknown London, which have grown so indifferent and paltry to this suddenly enlightened and experienced mind of hers; but in the midst of all you can see how steadily her wakeful eyes keep watch upon Randall yonder by Miss Annie’s miniature book-cases, and Mrs Laurie here, with that little angry flush upon her brow.

So slow the hours seem—so full of opportunities of discussion—so overbrimming with subjects on which they are sure to differ; till Menie, in her gradually increasing excitement, forgets to note the progress of time; but is so glad—oh, so glad and joyful—to see the evening fall dark around them, to hear Maria’s step drawing near the door, while the lights she carries already throw their glimmer on the wall. It is late; and now the visitors take leave, somewhat reluctantly, for Lithgow begins to like his new friends greatly; and Randall, though something of irritation is in the face, where his smile of disdain still holds sway, is Menie’s ardent wooer still, and feels a charm in her presence, simple though he has discovered her to be. But at last they are gone—safely gone; and Menie, when she has watched them from the door, and listened to their steps till they die away a distant echo upon the silent air, steals away in the dark to her own room—not for any purpose—simply to rest herself a little; and her manner of rest is, sitting down upon a low stool close by the window, where some pale moonlight comes in faintly, and bending down her face into her clasped hands to weep a little, silently and alone.

Is it but to refresh the wistful eyes which this night have been so busy? is it but to wash and flood away the pain that has been in their eager deprecating looks, their speeches of anxious tenderness? But Menie does not say even to herself what it is for, nor why. For some weeks now, Menie has been sadly given to “crying for nothing,” as she herself calls it. She thinks she ought to be ashamed of her weakness, and would be afraid to acknowledge it to any living creature; but somehow, for these few days, Menie has come away about this same hour every night into the solitude here, to cry, with sometimes a little impatient sob bursting out among her tears—though she cannot tell you, will not tell you—would not whisper even to her own very secret heart, the reason why.

CHAPTER XVI.

Mrs Laurie sits by the table with her work; but it is still an easy thing to perceive the irritation on Mrs Laurie’s brow; her hand moves with an additional rapidity, her breath comes a little faster; and if you watch, you will see the colour gradually receding from her cheek, like an ebbing tide, and her foot ceasing to play so impatiently upon its supporting stool.

Very humbly, like a culprit, Menie draws forward her chair to the light. She is admonished, ere long, by a hasty answer, an abrupt speech, a slight pushing back from the table, and erection of her figure, that Mrs Laurie is still angry. It is strange how this cows and subdues Menie—how eager she is to say something—how humble her tone is—and how difficult she feels it to find anything to say.

Poor heart! like many another bewildered moth, Menie flutters about the subject it behoves her most to avoid, and cannot help making timid allusions to their future life in London—that future life which begins to darken before her own vision under a cloudy horizon of doubt and dread. It has ceased to be a speculation now, this future; for even within these few days there has been talk of Menie’s marriage.

“We will speak of some other thing; there is no very great charm in the future for me, Menie,” said Mrs Laurie, with a sigh.

But Menie, with trembling temerity, begs to know the reason why. Why?—what concerns her concerns her mother also. Very timid, yet too bold, Menie insists, and will be satisfied—why?

“Because it is hard to lose my only child,” said Mrs Laurie. “Let us not deceive ourselves; it is easy to say we will not be separated, that there shall be no change. I know better, Menie: well, well; do not cry—say it is only the natural lot.”

“What is only the natural lot? O mother, mother! tell me.” Menie is still pertinacious, even through her tears.

“I will tell you, Menie,” said Mrs Laurie, quickly. “Randall Home and I cannot dwell under one roof in peace. I foresee a wretched life for you, if we tried it; a constant struggle—a constant failure. Menie, I will try to be content; but your mother feels it hard to yield up you and your love to a stranger—very hard. I ought to be content and submissive. I ought to remember that it is the common necessity—an everyday trial; but we have been more to each other than mere mother and daughter. I cannot hide it from you, Menie; this trial is very grievous to me.”

“Mother! mother!” It is not “for nothing” now that Menie Laurie weeps.

“You have been the light of my eyes for twenty years—my baby, my only bairn! I have nothing in the world when you are gone. Menie, have patience with your mother. I thought we might have been one household still. I never thought I could have hurt my bairn by clinging to her with all my heart. I see through another medium now. Menie, this that I say is better for us both. I would lose my proper place—I would lose even my own esteem—if I insisted, or if I permitted you to insist, upon our first plan. I do not mean to insist with Randall,” said Mrs Laurie, with a sudden flush of colour, “but with ourselves. It is not for your credit, any more than mine, that your mother should be unnecessarily humiliated; and I choose to make this decision myself, Menie, not to have it forced upon me.”

“If you think so—if I have nothing to hope but this—mother, mother!” cried Menie in her sobs, “there is yet time; we can change it all.”

But Menie’s voice was choked; her head bowed down upon her folded arms; her strength and her heart were overcome. The room was only partially lighted. So vacant—only these two figures, with their little table and their lamp at one end—it looked lonely, silent, desolate; and you could hear so plainly the great struggle which Menie had with these strong sobs and tears.

Mrs Laurie wiped a few hot hasty drops from her own eyes. She was not much used to contest; nor was it in her to be inflexible and stern; and the mother could not see her child’s distress. “Menie!” Menie can make no answer; and Mrs Laurie rises to go to her side, to pass a tender caressing hand over the bowed head, to shed back the disordered hair. “Menie, my dear bairn, I did not mean to vex you. I will do anything—anything, Menie; only do not let me see you in such grief as this.”

“He is not what you think, mother—he is not what you think,” cried Menie; “it is not like this what he says of you. O mother! I do not ask you to do him justice—to think well of him. I ask a greater thing of you;—mother, hear me—I ask you to like him for Menie’s sake.”

And it will not do to evade this petition by caresses, by soothing words, by gentle motherly tenderness. “Yes, Menie, my darling, I’ll try,” said Mrs Laurie at last, with tearful eyes. “Do you think it is pleasant to me to be at strife with Randall? God forbid! and him my dear bairn’s choice; but do not look at me with such a pitiful face. Menie, we’ll begin again.”

Was Menie content? for the moment more than content, springing up into a wild exhilaration, a burst of confidence and hope. But by-and-by the conversation slackened—by-and-by the room became quite silent, with its dim corners, its little speck of light, and the two figures at its farther end. A heavy stillness brooded over them—they forgot that they had been talking—they forgot, each of them, that she was not alone. The leaves stirred faintly on the windows—the night wind rustled past the yew-tree on the lawn. From the other end of the house came sometimes a stir of voices, the sound of a closed or opened door; but here everything was silent—as still as if these were weird sisters, weaving, with their monotonous moving fingers, some charm and spell; while, down to the depths—down, down, as far into the chill and dark of sad presentiment as a heart unlearned could go—fluttering, with its wings close upon its breast, its song changed into a mournful cry—down out of the serene heavens, where it had its natural dwelling, came Menie Laurie’s quiet heart.

CHAPTER XVII.

Through the depth and darkness of the summer night, you can hear Mrs Laurie’s quiet breathing as she lies asleep. With a pain at her heart she lay down, and when she wakes she will feel it, or ever she is aware that she has awaked; but still she sleeps: blessing on the kind oblivion which lays all these troubles for a time to rest.

But what is this white figure erecting itself from the pillow, sitting motionless and silent in the night? It is tears that keep these gentle eyelids apart—tears that banish from them the sleep of youth. Still, that she may not wake the sleeper by her side, scarcely daring to move her hand to wipe away this heavy dew which blinds her eyes. Menie Laurie, Menie Laurie, can this sad watcher be you?

And Menie’s soul is vexing itself with plans and schemes, and Menie’s heart is rising up to God in broken snatches of prayer, constantly interrupted, and merging into the bewilderment of her thoughts. Startled once for all out of the early calm, the serene untroubled youthful life which lies behind her in the past, Menie feels the change very hard and sore as she realises it; from doing nought for her own comfort—from the loving sweet dependence upon others, to which her child’s heart has been accustomed—suddenly, without pause or preparation, to learn that all must depend upon herself—to have the ghost of strife and discord, where such full harmony was wont to be—to feel the two great loves of her nature—the loves which heretofore, in her own innocent and unsuspicious apprehension, have but strengthened and deepened each the other, set forth in antagonism, love against love, and her own heart the battle-ground. Shrinking and failing one moment, longing vainly to flee away—away anywhere into the utmost desolation, if only it were out of this conflict,—the next resolving, with such strong throbs and beatings of her heart, to take up her burden cordially, to be ever awake and alert, to subdue this giant difficulty with the force of her own strong love and ceaseless tenderness—praying now for escape, then for endurance, and anon breaking into silent tears over all. Alas for Menie Laurie in her unaccustomed solitude! and Menie thinks, like every other Menie, that she could have borne anything but this.

But by-and-by, in spite of tears and trouble, the natural rest steals upon Menie—steals upon her unawares, though she feels, in the sadness of her heart, as if she could never rest again; throws back her drooping head upon her pillow, folds her arms meekly on her breast, closes her eyelids over the unshed tear; and thus it is that the dawn finds her out, like a flower overcharged and drooping with its weight of evening dew, but wrapt in sleep as deep and dreamless and unbroken as if her youth had never known a tear.

The sun is full in the room when Menie wakes, and Mrs Laurie has but a moment since closed the door softly behind her, that the sleeper might not be disturbed. Even this tender precaution, when she finds it out, chills Menie to the heart; for heretofore her mother’s voice has roused her, and even her mother’s impatience of her lingering would be joy to her to-day; but Mrs Laurie is not impatient. Mrs Laurie thinks it better, for all the sun’s unceasing proclamation that night and sleep are past, to let the young heart refresh itself a little longer, to leave the young form at rest.

Ay, Menie Laurie, kneel down by your bedside—kneel down and pray; it is not often that your supplications testify themselves in outward attitude. Now there is a murmur of an audible voice speaking words to which no mortal ear has any right to listen; and your downcast face is buried in your hands, and your tears plead with your prayers. For you never thought but to be happy, Menie, and the gentle youthful nature longs and yearns for happiness, and with the strength of a rebel fights against the pain foreseen—poor heart!

“Eh, Jenny! you’re no keeping ill-will?” said a doleful voice upon the lawn below; very distinct, through the open window, it quickened Menie’s morning toilette considerably, and drew her forward, with a wondering face, to make sure. “I’m sure it’s no in me to be unfriends with onybody; and after ane coming a’ this gate for naething but to ask a civil question, how you a’ was. I’m saying, Jenny? you’re no needing to haud ony correspondence with me except ye like; it’s the mistress and Miss Menie I’m wanting to see.”

“Am I to let in a’ the gaun-about vagabones that want to see the mistress and Miss Menie?” said Jenny’s gruff voice in reply. “I trow no; and how ye can have the face to look at Jenny after your last errand till her, I canna tell; ye’ll be for undertaking my service ance mair? but ye may just as weel take my word ance for a’—the mistress canna bide ye ony mair than me.”

“Eh, woman, Jenny, ye’re a thrawn creature!” said Nelly Panton. “I’m sure I never did ye an ill turn a’ my days. But ye needna even the like of your service to me; I’m gaun to live with our Johnnie, and keep his house, and Johnnie’s company are grander folk than the mistress; but I’m no forgetting auld friends, so I came to ask for Miss Menie because I aye likit her, and because she’s a young lass like mysel; and I’ll gang and speak to that ither servant-woman if you’ll no tell Miss Menie I’m here.”

Jenny’s fury—for very furious was Jenny’s suppressed fuff at the presumptuous notion of equality or friendship between Menie Laurie and Nelly Panton—was checked by this threat; and fearful lest the dignity of her young mistress should be injured in the eyes of the household by the new-comer’s pretensions, Jenny, who had held this colloquy out of doors, turned hastily round and pattered away by the back entrance to open the door for the visitor, muttering repeated adjurations. “My patience!” and Jenny’s patience had indeed much reason to be called to her aid.

Menie’s curiosity was a little roused—her mind, withdrawn from herself, lightened somewhat of its load, and she hastened down stairs less unwillingly than she would have done without this interruption. Jenny stood by the drawing-room door holding it open; and Jenny’s sturdy little form vibrated, every inch of it, with anger and indignation. “Ane to speak to you, Miss Menie!—ane used with grand society, and owre high for the like of me. Ye’ll have to speak to her yoursel.”

And Menie suddenly found herself thrust into the room, while Jenny, with an audible snort and fuff, remained in possession of the door.

Nelly Panton had too newly entered on her dignities to be able to restrain the ancient curtsey of her humility. Yes, undoubtedly, it was Nelly Panton—with the same faded gown, the same doleful shawl, the same wrapped-up and gloomy figure. Against the well-lighted, well-pictured wall of Miss Annie Laurie’s drawing-room she stood in dingy individuality dropping her curtsey, while Menie, much surprised and silent, stood before her waiting to be addressed.

“Can nane of ye speak?” said the impatient Jenny, from the door. “Miss Menie, are ye no gaun to ask what is her business here? A fule micht ha’e kent this was nae place to come back to, after her last errand to Burnside; and when she kens I canna bide her, and the mistress canna bide her, to come and set up for a friendship with you!”

“She’s just as cankered as she aye was, Miss Menie,” said Nelly Panton, compassionately, shaking her head. “It shows an ill disposition, indeed, when folk canna keep at peace with me, as many a time I’ve telt my mother. But ye see, Miss Menie, I couldna just bide on in Kirklands when ye were a’ away, so I just took my fit in my hand, and came on to London to see after Johnnie with my ain een. He needs somebody to keep him gaun, and set him richt, puir callant; and he’s in a grand way for himsel, and should be attended to—so I think I’ll just stay on, Miss Menie; and the first thing I did was to come and ask for you.”

“You are very kind, Nelly,” said Menie Laurie; but Menie paused with a suppressed laugh when she saw Jenny’s clenched hand shaken at her from the door.

“And ye’ll maybe think I’m no just in condition to set up for friends with the like of you,” said Nelly, glancing down upon her dress; “but I only came in to London the day before yesterday, and I’ve naething yet but my travelling things. I’m hearing that little Juley Home of Braecroft’s coming too; and between you and me, Miss Menie, no to let it gang ony farther, I think it was real richt and prudent of you to show us the first example, and draw us a’ up to London to take care of thae lads.”

“What do you mean, Nelly?” exclaimed Menie, somewhat angrily.

“Ye may weel say what does she mean,” said Jenny, making a sudden inroad from the door. “Do you hear, ye evil speaker!—the mistress is out, and there’s naebody to take care of this puir bairn but me; whatever malice and venom ye have to say, out wi’t, and I’ll tell the young lady what kind of character ye are when a’s dune.”

“I wadna keep such a meddling body in my house—no, if she did the wark twice as weel,” retorted Nelly, with calm superiority; “and I’ve nae call to speak my mind afore Jenny, and her aye misca’in’ me; but it’s nae secret of mine. I was just gaun to say, that for a’ our Johnnie’s a very decent lad, and minds upon his friends, I never saw ane, gentle or simple, sae awfu’ muckle tooken up about himsel as Randy Home. He’s anither lad altogether to what he used to be; and it’s no to be thocht but what he’s wanting a grand wife like a’ the rest. Now, ye’ll just see.”

Menie Laurie put down Jenny’s passionate disclaimer by a motion of her hand. “If this was what you came to tell me, Nelly, I fear I shall scarcely be grateful for your visit. Do you know that it is an impertinence to say this to me? Whisht, Jenny, that is enough; and I came here to look after no one. Whatever you may have thought before, you will believe this now, since I say it. Jenny will see that you are comfortable while you stay out here; but I think, Nelly, you have said enough to me this morning, and I to you—Jenny, whisht.”

“I’ll no whisht,” cried Jenny, at last, freed by Menie’s pause. “Eh, ye evil spirit! will ye tell me what cause of ill-will ye ever could have against this innocent bairn? I’m no gaun to whisht, Miss Menie—to think of her coming up here ance errand to put out her malice on you! My patience! how ony mortal can thole the sicht o’ her, I dinna ken.”

“I can forgive ye, Jenny,” said the meek Nelly Panton, “for a’ your passions, and your glooms, and your ill words—I’m thankful to say I can forgive ye; but, eh, sirs, this is a weary world;—wherever I gang, at hame, or away frae hame, I’m aye miskent—naebody has the heart to take a guid turn frae me—though, I’m sure, I aye mean a’thing for the best, and it was richt Miss Menie should ken. I thocht I would just come up this far to give ye an advice, Miss Menie, when we were our lanes; and I’m no gaun to blaze up into a fuff like Jenny because it’s ill ta’en. I’m just as guid friends as ever. The next time I come I’ll come with our Johnnie, so I bid you a very good morning, Miss Menie Laurie, and mony thanks for your kind welcome. Jenny, fare-ye-well.”

Menie sat down in the window when the dark figure of her unwelcome visitor was gone. The sun came in upon her gaily—the genial August sun—and the leaves without fluttered in a happy wind and a maze of morning sounds, broken with shriller shouts of children, and rings of silvery laughter floated up and floated round her, of themselves an atmosphere fresh and sweet; but Menie bowed her face between her hands, and looked out with wistful eyes into the future, where so many fears and wonders had come to dwell; and vigilant and stern the meagre yew-tree looked in upon her, like an unkindly fate.

NATIONAL GALLERY.
REPORT OF COMMISSION.

The publication of the evidence given before the Select Committee on the National Gallery, enables us to return to the subject of our article of December with a more complete knowledge of the facts than we could gather from the unfinished Report and the extracts of evidence, which the press of the day supplied. The whole Blue Book is a valuable document: it contains a very clear index by which references to all details, as well of fact as of opinion, can be readily made, rendering the alarming bulk of the materials very manageable. We can now see what each witness actually said, so that none need complain of partial or mutilated extracts; every passage may be taken with its context. We shall take occasion thereby to correct some portions of evidence, upon which we commented in our former paper, having been misled by the versions in the newspaper reports, from which we took them. To correct a misstatement should be our first task. We were certainly much surprised to find it stated that Sir Charles Eastlake had made such a declaration as this, that he would not hesitate to clean a picture, and “to strip off the whole of its glazings.” We thought it at the time so improbable that we could not believe such to have been his meaning; and accordingly said, that Sir Charles must have meant coats of varnish, for that we knew him to be too experienced a master of his profession to mean the glazings. We have, since the publication, carefully examined his evidence, and not only do not see the words attributed to him, but collect from his answers to the queries put to him, a general aversion to “cleaning,” and that, in most instances, he opposed subjecting pictures to it, as a dangerous process.

It might, however, be supposed that artists would agree as to the meaning of terms of art. Those on the Commission unacquainted with the processes of painting, must have been very much surprised and perplexed by the very different meanings given to technical terms, and that not by one or two, or by artists of little note, but by nearly all, including the most celebrated. The confusion caused by this non-agreement among the artists, with regard to the terms of their art, the contradictions, and explanations, occupy a very large portion of the Blue Book. Nor does it appear that the Commissioners are able to come to any clear conclusion upon the matter. They labour hard, it is true, and put their questions in every shape, to learn what seems to be simple enough—in fact, whether any paint, put on a picture by the original painter, in a thin transparent manner, has been removed by the cleaning process; but the examined force their examiners into a labyrinth of words, of various and tortuous uses, in which there is all bewilderment, and no master-clue is given them by which they might escape into unobscured ground. Thus, we see in the index the word “glazings” requires four heads of examination—1. Explanation of the process; its susceptibility to injury by cleaning. 2. How far it was used by the ancient masters. 3. Proofs of glazings having been extensively used. 4. Removal by cleaning of the glazings from certain pictures in the Gallery. There is, at least, one certain conclusion to be drawn—that there was, and is, such a thing as glazing. That is generally agreed upon—in fact, is only doubted by the keeper, Mr Uwins, R.A.; and his denial, causing so much astonishment, has raised a storm of contradictory opinions, which have obfuscated the whole artistic atmosphere. The public attention had been drawn to a supposed injury, said to have been inflicted on some of the finest pictures in the National Gallery. The attack, through letters in the Times, on the trustees, keeper, cleaners, and general system, was so vigorous that the Commission of Enquiry became absolutely necessary, in order either to allay the public alarm or to provide security for the future. The result has been certainly to justify and confirm the alarm, and to offer certain propositions for the better providing for the safety and progressive improvement of our National Gallery. The system, which includes the whole management of the Gallery, is condemned, in unhesitating terms of compliment to those who made the system, and who ought to have made a better, or to have refused position in one so bad. Yet we really think it is straining a point of grace to dignify the general mismanagement with the title of “system” at all, for no regular system seems ever to have been pursued from the beginning. As we showed in our former article, (and not from our own surmise, but from the evidence of a parliamentary report), our several Governments were never in earnest with regard to the Fine Arts; and a National Gallery having, by a kind of accident, been forced upon them, they chose trustees as to an honorary office in which there was nothing to do, selected for their title and rank rather than for their taste, knowledge, or ability. The consequences have been sad indeed, and exhibit a catalogue of sins of commission and omission. A National Gallery was founded thirty years ago; what is the great production of these thirty years of peace? It is the old fable of the mountain’s labour. The evidence as to losses sustained by omission to purchase is quite vexatious; there is a long list, to which every one acquainted with the picture world may make additions. We have often and often expressed our astonishment, when we have seen pictures on sale, wanted in the Gallery, and not purchased. To say nothing of the greater schools, the Italian, less understood by collectors of pictures, and for which there is as yet unhappily no sufficient public taste—How many pictures of value, of the schools for which a taste is professed, have been allowed to pass away, and many of them sent out of the country? We allude to pictures of which there could be no doubt, either as to their condition or originality. For instance, how miserably poor is our gallery in the works of the younger Vanderveldt, who may be almost classed as an English painter; yet the country had an opportunity of making a purchase of that exceedingly fine one sold from the collection of Sir Bethel Codrington. How poor are we in the works of Ruysdael, of Hobbima—painters so highly estimated by private collectors. We are not giving a preference to these schools; we only show, that what entirely falls within the taste of all collectors among us the nation disregards. An indifference has been proved. Did not a member of the Government declare, in his place in Parliament, that it was preferable that pictures should rather be in private collections than in a public gallery?

We cannot subscribe to the censure passed on our Prime-Minister, Lord Aberdeen, by a writer in the Morning Post, that he consented to the purchase of two pictures which he never saw. Surely he was justified in his reliance upon the recommendation of the Trustees, especially as he was well aware of the difficulty of obtaining their consent to make any purchases. But the inadequacy of the system is thus admitted. Question 5289.—“Your Lordship has probably become aware that a want of definite and well-subdivided responsibility is the main defect of the institution as it exists at present?”—“Yes, I think that where the trustees are numerous, and their attendance is not compulsory, there is great uncertainty; different persons attend on different days, and come with different views and different projects.” But further on we have the real cause of the difficulty exposed, the incompetency of the judges. Q. 5319.—“Your Lordship is aware that opportunities have occurred for the purchase of pictures which belonged to Mr Solly, Mr Conyngham, Mr Younge Otley, and various other gentlemen; and some persons regret that we have not availed ourselves of those opportunities. I presume your Lordship conceives it might be desirable that authority should be given to a limited body of trustees to give a positive recommendation in such cases to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?”—“Yes, I think that would be very useful; but at the same time, on all these subjects, people differ very much among those who are generally supposed to understand matters of art exceedingly well—I have never found two agree. In the case of pictures not enjoying public notoriety and celebrity, you are always liable to that: one man will think that he has found something that is invaluable, while others will think that it is good for little or nothing. You are always liable to a difference of opinion, and the selection must be left to those who are admitted to be the best judges. I do not expect to see a tribunal in which there will not often be a great difference of opinion on matters of art.” Although his Lordship is aware that there is in France, and Prussia, and other countries, “one supreme head, not an artist, but a nobleman or gentleman of high attainments in those matters, in whom the country has confidence,” he is also aware of the hornet’s nest that free discussion is: in answer to question 5314, “Yes, I believe so—a sort of minister; but in a country where there is the same freedom of discussion that there is here, I should not envy the person occupying such a position.” It would indeed be a responsibility requiring a strong and firm mind. And “public confidence” is a variable thing, as his Lordship may at the present moment shrewdly suspect; yet we doubt not there would be many candidates for, or at least many having sufficient confidence in themselves to accept, such a position. Such might be found amongst the competent and incompetent. It is not improbable that Mr Morris Moore, fully assured of his own taste and knowledge, would accept it; or if Sidney Smith were living, he would be likely to add that to the catalogue of undertakings to which Lord John Russell would think himself fully equal, even though there would be a chance of being flayed alive by public discussion and averted public confidence. There are men who desperately love to give judgment ex cathedra, whether it be about a Titian or a nation’s safety, and would hardly be restrained though the fate of Sisanes were threatened them, and they were to encounter the chance of being flayed, and their skins made cushions for their successors in the same seat, to remind them of the consequences of an ill judgment. Still we advocate the one supreme head—a minister of the fine arts—and would have him choose his council; nor should we be so unreasonable as to expect even such a one to be a competent judge in all departments. Few, indeed, are so gifted. Sir Robert Peel, who appears from the beginning to have taken great interest in the Gallery, would scarcely have been a competent authority with regard to Italian art; for, if we mistake not, in the public exhibition of his pictures, a few years ago, there were none of any of the Italian schools. We know no man whose general judgment we should so much rely upon as Sir Charles Eastlake, for he is accomplished, not only as a painter, but as a scholar of artistic research, and full of knowledge; but we learn from himself, in his evidence before this Commission, that when he was appointed to the keepership by Sir Robert Peel, he accepted the office on the condition that he was only to be consulted on, and responsible for, the purchase of Italian pictures. A minister of fine arts should certainly be well acquainted with the finest works of art, and they are undoubtedly of the Italian schools—a real knowledge of these, to a great extent, implies a Catholic taste. The possessor of such knowledge is not likely to be blind to the merits of other schools, though his preference for the higher may have limited his search, and in some measure lowered his zeal as a collector. He would, of course, have subordinate officials, who would, for final judgment, refer to him; and we should in no case fear his decision if he were versed in the fundamental principles of art discoverable in the great schools of Italy. There should be purveyors everywhere. But we have seen enough in the pages of the Report to show that such employed purveyors should not be selected from picture-dealers. Any one attached to the Gallery in this capacity should be a sworn agent, bound to renounce all picture-dealing as a trade, and not to accept anything whatever in the shape of commission. We see no reason why he should ever have been in the trade at all, quite sure that there are many gentlemen out of it perfectly qualified to undertake the important duty.

The main object of the Commission being to discover if the charges of injury, from cleaning certain pictures, have any foundation, it may be thought somewhat strange that they scarcely come to a conclusion upon the matter, which, if they had been inclined to trust to their perception, would not have been a difficult task. They tell us that “the preponderance of testimony is to the effect, that the appearance of the pictures has been rendered less agreeable by the operation of cleaning (the draught of Report says deteriorated)—in some of them, in regard to their general aspect, by removal of the mellow tone which they previously exhibited; in others, from special blemishes, which have become apparent, and which in a former state of the pictures were not perceptible.” In another place we are told, “the weight of evidence varies considerably in respect of the effect produced upon each of the nine pictures which have been lately subjected to the process of cleaning.” We should have thought the weight of evidence had been the preponderance; the weighing down testimony, the turning the scale for or against a varying weight, as a conclusion of evidence appears rather unintelligible. There never was so great a weight of evidence as the Blue Book itself. Did the Commissioners—admitting that, from the examination of artists, amateurs, and picture-dealers, the only result was “great contrariety of judgment and irreconcilable differences of taste”—go to the pictures and examine for themselves? They did so. They went “in company with several witnesses, and in some instances they had also the advantage of engravings and painted sketches of the pictures, so that the witness could point out in detail the precise grounds upon which his conclusions were founded.” We did expect, when we came upon this passage in the Report, that we should learn what the Commissioners themselves thought after this inspection, especially as they had immediately stated that the object of the inspection was, “in order that every facility might be afforded for the elucidation of these conflicting opinions.” But, no. They avoid throwing any opinion into the scale; so that there is no positive decision; and at this interesting point they suddenly turn aside, make, as it were, a ring, to enjoy the stand-up fight of the conflicting opinions of Mr Morris Moore and Mr Uwins the keeper, as some relief to the discrepancies among themselves. We do not doubt that they did form a judgment in their own minds, and can readily guess it. They are cautious, and avoid pronouncing it. Indeed, the Commissioners seem to have been a little vexed with Mr Morris Moore, and look unpleasantly upon him as a chief accuser who had put into their hands a very disagreeable work, which they do not at all sit easy under. They show their vexation in the Report, p. xi., where, in commenting upon the contradictory evidence of Mr Morris Moore and Mr Uwins, they embody in the Report the opinion of Mr Uwins, who characterises the evidence of Mr M. Moore as “displaying a mass of ignorance and want of intelligence.” And immediately, as if to set aside the evidence of both, we presume by the context as prejudiced, they say—“Your Committee wish to direct attention to the unprejudiced [the italics are ours] opinions of many eminent artists and amateurs.” So when Mr Morris Moore justly complains of insult from the unreproved words used by Mr Farrer, “If the imputation came from a person who I thought would be believed, I should take it up,” the Commissioners, after clearing the room to consider the charge of Mr Moore, that he had been insulted, came to the strange conclusion, not that Mr Farrer’s words were no insult, but that “Mr Moore had himself frequently used language towards others which might reasonably give offence.” Now this is not fair. Offence may be given reasonably, and therefore admissibly; but when it is of a nature to impugn the veracity generally, not as to any particular fact, of a person under examination, as one not to be believed, he has a right to demand protection; and if it be not given, their right of examination ceases. There is a great difference between what may be in the nature of the evidence offensive and what is insulting. If Mr Moore had been equally guilty with Mr Farrer, the Commissioners should, when so guilty, have reproved it; whereas they make this their omission an excuse for not doing plain justice now. Doubtless Mr M. Moore has given great offence by his evidence, but that does not justify Mr Farrer in offering an insult which is not evidence; nor are the Commissioners justified in their comment that Mr Moore had given offence, without marking still more strongly the insult offered by Mr Farrer, still unreproved. We are not acquainted with Mr Moore, nor do we in any way take up his “animosities,” if he has any; but we think towards him the Commissioners did not act quite fairly, nor consistently with the dignity of their position.

We may not unaptly look upon their visit to the National Gallery as an inquest on the bodies of certain old masters—say Claude, Titian, Velasquez—for the charge had been made of positive murder. The decision required—Were they dead, killed, murdered, or still alive and well-looking? A physician once told us an anecdote in point. He, with another physician, had been some time in attendance upon a patient. (We believe the man was a baker). One day they went up-stairs as usual, looked a moment or two at the poor man, then at each other significantly, and walked out of the room. On the stairs they met the wife, and tenderly informed her that she was a widow; and as a widow she properly conducted herself, and saw the physicians depart. It so happened that our friend, some weeks after, turning the corner of a street, came suddenly against the baker—“What! aren’t you dead?” “No,” said the man, “I recovered as soon as you left me.” A little farther on he met the widow that should have been. Perhaps she had less reason to be thankful than her recovered husband. She raised a tumult against the physician, vociferating, “Pretty fellows you must be—much you must know of your business, not to know whether a man be living or dead.” From this, he said, he determined henceforth, on most occasions, to use only dumb show, or ambiguous expressions. The Commissioners seem to have been of this way of thinking. They cannot altogether acquit the irresponsible responsibles—are unwilling to condemn; they adopt, therefore, a figure not unknown in oratory, a mystification under the ambiguity of a varying weight of evidence.[^[4]]

We are, however, now in a position to hear the witnesses speak for themselves. Such a mass of contradictions it will be difficult to find elsewhere among professors of any other art or science. In the multitude of counsellors there may be wisdom, but it is not the less hard to extract it; and certainly one part of the wisdom is sometimes to conceal it.

As “glazing” has been shown to be a fertile source of discrepancies of opinion, and the whole question of the cleaning process so much depends upon its existence or non-existence in certain works, and upon its peculiar liability to injury, it may not be unimportant to examine the testimonies concerning it.

What is the definition of glazing? Sir Charles Eastlake makes it to be, “The passing a dark transparent colour over a lighter colour.” He also draws a distinction between the Italian and Flemish glazing. “The Italian practice is glazing over a solid, light preparation; the Flemish is passing transparent colours over a light ground.” Mr Charteris doubts the propriety of the definition; Sir Charles explains, “I would say that, if a dark transparent colour be passed too thickly, even over a white ground, so as to exclude the light entirely, it becomes opaque; on the other hand, if an opaque colour be passed so thinly over a light ground as to show the light through, it partakes of the nature of glazing. There are pictures by Rubens, in which some of the tints are produced in that way, with opaque colour in a diaphanous state. I was about to state, when you called my attention to the meaning you attach to glazing, that the system of passing a thin opaque colour over its ground is called, in English technical phraseology, ‘scumbling;’ and the passing a strictly transparent colour over its ground is called ‘glazing.’” It may appear very bold in us to question this definition of the President of the Academy; yet we are inclined to do so, because we think our artists have not agreed to adopt it, and because it leaves a common mode of painting without any technical term; but if scumbling may be allowed to express the thin, yet somewhat dry, rubbing in of opaque colour, we may well leave glazing to the conception of it adopted by the Italians, which strikes Sir Charles Eastlake as remarkable. “Now, it is remarkable that the Italians have but one word for both operations—the term velare (to veil) comprehends both glazing and scumbling.” Nor do we see any sufficient reason for confining glazing to dark over light. We cannot but think it was the practice of the Italian schools, at least some of them, to paint glazingly light over dark. Did not Correggio, especially in his backgrounds, paint out the light, the white ground—if he used always light grounds—with deep greys, not of a uniform tone, and afterwards go over them, sometimes with dark transparent colour, and sometimes semi-transparent, and so on lighter? The practice of Rembrandt seems to want technical terms, if Sir Charles’s definition is to be an authority. That eminent painter of mysterious effect, of “palpable obscure,” certainly often painted glazingly semi-opaque lighter over dark, as well as dark over light. It may be a question of practical art, if it be not as desirable that dark under-painting should come out, or slightly appear through a lighter, as that light should come up through the dark. We never can be brought to believe that a white ground, showing through dark glazings, will imitate all the depths of nature. It was perhaps too much the practice of the Flemish schools, but they were not schools from which we should learn the power of sentiment in colouring. It was an expeditious practice, but it led to a conventional colouring, sacrificing the truth of shadows, with the object (if attained) of setting off, and giving body to the lights. We the rather dwell upon this, because we believe that the Flemish system, and particularly that of Rubens, has had an injurious influence upon modern art. Rubens was a painter of great power, and dared an extravagance of conventionality, which, in weaker hands, becomes a conspicuous fault. Hence a thin, flashy, and flimsy style of painting, unnatural, because unsubstantial;—we say unsubstantial; for, however illuminated, or covered with transparency of light or of shadow, nature is ever substantial. The Italian practice is, therefore, greatly to be preferred.

It is well known that our Gainsborough said, that with black or blue, and asphaltum, he would make a pit as deep as the Inferno; but it was a mistake: with such dark transparency, especially over a light ground, he would make no pit at all, but a hole scarcely the depth of his mall-stick; his arm could reach to the end of it, as against a wall. In the greatest depths of nature, there is a depth of dark below, not of light, over which there is atmosphere. It is this depth that should come up, not light. We are not unaware that any semi-opaque glazing over a darker colour has a tendency to coldness, but it may not be the worse on that account, as the painter has the choice of making his under-darks as warm as he pleases, and his semi-opaque glazing warm too. This, cool, in its various degrees over warm, was the method adopted by both the Poussins: they painted on red ground, and that generally not light, but of deep tone; as it was also pretty much the case with the Bolognese school. Gaspar Poussin, by this method, gave great effect to his cool greens in masses of wood, the red ground imperceptibly giving an under warmth, the general masses being laid in with a body of colour, but semi-transparent, as if chalk, or some transparent body, had been embodied with the colour. In his pictures, cool greys, more or less mixed with ochres, tell with great truth over the red ground. We hope the condemnation passed by the President of the Academy upon this method may not be quite merited. Indeed, the beauty of most of that great, we should say greatest, of landscape-painter’s works, which are yet uninjured by the cleaner, would contradict so strong an assertion, as that they are sure to perish from the cause ascribed; for, as they have survived at least two hundred years, Gaspar Poussin having been born in 1600, (and, it may be worth observing, Claude in the same year), we may fairly presume that the work of time on white lead has already done its worst; and we would almost doubt the effect ascribed to time, when we look at the perfect pictures of the master, which appear as if fresh from the easel, and certainly the white not too transparent. Sir Charles is explaining why he objected to the cleaning certain pictures. “The general reason I have given; but if you were to ask me about those pictures, I should say of the two, Canaletti and the Poussin, that it is extremely injudicious to clean pictures of that kind, because time, even without any assistance from picture-cleaners, is sure to destroy such pictures in the end; they are painted on a dark ground, and every painter knows, that when white lead is thinly spread over a dark colour, it becomes more or less transparent in time: white lead has a tendency to grow transparent. If you were to paint a chess-board with a thin coat of white lead, so as effectually to conceal the black squares, and not suffer it to be touched, in a certain time, longer or shorter, according to the thinness of the paint, the black squares would again become apparent. The white lead has a tendency to grow transparent, and the consequence is, that, when a picture is painted on a dark ground, time does it harm rather than good.” We would, with some hesitation—for we pay great deference to the opinions of Sir C. Eastlake—suggest another cause for this appearance of the chess-board—the tendency of oil to become a varnish, and therefore itself more transparent; and we are inclined to think that, had the experiment been tried with any other colour, ochres, or Naples yellow, the effect would have been the same. Nay, what would be a still better test—had the whole board been covered with black, the white squares, we believe, though concealed for a time, would have appeared through. We also hope and trust that this effect of time on the oil is on the whole rather beneficial than otherwise, and that it is not continuous beyond a certain point. It is almost incredible that either the oil or the white lead, laid on canvass two or three hundred years ago, is now, at the present, and will be in future, to a day of destruction, changing their properties. Then, with regard to Gaspar Poussin, if such were really the case, the lights would be the first to disappear; but, on the contrary, Mr Brown, who cleaned the Dido and Æneas about thirty years ago, a very dark picture, gives another kind of evidence. Q. 1128.—“Did you observe in that picture that a very considerable part of the discolouring and blackness arose from internal causes, from an internal alteration in the colours?”—“In some instances; but the general effect of the picture was very much lowered by the heterogeneous mass of oil that was upon it, and the very dark parts did not, of course, come out, as you would imagine they would, from the removal of that: the lighter parts were very brilliant, indeed, but it was always a dark picture.” Q. 1130.—“Is there not something peculiar in the ground on which Gaspar and Nicholas Poussin painted their pictures, which rendered them liable to decomposition and discolourment?”—“I think not so much the ground, as the colour which they would put upon the ground, because the ground that you see in those masters, where they have used it to assist them in painting the picture, is an universal colour: in some parts of the picture, the ground is more or less painted on, but all the light parts of Gaspar Poussin’s pictures are very tender.” The differences of opinion with respect to glazing are chiefly among the artists. Picture-cleaners and picture-dealers are in better agreement. Even the artists who differ, perhaps differ more on account of the definition not being very clear, and established in the artists’ vocabulary, than as to the fact. But the evidence of the present keeper, Mr Uwins, is certainly very extraordinary on this, as on every point upon which his examination entered. We showed, in our last paper, how he was present and absent at the cleanings at the same times; how he gave evidence as to the methods adopted by the cleaners in his presence, which the cleaners themselves very flatly contradicted; how he astonished Lord Monteagle by assertions which his lordship denied; how he protested he did not advise, yet did advise; and now we find, with regard to this question of glazing, having contradicted nearly every one else, he turns round, for lack of others, to contradict himself. His first answers about glazing were most plain and unhesitating. Being asked if the Venetian painters did not use glazing, and that, in consequence, their pictures are liable to injury in cleaning, he says, “That is a question that can never be settled, because nobody can prove that they did use glazings.” Q. 116.—“Is it your opinion that they did, or that they did not?”—“I believe that the best painters of every school used very little, indeed, if any at all, of what is called glazing. I think it quite a modern quackery, that has nothing to do with the noble works of remote ages in art.” Q. 117.—“You consider the theory, as to the Venetian painters having used very delicate glazings in finishing off their pictures, is fallacious?”—“I do not admit those glazings, as they are called; I believe that they sought for freshness and pureness of colour, and depended on their knowledge of colour for the harmony of their picture, and not on putting on what the Romans call ‘la velatura Inglese;’ they wished to obtain the vigour and freshness of nature, or their pictures would not have lasted as they have.” Q. 118.—“Will you explain to the Committee why the Romans (I presume you mean the Romans of the present day) call that particular process by the name of ‘la velatura Inglese?’”—“Because the English painters only adopt it.” Q. 119.—“The English painters of the modern school?”—“It is only those who adopt it; that is why it is especially called ‘la velatura Inglese.’” This is very childish, to attempt to disprove the practice of the old Roman, or other masters, by the supposed—for it is only supposed—or assumed criticism of modern Romans, who can be no authority upon the practice of modern art in this country. Having found, however, that “velare” and “velatura” are old, not new terms of art, in another examination Mr Uwins comes to his explanation, which is as extraordinary as his first assertion. He contradicts himself, by admitting, that all good painters did use glazings, and even asserts that he never denied it, only in a particular sense. It is in vain that the Committee tell him, they asked not the question in any particular sense; he slips out of the hands of the examiner with wonderful lubricity. It is the hardest thing to bring his comprehension to any sense whatever of the questions put to him; and as to the unfortunate “velatura,” he has examined the dictionary of the Academy of Bologna, and, although he has admitted its meaning by the thing, as in practice they all glazed, yet, not to be vanquished, even by his extracts from his dictionary, he pertinaciously says, “I believe that both these extracts relate to the preparation of the canvass.”

We fear the reader may be weary of this discussion on glazing, but we must beg him to go a little further with us on the subject; it is important, for if there were no glazings, both during the process and final, no damage may have been done, in respect to them, for there could be none to remove—a state of the case which some would fain establish, if possible. The Committee take a great deal of trouble to get the clearest evidence upon the point. We perfectly agree with Mr Morris Moore in his evidence in this matter, and utterly repudiate the idea that the mellow, warm, lucid tones of the old masters have been in any degree given by time. He very appositely quotes the sensible Hogarth, “Time cannot give a picture more union and harmony than has been in the power of a skilful master, with all his rules of art, to do.” Mr Morris Moore denies it, with the examples of Claude and Titian, and quotes amply old authorities. We have immediately referred to Leonardo da Vinci’s treatise on painting in general, a very puzzling book; but we find a passage which shows that not only tone might be given by glazing, but colours changed by it—that is, one colour over another, making a third. He says, “A transparent colour being laid on another colour of a different kind forms a third, partaking of each of the two simples that compose it.” Mr Dyce, R.A., comes to the rescue of the Paul Veronese, one of the recently cleaned pictures, showing from the authority of Boschini, a satirical writer on art, of the seventeenth century, that Paul Veronese did not glaze his draperies. The conclusion would of course be, that in that respect the picture could not have been injured, or that it is not the work of Paul Veronese. But surely the passage from Boschini proves too much; for it asserts with regard to drapery an impossibility, or at best a very unlikely thing, unless glazing be taken into the account. For though Boschini is made to say, that Paul Veronese never glazed his drapery, he is made also to say that “he was accustomed to paint the shadows of drapery with lake, not only of red draperies, but also of yellow, green, and even blue, thus producing an indescribably harmonious effect.” But he had also said, that the painter “put in the local tints of draperies first, painting the blue draperies for the most part in water-colour.” It is, in the first place, most unlikely that he left these draperies in water-colour only; it is more probable that this first painting was entirely gone over, or his lake in shadows would hardly have suited all the colours. We happen to have in our possession a Venetian picture, which shows this Venetian practice of lake, under blue drapery. It is a Palma; the subject, The Dead Christ, The Virgin Mother, Mary Magdalene, and other figures. The foot of Mary the Mother rests on a stone, on which is written Jacobus Palma. He was the pupil of Titian, and is said to have finished a picture left unfinished by Titian. The lake is very visible under the blue, which was evidently put over it; and being rubbed off here and there, the red is very conspicuous. We mention this, merely to show that so far Boschini was right, and that the practice was not confined to Paul Veronese. And is there not presumption in any one, whether painter or not—and Boschini was no painter, or a poor one—to assert positively, that a master who lived a generation before him did not use this or that process of painting, having a choice of all, and skill to use them. Boschini’s aversion was the abuse of varnishes; and it is curious that, among the condemned recipes is the olio d’abezzo, for which there are other authorities besides Armenini, and it is mentioned in the Marciana Manuscript, supposed to have been the varnish of Correggio. Boschini is speaking of foreigners, “forestiere,” not Venetians:—

“O de che strazze se fa cavedal

D’ogio d’avezzo, mastice e sandraca,

E trementina (per no dir triaca)

Robe che illusterave ogni stival.”

—Marco Boschini, Vinisto Quinto.

Mr Dyce is unfortunate upon one occasion in rejecting the evidence of Armenini, “because he describes the practice of another school,” “his own school, the school of Ferrara.” Upon this Mr Morris Moore is somewhat sharp upon him, and quotes Armenini himself, to show that he does not confine himself to any school, but speaks from the “practice and example of the most excellent artists that have existed,” and that he was of Faenza, not Ferrara.

Mrs Merrifield, in her valuable work on the ancient practice of painting, the result of a Government Commission, expresses great confidence in the information she received from a learned and skilful Milanese painter and cleaner, Signor A. He had particularly studied the works of Titian, and describes his practice. If his account be correct, Titian certainly glazed over his lights as well as darks; and, like Paul Veronese, by the account of Boschini, he painted the shadows of blue drapery with lake. “He (Titian) then painted the lights with flesh-colour, and laid by the picture to dry. After five or six months he glazed the flesh with terra rossa, and let it dry. He then painted in the shades transparently (that is without any white in the shadows), using a great deal of asphaltum[^[5]] with them.” “He also said, that in a blue drapery he painted the shades with lake, and then laid on the lights (with white); that these colours were laid on with great body, and, when dry, he took a large brush and spread the biadetto over the whole.” This biadetto was used by Paul Veronese; we suppose it was a blue from copper, and, owing to its liability to turn green, used without oil. Now, if such was the practice of Titian, it was most likely in some degree the practice also of Paul Veronese, who, though younger, was contemporary with Titian. We somewhat enlarge upon this question here, because, by the evidence given, doubts were thrown upon the originality of the “Consecration of St Nicolas,” or to prove that no glazings had been removed.

We shall not pursue this subject further, concluding that, whatever practice is in use now by various artists was known by the ancient masters, and some things more, which are either lost or uncertainly recovered. No one has paid greater attention to this subject, or applied to it more research and discrimination, than Sir Charles Eastlake. We still look for more valuable and decisive information from him, especially with respect to the Italian schools.

We are certainly surprised at the opinions given by artists of eminence as to the condition of the Claude, “The Queen of Sheba;” that Mr Stansfield should confirm his opinion of its being uninjured “from the extremities of the trees next the sky, and the foliage generally,” because those very parts have appeared to our eyes so feeble, so washy, as if at some time or other painted on by another hand than Claude’s: we say the same also, somewhat fearlessly, of the edges of the trees in the small upright Claude. The outlining, too, of the cloud in the Queen of Sheba is of the same feeble handling; and the upper and lower tones of the sky are quite out of agreement. Mr Stansfield and others think time will restore the lost tone and harmony: we cannot comprehend this judgment. If time can give that peculiar warm glow of Claude, we should see that time had done this kind or unkind office on the works of other painters, as cold as that picture is now. There were many who avoided this glow, as unsuited to their subjects; we do not see that time has in this respect converted any of them into Claudes. There is Claude’s imitator, Swannevelt, without the glow; but take Ruysdael, who painted upon an opposite principle—we never see that glow thrown over his pictures. His fresh blue and white skies are still free from that yellow toning of time’s fingers. It comes to this—either Claude painted his peculiar glow, or time did for him. If Time did it for him, Time must have been constrained by his office and nature to do the same thing for others. He did not do so for others, or Claude’s would not be a glow peculiar to him—ergo, Claude did the work, and not time. But time is also supposed to do this ameliorating work very speedily. Mr Stansfield thinks “we all must allow that the Cuyp has recovered its tone.” Will it be allowed? There is, and was after the cleaning of that picture in 1844, a pink colouring in the sky, which put the whole picture out of harmony, which, if painted by Cuyp, to be like his other works, could only have been an under-tone, and by him gone over with another, which must have been at some time or other removed.

How could so skilful a marine painter as Mr Stansfield look accurately at the water from the foreground to the distance in the Claude and think it uninjured? The very forms of the waves, in the second and third distances, are interrupted and faint. An argument has been brought, that, if the sky had been injured, the ropes would have suffered. Besides that it is merely assumed that they have not suffered, that argument is fallacious. We have the authority of a very experienced picture-cleaner, and one well acquainted with pictures and all processes, which tends to a contrary proof. De Burtin, in his treatise on picture-cleaning, says: “A point of the utmost importance, and which never must be lost sight of, is this, that among the glazings there will be found some which, although very transparent and delicate, it is nevertheless very difficult to injure, because they have been laid on the colour when fresh, and have become thoroughly incorporated and united therewith; and, on the contrary, there will be found others, and sometimes not so transparent and delicate, but which will yet be injured very readily, because they stand separate from, and do not adhere to the colour beneath them, that having been almost dry ere they were put on.” Now, supposing that Claude’s glow were—we say not that it was—an after-glaze, the ropes may have been put in on the wet sky. Does any one think that Claude’s skies were painted at one painting, or even two?

Mr Stansfield had used the words “raw and disagreeable;” but being asked if he thought that picture raw and disagreeable when it left Claude’s easel? replies, No. We must in justice say, that he somewhat modifies the expression. “Perhaps I have used a wrong term in saying ‘raw’ and ‘disagreeable,’ for we all paint for time to have some effect upon our pictures.” Notwithstanding Mr Stansfield’s great experience, we more than doubt this fallacy as to time. We know it to be, and to have been, a favourite maxim of many painters of the English school, that time will remedy rawness, and make their works in mellowness what those of the ancient masters were. We utterly disbelieve it, and for the following reasons: It is out of character with the mind of genius purposely to leave a work incomplete. The idea of perfection being in the mind, the hand cannot resist the operation. Then, has time had that effect upon more modern works? We appeal for evidence to the Vernon Gallery. Are the pictures there better than when they were fresh from the easel? Not one, we verily believe, and know some to be much worse. This was a notion of Constable’s and his followers, and it has infected the minds of too many. He painted as if he would frost his pictures with white—has time finished them to his conceived perfection? Those who trust to time must, we fear, also trust to the picture-cleaner and picture-toner, against whom there is, rather inconsistently, a considerable outcry. This is a point not requiring a test of long ages. Mr Stansfield himself thinks “The Queen of Sheba” will recover its tone in six months, and that from 1846 to the present time the satisfactory change has taken place in the pictures cleaned.

With regard to Claude’s general yellow tone, there remains yet a question to be asked—Did he take it from nature, or did he add it with a view of improving nature? Quite aware that the question will shock the Naturalists, we still venture it. In the first place, be it observed—and we have noticed it elsewhere in the pages of this Magazine—nature will bear great liberties with regard to colour, without losing her characteristics. Colour may be said, in this sense, to be the poetical language of nature. It is astonishing that any can doubt whether or not this view of nature was taken by the Ancient Masters. It is unfashionable now. To apply this to Claude: In Sir David Brewster’s evidence, we find mention made of “Claude glasses,” some of which he produced. He considered that, looking through these, the tone would be much restored to the eye. “I conceive,” he says, “this (the yellow tone) is proved by the glasses, which I have produced, having got the name of Claude Lorraine glasses from their giving that general tone to nature that characterises all his pictures.” This leads to a slight discussion on the subject of the glasses. Mr B. Wall asks Sir David, “Are you not aware that, about forty-five years ago, those Claude Lorraine glasses were introduced and sold, three, or four, or five together, and they were very much used by tourists who used to see the English Lakes?—were they not of different colours—blue, pink, green, and almost every shade?” “No such name was given to such glasses as you refer to in your question.” Mr B. Wall: “I venture to differ from your high authority, and to think that the glass which you call a Claude Lorraine glass is not the only glass that went by that name; and therefore that the inference which you have drawn, that the yellow one was the proper one to use when you looked at Claude’s pictures, was not correct.” Mr Stirling asks if there is not another thing called a Claude Lorraine glass, “a piece of coloured glass which is used to reduce the landscape, and reflect it like the surface of a mirror?” Sir David says, he never saw it done with coloured glass. The difference between the glass spoken of by Sir David, and that by Mr B. Wall, does not seem very important,—it being that one admits other colours more freely than the other. Mr Wall is not, however, quite correct in limiting the invention to forty-five years ago. We have one in our possession which we know to have been in existence very near a century, and it has always been called a Claude glass. I believe it has been in use, as was the black glass, in the days of the Old Masters. The effect on the natural landscape is curious, and worth recording. The yellow glass is very extraordinary: it wondrously heightens the lights, so that a sky, for instance, in which scarcely an illuminated cloud is seen, looked at through this glass, exhibits great variety of parts. Shadows are deepened, and light strengthened; real colours not lost, but as it were covered with a glaze. We have always been of opinion that Rembrandt used it, his pictures are so like nature seen through that medium. It mostly reduces the blue, making it greenish. There was a little picture of Rembrandt exhibited some years ago at the Institution in Pall-Mall, which presented exactly the effect we speak of. It was a most simple subject—a hilly ground, on the undulating summit of which, on one side, was a village church among trees, on the other a few scattered houses, all dark, against the sky; from the division of the hill, a road very indistinct came down to the foreground, which, to the right, melted off into a dark brook, going into deep shade, where it was lost. The sky was exceedingly luminous—a cloud rising over the village, such as would “drop fatness,” and the whole tone of that greenish-grey, with rich-toned illuminations, which the Claude glass constantly presents to the eye. In a paper of this Magazine of 1847, in which we had occasion to speak of colour, and the habit of the Old Masters in deviating from the common, obvious colouring of nature, we alluded to this Claude Lorraine glass. “This may be exemplified by a dark mirror—and, better still, by a Claude glass, as it is called, by which we look at nature through coloured glasses. We do not the less recognise nature—nay, it is impossible not to be charmed with the difference, and yet not for a moment question the truth. We are not here discussing the propriety of using such glasses—it may be right, or it may be wrong, according to the purpose the painter may have. We only mean to assert, that nature will bear the changes and not offend any sense. The absolute naturalness, then, of the colours of nature, in its strictest and most limited sense, local and aërial, is not so necessary as that the eye cannot be gratified without it. And it follows, that agreeability of colour does not depend upon this strict naturalness.”

We learn from Mrs Merrifield, that Signor A. showed her a black mirror, which had belonged to Bamboccio (Peter Van Laer). “This mirror was bequeathed by Bamboccio to Gaspar Poussin; by the latter to some other painter, until it ultimately came into the hands of Signor A.” It is admitted by Mr Seguier himself, as by other witnesses, that Claude painted thinly, semi-opaque over dark, but this is called “scumbling.” It is, however, in fact, if done with a free hot dry brush, a glaze, and he may have thus toned his pictures. That tone once removed, as in the case of the Sheba, we believe irrecoverable but by such a master-hand as put it on, and possessed of the same pure medium. We fancy we discover in the working that a great deal of the detail of his pictures was painted in this method. To expect that time only will restore that fine glow is worthy the philosopher of Laputa, and his resolution to extract sunbeams from cucumbers. Poor Claude! Professors of the art of painting are far worse off than professors of literature, whose tormentors are but the printer’s devil and the compositor. The poor painter has an endless generation of tormentors. The “Quidlibet audendi” is not his motto; his genius will never be half so daring as the hands of his scrubbers. Let him sit at his easel, and, in his enthusiasm, throw sunshine from his brush, and dream fondly that it will be eternal; a host of cleaners are looking over his shoulder, or lurking in secret, to catch the treasure, and smudge his dream and his work out for ever. And when they have visibly, too visibly, done their worst, old Time, that used to be represented as the “Edax rerum,” the general destroyer, is introduced as a newly-dubbed professor of the art of cleaning and restoring by dirt.

We do not, however, wish to speak disrespectfully of picture-cleaners, or picture-varnishers, or picture-dealers. There are many very skilful and very useful, and, of dealers, honourable and liberal. Nor do we say this without knowledge; yet habit creates boldness, and removes caution. Like the medical profession, cleanership, it is to be feared, must kill before it has learned to cure. But the professors sometimes forget the wholesome rule, “Fiat experimentum in corpore vili.” Even the wise Sir David Brewster confesses to having dabbled in destruction. There is not a man of note in it but must have killed his man; and few are so happy as the wonderful Mr Lance, to make a new one so well that none can tell the difference. Indeed, Mr Lance’s magic brush did a great deal more. A cleaner had wiped out of existence whole members—man and horse; sometimes had left half a horse, and scarcely half a man, and sometimes had ironed them all out together. Mr Lance brought all to life again, without having ever seen one of them; and all so like, that their most familiar acquaintances had never missed them, nor known they had ever been defunct. Yet was his modesty equal to his skill. He never boasted of his performance. Man and horse were revivified, and remounted, and caracoled with the utmost grace and precision before himself and the public, with unbounded applause; and the wonderful restorer was contented to sit quietly in a corner, as if unconscious of his own creations, and deaf to the loudest blast of Fame’s trumpet. If we have wearied our readers with too long discussions upon technicalities, we can now make amends by retiring behind the scenes, first introducing Mr Lance himself, who will be as amusing to others as he has been to us. But there is a prologue to every play; we would not usher in so celebrated a performer without one.

Every one acquainted with the National Gallery knows the Velasquez “Boar-hunt.” It was always a celebrated picture, and henceforth will be more celebrated than ever. In the very Index of the Report it occupies more than a whole page. The famous Erymanthian boar never gave half the sport, though it required a Hercules to kill him. But there is a difference: he was killed, and frightened people after he was dead; this boar was killed, and brought to life again, and pleased every one ever after. It had been hunted in many countries, and would have been hunted in many more, had it not received its Apotheosis from the hand of Sir Robert Peel, and found a place in the galaxy of the National Gallery.

This picture was presented to Lord Cowley by the Court of Spain; and from him came into the hands of Mr Farrer, a dealer in pictures. By him it was sent to Holland, having been refused by our Gallery, and offered to the king, who rejected it. On its return from Holland, Mr Farrer left it in its case, in his front shop, with the direction on it to his Majesty the King of Holland—no direction to Mr Farrer appearing. Mr B. Wall, one of the Commissioners, sees the case, and asks what it contains; is told the Velasquez: has the “impression,” but is not quite certain, that Mr Farrer told him it was going to the King of Holland. Mr B. Wall upon this goes to Sir Robert Peel, and both fear the picture may be lost; and, with the sanction and at the desire of Sir R. Peel, it was purchased for the Gallery. Now, Mr B. Wall was not the only person who saw the case in Mr Farrer’s shop. Mr Morris Moore was one, and, as he says, there were many others. He names two—Mr Coningham and Mr Chambers Hall—to all of whom Mr Farrer, according to the evidence of Mr Morris Moore, told the same tale—namely, “that the Trustees were but just in time to save it from exportation to the King of Holland.” This Mr Farrer stoutly denies, and Mr Morris Moore offers to take his oath to the fact. In the denial, Mr Farrer states, that he may have said he was going to send it abroad, for that he intended to offer it in Paris; but, after a while, speaks rather uncertainly, not knowing exactly where abroad he should have sent it; but it is possible he may have intended again to send it to Holland, under a kind of conviction that the King of Holland would, after all, have it. Then he asserts that the visit from, and conversation with, Mr Morris Moore upon the subject were before, not after, the picture had gone to Holland. Mr Moore, on the other hand, is positive it was after it had returned, because it was then secured for the National Gallery, and Mr Farrer admits it was not so secured till after its return from Holland. This is, as far as we can make it, a plain statement, in abstract, from the evidence. The Commissioners leave these “discrepancies” where they found them; so do we. It is a common saying that truth lies somewhere between two contradictory statements. Wherever it may appear to lie, there appears but little space, on any intermediate ground, upon which it could, by any possibility, stand upright. This little history has seen the picture lodged in the Gallery. We must beg the reader to imagine it not as yet to have been located, that he may learn a little of its antecedents. Lord Cowley had placed the picture in the hands of Mr Thane to keep, where it remained some years. But Mr Lance shall tell the tale. “After a considerable time, Mr Thane, as I heard afterwards, had been commissioned to clean the picture, and reline it. A colourman was employed to reline the picture, a most skilful man, and, in relining it, I understand, he blistered it with hot irons.... When the picture was returned to Mr Thane in this condition, it naturally distressed him very much; he was a very conscientious man, and he became very deeply distressed about it: he saw the picture passing over his bed in procession. After a certain time, he thought it got worse, and that the figure of it was more attenuated; and at length he fancied he saw a skeleton. In fact, the poor man’s mind was very much injured. It was then proposed that he should employ some painter to restore the picture; and three persons were selected for that purpose. Sir David Wilkie, Sir Edwin Landseer, and myself, were mentioned; but it was supposed that neither Sir David Wilkie nor Sir Edwin Landseer would give their time to it, and that probably I might; and, therefore, the picture was placed with me, with a representation that, if I did not do something to it, serious consequences would follow to the cleaner. I undertook it, though I was very much employed at the time; and, to be as short as possible, I painted on this picture. I generally paint very rapidly, and I painted on that occasion as industriously as I could, and was engaged for six weeks upon it. When it was completed, Lord Cowley saw it, never having been aware of the misfortune that had happened to the picture. It was then in Mr Thane’s possession, and remained with him some time afterwards. From that time I saw no more of the picture until it was exhibited in the British Gallery some time afterwards, where it was a very popular picture, and was very much thought of. Since then, I have heard it was sold to the nation; and twice I have seen it in the National Gallery. I saw it only about a week ago, and I then thought it was not in the same condition (indeed, I am certain it is not) as when it was exhibited in the British Gallery formerly, after I had done it.” This is sufficient evidence that the picture has been damaged in cleaning. Let us pursue the story through question and answer.

“Q. 5124. What was the state of the picture when it came into your hands? There were portions of the picture entirely gone.—Q. 5125. What portions? Whole groups of figures, and there was a portion of the foreground entirely gone also.—Q. 5126. Do you mean that celebrated group which is so often copied—the man in a red coat? That is original. I think that any man, with any knowledge of art, will see at once that that is original; and I am only surprised that it has not been seen that other parts are original also.—Q. 5127. Which portions of these groups did you chiefly restore? You are very near the mark when you speak of the red coat; it is the group on the right hand; the outlines were entirely gone.—Q. 5128. Do you mean to say, that the whole of the paint was removed from that part of the picture? Entirely.—Q. 5129. Was the canvass laid bare? Entirely.—Q. 5130. What guide had you in repainting those groups? Not any.—Q. 5131. Did you paint groups that you yourself imagined and designed? Yes.—Q. 5132. Did Lord Cowley not distinguish any difference in the groups? Not any.—Q. 5133. What was the extent of paint wanting on that group which you say you repainted on the right—was it a portion as large as a sheet of note-paper? Larger, considerably; the figures themselves are larger than that.—Q. 5134. Was it as large as a sheet of foolscap? About that size, I should imagine.—Q. 5135. There was a piece of the original paint wanting as large as that? Yes, in the foreground.—Q. 5136. It was totally wanting, and the canvass to that extent laid bare—is that so? Yes.—Q. 5137. And on that bare canvass you painted the groups of figures we see now? Exactly.—Q. 5138. Will you have the goodness to describe to the committee any other portions of the picture where the paint was in a similar or in an analogous state? The whole of the centre of the picture was destroyed, with slight indications here and there of men; there were some men without horses, and some horses without men.—Q. 5139. That is in the arena? Yes.—Q. 5140. You are speaking of the figures on horseback? Yes: some riders had no horses, and some horses had no riders.”

We must curtail the evidence for want of space. It appears that his brush, taking the number of square feet, went over a great deal more than half. He is sorry to say it is now gone back to “Velasquez mutilated.” But are there not infallible judges to discover all this repainting? “I may mention that, many years ago, when the picture was at the British Gallery, I was invited by a member of the Academy to go and look at it; and I went there; Mr Seguier and Mr Barnard (who was also a picture-cleaner) were present. They said, ‘I know what you have come for; you have come to see the magnificent Velasquez.’ I said, ‘Well, I have;’ and, with the greatest simplicity in the world, I said it gave me a notion that some part had been much repaired and painted upon: upon which Mr Barnard, the keeper of the British Institution, said immediately, ‘No, you are wrong there; we never had a picture so free from repair in our lives.’ I did not think it at all desirable to make any statement,” &c. He hopes there is no engraving of the picture, for the group in the foreground, entirely his, would be detected immediately.

So much for Mr Lance’s doings with this celebrated Boar-hunt, which, whatever part of it may be by Mr Lance, we are very glad to see in our National Gallery, and should have been more glad if they had abstained from cleaning it. But Mr Lance has further amusement for us. That account is the serious play in which he was principal actor. We shall see him again in the entertainment. It has a very excellent title—“Diogenes in search of an Honest Man.” The part of Diogenes, Mr Lance; the point being, the vain search for a time, but discovered at last—in whom? In a negro. This was Mr Diogenes Lance’s satirical discovery. There are countries where the scene must not be exhibited. He shall tell the story. “Q. 5230. Have you ever restored any other picture in the ordinary course of your professional practice? During the time I was engaged upon that picture at Mr Thane’s, he had a picture belonging to the Archbishop of York, to which rather an amusing thing occurred.—Q. 5231. What was the subject of it? It was a picture of Diogenes in search of an Honest Man, by Rembrandt; a portion of it was much injured. Mr Thane said to me, ‘I wish you would help me out in this difficulty.’ He did not paint himself.—Q. 5232. Which Archbishop was it? The Archbishop of York. I said, ‘What am I to do? tell me what you want.’ He said, ‘There’s a deficiency here—what is it?’ I said, ‘It appears to me very much as if a cow’s head had been there.’ He said, ‘It cannot be a cow’s head; for how could a cow stand there?’ I said, ‘That is very true; there is no room for her legs.’ I fancied first one thing, then another: at one time, I fancied it was a tree that was wanting; and at length I said, ‘Well, I will tell you what will do—if you will let me put in a black man grinning, that will do very well, and rather help out the subject.’ He said, ‘Could you put in a black man?’ I said, ‘Yes, in a very short time;’ and in about half an hour I painted in a black man’s head, which was said very much to have improved the picture. Shortly afterwards Mr Harcourt came in, and seeing the picture, he said, ‘Dear me, Mr Thane, how beautifully they have got out this picture! my father will be delighted. We never saw this black man before.’ And that is the extent of my picture-repairing.” Mr Lance is a man of humour. When Mr Harcourt came to examine the picture, did what his namesake Launce in the play said occur to the painter? This is “the blackest news that ever thou heard’st.” But no; both Lances were discreet in their humour, and the one thought like the other—“Thou shalt never get a secret from me but by a parable.” The idea of a black man grinning at the folly of Diogenes, in looking for an honest man among the whites, was a most original piece of humour, worthy the concentrated geniuses of all the Launces that ever were.

All the world knew Mr Lance’s powers as a painter of still life; he has now doubly established his fame, and notwithstanding that his modesty would look shy upon his performances on the Velasquez “The Boar-hunt,” as nobody else has been startled by them, we sincerely hope they will be allowed to remain—that is, as much of them as the cleaners have spared. We hope, also, that no experimentalists in nostrums will be allowed to reiterate the attempt of the fable, and try to “wash his blackamore white.” Let this be the picture’s motto—“Hic niger est, hunc tu——caveto.”

It is to be feared that picture-cleaning has become a necessary evil, as patients who have been long under the hands of empirics must needs have recourse to regular practitioners to preserve even a sickly life. Empirical nostrums must be got out of the constitution, for by a habit of maintenance, however advantageous they may appear at first, they are sure to side with the disease, and kill the patient. There is the first Mr Seguier’s boiled oil, that terrible black dose—must that be allowed to remain? Then comes the question, by what desperate remedies is it to be eradicated? There is the Gaspar Poussin landscape near the injured Claude “Queen of Sheba,” the “Abraham and Isaac:” we remember it a very beautiful clear picture. It is now all obscured; there are large brown patches in the once lucid sky. As so large a proportion of the pictures in the Gallery are suffering under this oil-disease, and seem to petition for a ticket to the hospital, we offer a suggestion made by De Burtin, that experienced and cautious cleaner, who speaks with utter abhorrence of the oiling system. He says that he tried every secret of his art without success; “continuing always my experiments, however, though with little hope, I have at length had the happiness to find in the application of this same oil itself the means of so softening the old oil, that I have afterwards, with spirit of wine, removed both the oils, new and old together, without at all injuring the picture. Although this plan has succeeded equally well with four pictures on which I had occasion to employ it, yet I must not be understood to hold it out as infallible until, from the number of the cases in which it is tried, and the uniformity of its success, it shall earn for itself that title; but, persuaded that the want of other known means will induce connoisseurs to make trial of this one, I feel desirous to put them in possession of all the information that I myself have in regard to it. My four pictures, all painted on panel, were evidently covered with an oil which gave them an aspect alike sad and monotonous, and which seemed to be of many years’ duration. I gave them a coat of linseed oil during the warmest days of summer, renewing once, and even twice a-day, the places on which it seemed to be absorbed. On the twelfth day the oil on one of the pictures was become so softened that it clung to my finger. I then employed good spirit of wine, without any other admixture whatever, to remove all the oil which I had put upon the picture; and the pleasure I experienced was only equalled by my surprise, when I saw the vivacity of the colours restored under my hands as the spirit of wine removed the old oil along with the new. After a few days’ interval, the other three pictures gave me renewed occasion for congratulation by the same results, and with equal success.”

De Burtin has at least the great merit of having no concealments in his practice. And here the Commissioners have done well in recommending that no varnishes be used, the ingredients of which are kept secret. Mr Farrer thinks he is the only person in this country using gum damas. He is mistaken—we have used it many years, and agree with him that it is far less liable to chill than mastic. The recommendation, also, that, before cleaning a picture, an able chemist should be applied to, is a proper precaution, which would, of course, include varnishing. That pictures may not be subject to secret varnishes, the only one we would have kept secret is that mentioned by Mr Niewenhuys, the experimentalising in which brought the indignation of the court of Lilliput on the unfortunate Gulliver. Picture-scourers have been hitherto a ruthless race—with their corrosives they take the life’s blood out of the flesh of works, like true Vampires, and appropriately enough talk of vamping them up. Few are as conscientious as Mr Thane, to be persecuted with the “processions” of the skeletons they make. There is an amusing story illustrated by Cruikshank. A lover, anxious for the safety of his sick mistress, goes about seeking physicians; he is gifted, for the occasion, to see over the doors of the faculty the ghosts of the patients they had killed. It is within doors we would have the picture possessor go. The outer shop of the cleaner is enchanting—perhaps it may exhibit a face half of which is cleaned, and half dirty, that, according to Mr Ford’s notion of looking better and worse, customers may take their choice of the dingy or the clean. The connoisseur and collector need have some “Diable Boiteux” to take them unseen into the interior laboratories where the ghosts and skeletons lie concealed, while the Medea’s pot is on the fire, whose boiling is to transfer new flesh to the dry bones, that they may be produceable again, as they often are, novelties of a frightful vigour and unnatural sprightliness, to be reduced to an after-sobriety under a regimen of boiled oil and asphaltum. Even Mr Lance’s work, which was believed to be original, has been obscured and otherwise damaged. Salvator Rosa’s “Mercury and the Woodman,” is as if it had been dipped in “the sooty Acheron.” There is little pleasure in looking at pictures in such a state. Altogether, then, to leave pictures “black, dirty, and in a filthy state,” a condition which Mr Stansfield[^[6]] properly abominates, is to mislead the public, whom to instruct is one great object of a National Gallery. But who is to restore the gem-like lustre when once removed? There should be a cleaning, or rather a preservation committee. Philosophers say, that diamonds are but charcoal; none have, however, succeeded in converting the carbon into diamonds; but it may be possible to convert the diamonds of art into charcoal, or into something worse, “black, dingy, and filthy.”

We scarcely know where to stop with so large a volume as this Report, with its evidence before us. The questions, with their answers, amount to the astonishing number of 10,410! We necessarily leave much matter untouched, very much interesting matter—We would gladly enlarge upon some of the suggestions thrown out in our article on this subject of December, but adequate space in this Magazine may not be allowed. Yet we will refer to one suggestion, because it is now the very time that public attention should be directed to it; we mean the appointment of Professorships of the Fine Arts at our Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Lord Palmerston’s letter to the Chancellor of Cambridge shows that great changes are in contemplation. Such professorships would be a graceful offering to the universities, who may have been a little suspicious of the movement of a commission; and we feel sure, that nothing could be more promotive of the fine arts, the real taste of the country, or more beneficial, as leading the educated to pursuits of a high and noble nature. We will not attempt to discuss the “Removal of the Gallery.” The Blue Book affords details, and plans of site. The appendix is full of valuable information; but it contains matter upon which we feel some alarm. We know there is a scheme, under peculiar favour, to make our National Gallery a Chronological Almanac of Art, than which nothing can be more worthless or more beyond the objects for which we should have a National Gallery at all. What we should collect is a large subject, which we may feel disposed to consider more at large in a future article.

The public will now inquire, what is to be the result of this pains-taking Commission? We are aware that the Chairman repudiates the Report. It is one to which he does not give his assent. We know not the particulars in which he differs from the Report as agreed upon. We could have wished, for the sake of the arts, that there had been no difference.

Of this there can be no doubt, that the system, if such it may be called, is most unsatisfactory. If we would have a National Gallery at all, the public have a right to demand that it shall be one befitting the dignity of the country and the objects proposed by such an establishment, none of which, it is manifest from the entire evidence, can be realised unless the trust be thoroughly revised. Evils to be avoided are now laid bare to sight. If it be true,

“They say best men are moulded out of faults,”

there are faults enough to mould them out of. May we not, then, entertain a hope that we shall have a National Gallery?

A GLANCE AT TURKISH HISTORY.

Had history recorded the increase and decrease in the numbers of mankind with the attention it has bestowed in chronicling the names of the worthless dynasties which have devoured the wealth of nations, and annihilated the accumulations of national industry, the history of the Turks would occupy a prominent place in the annals of the human race. No other people has made such extensive conquests. They subdued China before the Moguls, and they formed a considerable part of the armies of Genghis Khan and Tamerlane, which subdued Russia and ravaged Syria. Even at the present day, though fallen from their ancient power, they are spread over a considerable portion of Europe and Asia, from the Adriatic and the Danube to the lake Baikal and the sources of the Lena. Their original seats are supposed to lie round the Altaï mountains. The Turkish nations of the present day, besides the descendants of the Seljouks, the Turkomans, and the Othomans, who dwell in the sultan’s dominions, are the Usbeks, the Ugours, the Kirgises, the Baskirs, the tribe called Nogay Tartars, and the so-called Tartars of Astrakan and Kasan. The real Tartars, or Moguls, are a different people, and the Kalmuks on the Volga are of Tartar, not Turkish race.

The only modern European nations which pretend to be mentioned in Scripture, are the Turks and Russians. Historical antiquaries tell us that Togarmah is used for Turk; and they affirm, that the Targhitaos of Herodotus, whom the Scythians called the founder of their nation, and the son of Jupiter, is identical with the Togarmah of Moses and Ezekiel.[^[7]]

The Russians can boast of much more precise notice in Scripture than their enemies the Turks. Though their name is omitted in our translation, it occurs in the Septuagint three times, and under the peculiar ethnic denomination in which it reappears in the Byzantine historians. The word is Ῥὼς, and on this name Gibbon remarks, “Among the Greeks this national appellation has a singular form as an undeclinable word;” but he does not mention that it is found in the Septuagint. The second and third verses of the thirty-eighth chapter of Ezekiel, according to the Greek text, read thus: “Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of the Russians (ἄρχοντα Ῥὼς), Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him, and say, Thus saith the Lord God, I am against thee, O chief prince of the Russians, Meshech and Tubal.” And again, in the first verse of the thirty-ninth chapter: “Therefore, son of man, prophesy against Gog, and say, Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of the Russians, Meshech and Tubal.”

The Russians are said also to be noticed in the Koran, though not with the same distinctness, under the name of Al Rass. In the chapter Al Forkan, which is the twenty-fifth of Sale’s translation, it is said, “We have prepared for the unjust a painful torment. Remember Ad and Tamud, and those who dwelt at Al Rass.” In the chapter called the letter Kaf, which is the fiftieth of Sale’s translation, we also find: “The people of Noah, and those who dwelt at Al Rass, and Thamud, and Ad, and Pharaoh, accused the prophets of injustice.”

The earliest authorities, however, who furnish us with an account of the Turkish nation as it now exists, with the distinct nationality and language preserved to the present day, are the Byzantine historians, Menander and Theophylactus Simocalta. The latter historian gives a very interesting account of the condition of the Turks in the sixth century of our era. They were then the sovereigns of a great city called Tavgas; they were the most valiant and populous of nations; they lived under the protection of just laws, and carried on an extensive commerce. Tavgas is supposed to be the name of a Chinese city, which was then one of the seats of the Turkish government, for there is no doubt that somewhat before this period the Turks had conquered a considerable part of the north of China. Indeed, traces of the language of these early conquerors are still preserved, which are identical with the Turkish spoken to-day at Constantinople, for time has effected less change in the Turkish than in any other European language. Collateral evidence concerning the power of the Turks in central Asia during the latter part of the fifth, and early part of the sixth centuries, is afforded by the history of the life and travels of Hiouen-thsang, recently translated by Monsieur Julien, whether that work be really the composition of a Chinese contemporary, or only a Chinese compilation from earlier Arabic authorities.[^[8]] It is certain that about the commencement of the sixth century the Turks ruled all central Asia, as far south as the Hindookoosh, including the ancient Sogdiana and Bactria.

The first political intercourse between the Turks and a European state occurred towards the middle of the sixth century. The great khan of the Turks sent an embassy to Justinian I., to persuade the Roman empire to refuse an asylum to the Avars. The dominions then ruled by the great khan formed the first of the three great Turkish empires which have exercised an important influence on the social condition of the Christian nations, both in Europe and Asia. The second of these empires was that of the Seljouk Turks, which caused the crusades, and ruined the Byzantine empire. And the third was that of the Othoman Turks, which destroyed the Greek empire, and has long been the master, patron, or tyrant, of the patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria.

The first Turkish empire took its rise from the oppression of the Avars, who were the dominant people in Asia, and who are supposed to have been a mixed race of Mogul and Turkish origin. The oppression of the Avars was submitted to as long as the body of the Turkish people was confined by its circumstances to an agricultural and pastoral life. The population being dispersed in small communities, which lived without much intercommunication, was composed of as many isolated tribes as there are springs in the plains they inhabitated; and these tribes were as incapable of acquiring common motives of action as the population of the islands in the eastern seas. But the scene changed in the fifth century. The Turks who dwelt on Mount Altaï grew rich by mining operations and manufactures. They became the principal traders in iron and steel, and the manufacturers and merchants of the arms and armour required in the Avar empire. But the government soon endeavoured to appropriate the wealth which it saw was created by the industry of its subjects to administrative purposes. Taxation was increased, and monopolies were established, to enable the court of the Avar emperor to display the power of centralisation. Governmental pageantry, court spectacles, and military pomp, consumed the wealth of the people in the unknown capital of this vanished empire; while the Turkish people, now inspired by common feelings, called for an administration that would dig wells, and construct cisterns and caravanserais in the desert. The Turks were now united by the lessons which their trade had disseminated through every province. With improved intercourse they had gained a more enlarged experience, and acquired national feelings. They at last rose in rebellion; and before the middle of the sixth century, the first great Turkish empire was founded by Toumen the blacksmith, the ancestor of Genghis Khan, and Timor the lame. This empire extended from the Caspian sea to the ocean. The great Khan of the Turks, Askel, who sent an embassy to the Roman emperor Justinian I., is supposed to have been the son of Toumen.

In the year 568 another embassy arrived at Constantinople from the great Khan Dizaboulos, with a letter for Justin II., written in the Scythian character, which, whatever it was, was not unknown to the learned interpreters of the Roman foreign office. One great object of Turkish diplomacy had been to get possession of the whole of the silk trade with Europe, but the Turkish ambassadors had been astonished to find that Justinian had already succeeded in introducing the culture of the silk-worm in the Roman empire, and that the imperial court was rich in native silk, manufactured in Asia Minor and the islands. The ambassadors of Dizaboulos, however, concluded the first formal treaty between the Turks and the emperors of Constantinople; the bond of union between the courts of Mount Altaï and Byzantium was hostility to Persia, and very profound and enlightened views concerning the maintenance of the balance of power in the East, while the tie which then connected the interests of the Turks with those of the Romans and Greeks was commerce.

The long wars between the Persian and Roman empires, and the arbitrary measures of the Persians, had stopped all commercial communications between India and Europe through the Persian dominions. The countries on the shores of the Mediterranean had in consequence been compelled to draw their supplies of Indian and Chinese produce, and the productions of the Spice islands, of which there was then an immense consumption, by way of the Red Sea. This trade, even as early as the time of Pliny, was so extensive as to excite the wonder of that aristocratic Roman. In the sixth century it had greatly increased, and both Arabia and Ethiopia were in a most prosperous condition, from the great profits it poured into those countries. In the year 523 the king of Ethiopia was able to collect a fleet of thirteen hundred ships in the Red Sea, and to obtain abundant supplies for a large army on the coast of Arabia, where a single ship and a company of infantry would find it difficult to procure provisions for a week. After the reign of Justinian this commerce rapidly declined. The increase of piracy on the coast near the entrance of the Persian gulf, and the wars of the Ethiopian kings in Arabia, were simultaneous with the poverty, depopulation, and destruction of capital in Africa and Italy, caused by the Vandal and Gothic wars of Justinian. At this crisis, when Alexandria and Rome were rapidly declining, the security which the extent of the Turkish empire and the policy of the great Khan afforded to merchants, turned a great portion of the Eastern trade towards Constantinople. The Indian traders began to prefer the caravan journey through the deserts of central Asia, to the tedious and dangerous navigation of the Red Sea. By sea they could no longer venture to visit the intermediate ports from fear of pirates, while on the land journey they could carry on a profitable trade in slaves, and in exchanging the precious metals, at many stations on their way. The great importance of the slave trade at this time in central Asia is proved by the circumstance that the emperor Tiberius II., A.D. 578–582, formed a corps of fifteen thousand mamlouks, composed entirely of purchased slaves, imported into the Roman empire by the traders engaged in the Indian or the fur trade. Had the supply continued, and had the successors of Tiberius II. pursued the same policy, the Roman empire would in all probability have been overthrown by Turkish mamlouks, as that of the caliphs of Bagdat was by following a similar military system at a later period.

The first Turkish empire was not of long duration. The Khazar kingdom, whose relations with the Roman and Persian empires in the hour of their decline give it an important place in history, arose in its western fragments, and inherited a considerable portion of its power and commercial influence. But the Khazars, though called Turks by the Byzantine historians, Nicephorus the patriarch and Theophanes, are supposed by modern scholars to have been a people of mixed race.

There are several points connected with the history of the rise and fall of the first Turkish empire which are interesting, as marking an era in the progress of civilisation. At no previous period in the history of mankind were greater changes made in the commercial, political, and religious ideas of mankind. Religion was then closely connected with political organisation. Christianity was identified with the Roman government; the religion of Zoroaster with Persian domination. The fact that both Christianity and the religion of Zoroaster were declining in the sixth century is unquestionable. Historians have not clearly explained the causes of a revolution so degrading to human nature. In Arabia, in central Asia, and in Spain, an extensive conversion to Judaism heralded the extraordinary rapidity with which the lizard-eaters of Arabia, led by the followers of Mahomet, exterminated the religion of Zoroaster, and converted the majority of the inhabitants of Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Africa to Mohammedanism. It is evident that an internal canker in the social condition of the Christians in the Roman empire, and of the inhabitants of Persia, prepared the way for the desolation of many of the richest provinces of the ancient world.

The second Turkish empire was founded by the Seljouks in the eleventh century. Its power grew up on the political decline of the caliphate of Bagdat and of the Byzantine empire. The dominions of the caliphs had been dismembered, and Bagdat itself had been plundered by Turkish mamlouks, before it was conquered by Togrulbeg with his Seljouks. The Byzantine empire, which, by the creation of a systematic and legal administration, had reinvigorated the expiring energies of the eastern Roman empire, had declined into a pure despotism, and the rulers of Constantinople were rapidly devouring the wealth and diminishing the numbers of their subjects by financial oppression. The exploits of Togrulbeg, Alp Arslan, and Malek Shah, may be read in the pages of Gibbon, which have secured them fame wherever English literature is known. Many traces of their handiwork are visible at the present,—monuments of what is called their glory. When they entered the countries between the Persian Gulf, the Caspian, the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean, they found them filled with cities, which, though declined in splendour and wealth by the loss of their municipal administrations, in consequence of the rapacious centralisation of the Roman, Byzantine, and Mohammedan empires, were nevertheless still well inhabited, and surrounded by a numerous agricultural population. But with the coming of the Seljouks, “the verdure fled the bloody sod.” They were a nomade people, and their armies were composed of nomadic tribes, who drew their supplies from the flocks and herds which moved with them. The inhabitants of cities were their enemies unless they became their tributaries; and in order to preserve a garrison in the countries they conquered, it was necessary for them to exterminate the cultivators of the soil in the richest and most central plains of their dominions. An encampment of tents could only be secure from surprise by being surrounded to the extent of a day’s journey by untilled pastures. Similar desolation has been effected in agricultural countries for ignobler objects. In England the traveller may still see the effects of an arbitrary act of devastation, perpetrated about the same period, by William the Conquerer, in the New Forest; and in wandering through Asia Minor many of our readers have probably passed over districts as fertile as the plains of Poland and Moldavia, on which wheat never grows, but which the page of history informs us were inhabited by an industrious agricultural population, until the towns were destroyed, and the population exterminated, by Kutulmish the lieutenant of Alp Arslan, and Suleiman his son, the lieutenant of Malek Shah. The Seljouk empire was soon divided into the three secondary kingdoms of Roum or Iconium, of Syria, and of Persia. It was subdued and rent into fragments by the successors of Genghis Khan, and in the fourteenth century the Othoman empire arose amidst its dismembered provinces.

Othman, the eponymous hero of the Othoman empire, entered the Seljouk empire of Roum with his father, who was the chieftain of a small tribe consisting of four hundred families. In the year 1289 he was appointed governor of the town of Karady-hissar by Aladdin III., the last Seljouk Sultan of Iconium. The market held on Friday at Karady-hissar was a trading mart of great local importance. A judge sat in the centre of the people to decide every question that arose without delay, and without appeal. Othman frequently occupied the judicial seat. It happened that, as he was presiding, an important dispute was brought before him for decision, in which a Christian of Belokoma in the Greek empire complained of the injustice of a Seljouk noble of Kermian. Othman decided in favour of the Christian, and the equity of the sentence extended his fame, and gave additional importance to his government. Years rolled on. Many emirs established themselves as independent princes, and have given their names to several provinces in Asia. Sultan Aladdin III. died in the year 1307, and Othman secured to himself a position as independent as any of the Seljouk emirs. Just before his death, he conquered Brusa from the Greeks, and laid the foundation-stone of the Othoman empire.

This new Turkish empire is remarkable for its rapid progress and firm consolidation, but still more so for the singular fact that it never reposed on a national basis. The four hundred families who accompanied Othman’s father into the Seljouk empire never became the nucleus even of an Othoman tribe. The Othoman empire threatened Europe with conquest; the Othoman armies were long invincible; the Othoman administration was superior to every contemporary government on the European continent; but, during the period of Othoman greatness and power, there was no such thing as an Othoman nation. Of the forty-eight grand-viziers who conducted the administration from the taking of Constantinople to the death of Sultan Achmet I. in 1617, only three or four were of Othoman or Seljouk families, while more than thirty were either renegades or children of Christian parents brought up in the Mohammedan religion. The other born Mussulmans were not even of Turkish race. Few absolute monarchies have preserved their pristine vigour with the same unimpaired energy as the Othoman, and none have passed triumphantly through greater disasters. Few national governments, indeed, could have survived the fearful ordeal of the defeat at Angora, and the conquest of Asia Minor by Timor. Neither Timor nor any of his contemporaries supposed that it was possible to re-constitute the Othoman government; and, indeed, the ease with which it regained its power over the Greek Christians and the Seljouk emirs, is a singular political phenomenon.

This vitality was due to the institutions implanted in the government as the very breath of its life, by Orkhan the son of Othman, the greatest legislator of modern times. As a lawgiver, Orkhan was something between a Lycurgus and a Loyola. At all events, he puts the modern constitution-makers of Europe to shame. They strive to improve the rotten fabric of their political institutions by patching the old despotic garment of Roman law with the new cloth of representative institutions, forgetting that the rabid appetite of centralisation swallows the old garment and the new patches far more easily than the boa-constrictor can swallow a blanket. The institutions of Orkhan were superior to the Code Napoleon and its progeny, in as far as they were framed on the exigencies of the time, and modelled on the demands of a progressive state of society—not borrowed from an extinct people in a different social and political condition.

We have no space to enumerate Orkhan’s institutions. It is sufficient for our purpose to notice the keystone of the fabric which raised a small band of emigrants from Mesopotamia, before three generations had elapsed, into the founders of one of the great empires of the earth. A tribute of Christian children, imposed by Orkhan on the people he conquered, was the basis, the cement, and the keystone of the Othoman empire. Never before were the laws of humanity and the principles of justice so systematically violated for so long a period with such success. The Othoman empire really dates from the year 1329, for it was in that year that Orkhan assumed the power of coining money, placed his name in the public prayers, and promulgated his laws. From that time he was regarded as the founder and the legislator of a new state, and not as the ruler of a Seljouk emirat. Orkhan made his household the nucleus of his empire. The strength of his dominions was, by his legislation and policy, concentrated within his palace walls. Under his roof was united a college, conducted with all the order and talent of a college of Jesuits, and a range of barrack-rooms, in which a discipline prevailed as severe as that of Lycurgus.

The history of the institution of the tribute children, and the formation of the corps of janissaries, is this: The Mohammedan law authorises—and, indeed, commands—every Mussulman to educate unbelieving children who have fallen into his power as orphans, in the Mohammedan faith. As the military usages of the Seljouk empire gave the Sultan a fifth of all the spoil taken in war, Orkhan soon became possessed of a numerous household of Christian slaves, whom he might have sold like the other Seljouk emirs, and hired mercenary troops with the produce, or filled his palace with concubines and poets, and devoted himself to the pursuit of pleasure and fame. Orkhan sought instruments to gratify his ambition, and to extend the dominion of the Koran. His wars as the ally of the rebel emperor and hypocritical historian Cantacuzenus, furnished him with a large supply of slaves from the Greek empire. The base ambition and rapacity of the rival emperors of Constantinople, induced them to allow Orkhan to insert a clause in his treaties, authorising him to transport Christian captives to Asia through the Greek territory. But it was difficult, by means of war, to secure a constant supply of healthy and intelligent children of the tender age required for their conversion, since the Mohammedan law strictly prohibits the forced conversion of prisoners who have attained the age of twelve. Orkhan’s great object, however, was to obtain a constant and regular addition to the young neophytes in his household. Either from his own impulse, or at the suggestion of his brother, Aladdin, who acted as his prime minister, or of his relation, Kara Khalil, who was his most intimate counsellor, he at last resolved to impose a fixed tribute of children on every Christian district he conquered. The measure was highly approved by all pious Mussulmans, and, strange to say, it met with little opposition from the Greek Christians. The empire of Constantinople had been so long the scene of civil war, and its provinces were so desolated by the fiscal oppression of the imperial administration, that famine prevailed among the Greek population in Asia and Europe for several years; and many parents saw no mode of saving their children from starvation but by sending them to the serai of Orkhan. The tribute of Christian children established by Orkhan was extended and systematised by his son, Murad I., and formed the keystone of the political and military power of the Othoman empire, until the corruption of the corps of janissaries by the introduction of other elements. The tribute of Christian children, however, continued until the year 1685, when it was formally abolished.

The tribute children were generally collected between the ages of seven and nine. They were at first lodged in the Sultan’s palace, and carefully instructed in the principles and forms of the Mohammedan religion under the ablest teachers, selected by Orkhan, who studied their dispositions and mental capacities. They then entered on a course of elementary knowledge and gymnastics. As their mental capacities were developed, and their physical strength increased, they were divided into several classes. Some, destined to become “men of the pen,” were educated in legal and administrative knowledge, and from them the officials in the civil and financial administration were usually selected. Many became secretaries of state, judges and viziers. Another division was disciplined as “men of the sword,” and the celebrated corps of janissaries was at first composed of select individuals from this body. This college of conquering missionaries, when formed by Orkhan, consisted of only one thousand, but before the end of his reign it had increased to three thousand; and when Mohammed II. took Constantinople, the number had attained twelve thousand. The tribute children were also numerous in the ranks of the cavalry, artillery, and police soldiers of the empire. Never, indeed, was so terrible an instrument of absolute power created so rapidly and so completely beyond all external influence as that which Orkhan formed. The tribute children were all members of the household of the Othoman Sultan. They had no ties of family or country, and felt no responsibility but what they owed to the prophet and the Sultan. At the beck of the Sultan, and with a fetva of the mufti, they were ready to strike down the proudest noble of the Seljouks, to shed the purest blood of the Arabs, and to trample on all the hereditary feelings and prejudices of the courts of the Caliphs. Against the Christian nations they were animated with the most fervent zeal; for it was a principal part of their education to infuse an enthusiastic wish to extend the empire of Islam. Thus Orkhan made Christian parents the most active agents in destroying the Christian religion. It is impossible to reflect on this lamentable occurrence without feeling that, had the Greek emperors and the orthodox priests of the period given their subjects and their parishioners as good an education as Orkhan gave his slaves, the attacks of the Turks might have been triumphantly repulsed.

That the system of education pursued in the palace of Orkhan must have derived some of its excellent qualities from the family system of Othman’s household, cannot be doubted. The Othoman tribe was not morally corrupted, like the society of the Seljouk Turks; the history of their empire bears strong testimony to the fact during several generations. The Othoman sultans were, during the early period of the empire, educated on the same system, and in the same manner, as the tribute children, and no state can show such a long succession of hereditary sovereigns remarkable for great talent. The Othoman institutions testify the sagacity of Orkhan and Murad I. more than their rapid conquests. Bayezid the Thunderbolt, though his rash pride caused the defeat of Angora and the ruin of the empire for a time, was liberal and generous to his Christian subjects, whom he admitted freely to his society. Mohammed I., who restored the empire ruined by his father’s ambition, was a staunch friend and a kind master, though, in his hostilities, as old Phrantzes says, he was as obstinately persevering as a camel. Murad II. distinguished himself by his attention to the administration of justice, and swept away many of the abuses which, under the Greek emperors, had exhausted the fortunes of the Christians. If any of his pashas or judges oppressed the Christians in his dominions they were severely punished. Mohammed II., the conqueror of Constantinople, united the activity of youth with the sagacity of age, both as a warrior and a statesman. He possessed considerable literary and scientific knowledge, and had made great progress in astrology, then the fashionable science both among Christians and Mussulmans. He was fond of reading, and spoke the Turkish, Arabic, Persian, Greek, Latin, and Sclavonian languages with fluency. Such is the character of the early sultans for six generations, as transmitted to us in the pages of their mortal enemies, the Byzantine Greeks. Other authorities tell us that these infidels were ready to receive suggestions for the improvement of their army and their civil administration, and that they were indefatigably engaged in submitting new ideas in the civil administration, and new inventions in the art of war, to the most rigorous examination. Activity and intelligence were stimulated in every branch of the public service by the example of the prince. The consequences form the staple of early Othoman history. New combinations in war and politics presented themselves daily to every Turkish pasha, which called for a prompt decision; and as it was incumbent on him to transmit a report of the reasons which had determined his conduct to an able and despotic master, he soon learned prudence in counsel as well as promptitude in action. For two centuries we find nothing vague and indefinite in the operations of the Othoman sultans, or of the pashas intrusted with the command of their armies. The first modern school of generals and statesmen was formed in the Othoman empire.

The general causes of the decline of the Othoman empire are well known. The janissaries, instead of being tribute children, were transformed into a garde nationale, like what we have seen flourish and disappear at Paris. But the logical principles of a paternal monarchy still exist at Constantinople. The Sultan is connected with his people, but can have no ties of family. He ought not to be the son of a free woman, but the child of a slave, destitute of every family tie, in order that no personal attachments and family sympathies may interfere with the cares of administration.

At the present moment we hear it asserted on all sides, that the Othoman administration is making great progress in restoring energy and intelligence in the government. Yet there are some who insist that the progress is small; that it is an empire without roads, and a government without a people; a central administration which every subject, be he Christian or Mussulman, detests for its financial rapacity and systematic contempt for justice. Inshallah! there is some truth on both sides, but it is not exactly our clue to separate the wheat from the tares, as they resemble one another so much at Stamboul as to confound the skill of European diplomatists. We know to our cost that there is no road either to Brusa or Adrianople fit for a French diligence, and that an abortive attempt was made to form a road from Trebizond to Erzeroum.

The great feature of the Othoman empire at the present day is this, that capital cannot be profitably employed in the improvement of the soil, and, strange to say, this peculiar feature of its social condition is common to the new-created monarchy of Greece, and to no other European state. Trade often flourishes, cities increase in population and wealth, gardens, vineyards, and orchards grow up round the towns from the overflow of commercial profits, but the canker is in the heart of the agricultural population; a yoke of land receives the same quantity of seed it did a hundred years ago, and the same number of families cultivate the same fields. This is the most favourable view of the case; but the fact is, that many of the richest plains of Thrace, Macedonia, and Asia Minor, are uncultivated, and have only the wolf and the jackal for their tenants. In Greece, too, under the scientific administration of King Otho, and with a representative government à la Française, we see the plains of Thebes, Messenia, and Tripolitza, present the same agricultural system which they did under the Othoman government, and agriculture in general quite as much neglected and more despised. Now the line of demarcation between civilisation and barbarism really consists in the profitable investment of capital in the soil. The agricultural population is the basis of a national existence, and unless the soil produce two bushels of wheat from the same surface where one formerly grew, and fatten two sheep where one merely gathered a subsistence, a nation gains little in strength and wellbeing though its cities double their population. The political and social problem, with regard to the governments of Constantinople and Athens, which now requires a solution, is, to determine the causes that prevent the cultivation of wheat on the European and Asiatic coasts of the Archipelago, and in the fertile island of Cyprus. The provinces between the Danube and the Don were in a similar condition when Akerman, Okzakoff, and Azof, were Turkish pashaliks; under the Russian government, they supply France and England with grain. Now, the grain-growers of Turkey could furnish half the grain exported at present from the Black Sea, and they could obtain much higher prices for their produce in consequence of the great saving of freight to consumers. Even the fertile districts of Bithynia and Thrace, bordering on the Sea of Marmora, than which there are no finer corn-districts in the world, cannot furnish Constantinople with a regular supply of wheat; and the Osmanlees would often suffer famine in the capital of their empire, unless they were provisioned from the provinces taken from them by the Moskof gaiour.

For our part, we must say that it is not unreasonable to entertain some doubts of the improvement which has manifested itself in the Othoman administration proving permanent, until we see some increase of the agricultural population. When the citizens of Stamboul and Athens begin to colonise the country, it will be time enough to talk of the regeneration of the Othoman power. And unless the population of the kingdom of Otho of Bavaria, which possess all the advantages to be derived from universal suffrage, joined to the inestimable liberty of walking about the streets with pistols and Turkish knives stuck in the belt, begin to abandon its passion for coffeehouses, and find pleasure and profit in the cultivation of the fields, the improvement of the Greek nation will not be generally admitted, even though Athens become a clean, elegant, and flourishing city. There must be an evident increase in the amount of the produce of the soil from a given number of acres, before those who study the political history of nations can be persuaded of the feasibility of the project of restoring a Greek empire.

MACAULAY’S SPEECHES.[^[9]]

As we never had the good fortune of moving in that circle of society to which the power of retailing anecdote, with minute circumstantiality, was considered as the proper passport—as we never were invited to listen to the small scandals of the group collected at Holland House, or the smaller delivery of the contents of commonplace books, which, in less renowned Whig coteries, is considered the perfection of sprightly converse—we are not ashamed to acknowledge our momentary oblivion of the party, who, in the sonorous verse and rounded periods of a brother dramatist, recognised his own thunder. We cannot at this moment accurately remember whether it was the figurative Puff or Plagiary, or the real Cumberland, who preferred that accusation; and, therefore, we frankly admit, that we lie at the mercy of those gentlemen who consider a slip in an anecdote, or an erroneous name and date in a fragment of gossip, as the evidence of deficient education, and the token of unpolished intercourse. We allude to the story in question merely because the preface to Mr Macaulay’s collected speeches exhibits a curious specimen of the wrath which may be excited by another method of conveyance. It is not the appropriation of his thunder, but the non-appropriation of it, which seems to have roused Mr Macaulay to a point of very vehement indignation. It appears that a London publisher, Mr Vizetelly, availing himself of a licence which the law permits—namely, that of reprinting speeches which have been publicly delivered—conceived that the issue of a collection of Mr Macaulay’s speeches might possibly prove a paying speculation. He reprinted, as we are given to understand, from “Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates,” a number of these orations; but, in his preliminary advertisement he appears to have announced that he did so “by special permission.” That phrase ought not to have been used; or if used, it should have been accompanied by a distinct reference to the party who granted the permission. Nine out of ten of the reading public would certainly conclude, from the terms employed, that Mr Macaulay, not the proprietor of Hansard, had authorised the publication; and, so far, there is just ground for complaint. It was not only natural, but proper, and due to himself, that Mr Macaulay should have taken steps to disavow any connection with, or any countenance given to the enterprise of the enigmatical publication. But he has not contented himself with a broad disclaimer. Stung to the quick by some absurd blunders which the self-constituted editor has committed, and which are specially referred to in the preface, in terms of vehement indignation, he has thought it necessary for his own fame to suspend “a work which is the business and the pleasure of my life, in order to prepare these speeches for publication.” It is no compliment to Mr Macaulay to say that the public will not thank him for having done so. The desire and eagerness, on the part of the public, to receive a new instalment of his History, is only equalled by their repugnance to peruse speeches upon subjects the interest of which has long gone by—a repugnance not lessened by the impression that, even when new, the speeches were not of a superlative degree of merit. We are sorry that because Vizetelly—whom Mr Macaulay supposes to be actuated by a desire of attaining the same distinction which was formerly enjoyed by Curll—should have mistaken Pundits for Pandects, and magnified the city of Benares into an oriental nation—because he has made the gifted orator “give an utterly false history of Lord Nottingham’s Occasional Conformity Bill”—or because he has represented him as saying “that Whitfield held and taught that the connection between Church and State was sinful,” whereas Whitfield never said anything of the kind, nor was Mr Macaulay so ignorant as to have averred that he did,—we say we are sorry that because Vizetelly did these things, our brilliant, though tardy historian, should have considered his reputation so dangerously imperilled, as to depart from his legitimate and most interesting labours, for the purpose of presenting us with a mediocre and uninspiring volume of speeches. It is true that he avers reluctance, nay, even disinclination to the task. If that were his real feeling, he need not have troubled himself much about the speculations of Vizetelly. During the last twenty years, many public speakers—nay, some men who may be classed as real orators—all of them far more distinguished than Mr Macaulay, for power, energy, pathos, wit, and influence, have gone to their graves; and yet no attempt has been made, though the absence of copyright in speeches might have encouraged the speculation, to publish their works in a collected form. If we want to form an idea of the styles of the late Earl Grey, or Lord Durham, or Sir Francis Burdett, we must necessarily have recourse to the Mirror of Parliament. The filial piety of their relatives, great as it was, did not lead them to the generous error of supposing that their speeches would hereafter rank with those of Demosthenes or Cicero. In our own day no man, as a popular orator, equalled Daniel O’Connell; yet where are his collected speeches?—and be it remembered that popular oratory is essentially Demosthenic, and that O’Connell could produce a greater effect upon a mixed audience—which is the test of oratory—than any other man of our time. Where are Shiel’s speeches? In Hansard—where, we hesitate not to say, the speeches of every man of the slightest eminence in public life ought to be allowed to remain, without separate collection, at least during his own lifetime, and until his career is accomplished. Indeed, there are many prudential reasons, at the present day, against the collection of senatorial speeches. No one has proposed to issue those of the late Sir Robert Peel, although there can be no doubt that such a publication would afford some curious subjects for commentary. It would serve the same purpose as the ancient collections of commonplaces—loci communes, loci rerum, &c.—from which the tyro in rhetoric might draw arguments adapted for immediate use on either side of a question. In such a collection all possible pros and contras would be found, not drily stated, but set forth with elaborate ingenuity. One speech would give the Protestant, and another the Catholic side of the question—one while we should find the orator supporting agriculture against manufactures—another, manufactures against agriculture; the zeal and sincerity being in both cases the same. Then, what a charming miscellany Sir James Graham has it in his power to offer to the public! What deftness—what dexterity—what amazing complexity of tergiversation would be exhibited by a collection of his Parliamentary speeches! We feel almost inclined to advise Mr Vizetelly to ransack Hansard for the Netherby harangues; the more so because Mr Macaulay, in his own edition, has taken care to insert nothing calculated to irritate Sir James. That is not altogether fair, and it is certainly the reverse of valorous. Mr Macaulay had occasion, in his place in Parliament, to direct vigorous speeches both against Sir Robert Peel and against Sir James Graham. He tells us now in his preface that “it was especially painful to me to find myself under the necessity of recalling to my own recollection, and to the recollection of others, the keen encounters which took place between the late Sir Robert Peel and myself;” and he pays a very handsome compliment to the memory of the deceased statesman. That is graceful, amiable, and, we doubt not, entirely sincere. Nevertheless he publishes verbatim, what he said in debate against Sir Robert Peel, who is no more; whereas we find no trace of his famous speech in the letter-opening case, directed against Sir James Graham, who is the living colleague of Lord John Russell. The omission may be accidental; or Mr Macaulay may think the speech in question not so felicitous as to be worth recording. If the latter, we differ from him. It was a spirited speech—much more nettlesome and pungent than threefourths of those which he has included in the present volume; and we have no doubt that Sir James Graham, if appealed to, will corroborate our opinion. Be it observed, however, that we do not by any means maintain that Mr Macaulay was bound to reprint his diatribe against Sir James. We make these remarks for the purpose of showing how unwise it is for any man to become the editor of his own speeches; seeing that he must either give huge offence to the living, or let them escape scot-free, whilst he repeats his strictures on the dead. After all, we think he would have acted prudently in submitting to the “great wrong,” which Mr Vizetelly, under the tacit sanction of the law, which in theory is held to countenance no wrong, has found it his interest to inflict. We rather fear that he has been too hasty in intermitting his historical labours. Had some excessively imprudent speculator in literature chosen to risk his capital by reprinting from Hansard the speeches of Lord John Russell or of Lord Aberdeen, we are certain that Mr Macaulay, if consulted on the subject, would have advised these eminent statesmen—even although the ignoramus of an editor had distorted the nature of their arguments, and substituted Pandects for Pundits—to abstain from putting forth their lucubrations in a collected form. We have that confidence in his judgment and discretion, when called upon to advise others in matters of a literary nature, that we cannot doubt such would have been the tenor of his recommendation. But, unfortunately, in regarding matters personal to themselves, the great majority of mankind use glasses materially differing in focus from those which they assume when investigating the affairs of others; and it is painful to remark that, on this occasion, Mr Macaulay has acted as his own optician. It would have been much wiser in him to have allowed Mr Vizetelly to have disposed of as many copies as the public would take, without more remonstrance than a simple disclaimer, than to have fastened upon the blunders about Benares, and Whitfield, and Lord Nottingham’s Bill, as so many apologies for bringing forward a revised and collected series of his speeches.

He has done so, however; and we have now to consider him as a man, who, by no means verging towards the end of his career—for we trust he may long be spared to delight the public by the elaborate compositions of a mind naturally highly gifted, greatly improved by exercise, and prodigiously stored with information—has deliberately chosen to set forth his claims to be ranked in the scale of orators. Whether Mr Macaulay may choose to believe that we are sincere, or not, in the opinion we are about to express, is, to us, of little consequence. Politically, of course, we differ from him in many respects. We cannot even challenge, what is generally understood to be the opinion of his own party, that he is not qualified to act in the capacity of a leading statesman, or member of the Cabinet. We believe his mind to be of that cast, that it does not readily and aptly conform itself to present exigencies. It is too much wedded to the past, and to mere party traditions and intrigues. Let a crisis arrive, demanding immediate and decided action, and Mr Macaulay will be found puzzling back to the Revolution Settlement of 1688, or some other event of lesser consequence about the same date; and descanting on the conduct of the leading Whig Lords of that period, and the way in which they managed to juggle and forswear themselves; and from these premises he would form conclusions applicable to the present times. The Whig party leaders are notoriously addicted to tradition, but Mr Macaulay’s ideas go back a great deal farther than is convenient even for their purpose. They, naturally enough, do not want the aid of history farther than concerns their immediate guidance; and they would be glad to sink altogether the memory of dynastical questions, and begin with Fox, who is the proper god of their idolatry. Mr Macaulay, by resolutely harking back to forgotten eras, frightfully embarrassed his colleagues in the Cabinet, when he ranked as a minister. It was an excessive bore to be told what Danby did or would have done, or what Halifax meditated, or William of Orange proposed, when the point at issue was something referring to our own day, arising out of entirely novel circumstances, and having nothing whatever in common with the policy that actuated statesmen at a time when rival dynasties placed in dispute the true succession to the crown. In reality, however, it is no disparagement to Mr Macaulay to say that, from the peculiar turn of his mind, the nature of his pursuits, and the intenseness of his literary habits, he has failed in acquiring even a moderate reputation as a statesman. To the public, his withdrawal or exclusion from office ought to be anything but matter of regret; since it is better, both for his own fame and for the literary reputation of our country, that he should be employed in illustrating its annals according to his own views and conviction, than if he were participating in the labours of Molesworth, Wood, and the other eminent individuals who drone away their time in the Cabinet. As an historian, he has already made himself a name far more enduring than that of any mere politician, and he can very well afford to abandon the honours and responsibilities of office to inferior men who regard that alone as the summit of earthly ambition. And we know, and are pleased to know, from his own statement and from the assurance of his friends, that he feels anything but regret at having exchanged the harassments of office for the literary leisure, which he knows so well and so effectively to employ. We are only sorry that he has thought fit, in this very marked and unusual manner, to invite public discussion of his claims to be considered as an orator. As an historian, and historical writer, he has already received, in the pages of the Magazine, a warm and deserved tribute. Without acknowledging the soundness of all his views—indeed, while questioning many, and decidedly objecting to some, both as regards facts and conclusion—we have been, and are ready to bear testimony to his talent, his research, the vigour of his style, and the occasional brilliancy of his pictures. That he is a literary artist of high rank and position, we have admitted most cheerfully, and, we know, have said so cordially. But he now comes before us in another character. The historian requests—nay, demands—that we shall regard him as a public speaker, and assign him his proper place in the roll of orators. In doing so, he certainly departs from his own familiar walk, challenges comparison, which it would have been wise to have avoided—and provokes criticism which otherwise would not have been exerted. When men play many parts, it is inevitable, unless in the case of such a phœnix as the Admirable Crichton, that some one part must be vastly inferior to the others. As an historian, an essayist, and a vivid versifier, we are inclined to rank Mr Macaulay high. We cannot admit that he is an orator in the strict sense of the term. As a public speaker, he has almost invariably failed in realising the expectations excited by his literary renown.

We must, as we are aware, assign sufficient reasons for that opinion; and we shall be met, at the outset, by the fact, that a speech from Macaulay is considered as an event. So it is; and so, too, in the House of Commons, would be deemed a speech from Sir Charles Wood, did that parody of a statesman confine himself to a single harangue in the year. Mr Macaulay, we know, will not suspect us of any intention of comparing him with the present President of the Board of Control. We are in no danger of mistaking Hyperion for a satyr. But the truth is, that men who have been thrust, whether by interest or not, into high official situations, are as likely, if they practise general reticence, to be listened to in the House of Commons, as are men of exalted intellect; and that an elderly proser, who speaks only once in each session, has a better chance of an audience than the glib and voluble orator who starts up in every debate. In public life Mr Macaulay has shown great discretion. During the last twenty years he has spoken but seldom, and never without careful and elaborate preparation; therefore, when it becomes known that he is about to address the House, he is sure to meet with a large, respectful, and attentive audience. Nor is this to be wondered at, on other grounds; for, independently of his high celebrity, Mr Macaulay’s speeches are much better worth listening to than the majority of those now delivered in the House of Commons. The language is correct and well-chosen, the arguments are carefully arranged, and there is none of that hesitation, repetition, and digression, which frequently disfigures the efforts of those who have less leisure beforehand to prepare and adjust their speeches. The curiosity of the audience is excited by the eminence of the speaker, and they are well assured that what he is about to lay before them will bear the peculiar and unmistakable impress of his style. And so it does; but then the genius of Mr Macaulay is not of the oratorical kind. He can impart information—that is, he can summon to the aid of his arguments whole lists of precedents, some of them not very applicable, and countless parallels, or instances which he alleges to be such. These give, at all events, an air of profundity to his discourse, and cannot be called inappropriate to the mouth of an historian. But upon a mixed audience they can produce very little effect, for this reason, that they are not familiar with one out of ten of the cases which he cites, or the incidents to which he refers; and, consequently, they must either receive them on trust, or disregard them altogether. We do not think, as some of his associates have alleged, that Mr Macaulay intends to make a parade of his acquired learning. We rather incline to hold that, as is common with men who addict themselves greatly to any particular branch of study, he takes it for granted that the whole world is studying in the same direction, and is not conscious that he is throwing an extravagant quantity of historical pearls—or, it may be, paste—before his audience. Such at least is our belief; for we are not willing to suppose that Mr Macaulay would condescend to that very low kind of pedantry, not unusual among country preachers and schoolmasters, which seeks to astonish by the assumption of superior learning. “It was in this way,” said Mr Macaulay, in one of his earlier speeches, “that Charles II. was forced to part with Oropesa, and that Charles III. was forced to part with Squillacci.” Very likely it was; but how many of the House of Commons had ever heard of Oropesa or Squillacci? How many were familiar with the events he referred to? Probably not one. He would have produced the same effect upon their reason and understanding, have influenced their convictions quite as powerfully, if he had told his audience that Mumbo-jumbo and Arimaspes had been dismissed by Don John, or Peter of Portugal. Let us refer to that passage in his speech on the Dissenters’ Chapels Bill, which the ignorant Vizetelly mangled. The speech is evidently a favourite with Mr Macaulay, and we presume he has restored it in its integrity. Addressing himself to the point, that prescription constitutes a good title to property, he brings into the compass of one page such a mass of illustration from all ages, nations, and institutions, that we cease to be shocked at the barbarism of the Vizetellian blunder, especially when we observe that the Jurists who framed the Code of Justinian are referred to in the same sentence with the Pundits of Benares. Indeed, we think that Mr Vizetelly is fairly entitled to stand upon the very excuse which the legally-inclined Mr Bartoline Saddletree proponed, when challenged by Reuben Butler for an error on the same subject.

“‘It’s owre true, Mr Butler,’ answered Bartoline, with a sigh; ‘if I had had the luck—or rather, if my father had had the sense to send me to Leyden and Utrecht to learn the Substitutes and Pandex’——

“‘You mean the Institutes—Justinian’s Institutes, Mr Saddletree?’ said Butler.

“‘Institutes and substitutes are synonymous words, Mr Butler, and used indifferently as such in deeds of tailzie, as you may see in Balfour’s Practiques, or Dallas of St Martin’s Styles. I understand these things pretty weel, I thank God; but I own I should have studied in Holland.’”

Such far-fetched illustrations necessarily tend to diminish the force of Mr Macaulay’s speeches, which is the more unfortunate, because he is peculiarly addicted to that kind of argument which the old rhetoricians styled the παράδειγμα, being that which is drawn from Example. Even when he does not pass into ground altogether unknown to his audience, when he refers in support of his position to some passages in British history, he avoids those which are most familiar, and selects the remoter and more obscure. Hence it is that he so often fails in exciting and maintaining enthusiasm. No sympathy can be roused by references to Sir George Savile, Hugh Peters, or Praise-God-Barebones; nor is the substitution of a political essay for a speech the best means of commanding the admiration or influencing the will of an audience. We are inclined to think that Mr Macaulay’s early oratorical training has exercised a prejudicial rather than a salutary influence over his subsequent style. He was, we believe, a member of the Union Debating Society at Cambridge, in which arena questions of immediate political interest were discussed quite as keenly as on the floor of the House of Commons. Without pronouncing an opinion hostile to the institution of debating societies, we may be allowed to remark, that the too frequent introduction of politics as the subject of discussion among the young can hardly receive the approbation of any thinking man of maturer years. The arguments employed on such occasions must be, and are, the spent weapons of politicians who are engaged in real warfare; and these are used by the juvenile enthusiasts without any examination as to their soundness or propriety. There is, in truth, little sense, and no advantage in this mimic warfare. Young men are thereby induced, not to reason, but to dogmatise—not to argue, but to declaim; and the opposition which they encounter to their borrowed views only serves to strengthen them in prejudice. The leader of a political debating society is usually an insufferable specimen of the juvenile prig. He can prate for the hour on such generalities as the constitution, the liberty of the subject, the rights of the people, and so forth; but, if you bring him to book, and demand a distinct explanation of what he has been saying, you will immediately discover that he is neither in possession of fixed notions nor of intelligible ideas. There is a kind of frothy rhetoric, very much used in debating societies, which serves to disguise commonplaces, and helps to make them appear almost brilliant to an inexperienced audience; and in that sort of rhetoric Mr Macaulay early became an adept. Most men who have acquired this style in public are compelled to get rid of it. At the bar it would not be tolerated; and it is worthy of remark that the most shining lights in debating societies usually pale their ineffectual fires when brought into the legal profession. In the senate, where less precision is required, they succeed better; but even there it requires an immense deal of attrition and wear before they can become expert masters of debate. Now it seems to us, after a diligent perusal of his speeches, that Mr Macaulay has never been able to emancipate himself from the bondage of the debating society. He speaks now, just as he might have spoken more than thirty years ago; only that his language is more select, his range of illustration larger, and his perorations more artificial, and therefore more frigid than before. In point of confidence, we do not believe that he has either gained or lost. Some men begin their public career with diffidence and trembling, and end by becoming remarkably self-possessed. Others, who had a fine stock of assurance to begin with, are so cowed by the buffets they receive, as actually to have modesty forced upon them; and we have known more than one instance of a young Boanerges who, by dint of constant punishment, has been brought to see the error of his ways, and the exaggerated estimate he had formed of his own natural powers. Mr Macaulay, however, belongs to neither category. He believed himself an oracle as a boy: he believes himself an oracle as a man. And, if justified in the one belief, who shall venture to say that he is erroneous in the other? Certain it is that, in 1826, when he penned his essay on Milton, he displayed as much power, taste, and vigour, as are exhibited in the volumes of his History given to the public in 1849. He spoke with more animation, clearness, and effect, on the subject of the Reform Bill in 1831, than on any subsequent occasion, though some of his later speeches may have been more highly elaborated. He is, of course, better informed now on points of history, science, and literature, than when he emerged from Cambridge; but we question whether he has gained much additional knowledge of the world, or of the motives which actuate mankind. Never, perhaps, did a man attain so high a point of literary distinction without possessing in a moderate degree the power of affecting the passions. We can scarcely refer to a single passage out of his whole writings, whether in prose or verse, which is likely to have drawn a tear. His speeches, as we now read them, are remarkably frigid. They may satisfy the understanding, but they never could influence the will. We are well aware that, in the House of Commons, as presently constituted, no speech, however eloquent, can be supposed to affect the votes of any considerable section; but the peculiarity of Mr Macaulay’s speaking is this, that we can hardly conceive the possibility of his making a convert. This is owing, we think, in a great measure, to a somewhat singular disregard—for we cannot suppose it ignorance—of the means which the chief orators, both of ancient and modern times have deemed it their duty to employ. In the first place, Mr Macaulay never seems to think it necessary to take the slightest pains to conciliate his audience. Of course there are many cases when such introductory conciliation is not required—for example, when addressing an entirely sympathetic meeting, or when retorting upon the direct attack of an antagonist—but in very few instances indeed does Mr Macaulay introduce himself, upon a debated point, otherwise than as a determined partisan. There can be no doubt that introductions of a conciliatory nature require the utmost delicacy of handling. They are made for the purpose of showing that the speaker comes to the consideration of the question at issue, with as much fairness, deliberation, and candour, as can be expected from man of mortal mould; and further, that he does not intend to dictate to his audience, but rather, by impressing them with his own views, to induce them to consider calmly whether his conclusions are true or false. This does not imply the abandonment of the strongest argument, or the most forcible illustration in the after-part of the speech. It is an arrangement dictated by nature; because in every case, when a man rises to address an assembly, his first care ought to be to dispel, if possible, personal suspicion if that should exist, and to secure a willing auditory. Of this art Cicero was an entire master; and it is no exaggeration to say, that his most remarkable forensic triumphs were achieved rather by the effect of his introductions, than by the subsequent ingenuity of his arguments, and his unrivalled skill in the disposition of narrative. We are quite aware that introductions of this kind, when badly framed, have exactly the opposite effect from that which was intended. There probably never was a worse one than that attempted by the late Sir Robert Peel, in his memorable speech delivered in the House of Commons on 27th January 1846, in which he beat about the bush so long, that he entirely destroyed the effect which he intended to produce. But, whether as regards the immediate impression on the House, or the subsequent effect on the country, we must hold that a speaker ought to endeavour, in the first instance, to divest himself of the appearance of being actuated by mere party motives. Such men as the late Duke of Wellington, or the present Marquis of Lansdowne, whose long and unblemished public lives have been accepted as full evidence of the purity of their motives, might indeed dispense with any such protestation; but there are not many who, from age and public confidence, have acquired a similar privilege. Now, it is rather curious to observe that Mr Macaulay seems, throughout his whole career, to have disdained any kind of conciliation. He has approached every question, not only with his mind made up upon it, but in the spirit of the strongest contempt and depreciation towards all who disagreed with him. He never, like Themistocles, volunteered to receive a buffet in order to gain a hearing. He rather, in imitation of Dares, walked into the arena with the gauntlets buckled round his wrists,

“And dealt in empty air his whistling blows.”

It is no business of ours to recount how often he has met with an Entellus, who has doled out severe punishment; we are now simply referring to what we consider to be his oratorical deficiencies or omissions.

Next we would observe, that the impression left on our mind by the perusal of these Speeches—which, referring as they do to bygone events, do not excite the slightest feeling of antagonism—is that the value of the matter is generally disproportioned to the grandiose nature of the style, and the uniform pomposity of language. It is quite true, that Mr Macaulay has spoken upon several interesting and important questions; and it is equally true that an orator, in addressing himself to themes of that description, is entitled to assume a higher tone than might be suitable to a meaner subject of debate. But then, he must take care that his thoughts and sentiments are raised to the like elevation. One distinguishing quality of the real orator is, that he rises with his subject. His intellect seems to expand in proportion to the greatness of his theme—he elevates himself in feeling and energy above the level of his audience, and the high thoughts which then rush upon his mind are expressed with corresponding dignity. The orator, like the poet, has his fits of inspiration, varying in intensity and degree according to the subject with which he deals. This, of course, precludes that method of slavish preparation, now unfortunately too common, by means of which not only the substance of the speech, but the very words, are elaborately fabricated in the closet, and committed to memory. The man who adopts that system may be a good speaker, but he never will attain the highest point of elevation as an orator. Like the swimmer on a stormy sea, the orator should rise and fall with the wave of his audience; for he is contending for the mastery over a moral element, than which the natural one is not always more fluctuating or fierce. It may be well to calculate and consider beforehand the line of argument to be adopted, just as a prudent general will make his dispositions before going into battle. But as no commander can foresee what may happen in the field, can provide for every emergency, or lay down for himself a course of action from which he will not deviate—so neither ought the orator to commit himself to a certain form of words, which possibly may prove either unappropriate to the occasion, or injurious to his cause. Men think differently in the closet, and in the scene of action. In the former they are comparatively unimpassioned—in the latter they must necessarily exhibit passion if they seek to rouse it in others. The most skilful and elaborate discourse, if coldly conceived and expressed, will have a drenching rather than an inspiring effect upon an audience which is already possessed with a considerable degree of enthusiasm. Their feeling, favourable to the speaker and his cause, must not be put back—it ought, on the contrary, to be heightened. The force of these observations will become apparent to every one who will take pains to investigate the subject, for there is nothing more certain, than that the success of an orator depends mainly upon the amount of energy which he can display. Energy was the secret of the success of Demosthenes; and Cicero, with all his art, could not find a higher quality to recommend. It must be confessed that modern statesmen have been too much in the habit of disregarding this evident truth. Some of them—and we would instance as a notable example the late Sir Robert Peel—might have secured a far more enthusiastic following than they ever could boast, but for their extreme and over-cautious frigidity. To this remark Lord John Russell, who perhaps has had more opportunities than any other living man of acquiring personal influence, is also peculiarly liable. On the contrary, take the case of Lord Palmerston. He is not implicitly trusted by any strong party in the state; and yet, in the House of Commons, no man can produce a greater effect, or possesses a larger personal influence. And why is this? Because he can carry an audience along with him—because he is never frigid, never dull, never addicted to circumlocution—because he possesses and exerts energy in a high degree; and is, in truth, what few of his contemporaries can claim to be—an orator. Read one of his speeches, and you see at once that it was not concocted in the closet—that he had not stooped to polish sentences beforehand, or to select language which should pass for a pattern of composition. Mark, too, the variety of his style—how quietly and playfully he disposes of a small matter—how, during debate and attack, to use the language of Canning, he “silently concentrates the power to be put forth on an adequate occasion.” No wonder that, when the occasion arrives, he should extort admiration even from his adversaries. Very different is the case with Mr Macaulay. Whatever be the subject, he rises to lecture, and has his lecture thoroughly prepared. He is speaking to-night, amidst the hum of the House of Commons, what he wrote yesterday in the quiet seclusion of his chambers in the Albany. He had no thought whatever of his audience; he was thinking simply of his style. That he may adorn and heighten; but he cannot vary it at pleasure. Ask him to pronounce a panegyric upon a deceased hero, and a discourse upon a drowned mouse, and he will execute both in the same strain. The victor in a hundred fields will not be celebrated in periods more stately than the invader of a hundred cheeses. Simplicity is not part of his nature—he must have recourse to rhetoric or be dumb.

Now, although this style may be tolerated in writing, it becomes very tedious when adopted in public speaking. Dress up a mere commonplace with the utmost skill and ingenuity, and yet, to the hearer, it retains its original character. The way in which a thing is said, does not alter the substance of the thing itself—the fine features cannot conceal the emaciation of the body beneath. We have gone over several of the speeches contained in this volume, for the purpose of ascertaining the real value, power, and ingenuity of the arguments set forth; and we are compelled to say, that in no one instance have we been able to discover the trace of an independent thought, or of a purely original idea. Some of them are unquestionably able speeches. Ask a man of high talent and extensive information, like Mr Macaulay, to deliver a discourse upon any possible theme, and he will do so in a manner which shall elicit shouts of applause from a Mechanic’s Institute. Nay, he will be loudly cheered even within the walls of Parliament, provided that a considerable interval is allowed to elapse between each exhibition—because, as we know from the history of Euphuism, fine language commands admiration, and rounded periods are always grateful to the ear. Besides this, it would be untrue, and highly unfair to Mr Macaulay to insinuate that he cannot make proper use and disposition of such arguments as lie before him. He states them well and adroitly; though, as we have already hinted, frequently marring their effect by the extreme remoteness of his illustrations. But neither our reading nor our recollection can furnish us with one case in which Mr Macaulay has put forth an original view, or disentangled himself from the general mass of debaters. In political life or strife, he appears simply as a furbisher of old iron, a process in which he certainly is expert; and he manages to make an exceedingly rusty rapier pass for a tolerable Toledo. More he seldom attempts. His speeches are often brilliant, in the same sense in which we apply the epithet to fireworks; tolerably, though not strictly logical; always sententious, rounded, and adapted to a mouthing delivery—but never ardent, never eloquent, never calculated to excite enthusiasm. If mere rhetoric could make an orator, Mr Macaulay ought undoubtedly to be the first of the age. He has studied it on the same principle as did Gorgias, who made it his boast that he could speak, and speak well upon any given subject, even though he was not conversant with its details, by aid of the commonplaces which he could dress up for the occasion. Gorgias had some reputation during his lifetime, but he is now remembered only on account of his extravagant boast. His works have long since perished; and we do not think that the efforts of Mr Macaulay, as an orator, will survive even so long as those of Gorgias.

If there had been, in this collection, one speech upon which we could have dwelt with any feeling of artistic interest—one which we could have withdrawn from the rest, to rank among the remarkable specimens of British eloquence—we should not only have been delighted, but proud to have selected it for eulogy. That which we have perused with the most pleasure, on account of its sentiment and manly feeling, is the speech delivered in 1846 upon the subject of the Ten Hours’ Bill. Regarded merely as an oration, it may not be of high value; but it displays, in a most pleasing light, the genuine kindness of his heart, his strong sympathy with suffering, and his genuine hatred of oppression. Such speeches are worthy of record, because they rank in the category of good deeds and noble actions; and deserve to be remembered with gratitude as exertions in the cause of humanity. We do not inquire now into the abstract merit of the speeches of Wilberforce, nor does his fame depend at all upon his oratorical skill. He has passed from the roll of speakers to the catalogue of philanthropists; and instead of directing the attention of youthful aspirants after public distinction to the force of his style, or the energy of his expression, we pay homage to his memory as the chief instrument, under Providence, of removing the fetters from the slave. In like manner, notwithstanding certain peculiarities which lead us rather to admire than to love, Mr Macaulay has high claims to the public gratitude and respect. In open questions, and those in which party considerations do not materially interfere, he has always shown himself accessible to conviction, generous in his views, and just in the expression of his sentiments. There are, among living public men, some who are more genial and attractive; but there are not many who are better entitled to our respect. Our criticism has been framed utterly irrespective of politics. We cannot boast, at the present day, of so large a list of men, either of genius or of high talent, as to omit the opportunity of paying tribute, where tribute is justly due. “I hope that I am,” says Mr Macaulay, in the last sentence of his last recorded speech, “at once a Liberal and a Conservative politician.” We hope so too; and we hope, moreover, that the avowal was made—not because Lord Aberdeen and Lord Palmerston, Lord John Russell and Mr Gladstone, Sir William Molesworth and Mr Sidney Herbert, have agreed to lie down together—but because Mr Macaulay wishes henceforward to emancipate himself from party trammels. It is certainly time that he should do so. He has occupied a subordinate rank in the Whig regiment longer than he ought to have done for his own reputation; and we are not sorry to see this disclaimer put forth in so marked a manner at the very end of his last publication. It is, like the reading of the closing line of the Iliad in the famous manuscript copy, which the supporters of the Cyclic theory point to as clearly indicative of further action, a phrase fraught with meaning; and when the coalition is dissolved, as it soon must be by the influence of a political thaw, we trust that Mr Macaulay’s tendencies may indeed appear to be Conservative, without the sacrifice of the true liberality which becomes the gentleman and the scholar. We do not believe that the general verdict of the public upon this collection will be of a different tenor from our own. But, after all, Mr Macaulay has no great reason to repine because he has failed to achieve a high place in the roll of British orators. His speeches will not be quoted for their eloquence and power, as those of Burke, Grattan, Erskine, and Canning are; but his history and essays, and even ballads, will insure him a reputation not less extensive and enduring. We need scarcely remind him that men who have attained high reputations as statesmen, and been conspicuous as public speakers, have altogether failed in their attempts to found a literary name. No one who has perused the historical chapters composed by Fox, can regret that his design proved abortive, and that the subject has been left to the more brilliant and dexterous treatment of Macaulay. We cannot say with truth that Lord John Russell’s literary efforts inspire us with an exalted idea of the author’s powers—we are even of opinion that he would have done well in abstaining from appearing before the public, either as a dramatist, biographer, or editor. Ne sutor ultra crepidam. It is by natural instinct that every man addresses himself to the occupation in which he is qualified to excel; and that ambition which prompts men to deviate from their destiny, and undertake tasks which are not congenial to their feelings and sympathies, ought to be repressed. We cannot view Mr Macaulay’s career without being convinced that nature designed him to play his part as a literary man rather than as a politician. He has indeed tacitly admitted that; for he has withdrawn himself very much of late years from debate, preferring literary occupation to the excitement of political strife. We are sorry that he has been induced to interrupt his more interesting labours for the sake of undertaking this collection; for, although the volume will find its way into many libraries—as what volume that bore his name upon the title-page would not?—it will be regarded hereafter with little interest, and may possibly be cited as an instance of unsuccessful ambition. We repeat that Mr Macaulay’s fame rests upon his writings, and that the publication of his speeches is by no means calculated to extend or heighten his intellectual reputation; though it cannot diminish the just estimation in which he is held as a man.

FIFTY YEARS IN BOTH HEMISPHERES.[^[10]]

The memoirs of a man of a singularly adventurous and speculative turn, who, having entered upon the occupations of manhood early, and retained its energies late, has prolonged the active period of his life to upwards of half a century, who has been an eyewitness of not a few of the important events that occurred in Europe and America between the years 1796 and 1850, and himself a sharer in more than one of them, who has been associated or an agent in some of the largest commercial and financial operations that British and Dutch capital and enterprise ever ventured upon, and has been brought into contact and acquaintance—not unfrequently into intimacy—with a number of the remarkable men of his time, can hardly, one would imagine, be otherwise than highly interesting, if the author have but sufficient command of his native tongue plainly to write down what his memory has retained, sufficient discrimination and self-restraint to avoid dwelling upon details of too trifling and egotistical a nature. Generally speaking, we have but little confidence in the interesting qualities of German septuagenarian autobiographers. Garrulity is the privilege of age, and German garrulity is a grievous thing, particularly when it displays itself upon paper. In Germany, where nearly everybody capable of grammar writes a book, even though he have nothing to write about, elderly gentlemen, who really have seen something worth the telling, are apt to imagine they can never make too much of it, and instead of delighting us with the pure spirit, drench us with a feeble dilution. Such was the case, we well remember, with our old acquaintance, Baron von Rahden, whose military experiences during the stirring period of 1813–14–15 we brought before our readers now just seven years since, and who, instead of cutting short the tolerably prolix history of his life and adventures at the date when peace sheathed his sword, elaborated two other ponderous and very wearisome volumes, scarcely relieved by an account of General Chassé’s defence of Antwerp, and by sketches of a campaign in Catalonia, in which the indefatigable and restless old fire-eater, unable to pass his latter days in tranquillity, served under the orders of the Carlist general Cabrera. There is more variety and vivacity in the book now before us than in the baron’s interminable record, of which, however, it has in some respects reminded us. Von Rahden, a soldier by profession and inclination, gave us far too much of his proceedings in times of peace, and dwelt at tedious length on garrison rivalries, his own unrewarded merit, and German provincial topics. Mr Nolte, on the contrary, by profession a man of peace, whose weapon is the pen, his field of battle the Exchange, and his campaigns amongst cotton bales, whose tutelar deity has been Mercury instead of Mars, and whose commanders and allies, instead of the martial-sounding appellations of Blucher, Gneisenau, and Chassé, have borne the pacific but scarcely less famous names of Hope, Labouchere, and Baring, has mingled, in the rather complicated narrative of his mercantile pursuits, triumphs, and disasters, much adventure both by flood and field, in which he himself was personally engaged, and displays, in the telling, not a little of the go-ahead spirit proper to the people amongst whom he has passed a large portion of his life. He has really seen a great deal, and his reminiscences, although here and there his style of narrating them be trivial and in questionable taste—whilst some of his long accounts of financial and commercial operations will more particularly interest bankers and merchants than the general reader—contain much that will attract all. In Germany the first edition of his book has gone off at a gallop,—no small testimony to its merits in a year during which present politics have been the all-absorbing topic. We do not wonder at its popularity; for, besides the mass of anecdote and historical recollections it comprises, the author has contrived to give an interest to his individuality, by the off-hand style in which he tells of his errors and of his triumphs, of his many reverses and disasters, as well as of his rarer moments of prosperity and success.

We should as soon think of attempting, within the compass of an article, a digest of an encyclopædia as of Mr Nolte’s volumes. We should fill half a magazine by merely tracing his itinerary. There never was such a rolling stone. He treats the Atlantic as most men do Dover Straits, and thinks no more of a few hundred leagues of land travel than a modern Cockney of a run to Ramsgate. Whole years of his life must have been passed on board ship, and behind post-horses. His book necessarily partakes of the desultory nature of his career. It better bears dipping into than reading from end to end.

Born at Leghorn, in the year 1779, of a German father, Mr Vincent Nolte’s first reminiscence, of much interest to his readers, is connected with the invasion of Italy by the French under Buonaparte. His father had for some years left Italy, and settled in Hamburg, his native place; but young Vincent, after being educated in Germany, was sent back to Leghorn, to take his place as junior clerk in his uncle’s counting-house, one of the most important in that city. He was in his seventeenth year when, upon the last Saturday in June 1796, a courier from the British minister at Florence brought news to the consul at Leghorn that the French were approaching. There was great bustle amongst the English merchants to get their property shipped, and place it and themselves under the protection of Nelson’s squadron, then cruising off the port. After unremitting labour, and favoured by the wind, the last ships, with English goods on board, left the harbour at noon on Monday. They had been but two hours gone, when it suddenly became known in the city that the French were close at hand, advancing by the Pisa road, and presently a party of cavalry galloped round the fortifications to the Porta Colonella, and rode straight up to the fort, on which the Tuscan flag waved. Suddenly those colours disappeared, and were replaced by the French tricolor, displayed for the first time to the wondering eyes of the Tuscans. Almost at the same moment the cannon of the fort thundered, and sent some shots after those English vessels nearest to the harbour—thus signalling to Nelson the entrance of the French. Young Nolte, who had little love for the desk, whose wish it was to become a painter, and who then, and all his life through, was ardent, impetuous, and a lover of excitement, could sit still no longer, but ran out of the respectable counting-house of Otto Franck & Co., consul for Hamburg, &c., to stare at the invaders. At the head of a body of cavalry, a horseman of remarkable beauty galloped up the street, and alighted at the door of the Genevese banker, Dutremoul. It was Murat. This was between two and three in the afternoon.

“At six in the evening, the news spread that General Buonaparte was at the Pisa gate. No sooner did he learn that the English residents had had time to escape with their property, than he broke into a violent rage. At that moment Count Spannochi, attired in the ordinary uniform, a blue coat, red waistcoat, and white breeches (the full-dress uniform consisted of a white coat and red waistcoat and breeches), and, surrounded by his officers, and by the chief authorities of the city, advanced to welcome the general, who still sat upon his horse. Buonaparte gave him no time to speak, but at once violently assailed him. ‘How dare you,’ he cried, ‘appear before me thus? Do you not know your duty? You are an insolent fellow, a traitor! You have let the English escape; you shall pay for that. A court-martial shall sit immediately. You are my prisoner—give up your sword!’ And Count Spannochi disappeared. Buonaparte’s words were repeated to me that same evening by my fellow-clerk, Giacomini, who had gone with the crowd outside the Pisa gate, and had heard them. Next day we learned that the governor had been sent under arrest to Florence, and that the French general, Vaubois, commanded in his stead. Hardly had Buonaparte and his staff reached the grand-ducal palace, when police-agents went round to all the houses, ordering a general illumination, under heavy penalties in case of disobedience. The only Leghorn newspaper that then existed announced, upon the following day, the arrival of the victor of Lodi and Arcola, adding, that the inhabitants had spontaneously illuminated. I then, for the first time, got a correct idea of a spontaneous illumination, and was never afterwards at a loss to understand the expression. At eleven o’clock the next morning, the foreign consuls waited upon the general, who quickly dismissed them, when suddenly his eye was attracted by my uncle’s red coat. ‘What is that?’ he cried. ‘An English uniform?’ My uncle, taken quite aback, had just enough presence of mind to reply, ‘No, Padrone, questa e l’uniforme di Amburgo!’ and endeavoured, but in vain, to make his escape. Buonaparte burst forth with a violent diatribe against everything that looked English, against all who thought like Englishmen, or had anything to do with England. ‘Those English,’ he said, according to my uncle’s account to me upon his return home, ‘shall get such a lesson as they have never yet had! My road now lies to Vienna, then farther north, to destroy their nests in Hamburg and elsewhere, and then to seek them in their own robbers’ den!’”

Young Nolte was bent upon seeing the hero of the day, who, before attaining his eight-and-twentieth year, had played such havoc amongst Austria’s veteran commanders, and, disregarding his uncle’s commands to keep in-doors, and out of the way of the dense mob upon the Piazza d’Arme, he again played truant, and stationed himself at the corner of the palace, at whose entrance an open carriage awaited the French general. His account of the impression he carried away of Napoleon’s appearance has some originality. The peculiar expression, attributed by him to the eyes, reminds one of the present French Emperor.

“At last there came out, accompanied by a number of officers, a little, youthful-looking man, in a plain uniform, with a pale, almost a yellow complexion, and long, lank, raven-black hair, hanging over his ears, after the fashion of the Florida savages called Talapouches. That was the hero of Arcola! Whilst he took the right-hand place in the carriage, and whilst his aides-de-camp got in, I had a few moments to observe him closely. There was a continued smile round his mouth, with which, however, the man himself had evidently nothing to do, for the fixed indifferent look of his eyes showed that the mind was busy elsewhere. I never again beheld so remarkable an expression. It was the dull gaze of a mummy, barring a certain beam of intelligence betraying the inward life, but only by a faint and glimmering gleam. Macbeth’s words to Banquo’s ghost, ‘There is no speculation in those eyes!’ would almost have fitted here, had not previous and subsequent events sufficiently shown what a spirit lurked behind those impressive orbs. The carriage drove away—seven years elapsed before I again beheld that extraordinary man. He left the town the next day. I must not omit to mention a colossal and well-built officer, who stood, in a respectful attitude, beside the carriage-door. This man, who had just been named town-major of Leghorn, was the grenadier who, seven years previously, on the 14th July 1789, led the storm of the Bastile, and was the first to scale its walls, who afterwards, as General Hullin, was governor of Berlin after the battle of Jena, and presided over the court-martial appointed to try, or rather to shoot, the unfortunate Duke d’Enghien.”

The presence and proceedings of the French in Leghorn were alike odious to the inhabitants, who found an important branch of their trade—that with England—completely cut off, and who had to satisfy unceasing demands for money and equipments. Large bodies of ragged, barefooted troops continually entered the town, to quit it well shod and with new uniforms. The republican cockade became an abomination in the eyes of the Leghornese, who christened it il pasticcino—the little pie—and wrote innumerable lampoons upon its wearers. Leghorn was converted into a camp, and on a large altar in the middle of the Piazza d’Arme, a statue of Liberty was erected, at the foot of which the popular representatives, Garat and Salicetti, daily harangued the troops upon parade. Business was at a standstill; Vincent Nolte deserted his desk and roamed about the town, sketching the groups of foreign soldiers. And even when things began to settle down, he would do nothing but ramble in picture-galleries and make love to pretty Florentines, until at last his uncle, despairing of his doing any good, wrote to his father that he was on the high-road to perdition. This alarming piece of information produced an instant summons to Hamburg, where, in the paternal counting-house, the young scamp amended his ways and applied earnestly to business, displaying great energy, industry, and capacity.

The year 1799 was a disastrous one for Hamburg. Within six weeks there occurred upwards of one hundred and thirty failures for a total of thirty-six millions of marks. The panic was universal, and trade was shaken to its foundations. Mr Nolte’s house weathered the storm, but was compelled, three years later, to suspend its payments in consequence of the failure of the Leghorn establishment. The creditors received eighty-five per cent, and the numerous friends of the unfortunate merchant subscribed a capital of one hundred and twenty thousand marks to start him again in business. Upon the list figured the well-known name of Francis Baring, a former schoolfellow of the insolvent’s, for the munificent sum of twenty thousand marks, upon which he positively refused to receive interest. Thus supported, Mr Nolte again applied himself to business. But he was then a man advanced in years and of little enterprise, and his son, bold and ambitious, saw that he was not likely to strike out new paths to wealth, whereas the old and ordinary avenues to commercial profits were then closed, all over the European continent, by the iron hand of Napoleon, that mortal foe to trade, and contemner of its votaries. And as young Nolte could be of no use to his father, who despised his views as the dreams of a stripling, bent upon pleasure and unworthy of attention, he sought employment abroad. This he found in the house of Labouchere and Trotreau at Nantes, where he accepted an engagement for three years, to carry on the German and English correspondence. And so, in his twenty-fifth year, he took leave of his parents, with a heavy heart, he says, but without uneasiness as to the future, and travelled, by way of Bremen, to Paris.

Mr Nolte’s arrival in the French capital coincided with the proclamation of Napoleon as emperor, and with Moreau’s imprisonment on the charge of a plot against the government and life of the First Consul. It was his first visit to Paris—the period was interesting. He was so fortunate as to find a friend who willingly undertook to be his cicerone, and a few weeks flew rapidly by, during which, thanks to his guide’s familiarity with places and persons, he acquired a better knowledge of both than he would in as many months had he been left to himself; for it would have served him little (except, perhaps, in the way of emptying his pockets) that the doors of Frascati’s, then the favourite resort of the Parisian fashionable world, were open to all who could pay for admission, and who chose to roam through its gorgeous saloons and brilliantly illuminated gardens, had he not had with him some one able to inform him that yonder beautiful woman was Madame Recamier—yonder elegant young man, leaning against the pedestal of a statue, the renowned ball-room hero Trénis—and the one beyond him, with a music-book in his hand, the celebrated singer Garat. But of all that Mr Nolte saw and heard, nothing made a deeper impression upon him than the lively and universal interest taken in the fate of Moreau. “Rarely,” he says, “was that name uttered by the middle and lower classes without an expression of love and respect, and without a curse upon his two implacable persecutors, the First Consul, and the governor of Paris, General Murat, whose proclamations exhibited at every street corner the name of Moreau in juxtaposition with the words—‘Traitor to the Republic.’ Men could not and would not credit the guilt of the distinguished general; and the Paris wits, never at a loss, declared that there were but two parties in France, ‘les moraux (Moreaus) et les immoraux’—a saying which one heard everywhere repeated.” Condemned to banishment, the conqueror of Hohenlinden betook himself, by way of Cadiz, to the United States, where Mr Nolte some years afterwards met him, and made his acquaintance.

Mr Nolte was present at the first review passed by the new emperor, on the Place du Carrousel at Paris. He was very desirous to get a near view of the victorious general and successful adventurer, whom he had first seen, seven years before, in the full flush of triumph at Leghorn. Two officers of the Danish life-guards, with whom he had travelled from Bremen, made interest for him with their ambassador, and procured him admission to the gallery of the Louvre, a favour granted to few. “I saw the great man of the day, surrounded by a brilliant staff, and by uniforms of every kind, ride several times up and down through the ranks, then gallop full speed along the front of the lines of cavalry drawn up outside the inner court, amidst cries of ‘Vive l’Empereur!’ when suddenly his horse fell, and Napoleon rolled upon the ground, still grasping the bridle tightly. In a few seconds he had mounted again, and galloped on, before even a part of his staff, who quickly dismounted, could go to his assistance. The newspapers said nothing of this incident, and its ominous character struck me the more by reason of their silence.”