refused compliance, and preferred to await him before their walls; who while the flatterers and the timid warned them day after day not to provoke him, condemned to death citizens who had purchased slaves who had fallen into the hands of the Macedonians by the conquest of Grecian towns which had been hostile to Athens; the people whose needy members, though the majority in the assembly, renounced the distribution which alone procured them on festival days the luxury of butcher's meat, while they lived all the year round on nothing but olives, herbs and onions, with dry bread and salt fish; who made this sacrifice that that fund might be devoted to sustaining the honour of their country;—that people has my entire heart and my deepest veneration. And when a great man turned away from this noble and docile people, who to be sure did not appear every day in their holiday cloaths, and were not free from sins and infirmities, he met with the justest punishment by falling into the error of attempting to wash a blackamoor white, to convert an incurable mauvais sujet, and to set, by means of him, philosophy on the throne in the sink of Syracusan vice and luxury, and into the scarcely inferior folly of seeing a hero and an ideal in a madcap so deeply infected by tyranny as Dion. He who thought success possible in this case, and despaired of such a people as the Athenians, was surely far gone in straining at gnats and swallowing camels."

Of a truth the Grecian history also is yet to be written, and Mitford must share the fate of all who worship a lie, and avert their eyes from the fane of truth. "Oh! how comely it is, and how reviving to the spirits of just men," to turn from his cold tyrant-lauding pages, or from the polished imbecility of the Aristophanic journalist above mentioned, to these noble passages of the noble-minded Niebuhr. But it is not merely the vindication of the memory of the illustrious dead, the rectification of our views of ancient history, that we derive from this discussion. All history, like all Scripture, "is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction;" and from this picture of the patriotic self-devotion of the Athenians we may derive grounds of consolation and confidence in the present aspect of public affairs in our own country. For if, in a state of heathenism and under a democratic form of government, the lowest and poorest citizens of Athens were capable, at the voice of their great orator, of sacrificing all, of daring the utmost vengeance of the conqueror, in the cause of virtue and justice, why should we for an instant despair of the people of England? why apprehend, in a country where the pure precepts of Christianity are continually inculcated—where the wise and the good have such abundant means of diffusing their knowledge and delivering their warnings and exhortations-where all orders have been from their infancy habituated to an obedience to the laws and a regard for the rights of property-where industry and peacefulness have ever been the

characteristics of the lower orders-where intelligence is spreading more and more every day—why, we say, in such a country apprehend dangers to property or religion from placing the source of legislative power with that portion of the society which contains the far largest portion of the wealth, the virtue, and the intelligence of the nation, that is, with the middle ranks? for let sophistry and declamation say what they will, this is what must be the result of the measure now in contemplation. People, if they please, may call it revolution, but it is in reality only what Niebuhr would style the natural development of the constitution, and "it cannot and it will not come to bad." We have confidence in Providence, we have confidence in the good-sense of the people of England, and we hearken to the voice of history, which assures us that evil and destructive measures have never emanated from the people, and that whenever they have acted wrong, they have been deceived by their superiors. Let those who are high in rank and wealth endeavour to maintain a correspouding elevation in virtue and intelligence, and they will find that they have nothing to fear. We would venture any wager, that not ten of the opponents of reform have read and understood the work now under consideration.

But a truce with modern politics! We take a reluctant leave of the immortal work of Niebuhr, almost despairing ever to meet its like, but hoping that the publication of his literary remains will afford us an opportunity of again displaying, however feebly, his transcendant merits and noble qualities.

With the work of Niebuhr we have joined that of Mr. Eisendecker, not so much on account of its excellence, though it contains some good matter, as to give the reader knowledge of its existence and the nature of its contents. It is founded on a work of the Abate Duni, entitled, Origine e Progressi del Cittadino e del Governo Civile di Roma, in two volumes, published at Rome in 1763-4. The object of both writers is to show that citizenship was founded on the auspices, both in public and private relations; that the plebeians were not citizens, because they had no auspices; that all their struggles were for a participation in them, the connubium, for instance, of which they were so desirous, not being the right of intermarriage with the patricians, but the right of marrying among themselves with auspices. These views are, it is very plain, totally different from those of Niebuhr, and most readers, we should think, will find them much less probable. Every inquirer into the early Roman history should, however, possess the work of Mr. Eisendecker.

ART. V.-Dimitrii Zamozvanetz, Istoritcheskii Roman; sotchenenie Thaddeya Bulgarina. Izdanie vtoroe. (The False Demetrius, an Historical Romance. By Thaddeus Bulgarin. Second Edition.) St. Petersburg. 1830.

WHEN the philosopher of Salisbury first published, among his other philological writings, his historical account of the literature of Russia, the subject seemed sufficiently profound and recondite to be worthy the pen of a professed scholar; for certainly neither Mr. Harris, nor any of his readers, imagined that within far less than a century afterwards the same literature would begin to attract the notice of other countries, and that, too, by works calculated not only to interest the student, but to engage the attention of the literary idler. Many revolutions and changes have taken place since then, both in literature and other matters; nor is it, perhaps, the least singular circumstance that an English foreign reviewer should have to speak of an "historical romance" written in the Russian language. Therefore, although the one we are about to notice is not actually a phenomenon, nor the very first production of its class, in point of date, which has appeared in that country, our readers, it is presumed, will not be displeased with us for entering into some details relative to the author, as well as to this new production of his fertile pen.

With the single exception, perhaps, of Pushkin, M. Bulgarin is at present the most popular of all the living writers of Russia, -popular, not only as regards the favour in which he stands with the public, but also in his style, in the choice of his subjects, and his mode of treating them; and it is, undoubtedly, to the tact he has thus evinced that his success is in a great measure to be ascribed. Hardly can he be said to display any great power or originality; but he possesses talent, cleverness, and industry; while his subjects are of a class calculated to interest a very wide circle of readers, and furnish that species of light-reading which Russia has hitherto imported from other countries. If this homemanufacture is not very remarkable in itself for any peculiar excellence, it deserves at least to be encouraged; and there is at present every reason to suppose that M. Bulgarin's example, and the success with which his efforts have been attended, will instigate others to similar literary activity and enterprise. Even by the mere circumstance of exciting public attention so strongly as he has done, this writer has already effected a positive good, having whetted the literary appetite of his countrymen, and thereby created a demand that will doubtless be met by a supply.

Russian literature has hitherto produced very few works indeed, and those few of no great importance in themselves, in the depart

ment of belles-lettres; the consequence of which is, that for want of due cultivation its prose style does not yet possess that elasticity and manageableness which varied originality alone can bestow upon it. Had Batiushkov continued to employ his pen he would most probably have enriched his native language with some standard work, for his prose essays delight by the elegance of their style; but then they are too much of mere essays and detached pieces to constitute an important contribution to that department in which the literature of his country is so visibly deficient. The same remark applies to the productions of Prince Viazemsky, Glinka, &c., who, whatever intrinsic merit they may possess, have written too little, and too scantily, to advance the interest of letters, or to supply the deficiency we regret. Almost all, in fact, that has hitherto been produced in this department of prose, amounts to no more than contributions to journals, and other minor subjects executed at one or two sittings, whose brevity precludes the degree of interest requisite to make any impression on the public by the display of sustained power. Such things are so dwarfish and stunted, as to give no very favourable idea of the soil where we hardly meet with aught else than plants of this miniature growth. Poetical works, too, have latterly greatly dwindled down in point of bulk from the standard of former years, so as to become mere scraps and sketches; which ominous system of retrenchment has been perversely indulged in by Pushkin, (in some degree the originator of it,) who instead of concentrating his talents in some undertaking of at least tolerable magnitude, has preferred exhibiting his versatility and-his indolence.

In such a state of literary inactivity, we cannot but regard it as a fortunate circumstance that Bulgarin should have applied himself to a species of composition affording sufficient extent of canvas to enable us to judge of the original objects, and to take in a satisfactory view of more than one or two detached figures. After being fed so long by only mouthfuls at a time, as to feel cloyed by mere tasting, at the same time that we experience the sufferings of inanition, it becomes a luxury to sit down to a substantial meal, even if not to a banquet.

The preceding remarks will not, we hope, be deemed either irrelevant or superfluous, as we ourselves consider them necessary in order to point out the peculiar circumstances from which the labours of this writer derive an extrinsic value arising from the influence they are likely to produce. Concerning M. Bulgarin himself we shall now give a few particulars from an autograph memoir in our possession; which may be the more acceptable, both on that account, and as no biographical memoranda relative to him have appeared in any other publication, either English or

foreign. Although he may now be regarded as belonging entirely to Russia, Thaddeus Bulgarin is by birth a Pole, and was born in Lithuania in the year 1789. His parentage was respectable; and his father and many of his relatives took an active part in that unavailing struggle in which Kosciuszko endeavoured to regain his country's independence. His father's affairs having suffered greatly in consequence, his mother was obliged to go to St. Petersburg, where she was advised by General Ferven, who had known the family in Poland, to get her son into the Military College of Cadets, of which the general was then governor. The boy accordingly entered that seminary in 1798; but his father, who was then dangerously ill, was so afflicted at this separation from his child, that he did not long survive it. Here Thaddeus soon entirely forgot his mother-tongue, and became completely naturalized into a Russian. At a very early period his attachment to literature began to discover itself; and by the juvenile efforts of his pen, consisting of fables, satirical pieces of poetry, and various compositions in prose, he soon attracted the attention of the two head-teachers, who thenceforth evinced an almost paternal regard for him, bestowing more than usual pains in instructing him, and teaching him several foreign languages. On quitting this seminary in 1805, he was taken by the GrandDuke Constantine into his Ulan Regiment; and during the two following years saw some active service, in the campaigns of the Prussians against the French. For the manner in which he distinguished himself at the battle of Friedland, he was rewarded by the order of St. Anne, of the third class; which was the more flattering, as such honours were at that time far less liberally dispensed than they have been since. Very shortly afterwards, the peace of Tilsit put a stop to hostilities, and Bulgarin returned to St. Petersburg. His stay there was, however, of no long duration, for on the war breaking out between Russia and Sweden, he proceeded to Finland with the military force destined against the Swedes; and being one of the vanguard under Count Kamensky, penetrated as far as Torneo. On his second return to the capital he quitted the Russian service altogether, in consequence of either some pique or unpleasant circumstances, and repaired to Warsaw, where some of his relations still resided. From that he proceeded to France, entered Napoleon's service, and in 1810 joined the army in Spain. Of the events to which he was there an eye-witness, and in which he personally shared, he has given an interesting narrative, first published separately, in 1823, (under the title of Vospominaniya, &c., Recollections of Spain,) and afterwards incorporated with his miscellaneous works, of which it forms the seventh volume. Having so far