vii. MA* 2,
NOTES AND QUERIES.
179
of Deputy-Surveyor of Koyal Parks and
Palaces until 1830, when he retired on a
pension. J. H. Jesse was not a clerk in the
Office before entering the Admiralty.
ALFKED F. CURWEN.
NOTES ON BOOKS, &c.
The French Monarchy (1483-1789). By A. J. Grant,
M.A. 2 vols. (Cambridge, University Press.) IN common with some others of the " Cambridge Historical Series," to which it belongs, ' The French Monarchy ' of Prof. Grant suffers from the draw- back that the canvas is too small for the subject. It is, no doubt, convenient and useful to have a summary of the events that took place between the death of Louis XL and the advent of the Revo- lution. The main purpose of the author is. more- over, carried out. Those who study his pages will have a fair idea of the growth and development of the monarchy, and may see that the extent to which the Revolution was a complete break with the past has been over-estimated by others besides the participants in it. That the main purpose of the series to be useful to those already grounded to some extent in European history is fulfilled cannot be said. A record of political and historical events is given, but the developments of thought and the underlying influences to which Court and society were subject are not traced. A tribute to the power of Rabelais over French thought is yielded, and the influence of Montaigne is asso- ciated with that of Michel 1'Hospital. No trace is, however, found of the influence of the libertins, who during and subsequent to the wars oi religion played a significant part in French history. The word, even, is not mentioned. The treatment of the mignons of the Court becoming enough in a book intended for youth is scarcely adequate to the requirements of present days. In the condition of Spain during the period of the Reformation we find no trace of the influence oi that relentless persecution of the new learning which left Spain, alone among the kingdoms of the West, in a sleep so profound that the trumpet-blast failed to rouse it. It would be easy to multiply omissions of the kind, on which, however, we have no wish to dwell. To assert, as is said in vol. i p. 47, that the Emperor Maximilian died in 1715, is of course only an oversight, though it should have been detected in time to be included in the errata, Prof. Grant estimates a million and a quarter livres in the time of Henri IV., say 1593, as equalling 500,OOW. (see i. 165) in modern days. This is surely an extravagant computation. The livre in the time of Charlemagne was the equivalent of a con siderable sum, but its value must by the sixteenth century have very greatly diminished. It is in correct to speak of Montgomery, to whom th death of Henri II. was attributable, as a Scotch knight. His grandfather, Robert de Montgomery was a Scotchman, but his father, Jacques de Mont pmery, was Sire de Lorges, and the Comte de '
?
Montgomery, to whom the accident was due, is
called in the chronicle " Lorges." We have not dwelt on words such as the "Abbey of St. Gene vieVe." Dr. Grant has consulted many trustworthy sources, a list of which he gives in a bibliographica
note in his second volume. The utility of his work
vould, however, be greatly augmented by an ex-
>ansion of his scheme a matter presumably not in
lis hands and by a more scrupulous revision of
proofs.
A Literary History of America. By Barrett
Wendell. (Fisher Unwin.)
MR. WENDELL is Professor of English at Harvard, and therefore his book is entitled to all respect as coming from one who is in a position of authority. Lt has the advantage of being written ably and in a style which is creditably clear and free from Ame- ricanisms. In the explanation of literary move- ments, their causes and developments, the writer s at his best, and this best is distinctly good. It was a happy idea to interpose in these pages some idea of contemporary literature in England, as the inspiration of writers on the further side of the Atlantic was notably derived from the mother country, long after considerations of political life, national character, and language had loosened the old ties. But the English matter is far too lengthy.
In Franklin Prof. Wendell ingeniously dis- covers an eighteenth - century prototype of the American humourists whose peculiar type of fun has added so much to the gaiety of nations. But Cotton Mather, with many religious writers of his age the Hartford wits and their successors cannot really claim much space or interest to-day as writers of literature. This is evident from the fact that many of their writings are out of print now in America. One cannot get, it appears, Wigglesworth, for all his contemporary popularity ; or Joel Barlow, or Freneau, or Timothy D wight's poems ; and in the face of such testimony it is idle to consider their writings at any length. Once in the century we have just left, interest grows, of course, and we deal with poets and prose writers whose names are household words in England.
In this section Mr. Wendell is never dull ; but we are unable often to agree with him. Equations and comparisons are introduced which can only be regarded as fantastic and a serious menace to the formation of right judgments. Such a lack of balance has been, we regret to say, a characteristic of some recent English criticism too, which is rather disquieting. We hear of " Thucydides, Livy, or Webster." Poe is compared with Mar- lowe in an astonishing paragraph, yet justice is not done to his originality and his genius, for he has claims to both these qualities which put him above many of the writers here lauded. And surely a caution should have been added as to Griswold's remarks on him. As to Irving's ' Sketch-Book,' in formal style it is said to be above notable things of Hazlitt, Scott, and Shelley. " Its prose, in fact, has hardly been surpassed, if indeed it has been equalled, in nineteenth - century England." This judgment surprises us, and will, we think, surprise many others. To begin with, Irving's is a consciously imitative style, and its ease is an elaborateness which lacks fire everywhere. We say plainly that he cannot rank with the great masters. Lowell is considered at length, but nothing is said of his English popularity, which has recently been said to surpass that of any poet of the century ! Not with us does his ' Commemoration Ode ' at Harvard form his chief title to be called poet. We would point to shorter, in no wise academic things like ' Above and Below,' with its high note of aspira-
