vein swollen and distended with blood. The women, like phantoms, assisting in this scene. lit only by a pale and solitary taper, uttered in a piercing tone their shrill cries of lu-lu, lu-lu, lu-lu. This, mixed with strange songs, hoarse sounds, and the hollow rattle in the throat of each Aisaoua, as he fell exhausted and senseless, formed altogether a scene so totally repulsive to human nature, that it seemed, in truth, a feast of hell. Such dreadful exertions could not, however, last long: by degrees the number of dancers diminished, as one after another they sank under the satigue, and their panting bodies strewed the marble pavement of the court. The feast of the Aisaoua was over.”

With this long specimen we finish our notice. The return of the travellers to Algiers, their visit to Bona and Tunis, the historical account of the Kabiles or Berbers, and other matters treated of, not furnishing us with aught which we could consider to be of sufficient novelty or importance to occupy our pages. From what we have done, we think it will be seen that the publication is exactly what we have pictured; viz. the frank exposition of a light, slight, and pleasant excursion, over a country from which the latest intelligence must, from the nature of the case, be generally acceptable.

PRINCE or WALEs' Fr. At HERs.—In the Society of Antiquaries, the Secretary resumed the reading of the “Inquiry into the Origin of the device of the Triple Plume of Feathers, and the Mottoes used by the Black Prince,' by Sir Harris Nicolas, commenced at the previous meeting. The popular account of the adoption of the badge of feathers at Cressy, as stated by Sandford, resis en no contemporary authority : the tradition that the Black Prince wore the feathers at Poictiers not at Cressy, is first mentioned by Camden, and

the tale of their being stripped from the helm of

the King of Bohemia is given by no higher authorities than Sandford and Randle Holine. Sir Harris having carefully examined the Wardrobe Accounts, whilst preparing a history of the Order of the Garter, ascer, aimed that the first mention of the feathers in any record, is in a list of the Queen's plate ; the date of the document is lost, but it must have been after 43 Edward III., 1369. The facts thus supplied lead to the inference that the ostrich feathers in a sable field belonged to Queen Philippa, either as a family badge, or as arms borne in right of some territories appertaining to her house. The most remarkable notices of them occur in the will of the Black Prince; he directed these badges to be placed among the decorations of his tomb, with the motto Hormont, which, in a singular document preserved in the Tower, is used by him as a signature “De par Homout—Ich Dien.” The

evidence afforded by seals is material in such an inquiry; the ostrich feathers, do not appear on the Great Seals of Edward III. or his consort; they occur on Prince Edward's seal for Aquitaine, and some others used by him ; and they appear to have been borne with a slight difference by other sons of Edward III., by Richard II., and succeeding sovereigns, by the sons of Henry IV., and also by the house of York. The badge does not appear to have been considered as appropriate to the eldest son of the sovereign, until the reign of Henry VIII, and in subsequent times, from ignorance of its real character it has been converted into the crest of the Prince of Wales.

From the British Quarterly Review:


(1.) Le Moniteur.—(2.) Le Messager.— (3.) Le Journal des Débats.—(4.) Le Constitutionnel.—(5.) Le Siècle.—(6.) La Presse.—(7.) Le National—(8.) La Gazette de France.—(9.) La Quotidienne.—(10.) Le Globe.—(11.) Le Corsaire Satan.—(12.) Le Charivari.(13.) L’Esprit Public.—(14.) La forme.—(15.) La Démocratic Pacifique. Paris, 1845, 1846. (16.) Histoire Edifiante du Journal des Débats. Paris: Baudry. (17.) Wenalité des Journaux, Révélations accompagnées de Preuves. Par CoNst ANT Hilbey. Ouvrier, Tailleur. Paris, chez tous les Libraires. Septembre, 1845. (18.) L'Ecole des Journalistes, Comedie en 5 Actes. Par M DE. EMILE DE GIRARDIN ; suivie d'une Lettre de M. Jules JANIN; et d'une Reponse de M. GRANIER DE CAss AGNAc. Troisième Edition, Paris, 1840. It were a curious and instructive study to trace the progress of the Newspaper Press of France, from the earliest times down to our own day;-to record the history of the ancient Gazetier and the modern Journalist;—of the old Gazette of times long gone by, as well as of the modern Journal. In the French of the 17th century, the Gazetier signified the Editor of a periodical publication, as well as the Publisher; but the word is not now used in this latter sense, and generally bears an ill signification. Though any frivolous inquiry into the origin of words, in the present age of facts

and realities, be for the most part idle, yet it may be permitted to us to state, that the word Gazetier is derived from Gazette, a denomination which the earliest journal received from the piece of Venetian coin, ‘Gazetta,’ which the reader paid for each number in the Piazza de St. Marco, in the seventeenth century. The first regular Journal which modern times has known, however, appeared in England in 1588. It bore the title of the ‘English Mercury, and probably suggested to the French nation the idea of the ‘Mercure Français, ou Suite de l’Histoiré de la Paix.' This publication commenced in 1605, the Septenmaire of D. Cayer, and extended to the year 1644, forming altogether a collection of 25 vols. The curious compilation was, till 1635, edited by John Richer, and continued by Theophile Renaudot. t Without entering upon the early history of Journalism in France, or enumerating the journals and newspapers of the Revolution, it will best accord with our design to begin our sketch with the mention of the only one which sprung out of this great crisis which has survived that stormy and terrific epoch, and which has lived to see many great changes even in our own day. We allude to the ‘Moniteur Universel,” the official journal of the French Government. Born of the first Revolution, and a witness of all the political revolutions which have succeeded it, the ‘Moniteur' has had the rare advantage of surviving times of trouble and civil strife, without losing any portion of its high consideration, and without changing either its character or its language. The founder of the ‘Moniteur’ was a great and enterprising bookseller, of the

tin de l'Assemblie Nationale,’ agreed to in corporate his paper with the ‘Moniteur,”

en chef of the latter journal. As Maret was an admirable short-hand writer, the paper became, to use the words of his biographer, a tableau en relief. It was not merely fidelity of expression that was transmitted, but the spirit of the debate was embodied, and the gesture and demeanor of the orator described. Something more, however, than mere reports were needed ; and a series of articles were determined on, comparing the parliamentary system springing from the Revolution, with the system that prevailed anteriorly. The exact and conscientious Peuchet undertook this difficult task. . His articles, under the title of an introduction, form the first volume of the collection of the ‘ Moniteur,” From this period the principal and the most precious recommendation of the ‘Moniteur' was, and is, that it is a repertory of all the important facts connected with the annals of modern France. The ‘Moniteur,’ indeed, is the only pure well of undefiled historical truth, though occasionally dashed and brewed with lies, more especially in the Napoleonic time, from which a thorough knowledge may be obtained of the parties and history of France. Tables compiled with diligence, method, and clearness, and published for each year, facilitate the researches of the student, and conduct him through the immense labyrinth of facts which have been accumulated during half a century. Men of extraordinary merit have occasionally co-operated, either as men of letters, or as philosophical writers, or as publicists, in the editing of this remarkable journal. We have already cited the

and soon after became the first rédacteur.

name of Charles Joseph Panckoucke, fa-' Duke of Bassano, who was rédacteur en ther of Madame Suard, and celebrated by chef, to the end of the Constituent Assemthe publication of the ‘Encyclopédie Mé-bly. Berquin, the author of “L’Amie des thodique.’ Panckoucke had, in a journey Enfans,’ succeeded him at a time when to England, been struck with the immense Rabaut de St. Etienne, La Harpe; Laya, size of the London journals. He resolved in. author of “L’ami des Lois; Framery; to introduce a larger form into France. Guinguené, author of a Literary History of This was the origin of the ‘Moniteur Uni-Italy; Garat, who was minister and senator; versel,’ which first saw the light on the Suard, of the Academy, of whom we have morning of the 24th of November, 1789. before spoken ; Charles His, Gallois GranBut the ‘Moniteur, in its infancy, did not, ville, Marsilly, La Chapelle, and others, as the reader may well suppose, possess its enriched the very same pages with their present organization. A very small space |united labors. Under the Convention and was alloted to the report of the proceedings the Directory, M. Jourdan performed the of the National Assembly, and the debates duties of rédacteur en chef, and was assistwere often incorrectly given. Shortly after

this period, M. Maret, afterwards Duke of Bassano, and who was editor of the ‘Bulle

* Souvenirs du Duc de Bassano, par Mde. Charlotte de Sor. Bruxelles, 1843.

ed by Trouvé, Sauvo, and Gallois. Under the Consulate, Sauvo was placed at the head of the ‘Moniteur,” and is, or lately was, editor in chief. It may be in the recollection of our readers, that during the crisis of the ministry of Polignac, that weak, foolish man sent for M. Sauvo, and handed him the famous ordonnances which produced the Revolution of July, with a view to their publication in the official journal, when the courageous journalist remonstrated with the president of the council, and pointed out to him the folly—the madness— of his course.” The minister refused, even at the twelfth hour, to listen to the voice of wisdom, and our readers know the result. During a period of nearly forty years, M. Sauvo has written in the ‘Moniteur' the principal portion of the matter under the head Théâtres, and all parties most capable of judging of such matters admit the taste and the tact he has uniformly exhibited in this department of his labors, his criticisms being extended not merely to the pieces, but to the actors and actresses. If these essays were published separately, they would form no mean course of dramatic literature. Among the numerous collaborateurs of M. Sauvo, from the Consulate and Empire to our own day, we may mention Peuchet; Tourlet; the learned Jomard; Champollion, of the Academy des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres; Amar ; Tissot, of the Academy; Kératry; Petit Radel; David, formerly consul-general in the East; Aubert de Vitry, and Champagnac. The “Moniteur' is the only journal, it should be observed, which reproduces exactly the debates of the Chambers, for other journals have recourse to analysis and abridgments. The only certain basis of an exact analysis would be the words of the ‘Moniteur;' but this journal, contrary to its agreement, which imposes on it the obligation of furnishing proof sheets to all the journals on the evening of its publication, appears after the latter have been printed off, and cannot consequently be of the least use for an analysis of the debates. It were, perhaps, a piece of supererogatory information to state that the ‘Moniteur,” which forms a collection of more than 100 volumes, is furnished to all the higher functionaries of the state, and is constantly referred to, not merely in

* Memoires de Lafayette, par Sarrans. Procés des Ministres de Charles X. “England and France; or, the Ministerial Gallomania."—Mur. ray, 1832.

France, but in every civilized country. It is the best repertory of contemporaneous history, and complete copies of it are therefore very rare, and always fetch a high price. During the emigration, Monsieur, afterwards Louis XVIII., had a species of Moniteur of his own, under the title of ‘Journal de Monsieur,’ in which the Abbés Royon and Geoffroy, the latter afterwards so celebrated as the feuilletonist of the Débats,’ both wrote; but this paper necessarily expired the moment his majesty landed on the French soil. The Abbé Geoffroy, indeed, played an important literary part after the Restoration; but before we speak of him, it will be necessary that we should enter into the history of that journal, which he rendered so celebrated by his criticisms. In so doing, it is indispensable that we should speak somewhat at length of the very remarkable founders of the ‘’Journal des Débats,’ the MM. Bertin. These two brothers, François Bertin the elder, and Louis Bertin, commonly called Bertin de Vaux, were the men who first elevated journalism in France into a power in the state, and made of newspapers a great instrument, either for good or for evil. François was the elder brother of the two, and continued till the period of his death ‘Rédacteur en chef and Gérant' of the ‘Journal des Débats.” Louis, the other brother, after having been fifteen years a member of the Chamber of Deputies was, soon after the Revolution of IS30, sent ambassador to Holland, and elevated to the Chamber of Peers. Bertin the elder was a man of large and liberal views, intelligent, instructed not merely in letters, but in politics and legislation,--a man of the world, in the best sense, generous, indulgent, and great, not only in accomplishments of the mind, but what is rarer and better, in virtues of the heart. Bertin de Vaux, his brother, was an active, indefatigable man of business, and at the same time a distinguished and spirited writer, and a scholar of no mean pretensions, especially in classical literature. Both these remarkable men were born at Paris, of a rich and respectable family. Their father, who was secretary to the Duke de Choiseul, Premier of France, died young. Their mother, a woman of sense and talent, afforded them the advantage of the best and most careful education. In the Revolution of 1789 they were both young, but the elder was old enough to have witnessed many of the horrors of 1793. He assisted at some of the tempestuous and sanguinary debates of that epoch, and was saved from being a victim by his extreme youth. It is not our purpose to go over the history of the press during the Consulate. It will be sufficient to state that soon after Bonaparte had established himself in the seat of power, he practically annihilated the decree of the 9th of September, 1789, which declared that the liberty of the press was one of the inalienable rights of men. With one stroke of the pen, the little Corsican decided that among the numerous political journals existing, twelve should alone survive, and to these was conceded the exiguous liberty of publishing the list of sales of real and personal property by auction and otherwise, the bulletins and recitals of battles published in the ‘Moniteur,’ the new laws, and dramatic criticisms on the spectacles of the day. It should be remembered, that in those days the largest journal - was no bigger than a quarto sheet, and that charades and rebuses were then more in vogue than political disquisitions. It was in such a season as this that Bertin the elder purchased for 20,000 francs, or £800, of Baudoin, the printer, the name and copyright of a ‘Journal d'Annonces.” With the sagacity of a man of profound sense, M. Bertin soon perceived that the journal

of which he had become the proprietor ought

neither to resemble the journals of the ancient regime, such as the ‘Mercure de France,’ of which we have already spoken, nor the journals of the Revölution, such as the ‘Orateur du Peuple,’ formerly conducted by Dussault, of whom more anon, nor the journal, reeking with blood, of the cowardly Herbert, called the ‘Père Duchesne.' The ‘Mercure de France, though supported by Marmontel, and the beaux esprits of the court, was but a pale reflection of the inane vanity and emptiness of the old monarchy. But the journal of the ‘Père Duchesne' was the very image of the blood and fury and worst democratic drunkenness of the Revolution. Such journals as either the one or the other were impossible, under a strong and intelligent government. Neither as consul nor as emperor had Napoleon permitted their existence; and even though he had, the nation would not have long supported it. It was a difficult task to hit the House ‘betwixt wind and water,’ to use the familiar phrase of Burke, in speaking of the wonderful success of the wonderful Charles Townshend in

the House of Commons, and no less difficult was it for M. Bertin to hit the will of the emperor, and the humor, whim, and caprice of the good people of Paris. It was, indeed, an up-hill task to make a journal palatable to a successful soldier, who had made himself emperor, and who desired that neither his laws nor his victories might be discussed or criticised. And nearly as difficult was it to conciliate the good will and favorable attention of a people accustomed to the rank and strong diatribes of the democrats. Any other man than Bertin the elder would have given the task up in despair—but the word “despair' was no more to be found in his vocabulary than the word “impossible’ in the vocabulary of the emperor. To create a journal without freedom of speech were indeed hopeless. M. Bertin spoke, therefore, freely, but he was freely outspoken only of literature and the theatres, holding his peace on higher and more dangerous topics. The history of the rise and progress of the ‘’Journal des Debats' is a moral and psychological study, not without its interest. Tact, and management, and moderation, were necessary in order to write at all in that epoch, but the moment Bertin obtained permission to put pen to paper, he used the two-edged weapon so discreetly, that govo and governed were equally content. o use the phrase of Burke, he hit the ruler and the ruled ‘ betwixt wind and water.” What was the cause of this success 2 Bertin called to his aid men of science, learning, talent, and art, but all inexperienced in the art of journalism. There was not one among them who had ever before written a stupid leading article, or graduated in the stenographic tribune of the Constituent or National Assemblies, but they were men of mind and education,not what in England are called literary men —i.e., men without letters—who have failed in other callings, but scholars “ripe and good,' brimful of learning. The greater number of the earlier contributors had been bred in the schools of the Jesuits; some among them were intended for the priesthood, but all were deeply imbued with the literature of Greece and Rome. Among the earliest regular contributors of the new journal were Geoffroy, Dussault, Feletz, and Delalot. On a second floor, in a small, dingy, damp hole, in No. 17, in the Rue des Prêtres, St. Germain l'Auxerrois, where was situated the office of the journal, these choice spirits met. After having traversed a dirty court, whose sweltering walls conducted to the first floor, they groped their way to the second floor, where the elder Bertin sat enthroned in all the pomp of editorial majesty. When the lively, intelligent, witty, and spirituel populace of Paris—for, after all, they are but a populace—but he cleverest and most gifted under the sun– when this mob of something more than fine gentlemen, though less than persectly reasonable beings, read the first number of a journal written with moderation, yet vigorously; witty, yet with the air of good breeding and good society; learned, yet without the rust of the schools; bitter and incisive, yet without personal malignity—the town was amazed and delighted, as though a new pleasure had been invented, or, what is equivalent in France to a new pleasure, a new sauce. And a sauce piquante certainly was invented, for Julien Louis Geoffroy, the most ingenious critic of our age, and of the civilized French nation, so improved and expanded the Feuilleton, that it may in his hands have been pronounced a new creation. A distinguished scholar of the Jesuits, at the school of Rennes, Geoffroy afterwards entered the College of Louis le Grand. He subsequently was admitted to the Collège de Montaigu as Maitre d’Etudes, and was ultimately named Professor of Rhetoric at the College of Mazarin, where for thre

years he successively obtained the prize . Latin prose. This success procured him the editorship of the ‘’Année Littéraire,’ in which he succeeded Fréron, the redoubtable adversary of Voltaire, after Renaudot, the founder of the Journal in France. In the first years of the Revolution his monarchical opinions pointed him out as the colleague of Royou, in the editorship of the ‘Ami du Roi;' but in the reign of terror he did not aspire to the crown of martyrdom, and escaped it by hiding his proscribed head in a small village, where he exercised the calling of a schoolmaster. After the 18 Brumaire (18th Nov. 1799,) he returned to Paris, and was soon after chosen as theatrical critic to the ‘Journal des Débats.” It were difficult, indeed, within the limits to which we are confined, to explain the immense vogue which his articles obtained. Every other day there appeared one of his feuilletons, of which the occasional bitterness and virulence were pardoned because of the learning and the wit. It was, indeed, the liveliest and most pungent criticism, but frequently partial and unjust. It was, above all, partial and unjust in regard to

some of the most remarkable actors and actresses of our own day, as Talma, Mde. Contat, Mile. Duchenois, &c. The virulent war carried on by Geoffroy, also, against Voltaire, was indiscriminate and unjust, and in some respects ridiculous. Wenality, in respect to contemporary authors and actors, has been more than once imputed to him; and it is openly said in the ‘Histoire du. Journal des Débats,’ that he received cachemires, services in porcelain, bronzes, statues, cameos, clocks, &c. But without giving too much heed to those imputations, it may be truly said, that his constant and unvarying adulation of Bonaparte is not a little disgusting and suspicious. This servile trait in his character is energetically castigated in an epigram, whose coarse, gross energy may be pardoned under the Circuinstall CeS : .

“Sil’Empereur faisait un pet,
Geoffroy dirait qu'il sent la rose ;
Et le Senat aspirerait
A l'honneur de prouver la chose."

Notwithstanding these and other defects, however, the feuilleton of Geoffroy “saisait sureur parini toutes les classes.’ The lively, iearned, alert, ingenious, mocking manner, of the ex-Abbé had been unequalled since the time of Fréron. The vogue and popularity of the ‘Journal des Debats' were, therefore, soon established, and the people, who were beginning to be tired of war and Te Deums, desired no better pastime than to read the account of new actors, new books, and new plays, by Geoffroy and Dussault. An unheard-of prosperity was the result. The ‘Journal des Débats’ soon had 32,000 subscribers, a number never equalled, we believe, even by the ‘Times' for any lengthened period, though surpassed on particular occasions. Jules Janin relates that a friend of his saw in Provence a travelling showman, with magic lantern in hand, who exhibited for two sous the heads of the most remarkable men in France. The first of these was Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of the French, King of Italy, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine, &c.; the second was Geoffroy, writer of the Feuilleton of the ‘Journal de l'Empire,’ as it was originally called, and indeed as it continued to be called till 1805, when it took the name of ‘Journal des Débats.” The manner in which the ‘Débats' treated public topics was dexterous in the extreme. It was not then possible or practicable, indeed it was dangerous, to dilate

« VorigeDoorgaan »