ART. XV.-The Portfolio; or a Collection of State Papers, illustrative of the History of our Times. No. I. to No. V. London. Ridgway. We have taken occasion in one of our late Numbers to refer to this publication, respecting which it is but fair to admit that opinions are much divided. Agreeably, however, to our plan, announced in No. XXIX., of giving the opinions of eminent continental critics on English publications, we shall extract a few passages from a critical analysis of the Portfolio, by Dr. C. F. Wurm, the able editor of Die Zeitschrift, a periodical work, commenced with the year 1835, at Hamburg. It appeared in the "Blätter für literarische Unterhaltung," printed at Leipzig, (Nos. 54-57, for 1836), and as illustrative of the state of public opinion in Germany on some of the important questions touched upon in The Portfolio, we conceive that this notice of it will not be uninteresting to our readers.

Referring to the despatches of Prince Lieven, Count Matuszewicz, and Count Pozzo di Borgo, in the years 1826 and 1829, published in the 4th and 5th Numbers of The Portfolio, the Reviewer thus remarks,—

"But have we occasion for these despatches to prove that in those years it was the interest of Russia to occupy France with the Peninsula, and that Russia has found means to keep one English administration after another (Tories and Whigs alike) inactive, whilst she was preparing in the East that which is now coming to maturity before our eyes? Even the councillor of state, Nebenius, must, it appears, be content to see his prediction quoted (No. IV. p. 169), that England, if she should soon take a fancy to stand forth again as mistress of the ocean, would find the Black Sea closed against her. The question concerning the Dardanelles is become a vital question for the naval power of England. A crisis is at hand-a serious, nay, an awful one-which threatens to reach the hearths and the homes of far distant nations, whose opinions are not even asked, unless the conciliatory policy of Prussia, unless the firm bearing, or-have we not witnessed much that was not to be foreseen?—an imposing resolve, of Austria, should succeed in laying the storm."

The Reviewer then proceeds to notice the Russian Memoir published in Nos. II. and III. of The Portfolio, in the following manner:

"There is a very remarkable article (II. 57-92; III. 114–155), which, under the title of a Russian Memoir or a Russian Note, has been mentioned in many German papers, and from which considerable extracts have been given in the Hamburgh Zeitschrift für Politik, Handel und Handelsrecht.' But this communication is founded only on such passages as had been published before the appearance of the Portfolio in the British and Foreign Review. The only conceivable object of such a paper would be to excite in Germany hatred against Russia, and in Prussia, in particular, jealousy and suspicion of that power. But in this case there would be displayed, together with much cleverness of invention, too great clumsiness of arrangement; inasmuch as the document lacks all those marks which might contribute to deceive, and to cause it to be considered as a diplomatic communication emanating from the Russian government. It is far more probable that this paper has really been written— no matter by whom-to render the idea of a Russian protectorate agreeable to the second-rate German powers. How far it may contain the views of the cabinet of St. Petersburgh, how far the writer and his work may enjoy the patronage of that cabinet, is a matter on which the reviewer feels himself not called upon

to hazard any conjectures. But assuredly, it is the affair of every German to concern himself about the star of political salvation which is here announced, about the new guarantee of German freedom which is here presented."

"To say nothing of measures that are already designated as provisional, there arises from the peculiar tendency of this Memoir, a question, on which not a single word is bestowed :-if, namely, Russia is so much better qualified than Austria or Prussia for the Protector of the German Confederation, is it because Russia's principles of intellectual intercourse so far surpass in liberality those of the Austrian and Prussian governments? What the author thinks of the German nation, of the German states, of the German princes, may be collected from the following passage:

"The princes of the small constitutional German states, oppressed by their ambitious legislatures, as Louis XVI. was by his National Convention, in remembrance of this great warning example, have now themselves acknowledged that, on the further licentiousness of their chambers depend their existence or non-existence. They now offer a hand to Prussia, to curb the liberty of their chambers, whilst they willingly submit themselves to the general decrees of the Diet, and only give way, in one common spirit of conservation, to the necessities of the times.'

"Further, what is to become of the constitutions? Only the peculiar local and provincial interests need be drawn into the sphere of public discussion. (II. 79.) It may, perhaps, do the author a service, to remind him that Elizabeth of England warned her parliament against interfering in state affairs, and that at a time when in Germany not an inch of territory could be alienated, not a treaty concluded, not a sovereignty erected, not a war carried on, without the assent of the states. This may serve for a reply to the assertion that, in the constitutions of Bavaria, Würtemberg, Nassau, Baden, and Weimar, the constitutions of England and France are copied almost verbatim, without any regard to the ancient institutions of those countries of Germany (II. 80.) It is, certainly, edifying to see here, in the first place, how English and French institutions are thrown pell mell into one bag; and in the next, to find it in exulting simplicity affirmed, that the English constitution is described somewhere-(perhaps in the Statutes at Large,')-so compendiously, that one may copy it out word for word; and, lastly, that such a total ignorance prevails on the subject of the earliest, the most important, of all German rights, a right that existed before parchments the right of granting or refusing taxes. After the author has persuaded himself that the German princes have learned to separate their interests from those of their people, he shows them how to separate their interests also from the Prussian, that is to say, as soon as the end which caused them to offer the hand to Prussia has been attained. This point is connected with the principles of material intercourse; and in the above-mentioned spirit, the dissolution of the Prussian custom-house system, calculated for political objects, is predicted."

"The last disquisition," proceeds Dr. Wurm, " treats of the development of the German Confederation, under the equal or unequal influence of Austria and Prussia.' An equal influence is not conceivable. Immediately afterwards comes the startling proposition that 'sooner or later the influence of both powers may be paralyzed' (III. 124.) Austria is thrown in every way into the background: but of Prussia, it is said, that she will have in time to expect a much stronger opposition from the Diet than from the cabinet of Vienna; that this circumstance may perhaps induce the cabinet of Berlin to attempt to reduce and to break the political power of the Diet; but, fortunately, Austria will, on the like grounds, strive to uphold its influence and stability.

"Hence it is, that the writer pretends to infer that the independence of the smaller German states cannot be guaranteed, either by Prussia or Austria, and

that the guarantee of some great foreign power must be welcome to the Diet. It is, however, difficult to persuade one's-self that this conclusion is actually drawn in this manner. In each of the two great German powers lies the guarantee against the subjugation of the weaker states by the other-therefore, the guarantee of a third foreign power is necessary! England, we are then told, from its insular position, and as a merely naval power, is not adapted for this purpose, consequently there is no other choice but between France and Russia.

Assuredly, as for England, she would decline the protectorate of Germany. The connection with Hanover has already given cause sufficient for discontent to the nation, and for vexation to the first, second, and third George. England's policy is purely national, or, if you please, selfish-and what policy is not? The German liberals would egregiously deceive themselves if they imagined that England would raise a finger for the preservation of their constitutions. England is no further interested in the matter than in so far as it could not be doubtful, in case of a war of principles, which party the people of the constitutional states would espouse. But even then, the policy of England consists in avoiding such a war. As to the independence of individual states of the Germanic Confederation, England is interested only in a limited degree-in regard, for instance, to the mouths of the Elbe and the Weser. Again, it is a general interest of England's that the German states should not fall under the supremacy, mediate or immediate, of any foreign power; that all Germany should be upheld, without caring much within what limits or in what number of separate states. But, in the interior, indeed in the greater part of Germany, there is no confidence, no cordiality towards England; and it will not be otherwise, friendly political relations will not take place between England and Germany, till England has purified her commercial system and made an arrangement with the German states founded on just principles of reciprocity. After long hesitation, such an arrangement on the part of England will appear, not as some heated declaimers in the states of the Union (Vereinstaaten) imagine-as the compulsory result of necessity, but as so completely grounded in the interest of England, that in Germany the proffered hand will be still eagerly grasped, though not with warmheartedness as that of a friend.

the

"As a matter of course, the Germans will not solicit a French guarantee of their Confederation any more than a Russian. The anonymous writer has certainly enumerated abundance of services rendered by Russia to German independence. Were we to admit them all without any question, the necessity of a Russian protectorate would by no means follow. It would be superfluous to waste further words on the subject, were not the Germans charged with ingratitude- the most despicable ingratitude.' This accusation demands a brief reply. The author goes back to the time of Catherine the Great and her 'guarantee of peace of Westphalia.' Was the way in which she supported the Bavarian plan of exchange in the spirit of the peace of Westphalia? It is declared to have been an unprecedented, incomprehensible blindness in the German electors not to have thrown themselves at once, in 1790, into the arms of Russia, as one of them (the Elector of Treves) did in the following year. Do people, then, take the Germans for children, or for imbecile old men who have lost their memory, that they talk to them of such things in such a tone? Are, then, the works of those times annihilated? Are the documents and the facts swept away together? The truth is, that the peace of Westphalia was, as usual, renewed and confirmed at the peace of Teschen, in 1799. Russia guaranteed the peace of Teschen before the emperor and empire acceded to it, and without her guarantee being solicited. Upon this was founded the claim of the Russian cabinet to interfere thenceforward in the affairs of the empire. Was it any wonder if the Germans recoiled from such a foreign interference? But Russia guaranteed the Polish constitution just as well as the peace of Westphalia. Not Russia's ene

mies-no, the Russian cabinet itself, drew the parallel in the manifesto of May, 18, 1792:

"C'est ainsi qu'ils ont eu la perfide addresse d'interprèter l'acte par lequel la Russie garantit la constitution légitime de cette nation, comme un joug onereux et avilissant, tandis que les plus grands empires, et entr'autres celui de l'Allemagne, loin de rejetter cette sorte de garantie, les ont envisagées, recherchées, et reçues, comme le ciment le plus solide de leurs propriétés et de leur independ

ance.

We shall not follow Dr. Wurm through his further strictures on the policy of Russia, but merely quote his concluding remarks:-" A state which cannot subsist without foreign guarantee is lost. A nation that cannot preserve its independence without foreign guarantee deserves it not. The German Confederation needs no foreign guarantee, so long as the two great powers are true to the Confederation, the princes to their people, and the people to themselves. In the contrary case, no guarantee can save them."

To the inquiry of a Correspondent at Hull, the Reviewer of Rossellini's work makes the following reply:-The argument of Sir William Drummond, that the chymists of Egypt (from the names of which, Cham and Chemia, the names of chymistry and alchymy are derived) had the art of retaining gold in a liquified state, is inferential but fair. Moses possessed the art, as appears from Exodus, xxxii. 20, where he is described (and the original Hebrew is more express upon the subject than our translation) as fusing gold, making it potable and causing the Jews to drink of it. This modern chymistry cannot do. Now if Moses possessed the art, the fair inference is, that the Egyptian chymists possessed it too; inasmuch as Moses was an Egyptian by birth, though a Jew by faith;-and inasmuch as he was educated under the sanction of an Egyptian Pharaoh, who united the character of pontiff, presiding over all the Egyptian scientific and sacred orders of Sophoi, with that of king. He is moreover recorded to have been versed in "all the wisdom of the Egyptians;" and, finally, a profane authority, viz. Manetho, expressly says, that the Moses who led forth the 2000 leprous Jews out of Egypt was brought up as an Egyptian priest, and was, in fact, a Hierogrammateus, or sacred scribe, of Heliopolis. The inferential allegation is thus fairly made out,

MISCELLANEOUS LITERARY NOTICES.

No. XXXIII.

FRANCE.

THE Royal Library at Paris consists of four departments:-1. Printed Books; 2. Manuscripts; 3. Antiques; and 4. Prints, Maps, and Plans. Of the first division, more numerous than all the others put together, there is yet no complete catalogue, though the books are tolerably well arranged according to classes; and a period of four years is required for preparing one. The printed books, which in the general catalogue are confusedly intermixed with the manuscripts, amounted, in 1791, to 153,000 volumes; their number is now nearly doubled, being 351,000. Of others there are special catalogues; and of many the titles are no where specified. These two latter classes include full 150,000 volumes, exclusive of pamphlets, about 100,000 in number, which are arranged in 7000 portfolios. The typographical rarities, editions of the 15th century, editions on vellum, and other scarce works, with manuscript notes, are at present wholly withdrawn from the public view, and deposited unarranged in a damp place. A catalogue of the editions on vellum was drawn up by Van Praet, and printed at his own expense. Of the editions of the 15th century, there exists no catalogue; neither is there any for the editions of Aldus, Etienne (Stephanus), and Elzevir. There is a tolerably good catalogue of the almost complete and highly valuable collection of Dutch plays, and also for the collection of dramas connected with the history of the Revolution. For the three following classes there is yet no catalogue: 1. The books printed in France which have been deposited here in the way of the Depôt Legal, chiefly since 1816; 2. A great portion of those books which have been added to the library by donations and bequests; 3. Many confiscated books, and such as formerly belonged to monastic libraries and emigrants. It may be assumed that, under these heads, at least forty or fifty thousand works are still unspecified; a large proportion of these are theological works. Since the year 1791, neither a single work on law or divinity, nor a single novel, has been inserted in the catalogue. The deficiencies of this department of the Royal Library call more especially for the procuring of new books, the binding and completion of defective works, and the replacing of such as are totally lost. The number of stitched books amounts to 145,995 volumes; and 80,312 urgently require new binding. The expense of binding the latter is estimated at 150,000 francs, and, the former, at 250,000. The incomplete works are not yet inserted in the catalogue beyond the third letter of the alphabet: taking the usual average of each letter, we may calculate the incomplete works at 4,248, consisting of about 23,000 volumes, of which we may assume at least 11,500 to be wanting. Among the works which this library has never possessed, we need only mention the translation of Strabo, to show what important chasms yet remain to be filled up under this head. In foreign literature these chasms are particularly conspicuous. When, in 1811, Napoleon, with the Empress Marie Louise, inspected the library, he was astonished at the great deficiencies which were pointed out to him, and promised to furnish it with a