decree of Theodoric, which orders his subjects as conquerors to respect most scrupulously all the civil and religious monuments of vanquished Italy. The most interesting part of M. de Montalembert's book is his dissertation upon the dangers to which the ancient buildings of France are exposed, and the damage which some of the most notable edifices have undergone. We subjoin an extract. Every body ought to be aware that moderu Vandalism divides itself into two kinds, very different in their motives, but equally disastrous in their results. We may designate one by the name of destructive Vandalism, the other by that of Restorative Vandalism. Each of these kinds of Vandalism is carried into effect by different categories of Vandals, which I class in the following order, assigning to each the rank which it deserves by its degree of fury against antiquities: I. Destructive Vandalism. The Government. Mayors and Municipal Councils. Church building and repairing Committee, and Incumbents. II. Restorative Vandalism. The Clergy and the building and repairing Committees. Mayors and Municipal Councils. Revolutionists have, at least, the advantage of attempting to restore nothing. And I say nothing about Constructive Vandalism, for the disgust which it inspires is not even tempered by the indignation which it excites. We suspect that a similar classification might be made out in favour of some of the various classes that form the mass of her Britannic Majesty's loving subjects, and we should like to amuse ourselves some day by drawing up a list of this kind. If ever we did, like Dante in his Inferno, we should give churchwardens, and all metropolitan-and-provincial-additional-church-and-chapelbuilding-societies, a good warm place in the depths of our indignation,-Goths and Vandals as they are! Our space will not allow us to follow Count de Montalembert into any of the details of his book; and we regret it: but we would advise any person wishing to obtain a tolerably good idea of the damage done to French monumental remains since 1815, to consult this work as a very agreeable text-book. It will amply repay the trouble of a most careful perusal by the traveller in France in search of antiquarian knowledge. Its appendices give a more cheering prospect to the archæologist than the body of the book presents, since they tell of the national feeling now gradually awakening to a proper sensitiveness on these points; it indicates a better state of things as arising in that country; it points out the example of Germany, where the most religious respect is paid to all mediæval monuments; and, if the book says little about England, (it mentions the new Lancashire Churches) it takes for granted that we have long since shewn an inclination to throw off our Vandalism, and to make amends to the world for past misdeeds done, when stout King Harry the Eighth knocked the bricks and mortar of good old Mother Church about her ears. HISTORY OF THE EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH CENTURIES. Geschichte des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts und des neunzehnten bis zum Sturz des französischen Kaiserreichs. (History of the Eighteenth Century, and of the Nineteenth to the fall of the French Empire.) By F. C. Schlosser, Professor of History at Heidelberg. Vol. 2. 8vo. The writer of an article in No. 280 of Blackwood's Magazine, entitled, "Discourse on Göthe and the Germans," has advanced the startling proposition that "in history, they (the Germans) have but one name worth mentioning-John von Müller." Proh pudor! Considering the flippant colloquial style in which the author commences his remarks on a subject which we should have conceived to require profundity of thought and gravity of tone, it were, perhaps, but charitable towards him to conclude that, when he penned this article, he had offuscated his judgment by too free libations of the whiskey-toddy, for which he shows so great a partiality. It is not our business at present to discuss the justice of his sweeping conclusion against the general claims of Göthe, founded exclusively on a review of the Wahlverwandtschaften, notoriously the worst production of his pen; but, if he really intends his dictum regarding German historians to be received seriously, we would ask him whether he has ever heard the names, or consulted the works of Schlözer, Spittler, Heeren, Schiller, Woltmann, Wachler, Pölitz, Luden, Rotteck, von Raumer, and last, not least, the author of the work which forms the subject of the present article; because, if he has, and still persists in his assertion that their names are not worth mentioning, the only remark we would make in reply to him is, that he is not likely to find any one acquainted with German literature who would echo his opinion. If it be the office of the historian to trace the changes in the condition of man, to exhibit his wisdom and his folly, his corruption and his advancement, the manifold changes of opinion, and the various phases of the human mind at different periods; if, placing himself above the arts of venal sophistry, he feels it to be his duty, independently and unflinchingly, and regardless of parties, systems, and prevailing opinions, to pursue truth for its own sake; then, in our opinion, that character is realised by Schlosser in his History of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. To give a clear and impartial narrative of the mighty events that occupied the stage of European politics during the eighteenth century, to unravel the tangled mass of negotiations and intrigues, of wars and revolutions, which diversify the blood-stained picture, is indeed a task of fearful labour and difficulty. Professor Schlosser has accomplished one half of his appointed work as far as the time is concerned; and the manner in which this portion is executed makes us at once anxious for its completion, and confident of its final success. The system of arrangement which he has adopted is, we believe, new, and the entire work is divided into two parts, the historical and literary; the former devoted exclusively to the great public events in the field, the cabinet, or the senate, which influence and decide the fate of nations; the latter detailing the lives and writings of the men of letters of all nations, who have shed lustre on the period comprised in each respective volume. This plan of separation has not only the advantage of not distracting the attention from the sequence of historical events by the insertion of foreign matter, but it enables the author to enter more fully into the merits and demerits of individual writers than he would otherwise be able to do, and thus to present the reader with a series of biographical sketches in the highest degree instructive and interesting. Among the modern historians of Germany, there is none from the perusal of whose works we have derived greater pleasure than that now before us, not from any peculiar charm of style, for, though it is clear and forcible, it certainly cannot be put in competition with the nervous eloquence of Menzel or Rotteck, but there is an inflexible integrity and high moral tone pervading all portions of the work, which no other contemporary writer displays in an equal degree. With him the fatherland is not all perfection; her rulers and mighty men are judged by the same impartial test, and receive the same meed of approval or condemnation, as those of other nations; undazzled by the splendour of a crowned head, and undeterred by the possible consequences of calling things by their right names, he denounces with the same honest indignation the sale of their subjects by German princes, to shed their blood on foreign battle-fields, the venal and shameless treachery of the Swedish nobles, and the profligate enormities of Catherine of Russia. The present volume opens with the death of the Emperor Charles VI., and the war of the Austrian succession, the complicated events and intrigues of which are displayed with consummate skill and clearness. The author thus introduces the one great ruler of the eighteenth century, who was ever in advance of his age, and set at nought existing prejudices, before public opinion came to his assistance; who, relying on his own mental superiority and military experience, and the affection of his people, laughed to scorn the absurd pageantry of the old courts, defied the priests, whom he despised, and the feudal aristocracy, to whom he spoke in the bold language of democratic truth. Frederick II. succeeded his father on the throne of Prussia in May, 1740, when the death of Charies VI. was foreseen as imminent, and a favourable opportunity was presented of turning the Emperor's death to the advantage of his own ambitious designs. The young king was not without a plausible pretext, for the political and diplomatic craft of Austria had entangled itself in its own snares. Frederick had time enough to make his preparations before the Emperor died, and he made a masterly use of his time to awaken great expectations of his power and abilities. He found every thing admirably arranged by his father for the purpose of uniting in his hand all those powers in which the old monarchies of the continent were deficient the finances in good order; no public debt, and abundance of treasure; the army numerous, well disciplined and commanded; its future supply ensured without expence by the system of levying recruits, which, with some slight alterations, would fully have answered the purpose of a national defence of the country- the whole state was in the hands of the king. Military obedience had become habitual; the property of every citizen was subject to arbitrary tributes.... The consciousness that nothing but a mind which disregarded every antiquated principle, that nothing save money, and soldiers, and energy, could give weight in European affairs to a state which numbered scarcely three million inhabitants, had already influenced Frederick William without his being himself clearly aware of it. Frederick II. not only admitted it, but has recorded his views upon the subject fully in his History of his own Times. The king of Prussia had 80,000 men under arms, and money to pay them without incurring debts. France had only 150,000, while, since the disastrous Turkish war, the army of Austria was no more. Arbitrary as his father in his mode of procedure, he discarded at once the useless parade and formality in which Frederick William delighted, disbanded the costly "Giant Guard," and brought the interminable law-suits which fell within the jurisdiction of the emperor and the empire, and which his father had in vain sought to terminate, as in the instance of Juliers, Cleves, and Berg, to the speedy settlement of military law; and he now prepared to support his claims to Silesia in the same manner. From the vigorous administration of Prussia we pass to Bavaria, where festivals, intrigues, and ridiculous discussions about the immaculate conception, occupied the court, while Frederick was already in Silesia. A finer contrast can hardly be found in history than the character of the Prussian compared with the "bold Bavarian," who, in a luckless hour, indeed, for himself, stretched forth his feeble hand to grasp the Imperial sceptre. Weak, superstitious, and irresolute, he suffered Maria Theresa to take undisputed possession of the empire, and then sued to France for aid in terms disgraceful to a sovereign; and when he at length resolved upon war," he had neither men, nor money, in readiness, nor, what in Germany is more surprising still, a manifesto of his rights." Thus, destitute alike of resources and personal energy, but feebly supported by his French allies, and betrayed by his own general (Seckendorf), the war was to him little more than a series of disasters, and he died an exile from the land which his foolish ambition had desolated, while Frederick had the singular good fortune to make war as the ally of one emperor, and to conclude with the other a peace on the terms most favourable to himself. The interval between this peace and the breaking out of the seven years' war formed "the most glorious period of the unwearied, though occasionally somewhat hasty, legislation and government of Frederick. The means to which he was afterwards compelled to have recourse, in order to heal the wounds which that mortal struggle inflicted upon Prussia, were often such as "grieve the heart of the friend of humanity." But it is during the protracted campaigns and repeated reverses of the seven years' war that the full sublimity of Frederick's character is developed, and the unshrinking firmness with which he sustained the contest, though he stood almost single against united Europe, and his capital was in the hands of his enemies. Of English affairs we have comparatively little in this volume, except as far as they are incidentally brought on the stage in the course of the two great wars already adverted to. In his account of the battle of Dettingen, the author seems hardly disposed to concede a fair proportion of praise to the victors, attributing the fate of the day entirely to the headstrong impetuosity of the French officers; and the same spirit may be traced in his account of the convention of Kloster Severn, undoubtedly a transaction but little honourable to the British arms. The Scottish rebellion of 1745, and the final setting of the star of the house of Stuart, is sketched by our author in his happiest manner. Charles Edward, a foolish, ignorant, self-willed young man, had displayed the weak points of his character, during his residence in Paris, in so unfavourable a manner, that all thoughts of hazarding in his behalf money or troops to any amount had been entirely given up. He resolved, therefore, to make the attempt at his own risk, knowing that George II. and Harrington were in Hanover, and the English army on the continent. The two Lords Keith, the conspirators in Scotland, Lord Lovat, and other of his secret friends, shrunk from the frantic design; but it was in vain that they sought to dissuade him, and even declared that they would take no part in the enterprise. France, at length, finding remonstrances unavailing, gave him a small sum of money and arms, and granted permission to the Irish and Scotch officers in the French service to join the expedition. Charles Edward sailed for Scotland on board a small frigate, in June, 1745. This frigate reached her destination only by a lucky accident, for a ship of 64 guns, which was to have accompanied her, was so shattered in an engagement with an English vessel as to be obliged to return to Brest, while the English ship was so crippled that she could not chase the frigate. Until August, the cause made little progress, but, owing to the imprudent measures taken by the Regency which the king had left in London, the rebellion assumed a more threatening aspect. Cope, who commanded a small English force in Scotland, retreated first to Inverness, and thence still further back. Those who had been attainted in 1715 appeared again; their vassals gathered round them at their summons to arms, and a force of 5000 men was speedily assembled. Wretchedly equipped as this force was, the whole country yielded to them without opposition, and, on the 26th of September, the Chevalier St. George was pro |