artist in France who enjoyed an European reputation. This is a circumstance well worth our notice. If we compare the different classes of literature, we shall find that sacred oratory, being the least influenced by the king, was able the longest to bear up against his system. Massillon belongs partly to the subsequent reign; but even of the other great divines, Bossuet and Bourdaloue both lived to 1704,58 Mascaron to 1703,59 and Flechier to 1710.60 As, however, the king, particularly in his latter years, was very fearful of meddling with the church, it is in profane matters that we can best trace the workings of his policy, because it is there that his interference was most active. With a view to this, the simplest plan will be, to look, in the first place, into the history of the fine arts; and after ascertaining who the greatest artists were, observe the year in which they died, remembering that the government of Louis XIV. began in 1661, and ended in 1715. If, now, we examine this period of fifty-four years, we shall be struck by the remarkable fact, that every thing which is celebrated, was effected in the first half of it; while more than twenty years before its close, the most eminent masters all died without leaving any successors. The six greatest painters in the reign of Louis XIV. were, Poussin, Lesueur, Claude Lorraine, Le Brun, and the two Mignards. Of these, Le Brun died in 1690;61 the elder Mignard in 1668;62 the younger in 1695;63 Claude Lorraine in 1682;64 Lesueur in 1655;65 and Poussin, perhaps the most distinguished of all the French school, died in 1665.66 The two greatest architects were, Claude Perrault 58 Biog. Univ. vol. v. pp. 236, 358. eo Ibid. xv. p. 35. 62 Ibid. xxix. p. 17. 59 Ibid. xxvii. p. 351. "His best pictures were painted from about 1640 to 1660; he died in 1682." Wornum's Epochs of Painting, Lond. 1847, p. 399. Voltaire (Siècle de Louis XIV, in Euvres, vol. xix. p. 205) says that he died in 1678. 65 Biog. Univ. vol. xxiv. p. 327; Works of Sir Joshua Reynolds, vol. ii. pp. 454, 455. 66 Biog. Univ. vol. xxxv. p. 579. Poussin was Barry's "favourite " painter. Letter from Barry, in Burke's Correspond. vol. i. p. 88. Compare Otter's Life of Clarke, vol. ii. p. 55. Sir Joshua Reynolds (Works, vol. i. pp. 97, 351, 376) appears to have preferred him to any of the French school; and in the report presented to Napoleon by the Institute, he is the only and Francis Mansart; but Perrault died in 1688,67 Mansart in 1666;6 and Blondel, the next in fame, died in 1686.69 The greatest of all the sculptors was Puget, who died in 1694.70 Lulli, the founder of French music, died in 1687.71 Quinault, the greatest poet of French music, died in 1688.72 Under these eminent men, the fine arts, in the reign of Louis XIV., reached their zenith; and during the last thirty years of his life, their decline was portentously rapid. This was the case, not only in architecture and music, but even in painting, which, being more subservient than they are to personal vanity, is more likely to flourish under a rich and despotic government. The genius, however, of painters fell so low, that long before the death of Louis XIV., France ceased to possess one of any merit; and when his successor came to the throne, this beautiful art was, in that great country, almost extinct.73 These are startling facts; not matters of opinion, which may be disputed, but stubborn dates, supported by ir French painter mentioned by the side of the Greek and Italian artists. Dacier, Rapport Historique, p. 23. Biog. Univ. vol. xxxiii. p. 411; Siècle de Louis XIV, in Œuvres de Voltaire, vol. xix. p. 158. 68 Biog. Univ. vol. xxvi. p. 503. 69 Ibid. vol. iv. p. 593. 10 Ibid. vol. xxxvi. p. 300. Respecting him, see Lady Morgan's France, vol. ii. pp. 30, 31. 71 M. Capefigue (Louis XIV, vol. ii. p. 79) says, "Lulli mourut en 1689;" but 1687 is the date assigned in Biog. Univ. vol. xxv. p. 425; in Chalmers's Biog. Dict. vol. xx. p. 483; in Rose's Biog. Dict. vol. ix. p. 350; and in Monteil, Divers Etats, vol. vii. p. 63. In Euvres de Voltaire, vol. xix. p. 200, he is called "le père de la vraie musique en France." He was admired by Louis XIV. Lettres de Sevigné, vol. ii. pp. 162, 163. 66 12 Biog. Univ. vol. xxxvi. p. 423. Voltaire (Euvres, vol. xix. p. 162) says, personne n'a jamais égalé Quinault ;" and Mr. Hallam (Lit. of Europe, vol. iii. p. 507), “the unrivalled poet of French music.” See also Lettres de Dudeffand à Walpole, vol. ii. p. 432. 73 66 When Louis XV. ascended the throne, painting in France was in the lowest state of degradation." Lady Morgan's France, vol. ii. p. 31. Lacretelle (Dix Huitième Siècle, vol. ii. p. 11) says, "Les beaux arts dégénérèrent plus sensiblement que les lettres pendant la seconde partie du siècle de Louis XIV..... Il est certain que les vingt-cinq dernières années du règne de Louis XIV n'offrirent que des productions très-inférieures," &c. Thus too Barrington (Observations on the Statutes, p. 377), “It is very remarkable that the French school hath not produced any very capital painters since the expensive establishment by Louis XIV. of the academies at Rome and Paris." refragable testimony. And if we examine in the same manner the literature of the age of Louis XIV., we shall arrive at similar conclusions. If we ascertain the dates of those masterpieces which adorn his reign, we shall find that, during the last five-and-twenty years of his life, when his patronage had been the longest in operation, it was entirely barren of results; in other words, that when the French had been most habituated to his protection, they were least able to effect great things. Louis XIV. died in 1715. Racine produced Phèdre in 1677; Andromaque in 1667; Athalie in 1691.74 Molière published the Misanthrope in 1666; Tartuffe in 1667; the Avare in 1668.75 The Lutrin of Boileau was written in 1674; his best Satires in 1666.76 The last Fables of La Fontaine appeared in 1678, and his last Tales in 1671.77 The Inquiry respecting Truth, by Malebranche, was published in 1674;78 the Caractères of La Bruyère in 1687;79 the Maximes of Rochefoucauld in 1665.80 The Provincial Letters of Pascal were written in 1656, and he himself died in 1662.81 As to Corneille, his great Tragedies were composed, some while Louis was still a boy, and the others before the king was born.82 Such were the dates of the masterpieces of the age of Louis XIV. The authors of these immortal works all ceased to write, and nearly all ceased to live, before the close of the seventeenth century; and we may fairly ask the admirers of Louis XIV. who those men were that succeeded them. Where have their names been registered'? Where are their works to 74 Biog. Univ. vol. xxxvi. pp. 499, 502; Hallam's Lit. vol. iii. p. 493. 75 Biog. Univ. vol. xxix. pp. 306, 308. 76 Rose's Biog. Dict. vol. iv. p. 376; and Biog. Univ. vol. v. pp. 7, 8, where it is said that " ses meilleures satires" were those published in 1666. "Ibid. vol. xxiii. p. 127. 78 Tennemann, Gesch. der Philos. vol. x. p. 322. 79 Biog. Univ. vol. vi. p. 175. 80 Brunet, Manuel du Libraire, vol. iv. p. 105, Paris, 1843; and note in Lettres de Patin, vol. i. p. 421. 8 Biog. Univ. vol. xxxiii. pp. 64, 71; Palissot, Mém. pour l'Hist. de Lit. vol. ii. pp. 239, 241. 82 Polyeucte, which is probably his greatest work, appeared in 1640, Médée in 1635; The Cid in 1636; Horace and Cinna both in 1639. Biog. Univ. vol. ix. pp. 609-613. be found? Who is there that now reads the books of those obscure hirelings, who for so many years thronged the court of the great king? Who has heard any thing of Campistron, La Chapelle, Genest, Ducerceau, Dancourt, Danchet, Vergier, Catrou, Chaulieu, Legendre, Valincour, Lamotte, and the other ignoble compilers, who long remained the brightest ornaments of France? Was this, then, the consequence of the royal bounty? Was this the fruit of the royal patronage? If the system of reward and protection is really advantageous to literature and to art, how is it that it should have produced the meanest results when it had been the longest in operation? If the favour of kings is, as their flatterers tell us, of such importance, how comes it that the more the favour was displayed, the more the effects were contemptible? Nor was this almost inconceivable penury compensated by superiority in any other department. The simple fact is, that Louis XIV. survived the entire intellect of the French nation, except that small part of it which grew up in opposition to his principles, and afterwards shook the throne of his successor.83 Several years before his death, and when his protective system had been in full force for nearly half a century, there was not to be found in the whole of France a statesman who could develop the resources of the country, or a general who could defend it against its enemies. Both in the civil service and in the military service, every thing had fallen into disorder. At home there was nothing but confusion; abroad there was nothing but disaster. The spirit of France succumbed, and was laid prostrate. The men of letters, pensioned and decorated by the court, had degenerated into a fawning and hypocritical race, who, to meet the wishes of their masters, opposed all improvement, and exerted themselves in support of every old abuse. The end of all this was, a 83 Voltaire (Siècle de Louis XIV, in Œuvres, vol. xx. pp. 319-322) reluctantly confesses the decline of the French intellect in the latter part of the reign of Louis; and Flassan (Diplomat. Franç. vol. iv. p. 400) calls it “remarquable." See also Barante, Littérature Française, p. 28; Sismondi, Hist. des Français, vol. xxvi. p. 217. corruption, a servility, and a loss of power more complete than has ever been witnessed in any of the great countries of Europe. There was no popular liberty; there were no great men; there was no science; there was no literature; there were no arts. Within, there was a discontented people, a rapacious government, and a beggared exchequer. Without, there were foreign armies, which pressed upon all the frontiers, and which nothing but their mutual jealousies, and a change in the English cabinet, prevented from dismembering the monarchy of France.84 Such was the forlorn position of that noble country towards the close of the reign of Louis XIV.85 The mis 84"Oppressed by defeats abroad, and by famine and misery at home, Louis was laid at the mercy of his enemies; and was only saved by a party revolution in the English ministry." Arnold's Lectures on Modern History, p. 137. Compare Fragments sur l Histoire, article xxiii. in Œuvres de Voltaire, vol. xxvii. p. 345, with De Tocqueville, Règne de Louis XV, vol. i. p. 86. 85 For evidence of the depression and, indeed, utter exhaustion of France during the latter years of Louis XIV, compare Duclos, Mémoires, vol. i. pp. 11-18, with Marmontel, Hist. de la Régence, Paris, 1826, pp. 79-97. The Lettres inédites de Madame de Maintenon (vol. i. pp. 263, 284, 358, 389, 393, 408, 414, 422, 426, 447, 457, 463, vol. ii. pp. 19, 23, 33, 46, 56, and numerous other passages) fully confirm this, and, moreover, prove that in Paris, early in the eighteenth century, the resources, even of the wealthy classes, were beginning to fail; while both public and private credit were so shaken, that it was hardly possible to obtain money on any terms. In 1710, she, the wife of Louis XIV., complains of her inability to borrow 500 livres : "Tout mon crédit échoue souvent auprès de M. Desmaretz pour une somme de cinq cents livres." Ibid. vol. ii. p. 33. In 1709, she writes (vol. i. p. 447): "Le jeu devient insipide, parce qu'il n'y a presque plus d'argent." See also vol. ii. p. 112; and in February 1711 (p. 151): "Ce n'est pas l'abondance, mais l'avarice qui fait jouer nos courtisans; on met le tout pour le tout pour avoir quelque argent, et les tables de lansquenet ont plus l'air d'un triste commerce que d'un divertissement." In regard to the people generally, the French writers supply us with little information, because in that age they were too much occupied with their great king and their showy literature, to pay attention to mere popular interests. But I have collected from other sources some information which I will now put together, and which I recommend to the notice of the next French author who undertakes to compose a history of Louis XIV. Locke, who was travelling in France in 1676 and 1677, writes in his journal, "The rent of lands in France fallen one-half in these few years, by reason of the poverty of the people." King's Life of Locke, vol. i. p. 129. About the same time, Sir William Temple says (Works, vol. ii. p. 268), "The French peasantry are wholly dispirited by labour and want." In 1691, another observer, proceeding from Calais, writes, "From hence, travelling to Paris, there was opportunity enough to observe what a prodigious state of poverty the ambition and absoluteness of a tyrant can reduce an opulent and fertile country to. There were visible all the marks and signs of a growing |