,,

of M. A. de Beauchesne to collect all the evidence that the fury of the revolution and the lapse of time might have spared, as to the authentic circumstances of his life and death in the Tower of the Temple.

M. de Beauchesne states that a great part of his own life has been dedicated to this object. He has-he tells us-made himself familiar with all the details of that mediævel prison-house; he has consulted all the extant records of the public offices which had any connexion with the service of the Temple

THE deep obscurity that covered the last eighteen months of the life of the son of Louis XVI., and the mystery in which his death and burial were so strangely, and, as it seemed, so studiously involved, gave to the general sympathy that his fate naturally excited an additional and somewhat of a more romantic interest. Of the extent of this feeling, we have evidence more conclusive than respectable in the numerous pretenders that have successively appeared to claim identity with him. We really forget how many there have been of these " Faux Dau--he has traced out and personally commuphins," but four-of the names of Hervagault, Bruneau, Naundorf, and Richemontplayed their parts with a degree of success that confirms the observation that, however great the number of knaves in the world may be, they are always sure to find an ample proportion of fools and dupes. Not one of those cases appeared to us to have-for, in truth, M. de Beauchesne has added reached even the lowest degree of probability, nor would they be worth mentioning, but that they seem to have stimulated the zeal

*Louis XVII., Sa Vie, son Agonie, sa Mort; Captivité de la Famille Royale au Temple, ouvrage enrichi d' Autographes, de Portraits, et de Plans. Par M. A. de Beauchesne. 2 vols. Paris. 1852. VOL. XXX. NO. IV.

nicated with every surviving individual who had been employed there, and he has even sought secondhand and hearsay information from the octogenarian neighbors and acquaintances of those who were no more. This statement would lead us to expect more of novelty and originality than we have found

little-we may almost say nothing essentialto what had been already so copiously detailed in the respective memoirs of MM. Hue, Cléry, and Turgy, and the Duchess d' Angoulême, who were inmates of the Temple, and in the Memoirés Historiques of M. Eckard, which is a judicious and interest

28

ing summary of all the fore-named authori- | disgraceful episode in her history-the capties. From these well-known works, M. de tivity of the Temple, and especially of the Beauchesne borrows full three-fourths of his life and death of Louis XVII. volumes; though he occasionally cites them, he does not acknowledge the extent of his obligations-particularly to M. Eckard-as largely as we think he should have done. An ordinary reader is too frequently at a loss to distinguish what rests on M. de Beauchesne's assertions from what he copies from others. This uncertainty-very inconvenient in a historical work-is seriously increased by his style of writing, which is so ampoule and rhetorical as sometimes leaves us in doubt whether he is speaking literally or metaphorically; for instance, in detailing the pains he has taken, and his diligent examination of persons and places from which he could hope any information, he exclaims :

"For twenty years I shut myself up in that

Tower-I lived in it-traversed all its stairs and apartments, nay, pried into every hole and corner about it."-p. 4.

Louis Charles, the second son and fourth child of Louis XVI. and Marie Antoinette, was born at Versailles on the 27th of March, 1785, and received the title of Duke of Normandy. On the death of his elder brother, (who was born in 1781, and died in 1789, at the outset of the Revolution) he became heirapparent to the Throne, but, in fact, heir to nothing but persecution, misfortune and martyrdom. Less partial pens than M. de Beauchesne's, describe the child as extremely handsome, large blue eyes, delicate features, light hair curling naturally, limbs well formed, rather tall for his years, with a sweet expression of countenance not wanting in either intelligence or vivacity-to his family, he seemed a little angel-to the Court a wonder-to all the world a very fine and promising boy. We not only forgive, but can assent to M. de Beauchesne's metaphorical lament over him as a lily broken by a storm and withered in its earliest bloom.*

Within two hours after the death of the

Who would suppose that M. de Beau-first Dauphin, (on the 4th of July, 1789) chesne never was in the Tower at all-per: haps never saw it!-for it was demolished by Bonaparte, and the site built over, near fifty years ago. He only means that his fancy has inhabited the Tower, &c., in the same sense that he afterwards says,

the Revolution began to exhibit its atrocious disregard of not merely the Royal authority and the first feelings of nature. The Chambut of the ordinary dictates of humanity ber of the Tiers Etat (it had not yet usurped the title of National Assembly) sent a deputation on business to the King, who had shut himself up in his private apartment to indulge his sorrows. When the

"I have repeopled it-I have listened to the sighs and sobs of the victims--I have read from the writings on the walls the complaints, the pardons, the farewells!-I have heard the echoes re-deputation was announced, the King answerpeating these wailings."—Ib.

M. de Beauchesne flatters himself that he is neither credulous nor partial. We think he is somewhat of both, but we entertain no doubt of his sincerity. We distrust his judgment, but not his good faith. Indeed, the most valuable of his elucidations are the documents which he has copied from the revolutionary archives, and which speak for themselves; and, on the whole, the chief

merit that we can allow to his work is, that it collects and brings together-with some additional explanation and confirmation-all that is known-all perhaps that can be known-of that melancholy, and, to France,

ed that his recent misfortune would prevent his receiving it that day. They rudely insisted on their right of audience as represen tatives of the people: the King still requested to be spared: the demagogues were ob stinate-and to a third and more peremptory requisition, the unhappy father and insulted monarch was forced to yield, with, however, the touching reproof of asking-" Are there, then, no fathers among them?"

A month later the Bastile was taken, and on the 6th of October, another insurrection stormed the Palace of Versailles, massacred the Guards, and led the Royal family in captivity to Paris. We pass over the three years of persecution which they had to endure in the palace prison of the Tuileries till

*This image had been before produced on a medal struck in 1916, by M. Tirolier, under the auspices of M. de Chateaubriand, which represented a lily broken by the storm, with the legend Cecidit ut flos.-Turgy, 314.