immense. In the present work he has exhibited a greater range of knowledge than we had given him the credit of; but he has brought no evidence of greater talent, philosophical or artistic. The only improvement we have to record is in the absence of that fatalist philosophy which was so obtruded in the history. His style retains its stiffness and want of coloring. It is as sententious and antithetical as usual; but seldom striking or descriptive. In his biographies we see no biographical talent. He fails in bringing the person distinctly before the eye; because describing them in general terms, and unable to seize upon the peculiarities which stamp the individual. Broussais he has best succeeded in delineating, because Broussais was one who wore his heart upon his sleeve;' his peculiarities were thrown into strong relief by the vehemence of his disposition. Talleyrand is a complete failure. It is perhaps the worst portrait ever drawn of a celebrated man by one of ability. The same want of sympathy with men, the same want of artistic conception and pictorial power, is manifested in his essay on the reformation of Geneva: a more stirring, passionate, dramatic theme than any in his volumes, yet by him treated in the same heavy, lifeless, sententious manner. By M. Mignet and his followers men are sacrificed to ideas, humanity to its events. Men are not regarded as beings compounded of majestic hopes and grovelling desires, of heroic instincts, of prejudices, of interests, of enthusiasm, and of complex passions; but as abstract quantities, as simple numerals in the great sum of destiny. What is the consequence? Whenever he is placed before a man, he fails to understand him; whenever he is placed before an epoch, he is sure to misinterpret it, for men are not simple numerals to be reckoned on slate; they are men, and epochs are their work.

In spite of this censure, the book does partly supply the deficiency we mentioned in his history: it introduces us to the men and their acts, if it does not make us familiar with them. So that with all its drawbacks we think the publication worthy of attention. The men were all more or less interesting; and he has brought forward some novel information about them. We will select three of them, the three philosophers, for the reader's amusement. Sieyès, Broussais, and Destutt de Tracy, are of themselves sufficiently celebrated to rouse curiosity as to their memoirs; and by selecting them we shall best typify the philosophy of that epoch as manifested in politics, medicine, and ideology. It will be understood that we avail ourselves here of M. Mignet's notices, which we do little more than modify and abridge.

EMANUEL JOSEPH SIEYÈS was born at Fréjus, the 3d of May,

1748. He was destined for the church, finished his studies in the University of Paris, and took his licence in the Sorbonne. Like most of his contemporaries he became possessed with the spirit of analysis and scepticism, which then was the creator of such new and daring schemes of social reform. He was enchanted with Locke and Condillac, and studied them deeply. He soon became attracted by the speculations of political economy. Appointed by the Bishop of Chartres to the place of chanoine and then of vicairegénérale and chancelier* of his church, he had made himself so respected that the clergy of Brittany elected him their député. The diocese of Chartres subsequently appointed him conselliercommissaire at the Chambre Supérieure of the Clergy of France. He here learned the practical part of politics, to which his metaphysical talents had introduced him. His studies continued; his name acquired more respect. The revolution was rapidly advancing. The reforms so passionately demanded by the people, so obstinately refused by the government, were daily become more urgent, more inevitable. The disordered state of the finances, which had already necessitated two assemblies of the Notables without success, now became so dangerous that government was forced to appeal to the états-généraux.

But how were these états-généraux to be convoked? Were they to be assembled as in 1614, by making them vote in classes, or were they to vote by individuals? If each individual was to vote, were the deputies of the tiers-état to be doubled, or were the ancient number only to be named? In a word, was the law of the majority to be substituted for the suffrages of classes, public welfare to private interest; such were the questions put by the government itself.

Sieyes replied. He had never before appeared as an author. Hitherto his life had been passed in studying both theoretically and practically the great questions of philosophy and politics. He had had no time to write. His first appearance as an author was crowned with a success so brilliant that it must have startled himself. He replied to government in three pamphlets, which he published one immediately after the other. These were, 1st. Essai sur les Priviléges;' 2d. his world-famous Qu'est-ce que le Tiers-état?' 3d. ' Moyens d'Exécution dont les Représentants de la France pourront disposer en 1789.' The prodigious success which that on the Tiers-état' obtained can only be understood by reflecting how completely it expressed the state of popular opinion; it was the distinct utterance of what the nation had been stammering so long; it was the political consequence of all the

6

* We preserve the French names, as translations always, more or less, convey false notions. Nothing can be more unlike abbé than our abbot.

prevalent philosophical dogmas, and it received instantaneous acceptance and applause. It may be resumed in three questions and their answers.

What is the tiers-état ?-The nation.

• If

What has it been till now in the political world?—Nothing. What does it demand ?-Political recognition. It wishes to be something. M. Sieyes attempted M. Sieyes attempted to show that the tiers-état was the entire nation, and that it could very well dispense with the two other classes, which could not dispense with it. nobility comes from conquest, the tiers-état will become noble by conquering in its turn.' He contended that the tiers-état, composed of 25,000,000, ought to have at least an equal number of deputies with the other two classes, which were composed of 80,000 clergy, and 100,000 nobles; that it ought to choose its deputies from its own class, and not, as heretofore, from the clergy or military.

He called upon the tiers-état, which was not a class but the nation, to constitute itself a national assembly: in this shape it could deliberate for the entire nation. Bold as these ideas were, they met with universal assent. What he advised was accomplished; his hardy speculations became hardy acts. The étatsgénéraux were convoked. Sieyes was elected one of the deputies for Paris; and when the privileged orders refused during a whole month to unite with the tiers-état and verify their powers in common, he boldly decreed the verification with or without the presence of the privileged deputies. He forced the commons to constitute themselves a national assembly. This assembly having been deprived of its place of meeting, reunited at the Jeu de Paume, where Sieyès drew up the decisive and celebrated oath sworn by all the members, 'Never to separate, to assemble everywhere that circumstances required, until the constitution was fixed.'

He had made a national assembly; he had bound each individual member by his honour to stand by him. In the solemn meeting of the 23d of June, when the king, having revoked all their previous orders, and commanded the members to disperse themselves, after the hall had vibrated with the tremendous and impetuous eloquence of Mirabeau, Sieyès rose. He felt that

every thing in the shape of rhetoric would fall tamely after what had just been uttered, but his own speech was no less sublime in a different way, Nous sommes aujourd'hui ce que nous étions hier. Délibérons!' They did deliberate: and the revolution was the result.

Sieyes was also the author of the plan subsequently realised of destroying the ancient provinces, and forming them into their

present departments. He continued to assist in the deliberations of the assembly, but as soon as he encountered opposition from those whom he had been accustomed to govern, his ardour cooled. Impetuous and imperious in his theories, he was incapable of supporting contradiction. The discussion with respect to the wealth of the clergy first occasioned this coolness. He regarded tithes as unjust and pernicious; he desired, therefore, that they should be abolished. But, inasmuch as they represented a revenue of 70,000,000 francs, he contended that this was not a present to make to the landed proprietors; that they ought to purchase it; that the purchase money should go towards defraying the public debt, and thus diminish the duties. His opinion not being listened to, and tithes being suppressed, he uttered his famous epigram, 'ils veulent être libres et ne savent pas êtres justes.'

Attacked on account of this epigram, he got angry and maintained an obstinate silence at the assembly. In vain Mirabeau endeavoured to excite his ambition; Sieyès continued silent. He refused to be named bishop of Paris. Elected member of the départementale administration, he gave up the Assemblée Constituante and retired into the country. He thus took no part in the second epoch of the revolution. One of his friends subsequently asked him What he had done during the reign of terror ?' 'What have I done?' he replied, 'I have lived.' He had in fact solved the most difficult problem of the epoch, that of not perishing. After the 9th Thermidor he became one of the chiefs of the legal moderate party of the convention, where he proposed and obtained the re-entrance of his friends the proscribed Girondists. Nominated president of the convention and member of the new • Comité du salut public,' he co-operated in those measures which were then adopted, and in the negotiations of France with the other European states. He went himself to Holland to conclude a treaty of alliance. He took a large part in the treaties of Basle. He exerted himself to the utmost to establish peace and the grandeur of his country. Called upon to prepare the constitution of the Directory in the year VIII. he refused his assistance. Named one of the five directors, he declined the dangerous honour, and retired into inactivity.

It was at this period that the Abbé Poulle presented himself in Sieyès' room and fired a pistol at him at arm's length. One ball shattered his hand; the other grazed his chest. Sieyès conducted himself with astonishing coolness. Called upon to give his testimony, and observing that the judges inclined towards the assassin, he returned home, and said to his concierge, 'If M. Poulle should return, you will tell him I am not at home.'

Some time afterwards the occasion presenting itself for conso

lidating his plans of peace at which he had laboured during the convention, Sieyès, who had refused to become a director, accepted the office of plenipotentiary at Berlin. He was not successful in forming an alliance with Prussia, but he saw at once that state was bent on preserving neutrality, and he announced this to the directory. On his return to Paris he found affairs discouraging: the directory drew near its end. 'Il me faut une epée' said he, and in Joubert he hoped to have found it. But Joubert was killed shortly after at Novi. Napoleon returned from Egypt.

From Provence to Paris General Bonaparte saw himself the object of universal curiosity and expectation. The glorious conqueror in so many fields filled the imaginations of the susceptible and warlike nation. But without Sieyès the general could do little; without the general Sieyès could not act. These two extraordinary men, types of speculation and action, were equally necessary to each other. But the glory of the abbé was soon to be swallowed up in that of the soldier. Sieyès somewhat feared Bonaparte, and not without reason. They were, however, brought together, and concerted in the accomplishment of the 18th Brumaire. There is something singularly interesting in contemplating this celebrated meeting, which, properly speaking, terminated the historical career of the abbé. With his keen penetration Sieyes at once saw that he had met his master. He preserved, however, greater coolness and resolution than Bonaparte; but he said the next day 'We have our master: he knows every thing, he wills every thing: he can do every thing.' Theory had given up the reins to Action; convinced that his province was to counsel not to guide, Sieyès resigned to more vigorous hands the rudder of the state. He would not consent to be second consul. With him the reign of theories passed away.

Bonaparte, however, knew the value of the abbe's ideas and in a great measure accepted them. Indeed from 1800 to 1814 all the constitutions were modelled on the plans of Sieyes, whose philosophy thus furnished the revolution with its fundamental ideas, and the empire with its legislative forms. For himself he refused participation in power. Nevertheless the senate chose him as their president, and the emperor made him a count. But he resigned the presidency and took no share either in the counsels or acts of the empire. He lived retired amongst a few friends who shared his ideas. The empire had overturned his plans, the restoration troubled his existence. He was exiled for fifteen years. He returned in 1830, and saw the revolution of Three Days complete that of '89. And in the eighty-eighth year of his age he expired in tranquillity and obscurity.

Sieyes was a remarkable man, but of limited capacity. He