pressed strongly her weariness of lifehow all had failed; but there is no looking beyond; no resting on the hope of an eternal home, where we shall see all things in the light of God.

CLARIBEL.

For some months before the wreck, her boy had been teaching her the lessons she should have learned in her own infancy. Her heart had been born old, and it was growing young. He might also have led her to a simple faith. She might, guiding his infant steps, have entered" as a little child" the kingdom of God.

ZOE.-While you have been talking, I have made another poem.

LINES ON SETTING A CAPTIVE MILLER FREE. "Put out the light."-Shakespeare.

Fly, airy sprite; imprisoned now no more,
Haste to the mossy dells where violets lie,
Upon the pinions of the south wind soar,
And all rejoicing in thy liberty;

Hence, child of freedom, fly!

Hie to the greenwood, where the gushing rills
Flow swiftly onward on their gentle way,
Where the glad nightingale her vesper trills,
And flowerets fold their leaves at close of day;
Haste joyously away!

Where the pine forest rears its stately head,

Where the pale primrose pours its rich perfume,
Where tulips bright their gaudy petals shed,
And the young roses all unrecked of bloom
Amid the deepening gloom.

Hence! cleave once more the blue ethereal air,
And when the moon illumes the ocean's breast,
Seek thee some bed beside the waters fair,
And when the earth in her dark robes is drest
Fold thy light wings and rest!

MARGARET. That is so speciously nonsensical, that it would be worth while to try if it might not impose on the editor of some literary journal, who, deceived by the sweetness of the metre, might print it in good faith as the production of a disciple

of Mrs. Hemans.

ZOE.-Multitudes of published poems are to the full as absurd. Did we ever show you, Claribel, the poem Margaret and I once wrote to see what we could do as a bona fide joint impromptu? Vile as it is, it is an average specimen of the style of poem to which it belongs. We agreed to compose in alternate lines. Neither was to hesitate or change a word. We started without any design, nor did we find one, till I gave the two last lines in a breath and wrote over it a title.

THE ORIGIN OF PEARLS. They wandered slowly o'er the plain, The father and the daughter, Until they reached a silvery lake Of clear and placid water.

Where sitting sadly by its side

Her tears dropped slowly in;
They were soft tears of woman's pride,
Of sorrow, not of sin.

There came a naiad from the wave,

And caught them in a shell!
More purely white than mountain-snow,
She caught them as they fell.

The father watched the glancing sprite,
And bending o'er his child,
He said with accents low and soft,
And lips that faintly smiled-
"Behold, sweet girl, the ways of love;
Those tears that sadly fell,

Shall prove bright gems of precious worth
Hid in that prison shell."

CLARIBEL. promptu?

ZOE.-I hope you don't suppose it was any thing else. It was repeated off without pause, as I have said it to you.

MARGARET.-I can be more lenient to original trash, I think, than to the trash which spoils a foreign poet by translation. I greatly prefer to read the works of any foreign bard (if I cannot understand them in his own tongue), through the medium of a prose translation in a third language. One is not annoyed by awkward English, and the poetry retains a sort of foreign flavor.

CLARIBEL.-By the way, German prose may be literally translated, and the English version of a German work gains by a little foreign flavor; but Frenchified English is a caricature of fine writing; and justice may be best done to a French author by rendering his work, not word for word, but idiom for idiom.

ZOE.-I seldom read poetical translations without thinking of what the cockney draper aptly said, that Homer by Mr. Pope was "unclassicked, not translated."

MARGARET.-A few years since every literary miss, and forward schoolboy tried their hands upon translation, and the result was, both so vile and so voluminous, that it is a mercy the task of compiling an edition of the "Poets and Poetry of Europo" was not appropriated by one who, as Carlyle says, would have edited them as one "edits wagon loads of broken bricks and dry mortar, simply by tumbling up the wagon."

CLARIBEL. One of our very best English translations, is Leigh Hunt's spirited version of Redi's Bacchanalian Ode in praise of the wines of Tuscany.

And drink of the wine of the vine benign,
That sparkles warm in Sansovine!

Those lines are more musical than the Italian-and think of the old gentleman. having been a water-drinker after all!

ZOE. He sings the praise of ice as musically and enthusiastically as that of the vine. If I were a member of the skating club, I'd skate an inscription from the Ode on Lake Wenham.

MARGARET.--Reading a translated poem ought to be made a punishment for not having studied the language of the original, and therefore I would never find fault with a translation, like Cary's Dante, in which the strained involved English makes the author's meaning harder to get at than it would be to a student with common sense in the original with even an imperfect knowledge of the poet's tongue; but the huge mass of modern poetical translation is in the glib versification of the Laura Matilda school. I speak feelingly upon this subject, because I number amongst the sins of my youth a translation, which I suffered to appear in print, of what was probably in the original a rude, rough, broken, and effective ejaculatory people's ballad. I reduced it to smooth annual-like stanzas-reminding me whenever I think of it, of Champagne or sparkling Moselle in a cut glass decanter. It was courteously alluded to, too, at the time, by no less an authority than a London Quarterly Reviewer!

ZOE. Who can write a respectable imitation of the national poetry of the old Sherwood Forest days? Why is it that the Ballad, the earliest expression of popular feeling, dies out at the approach of civilization? Sir Walter Scott's "Glenfinlas" is scarcely worth the trouble of reprint—and if you want to see degeneration, compare the fragment "Barthram's Dirge" with "Elfinland Weed." or diger," or the "Eve of St. John."

Ru

MARGARET.-It was always a proof to me how greatly the national taste for poetry was far gone from original simplicity in Johnson's days, that Chatterton's imitation was so widely mistaken for a genuine old Ballad. Any one familiar with Ellis, Ritson, and Bishop Percy could, it seems to me, detect the forgery in half a line. There is another vice of ordinary translation-I mean expansion-which interferes with our rendering the lays of an earlier day. A nation in its infancy lisps in numbers, intent not on its form of speech, but the expression of its feeling. When it has acquired greater command of language it is so pleased by "the beauty

and newness of its art" that it floods its ideas with words, and loses the conciseness and simplicity, and at the same time the pre-Raphaelitic attention to details, which characterized its earlier poetry.

ZOE. To resume your champagne simile it would be well if our translators in decanting would be content to give us du champagne non mousseau at least free from the adulteration of their own turnip juice or gooseberry.

C'est le bon roi Dagobert
Qui mit sa culotte à l'envers.
Translate that, Margaret.
MARGARET.-

The Monarch roused him from his slumbers.
The foe came on, and great their numbers.
Good was the king-a warrior brave,
Bold Dagobert the name they gave.

So hasty dressed he for the row, sirs,
That wrong side out he donned his trowsors.

ZOE.-You are not competent to the task, Margaret. You have no genius for principal words. These you have only redundancy. The nursery distich has five expanded into a line a-piece with one to spare for the interpolation of your own gratuitous supposition. You have given, however, the jerky way in which some folks translate epigrams:

CLARIBEL. It is nearly twelve o'clock,

"See, we have wasted half a summer's night!"

You

may we not say with Arteveld. have damaged the reputation of poets we all love; and mercy and truth have not met together in your estimate of the poetlings. What good does it do to point out spots in the sun? Leave us to fancy him all brightness.

ZOE.-What good may I have done to by nailing a dead hawk to a barn door! poetlings? Such good as may be done Nor does it do us harm to turn our opinion of our favorites sometimes wrongside out, and ravel out unsightly threads. And principally good is done by reflections on this subject, because young writers may be warned to have an eye to sense, and some may be scared, as Margaret and I have been, from second-rate attempts at versification. A verse containing bits of broken similes is not redeemed by unimpeachableness of rhymc-or sweetness of rhythm.

VOL. III.-14

THE LOST PRINCE: facts tending to prove the identity of Louis the Seventeenth of France, and the Rev. Eleazer Williams, Missionary among the Indians of North America. By John H. Hanson. New-York: G. P. Putnam & Co. 1884. pp. 479.

THE Rev. Mr. Hanson, author of the

articles on this subject published in this magazine in February and April of last year, avowed his deep interest in the question from the start, and has not hesitated to declare his conviction, that the Rev. Eleazer Williams is the son of Louis Sixteenth of France, and, consequently, the Dauphin, who was alleged to have died in the tower of the Temple at Paris, on the 8th of June 1795. Under such an impression, it was not to be expected that Mr. Hanson, after all that he had done, would let the subject sleep. He has, accordingly, given it diligent attention-has examined critically all that has been written and said against the claims of Mr. Williams-has travelled extensively, to look up additional evidence-and has finally come forth with the result of his investigations, in a handsome duodecimo of 479 pages, in a little less than a year after his first article on the subject was published. The volume bears the title of the motto at the head of this article, THE LOST PRINCE. And Mr. Hanson has not labored in vain. He has certainly accomplished something. We may even say, he has done a good deal. Where his work does not produce conviction, it will at least command respect. He has, we think, cleared the way for, and abundantly justified the following propositions:

1. The Dauphin did not die in the Temple, as the French Government alleged at the time, and as has been commonly supposed.

2. The child that died there was clandestinely introduced as a substitute for the Dauphin, while the Dauphin was secretly carried away.

3. He was brought to America, and disposed of, with the intent that he should never appear as a claimant of the throne of France.

4. Two French refugees, as they were supposed to be, a man and woman, appeared in Albany, N. Y., in 1795, in charge of two children, a boy and girl, under such circumstances as to justify the theory, that the boy was the Dauphin; and that they left Albany for parts unknown.

5. In the same year, 1795, two Frenchmen, one of them having the appearance of a Roman Catholic priest, brought " weak, sickly boy, in a state of mental imbecility," to Ticonderoga, and left him with the Indians. The child was adopted by an Iroquois chief, named Thomas Williams.

6. This child is proved to be the Rev. Eleazer Williams.

7. Mr. Williams is not an Indian.

8. The Duchess D'Angoulême, and the other members of the French Bourbon family, have always known that the Dauphin did not die in the Temple, and that he was carried to America.

9. The same members of the French Royal family have always been well advised, so as to believe the fact, that the Dauphin was still alive, in the person of the Rev. Eleazer Williams.

We do not say that all these propositions are clearly demonstrated; for then there would be no remaining question. Some of them are, doubtless, better established than others. Some, indeed, are proved beyond the possibility of doubt. But the sum of probabilities which cluster around the more doubtful, is of a nature and character fully to justify the conclusion, that Mr. Williams may be the Dauphin, and, perhaps, to justify the belief, that he actually is so. Mr. Hanson has prefaced his argument by the following two mottos, which appear on his titlepage: "There is no historical truth against which obstinacy cannot raise some objections. Many people think themselves justified in asserting, against an alleged historical fact, its impossibility, without considering, that nothing is true or untrue in the eye of history because it is probable

or improbable, but simply because, assuming its general logical possibility, it can be proved to be or not to be a fact. Bunsen. "On appealing, after a number of years, to the evidence of facts, it will always be found, in the end, that probability is, in all things, the best symptom of truth."--Lamartine. According to

the principle of these two mottos, wherein the above propositions, as stated by us, are not clearly demonstrated, they may be safely weighed in the balance of probabilities; and it is on this principle that we have thought proper to give them form and place. The negative of either of them cannot be established by like probabilities, as, for example, in the contradiction between Mr. Williams and the Prince de Joinville, which, indeed, has no direct bearing on either of the propositions we have laid down, though it may possibly be regarded as having an incidental relation. But, assuming that the Prince de Joinville was disappointed in the result of his interview with Mr. Williams, it is easy to see, that he was forced into this contradiction by his plan and policy, admitting the facts alleged by Mr. Williams. Here the rule of probability applies with great force in favor of Mr. Williams' account, as it is very improbable that the Prince would assent to its truth. He could not do it, in consistency with the alleged purpose of his mission.

Mr. Hanson, by his industry and zeal in this cause, has certainly collected most important and vital evidence on this question, since his first papers were published, in February and April of last year; and in the volume now under consideration, he has grouped all the testimony in the case with great skill and with telling effect. For his zeal he needs no apology; for he professes to believe in his story, which, if true, is worthy of any man's enthusiasm. The first item of additional evidence brought forward, which we propose to notice, is the second affidavit of Mr. Williams' reputed mother, Mary Ann Williams, which was made by her to correct the false statements of the first. speak in the mildest terms that will properly characterize the discrepancy between the two documents, as it applies to the question at issue, it is a most astounding disclosure-astounding not only for the sudden flood of light which it casts on the main question, but especially and altogether more astounding for the audacity of the fraud practised in the means of obtaining, and in the mode of uttering, the first affidavit. This document, it would seem, was obtained at the

To

instance of M. De Courcy, though there is no evidence that he gave instructions that would suggest or justify the fraud. It appears, however, to have been quite acceptable to him, as might have been expected from his known feelings. For what reasons he took it to France, before it was published here, or whether he went expressly on that errand, we are not informed. It is natural to suppose, from the fact of his going to France with this document in his pocket, that it required to be submitted there. He then returned it to New-York, to be published in the Courrier des Etats Unis, from which journal it went the rounds of the papers of the country, silencing, as was supposed at the time, the pretensions of Mr Williams, and overwhelming them with ridicule and contempt. The history of this remarkable document is sufficiently indicated by the following certificate:

"I certify that the affidavit sworn to before me in March last, by Mrs. Mary Ann Williams, was in the English language. She came to my oflice, in Hogansburgh, either in company with, or met there, the Rev. Francis Marcoux, Roman Catholic priest at St. Regis. Two Indians were also present. Mr. Marcoux acted as interpreter, and put the questions to her in the Indian language, and interpreted them in English. A. FULTON, J. P.

"Hogansburgh, July 8, 1853."

It will be observed, that Mrs. Williams gave her evidence in the Indian language. not understanding English; and that Mr Marcoux interpreted it to the Justice of the Peace, Mr. Fulton, in English, to be put down, sworn to, and published in that language. It was executed and published accordingly. But, in all the particulars mentioned in this affidavit, touching the question before the public, Mrs. Williams is made to contradict her reputed son, the Rev. Mr. Williams, and to implicate him in false statements. She is made repeatedly to declare, that Eleazer Williams is her own son; to deny the story to the contrary, and to maintain June as the month in which she thinks he was born. Suffice it to state, that she is made to say and swear to in English, a language which she did not understand, many things important to the point in issue, which she did not say in her own tongue, which she did not intend to say, and which she could not say with truth and a good conscience; all which, when she came to have it explained to her, as it really was, she entirely repudiated, and went before the same magistrate, Mr. Fulton, a second time, and made a new affidavit in her own language; and notwithstanding she was followed up by Mr.

Marcoux's friends, with assiduous efforts to embarrass her, and to prevent her from purging her conscience, she nevertheless, in her second affidavit, declared, that the Rev. Eleazer Williams was an adopted child, and corrected all the other points in which she had been misinterpreted by Mr. Marcoux in her first affidavit. Mrs. Williams swears, in her second affidavit, that Mr. Marcoux, with others, some women. persuaded her to make the first, and that she found, when the first was explained to her, that it contained things which she did not intend to say, and which were not true; that is, all the material points of the case. These two affidavits, and the history of them, are given in the twentieth chapter of the book now under notice, and they claim an attentive perusal by those who desire to understand the merits of this controversy. We need not name the legal or technical denomination which characterizes this fraud, as all know that it constitutes a very high crime. Mr. Hanson might well be eloquent, as he is, on this branch of his argument. We cite a single sentence: "Taking advantage of her ignorance of all languages, but Indian, and relying upon the obscurity of a barbaric tongue, to hide from the world his imposture, this clergyman falsely interprets her answers to the magistrate, substitutes wholesale statements, adapted to his own ends, for those which she in reality makes; then falsely interprets his interpretation to her, procures her oath to his fabrication, poisons the fountains of truth and justice at their primal and most sacred source, and seeks to send the poor woman into the grave with a sworn lie upon her lips, against the child of her adoption, that he might at once destroy his reputation, and deceive the world upon a grave question of history." And when M. De Courcy gets possession of this precious document, he goes on a mission to France, peradventure to have it determined there when and where it shall be published; and it is sent back to be published in New-York.

It is true that this enormity in the social state does not prove that the Rev. Eleazer Williams is the son of Louis Sixteenth; but it does prove that man must have a strong motive, and should receive no trifling compensation, to practice subornation of perjury to prevent the establishment of such an historical fact. It proves, moreover, that there is some stupendous wrong in this business, be it to rob a born prince of his right to a throne, or a private and humble individual of his character, the latter of which may, possibly, in this case, be

more highly prized than the former. So palpable a fraud too, and a fraud of such a character, will naturally lead men to think, that, after all, there is something in this question not only deserving of consideratioion, but of very grave import. There is not, perhaps, in the whole history of this complicated affair, another incident of a more striking and impressive character. Every one will ask, what could be the motive of this subornation of perjury? and let him who can, answer.

Another interesting and instructive part of the additional evidence adduced by Mr. Hanson, is the narrative, and more succinct affidavit, of Mrs. Brown, of New Orleans, also given in the twentieth chapter of the book, and in Appendix N., Mrs. Reid certifies by affidavit to the character of Mrs. Brown, and the Rev. Mr. Whitall, in the same way, to that of Mrs. Reid. The credibillty of the testimony is well guaranteed. Mrs. Brown was formerly wife of the Secretary of Count D' Artois, and resided six years, from 1804 to 1810, at Holyrood House, Edinburgh, with the royal exiles; and for nearly as long a time afterwards, she was on terms of intimacy with the Bourbon family, and did them some service, which was highly appreciated. Her position as wife of the Secretary of the Count, was doubtless above that of a domestic. Hence, while in exile, the Duchess d'Angoulême seems to have admitted her to some degree of confidence. The knowledge, however, which she attained from the Duchess, and through other channels, while in this relation to the royal family, of the Rev. Eleazer Williams, as the recognized Dauphin, seems to have been purely accidental, and it is all the more valuable on that account. She testifies that the Duchess d'Angoulême told her, that "She knew the Dauphin was alive and safe in America." The affidavit also proves, that the royal family knew that he was called by the name of Williams; but they said "he was incompetent to reign;" or as detailed more particularly by Mr. Hanson, page 420, "Mrs Brown went on to say, that, according to Mrs. Chamberlain's statement (Mrs. Chamberlain was wife to the Secretary of Count De Coigny,) the subject had been much discussed in the palace, and that the royal family said, Williams was incompetent to reign, and his elevation to the throne would only increase the difficulties of the times-that a man had come out from America to confer with them on the subject, and that she had seen him. Money was given to this man, and he returned to America." Mrs. Brown had often heard in the royal family, that