University Magazine" for September, 1844, in a review of Carleton's "Traits and Stories :"

"Her features are by no means regular; she dances with much more esprit than elegance."

The writer no doubt meant to describe the lady as dancing with liveliness, vivacity, animation, and he might have clearly expressed his idea by either of those terms. Instead of which he resorts to a foreign expression, and tells us that the lady had her wit in her heels; for, to dance with esprit has no other meaning.

Macaulay, in his "Essay on the Athenian Orators," condescends to repeat a pretended jeu-demots on the title of Montesquieu's great work :

"It was happily said that Montesquieu ought to have changed the name of his book from 'L'Esprit des Lois' to 'L'Esprit sur les Lois.'"

I believe it could be shown by numerous instances that the temptation of punning has been a stumbling-block to many men of the greatest genius. For them, no less than for the inferior aspirant to literary distinction, a quibble has its attractions; and some have been so far led astray by the false glitter, as to forfeit their reputation for sagacity and wisdom. The excess to which Shakspeare has indulged in this species of trifling is perhaps the greatest blemish in his works. It gives an air of conceit to some of Bacon's finest thoughts; and here we have that admirable

writer, Macaulay, quoting one of its vilest samples, and, what is worse, characterizing it as a "happy saying." In point of fact, what is the meaning of "L'Esprit sur les Lois ?" Did it ever occur to the person who proposed it as an appropriate title for Montesquieu's work, or to Macaulay, who echoes the suggestion, that this happy saying is sheer nonsense?

One of the meanings of "esprit " is "ingeniousness;" and it is probably in that sense that Macaulay would have us understand it in

66

L'Esprit sur les Lois." But he forgets that it ceases to have that signification the moment the article le is prefixed to it. In the title of Montesquieu's work, the words "l'esprit" are employed in the sense of "the scope," the "guiding principle," "the fundamental idea;" and the substitution of "sur les" for "des" would not affect the meaning of "esprit." The change would only be from one preposition to another, with this material difference, that, while "l'esprit des lois " is perfectly intelligible, "l'esprit sur les lois" has no meaning at all. True, by placing the preposition de before the article, we come across the meaning which is akin to ingeniousness or wit. "De l'esprit sur les lois," however absurd as the title of a book, would be intelligible as part of a sentence. Thus we might say, "Montesquieu a fait de l'esprit sur les lois en traitant des lois;" but no one,

with the slightest notion of French, would propose as a title for any possible book, a mode of speech so utterly meaningless as "L'Esprit sur les Lois.'

There are two other expressions in French which require to be carefully discriminated by foreign writers; namely, "arrêt" and "arrêté.” The former is applied to the judgments or decisions of a court of justice, and is, strictly speaking, a legal term. The latter is employed to express the decrees or orders emanating from legislative or police authorities, and belongs to political phraseology. It is impossible to read three French state-papers without noticing this distinction; and yet, Sir A. Alison, who must have perused almost every document connected with the great revolution, confounds these terms throughout his "History of Europe." He talks of "the arrêt of the First Consul; ""the arrêt establishing arms of honour;" "the arrêt for Fouché's dismissal," &c.; and by that term, instead of "arrêté," he commonly describes the orders and regulations of the French Council of State and other political bodies.

The same writer, speaking of the reception of the Allied Sovereigns in Paris in 1814, says :

"The enthusiasm of the multitude knew no bounds. Cries of 'Vive l'Empereur Alexandre!' 'Vive le Roi de Prusse!' Vivent les Alliés!' 'Vivent notres Libérateurs!' burst from all sides."-History of Europe.

Sir A. Alison knows enough of French to be aware that "our deliverer" may be translated into that language, "notre libérateur;" and he fancies that, to put the same words in the plural, he has only to add an s to each; forgetting that the correct plural of "notre" is "nos."

63

Farther on we meet with another sample :

Turning to Bertrand he said, 'Tout à présent est fini! sauvons nous.'

Which Alison translates thus:

"All is now over, let us save ourselves.'

The literal meaning of "sauver" is "to save,' but it also signifies "to run away"—"to escape;" and it was in the latter sense that Napoleon employed it, when he addressed the above words to Bertrand after the battle of Waterloo. The correct English of the phrase is: "All is now over; let us be off."

So long as this blundering is confined to mere verbal inaccuracy, it is harmless enough; but it sometimes goes the length of perverting historical truth, and then it becomes peculiarly offensive. The following passage in the same writer is an instance in point. He is describing the effervescence caused in Paris by the flight of Louis XVI. and the royal family, in June 1791, and continues thus:

"Marat announced in his Journal that a general insurrection was indispensable; in a few days the sanguinary monarch would return at the head of a numerous army and a hundred guns, to

destroy the city by red-hot shot; and Freron thundered in the 'Orateur du Peuple' against the infamous queen, who united the profligacy of Messalina to the bloodthirstiness of the Medici."

When we speak of the "Medici" as a family, we allude to the great characters who have rendered that name illustrious; such as Cosmo, Lorenzo the Magnificent, Leo X., &c. With the wisdom and virtues by which they were distinguished, we are all familiarly acquainted through the able writings of Roscoe; but, until Sir A. Alison published his "History of Europe," no one had ever heard of their bloodthirstiness! Fortunately, however, for their fame, the historian has given in a foot-note the words of Freron, from which I find that the allusion is not to the Medici, as a family, but to one person who bore that name, viz. Catherine de' Medici (or, as the French write it, Medicis), the mother of Charles IX., and the instigator of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew. Freron's words are:

"Il est parti ce roi imbécile, ce roi parjure, cette reine scélérate qui réunit la lubricité de Messaline à la soif du sang qui dévorait Medicis. Femme exécrable, Furie de la France, c'est toi qui étais l'âme du complot."-FRERON. L'Orateur du Peuple, No. 46.

It is inconceivable to what extent the facts of history are perverted or misstated through the ignorance of translators. If Freron had wished to speak of the Medici, he would have said “les Medicis;" but by using the expression Medicis,