ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

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 when

ever I think of it, of Champagne or spark ling 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 Rudiger," or the "Eve of St. John."

66

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 trowsers.

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,

You

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

ZCE.-What good may I have done to poetlings? Such good as may be done by nailing a dead hawk to a barn door! 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 rhyme-or sweetness of rhythin.

VOL. III.-14

THE LOST PRINCE.

[We shall probably not again be called upon to give place to another article on the subject of the Dauphin, and we only do so now in justice to our readers, whose curiosity has been excited by the two previous articles from Mr. Hanson, and who may consider themselves entitled to know all the developments which have been made in this strange history since his last communication. The first article which we published on this subject, "Have we a Bourbon amongst us?" was introduced by a letter from one of the most distinguished clergymen of the Episcopal Church, vouching for the respectability and disinterested zeal of the author, and the fol lowing review is by another eminent clergyman of the same church, who, as will be seen, has had the advantage of knowing Mr. Williams from his boyhood, and whose testimony is boyond the suspicion of sinister motives or partisan zeal.-ED. P. M.]

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. 1804. 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 un known.

5. In the same year, 1795, two Frenchmen, one of them having the appearance of a Roman Catholic priest, brought "a 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. To 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

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 office, 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 EngA. FULTON, J. P.

lish.

"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 Secre tary 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

Bellanger was the name of the man who carried the Dauphin to America. Mrs. Brown was an old and retired lady, had passed through many trying vicissitudes of life, and had nothing more to hope for from the world, being on the borders of the grave, and dying of a cancer in the breast. Her testimony is simple, and apparently honest. It is entirely independent of all other sources; and yet, so far as it goes, it is perfectly coincident with the history of Mr. Williams' life. She was never before acquainted with any body, except the members of the royal family, who knew any thing about Mr. Williams. This, certainly, is a very remarkable fact. The name of Williams she knew well as being that under which the Dauphin was known to the royal family; but his Christian name she had forgotten. When asked if it were Joseph, or Aaron, or some others, she promptly said, No; but when Eleazer was mentioned, her memory seemed to brighten up, and she said, "It seems to me it was Eleazer." If Mrs. Brown's evidence is to be received, it proves, that the history of Mr. Williams was as well known to the royal family, as to any of those who have been personally acquainted with him all his life in this country. It is probable, from all accounts, that the Duchess d'Angoulême, while a young person, supposed her brother the Dauphin was dead. But the Duke de Provence, who came to the throne as Louis the Eighteenth, who plotted against his brother, Louis the Sixteenth, in the progress of the Revolution, and who is supposed to have intrigued to get Bellanger into the Tower, in charge of the Dauphin, is known to have had the care of his niece till her marriage; and it were strange, if he could not prepare her mind, after the horrors of the Revolution were chiefly obliterated, and when she herself was interested in the exclusion of the Dauphin from the throne, to receive the intelligence, that her brother was yet alive, but in a condition that unfitted him for the assumption of regal power. But the Duchess was not a Lady Macbeth, and conscience will always work in tender minds. It is in evidence, that she went down to the grave with a weighty sorrow upon her heart.

Mrs. Brown never had supposed that the information she possessed on this subject could be of any practical importance. She obtained it accidentally, and had occasionally spoken of Mr. Williams accidentally. Mrs. Reid had heard her speak of him for the last fifteen years, as an interesting item in the history of the royal family, in which she sympathized; but

neither she nor her auditors ever supposed that any thing would come of it. All this -and it is by no means inconsiderableis manifestly a distinct and independent chapter in the field of evidence on this subject; and being perfectly and even strikingly coincident with all the rest, it adds to the sum of probabilities belonging to the question a quantity of great weight and force. It is more especially important, as it shows, first, that the royal family never had any doubt that Mr. Williams was the Dauphin; and next, that they have never failed to keep themselves well informed about him. Admitting these facts, the theory of the case supposes that he was sent here to get rid of him, and that, so long as this purpose could be maintained, there was humanity enough in the family to take some interest in his obscure and humble fortunes, and in an indirect way, and by occult agencies, to administer occasionally to his support and comfort. It will be seen, also, that this theory tallies exactly with the interest in Mr. Williams shown by the Louis Philippe family, and with the alleged mission of the Prince de Joinville to Green Bay.

We will now return to propositions laid down by us, in the former part of this article.

1. The Dauphin did not die in the Temple. The evidence on this point must, we think, now be regarded as conclusive. Mr. Hanson has collected and arranged it most satisfactorily. It amounts to demonstration. We may perhaps say, that the instincts of historical acumen have long since decided this point against the alleged death of the Dauphin in the Temple; or rather, they have never been able to entertain it as a fact. Even to superficial observers, it has always seemed, more or less, as a got up affair, or political trick played off on the public. In view of the alleged facts of the case, wrapped in so much obscurity, no strong mind has ever been satisfied with the procès verbal ordered and sanctioned by the Convention. The theory of the Dauphin's escape supposes that the Duke de Provence had, by his intrigues, outwitted the Convention. The Duke had got rid of his brother, Louis XVI., as he had wished, without having the responsibility of his decapitation; and the only obstacle now in his way to the throne was the Dauphin. But Dessaux, the first physician in all France, had pronounced that his disease was not incurable, and that with proper treatment, he might get well; or, as the Duchess d' Angoulême says, "he undertook to cure him." Dessaux suddenly dies, with rumors whispered

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »