the description of a virtuous people, become wise by misfortunes—­a piece worthy of the portico.  In another place, he represents philosophy, long silenced, suddenly reappearing, regaining rapidly the time which she had lost; penetrating even among the Russians at the voice of a genius which invites her; while among other people of Europe, superstition, like a thick atmosphere, prevents the all-surrounding light from reaching them.  Finally, by his review of ancient and modern government, he presents us with the bud of those bright ideas since fully developed in his great work.

These different subjects, no longer novel, as when the ‘Persian Letters’ first appeared, will forever remain original—­a merit the more real that it proceeds alone from the genius of the writer; for Usbec acquired, during his abode in France, so perfect a knowledge of our morals, and so strong a tincture of our manners, that his style makes us forget his country.  This small solecism was perhaps not unintentional.  While exposing our follies and vices, he meant, no doubt, to do justice to our merits.  Avoiding the insipidity of a direct panegyric, he has more delicately praised us by assuming our own air in professed satire.

Notwithstanding the success of his work, M. de Montesquieu did not acknowledge it.  Perhaps he wished to escape criticism.  Perhaps he wished to avoid a contrast of the frivolity of the ‘Persian Letters’ with the gravity of his office; a sort of reproach which critics never fail to make, because it requires no sort of effort.  But his secret was discovered, and the public suggested his name for the Academy.  The event justified M. de Montesquieu’s silence.  Usbec expresses himself freely, not concerning the fundamentals of Christianity, but about matters which people affect to confound with Christianity itself:  about the spirit of persecution which has animated so many Christians; about the temporal usurpation of ecclesiastical power; about the excessive multiplication of monasteries, which deprive the State of subjects without giving worshipers to God; about some opinions which would fain be established as principles; about our religious disputes, always violent and often fatal.  If he appears anywhere to touch upon questions more vital to Christianity itself, his reflections are in fact favorable to revelation, because he shows how little human reason, left to itself, knows.

Among the genuine letters of M. de Montesquieu the foreign printer had inserted some by another hand.  Before the author was condemned, these should have been thrown out.  Regardless of these considerations, hatred masquerading as zeal, and zeal without understanding, rose and united themselves against the ‘Persian Letters.’  Informers, a species of men dangerous and base, alarmed the piety of the ministry.  M. de Montesquieu, urged by his friends, supported by the public voice, having offered himself for the vacant place of M. de Sacy in the French Academy, the minister