victoire est decidee ce soir.  Pierre a promis; et les Croises se fient a sa parole, comme les Israelites se fiaient a celle de Moise et de Josue.”

As a companion portrait to this, Emily chose to depict Harold on the eve of the battle of Hastings.  It appears to me that her devoir is superior to Charlotte’s in power and in imagination, and fully equal to it in language; and that this, in both cases, considering how little practical knowledge of French they had when they arrived at Brussels in February, and that they wrote without the aid of dictionary or grammar, is unusual and remarkable.  We shall see the progress Charlotte had made, in ease and grace of style, a year later.

In the choice of subjects left to her selection, she frequently took characters and scenes from the Old Testament, with which all her writings show that she was especially familiar.  The picturesqueness and colour (if I may so express it), the grandeur and breadth of its narrations, impressed her deeply.  To use M. Heger’s expression, “Elle etait nourrie de la Bible.”  After he had read De la Vigne’s poem on Joan of Arc, she chose the “Vision and Death of Moses on Mount Nebo” to write about; and, in looking over this devoir, I was much struck with one or two of M. Heger’s remarks.  After describing, in a quiet and simple manner, the circumstances under which Moses took leave of the Israelites, her imagination becomes warmed, and she launches out into a noble strain, depicting the glorious futurity of the Chosen People, as, looking down upon the Promised Land, he sees their prosperity in prophetic vision.  But, before reaching the middle of this glowing description, she interrupts herself to discuss for a moment the doubts that have been thrown on the miraculous relations of the Old Testament.  M. Heger remarks, “When you are writing, place your argument first in cool, prosaic language; but when you have thrown the reins on the neck of your imagination, do not pull her up to reason.”  Again, in the vision of Moses, he sees the maidens leading forth their flocks to the wells at eventide, and they are described as wearing flowery garlands.  Here the writer is reminded of the necessity of preserving a certain verisimilitude:  Moses might from his elevation see mountains and plains, groups of maidens and herds of cattle, but could hardly perceive the details of dress, or the ornaments of the head.

When they had made further progress, M. Heger took up a more advanced plan, that of synthetical teaching.  He would read to them various accounts of the same person or event, and make them notice the points of agreement and disagreement.  Where they were different, he would make them seek the origin of that difference by causing them to examine well into the character and position of each separate writer, and how they would be likely to affect his conception of truth.  For instance, take Cromwell.  He would read Bossuet’s description of him in the “Oraison