is mind. Of such books, that are strong enough, in some
eminent quality, to work a change and form an epoch in a reader's
life, there are two, perhaps, on our revolutionary shelf. One is
Taine, and the other Michelet.
The fourth work of the revolutionary party, that was written almost
simultaneously with these, is that of Villiaume. Lamartine esteemed
Vergniaud. Louis Blanc esteemed Robespierre, Michelet, Danton.
Villiaume went a step farther, and admired Marat. He had lived much in
the surviving families of revolutionary heroes, and received, he says,
the last breath of an expiring tradition. He had also gathered from
Chateaubriand what he remembered; and Thierry, who was blind, caused
his book to be read to him twice over.
The account of Marat in the 28th volume of Buchez was partly written
by Villiaume, and was approved by Albertine Marat. The great
bibliographical curiosity in the literature of the Revolution is
Marat's newspaper. It was printed often in hiding-places and under
difficulties, and is so hard to find that, a few years ago, the Paris
library did not possess a complete set. A bookseller once told me that
he had sold it to an English statesman for L240. Marat's own copy,
corrected in his handwriting, and enriched with other matter, was
preserved by his sister. In 1835 she made it over to Villiaume, who,
having finished his book, sold it in 1859 for L80 to the collector
Solar. Prince Napoleon afterwards owned it; and at last it made its
way to an ancient Scottish castle, where I had the good fortune to
find it.
* * * * *
Whilst the revolutionary historians, aided by public events, were
predominating in France, the conservatives competed obscurely, and at
first without success. Genoude was for many years editor of the
leading royalist journal, and in that capacity initiated a remarkable
phase of political thought. When the Bourbons were cast out under the
imputation of incurable absolutism, the legitimists found themselves
identified with a grudging liberality and a restricted suffrage, and
stood at a hopeless disadvantage. In the _Gazette de France_ Genoude
at once adopted the opposite policy, and overtrumped the liberal
Orleanists. He argued that a throne which was not occupied by right of
inheritance, as a man holds his estate, could only be made legitimate
by the expressed will of France. Therefore he insisted on an appeal to
the nation, on the sovereignty of the
|