sted and abstained
throughout the whole of Lent. He thought it right that the queen should
not observe these customs with the same strictness. Though sincerely
pious, the spirit of the age had disposed his mind to toleration. Turgot,
Malesherbes, and Necker judged that this Prince, modest and simple in his
habits, would willingly sacrifice the royal prerogative to the solid
greatness of his people. His heart, in truth, disposed him towards
reforms; but his prejudices and fears, and the clamours of pious and
privileged persons, intimidated him, and made him abandon plans which his
love for the people had suggested.

Monsieur--

[During his stay at Avignon, Monsieur, afterwards Louis XVIII, lodged with
the Duc de Crillon; he refused the town-guard which was offered him,
saying, "A son of France, under the roof of a Crillon, needs no
guard."--NOTE BY THE EDITOR.]

had more dignity of demeanour than the King; but his corpulence rendered
his gait inelegant. He was fond of pageantry and magnificence. He
cultivated the belles lettres, and under assumed names often contributed
verses to the Mercury and other papers.

His wonderful memory was the handmaid of his wit, furnishing him with the
happiest quotations. He knew by heart a varied repertoire, from the
finest passages of the Latin classics to the Latin of all the prayers,
from the works of Racine to the vaudeville of "Rose et Colas."

The Comte d'Artoisi had an agreeable countenance, was well made, skilful
in bodily exercises, lively, impetuous, fond of pleasure, and very
particular in his dress. Some happy observations made by him were
repeated with approval, and gave a favourable idea of his heart. The
Parisians liked the open and frank character of this Prince, which they
considered national, and showed real affection for him.

The dominion that the Queen gained over the King's mind, the charms of a
society in which Monsieur displayed his wit, and to which the Comte
d'Artois--[Afterwards Charles X.]--gave life by the vivacity of youth,
gradually softened that ruggedness of manner in Louis XVI. which a
better-conducted education might have prevented. Still, this defect often
showed itself, and, in spite of his extreme simplicity, the King inspired
those who had occasion to speak to him with diffidence. Courtiers,
submissive in the presence of their sovereign, are only the more ready to
caricature him; with little good breeding, they called those answers the