vernment and politics of different states. Its name he supposes to be derived from the two Greek words aupi and I, or xhen, referring to the inhabitants of the country round about, who met in council; his words are, Les peuples Amphictyoniques, ou circonvoisins, suivant la véritable étymologie de ce mot;'-and he in course rejects the idea of Amphictyon being the founder. He denies that they had any authority or influence in the public transactions of Greece, or that they gave audience to ambassadors, or interposed in the government of the different republics; he confines the object of their institution, and their power, to the care of the temple at Delphi, to the regulation of religious ceremonies, and to the disposal of rewards to those who excelled in the two sister arts of poetry and music. Contests between independent republics were, according to other writers, always esteemed proper objects of the jurisdiction of the Amphictyonic assemblies; though the superintendency of the religion of the Greek nation was more particularly their office. They had authority to fine any Amphictyonie state, and, in case of non-compliance with their injunction, even to levy forces, and to make war on the disobedient. They never condescended to take cognizance of difputes between private individuals; their proceedings were generally conducted with prudence and dignity; and their decrees, notwithstanding that they were sometimes unable to enforce them, were always highly respected. Such are the different provinces allotted to the constituent members of the Amphictyonic assemblies, and such the powers with which they were invested, in the judgment of several of the antient writers, and of Stanyan, Leland, Prideau, Gillies, and Mitford, among the moderns. The latter writer concludes his account of the Calaurean Confederacy with the following observation, which distinctly proves his opinion of these councils being of a political nature: "Among the circumstances of Grecian history, as nothing more marks the general character of the national politics, so nothing will more deserve the consideration of the modern politician, than the various attempts toward federal union among the republics, and the inefficacy of those attempts.” (Vol. i. p. 298.) Dr. Gillies represents the members of these councils as being entrusted with the civil and religious concerns of their constituents; and though he allows " that every excess of animosity prevailed among the Grecian republics, notwithstanding the interposition of the Amphictyons, yet it cannot be doubted (he adds) that their authority tended sometimes to appease, sometimes to moderate contention; and that this respected tribunal, though though deficient in coercive power, had a considerable effect to suppress discord, and restrain the barbarities of war." Amid these opposite sentiments respecting this curious and interesting subject, M. SAINTE- CROIX does not stand unsupported and alone; M. M. de Valois, De Pauw, and Barthé lémy, concur with him in opinion, and nearly reduce the members of this council to church-wardens of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. Freqt thinks that the principal object of their insti tution was the care of the national religion; or at most to compel the general observance of some established rules of natural law, which cannot be transgressed without doing an essential injury to the cause of religion. In this latter division of their duties, the present writer opposes Frettt: he asserts that, unfortunately for the Greeks, no federal union took place among them till the formation of the Achæan league. Of this confederacy, which was formed by the wisdom and abilities of Aratus in the 124th Olympiad, and continued and supported by the valour and political talents of Philopomen, the author gives an interesting history; and he infers, from the expressions used on the subject by Plutarch and Polybius, that the Achæan league was the first instance of a federal union to be found among the independent republics of Greece. It must be allowed that the writer's arguments are ingenious, plausible, and illustrated with considerable erudition: but still they are not convincing; and we remain of opinion that the members of the Amphictyonic Councils had duties both of a civil and a religious nature to discharge. A Dissertation on the laws and policy of the Cretans concludes the volume. Here the author considers the origin of this singular and virtuous people, and gives an account of their first legislators, and of their respective regulations; those regulations which were introduced and adopted in Athens by Theseus, and incorporated with the laws of Sparta by Lycurgus; which were the admiration of the antient world, and were considered as the productions of a god:- possessing the wisdom of a divine original, they attained the power of a divine command. The amiable Fenelon, in his delightful history of the Adventures of Telemachus, which requires only the form of verse to render it an exquisite Epic Poem, has made considerable use of these famed and valuable institutions. A comparison between these laws and those of Lacedæmon is here subjoined to this part of the subject. M. SAINTE-CROIX has chosen interesting topics of discussion, and such as required great learning, deep historical research, Gillies's Hist. of Greece, zd edit. vol. i. p. 109. and and dispassionate good-sense, unfettered by the love of system. His work decidedly shews that he is possessed, in no common degree, of those rare but necessary qualifications. S.R. ART. XI. Histoire de Catherine, &c. i. e. The History of Catherine II. Empress of Russia. By J. CASTERA. With 16 Portraits, elegantly engraved. 8vo. 3 Vols. Paris. 1799. Imported by De Boffe, London. Price 11. 4s. T HIS is a second edition, considerably enlarged, of the work which we formerly reviewed under the title of Vie de Catherine II. (see Appendix to Rev. vol. xxiv. p. 543-) which was then generally supposed to be the work of M. Ségur, formerly ambassador from France to the court of St. Petersburg, and by whom, it now appears, a great part of the materials were furnished. For the amplifications found in this edition, the author acknowleges himself principally indebted to the English work which has been so much approved by the public under the same title. (See Rev. vol. xxvi. p. 266.) He has judiciously omitted the pretended correspondence at the beginning of the former edition, and has supplied the place of it with some account of the population of Russia, the origin of the Russians, and an abridgment of their history prior to the accession of the house of Romanof, and thence to the reign of Elizabeth daughter of Peter I. At the end of the work, he has added a few particulars concerning the present state of the country, from which we shall take the following extract as a sufficient specimen : The feudal system still subsists in Russia in all its force: but Montesquieu mistakes in affirming that the natives of the country are all either lords or slaves, and that there was no tiers-état *. There are in reality among the Russians three distinct classes: that of the nobles; that of the men not noble †, who belong to nobody; and that of the mugikes, or serfs, who form more thau three-fourths of the population. The nobles are divided into the great and the little nobility. The former enjoyed very great privileges, several of which still remain. They were in possession of all the grand fiefs; in war they had the command of the inferior nobility, and could go from the service of one grand-prince into that of another, without being accused of felony; in short, they had the right of being judged by their own bailiffs in conjunction with the magistrates of the sovereign. Tzar Ivan Vassillievitch curtailed the prerogatives of this order of nobility. Feodor Alexievitch treated them still more harshly. man. Esprit des Loix. They are called in Russ, Odnodvortzi.' Irritated Irritated by their pretensions, and by the disorders which they eccasioned in the armies, he ordered them to bring to him all the charters of their privileges; which having obtained, he threw them! into the fire, declaring that in future the titles of nobility among his subjects should be founded only on personal merit, and not on birth. The names of the nobles were then inscribed in two public registers, one containing those of the great, the other those of the little nobility. The inferior order of nobles comprehends the boyars, those descending from noble or ennobled families, and persons who obtain titles from services or favour. The persons not noble are the free peasants who cultivate their own grounds, and, without enjoying the privileges of nobility, partake in its burdens. Like the most brutal vassals, these peasants regard the monarch as a deity, and give him that title *. There are about five and twenty thousand other free peasants, who furnish nothing towards the support of the militia who guard the frontiers, but have the right of purchasing an exemption from this service by paying annually two rubles and seventy kopeeks to the crown; and there is a far greater number who pay one ruble and seventy kopeeks, and are still subject to the recruits of the militia. Among the free peasants are comprized the inhabitants of towns employed in commerce, or as artificers: but in that case they enjoy some particular privileges. They elect their own magistrates, who watch over their franchises and settle their disputes: some of them are even exempt from the capitation: but the generality pay it, and are obliged to contribute to the maintenance of the troops. The mugikes or vassals are attached to the glebe. Estates are valued in Russia by the number of men belonging to them†, each man being valued at only forty rubles, though he brings his master at least from five to ten rubles annually. The life of the vassal belongs to the state: but his person, his furniture, and his cattle are the property of the lord . The rights of the proprietors over the vassals are unlimited, and they too often abuse them so far as to put persons to death. The class of vassals, thus degraded and oppressed, forms however more than nineteen twentieths of the whole population of Russia. The nobles employ the greater part of their vassals in the cultivation of their grounds, selecting the most intelligent for their domestics, or putting them to learn some trade. By this mode, neither their servants nor their workmen cost them any thing. The male vassals pay the government a capitation-tax of seventy kopeeks out of their own earnings; the women pay nothing. Calling him Zemnoï-bog, terrestrial god.' The Accordingly, there are some very rich lords in Russia. Prince Potemkin possessed two hundred thousand peasants.' Some masters, though not many, allow their peasants to dispose of the fruit of their industry.' PP 3 masters, masters, exempt from all imposts, are only obliged to furnish soldiers for recruiting the militia and the armies. The Russian peasants are ignorant, and extremely superstitious: but this is owing to their education, and to the slavery in which they live, as they rarely fail of succeeding in whatever they are intended to be taught. Among them are very expert smiths, carpenters, and joiners; who, with their adze only, execute the most difficult works. Nothing can be more curious than, at the forming of a regiment, to see the colonel take a review of his new soldiers, telling each of them, as chance directs, the trade which he is to follow. They are not allowed to ask for a different vocation from that assigned to them, as they would only be answered by a sound caning: but they immediately obey; the shoemaker becomes cartwright, the painter a taylor, and all at the will of the despot. The Russian nobles, being generally as barbarous as their peasants are docile, often require of these poor wretches thinga which are utterly impossible, and punish them very severely when they are not satisfied with the performance. The remonstrances, the indignation, the ridicule, of some more enlightened person is vainly applied to correct their brutish stupidity *. Notwithstanding this, the peasants remain faithfully attached to their masters. If they happen to testify their dissatisfaction, they are sent off among the recruits which they are obliged to furnish; and this the peasants dread more than any thing. The Russian peasants have in general the same spirit of servitude, and the same manners: but their character differs according to the nature of the climate, and the example of the surrounding nations. From a great number of anecdotes descriptive of the character of these nobles, I shall only cite two. A boyar, who lived in the country, it is reported, had sent to Mosco one of his domestics to learn house-painting. At the expiration of some months, the servant returned, and employed the talent which he had acquired in the decoration of some of the buildings, to the great satisfaction of his master. One day, he called the man, and ordered him directly to paint the portrait of his wife. The poor domestic excused himself, by alleging that he had learned to paint doors, windows, and walls, but not limning: the boyar, however, caused him to be cruelly flogged, saying, that he had laid out his money to a fine purpose truly, in the instruction of a scoundrel who would not paint his wife's picture.-Another noble Russian employed a musician to teach. one of his vassals to sound the French horn. Some days afterward, he asked the musician whether the boor made much progress: the musician answered, No, and that he had not yet even the method of filling it. Very well, replied the nobleman; let him be called. The rustic was brought in, and fifty strokes of the scourge were administered: "There, take that, for not having yet, in a whole week, got the art of filling the horn. If you have it not by to-morrow, you shall have the punishment repeated." The |