-for the boyar was not actually slain when his daughter was carried off from him-were dedicated to contrition and prayer.

From this mere outline of the plot, our readers will be able to judge how far the work possesses that kind of interest, which arises from the events that form the ground work of the story. It must be confessed that it does not exhibit any extraordinary prodigality of invention, much complexity of intrigue, or great variety of situation. The two first volumes, in fact, are solely occupied with Yuri's journey to Nishnei Novogorod, and his interview with the leaders of the patriotic party in that city; and we are detained chiefly by the adventures in which Kirsha is involved, in which the author has certainly displayed a good deal of cleverness and skilful management; for these, trivial as they at first seem to be―mere vehicles for scenes descriptive of the manners of the times and people,—they are attended with important consequences. Still it may be doubted whether they are not rather too lengthy, and might not very advantageously have been kept down a little, especially as in their present form they seem to have engaged more of the author's consideration than the actual historical events and characters, which are proportionably thrown too much into the back ground. These latter, indeed, are so far from being interwoven into the rest of the story, as to be little more than mere episodes, capable of being suppressed altogether, without either materially altering or abridging the narrative. Instead of consisting in action, the historical interest is chiefly thrown into dialogue, as in the conversation which passes at the postoyaloi dvor, given in one of our extracts. Of the Poles themselves we see very little, and Gonsovsky is not once brought upon the scene, although we think that he might have been made a very serviceable personage, by linking more closely together what is matter of history with the subject-matter of the romance. Of Pozharsky, again, the use that has been made extends to little more than that of his name; which, however judicious on the part of the author, if he felt conscious of a want of power to bring forward this historical personage with proper effect, affords but a negative kind of satisfaction to the reader.

Nevertheless, aware how very difficult it must be to combine such stubborn materials as historical characters and events, with those of mere invention, to reconcile the interest growing out of the former with that we expect to meet with in the latter, we are disposed to make some allowance; neither do we know that we are warranted in demanding from any writer what he does not profess to perform. For our own part, we have been sufficiently well pleased with this novel, as it has pleased the author to give it; nor do we like it the less, for its supplying so many minor

traits of national customs and national feelings, which by the mere novel reader may be considered insipid, if not tedious. To say the truth, in the first portion of the narrative there is scarcely any thing of adventure, save those scenes in which Kirsha is the chief actor; the rest consisting of what, by way of distinction, may be termed occurrences, and of dialogues and descriptions, which, although well drawn and vigorously coloured, contribute little to the real progress of the story. This may be said to be almost confined to the third volume, where the plot begins to thicken, and the events succeed each other more rapidly; so that the interest of the tale increases as it draws near to its conclusion, and is so well kept up, that we are still in the midst of seemingly inextricable perplexity and embarrassment, when but a few pages remain to decide the final issue and the fate of the two lovers.

We are by no means surprised at the popularity this production has obtained in Russia, for there it may be considered as a first rate performance; elsewhere, a somewhat lower rank would be assigned to it,-in this country at least, if not in Germany, for some of the critics there have spoken of it in far more laudatory terms than many of those in Russia itself. One of them indeed, has even gone so far as to assert that it possesses all the excellencies of Sir Walter Scott, without his defects; an eulogium to which, however gratified we have been with it, we cannot possibly subscribe.

Our readers will perhaps bear with us a little longer, while we say a few words respecting Zagoskin's second romance," Roslavlev, or the Russians in 1812." This is intended by the author to serve as a pendant to "Miloslavsky;" both productions being equally national in their subjects, and each of them commemorating a very important epoch in the destinies of Russia. In both instances the people signalized themselves by their patriotism, and the issue of events proved no less fortunate than glorious. Hence there is a certain similarity in the general course of the two narratives, which has caused the writer to be reproached by some for want of originality-or rather of variety, and of selecting a subject too much akin to the one he had previously treated-hinging too much upon precisely the same interests, the same feelings, and the same class of events. To us such objections appear not a little hypercritical, since we do not see why a writer should be more censured for producing two "companion" works, than an artist for painting two companion pictures. Besides that the facts themselves, considered merely as such, and not in relation to their course and final issue, are altogether unlike, the two periods chosen by the author are separated by a chasm of two centuries-no inconsiderable interval in itself, and in the

present instance one in which Russia had risen to unprecedented greatness, and acquired an important influence in the Western world. It cannot, indeed, be asserted, that the national character had undergone a corresponding change; yet although its spirit remained nearly the same, the forms under which it manifested itself were sufficiently altered to afford that æsthetic contrast which the critic requires. "Miloslavsky" has one advantage over "Roslavlev," inasmuch as the distance of time naturally imparts to it a romantic hue, and by rendering the objects themselves somewhat vague and indistinct, leaves the writer more at liberty to draw upon his imagination in the delineation of them, without being taxed with incorrectness. The latter novel, on the contrary, while it recommends itself by a more universal interest, which will undoubtedly obtain for it readers among those who are perfectly indifferent to the revolution that placed the house of Romanov on the throne of Moscow, touches too much upon the "newspaper" events of our times to admit of much poetical colouring, without impairing the main-or what ought to be the main interest of the work. Instead of resigning ourselves without reserve to the novelist, we ask ourselves at every step of the narrative, whether, in such parts at least as are professedly historical, it is conformable with actual record? We seem eager to turn to a file of Gazettes to ascertain whether we ought to be pleased or not, and are more apt to be dissatisfied than the contrary, whenever we fancy that the author has ventured to embellish the truth. Even that terrific scene in which Napoleon and his staff are on the point of perishing amidst the flames of Moscow, loses somewhat of its effect in consequence of this disagreeable scepticism. In fact M. Zagoskin himself appears to have felt the difficulty of satisfying the novel reader and the newspaper reader at one and the same time-of amalgamating fact with fiction. Hence his second novel does not possess the unity of his first. It is rather a series of episodes than a well-organized ensemble, all the parts of which mutually depend on each other. The novel itself may indeed be said to terminate with the second volume, the remaining one consisting almost entirely of scenes, which, however masterly, considered as sketches of national manners in various classes of society, have but a very arbitrary connection with the story that forms the ground-work of the romance. Still we should be sorry to part with these hors d'œuvres-nay, should give them up very reluctantly, even were the author to supply their place by what would enhance the reputation of "Roslavlev" as a work of imagination. We hope, however, that this is but the beginning of M. Zagoskin's career in this department of literature; and flatter ourselves that we may yet be indebted to

We hope, too, that

him for much amusement and information. at no very distant period it will be in our power to speak of another Russian novelist, who has just risen upon the literary horizon, and to bear our testimony to the merits which seem to announce a distinguished reputation for Lazhetchnikov.

ART. V.-The Times, January 7th, 1833.

A KIND of demi-official vindication of the Prussian system of commercial policy was published in the number of the Times which we have placed at the head of this article. It was principally, we believe, intended as a reply to the remarks we made on that system in Article XI. of our Number for May last year. Such of our readers as take any interest in these matters will probably remember that our article had a twofold object in viewfirst, to show that Prussia was endeavouring to establish an anticommercial and anti-social system, by attempting to raise at home products which she might more cheaply and advantageously buy from others; and second, that she was endeavouring to force this system on the surrounding German states; and that in pursuance of this, the most objectionable part of her policy, she had prevailed on some of the sovereigns in her neighbourhood to assign to her the privilege of collecting their customs duties, and even of appointing Prussian officers for that purpose. These were our statements, and we now repeat them. The writer who

has replied to us takes no notice of the policy of Prussia towards the other German states. He knows that the facts we stated are incontrovertible; and he prudently enough has left it to others to show how a state that allows its revenue to be collected by foreigners can be deemed independent. In fact, this defender of the commercial policy of Prussia does not say a single word in its vindication, unless his attacks on the British system may be regarded as such. He does not say that Prussia has done well; but that whatever may be her errors, they are outdone by those of England. Although, however, we admit that many parts of our commercial policy are exceedingly objectionable, we altogether deny that it possesses that exclusive character which now belongs to the Prussian system: all the world knows that during the last ten years we have been progressively relaxing the restraints previously laid on importation, while the Prussians have been as constantly augmenting theirs.

The Prussian vindicator complains of our high duties on many articles. But he forgets that our duties must be high, because though the population of England does not differ materially from that of Prussia, her inhabitants must pay at least ten times as large

an amount of taxes! The question is not whether our duties are high, but whether they are imposed for the sake of protection, or in order to benefit ourselves at the expense of foreigners. Now, except in a few instances, which are every day becoming rarer, we contend that they are entirely imposed for the sake of revenue. The vindicator complains, for example, of our high duties on tobacco, and we are firmly of opinion that they would be more productive were they reduced; but is this duty, like the Prussian duties on coffee and sugar, imposed in order to force the growth of some worthless substitute at home? No such thing! The apologist should have known that the growth of tobacco in the British dominions is prohibited; and that if we do not import tobacco from Prussia, it is because it is quite inferior to that of Virginia, and not on account of discriminating duties. He also complains of our high customs duty on hops; but he forgets that the hops raised at home are burdened with an oppressive excise duty; and it is no part of sound policy to put foreigners in a better situation than ourselves. The great articles of import into England from Prussia, are corn, wool, timber, and wine. As might be expected, the vindicator is loud in his complaints of our corn laws; and we certainly are not of the number of those who will undertake their defence. At the same time, however, we must say that he has singularly misrepresented, or is exceedingly ignorant, of the operation and influence of these laws. We imported between the 15th of July, 1828, and the 1st of July, 1831, no fewer than 7,263,184 quarters of foreign corn, exclusive of 1,812,905 cwt. of foreign flour. Of these imports, wheat, of which the greatest part was supplied by Prussia, formed 4,620,020 quarters, the average duty paid upon this immense importation being exactly 6s. id. per quarter! The average price of wheat in England during the period referred to, was about 64s., so that the duty was really under 10 per cent. No doubt the duty on foreign corn has been for several months past very high, but this is quite immaterial to Prussia; for our prices are at this moment so low, that though our ports were open at a fixed duty of бs., we should hardly import a single bushel. We admit, and have contended, that our corn laws are pernicious; but they are so in a far greater degree to the home growers and consumers than to foreigners.

With respect to wool, what has Prussia to object to? We admit it at a duty varying from d. to 1d. per lb.: If this do not satisfy her, she must be very unreasonable.

The timber duty is certainly most objectionable. But the Prussian apologist ought to know that it was supported by a faction in parliament, in despite of the efforts of the government and