type as many of the revolutionary leaders during the French reign of terror. His name is Pancras, which name, from the Greek, signifies the union of all material or brute forces. It is not by cliance he received that name. The profound truth in which this character is conceived is also manifested in his distrust of himself, in his hesitation. As he is acting from false principles, he cannot deceive himself into that enthusiastic faith with which he would fain inspire his disciples. He confides in Leonard because he is in possession of that precious quality.
His monologue is very fine; perhaps it stands next in rank to that of Hamlet. It opens to us the strange secrets of the irresolution and vacillation which have always characterized the men who have been called upon by fate alone to undertake vast achievements. In proof of this, it is well known that Cromwell was anxious to conceal the doubts and fears which constantly harassed him. It was those very doubts and fears which led him to see and re-see so frequently the dethroned Charles, and which at last drove the conscience-stricken Puritan into the sepulchre of the decapitated king, that he might gaze into the still face of the royal victim whose death he had himself effected. Did the sad face of the dead calm the fears of the living?
It is well known that Danton addressed to himself the most dreadful reproaches. Even at the epoch of his greatest power, Robespierre was greatly annoyed because he could not convince his cook of the justice and permanence of his authority. Men who are sent by Providence only to destroy, feel within them the worm w^hich gnaws forever: it constantly predicts to them, in vague but gloomy presentiments, their own approaching destruction.
A feeling of this nature urges Pancras to seek an interview with his most powerful enemy, the Count; he is anxious to gain the confidence of his adversary, because he cannot feel certain of his own course while a single man of intellectual power exists capable of resisting his ideas. In the interview which occurs between the two antagonistic leaders of the Past and Future, the various questions which divide society, literature, religion, phi-
