bespierrist. He expressed approval of the
condemnation of the King, the most violent decrees, the worship of the
Supreme Being. Bouvard preferred that of Nature. He would have saluted
with pleasure the image of a big woman pouring out from her breasts to
her adorers not water but Chambertin.

In order to have more facts for the support of their arguments they
procured other works: Montgaillard, Prudhomme, Gallois, Lacretelle,
etc.; and the contradictions of these books in no way embarrassed them.
Each took from them what might vindicate the cause that he espoused.

Thus Bouvard had no doubt that Danton accepted a hundred thousand crowns
to bring forward motions that would destroy the Republic; while in
Pecuchet's opinion Vergniaud would have asked for six thousand francs a
month.

"Never! Explain to me, rather, why Robespierre's sister had a pension
from Louis XVIII."

"Not at all! It was from Bonaparte. And, since you take it that way, who
is the person that a few months before Egalite's death had a secret
conference with him? I wish they would reinsert in the _Memoirs of La
Campan_ the suppressed paragraphs. The death of the Dauphin appears to
me equivocal. The powder magazine at Grenelle by exploding killed two
thousand persons. The cause was unknown, they tell us: what nonsense!"
For Pecuchet was not far from understanding it, and threw the blame for
every crime on the manoeuvres of the aristocrats, gold, and the
foreigner.

In the mind of Bouvard there could be no dispute as to the use of the
words, "Ascend to heaven, son of St. Louis," as to the incident about
the virgins of Verdun, or as to the _culottes_ clothed in human skin. He
accepted Prudhomme's lists, a million of victims, exactly.

But the Loire, red with gore from Saumur to Nantes, in a line of
eighteen leagues, made him wonder. Pecuchet in the same degree
entertained doubts, and they began to distrust the historians.

For some the Revolution is a Satanic event; others declare it to be a
sublime exception. The vanquished on each side naturally play the part
of martyrs.

Thierry demonstrates, with reference to the Barbarians, that it is
foolish to institute an inquiry as to whether such a prince was good or
was bad. Why not follow this method in the examination of more recent
epochs? But history must needs avenge morality: we feel grateful to
Tacitus for having lacerated Tiberius. After all, whether the Queen had
lovers; whether Dumouriez, since