expression. The sharp lines of demarcation between class and class are
stated with the frankness that comes of a belief that the then existing
social fabric was the only one possible in the best of worlds. There is
no doubt in the author's mind as to the rightful position of king and
baron, of bishp and merchant. The "rights of man" had not been invented,
apparently, and the maxim that the king reigns but does not govern,
would have perplexed the souls of Cessoles and his translators. They had
no more doubt as to the divine right of the monarch, than the Thibetan
has of the divine right of the grand lama. The Buddhist thinks he has
secured the continuous re-appearance of supernatural wisdom in human
form, and the regular transmission of political ability in the same
family was the ideal for which the devotees of mediæval despotism had to
hope. Nothing could be further from the aspirations of our author than a
race of mere palace kings seeking enjoyment only in self-indulgence. The
king was to be the ruler and leader of his people. The relation and
interdependence of the several classes is emphatically proclaimed, and
the claims of duty are urged upon each.

The book enables us to gauge the literary culture of the thirteenth,
fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries. Poor as it may now seem, it
belonged, in those days, to the "literature of power," and had great
influence. The form is one which lent itself readily to poetic and
historic illustration, and indeed demanded such treatment. The authors
and translators were chiefly learned and distinguifhed ecclesiastics.
Caxton, the representative of the new time when literature was to be the
common heritage, was filled to overflowing with the best literature then
accessible. A writer of the present century, probably borrowing his
sentiment, has defined originality to be undetected imitation. Such
refinements were unknown to Cessoles and his contemporaries. A writer
took whatever suited his purpose from any and every source that was open