3
point most essential in such inqniries isj to
describe with precision the documents and an*
thorities prodncedj and to establish their an*
thentidty by such evidence, as not the most
practised and de:&terous artifice^ nor the most
shameless connter-asseverationj which are both
to be expected, can elude or demolish. And
in this point, all the preceding writers, although
entitled to the praise of having communicated
mnch valnable information, have yet, in va-
rious degrees, egregiously and unaccountably
failed.
The first author, who may be said not to
have £uled, is Prosper Marchand^ in his Die-
tionaire Historique, Sec. published ia 1759,
under the word Tax», &c« : and that article
certainly exhibits the fullest, the most correct,
and, in all respects^ the best and most satis-
factory, account to be found, of the extraor-
dinary documents under consideration* This
praise has not been wrested from it even by the
edition of Du f inet's Taxe published at Paris
so lately as 1820, and which, instead of ad-
vancing in information, has actuaUy retro-
graded, and left ns more ignorant than we were
when Marchand wrote. It were well if defects
alone were chargeable npon this reprint. Its
