A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPEVOLUME I1500-1815 BY CARLTON J. H. HAYES PREFACE This book represents an attempt on the part of the author to satisfy avery real need of a textbook which will reach far enough back to affordsecure foundations for a college course in modern European history. The book is a long one, and purposely so. Not only does it undertake todeal with a period at once the most complicated and the most inherentlyinteresting of any in the whole recorded history of mankind, but itaims to impart sufficiently detailed information about the varioustopics discussed to make the college student feel that he is advanced agrade beyond the student in secondary school. There is too often atendency to underestimate the intellectual capabilities of thecollegian and to feed him so simple and scanty a mental pabulum that hebecomes as a child and thinks as a child. Of course the authorappreciates the fact that most college instructors of history piece outthe elementary textbooks by means of assignments of collateral readingin large standard treatises. All too frequently, however, suchassignments, excellent in themselves, leave woeful gaps which a slenderelementary manual is inadequate to fill. And the student becomes toopainfully aware, for his own educational good, of a chasmal separationbetween his textbook and his collateral reading. The present manual isdesigned to supply a narrative of such proportions that the need ofadditional reading will be somewhat lessened, and at the same time itis provided with critical bibliographies and so arranged as to enablethe judicious instructor more easily to make substitutions here andthere from other works or to pass over this or that section entirely. Perhaps these considerations will commend to others the judgment of theauthor in writing a long book. Nowadays prefaces to textbooks of modern history almost invariablyproclaim their writers' intention to stress recent happenings or atleast those events of the past which have had a direct bearing upon thepresent. An examination of the following pages will show that in thecase of this book there is no discrepancy between such an intention onthe part of the present writer and its achievement. Beginning with thesixteenth century, the story of the civilization of modern Europe iscarried down the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries withconstant _crescendo_. Of the total space devoted to the fourhundred years under review, the last century fills half. And thegreatest care has been taken to bring the story down to date and toindicate as clearly and calmly as possible the underlying causes of thevast contemporaneous European war, which has already put a newcomplexion on our old historical knowledge and made everything thatwent before seem part and parcel of an old regime. As to why the author has preferred to begin the story of modern Europewith the sixteenth century, rather than with the thirteenth or with theFrench Revolution, the reader is specially referred to the_Introduction_. It has seemed to the author that particularly fromthe Commercial Revolution of the sixteenth century dates the remarkableand steady evolution of that powerful middle class--the bourgeoisie--which has done more than all other classes put together to conditionthe progress of the several countries of modern Europe and to createthe life and thought of the present generation throughout the world. The rise of the bourgeoisie is the great central theme of modernhistory; it is the great central theme of this book. Not so very long ago distinguished historians were insisting that thestate, as the highest expression of man's social instincts and as theimmediate concern of all human beings, is the only fit subject ofhistorical study, and that history, therefore, must be simply "pastpolitics"; under their influence most textbooks became compendiums ofdata about kings and constitutions, about rebellions and battles. Morerecently historians of repute, as well as eminent economists, havegiven their attention and patronage to painstaking investigations ofhow, apart from state action, man in the past has toiled or traveled ordone the other ordinary things of everyday life; and the influence ofsuch scholars has served to provide us with a considerable number ofconvenient manuals on special phases of social history. Yet morerecently several writers of textbooks have endeavored to combine thetwo tendencies and to present in a single volume both political andsocial facts, but it must be confessed that sometimes these writershave been content to tell the old political tale in orthodox manner andthen to append a chapter or two of social miscellany, whose connectionwith the body of their book is seldom apparent to the student. The present volume represents an effort really to combine political andsocial history in one synthesis: the author, quite convinced of theimportance of the view that political activities constitute the mostperfect expression of man's social instincts and touch mankind mostuniversally, has not neglected to treat of monarchs and parliaments, ofdemocracy and nationalism; at the same time he has cordially acceptedthe opinion that political activities are determined largely byeconomic and social needs and ambitions; and accordingly he hasundertaken not only to incorporate at fairly regular intervals suchchapters as those on the Commercial Revolution, Society in theEighteenth Century, the Industrial Revolution, and Social Factors, 1870-1914, but also to show in every part of the narrative the economicaspects of the chief political facts. Despite the length of this book, critics will undoubtedly noteomissions. Confronting the writer of every textbook of history is theeternal problem of selection--the choice of what is most pointedlysignificant from the sum total of man's thoughts, words, and deeds. Itis a matter of personal judgment, and personal judgments arenotoriously variant. Certainly there will be critics who will complainof the present author's failure to follow up his suggestions concerningsixteenth-century art and culture with a fuller account of thedevelopment of philosophy and literature from the seventeenth to thetwentieth century; and the only rejoinders that the harassed author canmake are the rather lame ones that a book, to be a book, must conformto the mechanical laws of space and dimension, and that a seriousattempt on the part of the present writer to make a synthesis of socialand political facts precludes no effort on the part of other and ablerwriters to synthesize all these facts with the phenomena which areconventionally assigned to the realm of "cultural" or "intellectual"history. In this, and in all other respects, the author trusts that hisparticular solution of the vexatious problem of selection will prove asgenerally acceptable as any. In the all-important matter of accuracy, the author cannot hope to haveescaped all the pitfalls that in a peculiarly broad and crowded fieldeverywhere trip the feet of even the most wary and persistent searchersafter truth. He has naturally been forced to rely for the truth of hisstatements chiefly upon numerous secondary works, of which someacknowledgment is made in the following _Note_, and upon thekindly criticisms of a number of his colleagues; in some instances, notably in parts of the chapters on the Protestant Revolt, the FrenchRevolution, and developments since 1848 in Great Britain, France, andGermany, he has been able to draw on his own special studies of primarysource material, and in certain of these instances he has ventured todissent from opinions that have been copied unquestioningly from onework to another. No period of history can be more interesting or illuminating than theperiod with which this book is concerned, especially now, when a war oftremendous magnitude and meaning is attracting the attention of thewhole civilized world and arousing a desire in the minds of allintelligent persons to know something of the past that has produced it. The great basic causes of the present war the author has sought, not inthe ambitions of a single power nor in an isolated outrage, but in thehistory of four hundred years. He has tried to write a book that wouldbe suggestive and informing, not only to the ordinary college student, but to the more mature and thoughtful student of public affairs in theuniversity of the world. CARLTON J. H. HAYES. AFTON, NEW YORK, May, 1916. NOTE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author begs to acknowledge his general indebtedness to a veritablehost of historical writers, of whose original researches or secondarycompilations he has constantly and almost unblushingly made use in thepreparation of this book. At the close of the _Introduction_ willbe found a list of the major works dealing with the whole period underreview, or with the greater part of it, which have been drawn upon mostheavily. And there is hardly a book cited in any of the specialbibliographies following the several chapters that has not suppliedsome single fact or suggestion to the accompanying narrative. For many of the general ideas set forth in this work as well as forpainstaking assistance in reading manuscript and correcting errors ofdetail, the author confesses his debt to various colleagues in ColumbiaUniversity and elsewhere. In particular, Professor R. L. Schuyler hashelpfully read the chapters on English history; Professor James T. Shotwell, the chapter on the Commercial Revolution; Professor D. S. Muzzey, the chapters on the French Revolution, Napoleon, andMetternich; Professor William R. Shepherd, the chapters on "NationalImperialism"; and Professor Edward B. Krehbiel of Leland StanfordJunior University, the chapter on recent international relations. Professor E. F. Humphrey of Trinity College (Connecticut) has givenprofitable criticism on the greater part of the text; and ProfessorCharles A. Beard of Columbia University, Professor Sidney B. Fay ofSmith College, and Mr. Edward L. Durfee of Yale University, have readthe whole work and suggested several valuable emendations. Threeinstructors in history at Columbia have been of marked service--Dr. Austin P. Evans, Mr. D. R. Fox, and Mr. Parker T. Moon. The last nameddevoted the chief part of two summers to the task of preparing notesfor several chapters of the book and he has attended the author on thelong dreary road of proof reading. CONTENTS VOLUME I PART I FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE CHAPTER I. THE COUNTRIES OF EUROPE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY The New National Monarchies The Old Holy Roman Empire The City-States Northern and Eastern Europe in the year 1500 CHAPTER II. THE COMMERCIAL REVOLUTION Agriculture in the Sixteenth Century Towns on the Eve of the Commercial Revolution Trade Prior to the Commercial Revolution The Age of Exploration Establishment of Colonial Empires Effects of the Commercial Revolution CHAPTER III. EUROPEAN POLITICS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY The Emperor Charles V Philip II and the Predominance of Spain CHAPTER IV. THE PROTESTANT REVOLT AND THE CATHOLIC REFORMATION The Catholic Church at the Opening of the Sixteenth Century The Protestant Revolt Lutheranism Calvinism Anglicanism The Catholic Reformation Summary of the Religious Revolution in the Sixteenth Century CHAPTER V. THE CULTURE OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY The Invention of Printing Humanism Art in the Sixteenth Century National Literatures in the Sixteenth Century Beginnings of Modern Natural Science PART II DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY CHAPTER VI. THE GROWTH OF ABSOLUTISM IN FRANCE AND THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN BOURBONS AND HABSBURGS, 1589-1661 Growth of Absolutism in France: Henry IV, Richelieu, and Mazarin Struggle between Bourbons and Habsburgs: The Thirty Years' War CHAPTER VII. THE GROWTH OF ABSOLUTISM IN FRANCE AND THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN BOURBONS AND HABSBURGS, 1661-1743 The Age of Louis XIV Extension of French Frontiers The War of the Spanish Succession CHAPTER VIII. THE TRIUMPH OF PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND Conflicting Political Tendencies in England: Absolutism _versus_ Parliamentarianism The Puritan Revolution The Restoration: the Reign of Charles II The "Glorious Revolution" and the Final Establishment of Parliamentary Government in Great Britain CHAPTER IX. THE WORLD CONFLICT OF FRANCE AND GREAT BRITAIN French and English Colonies in the Seventeenth Century Preliminary Encounters, 1689-1748 The Triumph of Great Britain: The Seven Years' War, 1756-1763 CHAPTER X. THE REVOLUTION WITHIN THE BRITISH EMPIRE The British Colonial System in the Eighteenth Century The War of American Independence, 1775-1783 The Reformation of the British Empire CHAPTER XI. THE GERMANIES IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY The Holy Roman Empire in Decline The Habsburg Dominions The Rise of Prussia. The Hohenzollerns The Minor German States The Struggle between Hohenzollerns and Habsburgs CHAPTER XII. THE RISE OF RUSSIA, AND THE DECLINE OF TURKEY, SWEDEN, AND POLAND Russia in the Seventeenth Century Peter the Great Sweden and the Career of Charles XII Catherine the Great: the Defeat of Turkey and the Dismemberment of Poland PART III "LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" CHAPTER XIII. EUROPEAN SOCIETY IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY Agriculture in the Eighteenth Century Commerce and Industry in the Eighteenth Century The Privileged Classes Religious and Ecclesiastical Conditions in the Eighteenth Century Scientific and Intellectual Developments in the Eighteenth Century CHAPTER XIV. EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY The British Monarchy The Enlightened Despots The French Monarchy CHAPTER XV. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION Introductory The End of Absolutism in France, 1789 The End of the Old Regime: the National Constituent Assembly, 1789-1791 The Limited Monarchy in Operation: the Legislative Assembly (1791-1792) and the Outbreak of Foreign War Establishment of the First French Republic: the National Convention, 1792-1795 The Directory (1795-1799) and the Transformation of the Republic into a Military Dictatorship Significance of the French Revolution CHAPTER XVI. THE ERA OF NAPOLEON The French Republic under the Consulate, 1799-1804 The French Empire and its Territorial Expansion Destruction of the French Empire Significance of the Era of Napoleon INTRODUCTION The story of modern times is but a small fraction of the long epic ofhuman history. If, as seems highly probable, the conservative estimatesof recent scientists that mankind has inhabited the earth more thanfifty thousand years [Footnote: Professor James Geikie, of theUniversity of Edinburgh, suggests, in his _Antiquity of Man inEurope_ (1914), the possible existence of human beings on the earthmore than 500, 000 years ago!], are accurate, then the bare five hundredyears which these volumes pass in review constitute, in time, less thana hundredth part of man's past. Certainly, thousands of years beforeour day there were empires and kingdoms and city-states, showingconsiderable advancement in those intellectual pursuits which we callcivilization or culture, --that is, in religion, learning, literature, political organization, and business; and such basic institutions asthe family, the state, and society go back even further, past ourearliest records, until their origins are shrouded in deepest mystery. Despite its brevity, modern history is of supreme importance. Withinits comparatively brief limits are set greater changes in human lifeand action than are to be found in the records of any earliermillennium. While the present is conditioned in part by the deeds andthoughts of our distant forbears who lived thousands of years ago, ithas been influenced in a very special way by historical events of thelast five hundred years. Let us see how this is true. Suppose we ask ourselves in what important respects the year 1900differed from the year 1400. In other words, what are the greatdistinguishing achievements of modern times? At least six may be noted: (1) _Exploration and knowledge of the whole globe_. To ourancestors from time out of mind the civilized world was but the landsadjacent to the Mediterranean and, at most, vague stretches of Persia, India, and China. Not much over four hundred years ago was Americadiscovered and the globe circumnavigated for the first time, and veryrecently has the use of steamship, telegraph, and railway served tobind together the uttermost parts of the world, thereby making itrelatively smaller, less mysterious, and in culture more unified. (2) _Higher standards of individual efficiency and comfort_. Thephysical welfare of the individual has been promoted to a greaterdegree, or at all events preached more eloquently, within the last fewgenerations than ever before. This has doubtless been due to changes inthe commonplace everyday life of all the people. It must be rememberedthat in the fifteenth century man did the ordinary things of life inmuch the same manner as did early Romans or Greeks or Egyptians, andthat our present remarkable ways of living, of working, and oftraveling are the direct outcome of the Commercial Revolution of thesixteenth century and of the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth. (3) _Intensification of political organization, with attendant publicguarantees of personal liberties_. The ideas of nationalism and ofdemocracy are essentially modern in their expression. The notion thatpeople who speak the same language and have a common culture should beorganized as an independent state with uniform laws and customs washardly held prior to the fifteenth century. The national states ofEngland, France, and Spain did not appear unmistakably with theirnational boundaries, national consciousness, national literature, untilthe opening of the sixteenth century; and it was long afterwards thatin Italy and Germany the national idea supplanted the older notions ofworld empire or of city-state or of feudalism. The national state hasproved everywhere a far more powerful political organization than anyother: its functions have steadily increased, now at the expense offeudalism, now at the expense of the church; and such increase has beenas constant under industrial democracy of the nineteenth and twentiethcenturies as under the benevolent despotism of the seventeenth andeighteenth centuries. But in measure as government has enlarged itsscope, the governed have worked out and applied protective principlesof personal liberties. The Puritan Revolution, the French Revolution, the American Revolution, the uprisings of oppressed populationsthroughout the nineteenth century, would be quite inexplicable in otherthan modern times. In fact the whole political history of the last fourcenturies is in essence a series of compromises between the conflictingresults of the modern exaltation of the state and the modern exaltationof the individual. (4) _Replacement of the idea of the necessity of uniformity in adefinite faith and religion by toleration of many faiths or even of nofaith_. A great state religion, professed publicly, and financiallysupported by all the citizens, has been a distinguishing mark of everyearlier age. Whatever else may be thought of the Protestant movement ofthe sixteenth century, of the rise of deism and skepticism in theseventeenth and eighteenth, and of the existence of scientificrationalism in the nineteenth and twentieth, there can be little doubtthat each of them has contributed its share to the prevalence of theidea that religion is essentially a private, not a public, affair andthat friendly rivalry in good works is preferable to uniformity infaith. (5) _Diffusion of learning_. The invention of printing towards theclose of the fifteenth century gradually revolutionized the pursuit ofknowledge and created a real democracy of letters. What learning mighthave lost in depth through its marvelous broadening has perhaps beencompensated for by the application of the keenest minds in theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries to experimental science and in ourown day to applied science. (6) _Spirit of progress and decline of conservatism_. For betteror for worse the modern man is intellectually more self-reliant thanhis ancestors, more prone to try new inventions and to profit by newdiscoveries, more conscious and therefore more critical of conditionsabout him, more convinced that he lives in a better world than did hisfathers, and that his children who come after him should have a betterchance than he has had. This is the modern spirit. It is the product ofall the other elements of the history of five hundred years--the largergeographical horizon, the greater physical comfort, the revolutionizedpolitical institutions, the broader sympathies, the newer ideals ofeducation. Springing thus from events of the past few centuries, themodern spirit nevertheless looks ever forward, not backward. A debtorto the past, it will be doubly creditor to the future. It willdetermine the type of individual and social betterment through comingcenturies. Such an idea is implied in the phrase, "the continuity ofhistory"--the ever-flowing stream of happenings that brings down to usthe heritage of past ages and that carries on our richer legacies togenerations yet unborn. From such a conception of the continuity of history, the realsignificance of our study can be derived. It becomes perfectly clearthat if we understand the present we shall be better prepared to facethe problems and difficulties of the future. But to understand thepresent thoroughly, it becomes necessary not only to learn what are itsgreat features and tendencies, but likewise how they have been evolved. Now, as we have already remarked, six most important characteristics ofthe present day have been developed within the last four or fivecenturies. To follow the history of this period, therefore, will tendto familiarize us both with present-day conditions and with futureneeds. This is the genuine justification for the study of the historyof modern times. Modern history may conveniently be defined as that part of historywhich deals with the origin and evolution of the great distinguishingcharacteristics of the present. No precise dates can be assigned tomodern history as contrasted with what has commonly been called ancientor medieval. In a sense, any division of the historical stream intoparts or periods is fundamentally fallacious: for example, inasmuch asthe present generation owes to the Greeks of the fourth century beforeChrist many of its artistic models and philosophical ideas and very fewof its political theories, the former might plausibly be embraced inthe field of modern history, the latter excluded therefrom. But theproblem before us is not so difficult as may seem on first thought. Toall intents and purposes the development of the six characteristicsthat have been noted has taken place within five hundred years. Thesixteenth century witnessed the true beginnings of the change in theextensive world discoveries, in the establishment of a recognizedEuropean state system, in the rise of Protestantism, and in thequickening of intellectual activity. It is the foundation of modernEurope. The sixteenth century will therefore be the general subject of Part Iof this volume. After reviewing the geography of Europe about the year1500, we shall take up in turn the _four_ factors of the centurywhich have had a lasting influence upon us: (1) socially andeconomically--The Commercial Revolution; (2) politically--EuropeanPolitics in the Sixteenth Century; (3) religiously andecclesiastically--The Protestant Revolt; (4) intellectually--TheCulture of the Sixteenth Century. ADDITIONAL READING THE STUDY OF HISTORY. On historical method: C. V. Langlois and CharlesSeignobos, _Introduction to the Study of History_, trans. By G. G. Berry (1912); J. M. Vincent, _Historical Research: an Outline of Theoryand Practice_ (1911); H. B. George, _Historical Evidence_ (1909); F. M. Fling, _Outline of Historical Method_ (1899). Different views ofhistory: J. H. Robinson, _The New History_ (1912), a collection ofstimulating essays; J. T. Shotwell, suggestive article _History_ in11th edition of _Encyclopaedia Britannica_; T. B. Macaulay, essay on_History_; Thomas Carlyle, _Heroes and Hero Worship_; Karl Lamprecht, _What is History_? trans. By E. A. Andrews (1905). Also see HenryJohnson, _The Teaching of History_ (1915); Eduard Fueter, _Geschichteder neueren Historiographie_ (1911); Ernst Bernheim, _Lehrbuch derhistorischen Methode und der Geschichtsphilosophie_, 5th ed. (1914); G. P. Gooch, _History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century_ (1913). TEXTBOOKS AND MANUALS OF MODERN HISTORY. J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard, _The Development of Modern Europe_, 2 vols. (1907), a politicaland social narrative from the time of Louis XIV, and by the sameauthors, _Readings in Modern European History_, 2 vols. (1908-1909), anindispensable sourcebook, with critical bibliographies; FerdinandSchevill, _A Political History of Modern Europe from the Reformation tothe Present Day_ (1907); T. H. Dyer, _A History of Modern Europe fromthe Fall of Constantinople_, 3d ed. Revised and continued to the end ofthe nineteenth century by Arthur Hassall, 6 vols. (1901), somewhatantiquated but still valuable for its vast store of political facts;Victor Duruy, _History of Modern Times from the Fall of Constantinopleto the French Revolution_, trans. By E. A. Grosvenor (1894), verboseand somewhat uncritical, but usable for French history. More up-to-dateseries of historical manuals are now appearing or are projected byHenry Holt and Company under the editorship of Professor C. H. Haskins, by The Century Company under Professor G. L. Burr, by Ginn and Companyunder Professor J. H. Robinson, and by Houghton Mifflin Company underProfessor J. T. Shotwell: such of these volumes as have appeared arenoted in the appropriate chapter bibliographies following. TheMacmillan Company has published _Periods of European History, _ 8 vols. (1893-1901), under the editorship of Arthur Hassall, of which the lastfive volumes treat of political Europe from 1494 to 1899; and a moreelementary political series, _Six Ages of European History_, 6 vols. (1910), under the editorship of A. H. Johnson, of which the last threevolumes cover the years from 1453 to 1878. Much additional informationis obtainable from such popular series as _Story of the Nations_ (1886_sqq. _), _Heroes of the Nations_ (1890 _sqq. _), and _Home UniversityLibrary, _ though the volumes in such series are of very unequal merit. Convenient chronological summaries are: G. P. And G. H. Putnam, _Tabular Views of Universal History_ (1914); Carl Ploetz, _Manual ofUniversal History_, trans. And enlarged by W. H. Tillinghast, newedition (1915); _Haydn's Dictionary of Dates_, 25th ed. (1911); C. E. Little, _Cyclopaedia of Classified Dates_ (1900); _Cambridge ModernHistory_, Vol. XIII (1911). The best atlas--a vitally necessary adjunctof historical study--is either that of W. R. Shepherd, _HistoricalAtlas_ (1911), or that of Ramsay Muir, _Hammond's New Historical Atlasfor Students_, 2d ed. (1915); a smaller historical atlas is that of E. W. Dow (1907), and longer ones are _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. XIV(1912) and, in German, Putzger, _Historischer Schulatlas_. Elaboratetreatises on historical geography: Elisee Reclus, _The UniversalGeography_, trans. And ed. By E. G. Ravenstein, 19 vols. ; _NouveauDictionnaire de Geographie Universelle_, by Vivien de Saint-Martin andLouis Rousselet, 10 vols. See also H. B. George, _The Relations ofGeography and History_ (1910) and Ellen C. Semple, _The Influence ofGeographic Environment_ (1911). STANDARD SECONDARY WORKS AND SETS ON MODERN HISTORY. _The CambridgeModern History_, 12 vols. And 2 supplementary vols. (1902-1912), planned by Lord Acton, edited by A. W. Ward, G. W. Prothero, andStanley Leathes, written by English scholars, covering the period from1450 to 1910, generally sound but rather narrowly political. Betterbalanced is the monumental work of a group of French scholars, _Histoire generale du IVe siecle a nos jours_, edited by Ernest Lavisseand Alfred Rambaud, 12 vols. (1894-1901), of which the last nine treatof the years from 1492 to 1900. For social history a series, _Histoireuniverselle du travail_, 12 vols. , is projected under the editorship ofGeorges Renard. _The Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 11th ed. (1910-1911), isthe work mainly of distinguished scholars and a storehouse ofhistorical information, political, social, and intellectual. Alsoavailable in English is _History of All Nations_, 24 vols. (1902), thefirst nineteen based on translation of Theodor Flathe, _AllgemeineWeltgeschichte_, --Vols. X-XXIV dealing with modern history, --Vol. XX, on Europe, Asia, and Africa since 1871, by C. M. Andrews, and Vols. XXI-XXIII, on American history, by John Fiske; likewise H. F. Helmolt(editor), _Weltgeschichte_, trans. Into English, 8 vols. (1902-1907). Sets and series in German: Wilhelm Oncken (editor), _AllgemeineGeschichte in Einzeldarstellungen_, 50 vols. (1879-1893); _Geschichteder europaeischen Staaten_, an enormous collection, appearing more orless constantly from 1829 to the present and edited successively bysuch famous scholars as A. H. L. Heeren, F. A. Ukert, Wilhelm vonGiesebrecht, and Karl Lamprecht; G. Von Below and F. Meinecke(editors), _Handbuch der mittel-alterlichen und neueren Geschichte_, aseries begun in 1903 and planned, when completed, to comprise 40 vols. ;Paul Hinneberg (editor), _Die Kultur der Gegenwart, ihre Entwicklungund ihre Ziele_, a remarkable series begun in 1906 and intended toexplain in many volumes the civilization of the twentieth century inall its aspects; Erich Brandenburg (editor), _Bibliothek derGeschichtswissenschaft_, a series recently projected, the first volumeappearing in 1912; J. Von Pflugk-Harttung, _Weltgeschichte: dieEntwicklung der Menschheit in Staat und Gesellschaft, in Kultur undGeistesleben_, 6 vols. Illust. (1908-1911); Theodor Lindner, _Weltgeschichte seit der Voelkerwanderung_, 8 vols. (1908-1914). Valuable contributions to general modern history occur in suchmonumental national histories as Karl Lamprecht, _Deutsche Geschichte_, 12 vols. In 16 (1891-1909), and, more particularly, Ernest Lavisse(editor), _Histoire de France depuis les origines jusqu'a laRevolution_, 9 double vols. (1900-1911). BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARIES. General: _Encyclopedia Britannica_, 11thed. , 29 vols. (1910-1911); _New International Encyclopedia_, 2d ed. , 24vols. (1914-1916); _Catholic Encyclopedia_, 15 vols. (1907-1912). GreatBritain: Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee (editors), _Dictionary ofNational Biography_, 72 vols. (1885-1913). France: Hoefer (editor), _Nouvelle biographie generale_, 46 vols. (1855-1866); _Dictionnaire debiographie francaise_, projected (1913) under editorship of LouisDidier, Albert Isnard, and Gabriel Ledos. Germany: Liliencron andWegele (editors), _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_, 54 vols. (1875_sqq_. ). Austria-Hungary: Wurzbach (editor), _Biographisches Lexikondes Kaiserthums Oesterreich_, 60 vols. (1856-1891). There is also awell-known French work--L. G. Michaud, _Biographie universelle ancienneet moderne_, 45 vols. (1880). BIBLIOGRAPHY. Many of the works cited above and most of the worksmentioned in the following chapter bibliographies contain convenientbibliographies on special topics. The best general guide to collectionsof source material and to the organization of historical study andresearch, though already somewhat out-of-date, is C. V. Langlois, _Manuel de bibliographie historique_, 2 vols. (1901-1904). See also C. M. Andrews, J. M. Gambrill, and Lida Tall, _A Bibliography of Historyfor Schools and Libraries_ (1910); and C. K. Adams, _A Manual ofHistorical Literature_, 3d ed. (1889). Specifically, for Great Britain:W. P. Courtney, _A Register of National Bibliography_, 3 vols. (1905-1912); S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger, _Introduction to the Studyof English History_, 4th ed. (1903); H. L. Cannon, _Reading Referencesfor English History_ (1910); _Bibliography of Modern English History_, now (1916) in preparation under the auspices of English scholars and ofthe American Historical Association. For German bibliography: Dahlmann-Waitz, _Quellenkunde der deutschen Geschichte_, 8th ed. (1912);_Jahresberichte der Geschichtswissenschaft_, a valuable annualpublication issued under the auspices of the Historical Association ofBerlin. For French bibliography: Gabriel Monod, _Bibliographie del'histoire de France_ (1888), new ed. Projected (1910) in 4 vols. ;_Manuels de bibliographie historique_ (1907-1916): Part II, 1494-1610, by Henri Hauser, _Part III, 1610-1715_, by Emile Bourgeois and LouisAndre; _Repertoire methodique de l'histoire moderne et contemporaine dela France_, an annual publication edited by Briere and Caron. ForAmerican bibliography: Edward Channing, A. B. Hart, and F. J. Turner, _Guide to the Study of American History_ (1912). Among importanthistorical periodicals, containing bibliographical notes and bookreviews, are, _History Teacher's Magazine, The American HistoricalReview, The English Historical Review, Die historische Zeitschrift, Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine, La revue historique_, and_La revue des questions historiques_. For periodical literature see_Poole's Index_ (1802-1906) and _Readers' Guide_ (1900 _sqq. _). Themost famous lists of published books are: _The American Catalogue_(1876 _sqq. _); the _English Catalogue_ (1835 _sqq. _); C. G. Kayser, _Buecher-Lexikon_ (1750 _sqq. _); Wilhelm Heinsius, _Buecher-Lexikon_(1700-1892); Otto Lorenz, _Catalogue general de la librarie francaise(1840 _sqq_. ); and, for general comment, American Library Association, _Index to General Literature_ (1893 _sqq. _). PART I FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE CHAPTER I THE COUNTRIES OF EUROPE AT THE OPENING OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY 1. THE NEW NATIONAL MONARCHIES [Sidenote: "National Monarchies" in 1500] Before we can safely proceed with the story of European developmentduring the past four hundred years, it is necessary to know what werethe chief countries that existed at the beginning of our period andwhat were the distinctive political institutions of each. A glance at the map of Europe in 1500 will show numerous unfamiliardivisions and names, especially in the central and eastern portions. Only in the extreme west, along the Atlantic seaboard, will the eyedetect geographical boundaries which resemble those of the present day. There, England, France, Spain, and Portugal have already taken form. Ineach one of these countries is a real nation, with a single monarch, and with a distinctive literary language. These four states are the_national_ states of the sixteenth century. They attract ourimmediate attention. ENGLAND [Sidenote: The English Monarchy] In the year 1500 the English monarchy embraced little more than what onthe map is now called "England. " It is true that to the west theprincipality of Wales had been incorporated two hundred years earlier, but the clannish mountaineers and hardy lowlanders of the northern partof the island of Great Britain still preserved the independence of thekingdom of Scotland, while Irish princes and chieftains renderedEnglish occupation of their island extremely precarious beyond the so-called Pale of Dublin which an English king had conquered in thetwelfth century. Across the English Channel, on the Continent, theEnglish monarchy retained after 1453, the date of the conclusion of theHundred Years' War, only the town of Calais out of the many rich Frenchprovinces which ever since the time of William the Conqueror (1066-1087) had been a bone of contention between French and English rulers. While the English monarchy was assuming its geographical form, peculiarnational institutions were taking root in the country, and the Englishlanguage, as a combination of earlier Anglo-Saxon and Norman-French, was being evolved. The Hundred Years' War with France, or rather itsoutcome, served to exalt the sense of English nationality and Englishpatriotism, and to enable the king to devote his whole attention to theconsolidation of his power in the British islands. For several yearsafter the conclusion of peace on the Continent, England was harassed bybloody and confused struggles, known as the Wars of the Roses, betweenrival claimants to the throne, but at length, in 1485, Henry VII, thefirst of the Tudor dynasty, secured the crown and ushered in a new eraof English history. [Sidenote: Increase of Royal Power in England under Henry VII] Henry VII (1485-1509) sought to create what has been termed a "strongmonarchy. " Traditionally the power of the king had been restricted by aParliament, composed of a House of Lords and a House of Commons, and asthe former was then far more influential than the latter, supremepolitical control had rested practically with the king and the membersof the upper house--great land-holding nobles and the princes of thechurch. The Wars of the Roses had two effects which redounded to theadvantage of the king: (1) the struggle, being really a contest of twofactions of nobles, destroyed many noble families and enabled the crownto seize their estates, thereby lessening the influence of an ancientclass; (2) the struggle, being long and disorderly, created in themiddle class or "common people" a longing for peace and the convictionthat order and security could be maintained only by repression of thenobility and the strengthening of monarchy. Henry took advantage ofthese circumstances to fix upon his country an absolutism, or one-manpower in government, which was to endure throughout the sixteenthcentury, during the reigns of the four other members of the Tudorfamily, and, in fact, until a popular revolution in the seventeenthcentury. Henry VII repressed disorder with a heavy hand and secured theestablishment of an extraordinary court, afterwards called the "Courtof Star Chamber, " to hear cases, especially those affecting the nobles, which the ordinary courts had not been able to settle. Then, too, hewas very economical: the public revenue was increased by means of morecareful attention to the cultivation of the crown lands and thecollection of feudal dues, fines, benevolences [Footnote:"Benevolences" were sums of money extorted from the people in the guiseof gifts. A celebrated minister of Henry VII collected a very largenumber of "benevolences" for his master. If a man lived economically, it was reasoned he was saving money and could afford a "present" forthe king. If, on the contrary, he lived sumptuously, he was evidentlywealthy and could likewise afford a "gift. "], import and export duties, and past parliamentary grants, while, by means of frugality and aforeign policy of peace, the expenditure was appreciably decreased. Henry VII was thereby freed in large measure from dependence onParliament for grants of money, and the power of Parliament naturallydeclined. In fact, Parliament met only five times during his wholereign and only once during the last twelve years, and in all itsactions was quite subservient to the royal desires. [Sidenote: Foreign relations of England under Henry VII] Henry VII refrained in general from foreign war, but sought by othermeans to promote the international welfare of his country. Henegotiated several treaties by which English traders might buy and sellgoods in other countries. One of the most famous of these commercialtreaties was the _Intercursus Magnus_ concluded in 1496 with theduke of Burgundy, admitting English goods into the Netherlands. Helikewise encouraged English companies of merchants to engage in foreigntrade and commissioned the explorations of John Cabot in the New World. Henry increased the prestige of his house by politic marital alliances. He arranged a marriage between the heir to his throne, Arthur, andCatherine, eldest daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, the Spanishsovereigns. Arthur died a few months after his wedding, but it wasarranged that Catherine should remain in England as the bride of theking's second son, who subsequently became Henry VIII. The king'sdaughter Margaret was married to King James IV of Scotland, therebypaving the way much later for the union of the crowns of England andScotland. England in the year 1500 was a real national monarchy, and the power ofthe king appeared to be distinctly in the ascendant. Parliament wasfast becoming a purely formal and perfunctory body. FRANCE [Sidenote: The French Monarchy] By the year 1500 the French monarchy was largely consolidatedterritorially and politically. It had been a slow and painful process, for long ago in 987, when Hugh Capet came to the throne, the France ofhis day was hardly more than the neighborhood of Paris, and it hadtaken five full centuries to unite the petty feudal divisions of thecountry into the great centralized state which we call France. TheHundred Years' War had finally freed the western duchies and countiesfrom English control. Just before the opening of the sixteenth centurythe wily and tactful Louis XI (1461-1483) had rounded out Frenchterritories: on the east he had occupied the powerful duchy ofBurgundy; on the west and on the southeast he had possessed himself ofmost of the great inheritance of the Angevin branch of his own family, including Anjou, and Provence east of the Rhone; and on the south theFrench frontier had been carried to the Pyrenees. Finally, Louis's son, Charles VIII (1483-1498), by marrying the heiress of Brittany, hadabsorbed that western duchy into France. [Sidenote: Steady Growth of Royal Power in France] Meanwhile, centralized political institutions had been taking slow buttenacious root in the country. Of course, many local institutions andcustoms survived in the various states which had been gradually addedto France, but the king was now recognized from Flanders to Spain andfrom the Rhone to the Ocean as the source of law, justice, and order. There was a uniform royal coinage and a standing army under the king'scommand. The monarchs had struggled valiantly against the disruptivetendencies of feudalism; they had been aided by the commoners or middleclass; and the proof of their success was their comparative freedomfrom political checks. The Estates-General, to which French commonershad been admitted in 1302, resembled in certain externals the EnglishParliament, --for example, in comprising representatives of the clergy, nobles, and commons, --but it had never had final say in levying taxesor in authorizing expenditures or in trying royal officers. And unlikeEngland, there was in France no live tradition of popular participationin government and no written guarantee of personal liberty. [Sidenote: Foreign Relations of the French Kings about 1500] Consolidated at home in territory and in government, Frenchmen beganabout the year 1500 to be attracted to questions of external policy. Byattempting to enforce an inherited claim to the crown of Naples, Charles VIII in 1494 started that career of foreign war andaggrandizement which was to mark the history of France throughoutfollowing centuries. His efforts in Italy were far from successful, buthis heir, Louis XII (1498-1515), continued to lay claim to Naples andto the duchy of Milan as well. In 1504 Louis was obliged to resignNaples to King Ferdinand of Aragon, in whose family it remained for twocenturies, but about Milan continued a conflict, with varying fortunes, ultimately merging into the general struggle between Francis I (1515-1547) and the Emperor Charles V. France in the year 1500 was a real national monarchy, with thebeginnings of a national literature and with a national patriotismcentering in the king. It was becoming self-conscious. Like England, France was on the road to one-man power, but unlike England, the wayhad been marked by no liberal or constitutional mile-posts. SPAIN AND PORTUGAL [Sidenote: Development of the Spanish and Portuguese Monarchies] South of the Pyrenees were the Spanish and Portuguese monarchies, which, in a long process of unification, not only had to contendagainst the same disuniting tendencies as appeared in France andEngland, but also had to solve the problem of the existence side byside of two great rival religions--Christianity and Mohammedanism. Mohammedan invaders from Africa had secured political control of nearlythe whole peninsula as early as the eighth century, but in course oftime there appeared in the northern and western mountains severaldiminutive Christian states, of which the following may be mentioned:Barcelona, in the northeast, along the Mediterranean; Aragon, occupyingthe south-central portion of the Pyrenees and extending southwardtoward the Ebro River; Navarre, at the west of the Pyrenees, reachingnorthward into what is now France and southward into what is now Spain;Castile, west of Navarre, circling about the town of Burgos; Leon, inthe northwestern corner of the peninsula; and Portugal, south of Leon, lying along the Atlantic coast. Little by little these Christian statesextended their southern frontiers at the expense of the Mohammedanpower and showed some disposition to combine. In the twelfth centuryBarcelona was united with the kingdom of Aragon, and a hundred yearslater Castile and Leon were finally joined. Thus, by the close of thethirteenth century, there were three important states in the peninsula--Aragon on the east, Castile in the center, and Portugal on the west--and two less important states--Christian Navarre in the extreme north, and Mohammedan Granada in the extreme south. While Portugal acquired its full territorial extension in the peninsulaby the year 1263, the unity of modern Spain was delayed until after themarriage of Ferdinand (1479-1516) and Isabella (1474-1504), sovereignsrespectively of Aragon and Castile. Granada, the last foothold of theMohammedans, fell in 1492, and in 1512 Ferdinand acquired that part ofthe ancient kingdom of Navarre which lay upon the southern slope of thePyrenees. The peninsula was henceforth divided between the two modernstates of Spain and Portugal. [Sidenote: Portugal a Real National Monarchy in 1500] Portugal, the older and smaller of the two states, had become aconspicuous member of the family of nations by the year 1500, thanks toa line of able kings and to the remarkable series of foreigndiscoveries that cluster about the name of Prince Henry the Navigator. Portugal possessed a distinctive language of Latin origin and alreadycherished a literature of no mean proportions. In harmony with thespirit of the age the monarchy was tending toward absolutism, and theparliament, called the Cortes, which had played an important part inearlier times, ceased to meet regularly after 1521. The Portugueseroyal family were closely related to the Castilian line, and there werepeople in both kingdoms who hoped that one day the whole peninsulawould be united under one sovereign. [Sidenote: The Spanish Kingdom in 1500] From several standpoints the Spanish monarchy was less unified in 1500than England, France, or Portugal. The union of Castile and Aragon was, for over two centuries, hardly more than personal. Each retained itsown customs, parliaments (Cortes), and separate administration. Eachpossessed a distinctive language, although Castilian gradually becamethe literary "Spanish, " while Catalan, the speech of Aragon, wasreduced to the position of an inferior. Despite the continuance ofexcessive pride in local traditions and institutions, the cause ofSpanish nationality received great impetus during the reign ofFerdinand and Isabella. It was under them that territorial unity hadbeen obtained. It was they who turned the attention of Spaniards toforeign and colonial enterprises. The year that marked the fall ofGranada and the final extinction of Mohammedan power in Spain waslikewise signalized by the first voyage of Christopher Columbus, whichprefigured the establishment of a greater Spain beyond the seas. On thecontinent of Europe, Spain speedily acquired a commanding position ininternational affairs, as the result largely of Ferdinand's ability. The royal house of Aragon had long held claims to the Neapolitan andSicilian kingdoms and for two hundred years had freely mixed in thepolitics of Italy. Now, in 1504, Ferdinand definitely securedrecognition from France of his rights in Naples, Sicily, and Sardinia. Spain was becoming the rival of Venice for the leadership of theMediterranean. [Sidenote: Increase of Royal Power in Spain under Ferdinand andIsabella] While interfering very little with the forms of representativegovernment in their respective kingdoms, Ferdinand and Isabella workedever, in fact, toward uniformity and absolutism. They sought toingratiate themselves with the middle class, to strip the nobility ofits political influence, and to enlist the church in their service. TheCortes were more or less regularly convened, but their functions werealmost imperceptibly transferred to royal commissions and officers ofstate. Privileges granted to towns in earlier times were now graduallyrevoked. The king, by becoming the head of the ancient military orderswhich had borne prominent part in the struggle against the Mohammedans, easily gained control of considerable treasure and of an effectivefighting force. The sovereigns prevailed upon the pope to transfercontrol of the Inquisition, the medieval ecclesiastical tribunal forthe trial of heretics, to the crown, so that the harsh penalties whichwere to be inflicted for many years upon dissenters from orthodoxChristianity were due not only to religious bigotry but likewise to thedesire for political uniformity. In population and in domestic resources Spain was not so important asFrance, but the exploits of Ferdinand and Isabella, the great wealthwhich temporarily flowed to her from the colonies, the prestige whichlong attended her diplomacy and her armies, were to exalt the Spanishmonarchy throughout the sixteenth century to a position quite out ofkeeping with her true importance. 2. THE OLD HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE [Sidenote: The Idea of an "Empire" Different in 1500 from that of a"National Monarchy"] The national monarchies of western Europe--England, France, Spain, andPortugal--were political novelties in the year 1500: the idea ofuniting the people of similar language and customs under a stronglycentralized state had been slowly developing but had not reachedfruition much before that date. On the other hand, in central Europesurvived in weakness an entirely different kind of state, called anempire. The theory of an empire was a very ancient one--it meant astate which should embrace all peoples of whatsoever race or language, bound together in obedience to a common prince. Such, for example, hadbeen the ideal of the old Roman Empire, under whose Caesars practicallythe whole civilized world had once been joined, so that the inhabitantof Egypt or Armenia united with the citizen of Britain or Spain inallegiance to the emperor. That empire retained its hold on portions ofeastern Europe until its final conquest by the Ottoman Turks in 1453, but a thousand years earlier it had lost control of the West because ofexternal violence and internal weakness. So great, however, was thestrength of the idea of an "empire, " even in the West, that Charlemagneabout the year 800 temporarily united what are now France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Belgium into what he persisted in stylingthe "Roman Empire. " Nearly two centuries later, Otto the Great, afamous prince in Germany, gave other form to the idea, in the "HolyRoman Empire" of which he became emperor. This form endured from 962 to1806. [Sidenote: The Holy Roman Empire; Its Mighty Claims in Theory and itsSlight Power in Practice] In theory, the Holy Roman Empire claimed supremacy over all Christianrulers and peoples of central and western Europe, and after theextinction of the eastern empire in 1453 it could insist that it wasthe sole secular heir to the ancient Roman tradition. But the greatnessof the theoretical claim of the Holy Roman Empire was matched only bythe insignificance of its practical acceptance. The feudal nobles ofwestern Europe had never recognized it, and the national monarchs, though they might occasionally sport with its honors and titles, neveradmitted any real dependence upon it of England, France, Portugal, orSpain. In central Europe, it had to struggle against the anarchicaltendencies of feudalism, against the rise of powerful and jealous city-states, and against a rival organization, the Catholic Church, which inits temporal affairs was at least as clearly an heir to the Romantradition as was the Holy Roman Empire. From the eleventh to thethirteenth century the conflict raged, with results important for allconcerned, --results which were thoroughly obvious in the year 1500. [Sidenote: The Holy Roman Empire practically Restricted by 1500 to theGermanies] In the first place, the Holy Roman Empire was practically restricted toGerman-speaking peoples. The papacy and the Italian cities had beenfreed from imperial control, and both the Netherlands--that is, Hollandand Belgium--and the Swiss cantons were only nominally connected. Overthe Slavic people to the east--Russians, Poles, etc. --or theScandinavians to the north, the empire had secured comparatively smallinfluence. By the year 1500 the words Empire and Germany had becomevirtually interchangeable terms. Secondly, there was throughout central Europe no conspicuous desire forstrong centralized national states, such as prevailed in westernEurope. [Sidenote: Internal Weakness of the Holy Roman Empire] Separatism was the rule. In Italy and in the Netherlands the city-states were the political units. Within the Holy Roman Empire was avast hodge-podge of city-states, and feudal survivals--arch-duchies, such as Austria; margravates, such as Brandenburg; duchies, likeSaxony, Bavaria, and Wuerttemberg; counties like the Palatinate, and ahost of free cities, baronies, and domains, some of them smaller thanan American township. In all there were over three hundred states whichcollectively were called "the Germanies" and which were united only bythe slender imperial thread. The idea of empire had not only beennarrowed to one nation; it also, in its failure to overcome feudalism, had prevented the growth of a real national monarchy. [Sidenote: Government of the Holy Roman Empire] What was the nature of this slight tie that nominally held theGermanies together? There was the form of a central government with anemperor to execute laws and a Diet to make them. The emperor was notnecessarily hereditary but was chosen by seven "electors, " who were thechief princes of the realm. These seven were the archbishops of Mainz(Mayence), of Cologne, and of Trier (Treves), the king of Bohemia, theduke of Saxony, the margrave of Brandenburg, and the count palatine ofthe Rhine. Not infrequently the electors used their position to extortconcessions from the emperor elect which helped to destroy German unityand to promote the selfish interests of the princes. The imperial Dietwas composed of the seven electors, the lesser princes (including thehigher ecclesiastical dignitaries, such as bishops and abbots), andrepresentatives of the free cities, grouped in three separate houses. The emperor was not supposed to perform any imperial act without theauthorization of the Diet, and petty jealousies between its members orhouses often prevented action in the Diet. The individual states, moreover, reserved to themselves the management of most affairs whichin western Europe had been surrendered to the central nationalgovernment. The Diet, and therefore the emperor, was without a treasuryor an army, unless the individual states saw fit to act favorably uponits advice and furnish the requested quotas. The Diet resembled farmore a congress of diplomats than a legislative body. [Sidenote: The Habsburgs: Weak as Emperors but Strong as Rulers ofParticular States within the Holy Roman Empire] It will be readily perceived that under these circumstances the emperoras such could have little influence. Yet the fear of impending Slavicor Turkish attacks upon the eastern frontier, or other fears, frequently operated to secure the election of some prince who hadsufficiently strong power of his own to stay the attack or remove thefear. In this way, Rudolph, count of Habsburg, had been chosen emperorin 1273, and in his family, with few interruptions, continued theimperial title, not only to 1500 but to the final extinction of theempire in 1806. Several of these Habsburg emperors were influential, but it must always be remembered that they owed their power not to theempire but to their own hereditary states. Originally lords of a small district in Switzerland, the Habsburgs hadgradually increased their holdings until at length in 1273 Rudolph, themaker of his family's real fortunes, had been chosen Holy RomanEmperor, and three years later had conquered the valuable archduchy ofAustria with its capital of Vienna. The family subsequently becamerelated by marriage to reigning families in Hungary and in Italy aswell as in Bohemia and other states of the empire. In 1477 the EmperorMaximilian I (1493-1519) married Mary of Burgundy, daughter of Charlesthe Bold and heiress of the wealthy provinces of the Netherlands; andin 1496 his son Philip was united to Joanna, the daughter of Ferdinandand Isabella and heiress of the crowns of Castile and Aragon. Thefortunes of the Habsburgs were decidedly auspicious. [Sidenote: Vain Attempts to "Reform" the Holy Roman Empire] Of course, signs were not wanting of some national life in theGermanies. Most of the people spoke a common language; a form ofnational unity existed in the Diet; and many patriots raised theirvoice in behalf of a stronger and more centralized government. In 1495a Diet met at the city of Worms to discuss with Emperor Maximilianprojects of reform. After protracted debates, it was agreed thatprivate warfare, a survival of feudal days, should be abolished; aperpetual peace should be declared; and an imperial court should beestablished to settle all disputes between states within the empire. These efforts at reform, like many before and after, were largelyunfruitful, and, despite occasional protests, practical disunionprevailed in the Germanies of the sixteenth century, albeit under thehigh-sounding title of "Holy Roman Empire. " 3. THE CITY-STATES [Sidenote: "City-States" in 1500] Before the dawn of the Christian era the Greeks and Romans hadentertained a general idea of political organization which would seemstrange to most of us at the present time. They believed that everycity with its outlying country should constitute an independent state, with its own particular law-making and governing bodies, army, coinage, and foreign relations. To them, the idea of an empire was intolerableand the concept of a national state, such as we commonly have to-day, unthinkable. Now it so happened, as we shall see in the following chapter, that thecommerce of the middle ages stimulated the growth of important tradingtowns in Italy, in Germany, and in the Netherlands. These towns, in oneway or another, managed to secure a large measure of self-government, so that by the year 1500 they had become somewhat similar to the city-states of antiquity. In Germany, though they still maintained theirlocal self-government, they were loosely attached to the Holy RomanEmpire and were overshadowed in political influence by other states. Inthe case of Italy and of the Netherlands, however, it is impossible tounderstand the politics of those countries in the sixteenth centurywithout paying some attention to city-states, which played leadingroles in both. [Sidenote: Italy in 1500 neither a National Monarchy not Attached tothe Holy Roman Empire] In the Italy of the year 1500 there was not even the semblance ofnational political unity. Despite the ardent longings of many Italianpatriots [Footnote: Of such patriots was Machiavelli (see below, p. 194). Machiavelli wrote in _The Prince:_ "Our country, left almostwithout life, still waits to know who it is that is to heal herbruises, to put an end to the devastation and plunder of Lombardy andto the exactions and imposts of Naples and Tuscany, and to stanch thosewounds of hers which long neglect has changed into running sores. Wesee how she prays God to send some one to rescue her from thesebarbarous cruelties and oppressions. We see too how ready and eager sheis to follow any standard, were there only some one to raise it. "], andthe rise of a common language, which, under such masters as Dante andPetrarch, had become a great medium for literary expression, the peopleof the peninsula had not built up a national monarchy like those ofwestern Europe nor had they even preserved the form of allegiance tothe Holy Roman Empire. This was due to several significant events ofearlier times. In the first place, the attempt of the medieval Germanemperors to gain control of Italy not only had signally failed but hadleft behind two contending factions throughout the whole country, --one, the Ghibellines, supporting the doctrine of maintaining the traditionalconnection with the Germanies; the other, the Guelphs, rejecting thatdoctrine. In the second place, the pope, who exercised extensivepolitical as well as religious power, felt that his ecclesiasticalinfluence would be seriously impaired by the creation of politicalunity in the country; a strong lay monarch with a solid Italy behindhim would in time reduce the sovereign pontiff to a subservientposition and diminish the prestige which the head of the church enjoyedin foreign lands; therefore the popes participated actively in the gameof Italian politics, always endeavoring to prevent any one state frombecoming too powerful. Thirdly, the comparatively early commercialprominence of the Italian towns had stimulated trade rivalries whichtended to make each proud of its independence and wealth; and as thecities grew and prospered to an unwonted degree, it became increasinglydifficult to join them together. Finally, the riches of the Italians, and the local jealousies and strife, to say nothing of the papalpolicy, marked the country as natural prey for foreign interference andconquest; and in this way the peninsula became a battleground forSpaniards, Frenchmen, and Germans. Before reviewing the chief city-states of northern Italy, it will bewell to say a word about two other political divisions of the country. The southern third of the peninsula comprised the ancient kingdom ofNaples, which had grown up about the city of that name, and whichtogether with the large island of Sicily, was called the kingdom of theTwo Sicilies. [Sidenote: Southern Italy in 1500: the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies] This state, having been first formed by Scandinavian adventurers in theeleventh century, had successively passed under papal suzerainty, underthe domination of the German emperors, and at length in 1266 underFrench control. A revolt in Sicily in the year 1282, commonly calledthe Sicilian Vespers, had severed the relation between the island andthe mainland, the former passing to the royal family of Aragon, and thelatter troublously remaining in French hands until 1442. The reunion ofthe Two Sicilies at that date under the crown of Aragon served to keepalive the quarrel between the French and the Spanish; and it was notuntil 1504 that the king of France definitely renounced his Neapolitanclaims in favor of Ferdinand of Aragon. Socially and politically Napleswas the most backward state in Italy. [Sidenote: Italy in 1500: the Papal States] About the city of Rome had grown up in the course of centuries thePapal States, or as they were officially styled, the Patrimony of St. Peter. It had early fallen to the lot of the bishop, as the mostimportant person in the city, to exercise political power over Rome, when barbarian invasions no longer permitted the exercise of authorityby Roman emperors; and control over neighboring districts, as well asover the city, had been expressly recognized and conferred upon thebishop by Charlemagne in the eighth century. This bishop of Rome was, of course, the pope; and the pope slowly extended his territoriesthrough central Italy from the Tiber to the Adriatic, long using themmerely as a bulwark to his religious and ecclesiastical prerogatives. By the year 1500, however, the popes were becoming prone to regardthemselves as Italian princes who might normally employ their states asso many pawns in the game of peninsular politics. The policy of thenotorious Alexander VI (1492-1503) centered in his desire to establishhis son, Cesare Borgia, as an Italian ruler; and Julius II (1503-1513)was famed more for statecraft and military prowess than for religiousfervor. [Sidenote: The City-States of Northern Italy in 1500] North and west of the Papal States were the various city-states whichwere so thoroughly distinctive of Italian politics at the opening ofthe sixteenth century. Although these towns had probably reached ahigher plane both of material prosperity and of intellectual culturethan was to be found at that time in any other part of Europe, nevertheless they were deeply jealous of each other and carried on aninterminable series of petty wars, the brunt of which was borne byprofessional hired soldiers and freebooters styled _condottieri_. Among the Italian city-states, the most famous in the year 1500 wereMilan, Venice, Genoa, and Florence. [Sidenote: Italian City-States: Milan Governed by Despots] Of these cities, Milan was still in theory a ducal fief of the HolyRoman Empire, but had long been in fact the prize of despotic rulerswho were descended from two famous families--the Visconti and theSforza--and who combined the patronage of art with the fine politicalsubtleties of Italian tyrants. The Visconti ruled Milan from thethirteenth century to the middle of the fifteenth, when a Sforza, aleader of _condottieri_ established the supremacy of his ownfamily. In 1499, however, King Louis XII of France, claiming the duchyas heir to the Visconti, seized Milan and held it until he was expelledin 1512 by the Holy League, composed of the pope, Venice, Spain, andEngland, and a Sforza was temporarily reinstated. [Sidenote: Venice, a Type of the Commercial and Aristocratic ItalianCity-States] As Milan was the type of Italian city ruled by a despot or tyrant, soVenice was a type of the commercial, oligarchical city-states. Venicewas by far the most powerful state in the peninsula. Located on theislands and lagoons at the head of the Adriatic, she had profitedgreatly by the crusades to build up a maritime empire and an enviabletrade on the eastern Mediterranean and had extended her sway over richlands in the northeastern part of Italy. In the year 1500, Veniceboasted 3000 ships, 300, 000 sailors, a numerous and veteran army, famous factories of plate glass, silk stuffs, and gold and silverobjects, and a singularly strong government. Nominally Venice was arepublic, but actually an oligarchy. Political power was intrustedjointly to several agencies: (1) a grand council controlled by thecommercial magnates; (2) a centralized committee of ten; (3) an electeddoge, or duke; and (4), after 1454, three state inquisitors, henceforththe city's real masters. The inquisitors could pronounce sentence ofdeath, dispose of the public funds, and enact statutes; they maintaineda regular spy system; and trial, judgment, and execution were secret. The mouth of the lion of St. Mark received anonymous denunciations, andthe waves which passed under the Bridge of Sighs carried away thecorpses. To this regime Venice owed an internal peace which contrastedwith the endless civil wars of the other Italian cities. Till the finaldestruction of the state in 1798 Venice knew no political revolution. In foreign affairs, also, Venice possessed considerable influence; shewas the first European state to send regular envoys, or ambassadors, toother courts. It seemed in 1500 as if she were particularly wealthy andgreat, but already had been sowed the seed of her subsequent declineand humiliation. The advance of the Ottoman Turks threatened herposition in eastern Europe, although she still held the Morea inGreece, Crete, Cyprus, and many Ionian and AEgean islands. The discoveryof America and of a new route to India was destined to shake the verybasis of her commercial supremacy. And her unscrupulous policy towardher Italian rivals lost her friends to the west. So great was theenmity against Venice that the formidable League of Cambrai, enteredinto by the emperor, the pope, France, and Spain in 1508, wrung manyconcessions from her. [Sidenote: Genoa] Second only to Venice in commercial importance, Genoa, in markedcontrast with her rival, passed through all manner of politicalvicissitudes until in 1499 she fell prey to the invasion of King LouisXII of France. Thereafter Genoa remained some years subject to theFrench, but in 1528 the resolution of an able citizen, Andrea Doria, freed the state from foreign invaders and restored to Genoa herrepublican institutions. The famed city-state of Florence may be taken as the best type of thedemocratic community, controlled by a political leader. The city, asfamous for its free institutions as for its art, in the first half ofthe fifteenth century had come under the tutelage of a family oftraders and bankers, the wealthy Medici, who preserved the republicanforms, and for a while, under Lorenzo de' Medici (1449-1492), surnamedthe Magnificent, made Florence the center of Italian culture andcivilization. [Sidenote: Florence, a Type of the Cultured and Democratic ItalianCity-State] Soon after the death of Lorenzo, a democratic reaction took place underan enthusiastic and puritanical monk, Savonarola, who welcomed theadvent of the French king, Charles VIII, in 1494, and aided materiallyin the expulsion of the Medici. Savonarola soon fell a victim to theplots of his Florentine enemies and to the vengeance of the pope, whomCharles VIII had offended, and was put to death in 1498, The democracymanaged to survive until 1512 when the Medici returned. The city-stateof Florence subsequently became the grand-duchy of Tuscany. [Sidenote: The Obscure Duchy of Savoy in 1500] Before we take leave of the Italian states of the year 1500, mentionshould be made of the insignificant duchy of Savoy, tucked away in thefastnesses of the northwestern Alps, whose duke, after varyingfortunes, was to become, in the nineteenth century, king of a unitedItaly. [Sidenote: The City-States in the Netherlands] The city-state was the dominant form of political organization not onlyin Italy but also in the Netherlands. The Netherlands, or the LowCountries, were seventeen provinces occupying the flat lowlands alongthe North Sea, --the Holland, Belgium, and northern France of our ownday. Most of the inhabitants, Flemings and Dutch, spoke a language akinto German, but in the south the Walloons used a French dialect. Atfirst the provinces had been mere feudal states at the mercy of variouswarring noblemen, but gradually in the course of the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries, important towns had arisen sowealthy and populous that they were able to wrest charters from thelords. Thus arose a number of municipalities--practically self-governing republics--semi-independent vassals of feudal nobles; and inmany cases the early oligarchic systems of municipal governmentspeedily gave way to more democratic institutions. Remarkable inindustry and prosperity were Ghent, Bruges, Antwerp, Brussels, Liege, Utrecht, Delft, Rotterdam, and many another. [Sidenote: Relation of the City-Stats of the Netherlands to the Dukesof Burgundy] Beginning in 1384 and continuing throughout the fifteenth century, thedukes of Burgundy, who as vassals of the French king had long held theduchy of that name in eastern France, succeeded by marriage, purchase, treachery, or force in bringing one by one the seventeen provinces ofthe Netherlands under their rule. This extension of dominion on thepart of the dukes of Burgundy implied the establishment of a strongmonarchical authority, which was supported by the nobility and clergyand opposed by the cities. In 1465 a common parliament, called theStates General, was constituted at Brussels, containing deputies fromeach of the seventeen provinces; and eight years later a grand councilwas organized with supreme judicial and financial functions. Charlesthe Bold, who died in 1477, was prevented from constructing a greatcentral kingdom between France and the Germanies only by the shrewdnessof his implacable foe, King Louis XI of France. As we have seen, inanother connection, Louis seized the duchy of Burgundy on the death ofCharles the Bold, thereby extending the eastern frontier of France, butthe duke's inheritance in the Netherlands passed to his daughter Mary. In 1477 Mary's marriage with Maximilian of Austria began the longdomination of the Netherlands by the house of Habsburg. Throughout these political changes, the towns of the Netherlandsmaintained many of their former privileges, and their prosperitysteadily increased. The country became the richest in Europe, and thesplendor of the ducal court surpassed that of any contemporarysovereign. A permanent memorial of it remains in the celebrated Orderof the Golden Fleece, which was instituted by the duke of Burgundy inthe fifteenth century and was so named from the English wool, the rawmaterial used in the Flemish looms and the very foundation of thecountry's fortunes. 4. NORTHERN AND EASTERN EUROPE IN THE YEAR 1500 [Sidenote: Northern and Eastern Europe of Small Importance in theSixteenth Century, but of Great Importance Subsequently] We have now reviewed the states that were to be the main factors in thehistorical events of the sixteenth century--the national monarchies ofEngland, France, Portugal, and Spain; the Holy Roman Empire of theGermanies; and the city-states of Italy and the Netherlands. It may bewell, however, to point out that in northern and eastern Europe otherstates had already come into existence, which subsequently were toaffect in no small degree the history of modern times, such as theScandinavian kingdoms, the tsardom of Muscovy, the feudal kingdoms ofPoland and Hungary, and the empire of the Ottoman Turks. [Sidenote: Northwestern Europe: the Scandinavian Countries] In the early homes of those Northmen who had long before ravaged thecoasts of England and France and southern Italy and had colonizedIceland and Greenland, were situated in 1500 three kingdoms, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, corresponding generally to the present-day statesof those names. The three countries had many racial and socialcharacteristics in common, and they had been politically joined underthe king of Denmark by the Union of Calmar in 1397. This union neverevoked any popularity among the Swedes, and after a series of revoltsand disorders extending over fifty years, Gustavus Vasa (1523-1560)established the independence of Sweden. Norway remained under Danishkings until 1814. [Sidenote: The Slavs in Central and Eastern Europe] East of the Scandinavian peninsula and of the German-speakingpopulation of central Europe, spread out like a great fan, are avariety of peoples who possess many common characteristics, including agroup of closely related languages, which are called Slavic. TheseSlavs in the year 1500 included (1) the Russians, (2) the Poles andLithuanians, (3) the Czechs, or natives of Bohemia, within the confinesof the Holy Roman Empire, and (4) various nations in southeasternEurope, such as the Serbs and Bulgars. [Sidenote: Russia in 1500] The Russians in 1500 did not possess such a huge autocratic state asthey do to-day. They were distributed among several principalities, thechief and center of which was the grand-duchy of Muscovy, with Moscowas its capital. Muscovy's reigning family was of Scandinavianextraction but what civilization and Christianity the principalitiespossessed had been brought by Greek missionaries from Constantinople. For two centuries, from the middle of the thirteenth to the middle ofthe fifteenth, the Russians paid tribute to Mongol [Footnote: TheMongols were a people of central Asia, whose famous leader, JenghizKhan (1162-1227), established an empire which stretched from the ChinaSea to the banks of the Dnieper. It was these Mongols who drove theOttoman Turks from their original Asiatic home and thus precipitatedthe Turkish invasion of Europe. After the death of Jenghiz Khan theMongol Empire was broken into a variety of "khanates, " all of which incourse of time dwindled away. In the sixteenth century the Mongolsnorth of the Black Sea succumbed to the Turks as well as to theRussians. ] khans who had set up an Asiatic despotism north of the BlackSea. The beginnings of Russian greatness are traceable to Ivan III, theGreat (1462-1505), [Footnote: Ivan IV (1533-1584), called "TheTerrible, " a successor of Ivan III, assumed the title of "Tsar" in1547. ] who freed his people from Mongol domination, united the numerousprincipalities, conquered the important cities of Novgorod and Pskov, and extended his sway as far as the Arctic Ocean and the UralMountains. Russia, however, could hardly then be called a modern state, for the political and social life still smacked of Asia rather than ofEurope, and the Russian Christianity, having been derived fromConstantinople, differed from the Christianity of western Europe. Russia was not to appear as a conspicuous European state until theeighteenth century. [Sidenote: Poland in 1500] Southwest of the tsardom of Muscovy and east of the Holy Roman Empirewas the kingdom of Poland, to which Lithuanians as well as Poles owedallegiance. Despite wide territories and a succession of able rulers, Poland was a weak monarchy. Lack of natural boundaries made nationaldefense difficult. Civil war between the two peoples who composed thestate and foreign war with the neighboring Germans worked havoc anddistress. An obstructive parliament of great lords rendered effectiveadministration impossible. The nobles possessed the property andcontrolled politics; in their hands the king gradually became a puppet. Poland seemed committed to feudal society and feudal government at thevery time when the countries of western Europe were ridding themselvesof such checks upon the free growth of centralized national states. [Sidenote: Hungary in 1500] Somewhat similar to Poland in its feudal propensities was the kingdomof Hungary, which an invasion of Asiatic tribesmen [Footnote:Hungarians, or Magyars--different names for the same people. ] in thetenth century had driven like a wedge between the Slavs of the Balkanpeninsula and those of the north Poles and Russians. At first, theefforts of such kings as St. Stephen (997-1038) promised thedevelopment of a great state, but the weakness of the sovereigns in thethirteenth century, the infiltration of western feudalism, and theendless civil discords brought to the front a powerful and predatoryclass of barons who ultimately overshadowed the throne. The brilliantreign of Matthias Hunyadi (1458-1490) was but an exception to thegeneral rule. Not only were the kings obliged to struggle against thenobles for their very existence--the crown was elective in Hungary--butno rulers had to contend with more or greater enemies on theirfrontiers. To the north there was perpetual conflict with the Habsburgsof German Austria and with the forces of the Holy Roman Empire; to theeast there were spasmodic quarrels with the Vlachs, the natives ofmodern Rumania; to the south there was continual fighting, at firstwith the Greeks and the Slavs--Serbs and Bulgars, and later, mostterrible of all, with the Ottoman Turks. [Sidenote: The Ottoman Turks in 1500] To the Eastern Roman Empire, with Constantinople as its capital, andwith the Greeks as its dominant population, and to the medievalkingdoms of the Bulgars and Serbs, had succeeded by the year 1500 theempire of the Ottoman Turks. The Ottoman Turks were a tribe of AsiaticMohammedans who took their name from a certain Othman (died 1326), under whom they had established themselves in Asia Minor, across theBosphorus from Constantinople. Thence they rapidly extended theirdominion over Syria, and over Greece and the Balkan peninsula, exceptthe little mountain state of Montenegro, and in 1453 they capturedConstantinople. The lands conquered by the arms of the Turks weredivided into large estates for the military leaders, or else assignedto the maintenance of mosques and schools, or converted into common andpasturage lands; the conquered Christians were reduced to the paymentof tribute and a life of serfdom. For two centuries the Turks were toremain a source of grave apprehension to Europe. ADDITIONAL READINGS THE NATIONAL MONARCHIES ABOUT 1600. A. F. Pollard, _Factors in EuropeanHistory_ (1907), ch. I on "Nationality" and ch. Iii on "The NewMonarchy"; _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. I, ch. Xiv, xii, xi;_Histoire generale_, Vol. IV, ch. Xiii, iv, v; _History of AllNations_, Vol. X, ch. Xii-xvi; A. H. Johnson, _Europe in the SixteenthCentury_ (1897), ch. I, ii; Mary A. Hollings, _Renaissance andReformation_ (1910), ch. I-v. On England: A. L. Cross, _History ofEngland and Greater Britain_ (1914), ch. Xviii; J. F. Bright, _Historyof England_, Vol. II, a standard work; James Gairdner, _Henry VII_(1889), a reliable short biography; Gladys Temperley, _Henry VII_(1914), fairly reliable and quite readable; H. A. L. Fisher, _PoliticalHistory of England 1485-1547_ (1906), ch. I-iv, brilliant andscholarly; A. D. Innes, _History of England and the British Empire_(1914), Vol. II, ch. I, ii; William Cunningham, _The Growth of EnglishIndustry and Commerce in Modern Times_, 5th ed. , 3 vols. (1910-1912), Vol. I, Book V valuable for social conditions under Henry VII; William(Bishop) Stubbs, _Lectures on Mediaeval and Modern History_, ch. Xv, xvi; F. W. Maitland, _The Constitutional History of England_ (1908), Period II. On Scotland: P. H. Brown, _History of Scotland_, 3 vols. (1899-1909), Vol. I from earliest times to the middle of the sixteenthcentury; Andrew Lang, _A History of Scotland_, 2d ed. , 4 vols. (1901-1907), Vol. I. On France: A. J. Grant, _The French Monarchy, 1483-1789_, 2 vols. (1900), Vol. I, ch. I, ii, brief and general; G. B. Adams, _The Growth of the French Nation_ (1896), ch. Viii-x, asuggestive sketch; G. W. Kitchin, _A History of France_, 4th ed. , 3vols. (1894-1899), Vol. I and Vol. II (in part), dry and narrowlypolitical; Lavisse (editor), _Histoire de France_, Vol. V, Part I(1903), an exhaustive and scholarly study. On Spain and Portugal: E. P. Cheyney, _European Background of American History_ (1904), pp. 60-103;U. R. Burke, _A History of Spain from the Earliest Times to the Deathof Ferdinand the Catholic_, 2d ed. , 2 vols. (1900), edited by M. A. S. Hume, Vol. II best account of the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella; W. H. Prescott, _History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella_, 3 vols. (1836), antiquated but extremely readable; Mrs. Julia Cartwright, _Isabella the Catholic_ (1914), in "Heroes of the Nations" Series; H. M. Stephens, _Portugal_ (1891) in "Story of the Nations" Series; F. W. Schirrmacher, _Geschichte von Spanien_, 7 vols. (1902), an elaborateGerman work, of which Vol. VII covers the years 1492-1516. THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE. _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. I (1902), ch. Ix, a political sketch; James (Viscount) Bryce, _The Holy RomanEmpire_, new ed. Revised (1911); William Coxe, _History of the House ofAustria_, Bohn edition, 4 vols. (1893-1894), a century-old work butstill useful for Habsburg history; Sidney Whitman, _Austria_ (1899), and, by the same author, _The Realm of the Habsburgs_ (1893) 5 KurtKaser, _Deutsche Geschichte zur Zeit Maximilians I, 1486-1519_ (1912), an excellent study appearing in "Bibliothek deutscher Geschichte, "edited by Von Zwiedineck-Suedenhorst; Franz Krones, _Handbuch derGeschichte Oesterreichs von der altesten Zeit_, 5 vols. (1876-1879), ofwhich Vol. II, Book XI treats of political events in Austria from 1493to 1526 and Vol. III, Book XII of constitutional development 1100-1526;Leopold von Ranke, _History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations_, 1494-1514, a rev. Trans. In the Bohn Library (1915) of the earliestimportant work of this distinguished historian, published originally in1824. ITALY AND THE CITY STATES. _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. I (1902), ch. Iv-viii; _Histoire generale, Vol. IV, ch. I, ii; Mrs. H. M. Vernon, _Italy from 1494 to 1790_ (1909), a clear account in the "CambridgeHistorical Series"; J. A. Symonds, _Age of the Despots_ (1883), pleasant but inclined to the picturesque; Pompeo Molmenti, _Venice, itsIndividual Growth from the Earliest Beginnings to the Fall of theRepublic_, trans. By H. F. Brown, 6 vols. (1906-1908), an exhaustivenarrative of the details of Venetian history; Edward Armstrong, _Lorenzo de' Medici_ (1897), in the "Heroes of the Nations" Series, valuable for Florentine history about 1500; Col. G. F. Young, _TheMedici_, 2 vols. (1909), an extended history of this famous Florentinefamily from 1400 to 1743; Ferdinand Gregorovius, _History of the Cityof Rome in the Middle Ages_, trans. From 4th German ed. By AnnieHamilton, 8 vols. In 13, a non-Catholic account of the papal monarchyin Italy, of which Vol. VII, Part II and Vol. VIII, Part I treat ofRome about 1500. For the city-states of the Netherlands see _CambridgeModern History_, Vol. I (1902), ch. Xiii; the monumental _History ofthe People of the Netherlands_, by the distinguished Dutch historian P. J. Blok, trans. By O. A. Bierstadt, 5 vols. (1898-1912), especiallyVols. I and II; and _Belgian Democracy: its Early History_, trans. ByJ. V. Saunders (1915) from the authoritative work of the famous Belgianhistorian Henri Pirenne (1910). For the German city-states seereferences under HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE above. NORTHERN AND EASTERN EUROPE ABOUT 1500. General: _Cambridge ModernHistory_, Vol. I (1902), ch. X, iii; _Histoire generale, Vol. IV, ch. Xviii-xxi; R. N. Bain, _Slavonic Europe: a Political History of Polandand Russia from 1447 to 1796_ (1908), ch. I-iv; T. Schiemann, _Russland, Polen, und Livland bis ins 17ten Jahrhundert_, 2 vols. (1886-1887). Norway: H. H. Boyesen, _The History of Norway_ (1886), abrief popular account in "Story of the Nations" Series. Muscovy: V. O. Kliuchevsky, _A History of Russia_, trans. With some abridgments by C. J. Hogarth, 3 vols. To close of seventeenth century (1911-1913), latestand, despite faulty translation, most authoritative work on earlyRussian history now available in English; Alfred Rambaud, _Histoire dela Russie depuis les origines jusqu'a nos jours_, 6th ed. Completed to1913 by Emile Haumant (1914), a brilliant work, of which the portiondown to 1877 has been trans. By Leonora B. Lang, 2 vols. (1879); W. R. A. Morfill, _Russia_, in "Story of the Nations" Series, and _Poland_, acompanion volume in the same series. See also Jeremiah Curtin, _TheMongols: a History_ (1908). For the Magyars: C. M. Knatchbull-Hugessen, _The Political Evolution of the Hungarian Nation_, 2 vols. (1908), especially Vol. I, ch. I-iii; A. Vambery, _The Story of Hungary_ (1886)in "Story of the Nations" Series; Count Julius Andrassy, _TheDevelopment of Hungarian Constitutional Liberty_, trans. By C. Arthurand Ilona Ginever (1908), the views of a contemporary Magyar statesmanon the constitutional development of his country throughout the middleages and down to 1619, difficult to read. For the Ottoman Turks and theBalkan peoples: Stanley Lane-Poole, _Turkey_ (1889), in "Story of theNations" Series, best brief introduction; A. H. Lybyer, _The Governmentof the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Magnificent_ (1913);Prince and Princess Lazarovich-Hrebelianovich, _The Servian People, their Past Glory and their Destiny_, 2 vols. (1910), particularly Vol. II, ch. Xi, xii; far more pretentious works are, Joseph von Hammer, _Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches_, 2d ed. , 4 vols. (1834-1835), andNicolae Jorga, _Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches nach den Quellendargestellt_, 5 vols. (1908-1913), especially Vol. II, _1451-1538_, and H. A. Gibbons, _The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire _(1916), covering the earlier years, from 1300 to 1403. CHAPTER II THE COMMERCIAL REVOLUTION [Sidenote: Introductory] Five hundred years ago a European could search in vain the map of "theworld" for America, or Australia, or the Pacific Ocean. Experiencedmariners, and even learned geographers, were quite unaware that beyondthe Western Sea lay two great continents peopled by red men; of Africathey knew only the northern coast; and in respect of Asia a thousandabsurd tales passed current. The unexplored waste of waters thatconstituted the Atlantic Ocean was, to many ignorant Europeans of thefifteenth century, a terrible region frequented by fierce and fantasticmonsters. To the average European the countries surveyed in thepreceding chapter, together with their Mohammedan neighbors across theMediterranean, still comprised the entire known world. Shortly before the close of the fifteenth century, daring captainsbegan to direct long voyages on the high seas and to discover theexistence of new lands; and from that time to the present, Europeanshave been busily exploring and conquering--veritably "Europeanizing"--the whole globe. Although religion as well as commerce played animportant role in promoting the process, the movement was attended fromthe very outset by so startling a transformation in the routes, methods, and commodities of trade that usually it has been styled theCommercial Revolution. By the close of the sixteenth century it hadproceeded far enough to indicate that its results would rank among themost fateful events of all history. It was in the commonplace affairs of everyday life that the CommercialRevolution was destined to produce its most far-reaching results. Toappreciate, therefore, its true nature and significance, we must firstturn aside to ascertain how our European ancestors actually lived aboutthe year 1500, and what work they did to earn their living. Then, afterrecounting the story of foreign exploration and colonization, we shallbe in a position to reappraise the domestic situation in town and onthe farm. AGRICULTURE IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY [Sidenote: Differences between Sixteenth-century Farming and That ofTo-day] Agriculture has always been the ultimate basis of society, but in thesixteenth century it was of greater relative importance than it is now. People then reckoned their wealth, not by the quantity of stocks andbonds they held, but by the extent of land they owned. Farming wasstill the occupation of the vast majority of the population of everyEuropean state, for the towns were as yet small in size and few innumber. The "masses" lived in the country, not, as to-day, in the city. A twentieth-century observer would be struck by other peculiarities ofsixteenth-century agriculture. He would find a curious organization ofrural society, strange theories of land-ownership, and most unfamiliarmethods of tillage. He would discover, moreover, that practically eachfarm was self-sufficing, producing only what its own occupants couldconsume, and that consequently there was comparatively little externaltrade in farm produce. From these facts he would readily understandthat the rural communities in the year 1500, numerous yet isolated, were invulnerable strongholds of conservatism and ignorance. [Sidenote: Two Rural Classes: Nobility and Peasantry] In certain respects a remarkable uniformity prevailed in ruraldistricts throughout all Europe. Whether one visited Germany, Hungary, France, or England, one was sure to find the agricultural populationsharply divided into two social classes--nobility and peasantry. Theremight be varying gradations of these classes in different regions, butcertain general distinctions everywhere prevailed. [Sidenote: The Nobility] The nobility [Footnote: As a part of the nobility must be included atthe opening of the sixteenth century many of the higher clergy of theCatholic Church--archbishops, bishops, and abbots--who owned largelanded estates quite like their lay brethren. ] comprised men who gaineda living from the soil without manual labor. They held the land onfeudal tenure, that is to say, they had a right to be supported by thepeasants living on their estates, and, in return, they owed to somehigher or wealthier nobleman or to the king certain duties, such asfighting for him, [Footnote: This obligation rested only upon laynoblemen, not upon ecclesiastics. ] attending his court at specifiedtimes, and paying him various irregular taxes (the feudal dues). Theestate of each nobleman might embrace a single farm, or "manor" as itwas called, inclosing a petty hamlet, or village; or it might includedozens of such manors; or, if the landlord were a particularly mightymagnate or powerful prelate, it might stretch over whole counties. Each nobleman had his manor-house or, if he were rich enough, hiscastle, lording it over the humble thatch-roofed cottages of thevillagers. In his stables were spirited horses and a carriage adornedwith his family crest; he had servants and lackeys, a footman to openhis carriage door, a game-warden to keep poachers from shooting hisdeer, and men-at-arms to quell disturbances, to aid him againstquarrelsome neighbors, or to follow him to the wars. While he lived, hemight occupy the best pew in the village church; when he died, he wouldbe laid to rest within the church where only noblemen were buried. [Sidenote: Reason for the Preeminence of the Nobility] In earlier times, when feudal society was young, the nobility hadperformed a very real service as the defenders of the peasants againstforeign enemies and likewise against marauders and bandits of whom theland had been full. Then fighting had been the profession of thenobility, And to enable them to possess the expensive accoutrements offighting--horses, armor, swords, and lances--the kings and the peasantshad assured them liberal incomes. Now, however, at the opening of the sixteenth century, the palmy daysof feudalism were past and gone. Later generations of noblemen, although they continued by right of inheritance to enjoy the financialincome and the social prestige which their forbears had earned, nolonger served king, country, or common people in the traditionalmanner. At least in the national monarchies it was the king who now hadundertaken the defense of the land and the preservation of peace; andthe nobleman, deprived of his old occupation, had little else to dothan to hunt, or quarrel with other noblemen, or engage in politicalintrigues. More and more the nobility, especially in France, wereattracted to a life of amusement and luxury in the royal court. Thenobility already had outlived its usefulness, yet it retained its old-time privileges. [Sidenote: The Peasantry] In striking contrast to the nobility--the small minority of land-owningaristocrats--were the peasantry--the mass of the people. They were thehuman beings who had to toil for their bread in the sweat of theirbrows and who were deemed of ignoble birth, as social inferiors, and asstupid and rude. Actual farm work was "servile labor, " and between theman whose hands were stained by servile labor and the person of "gentlebirth" a wide gulf was fixed. [Sidenote: Serfdom and the Manorial System] During the early middle ages most of the peasants throughout Europewere "serfs. " For various reasons, which we shall explain presently, serfdom had tended gradually to and the die out in western Europe, butat the opening of the sixteenth century most of the agriculturallaborers in eastern and central Europe, and even a considerable numberin France, were still serfs, living and working on nobles' manors inaccordance with ancient customs which can be described collectively asthe "manorial system. " The serf occupied a position in rural society which it is difficult forus to understand. He was not a slave, such as was usual in the SouthernStates of the American Union before the Civil War; he was neither ahired man nor a rent-paying tenant-farmer, such as is common enough inall agricultural communities nowadays. The serf was not a slave, because he was free to work for himself at least part of the time; hecould not be sold to another master; and he could not be deprived ofthe right to cultivate land for his own benefit. He was not a hiredman, for he received no wages. And he was not a tenant-farmer, inasmuchas he was "attached to the soil, " that is, he was bound to stay andwork on his land, unless he succeeded in running away or in purchasingcomplete freedom, in which case he would cease to be a serf and wouldbecome a freeman. [Sidenote: Obligations of the Serf to the Lord] To the lord of the manor the serf was under many and variedobligations, the most essential of which may be grouped conveniently asfollows: (1) The serf had to work without pay two or three days in eachweek on the strips of land and the fields whose produce belongedexclusively to the nobleman. In the harvest season extra days, known as"boon-days, " were stipulated on which the serf must leave his own workin order to harvest for the lord. He also might be called upon inemergencies to draw a cord of wood from the forest to the great manor-house, or to work upon the highway (_corvee_). (2) The serf had topay occasional dues, customarily "in kind. " Thus at certain feast-dayshe was expected to bring a dozen fat fowls or a bushel of grain to thepantry of the manor-house. (3) Ovens, wine-presses, gristmills, andbridges were usually owned solely by the nobleman, and each time thepeasant used them he was obliged to give one of his loaves of bread, ashare of his wine, a bushel of his grain, or a toll-fee, as a kind ofrent, or "banality" as it was euphoniously styled. (4) If the serf diedwithout heirs, his holdings were transferred outright to the lord, andif he left heirs, the nobleman had the rights of "heriot, " that is, toappropriate the best animal owned by the deceased peasant, and of"relief, " that is, to oblige the designated heir to make a definiteadditional payment that was equivalent to a kind of inheritance tax. [Sidenote: Free-Tenants] As has been intimated, the manorial system was already on a steadydecline, especially in western Europe, at the opening of the sixteenthcentury. A goodly number of peasants who had once been serfs were nowfree-tenants, lessees, or hired laborers. Of course rent of farm-landin our present sense--each owner of the land letting out his propertyto a tenant and, in return, exacting as large a monetary payment aspossible--was then unknown. But there was a growing class of peasantswho were spoken of as free-tenants to distinguish them from serf-tenants. These free-tenants, while paying regular dues, as did theothers, were not compelled to work two or three days every week in thelord's fields, except occasionally in busy seasons such as harvest;they were free to leave the estate and to marry off their daughters orto sell their oxen without the consent of the lord; and they came toregard their customary payments to the lord not so much as his due fortheir protection as actual rent for their land. [Sidenote: Hired Laborers] While more prosperous peasants were becoming free-tenants, many oftheir poorer neighbors found it so difficult to gain a living as serfsthat they were willing to surrender all claim to their own littlestrips of land on the manor and to devote their whole time to workingfor fixed wages on the fields which were cultivated for the noblemanhimself, the so-called lord's demesne. Thus a body of hired laborersgrew up claiming no land beyond that on which their miserable hutsstood and possibly their small garden-plots. [Sidenote: Metayers] Besides hired laborers and free-tenants, a third group of peasantsappeared in places where the noble proprietor did not care tosuperintend the cultivation of his own land. In this case he parceledit out among particular peasants, furnishing each with livestock and aplow and expecting in return a fixed proportion of the crops, which inFrance usually amounted to one-half. Peasants who made such a bargainwere called in France _metayers_, and in England "stock-and-landlessees. " The arrangement was not different essentially from thefamiliar present-day practice of working a farm "on shares. " [Sidenote: Steady Decline of Serfdom] In France and in England the serfs had mostly become hired laborers, tenants, or _metayers_ by the sixteenth century. The obligationsof serfdom had proved too galling for the serf and too unprofitable forthe lord. It was much easier and cheaper for the latter to hire men towork just when he needed them, than to bother with serfs, who could notbe discharged readily for slackness, and who naturally worked forthemselves far more zealously than for him. For this reason manylandlords were glad to allow their serfs to make payments in money orin grain in lieu of the performance of customary labor. In England, moreover, many lords, finding it profitable to inclose [Footnote: Therewere no fences on the old manors. Inclosing a plot of ground meantfencing or hedging it in. ] their land in order to utilize it aspasturage for sheep, voluntarily freed their serfs. The result was thatserfdom virtually had disappeared in England before the sixteenthcentury. In France as early as the fourteenth century the bulk of theserfs had purchased their liberty, although in a few districts serfdomremained in its pristine vigor until the French Revolution. In other countries agricultural conditions were more backward andserfdom longer survived. Prussian and Austrian landowners retainedtheir serfs until the nineteenth century; the emancipation of Russianserfs on a large scale was not inaugurated until 1861. There are stillsurvivals of serfdom in parts of eastern Europe. [Sidenote: Survival of Servile Obligations after Decline of Serfdom] Emancipation from serfdom by no means released the peasants from allthe disabilities under which they labored as serfs. True, the freemanno longer had week-work to do, provided he could pay for his time, andin theory at least he could marry as he chose and move freely fromplace to place. But he might still be called upon for an occasionalday's labor, he still was expected to work on the roads, and he stillhad to pay annoying fees for oven, mill, and wine-press. Then, too, hisown crops might be eaten with impunity by doves from the noble dovecoteor trampled underfoot by a merry hunting-party from the manor-house. The peasant himself ventured not to hunt: he was precluded even fromshooting the deer that devoured his garden. Certain other customsprevailed in various localities, conceived originally no doubt in aspirit of good-natured familiarity between noble and peasants, but nowgrown irritating if none the less humorous. It is said, for instance, that in some places newly married couples were compelled to vault thewall of the churchyard, and that on certain nights the peasants wereobliged to beat the castle ditch in order to rest the lord's familyfrom the dismal croaking of the frogs. [Sidenote: Persistence of "Three-field System" of Agriculture] In another important respect the manorial system survived long afterserfdom had begun to decline. This was the method of doing farm work. Auniversal and insistent tradition had fixed agricultural method on themedieval manor and tended to preserve it unaltered well into moderntimes. The tradition was that of the "three-field system" ofagriculture. The land of the manor, which might vary in amount from afew hundred to five thousand acres, was not divided up into farms ofirregular shape and size, as it would be now. The waste-land, whichcould be used only for pasture, and the woodland on the outskirts ofthe clearing, were treated as "commons, " that is to say, each villager, as well as the lord of the manor, might freely gather fire-wood, or hemight turn his swine loose to feed on the acorns in the forest and hiscattle to graze over the entire pasture. The cultivable or arable landwas divided into several--usually three--great grain fields. Ridges or"balks" of unplowed turf divided each field into long parallel strips, which were usually forty rods or a furlong (furrow-long) in length, andfrom one to four rods wide. Each peasant had exclusive right to one ormore of these strips in each of the three great fields, making, say, thirty acres in all; [Footnote: In some localities it was usual toredistribute these strips every year. In that way the greater part ofthe manor was theoretically "common" land, and no peasant had a rightof private ownership to any one strip. ] the lord too had individualright to a number of strips in the great fields. [Sidenote: Disadvantages of Three-field System of Agriculture] This so-called three-field system of agriculture was distinctlydisadvantageous in many ways. Much time was wasted in going back andforth between the scattered plots of land. The individual peasant, moreover, was bound by custom to cultivate his land precisely as hisancestors had done, without attempting to introduce improvements. Hegrew the same crops as his neighbors--usually wheat or rye in onefield; beans or barley in the second; and nothing in the third. Littlewas known about preserving the fertility of the soil by artificialmanuring or by rotation of crops; and, although every year one-third ofthe land was left "fallow" (uncultivated) in order to restore itsfertility, the yield per acre was hardly a fourth as large as now. Farmimplements were of the crudest kind; scythes and sickles did the workof mowing machines; plows were made of wood, occasionally shod withiron; and threshing was done with flails. After the grain had beenharvested, cattle were turned out indiscriminately on the stubble, onthe supposition that the fields were common property. It was useless toattempt to breed fine cattle when all were herded together. The breeddeteriorated, and both cattle and sheep were undersized and poor. Afull-grown ox was hardly larger than a good-sized calf of the presenttime. Moreover, there were no potatoes or turnips, and few farmers grewclover or other grasses for winter fodder. It was impossible, therefore, to keep many cattle through the winter; most of the animalswere killed off in the autumn and salted down for the long wintermonths when it was impossible to secure fresh meat. [Sidenote: Peasant Life on the Manor] Crude farm-methods and the heavy dues exacted by the lord [Footnote: Inaddition to the dues paid to the lay lord, the peasants were underobligation to make a regular contribution to the church, which wascalled the "tithe" and amounted to a share, less than a tenth, of theannual crops. ] of the manor must have left the poor man little forhimself. Compared with the comfort of the farmer today, the poverty ofsixteenth-century peasants must have been inexpressibly distressful. How keenly the cold pierced the dark huts of the poorest, is hard forus to imagine. The winter diet of salt meat, the lack of vegetables, the chronic filth and squalor, and the sorry ignorance of all laws ofhealth opened the way to disease and contagion. And if the cropsfailed, famine was added to plague. On the other hand we must not forget that the tenement-houses of ourgreat cities have been crowded in the nineteenth century with peoplemore miserable than ever was serf of the middle ages. The serf, at anyrate, had the open air instead of a factory in which to work. Whentimes were good, he had grain and meat in plenty, and possibly wine orcider, and he hardly envied the tapestried chambers, the bejeweledclothes, and the spiced foods of the nobility, for he looked upon themas belonging to a different world. In one place nobleman and peasant met on a common footing--in thevillage church. There, on Sundays and feast-days, they came together asChristians to hear Mass; and afterwards, perhaps, holiday games anddancing on the green, benignantly patronized by the lord's family, helped the common folk to forget their labors. The village priest, [Footnote: Usually very different from the higher clergy, who had largelanded estates of their own, the parish priests had but modest incomesfrom the tithes of their parishioners and frequently eked out a livingby toiling on allotted patches of ground. The monks too were ordinarilypoor, although the monastery might be wealthy, and they likewise oftentilled the fields. ] himself often of humble birth, though the mostlearned man on the manor, was at once the friend and benefactor of thepoor and the spiritual director of the lord. Occasionally a visit ofthe bishop to administer confirmation to the children, afforded anopportunity for gayety and universal festivity. [Sidenote: Rural Isolation and Conservatism] At other times there was little to disturb the monotony of village lifeand little to remind it of the outside world, except when a gossipingpeddler chanced along, or when the squire rode away to court or to war. Intercourse with other villages was unnecessary, unless there were noblacksmith or miller on the spot. The roads were poor and in wetweather impassable. Travel was largely on horseback, and what fewcommodities were carried from place to place were transported by pack-horses. Only a few old soldiers, and possibly a priest, had traveledvery much; they were the only geographies and the only books of travelwhich the village possessed, for few peasants could read or write. Self-sufficient and secluded from the outer world, the rural villagewent on treasuring its traditions, keeping its old customs, centuryafter century. The country instinctively distrusted all novelties; italways preferred old ways to new; it was heartily conservative. Country-folk did not discover America. It was the enterprise of thecities, with their growing industries and commerce, which brought aboutthe Commercial Revolution; and to the development of commerce, industry, and the towns, we now must turn our attention. TOWNS ON THE EVE OF THE COMMERCIAL REVOLUTION [Sidenote: Trade and the Towns ] Except for the wealthy Italian city-states and a few other cities whichtraced their history back to Roman times, most European towns, it mustbe remembered, dated only from the later middle ages. At first therewas little excuse for their existence except to sell to farmers salt, fish, iron, and a few plows. But with the increase of commerce, which, as we shall see, especially marked the thirteenth, fourteenth, andfifteenth centuries, more merchants traveled through the country, waysof spending money multiplied, and the little agricultural villageslearned to look on the town as the place to buy not only luxuries butsuch tools, clothing, and shoes as could be manufactured moreconveniently by skillful town artisans than by clumsy rustics. Thetowns, moreover, became exchanges where surplus farm products could bemarketed, where wine could be bartered for wool, or wheat for flax. Andas the towns grew in size, the prosperous citizens proved to be thebest customers for foreign luxuries, and foreign trade grew apace. Town, trade, and industry thus worked together: trade stimulatedindustry, industry assisted trade, and the town profited by both. Bythe sixteenth century the towns had grown out of their infancy and weremaintaining a great measure of political and economic freedom. [Sidenote: Freedom of the Towns. ][Sidenote: Town Charters] Originally many a town had belonged to some nobleman's extensive manorand its inhabitants had been under much the same servile obligations tothe lord as were the strictly rural serfs. But with the lapse of timeand the growth of the towns, the townsmen or burghers had begun astruggle for freedom from their feudal lords. They did not want to payservile dues to a baron, but preferred to substitute a fixed annualpayment for individual obligations; they besought the right to managetheir market; they wished to have cases at law tried in a court oftheir own rather than in the feudal court over which the noblemanpresided; and they demanded the right to pay all taxes in a lump sumfor the town, themselves assessing and collecting the share of eachcitizen. These concessions they eventually had won, and each city hadits charter, in which its privileges were enumerated and recognized bythe authority of the nobleman, or of the king, to whom the city owedallegiance. In England these charters had been acquired generally bymerchant gilds, upon payment of a substantial sum to the nobleman; inFrance frequently the townsmen had formed associations, called_communes_, and had rebelled successfully against their feudallords; in Germany the cities had leagued together for mutual protectionand for the acquisition of common privileges. Other towns, formerlyfounded by bishops, abbots, or counts, had received charters at thevery outset. [Sidenote: Merchant Gilds] A peculiar outgrowth of the need for protection against oppressivefeudal lords, as well as against thieves, swindlers, and dishonestworkmen, had been the typically urban organization known as themerchant gild or the merchants' company. In the year 1500 the merchantgilds were everywhere on the decline, but they still preserved many oftheir earlier and more glorious traditions. At the time of theirgreatest importance they had embraced merchants, butchers, bakers, andcandlestick-makers: in fact, all who bought or sold in the town wereincluded in the gild. And the merchant gild had then possessed thewidest functions. [Sidenote: Earlier Functions of the Merchant Gild. ][Sidenote: Social] Its social and religious functions, inherited from much earlier bodies, consisted in paying some special honor to a patron saint, in giving aidto members in sickness or misfortune, attending funerals, and also inthe more enjoyable meetings when the freely flowing bowl enlivened thetransaction of gild business. [Sidenote: Protective] As a protective organization, the gild had been particularly effective. Backed by the combined forces of all the gildsmen, it was able toassert itself against the lord who claimed manorial rights over thetown, and to insist that a runaway serf who had lived in the town for ayear and a day should not be dragged back to perform his servile laboron the manor, but should be recognized as a freeman. The protection ofthe gild was accorded also to townsmen on their travels. In those daysall strangers were regarded as suspicious persons, and not infrequentlywhen a merchant of the gild traveled to another town he would be setupon and robbed or cast into prison. In such cases it was necessary forthe gild to ransom the imprisoned "brother" and, if possible, to punishthe persons who had done the injury, so that thereafter the libertiesof the gild members would be respected. That the business of the gildmight be increased, it was often desirable to enter into specialarrangements with neighboring cities whereby the rights, lives, andproperties of gildsmen were guaranteed; and the gild as a whole wasresponsible for the debts of any of its members. [Sidenote: Regulative] The most important duty of the gild had been the regulation of the homemarket. Burdensome restrictions were laid upon the stranger whoattempted to utilize the advantages of the market without sharing theexpense of maintenance. No goods were allowed to be carried away fromthe city if the townsmen wished to buy; and a tax, called in France the_octroi_, was levied on goods brought into the town. [Footnote:The _octroi_ is still collected in Paris. ] Moreover, a convictionprevailed that the gild was morally bound to enforce honeststraightforward methods of business; and the "wardens" appointed by thegild to supervise the market endeavored to prevent, as dishonestpractices, "forestalling" (buying outside of the regular market), "engrossing" (cornering the market), [Footnote: The idea that"combinations in restraint of trade" are wrong quite possibly goes backto this abhorrence of engrossing. ] and "regrating" (retailing at higherthan market price). The dishonest green grocer was not allowed to use apeck-measure with false bottom, for weighing and measuring were done byofficials. Cheats were fined heavily and, if they persisted in theirevil ways, they might be expelled from the gild. These merchant gilds, with their social, protective, and regulativefunctions, had first begun to be important in the eleventh century. InEngland, where their growth was most rapid, 82 out of the total of 102towns had merchant gilds by the end of the thirteenth century. [Footnote: Several important places, such as London, Colchester, andNorwich, belonged to the small minority without merchant gilds. ] On theContinent many towns, especially in Germany, had quite differentarrangements, and where merchant gilds existed, they were oftenexclusive and selfish groups of merchants in a single branch ofbusiness. [Sidenote: Decline of Merchant Guilds] With the expansion of trade and industry in the thirteenth andfourteenth centuries the rule of the old merchant gilds, instead ofkeeping pace with the times, became oppressive, limited, or merelynominal. Where the merchant gilds became oppressive oligarchicalassociations, as they did in Germany and elsewhere on the Continent, they lost their power by the revolt of the more democratic "craftgilds. " In England specialized control of industry and trade by craftgilds, journeymen's gilds, and dealers' associations gradually took theplace of the general supervision of the older merchant gild. Aftersuffering the loss of its vital functions, the merchant gild by thesixteenth century either quietly succumbed or lived on with power in alimited branch of trade, or continued as an honorary organization withoccasional feasts, or, and this was especially true in England, itbecame practically identical with the town corporation, from whichoriginally it had been distinct. [Sidenote: Industry: the Craft Guilds] Alongside of the merchant gilds, which had been associated with thegrowth of commerce and the rise of towns, were other guilds connectedwith the growth of industry, which retained their importance long after1500. These were the craft gilds. [Footnote: The craft gild was alsocalled a company, or a mistery, or _metier_ (French), or _Zunft_(German). ] Springing into prominence in the thirteenth and fourteenthcenturies, the craft gild sometimes, as in Germany, voiced a popularrevolt against corrupt and oligarchical merchant gilds, andsometimes most frequently so in England--worked quite harmoniously withthe merchant gild, to which its own members belonged. In common withthe merchant gild, the craft gild had religious and social aspects, andlike the merchant gild it insisted on righteous dealings; but unlikethe merchant gild it was composed of men in a single industry, and itcontrolled in detail the manufacture as well as the marketing ofcommodities. There were bakers' gilds, brewers' gilds, smiths' gilds, saddlers' gilds, shoemakers' gilds, weavers' gilds, tailors' gilds, tanners' gilds, even gilds of masters of arts who constituted theteaching staff of colleges and universities. When to-day we speak of a boy "serving his apprenticeship" in a trade, we seldom reflect that the expression is derived from a practice of themedieval craft gilds, a practice which survived after the gilds wereextinct. Apprenticeship was designed to make sure that recruits to thetrade were properly trained. The apprentice was usually selected as aboy by a master-workman and indentured--that is, bound to work severalyears without wages, while living at the master's house. After theexpiration of this period of apprenticeship, during which he hadlearned his trade thoroughly, the youth became a "journeyman, " andworked for wages, until he should finally receive admission to the gildas a master, with the right to set up his own little shop, withapprentices and journeymen of his own, and to sell his wares directlyto those who used them. This restriction of membership was not the only way in which the tradewas supervised. The gild had rules specifying the quality of materialsto be used and often, likewise, the methods of manufacture; it mightprohibit night-work, and it usually fixed a "fair price" at which goodswere to be sold. By means of such provisions, enforced by wardens orinspectors, the gild not only perpetuated the "good old way" of doingthings, but guaranteed to the purchaser a thoroughly good article at afair price. [Sidenote: Partial Decay of Craft Gilds] By the opening of the sixteenth century the craft gilds, though not soweakened as the merchant gilds, were suffering from various internaldiseases which sapped their vitality. They tended to become exclusiveand to direct their power and affluence in hereditary grooves. Theysteadily raised their entrance fees and qualifications. Strugglesbetween gilds in allied trades, such as spinning, weaving, fulling, anddyeing, often resulted in the reduction of several gilds to a dependentposition. The regulation of the processes of manufacture, once designedto keep up the standard of skill, came in time to be a powerfulhindrance to technical improvements; and in the method as well as inthe amount of his work, the enterprising master found himselfhandicapped. Even the old conscientiousness often gave way to greed, until in many places inferior workmanship received the approval of thegild. Many craft gilds exhibited in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries atendency to split somewhat along the present lines of capital andlabor. On the one hand the old gild organization would be usurped andcontrolled by the wealthier master-workmen, called "livery men, "because they wore rich uniforms, or a class of dealers would arise andorganize a "merchants' company" to conduct a wholesale business in theproducts of a particular industry. Thus the rich drapers sold all thecloth, but did not help to make it. On the other hand it becameincreasingly difficult for journeymen and apprentices to rise to thestation of masters; oftentimes they remained wage-earners for life. Inorder to better their condition they formed new associations, which inEngland were called journeymen's or yeomen's companies. These neworganizations were symptomatic of injustice but otherwise unimportant. The craft gilds, with all their imperfections, were to continue inpower awhile longer, slowly giving away as new trades arose outside oftheir control, gradually succumbing in competition with capitalists whorefused to be bound by gild rules and who were to evolve a new"domestic system, " [Footnote: See Vol. II, ch xviii. ] and slowlysuffering diminution of prestige through royal interference. [Sidenote: Life in the Towns] In the year 1500 the European towns displayed little uniformity ingovernment or in the amount of liberty they possessed. Some were pettyrepublics subject only in a very vague way to an extraneous potentate;some merely paid annual tribute to a lord; some were administered byofficers of a king or feudal magnate; others were controlled byoligarchical commercial associations. But of the general appearance andlife of sixteenth-century towns, it is possible to secure a moreuniform notion. It must be borne in mind that the towns were comparatively small, forthe great bulk of people still lived in the country. A town of 5000inhabitants was then accounted large; and even the largest places, likeNuremberg, Strassburg, London, Paris, and Bruges, would have been onlysmall cities in our eyes. The approach to an ordinary city of the timelay through suburbs, farms, and garden-plots, for the townsman stillsupplemented industry with small-scale agriculture. Usually the townitself was inclosed by strong walls, and admission was to be gainedonly by passing through the gates, where one might be accosted bysoldiers and forced to pay toll. Inside the walls were clustered housesof every description. Rising from the midst of tumble-down dwellingsmight stand a magnificent cathedral, town-hall, or gild building. Hereand there a prosperous merchant would have his luxurious home, built inwhat we now call the Gothic style, with pointed windows and gables, and, to save space in a walled town, with the second story projectingout over the street. The streets were usually in deplorable condition. There might be one ortwo broad highways, but the rest were mere alleys, devious, dark, anddirty. Often their narrowness made them impassable for wagons. Inplaces the pedestrian waded gallantly through mud and garbage; pigsgrunted ponderously as he pushed them aside; chickens ran under hisfeet; and occasionally a dead dog obstructed the way. There were nosidewalks, and only the main thoroughfares were paved. Dirt and filthand refuse were ordinarily disposed of only when a heaven-sent rainwashed them down the open gutters constructed along the middle, or oneach side, of a street. Not only was there no general sewerage for thetown, but there was likewise no public water supply. In many of thegarden plots at the rear of the low-roofed dwellings were dug wellswhich provided water for the family; and the visitor, before he leftthe town, would be likely to meet with water-sellers calling out theirware. To guard against the danger of fires, each municipalityencouraged its citizens to build their houses of stone and to keep atub full of water before every building; and in each district a specialofficial was equipped with a proper hook and cord for pulling downhouses on fire. At night respectable town-life was practically at astandstill: the gates were shut; the curfew sounded; no street-lampsdispelled the darkness, except possibly an occasional lantern which analtruistic or festive townsman might hang in his front-window; and noefficient police-force existed--merely a handful of townsmen weredrafted from time to time as "watchmen" to preserve order, and the"night watch" was famed rather for its ability to sleep or to roisterthan to protect life or purse. Under these circumstances the citizenwho would escape an assault by ruffians or thieves remained prudentlyindoors at night and retired early to bed. Picturesque and quaint thesixteenth-century town may have been; but it was also an uncomfortableand an unhealthful place in which to live. TRADE PRIOR TO THE COMMERCIAL REVOLUTION Just as agriculture is the ultimate basis of human society, so town-life has always been an index of culture and civilization. And thefortunes of town-life have ever depended upon the vicissitudes of tradeand commerce. So the reviving commerce of the later middle ages betweenEurope and the East meant the growth of cities and betokened an advancein civilization. [Sidenote: Revival of Trade with the East] Trade between Europe and Asia, which had been a feature of the antiqueworld of Greeks and Romans, had been very nearly destroyed by thebarbarian invasions of the fifth century and by subsequent conflictsbetween Mohammedans and Christians, so that during several centuriesthe old trade-routes were traveled only by a few Jews and with theSyrians. In the tenth century, however, a group of towns in southernItaly--Brindisi, Bari, Taranto, and Amalfi--began to send ships to theeastern Mediterranean and were soon imitated by Venice and later byGenoa and Pisa. This revival of intercourse between the East and the West was wellunder way before the first Crusade, but the Crusades (1095-1270)hastened the process. Venice, Genoa, and Pisa, on account of theirconvenient location, were called upon to furnish the crusaders withtransportation and provisions, and their shrewd Italian citizens madecertain that such services were well rewarded. Italian ships, plying toand from the Holy Land, gradually enriched their owners. Many Italiancities profited, but Venice secured the major share. It was during theCrusades that Venice gained numerous coastal districts and islands inthe AEgean besides immunities and privileges in Constantinople, andthereby laid the foundation of her maritime empire. The Crusades not only enabled Italian merchants to bring Easterncommodities to the West; they increased the demand for suchcommodities. Crusaders--pilgrims and adventurers--returned from theHoly Land with astonishing tales of the luxury and opulence of theEast. Not infrequently they had acquired a taste for Eastern silks orspices during their stay in Asia Minor or Palestine; or they broughtcurious jewels stripped from fallen infidels to awaken the envy of thestay-at-homes. Wealth was rapidly increasing in Europe at this time, and the many well-to-do people who were eager to affect magnificenceprovided a ready market for the wares imported by Italian merchants. [Sidenote: Commodities of Eastern Trade] It is desirable to note just what were these wares and why they weredemanded so insistently. First were spices, far more important thenthan now. The diet of those times was simple and monotonous without ourvariety of vegetables and sauces and sweets, and the meat, if fresh, was likely to be tough in fiber and strong in flavor. Spices were thevery thing to add zest to such a diet, and without them the epicure ofthe sixteenth century would have been truly miserable. Ale and wine, aswell as meats, were spiced, and pepper was eaten separately as adelicacy. No wonder that, although the rich alone could buy it, theVenetians were able annually to dispose of 420, 000 pounds of pepper, which they purchased from the sultan of Egypt, to whom it was brought, after a hazardous journey, from the pepper vines of Ceylon, Sumatra, orwestern India. From the same regions came cinnamon-bark; ginger was aproduct of Arabia, India, and China; and nutmegs, cloves, and allspicegrew only in the far-off Spice Islands of the Malay Archipelago. Precious stones were then, as always, in demand for personal adornmentas well as for the decoration of shrines and ecclesiastical vestments;and in the middle ages they were thought by many to possess magicalqualities which rendered them doubly valuable. [Footnote: Medievalliterature is full of this idea. Thus we read in the book of travelwhich has borne the name of Sir John Maundeville:"And if you wish to know the virtues of the diamond, I shall tell you, as they that are beyond the seas say and affirm, from whom all scienceand philosophy comes. He who carries the diamond upon him, it gives himhardiness and manhood, and it keeps the limbs of his body whole. Itgives him victory over his enemies, in court and in war, if his causebe just; and it keeps him that bears it in good wit; and it keeps himfrom strife and riot, from sorrows and enchantments, and from fantasiesand illusions of wicked spirits. . .. [It] heals him that is lunatic, and those whom the fiend torments or pursues. "] The supply of diamonds, rubies, pearls, and other precious stones was then almost exclusivelyfrom Persia, India, and Ceylon. Other miscellaneous products of the East were in great demand forvarious purposes: camphor and cubebs from Sumatra and Borneo; musk fromChina; cane-sugar from Arabia and Persia; indigo, sandal-wood, andaloes-wood from India; and alum from Asia Minor. The East was not only a treasure-house of spices, jewels, valuablegoods, and medicaments, but a factory of marvelously delicate goods andwares which the West could not rival--glass, porcelain, silks, satins, rugs, tapestries, and metal-work. The tradition of Asiatic supremacy inthese manufactures has been preserved to our own day in such familiarnames as damask linen, china-ware, japanned ware, Persian rugs, andcashmere shawls. In exchange for the manifold products of the East, Europe had onlyrough woolen cloth, arsenic, antimony, quicksilver, tin, copper, lead, and coral to give; and a balance, therefore, always existed for theEuropean merchant to pay in gold and silver, with the result that goldand silver coins grew scarce in the West. It is hard to say what wouldhave happened had not a new supply of the precious metals beendiscovered in America. But we are anticipating our story. [Sidenote: Oriental Trade-Routes] Nature has rendered intercourse between Europe and Asia exceedinglydifficult by reason of a vast stretch of almost impassable waste, extending from the bleak plains on either side of the Ural hills downacross the steppes of Turkestan and the desert of Arabia to the greatsandy Sahara. Through the few gaps in this desert barrier have led fromearly times the avenues of trade. In the fifteenth century three maintrade-routes--a central, a southern, and a northern--precariouslylinked the two continents. (1) The central trade-route utilized the valley of the Tigris River. Goods from China, from the Spice Islands, and from India were broughtby odd native craft from point to point along the coast to Ormuz, animportant city at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, thence to the mouth ofthe Tigris, and up the valley to Bagdad. From Bagdad caravans journeyedeither to Aleppo and Antioch on the northeastern corner of theMediterranean, or across the desert to Damascus and the ports on theSyrian coast. Occasionally caravans detoured southward to Cairo andAlexandria in Egypt. Whether at Antioch, Jaffa, or Alexandria, thecaravans met the masters of Venetian ships ready to carry the cargo toEurope. (2) The southern route was by the Red Sea. Arabs sailed their shipsfrom India and the Far East across the Indian Ocean and into the RedSea, whence they transferred their cargoes to caravans which completedthe trip to Cairo and Alexandria. By taking advantage of monsoons, --thefavorable winds which blew steadily in certain seasons, --the skipper ofa merchant vessel could make the voyage from India to Egypt in somewhatless than three months. It was often possible to shorten the time bylanding the cargoes at Ormuz and thence dispatching them by caravanacross the desert of Arabia to Mecca, and so to the Red Sea, butcaravan travel was sometimes slower and always more hazardous thansailing. (3) The so-called "northern route" was rather a system of routesleading in general from the "back doors" of India and China to theBlack Sea. Caravans from India and China met at Samarkand and Bokhara, two famous cities on the western slope of the Tian-Shan Mountains. Westof Bokhara the route branched out. Some caravans went north of theCaspian, through Russia to Novgorod and the Baltic. Other caravanspassed through Astrakhan, at the mouth of the Volga River, andterminated in ports on the Sea of Azov. Still others skirted the shoreof the Caspian Sea, passing through Tabriz and Armenia to Trebizond onthe Black Sea. The transportation of goods from the Black Sea and easternMediterranean was largely in the hands of the Italian cities, [Footnote:In general, the journey from the Far East to the ports on the Black Seaand the eastern Mediterranean was performed by Arabs, although some ofthe more enterprising Italians pushed on from the European settlements, or _fondachi_, in ports like Cairo and Trebizond, and established_fondachi_ in the inland cities of Asia Minor, Persia, and Russia. ]especially Venice, Genoa, Pisa, and Florence, although Marseillesand Barcelona had a small share. From Italy trade-routes ledthrough the passes of the Alps to all parts of Europe. German merchantsfrom Nuremberg, Augsburg, Ulm, Regensburg, and Constance purchasedEastern commodities in the markets of Venice, and sent them back to theGermanies, to England, and to the Scandinavian countries. After thelapse of many months, and even years, since the time when spices hadbeen packed first in the distant Moluccas, they would be exposedfinally for sale at the European fairs or markets to which thousands ofcountryfolk resorted. There a nobleman's steward could lay in a year'ssupply of condiments, or a peddler could fill his pack with silks andornaments to delight the eyes of the ladies in many a lonesome castle. [Sidenote: Difficulties of European Commerce] Within Europe commerce gradually extended its scope in spite of thealmost insuperable difficulties. The roads were still so miserable thatwares had to be carried on pack-horses instead of in wagons. Frequentlythe merchant had to risk spoiling his bales of silk in fording astream, for bridges were few and usually in urgent need of repair. Travel not only was fraught with hardship; it was expensive. Feudallords exacted heavy tolls from travelers on road, bridge, or river. Between Mainz and Cologne, on the Rhine, toll was levied in thirteendifferent places. The construction of shorter and better highways wasblocked often by nobles who feared to lose their toll-rights on the oldroads. So heavy was the burden of tolls on commerce that transportationfrom Nantes to Orleans, a short distance up the River Loire, doubledthe price of goods. Besides the tolls, one had to pay for local marketprivileges; towns exacted taxes on imports; and the merchant in astrange city or village often found himself seriously handicapped byregulations against "foreigners, " and by unfamiliar weights, measures, and coinage. Most dreaded of all, however, and most injurious to trade were therobbers who infested the roads. Needy knights did not scruple to turnhighwaymen. Cautious travelers carried arms and journeyed in bands, buteven they were not wholly safe from the dashing "gentlemen of theroad. " On the seas there was still greater danger from pirates. Fleetsof merchantmen, despite the fact that they were accompanied usually bya vessel of war, often were assailed by corsairs, defeated, robbed, andsold as prizes to the Mohammedans. The black flag of piracy flew overwhole fleets in the Baltic and in the Mediterranean. The amateurpirate, if less formidable, was no less common, for many a vesselcarrying brass cannon, ostensibly for protection, found it convenientto use them to attack foreign craft and more frequently "took" a cargothan purchased one. [Sidenote: Venice] These dangers and difficulties of commercial intercourse were duechiefly to the lack of any strong power to punish pirates orhighwaymen, to maintain roads, or to check the exactions of toll-collectors. Each city attempted to protect its own commerce. A greatcity-state like Venice was well able to send out her galleys againstMediterranean pirates, to wage war against the rival city of Genoa, tomake treaties with Oriental potentates, and to build up a maritimeempire. Smaller towns were helpless. But what, as in the case of theGerman towns, they could not do alone, was partially achieved bycombination. [Sidenote: The Hanseatic League. Towns in the Netherlands: Bruges] The Hanse or the Hanseatic League, as the confederation of Cologne, Brunswick, Hamburg, Luebeck, Dantzig, Koenigsberg, and other Germancities was called, waged war against the Baltic pirates, maintained itstrade-routes, and negotiated with monarchs and municipalities in orderto obtain exceptional privileges. From their Baltic stations, --Novgorod, Stockholm, Koenigsberg, etc. , --the Hanseatic merchants broughtamber, wax, fish, furs, timber, and tar to sell in the markets ofBruges, London, and Venice; they returned with wheat, wine, salt, metals, cloth, and beer for their Scandinavian and Russian customers. The German trading post at Venice received metals, furs, leather goods, and woolen cloth from the North, and sent back spices, silks, and othercommodities of the East, together with glassware, fine textiles, weapons, and paper of Venetian manufacture. Baltic and Venetian trade-routes crossed in the Netherlands, and during the fourteenth centuryBruges became the trade-metropolis of western Europe, where met the rawwool from England and Spain, the manufactured woolen cloth of Flanders, clarets from France, sherry and port wines from the Iberian peninsula, pitch from Sweden, tallow from Norway, grain from France and Germany, and English tin, not to mention Eastern luxuries, Venetianmanufactures, and the cunning carved-work of south-German artificers. THE AGE OF EXPLORATION [Sidenote: Desire of Spaniards and Portuguese for New Trade-Routes] In the unprecedented commercial prosperity which marked the fifteenthcentury, two European peoples--the Portuguese and the Spanish--hadlittle part. For purposes of general Continental trade they were not soconveniently situated as the peoples of Germany and the Netherlands;and the Venetians and other Italians had shut them off from directtrade with Asia. Yet Spanish and Portuguese had developed much the sametaste for Oriental spices and wares as had the inhabitants of centralEurope, and they begrudged the exorbitant prices which they werecompelled to pay to Italian merchants. Moreover, their centuries-longcrusades against Mohammedans in the Iberian peninsula and in northernAfrica had bred in them a stern and zealous Christianity which urgedthem on to undertake missionary enterprises in distant pagan lands. This missionary spirit reenforced the desire they already entertainedof finding new trade-routes to Asia untrammeled by rival and selfishItalians. In view of these circumstances it is not surprising thatSpaniards and Portuguese sought eagerly in the fifteenth century tofind new trade-routes to "the Indies. " [Sidenote: Geographical Knowledge] In their search for new trade-routes to the lands of silk and spice, these peoples of southwestern Europe were not as much in the dark assometimes we are inclined to believe. Geographical knowledge, almostnon-existent in the earlier middle ages, had been enriched by theFranciscan friars who had traversed central Asia to the court of theMongol emperor as early as 1245, and by such merchants and travelers asMarco Polo, who had been attached to the court of Kublai Khan and whosubsequently had described that potentate's realms and the wealth of"Cipangu" (Japan). These travels afforded at once information aboutAsia and enormous incentive to later explorers. Popular notions that the waters of the tropics boiled, that demons andmonsters awaited explorers to the westward, and that the earth was agreat flat disk, did not pass current among well-informed geographers. Especially since the revival of Ptolemy's works in the fifteenthcentury, learned men asserted that the earth was spherical in shape, and they even calculated its circumference, erring only by two or threethousand miles. It was maintained repeatedly that the Indies formed thewestern boundary of the Atlantic Ocean, and that consequently theymight be reached by sailing due west, as well as by traveling eastward;but at the same time it was believed that shorter routes might be foundnortheast of Europe, or southward around Africa. [Sidenote: Navigation] Along with this general knowledge of the situation of continents, thesailors of the fifteenth century had learned a good deal aboutnavigation. The compass had been used first by Italian navigators inthe thirteenth century, mounted on the compass card in the fourteenth. Latitude was determined with the aid of the astrolabe, a device formeasuring the elevation of the pole star above the horizon. With mapsand accurate sailing directions (_portolani_), seamen could losesight of land and still feel confident of their whereabouts. Yet itundoubtedly took courage for the explorers of the fifteenth century tosteer their frail sailing vessels either down the unexplored Africancoast or across the uncharted Atlantic Ocean. [Sidenote: The Portuguese Explorers] In the series of world-discoveries which brought about the CommercialRevolution and which are often taken as the beginning of "modernhistory, " there is no name more illustrious than that of a Portugueseprince of the blood, --Prince Henry, the Navigator (1394-1460), who, with the support of two successive Portuguese kings, made the firstsystematic attempts to convert the theories of geographers into provedfact. A variety of motives were his: the stern zeal of the crusaderagainst the infidel; the ardent proselyting spirit which already hadsent Franciscan monks into the heart of Asia; the hope ofreestablishing intercourse with "Prester John's" fabled Christianempire of the East; the love of exploration; and a desire to gain forPortugal a share of the Eastern trade. To his naval training-station at Sagres and the neighboring port ofLagos, Prince Henry attracted the most skillful Italian navigators andthe most learned geographers of the day. The expeditions which he sentout year after year rediscovered and colonized the Madeira and AzoresIslands, and crept further and further down the unknown coast of theDark Continent. When in the year 1445, a quarter of a century after theinitial efforts of Prince Henry, Denis Diaz reached Cape Verde, hethought that the turning point was at hand; but four more weary decadeswere to elapse before Bartholomew Diaz, in 1488, attained thesouthernmost point of the African coast. What he then called the Capeof Storms, King John II of Portugal in a more optimistic veinrechristened the Cape of Good Hope. Following in the wake of Diaz, Vasco da Gama rounded the Cape in 1497, and then, continuing on his ownway, he sailed up the east coast to Malindi, where he found a pilotable to guide his course eastward through the Indian Ocean to India. AtCalicut Vasco da Gama landed in May, 1498, and there he erected amarble pillar as a monument of his discovery of a new route to theIndies. [Sidenote: Occupation of Old Trade-Routes by the Turks] While the Portuguese were discovering this new and all-water route tothe Indies, the more ancient Mediterranean and overland routes, whichhad been of inestimable value to the Italians, were in process ofoccupation by the Routes by Ottoman Turks. [Footnote: Professor A. H. Lybyer has recently and ably contended that, contrary to a view whichhas often prevailed, the occupation of the medieval trade-routes by theOttoman Turks was not the cause of the Portuguese and Spanishexplorations which ushered in the Commercial Revolution. He has pointedout that prior to 1500 the prices of spices were not generally raisedthroughout western Europe, and that apparently before that date theTurks had not seriously increased the difficulties of Oriental trade. In confirmation of this opinion, it should be remembered that thePortuguese had begun their epochal explorations long before 1500 andthat Christopher Columbus had already returned from "the Indies. "]These Turks, as we have seen, were a nomadic and warlike nation of theMohammedan faith who "added to the Moslem contempt for the Christian, the warrior's contempt for the mere merchant. " Realizing thatadvantageous trade relations with such a people were next toimpossible, the Italian merchants viewed with consternation the advanceof the Turkish armies, as Asia Minor, Thrace, Macedonia, Greece, andthe islands of the AEgean were rapidly overrun. Constantinople, theheart of the Eastern Empire, repeatedly repelled the Moslems, but in1453 Emperor Constantine XI was defeated by Sultan Mohammed II, and thecrescent replaced the Greek cross above the Church of Saint Sophia. Eight years later Trebizond, the terminal of the trade-route fromTabriz, was taken. In vain Venice attempted to defend her possessionsin the Black Sea and in the AEgean; by the year 1500 most of her empirein the Levant was lost. The Turks, now in complete control of thenorthern route, proceeded to impose crushing burdens on the trade ofthe defeated Venetians. Florentines and other Italians who fared lesshardly continued to frequent the Black Sea, but the entire tradesuffered from Turkish exactions and from disturbing wars between theTurks and another Asiatic people--the Mongols. [Sidenote: Loss to the Italians] For some time the central and southern routes, terminating respectivelyin Syria and Egypt, exhibited increased activity, and by rich profitsin Alexandria the Venetians were able to retrieve their losses in theBlack Sea. But it was only a matter of time before the Turks, conquering Damascus in 1516 and Cairo in 1517, extended theirburdensome restrictions and taxes over those regions likewise. Easternluxuries, transported by caravan and caravel over thousands of miles, had been expensive and rare enough before; now the added peril oftravel and the exactions of the Turks bade fair to deprive the Italiansof the greater part of their Oriental trade. It was at this very momentthat the Portuguese opened up independent routes to the East, loweredthe prices of Asiatic commodities, and grasped the scepter of maritimeand commercial power which was gradually slipping from the hands of theVenetians. The misfortune of Venice was the real opportunity ofPortugal. [Sidenote: Columbus] Meanwhile Spain had entered the field, and was meeting with crueldisappointment. A decade before Vasco da Gama's famous voyage, anItalian navigator, Christopher Columbus, had presented himself at theSpanish court with a scheme for sailing westward to the Indies. ThePortuguese king, by whom Columbus formerly had been employed, alreadyhad refused to support the project, but after several vexatious rebuffsColumbus finally secured the aid of Ferdinand and Isabella, the Spanishmonarchs who were at the time jubilant over their capture of Granadafrom the Mohammedans (January, 1492). In August, 1492, he sailed fromPalos with 100 men in three small ships, the largest of which weighedonly a hundred tons. After a tiresome voyage he landed (12 October, 1492) on "San Salvador, " one of the Bahama Islands. In that bold voyageacross the trackless Atlantic lay the greatness of Columbus. He was notattempting to prove a theory that the earth was spherical--that wasaccepted generally by the well informed. Nor was he in search of a newcontinent. The realization that he had discovered not Asia, but a newworld, would have been his bitterest disappointment. He was seekingmerely another route to the spices and treasures of the East; and hebore with him a royal letter of introduction to the great Khan ofCathay (China). In his quest he failed, even though he returned in1493, in 1498, and finally in 1502 and explored successively theCaribbean Sea, the coast of Venezuela, and Central America in a vainsearch for the island "Cipangu" and the realms of the "Great Khan. " Hefound only "lands of vanity and delusion as the miserable graves ofCastilian gentlemen, " and he died ignorant of the magnitude of his realachievement. [Sidenote: America] Had Columbus perished in mid ocean, it is doubtful whether Americawould have remained long undiscovered. In 1497 John Cabot, an Italianin the service of Henry VII of England, reached the Canadian coastprobably near Cape Breton Island. In 1500 Cabral with a Portugueseexpedition bound for India was so far driven out of his course byequatorial currents that he came upon Brazil, which he claimed for theking of Portugal. Yet America was named for neither Columbus, Cabot, nor Cabral, but for another Italian, the Florentine Amerigo Vespucci, who, returning from voyages to Brazil (1499-1500), published a letterconcerning what he called "the new world. " It was thought that he haddiscovered this new world, and so it was called after him, --America. [Sidenote: First Circumnavigation of the Earth] Very slowly the truth about America was borne in upon the people ofEurope. They persisted in calling the newly discovered lands the"Indies, " and even after Balboa had discovered (1513) that anotherocean lay beyond the Isthmus of Panama, it was thought that a few days'sail would bring one to the outlying possessions of the Great Khan. Notuntil Magellan, leaving Spain in 1519, passed through the straits thatstill bear his name and crossed the Pacific was this vain hoperelinquished. Magellan was killed by the natives of the PhilippineIslands, but one of his ships reached Seville in 1522 with the tale ofthe marvelous voyage. Even after the circumnavigation of the world explorers looked forchannels leading through or around the Americas. Such were the attemptsof Verrazano (1524), Cartier (1534), Frobisher (1576-1578), Davis(1585-1587), and Henry Hudson in 1609. ESTABLISHMENT OF COLONIAL EMPIRES [Sidenote: Portugal] When Vasco da Gama returned to Lisbon in 1499 with a cargo worth sixtytimes the cost of his expedition, the Portuguese knew that the wealthof the Indies was theirs. Cabral in 1500, and Albuquerque in 1503, followed the route of Da Gama, and thereafter Portuguese fleets roundedthe Cape year by year to gain control of Goa (India), Ormuz, Diu(India), Ceylon, Malacca, and the Spice Islands, and to bring back fromthese places and from Sumatra, Java, Celebes, and Nanking (China) richcargoes of "spicery. " After the Turkish conquest of Egypt in 1517 thebulk of commerce was carried on by way of the Cape of Good Hope, for itwas cheaper to transport goods by sea than to pay taxes to the Turks inaddition to caravan cartage. Lisbon rapidly gained prominence as amarket for Eastern wares. The Portuguese triumph was short-lived. Dominion over half the world--for Portugal claimed all Africa, southern Asia, and Brazil as hers byright of discovery--had been acquired by the wise policy of thePortuguese royal house, but Portugal had neither products of her own toship to Asia, nor the might to defend her exclusive right to thecarrying trade with the Indies. The annexation of Portugal to Spain(1580) by Philip II precipitated disaster. The port of Lisbon wasclosed to the French, English, and Dutch, with whom Philip was at war, and much of the colonial empire of Portugal was conquered speedily bythe Dutch. [Sidenote: Spain] On the first voyage of Columbus Spain based her claim to share theworld with Portugal. In order that there might be perfect harmonybetween the rival explorers of the unknown seas, Pope Alexander VIissued on 4 May, 1493, the famous bull [Footnote: A bull was a solemnletter or edict issued by the pope. ] attempting to divide theuncivilized parts of the world between Spain and Portugal by the "papalline of demarcation, " drawn from pole to pole, 100 leagues west of theAzores. A year later the line was shifted to about 360 leagues west ofthe Cape Verde Islands. Portugal had the eastern half of modern Brazil, Africa, and all other heathen lands in that hemisphere; the restcomprised the share of Spain. For a time the Spanish adventurers were disappointed tremendously tofind neither spices nor silks and but little gold in the "Indies, " andColumbus was derisively dubbed the "Admiral of the Mosquitos. " In spiteof failures the search for wealth was prosecuted with vigor. During thenext half century Haiti, called Hispaniola ("Spanish Isle"), served asa starting point for the occupation of Puerto Rico, Cuba (1508), andother islands. An aged adventurer, Ponce de Leon, in search of afountain of youth, explored the coast of Florida in 1513, andsubsequent expeditions pushed on to the Mississippi, across the plainof Texas, and even to California. Montezuma, ruler of the ancient Aztec [Footnote: The Aztec Indians ofMexico, like various other tribes in Central America and in Peru, hadreached in many respects a high degree of civilization before thearrival of Europeans. ] confederacy of Mexico, was overthrown in 1519 bythe reckless Hernando Cortez with a small band of soldiers. Here atlast the Spaniards found treasures of gold and silver, and moreabundant yet were the stores of precious metal found by Pizarro in Peru(1531). Those were the days when a few score of brave men could capturekingdoms and carry away untold wealth. In the next chapter we shall see how the Spanish monarchy, backed bythe power of American riches, dazzled the eyes of Europe in thesixteenth century. Not content to see his standard waving over almosthalf of Europe, and all America (except Brazil), Philip II of Spain byconquering Portugal in 1580 added to his possessions the Portugueseempire in the Orient and in Brazil. The gold mines of America, thespices of Asia, and the busiest market of Europe--Antwerp--all paidtribute to his Catholic Majesty, Philip II of Spain. By an unwise administration of this vast empire, Spain, in the courseof time, killed the goose that laid the golden egg. The native Indians, enslaved and lashed to their work in Peruvian and Mexican silver mines, rapidly lost even their primitive civilization and died in alarmingnumbers. This in itself would not have weakened the monarchy greatly, but it appeared more serious when we remember that the high-handed andharassing regulations imposed by short-sighted or selfish officials hadchecked the growth of a healthy agricultural and industrial populationin the colonies, and that the bulk of the silver was going to supportthe pride of grandees and to swell the fortunes of German speculators, rather than to fill the royal coffers. The taxes levied on trade withthe colonies were so exorbitant that the commerce with America felllargely into the hands of English and Dutch smugglers. Under wisegovernment the monopoly of the African trade-route might have provedextremely valuable, but Philip II, absorbed in other matters, allowedthis, too, to slip from his fingers. While the Spanish monarchy was thus reaping little benefit from itsworld-wide colonial possessions, it was neglecting to encourageprosperity at home. Trade and manufacture had expanded enormously inthe sixteenth century in the hands of the Jews and Moors. Woolenmanufactures supported nearly a third of the population. The silkmanufacture had become important. It is recorded that salt-works of theregion about Santa Maria often sent out fifty shiploads at a time. These signs of growth soon gave way to signs of decay and depopulation. Chief among the causes of ruin were the taxes, increased enormouslyduring the sixteenth century. Property taxes, said to have increased 30per cent, ruined farmers, and the "alcabala, " or tax on commoditiesbought and sold, was increased until merchants went out of business, and many an industrial establishment closed its doors rather than paythe taxes. Industry and commerce, already diseased, were almostcompletely killed by the expulsion of the Jews (1492) and of the Moors(1609), who had been respectively the bankers and the manufacturers ofSpain. Spanish gold now went to the English and Dutch smugglers whosupplied the peninsula with manufactures, and German bankers became thefinanciers of the realm. The crowning misfortune was the revolt of the Netherlands, the richestprovinces of the whole empire. Some of the wealthiest cities of Europewere situated in the Netherlands. Bruges had once been a great city, and in 1566 was still able to buy nearly $2, 000, 000 worth of wool tofeed its looms; but as a commercial and financial center, the Flemishcity of Antwerp had taken first place. In 1566 it was said that 300ships and as many wagons arrived daily with rich cargoes to be boughtand sold by the thousand commercial houses of Antwerp. Antwerp was theheart through which the money of Europe flowed. Through the bankers ofAntwerp a French king might borrow money of a Turkish pasha. YetAntwerp was only the greatest among the many cities of the Netherlands. Charles V, king of Spain during the first half of the sixteenthcentury, had found in the Netherlands his richest source of income, andhad wisely done all in his power to preserve their prosperity. As weshall see in Chapter III, the governors appointed by King Philip II inthe second half of the sixteenth century lost the love of the people bythe harsh measures against the Protestants, and ruined commerce andindustry by imposing taxes of 5 and 10 per cent on every sale of landor goods. In 1566 the Netherlands rose in revolt, and after many bloodybattles, the northern or Dutch provinces succeeded in breaking awayfrom Spanish rule. Spain had not only lost the little Dutch provinces; Flanders wasruined: its fields lay waste, its weavers had emigrated to England, itscommerce to Amsterdam. Commercial supremacy never returned to Antwerpafter the "Spanish Fury" of 1576. Moreover, during the war Dutchsailors had captured most of the former possessions of Portugal, andEnglish sea-power, beginning in mere piratical attacks on Spanishtreasure-fleets, had become firmly established. The finest part ofNorth America was claimed by the English and French. Of her worldempire, Spain retained only Central and South America (except Brazil), Mexico, California, Florida, most of the West Indies, and in the Eastthe Philippine Islands and part of Borneo. [Sidenote: Dutch Sea Power] The Dutch, driven to sea by the limited resources of their narrow stripof coastland, had begun their maritime career as fishermen "exchangingtons of herring for tons of gold. " In the sixteenth century they hadbuilt up a considerable carrying trade, bringing cloth, tar, timber, and grain to Spain and France, and distributing to the Baltic countriesthe wines and liquors and other products of southwestern Europe, inaddition to wares from the Portuguese East Indies. The Dutch traders had purchased their Eastern wares largely fromPortuguese merchants in the port of Lisbon. Two circumstances--theunion of Spain with Portugal in 1580 and the revolt of the Netherlandsfrom Spain--combined to give the Dutch their great opportunity. In 1594the port of Lisbon was closed to Dutch merchants. The following yearthe Dutch made their first voyage to India, and, long jealous of thePortuguese colonial possessions, they began systematically to make thetrade with the Spice Islands their own. By 1602, 65 Dutch ships hadbeen to India. In the thirteen years--1602 to 1615--they captured 545Portuguese and Spanish ships, seized ports on the coasts of Africa andIndia, and established themselves in the Spice Islands. In addition tomost of the old Portuguese empire, --ports in Africa and India, Malacca, Oceanica, and Brazil, [Footnote: Brazil was more or less under Dutchcontrol from 1624 until 1654, when, through an uprising of Portuguesecolonists, the country was fully recovered by Portugal. Hollandrecognized the Portuguese ownership of Brazil by treaty of 1662, andthenceforth the Dutch retained in South America only a portion ofGuiana (Surinam). ]--the Dutch had acquired a foothold in North Americaby the discoveries of Henry Hudson in 1609 and by settlement in 1621. Their colonists along the Hudson River called the new territory NewNetherland and the town on Manhattan island New Amsterdam, but whenCharles II of England seized the land in 1664, he renamed it New York. Thus the Dutch had succeeded to the colonial empire of the Portuguese. With their increased power they were able entirely to usurp the Baltictrade from the hands of the Hanseatic (German) merchants, who hadincurred heavy losses by the injury to their interests in Antwerpduring the sixteenth century. Throughout the seventeenth century theDutch almost monopolized the carrying-trade from Asia and betweensouthwestern Europe and the Baltic. The prosperity of the Dutch was theenvy of all Europe. [Sidenote: Beginnings of English and French Explorations] It took the whole sixteenth century for the English and French to getthoroughly into the colonial contest. During that period the activitiesof the English were confined to exploration and piracy, with theexception of the ill-starred attempts of Gilbert and Raleigh tocolonize Newfoundland and North Carolina. The voyages of the Anglo-Italian John Cabot in 1497-1498 were later to be the basis of Britishclaims to North America. The search for a northwest passage droveFrobisher (1576-1578), Davis (1585-1587), Hudson (1610-1611), andBaffin (1616) to explore the northern extremity of North America, toleave the record of their exploits in names of bays, islands, andstraits, and to establish England's claim to northern Canada; while thesearch for a northeast passage enticed Willoughby and Chancellor (1553)around Lapland, and Jenkinson (1557-1558) to the icebound port ofArchangel in northern Russia. Elizabethan England had neither silvermines nor spice islands, but the deficiency was never felt whileBritish privateers sailed the seas. Hawkins, the great slaver, Drake, the second circumnavigator of the globe, Davis, and Cavendish were butfour of the bold captains who towed home many a stately Spanish galleonladen with silver plate and with gold. As for spices, the English EastIndia Company, chartered in 1600, was soon to build up an empire in theEast in competition with the Portuguese, the Dutch, and the French, butthat story belongs to a later chapter. France was less active. The rivalry of Francis I [Footnote: See below, pp. 77 ff. ] with Charles I of Spain had extended even to the New World. Verrazano (1524) sailed the coast from Carolina to Labrador, andCartier (1534-1535) pushed up the Saint Lawrence to Montreal, lookingfor a northwest passage, and demonstrating that France had no respectfor the Spanish claim to all America. After 1535, however, nothing ofpermanence was done until the end of the century, and the founding ofFrench colonies in India and along the Saint Lawrence and Mississippirivers belongs rather to the history of the seventeenth century. [Sidenote: Motives for Colonization] One of the most amazing spectacles in history is the expansion ofEurope since the sixteenth century. Not resting content withdiscovering the rest of the world, the European nations with sublimeconfidence pressed on to divide the new continents among them, toconquer, Christianize, and civilize the natives, and to send outmillions of new emigrants to establish beyond the seas a New England, aNew France, a New Spain, and a New Netherland. The Spaniards in Spainto-day are far outnumbered by the Spanish-speaking people in Argentina, Chili, Peru, Venezuela, Colombia, Central America, and the PhilippineIslands. [Sidenote: Religion] It was not merely greed for gold and thirst for glory which inspiredthe colonizing movement. To the merchant's eager search for preciousmetals and costly spices, and to the adventurer's fierce delight inbraving unknown dangers where white man never had ventured, thePortuguese and Spanish explorers added the inspiration of an ennoblingmissionary ideal. In the conquest of the New World priests and chapelswere as important as soldiers and fortresses; and its settlements werenamed in honor of Saint Francis (San Francisco), Saint Augustine (St. Augustine), the Holy Saviour (San Salvador), the Holy Cross (SantaCruz), or the Holy Faith (Santa Fe). Fearless priests penetrated theinterior of America, preaching and baptizing as they went. Unfortunately some of the Spanish adventurers who came to make fortunesin the mines of America, and a great number of the non-Spanishforeigners who owned mines in the Spanish colonies, set gain beforereligion, and imposed crushing burdens on the natives who toiled asslaves in their mines. Cruelty and forced labor decimated the natives, but in the course of time this abuse was remedied, thanks largely tothe Spanish bishop, Bartolome de las Casas, and instead of forming amiserable remnant of an almost extinct race, as they do in the UnitedStates, the Indians freely intermarried with the Spaniards, whom theyalways outnumbered. As a result, Latin America is peopled by nationswhich are predominantly Indian in blood, [Footnote: Except in thesouthern part of South America. ] Spanish or Portuguese [Footnote: InBrazil. ] in language, and Roman Catholic in religion. The same religious zeal which had actuated Spanish missionary-explorerswas manifested at a later date by the French Jesuit Fathers whopenetrated North America in order to preach the Christian faith to theIndians. Quite different were the religious motives which in theseventeenth century inspired Protestant colonists in the New World. They came not as evangelists, but as religious outcasts fleeing frompersecution, or as restless souls worsted at politics or unable to gaina living at home. This meant the dispossession and ultimate extinctionrather than the conversion of the Indians. [Sidenote: Decline of the Hanseatic League] The stirring story of the colonial struggles which occupied theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries will be taken up in anotherchapter; at this point, therefore, we turn from the expanding nationson the Atlantic seaboard to note the mournful plight of the oldercommercial powers--the German and Italian city-states. As for theformer, the Hanseatic League, despoiled of its Baltic commerce byenterprising Dutch and English merchants, its cities restless andrebellious, gradually broke up. In 1601 an Englishman metaphoricallyobserved: "Most of their [the league's] teeth have fallen out, the restsit but loosely in their head, "--and in fact all were soon lost exceptLuebeck, Bremen, and Hamburg. [Sidenote: Decay of Venice] Less rapid, but no less striking, was the decay of Venice and the otherItalian cities. The first cargoes brought by the Portuguese from Indiacaused the price of pepper and spices to fall to a degree which spelledruin for the Venetians. The Turks continued to harry Italian traders inthe Levant, and the Turkish sea-power grew to menacing proportions, until in 1571 Venice had to appeal to Spain for help. To the terror ofthe Turk was added the torment of the Barbary pirates, who from thenorthern coast of Africa frequently descended upon Italian seaports. The commerce of Venice was ruined. The brilliance of Venice in art andliterature lasted through another century (the seventeenth), supportedon the ruins of Venetian opulence; but the splendor of Venice wasextinguished finally in the turbulent sea of political intrigue intowhich the rest of Italy had already sunk. EFFECTS OF THE COMMERCIAL REVOLUTION In a way, all of the colonizing movements, which we have been at painsto trace, might be regarded as the first and greatest result of theCommercial Revolution--that is, if by the Commercial Revolution oneunderstands simply the discovery of new trade-routes; but, as it isdifficult to separate explorations from colonization, we have used theterm "Commercial Revolution" to include both. By the CommercialRevolution we mean that expansive movement by which European commerceescaped from the narrow confines of the Mediterranean and encompassedthe whole world. We shall proceed now to consider that movement in itssecondary aspects or effects. One of the first in importance of these effects was the advent of a newpolitico-economic doctrine--mercantilism--the result of the transferenceof commercial supremacy from Italian and German city-states to nationalstates. [Sidenote: Nationalism in Commerce] With the declining Italian and German commercial cities, the era ofmunicipal commerce passed away forever. In the peoples of the Atlanticseaboard, who now became masters of the seas, national consciousnessalready was strongly developed, and centralized governments wereperfected; these nations carried the national spirit into commerce. Portugal and Spain owed their colonial empires to the enterprise oftheir royal families; Holland gained a trade route as an incident ofher struggle for national independence; England and France, which wereto become the great commercial rivals of the eighteenth century, werethe two strongest national monarchies. [Sidenote: Mercantilism] The new nations founded their power not on the fearlessness of theirchevaliers, but on the extent of their financial resources. Wealth wasneeded to arm and to pay the soldiers, wealth to build warships, wealthto bribe diplomats. And since this wealth must come from the people bytaxes, it was essential to have a people prosperous enough to paytaxes. The wealth of the nation must be the primary consideration ofthe legislators. In endeavoring to cultivate and preserve the wealth oftheir subjects, European monarchs proceeded upon the assumption that ifa nation exported costly manufactures to its own colonies and importedcheap raw materials from them, the money paid into the home country formanufactures would more than counterbalance the money paid out for rawmaterials, and this "favorable balance of trade" would bring gold tothe nation. This economic theory and the system based upon it arecalled mercantilism. In order to establish such a balance of trade, thegovernment might either forbid or heavily tax the importation ofmanufactures from abroad, might prohibit the export of raw materials, might subsidize the export of manufactures, and might attempt by minuteregulations to foster industry at home as well as to discouragecompetition in the colonies. Thus, intending to retain the profits ofcommerce for Englishmen, Cromwell and later rulers required thatcertain goods must be carried on English ships. [Sidenote: Chartered Companies] By far the most popular method of developing a lucrative colonialtrade--especially towards the end of the sixteenth and throughout theseventeenth century--was by means of chartered commercial companies. England (in 1600), Holland (in 1602), France (in 1664), Sweden, Denmark, Scotland, and Prussia each chartered its own "East IndiaCompany. " The English possessions on the Atlantic coast of America wereshared by the London and Plymouth Companies (1606). English companiesfor trade with Russia, Turkey, Morocco, Guiana, Bermuda, the Canaries, and Hudson Bay were organized and reorganized with bewilderingactivity. In France the crop of commercial companies was no lessabundant. To each of these companies was assigned the exclusive right to tradewith and to govern the inhabitants of a particular colony, with theprivilege and duty of defending the same. Sometimes the companies wererequired to pay money into the royal treasury, or on the other hand, ifthe enterprise were a difficult one, a company might be supported byroyal subsidies. The Dutch West India Company (1621) was authorized tobuild forts, maintain troops, and make war on land and sea; thegovernment endowed the company with one million florins, sixteen ships, four yachts, and exemption from all tolls and license dues on itsvessels. The English East India Company, first organized in 1600, conducted the conquest and government of India for more than twocenturies, before its administrative power was taken away in 1858. [Sidenote: Financial Methods. ][Sidenote: The "Regulated Company"] The great commercial companies were a new departure in business method. In the middle ages business had been carried on mostly by individualsor by partnerships, the partners being, as a rule, members of the samefamily. After the expansion of commerce, trading with another countrynecessitated building forts and equipping fleets for protection againstsavages, pirates, or other nations. Since this could not beaccomplished with the limited resources of a few individuals, it wasnecessary to form large companies in which many investors sharedexpense and risk. Some had been created for European trade, but theimportant growth of such companies was for distant trade. Their firstform was the "regulated company. " Each member would contribute to thegeneral fund for such expenses as building forts; and certain ruleswould be made for the governance of all. Subject to these rules, eachmerchant traded as he pleased, and there was no pooling of profits. Theregulated company, the first form of the commercial company, wasencouraged by the king. He could charter such a company, grant it amonopoly over a certain district, and trust it to develop the trade asno individual could, and there was no evasion of taxes as byindependent merchants. [Sidenote: The Joint-stock Company] After a decade or so, many of the regulated companies found that theirmembers often pursued individual advantage to the detriment of thecompany's interests, and it was thought that, taken altogether, profitswould be greater and the risk less, if all should contribute to acommon treasury, intrusting to the most able members the direction ofthe business for the benefit of all. Then each would receive a dividendor part of the profits proportional to his share in the generaltreasury or "joint stock. " The idea that while the company as a wholewas permanent each individual could buy or sell "shares" in the jointstock, helped to make such "joint-stock" companies very popular afterthe opening of the seventeenth century. The English East India Company, organized as a regulated company in 1600, was reorganized piecemeal forhalf a century until it acquired the form of a joint-stock enterprise;most of the other chartered colonial companies followed the same plan. In these early stock-companies we find the germ of the mostcharacteristic of present-day business institutions--the corporation. In the seventeenth century this form of business organization, then inits rudimentary stages, as yet had not been applied to industry, norhad sad experience yet revealed the lengths to which corruptcorporation directors might go. [Sidenote: Banking] The development of the joint-stock company was attended by increasedactivity in banking. In the early middle ages the lending of money forinterest had been forbidden by the Catholic Church; in this as in otherbranches of business it was immoral to receive profit without givingwork. The Jews, however, with no such scruples, had found money-lendingvery profitable, even though royal debtors occasionally refused to pay. As business developed in Italy, however, Christians lost theirrepugnance to interest-taking, and Italian (Lombard) and later Frenchand German money-lenders and money-changers became famous. Since thecoins minted by feudal lords and kings were hard to pass except inlimited districts, and since the danger of counterfeit or light-weightcoins was far greater than now, the "money-changers" who would buy andsell the coins of different countries did a thriving business atAntwerp in the early sixteenth century. Later, Amsterdam, London, Hamburg, and Frankfort took over the business of Antwerp and developedthe institutions of finance to a higher degree. [Footnote: The gold ofthe New World and the larger scope of commercial enterprises hadincreased the scale of operations, as may be seen by comparing thefortunes of three great banking families: 1300--the Peruzzi's, $800, 000; 1440--the Medici's, $7, 500, 000; 1546--the Fuggers', $40, 000, 000. ] The money-lenders became bankers, paying interest ondeposits and receiving higher interest on loans. Shares of the stock ofcommercial companies were bought and sold in exchanges, and as early as1542 there were complaints about speculating on the rise and fall ofstocks. Within a comparatively short time the medieval merchants' gilds hadgiven way to great stock-companies, and Jewish money-lenders tomillionaire bankers and banking houses with many of our instruments ofexchange such as the bill of exchange. Such was the revolution inbusiness that attended, and that was partly caused, partly helped, bythe changes in foreign trade, which we call the Commercial Revolution. [Sidenote: New Commodities] Not only was foreign trade changed from the south and east of Europe tothe west, from the city-states to nations, from land-routes to ocean-routes; but the vessels which sailed the Atlantic were larger, stronger, and more numerous, and they sailed with amazing confidenceand safety, as compared with the fragile caravels and galleys of a fewcenturies before. The cargoes they carried had changed too. Thecomparative cheapness of water-transportation had made it possibleprofitably to carry grain and meat, as well as costly luxuries of smallbulk such as spices and silks. Manufactures were an important item. Moreover, new commodities came into commerce, such as tea and coffee. The Americas sent to Europe the potato, "Indian" corn, tobacco, cocoa, cane-sugar (hitherto scarce), molasses, rice, rum, fish, whale-oil andwhalebone, dye-woods and timber and furs; Europe sent backmanufactures, luxuries, and slaves. [Sidenote: Slavery] Slaves had been articles of commerce since time immemorial; at the endof the fifteenth century there were said to have been 3000 in Venice;and the Portuguese had enslaved some Africans before 1500. But the needfor cheap labor in the mines and on the sugar and tobacco plantationsof the New World gave the slave-trade a new and tremendous impetus. TheSpaniards began early to enslave the natives of America, although thepractice was opposed by the noble endeavors of the Dominican friar andbishop, Bartolome de las Casas. But the native population was notsufficient, --or, as in the English colonies, the Indians wereexterminated rather than enslaved, --and in the sixteenth century it wasdeemed necessary to import negroes from Africa. The trade in Africannegroes was fathered by the English captain Hawkins, and fostered alikeby English and Dutch. It proved highly lucrative, and it was longbefore the trade yielded to the better judgment of civilized nations, and still longer before the institution of slavery could be eradicated. [Sidenote: Effects on Industry and Agriculture] The expansion of trade was the strongest possible stimulus toagriculture and industry. New industries--such as the silk and cottonmanufacture--grew up outside of the antiquated gild system. The oldindustries, especially the English woolen industry, grew to newimportance and often came under the control of the newer and morepowerful merchants who conducted a wholesale business in a singlecommodity, such as cloth. Capitalists had their agents buy wool, doleit out to spinners and weavers who were paid so much for a given amountof work, and then sell the finished product. This was called the"domestic system, " because the work was done at home, or"capitalistic, " because raw material and finished product were ownednot by the man who worked them, but by a "capitalist" or rich merchant. How these changing conditions were dealt with by mercantiliststatesmen, we shall see in later chapters. The effect on agriculture had been less direct but no less real. Theland had to be tilled with greater care to produce grain sufficient tosupport populous cities and to ship to foreign ports. Countries werenow more inclined to specialize--France in wine, England in wool--andso certain branches of production grew more important. The introductionof new crops produced no more remarkable results than in Ireland wherethe potato, transplanted from America, became a staple in the Irishdiet: "Irish potatoes" in common parlance attest the completeness ofdomestication. [Sidenote: General Significance of Commercial Revolution] In the preceding pages we have attempted to study particular effects ofthe Commercial Revolution (in the broad sense including the expansionof commerce as well as the change of trade-routes), such as the declineof Venice and of the Hanse, the formation of colonial empires, the riseof commercial companies, the expansion of banking, the introduction ofnew articles of commerce, and the development of agriculture andindustry. In each particular the change was noticeable and important. But the Commercial Revolution possesses a more general significance. [Sidenote: Europeanization of the World] (1) It was the Commercial Revolution that started Europe on her careerof world conquest. The petty, quarrelsome feudal states of the smallestof five continents have become the Powers of to-day, dividing upAfrica, Asia, and America, founding empires greater and more lastingthan that of Alexander. The colonists of Europe imparted their languageto South America and made of North America a second Europe with acommon cultural heritage. The explorers, missionaries, and merchants ofEurope have penetrated all lands, bringing in their train Europeanmanners, dress, and institutions. They are still at work Europeanizingthe world. [Sidenote: 2. Increase of Wealth, Knowledge, and Comfort] (2) The expansion of commerce meant the increase of wealth, knowledge, and comfort. All the continents heaped their treasures in the lap ofEurope. Knowledge of the New World, with its many peoples, products, and peculiarities, tended to dispel the silly notions of medievalignorance; and the goods of every land were brought for the comfort ofthe European--American timber for his house, Persian rugs for hisfloors, Indian ebony for his table, Irish linen to cover it, Peruviansilver for his fork, Chinese tea, sweetened with sugar from Cuba. [Sidenote: 3. The Rise of the Bourgeoisie] (3) This new comfort, knowledge, and wealth went not merely to noblesand prelates; it was noticeable most of all in a new class, the"bourgeoisie. " In the towns of Europe lived bankers, merchants, andshop-keepers, --intelligent, able, and wealthy enough to live like kingsor princes. These bourgeois or townspeople (_bourg_ = town) wereto grow in intelligence, in wealth, and in political influence; theywere destined to precipitate revolutions in industry and politics, thereby establishing their individual rule over factories, and theircollective rule over legislatures. ADDITIONAL READING GENERAL. A. F. Pollard, _Factors in Modern History_ (1907), ch. Ii, vi, x, three illuminating essays; E. P. Cheyney, _An Introductionto the Industrial and Social History of England_ (1901), ch. Ii-vi, a good outline; F. W. Tickner, _A Social and Industrial History ofEngland_ (1915), an interesting and valuable elementary manual, ch. I-vii, x-xii, xvi, xvii, xix-xxi, xxiv-xxvii; W. J. Ashley, _TheEconomic Organization of England_ (1914), ch. I-v; G. T. Warner, _Landmarks in English Industrial History_, 11th ed. (1912), ch. Vii-xiii; H. D. Traill and J. S. Mann (editors), _Social England_(1909), Vols. II, III; H. De B. Gibbins, _Industry in England_, 6th ed. (1910), compact general survey; William Cunningham, _TheGrowth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern Times_, 5th ed. , 3vols. (1910-1912), a standard work; H. D. Bax, _German Society at theClose of the Middle Ages_ (1894), brief but clear, especially ch. I, v, vii on towns and country-life in the Germanies. Very detailed works:Maxime Kovalevsky, _Die oekonomische Entwicklung Europas bis zumBeginn der kapitalistischen Wirtschaftsform_, trans. Into Germanfrom Russian, 7 vols. (1901-1914), especially vols. III, IV, VI; EmileLevasseur, _Histoire des classes ouvrieres et de l'industrie enFrance avant 1789_, Vol. II (1901), Book V; Georges d'Avenel, _Histoire economique de la propriete, des salaires, etc. _, 1200-1800, 6 vols. (1894-1912). AGRICULTURE IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. R. E. Prothero, _EnglishFarming Past and Present_ (1912), ch. Iv; E. C. K. Gonner, _CommonLand and Inclosure_ (1912), valuable for England; R. H. Tawney, _The Agrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century_ (1912); E. F. Gay, _Essays on English Agrarian History in the Sixteenth Century_(1913); H. T. Stephenson, _The Elizabethan People_ (1910); W. Hasbach, _A History of the English Agricultural Labourer_, trans. By Ruth Kenyon (1908), an excellent work, particularly Part I on thedevelopment of the class of free laborers from that of the medievalserfs. Valuable for feudal survivals in France is the brief _FeudalRegime_ by Charles Seignobos, trans. By Dow. Useful for socialconditions in Russia: James Mavor, _An Economic History ofRussia_, 2 vols. (1914), Vol. I, Book I, ch. Iii. See also Eva M. Tappan, _When Knights were Bold_ (1911) for a very entertainingchapter for young people, on agriculture in the sixteenth century;Augustus Jessopp, _The Coming of the Friars_ (1913), ch. Ii, for asympathetic treatment of "Village Life Six Hundred Years Ago"; and W. J. Ashley, _Surveys, Historical and Economic_, for a series ofscholarly essays dealing with recent controversies in regard tomedieval land-tenure. TOWNS AND COMMERCE ABOUT 1500. Clive Day, _History of Commerce_ (1907), best brief account; W. C. Webster, _A General History of Commerce_(1903), another excellent outline; E. P. Cheyney, _European Backgroundof American History_ (1904) in "American Nation" Series, clear accountof the medieval trade routes, pp. 3-40, of the early activities ofchartered companies, pp. 123-167, and of the connection of theProtestant Revolution with colonialism, pp. 168-239; W. S. Lindsay, _History of Merchant Shipping and Ancient Commerce_, 4 vols. (1874-1876), very detailed. The best account of sixteenth-century industry isin Vol. II of W. J. Ashley, _English Economic History and Theory_, withelaborate critical bibliographies. For town-life and the gilds: Mrs. J. R. Green, _Town Life in England in the Fifteenth Century_, 2 vols. (1894); Charles Gross, _The Gild Merchant_, 2 vols. (1890); LujoBrentano, _On the History and Development of Gilds_ (1870); GeorgeUnwin, _The Gilds and Companies of London_ (1908), particularly theinteresting chapter on "The Place of the Gild in the History of WesternEurope. " A brief view of English town-life in the later middle ages: E. Lipson, _An Introduction to the Economic History of England_, Vol. I(1915), ch. V-ix. On town-life in the Netherlands: Henri Pirenne, _Belgian Democracy: its Early History_, trans. By J. V. Saunders(1915). On town-life in the Germanies: Helen Zimmern, _The Hansa Towns_(1889) in "Story of the Nations" Series; Karl von Hegel, _Staedte undGilden der germanischen Volker im Mittelalter_, 2 vols. (1891), thestandard treatise in German. On French gilds: Martin St. Leon, _Histoire des corporations des metiers_ (1897). See also, for advancedstudy of trade-routes, Wilhelm Heyd, _Geschichte des Levantehandels imMittelalter_, 2 vols. (1879), with a French trans. (1885-1886), andAloys Schulte, _Geschichte des mittelalterlichen Handels und Verkehrszwischen Westdeutschland und Italien_, 2 vols. (1900). GENERAL TREATMENTS OF EXPLORATION AND COLONIZATION. _Cambridge ModernHistory_, Vol. I (1902), ch. I, ii; A. G. Keller, _Colonization: aStudy of the Founding of New Societies_ (1908), a textbook, omittingreference to English and French colonization; H. C. Morris, _Historyof Colonization_, 2 vols. (1908), a useful general text; M. B. Synge, _A Book of Discovery: the History of the World's Exploration, from the Earliest Times to the Finding of the South Pole_ (1912);_Histoire generale_, Vol. IV, ch. Xxii, xxiii, and Vol. V, ch. Xxii; S. Ruge, _Geschichte des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen_(1881), in the ambitious Oncken Series; Paul Leroy-Beaulieu, _Lacolonisation chez les peuples modernes_, 6th ed. , 2 vols. (1908), the best general work in French; Charles de Lannoy and Hermann van derLinden, _Histoire de l'expansion coloniale des peuples europeens_, an important undertaking of two Belgian professors, of which twovolumes have appeared--Vol. I, _Portugal et Espagne_ (1907), andVol. II, _Neerlande et Danemark, 17e et 18e siecle_ (1911); AlfredZimmermann, _Die europaischen Kolonien_, the main German treatise, in 5 vols. (1896-1903), dealing with Spain and Portugal (Vol. I), GreatBritain (Vols. II, III), France (Vol. IV), and Holland (Vol. V). Muchillustrative source-material is available in the publications of theHakluyt Society, Old Series, 100 vols. (1847-1898), and New Series, 35vols. (1899-1914), selections having been separately published by E. J. Payne (1893-1900) and by C. R. Beazley (1907). An account of themedieval travels of Marco Polo is published conveniently in the"Everyman" Series, and the best edition of the medieval travel-taleswhich have passed under the name of Sir John Maundeville is that of TheMacmillan Company (1900). For exploration prior to Columbus and DaGama, see C. R. Beazley, _The Dawn of Modern Geography_, 3 vols. (1897-1906). WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO AMERICA: J. S. Bassett, _A Short History ofthe United States_ (1914), ch. I, ii, a good outline; EdwardChanning, _A History of the United States_, Vol. I (1905), anexcellent and more detailed narrative; Livingston Farrand, _Basis ofAmerican History_ (1904), Vol. II of the "American Nation" Series, especially valuable on the American aborigines; E. J. Payne, _Historyof the New World called America_, 2 vols. (1892-1899); John Fiske, _Colonization of the New World_, Vol. XXI of _History of AllNations_, ch. I-vi; R. G. Watson, _Spanish and Portuguese SouthAmerica_, 2 vols. (1884); Bernard Moses, _The Establishment ofSpanish Rule in America_ (1898), and, by the same author, _TheSpanish Dependencies in South America_, 2 vols. (1914). With specialreference to Asiatic India: Mountstuart Elphinstone, _History ofIndia: the Hindu and Mohametan Periods_, 9th ed. (1905), an old butstill valuable work on the background of Indian history; Sir W. W. Hunter, _A Brief History of the Indian Peoples_, rev. Ed. (1903), and, by the same author, _A History of British India_ to theopening of the eighteenth century, 2 vols. (1899-1900), especially Vol. I; Pringle Kennedy, _A History of the Great Moghuls_, 2 vols. (1905-1911). With special reference to African exploration andcolonization in the sixteenth century: Sir Harry Johnston, _Historyof the Colonization of Africa by Alien Races_ (1899), a very usefuland authoritative manual; Robert Brown, _The Story of Africa_, 4vols. (1894-1895), a detailed study; G. M. Theal, _South Africa_(1894), a clear summary in the "Story of the Nations" Series; J. S. Keltic, _The Partition of Africa_ (1895). See also Sir HarryJohnston, _The Negro in the New World_ (1910), important for theslave-trade and interesting, though in tone somewhat anti-English andpro-Spanish; J. K. Ingram, _A History of Slavery and Serfdom_(1895), a brief sketch; and W. E. Burghardt Du Bois, _The Negro_(1915), a handy volume in the "Home University Library. " EXPLORATION AND COLONIZATION COUNTRY BY COUNTRY. Portugal: C. R. Beazley, _Prince Henry the Navigator_ in "Heroes of the Nation, " Series(1897); J. P. Oliveira Martins, _The Golden Age of Prince Henry theNavigator_, trans. With notes and additions by J. J. Abraham and W. E. Reynolds (1914); K. G. Jayne, _Vasco da Gama and his Successors_, 1460-1580 (1910); H. M. Stephens, _Portugal_ (1891), a brief sketch in the"Story of the Nations" Series; F. C. Danvers, _The Portuguese InIndia_, 2 vols. (1894), a thorough and scholarly work; H. M. Stephens, _Albuquerque and the Portuguese Settlements in India_ (1892), in"Rulers of India" Series; Angel Marvaud, _Le Portugal et ses colonies_(1912); G. M. Theal, _History and Ethnography of Africa South of theZambesi_, Vol. I, _The Portuguese in South Africa from 1505 to 1700_(1907), a standard work by the Keeper of the Archives of Cape Colony. Spain: John Fiske, _Discovery of America_, 2 vols. (1892), mostdelightful narrative; Wilhelm Roscher, _The Spanish Colonial System_, abrief but highly suggestive extract from an old German work trans. ByE. G. Bourne (1904); E. G. Bourne, _Spain in America_, 1450-1580(1904), Vol. III of "American Nation" Series, excellent in content andform; W. R. Shepherd, _Latin America_ (1914) in "Home UniversityLibrary. " pp. 9-68, clear and suggestive; Sir Arthur Helps, _TheSpanish Conquest in America_, new ed. , 4 vols. (1900-1904). A scholarlystudy of Columbus's career is J. B. Thacher, _Christopher Columbus_, 3vols. (1903-1904), incorporating many of the sources; WashingtonIrving, _Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus_, originallypublished in 1828-1831, but still very readable and generally sound;Filson Young, _Christopher Columbus and the New World of hisDiscovery_, 2 vols. (1906), a popular account, splendidly illustrated;Henry Harrisse, _Christophe Colomb, son origine, sa vie, ses voyages_, 2 vols. (1884), a standard work by an authority on the age ofexploration; Henri Vignaud, _Histoire critique de la grande entreprisede Christophe Colomb_, 2 vols. (1911), destructive of many commonlyaccepted ideas regarding Columbus; F. H. H. Guillemard, _The Life ofFerdinand Magellan_ (1890); F. A. MacNutt, _Fernando Cortes and theConquest of Mexico_, 1485-1547 (1909), in the "Heroes of the Nations"Series, and, by the same author, both _Letters of Cortes_, 2 vols. (1908), and _Bartholomew de las Casas_ (1909); Sir Clements Markham, _The Incas of Peru_ (1910). On the transference of colonial power fromSpain to the Dutch and English, see _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. IV(1906), ch. Xxv, by H. E. Egerton. England: H. E. Egerton, _A ShortHistory of British Colonial Policy_, 2d ed. (1909), a bald summary, provided, however, with good bibliographies; W. H. Woodward, _A ShortHistory of the Expansion of the British Empire, 1500-1911_, 3d ed. (1912), a useful epitome; C. R. Beazley, _John and Sebastian Cabot: theDiscovery of North America_ (1898); J. A. Williamson, _MaritimeEnterprise, 1485-1558_ (1913); E. J. Payne (editor), _Voyages of theElizabethan Seamen to America_, 2 vols. (1893-1900); L. G. Tyler, _England in America, 1580-1652_ (1904), Vol. IV of "American Nation"Series; George Edmundson, _Anglo-Dutch Rivalry, 1600-1653_ (1911). France: R. G. Thwaites, _France in America, 1497-1763_ (1905), Vol. VIIof "American Nation" Series. ECONOMIC RESULTS OF THE COMMERCIAL REVOLUTION. William Cunningham, _AnEssay on Western Civilization in its Economic Aspects_, Vol. II, _Mediaeval and Modern Times_ (1910), pp. 162-224, and, by the sameauthor, ch. Xv of Vol. I (1902) of the _Cambridge Modern History_; E. P. Cheyney, _Social Changes in England in the Sixteenth Century_(1912); George Unwin, _Industrial Organization in the Sixteenth andSeventeenth Centuries_ (1904); G. Cawston and A. H. Keane, _EarlyChartered Companies_ (1896); W. R. Scott, _The Constitution and Financeof English, Scottish, and Irish Joint-Stock Companies to 1720_, Vol. I(1912); C. T. Carr (editor), _Select Charters of Trading Companies_(1913); Beckles Willson, _The Great Company_ (1899), an account of theHudson Bay Company; Henry Weber, _La Compagnie francaise des Indes, 1604-1675_ (1904); _Recueil des voyages de la Compagnie des Indesorientales des Hollandois_, 10 vols. (1730), the monumental source forthe activities of the chief Dutch trading-company. CHAPTER III EUROPEAN POLITICS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY THE EMPEROR CHARLES V As we look back upon the confused sixteenth century, we are struck atonce by two commanding figures, --the Emperor Charles V [Footnote:Charles I of Spain. ] and his son Philip II, --about whom we may groupmost of the political events of the period. The father occupies thecenter of the stage during the first half of the century; the son, during the second half. [Sidenote: Extensive Dominions of Charles] At Ghent in the Netherlands, Charles was born in 1500 of illustriousparentage. His father was Philip of Habsburg, son of the EmperorMaximilian and Mary, duchess of Burgundy. His mother was the InfantaJoanna, daughter and heiress of Ferdinand of Aragon and Naples andIsabella of Castile and the Indies. The death of his father and theincapacity of his mother--she had become insane--left Charles at thetender age of six years an orphan under the guardianship of hisgrandfathers Maximilian and Ferdinand. The death of the latter in 1516transferred the whole Spanish inheritance to Charles, and three yearslater, by the death of the former, he came into possession of thehereditary dominions of the Habsburgs. Thus under a youth of nineteenyears were grouped wider lands and greater populations than anyChristian sovereign had ever ruled. Vienna, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Brussels, Milan, Naples, Madrid, Cadiz, --even the City of Mexico, --owedhim allegiance. His titles alone would fill several pages. Maximilian had intended not only that all these lands should pass intothe hands of the Habsburg family, but also that his grandson shouldsucceed him as head of the Holy Roman Empire. This ambition, however, was hard of fulfillment, because the French king, Francis I (1515-1547), feared the encircling of his own country by a united German-Spanish-Italian state, and set himself to preserve what he called the"Balance of Power"--preventing the undue growth of one political powerat the expense of others. It was only by means of appeal to nationaland family sentiment and the most wholesale bribery that Charlesmanaged to secure a majority of the electors' votes against his Frenchrival [Footnote: Henry VIII of England was also a candidate. ] andthereby to acquire the coveted imperial title. He was crowned at Aix-la-Chapelle in his twenty-first year. [Sidenote: Character of Charles] Never have greater difficulties confronted a sovereign than those whichCharles V was obliged to face throughout his reign; never did monarchlead a more strenuous life. He was the central figure in a verycritical period of history: his own character as well as thepainstaking education he had received in the Netherlands conferred uponhim a lively appreciation of his position and a dogged pertinacity indischarging its obligations. Both in administering his extensivedominions and in dealing with foreign foes, Charles was a zealous, hard-working, and calculating prince, and the lack of success whichattended many of his projects was due not to want of ability in theruler but to the multiplicity of interests among the ruled. The emperormust do too many things to allow of his doing any one thing well. [Sidenote: Difficulties Confronting Charles] Suppose we turn over in our minds some of the chief problems of CharlesV, for they will serve to explain much of the political history of thesixteenth century. In the first place, the emperor was confronted withextraordinary difficulties in governing his territories. Each one ofthe seventeen provinces of the Netherlands--the country which he alwaysconsidered peculiarly his own--was a distinct political unit, for thereexisted only the rudiments of a central administration and a commonrepresentative system, while the county of Burgundy had a separatepolitical organization. The crown of Castile brought with it therecently conquered kingdom of Granada, together with the new coloniesin America and scattered posts in northern Africa. The crown of Aragoncomprised the four distinct states of Aragon, Valencia, Catalonia, andNavarre, [Footnote: The part south of the Pyrenees. See above, p. 8. ]and, in addition, the kingdoms of Naples, Sicily, and Sardinia, eachwith its own customs and government. At least eight independent cortesor parliaments existed in this Spanish-Italian group, adding greatly tothe intricacy of administration. Much the same was true of that otherHabsburg group of states, --Austria, Styria, Carniola, Carinthia, theTyrol, etc. , but Charles soon freed himself from immediateresponsibility for their government by intrusting them (1521) to hisyounger brother, Ferdinand, who by his own marriage and elections addedthe kingdoms of Bohemia [Footnote: Including the Bohemian crown landsof Moravia and Silesia. ] and Hungary (1526) to the Habsburg dominions. The Empire afforded additional problems: it made serious demands uponthe time, money, and energies of its ruler; in return, it gave littlebut glamour. In all these regions Charles had to do with financial, judicial, and ecclesiastical matters. He had to reconcile conflictinginterests and appeal for popularity to many varied races. More thanonce during his reign he even had to repress rebellion. In Germany, from his very first Diet in 1521, he was face to face with risingProtestantism which seemed to him to blaspheme his altar and to assailhis throne. The emperor's overwhelming administrative difficulties were complicatedat every turn by the intricacies of foreign politics. In the firstplace, Charles was obliged to wage war with France throughout thegreater part of his reign; he had inherited a longstanding quarrel withthe French kings, to which the rivalry of Francis I for the empire gavea personal aspect. In the second place, and almost as formidable, wasthe advance of the Turks up the Danube and the increase of Mohammedannaval power in the Mediterranean. Against Protestant Germany a Catholicmonarch might hope to rely on papal assistance, and English supportmight conceivably be enlisted against France. But the popes, whousually disliked the emperor's Italian policy, were not of great aid tohim elsewhere; and the English sovereigns had domestic reasons fordeveloping hostility to Charles. A brief sketch of the foreign affairsof Charles may make the situation clear. [Sidenote: Francis I of France and the Reasons for his Wars with theEmperor Charles V] Six years older than Charles, Francis I had succeeded to the Frenchthrone in 1515, irresponsible, frivolous, and vain of militaryreputation. The general political situation of the time, --the gradualinclosure of the French monarchy by a string of Habsburg territories, --to say nothing of the remarkable contrast between the character ofFrancis and that of the persevering Charles, made a great conflictinevitable, and definite pretexts were not lacking for an earlyoutbreak of hostilities. (1) Francis revived the claims of the Frenchcrown to Naples, although Louis XII had renounced them in 1504. (2)Francis, bent on regaining Milan, which his predecessor had lost in1512, invaded the duchy and, after winning the brilliant victory ofMarignano in the first year of his reign, occupied the city of Milan. Charles subsequently insisted, however, that the duchy was a fief ofthe Holy Roman Empire and that he was sworn by oath to recover it. (3)Francis asserted the claims of a kinsman to the little kingdom ofNavarre, the greater part of which, it will be remembered, had recently[Footnote: In 1512. See above. ] been forcibly annexed to Spain. (4)Francis desired to extend his sway over the rich French-speakingprovinces of the Netherlands, while Charles was determined not only toprevent further aggressions but to recover the duchy of Burgundy ofwhich his grandmother had been deprived by Louis XI. (5) The outcome ofthe contest for the imperial crown in 1519 virtually completed thebreach between the two rivals. War broke out in 1521, and with fewinterruptions it was destined to outlast the lives of both Francis andCharles. [Sidenote: The Italian Wars of Charles V and Francis I] Italy was the main theater of the combat. In the first stage, theimperial forces, with the aid of a papal army, speedily drove theFrench garrison out of Milan. The Sforza family was duly invested withthe duchy as a fief of the Empire, and the pope was compensated by theaddition of Parma and Piacenza to the Patrimony of Saint Peter. Thevictorious Imperialists then pressed across the Alps and besiegedMarseilles. Francis, who had been detained by domestic troubles inFrance, [Footnote: These troubles related to the disposition of theimportant landed estates of the Bourbon family. The duke of Bourbon, who was constable of France, felt himself injured by the king andaccordingly deserted to the emperor. ] now succeeded in raising thesiege and pursued the retreating enemy to Milan. Instead of followingup his advantage by promptly attacking the main army of theImperialists, the French king dispatched a part of his force to Naples, and with the other turned aside to blockade the city of Pavia. Thisblunder enabled the Imperialists to reform their ranks and to marchtowards Pavia in order to join the besieged. Here on 24 February, 1525, --the emperor's twenty-fifth birthday, --the army of Charles won anoverwhelming victory. Eight thousand French soldiers fell on the fieldthat day, and Francis, who had been in the thick of the fight, wascompelled to surrender. "No thing in the world is left me save my honorand my life, " wrote the king to his mother. Everything seemedauspicious for the cause of Charles. Francis, after a brief captivityin Spain, was released on condition that he would surrender all claimsto Burgundy, the Netherlands, and Italy, and would marry the emperor'ssister. [Sidenote: The Sack of Rome, 1527] Francis swore upon the Gospels and upon his knightly word that he wouldfulfill these conditions, but in his own and contemporary opinion thecompulsion exercised upon him absolved him from his oath. No sooner washe back in France than he declared the treaty null and void andproceeded to form alliances with all the Italian powers that had becomealarmed by the sudden strengthening of the emperor's position in thepeninsula, --the pope, Venice, Florence, and even the Sforza who owedeverything to Charles. Upon the resumption of hostilities the leaguedisplayed the same want of agreement and energy which characterizedevery coalition of Italian city-states; and soon the Imperialists wereable to possess themselves of much of the country. In 1527 occurred afamous episode--the sack of Rome. It was not displeasing to the emperorthat the pope should be punished for giving aid to France, althoughCharles cannot be held altogether responsible for what befell. His armyin Italy, composed largely of Spaniards and Germans, being short offood and money, and without orders, mutinied and marched upon theEternal City, which was soon at their mercy. About four thousand peopleperished in the capture. The pillage lasted nine months, and thebrigands were halted only by a frightful pestilence which decimatedtheir numbers. Convents were forced, altars stripped, tombs profaned, the library of the Vatican sacked, and works of art torn down asmonuments of idolatry. Pope Clement VII (1523-1534), a nephew of theother Medici pope, Leo X, had taken refuge in the impregnable castle ofSt. Angelo and was now obliged to make peace with the emperor. [Sidenote: Peace of Cambrai, 1529] The sack of Rome aroused bitter feelings throughout Catholic Europe, and Henry VIII of England, at that time still loyal to the pope, ostentatiously sent aid to Francis. But although the emperor madelittle headway against Francis, the French king, on account ofstrategic blunders and the disunion of the league, was unable tomaintain a sure foothold in Italy. The peace of Cambrai (1529) providedthat Francis should abandon Naples, Milan, and the Netherlands, but thecession of Burgundy was no longer insisted upon. Francis proceeded tocelebrate his marriage with the emperor's sister. [Sidenote: Habsburg Predominance in Italy] Eight years of warfare had left Charles V and the Habsburg familyunquestionable masters of Italy. Naples was under Charles's directgovernment. For Milan he received the homage of Sforza. The Medicipope, whose family he had restored in Florence, was now his ally. Charles visited Italy for the first time in 1529 to view histerritories, and at Bologna (1530) received from the pope's hands theancient iron crown of Lombard Italy and the imperial crown of Rome. Itwas the last papal coronation of a ruler of the Holy Roman Empire. The peace of Cambrai proved but a truce, and war between Charles andFrancis repeatedly blazed forth. Francis made strange alliances inorder to create all possible trouble for the emperor, --Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, the Ottoman Turks, even the rebellious Protestantprinces within the empire. There were spasmodic campaigns between 1536and 1538 and between 1542 and 1544, and after the death of Francis andthe abdication of Charles, the former's son, Henry II (1547-1559), continued the conflict, newly begun in 1552, until the conclusion ofthe treaty of Cateau-Cambresis in 1559, by which the Habsburgs retainedtheir hold upon Italy, while France, by the occupation of the importantbishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, extended her northeasternfrontier, at the expense of the empire, toward the Rhine River. [Footnote: It was during this war that in 1558 the French capturedCalais from the English, and thus put an end to English territorialholdings on the Continent. The English Queen Mary was the wife ofPhilip II of Spain. ] [Sidenote: Results of the Wars between Charles V and Francis I] Indirectly, the long wars occasioned by the personal rivalry of Charlesand Francis had other results than Habsburg predominance in Italy andFrench expansion towards the Rhine. They preserved a "balance of power"and prevented the incorporation of the French monarchy into anobsolescent empire. They rendered easier the rise of the Ottoman powerin eastern Europe; and French alliance with the Turks gave French tradeand enterprise a decided lead in the Levant. They also permitted thecomparatively free growth of Protestantism in Germany. [Sidenote: The Turkish Peril] More sinister to Charles V than his wars with the French was theadvance of the Ottoman Turks. Under their greatest sultan, Suleiman II, the Magnificent (1520-1566), a contemporary of Charles, the Turks wererapidly extending their sway. The Black Sea was practically a Turkishlake; and the whole Euphrates valley, with Bagdad, had fallen into thesultan's power, now established on the Persian Gulf and in control ofall of the ancient trade-routes to the East. The northern coasts ofAfrica from Egypt to Algeria acknowledged the supremacy of Suleiman, whose sea power in the Mediterranean had become a factor to be reckonedwith in European politics, threatening not only the islands but thegreat Christian countries of Italy and Spain. The Venetians were drivenfrom the Morea and from the AEgean Islands; only Cyprus, Crete, andMalta survived in the Mediterranean as outposts of Christendom. [Sidenote: Suleiman the Magnificent] Suleiman devoted many years to the extension of his power in Europe, sometimes in alliance with the French king, sometimes upon his owninitiative, --and with almost unbroken success. In 1521 he declared waragainst the king of Hungary on the pretext that he had received noHungarian congratulations on his accession to the throne. He besiegedand captured Belgrade, and in 1526 on the field of Mohacs his forcesmet and overwhelmed the Hungarians, whose king was killed with theflower of the Hungarian chivalry. The battle of Mohacs marked theextinction of an independent and united Hungarian state; Ferdinand ofHabsburg, brother of Charles V, claimed the kingdom; Suleiman was inactual possession of fully a third of it. The sultan's army carried thewar into Austria and in 1529 bombarded and invested Vienna, but sovaliant was the resistance offered that after three weeks the siege wasabandoned. Twelve years later the greater part of Hungary, includingthe city of Budapest, became a Turkish province, and in many placeschurches were turned into mosques. In 1547 Charles V and Ferdinand werecompelled to recognize the Turkish conquests in Hungary, and the latteragreed to pay the sultan an annual tribute of 30, 000 ducats. Suleimannot only thwarted every attempt of his rivals to recover theirterritories, but remained throughout his life a constant menace to thesecurity of the hereditary dominions of the Habsburgs. [Sidenote: Charles V and the Holy Roman Empire. ][Sidenote: Possibility of transforming the Empire into a NationalGerman Monarchy] At the very time when Charles V was encountering these grave troublesin administering his scattered hereditary possessions and in waging warnow with the French and now with the Mohammedans, he likewise wassaddled with problems peculiar to the government of his empire. Had hebeen able to devote all his talent and energy to the domestic affairsof the Holy Roman Empire, he might have contributed potently to theestablishment of a compact German state. It should be borne in mindthat when Charles V was elected emperor in 1519 the Holy Roman Empirewas virtually restricted to German-speaking peoples, and that thenational unifications of England, France, and Spain, already faradvanced, pointed the path to a similar political evolution forGermany. Why should not a modern German national state have beencreated coextensive with the medieval empire, a state which would haveincluded not only the twentieth-century German Empire but Austria, Holland, and Belgium, and which, stretching from the Baltic to theAdriatic and from the English Channel to the Vistula, would havedominated the continent of Europe throughout the whole modern era?There were certainly grave difficulties in the way, but gravedifficulties had also been encountered in consolidating France orSpain, and the difference was rather of degree than of kind. In everyother case a strong monarch had overcome feudal princes and ambitiousnobles, had deprived cities of many of their liberties, had trampledupon, or tampered with, the privileges of representative assemblies, and had enforced internal order and security. In every such case themonarch had commanded the support of important popular elements and haddirected his major efforts to the realization of national aims. National patriotism was not altogether lacking among Germans of thesixteenth century. They were conscious of a common language which wasalready becoming a vehicle of literary expression. They were consciousof a common tradition and of a common nationality. They recognized, inmany cases, the absurdly antiquated character of their politicalinstitutions and ardently longed for reforms. In fact, the trouble withthe Germans was not so much the lack of thought about political reformas the actual conflicts between various groups concerning the methodand goal of reform. Germans despised the Holy Roman Empire, much asFrenchmen abhorred the memory of feudal society; but Germans were notas unanimous as Frenchmen in advocating the establishment of a strongnational monarchy. In Germany were princes, free cities, and knights, --all nationalistic after a fashion, but all quarreling with each otherand with their nominal sovereign. [Sidenote: Charles V bent on Strengthening Monarchical Power though noton a National Basis] The emperors themselves were the only sincere and consistent championsof centralized monarchical power, but the emperors were probably lesspatriotic than any one else in the Holy Roman Empire. Charles V wouldnever abandon his pretensions to world power in order to become astrong monarch over a single nation. Early in his reign he declaredthat "no monarchy was comparable though not to the Roman Empire. Thisthe whole world had once obeyed, and Christ Himself had paid it honorand obedience. Unfortunately it was now only a shadow of what it hadbeen, but he hoped, with the help of those powerful countries andalliances which God had granted him, to raise it to its ancient glory. "Charles V labored for an increase of personal power not only in Germanybut also in the Netherlands, in Spain, and in Italy; and with the vastimperial ambition of Charles the ideal of creating a national monarchyon a strictly German basis was in sharp conflict. Charles V could not, certainly would not, pose simply as a German king--a national leader. [Sidenote: Nationalism among the German Princes] Under these circumstances the powerful German princes, in defying theemperor's authority and in promoting disruptive tendencies in the HolyRoman Empire, were enabled to lay the blame at the feet of theirunpatriotic sovereign and thereby arouse in their behalf a good deal ofGerman national sentiment. In choosing Charles V to be their emperor, the princely electors in 1519 had demanded that German or Latin shouldbe the official language of the Holy Roman Empire, that imperialoffices should be open only to Germans, that the various princes shouldnot be subject to any foreign political jurisdiction, that no foreigntroops should serve in imperial wars without the approval of the Diet, and that Charles should confirm the sovereign rights of all the princesand appoint from their number a Council of Regency(_Reichsregiment_) to share in his government. [Sidenote: The Council of Regency, 1521-1531][Sidenote: Its Failure to Unify Germany] In accordance with an agreement reached by a Diet held at Worms in1521, the Council of Regency was created. Most of its twenty-threemembers were named by, and represented the interests of, the Germanprinces. Here might be the starting-point toward a closer politicalunion of the German-speaking people, if only a certain amount offinancial independence could be secured to the Council. The proposal onthis score was a most promising one; it was to support the new imperialadministration, not, as formerly, by levying more or less voluntarycontributions on the various states, but by establishing a kind ofcustoms-union (_Zollverein_) and imposing on foreign importationsa tariff for revenue. This time, however, the German burghers raisedangry protests; the merchants and traders of the Hanseatic townsinsisted that the proposed financial burden would fall on them anddestroy their business; and their protests were potent enough to bringto nought the princes' plan. Thus the government was forced again toresort to the levy of special financial contributions, --an expedientwhich usually put the emperor and the Council of Regency at the mercyof the most selfish and least patriotic of the German princes. [Sidenote: Nationalism among the German Knights] More truly patriotic as a class than German princes or German burgherswere the German knights--those gentlemen of the hill-top and of theroad, who, usually poor in pocket though stout of heart, looked downfrom their high-perched castles with badly disguised contempt upon thevulgar tradesmen of the town or beheld with anger and jealousy theencroachments of neighboring princes, lay and ecclesiastical, morewealthy and powerful than themselves. Especially against the princesthe knights contended, sometimes under the forms of law, more often byforce and violence and all the barbarous accompaniments of privatewarfare and personal feud. Some of the knights were well educated andsome had literary and scholarly abilities; hardly any one of them was afriend of public order. Yet practically all the knights were intenselyproud of their German nationality. It was the knights, who, under theleadership of such fiery patriots as Ulrich von Hutten and Franz vonSickingen, had forcefully contributed in 1519 to the imperial electionof Charles V, a German Habsburg, in preference to non-German candidatessuch as Francis I of France or Henry VIII of England. For a briefperiod Charles V leaned heavily upon the German knights for support inhis struggle with princes and burghers; and at one time it looked as ifthe knights in union with the emperor would succeed in curbing thepower of the princes and in laying the foundations of a stronglycentralized national German monarchy. [Sidenote: Rise of Lutheranism Favored by the Knights and Opposed byCharles V] But at the critical moment Protestantism arose in Germany, marking acleavage between the knightly leaders and the emperor. To knights likeUlrich von Hutten and Franz von Sickingen the final break in 1520between Martin Luther and the pope seemed to assure a separation ofGermany from Italy and the erection of a peculiar form of GermanChristianity about which a truly national state could be builded. As aclass the knights applauded Luther and rejoiced at the rapid spread ofhis teachings throughout Germany. On the other hand, Charles V remaineda Roman Catholic. Not only was he loyally attached to the religion ofhis fathers through personal training and belief, but he felt that themaintenance of what political authority he possessed was dependentlargely on the maintenance of the universal authority of the ancientChurch, and practically he needed papal assistance for his many foreignprojects. The same reasons that led many German princes to accept theLutheran doctrines as a means of lessening imperial control causedCharles V to reject them. At the same Diet at Worms (1521), at whichthe Council of Regency had been created, Charles V prevailed upon theGermans present to condemn and outlaw Luther; and this action alienatedthe knights from the emperor. [Sidenote: The Knights' War, 1522-1523] Franz von Sickingen, a Rhenish knight and the ablest of his class, speedily took advantage of the emperor's absence from Germany in 1522to precipitate a Knights' War. In supreme command of a motley army offellow-knights, Franz made an energetic attack upon the rich landedestates of the Catholic prince-bishop of Trier. At this point, theGerman princes, lay as well as ecclesiastical, forgetting theirreligious predilections and mindful only of their common hatred of theknights, rushed to the defense of the bishop of Trier and drove offSickingen, who, in April, 1523, died fighting before his own castle ofEbernburg. Ulrich von Hutten fled to Switzerland and perished miserablyshortly afterwards. The knights' cause collapsed, and princes andburghers remained triumphant. [Footnote: The Knights' War was soonfollowed by the Peasants' Revolt, a social rather than a politicalmovement. For an account of the Peasants' Revolt see pp. 133 ff. ] Itwas the end of serious efforts in the sixteenth century to create anational German state. [Sidenote: Failure of German Nationalism in the Sixteenth Century] The Council of Regency lasted until 1531, though its inability topreserve domestic peace discredited it, and in its later years itenjoyed little authority. Left to themselves, many of the princesespoused Protestantism. In vain Charles V combated the new religiousmovement. In vain he proscribed it in several Diets after that ofWorms. In vain he assailed its upholders in several military campaigns, such as those against the Schmalkaldic League, which will be treatedmore fully in another connection. But the long absences of Charles Vfrom Germany and his absorption in a multitude of cares and worries, tosay nothing of the spasmodic aid which Francis, the Catholic king ofFrance, gave to the Protestants in Germany, contributed indirectly tothe spread of Lutheranism. In the last year of Charles's rule (1555)the profession of the Lutheran faith on the part of German princes wasplaced by the peace of Augsburg [Footnote: See below, p. 136. ] on anequal footing with that of the Catholic religion. Protestantism amongthe German princes proved a disintegrating, rather than a unifying, factor of national life. The rise of Protestantism was the last strawwhich broke German nationalism. [Sidenote: Charles V and England] With England the relations of Charles V were interesting but not soimportant as those already noted with the Germans, the Turks, and theFrench. At first in practical alliance with the impetuous self-willedHenry VIII (1509-1547), whose wife--Catherine of Aragon--was theemperor's aunt, Charles subsequently broke off friendly relations whenthe English sovereign asked the pope to declare his marriage null andvoid. Charles prevailed upon the pope to deny Henry's request, and theschism which Henry then created between the Catholic Church in Englandand the Roman See increased the emperor's bitterness. Towards the closeof Henry's reign relations improved again, but it was not until theaccession of Charles's cousin, Mary (1553-1558), to the English thronethat really cordial friendship was restored. To this Queen Mary, Charles V married his son and successor Philip. [Sidenote: Abdication of Charles V] At length exhausted by his manifold labors, Charles V resolved todivide his dominions between his brother Ferdinand and his son Philipand to retire from government. In the hall of the Golden Fleece atBrussels on 25 October, 1555, he formally abdicated the sovereignty ofhis beloved Netherlands. Turning to the representatives, he said:"Gentlemen, you must not be astonished if, old and feeble as I am inall my members, and also from the love I bear you, I shed some tears. "At least in the Netherlands the love was reciprocal. In 1556 heresigned the Spanish and Italian crowns, [Footnote: He made over to hisbrother all his imperial authority, though he nominally retained thecrown of the Holy Roman Empire until 1558] and spent his last years inpreparation for a future world. He died in 1558. Personally, Charles Vhad a prominent lower jaw and a thin, pale face, relieved by a wideforehead and bright, flashing eyes. He was well formed and dignified inappearance. In character he was slow and at times both irresolute andobstinate, but he had a high sense of duty, honest intentions, goodsoldierly qualities, and a large amount of cold common sense. Thoughnot highly educated, he was well read and genuinely appreciative ofmusic and painting. PHILIP II AND THE PREDOMINANCE OF SPAIN For a century and a half after the retirement of Charles V in 1556, wehear of two branches of the Habsburg family--the Spanish Habsburgs andthe Austrian Habsburgs, descended respectively from Philip II andFerdinand. By the terms of the division, Ferdinand, the brother ofCharles, received the compact family possessions in the East--Austriaand its dependencies, Bohemia, that portion of Hungary not occupied bythe Turks, and the title of Holy Roman Emperor, --while the remainderwent to Charles's son, Philip II, --Spain, the Netherlands, FrancheComte (the eastern part of Burgundy), the Two Sicilies, Milan, and theAmerican colonies. Over the history of Ferdinand and his immediate successors, we need nottarry, because, aside from efforts to preserve religious peace and thefamily's political predominance within the empire and to recoverHungary from the Turks, it is hardly essential. But in western EuropePhilip II for a variety of reasons became a figure of world-wideimportance: we must examine his career. [Sidenote: Character and policies of Philip II] Few characters in history have elicited more widely contradictoryestimates than Philip II. Represented by many Protestant writers as avillain, despot, and bigot, he has been extolled by patriotic Spaniardsas Philip the Great, champion of religion and right. These conflictingopinions are derived from different views which may be taken of thevalue and inherent worth of Philip's policies and methods, but whatthose policies and methods were there can be no doubt. In the firstplace, Philip II prized Spain as his native country and his mainpossession--in marked contrast to his father, for he himself had beenborn in Spain and had resided there during almost all of his life--andhe was determined to make Spain the greatest country in the world. Inthe second place, Philip II was sincerely and piously attached toCatholicism; he abhorred Protestantism as a blasphemous rending of theseamless garment of the Church; and he set his heart upon the universaltriumph of his faith. If, by any chance, a question should arisebetween the advantage of Spain and the best interests of the Church, the former must be sacrificed relentlessly to the latter. Such was thesovereign's stern ideal. No seeming failure of his policies could shakehis belief in their fundamental excellence. That whatever he did wasdone for the greater glory of God, that success or failure dependedupon the inscrutable will of the Almighty and not upon himself, werehis guiding convictions, which he transmitted to his Spanishsuccessors. Not only was Philip a man of principles and ideals, but hewas possessed of a boundless capacity for work and an indomitable will. He preferred tact and diplomacy to war and prowess of arms, though hewas quite willing to order his troops to battle if the object, in hisopinion, was right. He was personally less accustomed to the sword thanto the pen, and no clerk ever toiled more industriously at his papersthan did this king. From early morning until far into the night he bentover minutes and reports and other business of kingcraft. Naturallycautious and reserved, he was dignified and princely in public. In hisprivate life, he was orderly and extremely affectionate to his familyand servants. Loyalty was Philip's best attribute. There was a less happy side to the character of Philip II. His free useof the Inquisition in order to extirpate heresy throughout hisdominions has rendered him in modern eyes an embodiment of bigotry andintolerance, but it must be remembered that he lived in an essentiallyintolerant age, when religious persecution was stock in trade ofProtestants no less than of Catholics. It is likewise true that heconstantly employed craft and deceit and was ready to make use ofassassination for political purposes, but this too was in accordancewith the temper of the times: lawyers then taught, following theprecepts of the famous historian and political philosopher, Machiavelli, that Christian morality is a guide for private conductrather than for public business, and that "the Prince" may act abovethe laws in order to promote the public good, and even such famousProtestant leaders as Coligny and William the Silent entered intomurder plots. But when all due allowances have been made, the studentcannot help feeling that the purpose of Philip II would have beenserved better by the employment of means other than persecution andmurder. The reign of Philip II covered approximately the second half of thesixteenth century (1556-1598). In his efforts to make Spain thegreatest power in the world and to restore the unity problems ofChristendom, he was doomed to failure. The chief Confronting reason forthe failure is simple--the number and [side note Problems ConfrontingPhilip II] variety of the problems and projects with which Philip IIwas concerned. It was a case of the king putting a finger in too manypies--he was cruelly burned. Could Philip II have devoted all hisenergies to one thing at a time, he might conceivably have had greatersuccess, but as it was, he must divide his attention betweensupervising the complex administration of his already wide dominionsand annexing in addition the monarchy and empire of Portugal, betweenpromoting a vigorous commercial and colonial policy and suppressing astubborn revolt in the Netherlands, between championing Catholicism inboth England and France and protecting Christendom against thevictorious Mohammedans. It was this multiplicity of interests thatparalyzed the might of the Spanish monarch, yet each one of his foreignactivities was epochal in the history of the country affected. We shalltherefore briefly review Philip's activities in order. [Sidenote: Spain under Philip II: Political] As we have seen, Philip II inherited a number of states which hadseparate political institutions and customs. He believed in nationalunification, at least of Spain. National unification implieduniformity, and uniformity implied greater power of the crown. SoPhilip sought to further the work of his great-grandparents, Ferdinandand Isabella, --absolutism and uniformity became his watchwords ininternal administration. Politically Philip made no pretense ofconsulting the Cortes on legislation, and, although he convoked them tovote new taxes, he established the rule that the old taxes were to beconsidered as granted in perpetuity and as constituting the ordinaryrevenue of the crown. He treated the nobles as ornamental rather thanuseful, retiring them from royal offices in favor of lawyers and othersubservient members of the middle class. All business was conducted bycorrespondence and with a final reference to the king, and the naturalresult was endless delay. [Sidenote: Spain under Philip II: Economic] Financially and economically the period was unfortunate for Spain. Theburden of the host of foreign enterprises fell with crushing weightupon the Spanish kingdom and particularly upon Castile. Aragon, whichwas poor and jealous of its own rights, would give little. The incomefrom the Netherlands, at first large, was stopped by the revolt. TheItalian states barely paid expenses. The revenue from the Americanmines, which has been greatly exaggerated, enriched the pockets ofindividuals rather than the treasury of the state. In Spain itself, thegreater part of the land was owned by the ecclesiastical corporationsand the nobles, who were exempt from taxation but were intermittentlyfleeced. Moreover, the 10 per cent tax on all sales--the alcabala[Footnote: See above, p. 57. ]--gradually paralyzed all nativeindustrial enterprise. And the persecution of wealthy and industriousJews and Moors diminished the resources of the kingdom. Spain, at theclose of the century, was on the verge of bankruptcy. [Sidenote: Spain under Philip II: Religious] In religious matters Philip II aimed at uniform adherence to thedoctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. He felt, like so many of hiscontemporaries, that disparity of belief among subjects would imperila state. Both from political motives and from religious zeal Philip wasa Catholic. He therefore advised the pope, watched with interest theproceedings of the great Council of Trent which was engaged with thereformation of the Church, [Footnote: See below, pp. 158 ff. ] andlabored for the triumph of his religion not only in his own dominionsand in France, but also in Poland, in England, and even in Scandinavia. In Spain he strengthened the Inquisition and used it as a tool of royaldespotism. [Sidenote: Temporary Union of Spain and Portugal] Territorially Philip II desired to complete political unity in thepeninsula by combining the crown of Portugal with those of Castile andAragon. He himself was closely related to the Portuguese royal family, and in 1580 he laid formal claim to that kingdom. The duke of Braganza, whose claim was better than Philip's, was bought off by immense grantsand the country was overrun by Spanish troops. Philip endeavored toplacate the Portuguese by full recognition of their constitutionalrights and in particular by favoring the lesser nobility or countrygentry. Although the monarchies and vast colonial possessions of Spainand Portugal were thus joined for sixty years under a common king, thearrangement never commanded any affection in Portugal, with the resultthat at the first opportunity, in 1640, Portuguese independence wasrestored under the leadership of the Braganza family. [Sidenote: Rebellions Against Philip II in Spain] The most serious domestic difficulty which Philip had to face was therevolt of the rich and populous Netherlands, which we shall discusspresently. But with other revolts the king had to contend. In hisefforts to stamp out heresy and peculiar customs among the descendantsof the Moors who still lived in the southern part of Spain, Philiparoused armed opposition. The Moriscos, as they were called, struggleddesperately from 1568 to 1570 to reestablish the independence ofGranada. This rebellion was suppressed with great cruelty, and thesurviving Moriscos were forced to find new homes in less favored partsof Spain until their final expulsion from the country in 1609. A revoltof Aragon in 1591 was put down by a Castilian army; the constitutionalrights of Aragon were diminished and the kingdom was reduced to agreater measure of submission. [Sidenote: Revolt of the Netherlands: The Causes] The causes that led to the revolt of the Netherlands may be stated asfourfold. (1) Financial. The burdensome taxes which Charles V had laidupon the country were increased by Philip II and often applied todefray the expenses of other parts of the Spanish possessions. Furthermore, the restrictions which Philip imposed upon Dutch commercein the interest of that of Spain threatened to interfere seriously withthe wonted economic prosperity of the Netherlands. (2) Political. Philip II sought to centralize authority in the Netherlands anddespotically deprived the cities and nobles of many of theirtraditional privileges. Philip never visited the country in personafter 1559, and he intrusted his arbitrary government to regents and toSpaniards rather than to native leaders. The scions of the old andproud noble families of the Netherlands naturally resented beingsupplanted in lucrative and honorable public offices by persons whomthey could regard only as upstarts. (3) Religious. Despite the rapidand universal spread of Calvinistic Protestantism throughout thenorthern provinces, Philip was resolved to force Catholicism upon allof his subjects. He increased the number of bishoprics, decreed acts ofuniformity, and in a vigorous way utilized the Inquisition to carry hispolicy into effect. (4) Personal. The Dutch and Flemish loved Charles Vbecause he had been born and reared among them and always consideredtheir country as his native land. Philip II was born and brought up inSpain. He spoke a language foreign to the Netherlands, and by theirinhabitants he was thought of as an alien. [Sidenote: Margaret of Parma and the "Beggars"] At first the opposition in the Netherlands was directed chiefly againstthe Inquisition and the presence of Spanish garrisons in the towns. Theregent, Margaret of Parma, Philip's half-sister, endeavored to banishpublic discontent by a few concessions. The Spanish troops werewithdrawn and certain unpopular officials were dismissed. Butinfluential noblemen and burghers banded themselves together early in1566 and presented to the regent Margaret a petition, in which, whileprotesting their loyalty, they expressed fear of a general revolt andbegged that a special embassy be sent to Philip to urge upon him thenecessity of abolishing the Inquisition and of redressing their othergrievances. The regent, at first disquieted by the petitioners, wasreassured by one of her advisers, who exclaimed, "What, Madam, is yourHighness afraid of these beggars (_ces gueux_)?" Henceforth thechief opponents of Philip's policies in the Netherlands humorouslylabeled themselves "Beggars" and assumed the emblems of common begging, the wallet and the bowl. The fashion spread quickly, and the "Beggars'"insignia were everywhere to be seen, worn as trinkets, especially inthe large towns. In accordance with the "Beggars'" petition, an embassywas dispatched to Spain to lay the grievances before Philip II. [Sidenote: Duke of Alva in the Netherlands, 1567-1573] Philip II at first promised to abolish the Inquisition in theNetherlands, but soon repented of his promise. For meanwhile mobs offanatical Protestants, far more radical than the respectable "Beggars, "were rushing to arms, breaking into Catholic churches, wrecking thealtars, smashing the images to pieces, profaning monasteries, andshowing in their retaliation as much violence--as their enemies hadshown cruelty in persecution. In August, 1566, this sacrilegiousiconoclasm reached its climax in the irreparable ruin of themagnificent cathedral at Antwerp. Philip replied to these acts, whichhe interpreted as disloyalty, by sending (1567) his most famousgeneral, the duke of Alva, into the Netherlands with a large army andwith instructions to cow the people into submission. Alva provedhimself quite capable of understanding and executing his master'swishes: one of his first acts was the creation of a "Council ofTroubles, " an arbitrary tribunal which tried cases of treason and whichoperated so notoriously as to merit its popular appellation of the"Council of Blood. " During the duke's stay of six years, it has beenestimated that eight thousand persons were executed, including thecounts of Egmont and Horn, thirty thousand were despoiled of theirproperty, and one hundred thousand quitted the country. Alva, moreover, levied an enormous tax of one-tenth upon the price of merchandise sold. As the tax was collected on several distinct processes, it absorbed atleast seven-tenths of the value of certain goods--of cloth, forinstance. The tax, together with the lawless confusion throughout thecountry, meant the destruction of Flemish manufactures and trade. Itwas, therefore, quite natural that the burgesses of the southernNetherlands, Catholic though most of them were, should unite with thenobles and with the Protestants of the North in opposing Spanishtyranny. The whole country was now called to arms. [Sidenote: William the Silent, Prince of Orange] One of the principal noblemen of the Netherlands was a German, Williamof Nassau, prince of Orange. [Footnote: William (1533-1584), nowcommonly called "the Silent. " There appears to be no contemporaneousjustification of the adjective as applied to him, but the misnomer, once adopted by later writers, has insistently clung to him. ] He hadbeen governing the provinces of Holland and Zeeland when Alva arrived, but as he was already at the point of accepting Protestantism he hadprudently retired into Germany, leaving his estates to be confiscatedby the Spanish governor. Certain trifling successes of the insurgentsnow called William back to head the popular movement. For many years hebore the brunt of the war and proved himself not only a resourcefulgeneral, but an able diplomat and a whole-souled patriot. He eventuallygained the admiration and love of the whole Dutch people. [Sidenote: The "Sea Beggars"] The first armed forces of William of Orange were easily routed by Alva, but in 1569 a far more menacing situation was presented. In that yearWilliam began to charter corsairs and privateers to prey upon Spanishshipping. These "Sea Beggars, " as they were called, were mostly wildand lawless desperadoes who stopped at nothing in their hatred ofCatholics and Spaniards: they early laid the foundations of Dutchmaritime power and at the same time proved a constant torment to Alva. They made frequent incursions into the numerous waterways of theNetherlands and perpetually fanned the embers of revolt on land. Gradually William collected new armies, which more and moresuccessfully defied Alva. [Sidenote: The "Spanish Fury" and the Pacification of Ghent, 1576] The harsh tactics of Alva had failed to restore the Netherlands toPhilip's control, and in 1573 Alva was replaced in the regency by themore politic Requesens, who continued the struggle as best he could butwith even less success than Alva. Soon after Requesens's death in 1576, the Spanish army in the Netherlands, left without pay or food, mutiniedand inflicted such horrible indignities upon several cities, notablyAntwerp, that the savage attack is called the "Spanish Fury. " Deputiesof all the seventeen provinces at once concluded an agreement, termedthe Pacification of Ghent (1576), by which they mutually guaranteedresistance to the Spanish until the king should abolish the Inquisitionand restore their old-time liberties. Then Philip II tried a policy of concession, but the new governor, thedashing Don John of Austria, fresh from a great naval victory over theTurks, soon discovered that it was too late to reconcile theProtestants. William the Silent was wary of the Spanish offers, and DonJohn died in 1578 without having achieved very much. [Sidenote: Farnese, Duke of Parma][Sidenote: The Treaty of Array and the Union of Utrecht (1579): thePermanent Division of the Netherlands] But Philip II was not without some success in the Netherlands. He wasfortunate in having a particularly determined and tactful governor inthe country from 1578 to 1592 in the person of Alexander Farnese, dukeof Parma. Skillfully mingling war and diplomacy, Farnese succeeded insowing discord between the northern and southern provinces: the formerwere Dutch, Calvinist, and commercial; the latter were Flemish andWalloon, Catholic, and industrial. The ten southern provinces mighteventually have more to fear from the North than from continued unionwith Spain; their representatives, therefore, signed a defensive leagueat Arras in 1579 for the protection of the Catholic religion and withthe avowed purpose of effecting a reconciliation with Philip II. In thesame year the northern provinces agreed to the Union of Utrecht, binding themselves together "as if they were one province" to maintaintheir rights and liberties "with life-blood and goods" against Spanishtyranny and to grant complete freedom of worship and of religiousopinion throughout the confederation. In this way the Pacification ofGhent was nullified and the Netherlands were split into two parts, eachgoing its own way, each developing its own history. The southernportion was to remain in Habsburg hands for over two centuries, beingsuccessively termed "Spanish Netherlands" and "Austrian Netherlands"--roughly speaking, it is what to-day we call Belgium. The northernportion was to become free and independent, and, as the "UnitedProvinces" or simply "Holland, " to take its place among the nations ofthe world. For a considerable period of time Holland was destined to bemore prosperous than Belgium. The latter suffered more grievously thanthe former from the actual hostilities; and the Dutch, by closing theRiver Scheldt and dominating the adjacent seas, dealt a mortal blow atthe industrial and commercial supremacy of Antwerp and transferred thechief trade and business of all the Netherlands to their own city ofAmsterdam. [Sidenote: Reasons for the Success of the Dutch] For many years the struggle dragged on. At times it seemed probablethat Farnese and the Spaniards would overcome the North by force asthey had obtained the South by diplomacy. But a variety of reasonsexplain the ultimate success of the Dutch. The nature of the countryrendered ordinary campaigning very difficult--the network of canalsconstituted natural lines of defense and the cutting of the dikes mighteasily imperil an invading army. Again, the seafaring propensities ofthe Dutch stimulated them to fit out an increasing number of privateerswhich constantly preyed upon Spanish commerce: it was not long beforethis traffic grew important and legitimate, so that in the followingcentury Amsterdam became one of the greatest cities of the world, andHolland assumed a prominent place among commercial and colonialnations. Thirdly, the employment of foreign mercenaries in the army ofdefense enabled the native population to devote the more time topeaceful pursuits, and, despite the persistence of war, the Dutchprovinces increased steadily in wealth and prosperity. Fourthly, thecautious Fabian policy of William the Silent prevented the Dutch fromstaking heavily upon battles in the open field. Fifthly, the Dutchreceived a good deal of assistance from Protestants of Germany, England, and France. Finally, Philip II pursued too many great projectsat once to be able to bring a single one to a satisfactory conclusion:his war with Queen Elizabeth of England and his interference in theaffairs of France inextricably complicated his plans in theNetherlands. [Sidenote: Formal Declaration of Dutch Independence, 1581] In 1581 Philip II published a ban against William of Orange, proclaiming him a traitor and an outlaw and offering a reward to anyone who would take him dead or alive. William replied by his famous"Apology" to the charges against him; but his practical answer to theking was the Act of Abjuration, by which at his persuasion therepresentatives of the northern provinces, assembled at The Hague, solemnly proclaimed their separation from the crown of Spain, broke theroyal seal of Philip II, and declared the king deprived of allauthority over them. We should call this Act of 1581 the Dutchdeclaration of independence. It was an augury of the definitive resultof the war. [Sidenote: Recognition of Dutch Independence] Although William the Silent was assassinated by an agent of Spain(1584), and Antwerp was captured from the Protestants in 1585, theability and genius of Farnese did not avail to make further headwayagainst the United Provinces; but Philip II, stubborn to the end, positively refused to recognize Dutch independence. In 1609 Philip IIIof Spain consented to a twelve years' truce with the States-General ofThe Hague. In the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) the Dutch and Spaniardsagain became embroiled, and the freedom of the republic was notrecognized officially by Spain till the general peace of Westphalia in1648. [Footnote: See below, p. 229. ] The seven provinces, which had waged such long war with Spain, constituted, by mutual agreement, a confederacy, each preserving adistinct local government and administration, but all subject to ageneral parliament--the States-General--and to a stadtholder, orgovernor-general, an office which subsequently became hereditary in theOrange family. Between the States-General and the stadtholder, aconstitutional conflict was carried on throughout the greater part ofthe seventeenth century--the former, supported by well-to-do burghers, favoring a greater measure of political democracy, the latter, upheldby aristocratically minded nobles, laboring for the development ofmonarchical institutions under the Orange family. [Sidenote: Natural Opposition of England and France to the Policies ofPhilip II] Not only his efforts in the Netherlands but many other projects ofPhilip II were frustrated by remarkable parallel developments in thetwo national monarchies of England and France. Both these countrieswere naturally jealous opposition and fearful of an undue expansion ofSpain, which might upset the balance of power. Both states, from theirgeographical locations, would normally be inimical to Philip II:England would desire, from her island position, to destroy the monopolywhich Spain claimed of the carrying trade of the seas; France, stillencircled by Habsburg possessions in Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands, would adhere to her traditional policy of allying herself with everyfoe of the Spanish king. Then, too, the papal authority had beenrejected in England and seriously questioned in France: Philip'scrusading zeal made him the champion of the Church in those countries. For ecclesiastical as well as for economic and political purposes itseemed necessary to the Spanish king that he should bring France andEngland under his direct influence. On their side, patriotic French andEnglish resented such foreign interest in their domestic affairs, andthe eventual failure of Philip registered a wonderful growth ofnational feeling among the peoples who victoriously contended againsthim. The beginnings of the real modern greatness of France and Englanddate from their struggle with Philip II. [Sidenote: Philip II and Mary Tudor] At the outset of his reign, Philip seemed quite successful in hisforeign relations. As we have seen, he was in alliance with Englandthrough his marriage with Queen Mary Tudor (1553-1558): she hadtemporarily restored the English Church to communion with the Holy See, and was conducting her foreign policy in harmony with Philip's--becauseof her husband she lost to the French the town of Calais, the lastEnglish possession on the Continent (1558). Likewise, as has been said, Philip II concluded with France in 1559 the advantageous treaty ofCateau-Cambresis. But during the ensuing thirty years the tables werecompletely turned. Both England and France ended by securing respitefrom Spanish interference. [Sidenote: Philip II and Elizabeth] Mary Tudor died unhappy and childless in 1558, and the succession ofher sister Queen Elizabeth, daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, altered the relations between the English and Spanish courts. Elizabeth(1558-1603) was possessed of an imperious, haughty, energeticcharacter; she had remarkable intelligence and an absorbing patriotism. She inspired confidence in her advisers and respect among her people, so that she was commonly called "Good Queen Bess" despite the fact thather habits of deceit and double-dealing gave color to the French king'sremark that she was the greatest liar in Christendom. This was thewoman with whom Philip II had to deal; he tried many tactics in orderto gain his ends, --all of them hopelessly unsuccessful. Philip first proposed matrimony, but Elizabeth was very careful not togive herself, or England, such a master. Then when the queen declaredherself a Protestant and showed no inclination to assist Philip in anyof his enterprises, the Spanish king proceeded to plot against herthrone. He subsidized Roman Catholic priests, especially Jesuits, whoviolated the laws of the land. He stirred up sedition and even went sofar as to plan Elizabeth's assassination. Many conspiracies against theEnglish queen centered in the person of the ill-starred Mary Stuart, [Footnote: Mary Stuart (1542-1587). ] queen of Scotland, who wasnext in line of succession to the English throne and withal a Catholic. [Sidenote: Mary Stuart] Descended from the Stuart kings of Scotland and from Henry VII ofEngland, related to the powerful family of Guise in France, Mary hadbeen brought up at the French court and married to the short-livedFrench king, Francis II. Upon the death of the latter she returned in1561 to Scotland, a young woman of but eighteen years, only to findthat the government had fallen victim to the prevalent factional fightsamong the Scotch nobles and that in the preceding year the parliamenthad solemnly adopted a Calvinistic form of Protestantism. By means oftact and mildness, however, Mary won the respect of the nobles and theadmiration of the people, until a series of marital troubles andblunders--her marriage with a worthless cousin, Henry Darnley, and thenher scandalous marriage with Darnley's profligate murderer, the earl ofBothwell--alienated her people from her and drove her into exile. Sheabdicated the throne of Scotland in favor of her infant son, James VI, who was reared a Protestant and subsequently became King James I ofEngland, and she then (1568) threw herself upon the mercy of Elizabeth. She thought she would find in England a haven of refuge; instead shefound there a prison. For the score of years during which she remained Elizabeth's prisoner, Mary Stuart was the object of many plots and conspiracies against theexisting governments of both Scotland and England. In every such schemewere to be found the machinations and money of the Spanish king. Infact, as time went on, it seemed to a growing section of the Englishpeople as though the cause of Elizabeth was bound up with Protestantismand with national independence and prosperity just as certainly as thesuccess of Mary would lead to the triumph of Catholicism, the politicalsupremacy of Spain, and the commercial ruin of England. It was underthese circumstances that Mary's fate was sealed. Because of a politicalsituation over which she had slight control, the ex-queen of Scotlandwas beheaded by Elizabeth's orders in 1587. [Sidenote: The Armada] Philip II had now tried and failed in every expedient but one, --theemployment of sheer force. Even this he attempted in order to avengethe death of Mary Stuart and to bring England, politically, religiously, and commercially, into harmony with his Spanish policies. The story of the preparation and the fate of the Invincible Armada isalmost too well known to require repetition. It was in 1588 that thereissued from the mouth of the Tagus River the most formidable fleetwhich up to that time Christendom had ever beheld--130 ships, 8000seamen, 19, 000 soldiers, the flower of the Spanish chivalry. In theNetherlands it was to be joined by Alexander Farnese with 33, 000veteran troops. But in one important respect Philip had underestimatedhis enemy: he had counted upon a divided country. Now the attack uponEngland was primarily national, rather than religious, and Catholicsvied with Protestants in offering aid to the queen: it was a unitedrather than a divided nation which Philip faced. The English fleet, composed of comparatively small and easily maneuvered vessels, workedgreat havoc upon the ponderous and slow-moving Spanish galleons, andthe wreck of the Armada was completed by a furious gale which tossedship after ship upon the rocks of northern Scotland. Less than a thirdof the original expedition ever returned to Spain. Philip II had thus failed in his herculean effort against England. Hecontinued in small ways to annoy and to irritate Elizabeth. He tried--without result--to incite the Catholics of Ireland against the queen. He exhausted his arsenals and his treasures in despairing attempts toequip a second and even a third Armada. But he was doomed to bitterestdisappointment, for two years before his death an English fleet sackedhis own great port of Cadiz. The war with England ruined the navy andthe commerce of Spain. The defeat of the Armada was England's firsttitle to commercial supremacy. [Sidenote: Economic Benefits of the Period for England] It was long maintained that the underlying causes of the conflictbetween England and Spain in the second half of the sixteenth centuryand its chief interest was religious--that it was part of an epicstruggle between Protestantism and Catholicism. There may be a measureof truth in such an idea, but most recent writers believe that thechief motives for the conflict, as well as its important results, wereessentially economic. From the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, Englishsailors and freebooters, such as Hawkins and Drake, took the offensiveagainst Spanish trade and commerce; and many ships, laden with silverand goods from the New World and bound for Cadiz, were seized and towedinto English harbors. The queen herself frequently received a share ofthe booty and therefore tended to encourage the practice. For nearlythirty years Philip put up with the capture of his treasure ships, theraiding of his colonies, and the open assistance rendered to hisrebellious subjects. Only when he reached the conclusion that his powerwould never be secure in the Netherlands or in America did he dispatchthe Armada. Its failure finally freed Holland and marked the collapseof the Spanish monopoly upon the high seas and in the New World. [Sidenote: Affairs in France] Before we can appreciate the motives and results of the interference ofPhilip II in French affairs, a few words must be said about what hadhappened in France since Francis I (1515-1547) and his son, Henry II(1547-1559), exalted the royal power in their country and not onlypreserved French independence of the surrounding empire of Charles Vbut also increased French prestige by means of a strong policy in Italyand by the extension of frontiers toward the Rhine. Henry II hadmarried a member of the famous Florentine family of the Medici--Catherine de' Medici--a large and ugly woman, but ambitious, resourceful, and capable, who, by means of trickery and deceit, took anactive part in French politics from the death of her husband, throughout the reigns of her feeble sons, Francis II (1559-1560), Charles IX (1560-1574), and Henry III (1574-1589). Catherine found herposition and that of her royal children continually threatened by (1)the Protestants (Huguenots), (2) the great nobles, and (3) Philip II ofSpain. [Sidenote: Dangers to Royal Power in France: Protestantism] French Protestantism had grown steadily during the first half of thesixteenth century until it was estimated that from a twentieth to athirtieth of the nation had fallen away from the Catholic Church. Theinfluence of the advocates of the new faith was, however, much greaterthan their number, because the Huguenots, as they were called, wererecruited mainly from the prosperous, intelligent middle class, --thebourgeoisie, --who had been intrusted by preceding French kings withmany important offices. The Huguenots represented, therefore, apowerful social class and likewise one that was opposed to the undueincrease of royal power. They demanded, not only religious tolerationfor themselves, but also regular meetings of the Estates-General andcontrol of the nation's representatives over financial matters. Thekings, on their part, felt that political solidarity and their ownpersonal rule were dependent upon the maintenance of religiousuniformity in the nation and the consequent defeat of the pretensionsof the Huguenots. Francis I and Henry II had persecuted the Protestantswith bitterness. From 1562 to 1593 a series of so-called religious warsembroiled the whole country. [Sidenote: Dangers to Royal Power in France: the Nobles] French politics were further complicated during the second half of thesixteenth century by the recrudescence of the power of the nobles. Theso-called religious wars were quite as much political as religious--they resulted from efforts of this or that faction of noblemen todictate to a weak king. Two noble families particularly vied with eachother for power, --the Bourbons and the Guises, --and the unqualifiedtriumph of either would be certain to bring calamity to the sons ofCatherine de' Medici. [Sidenote: The Bourbons] The Bourbons bore the proud title of princes of the blood because theywere direct descendants of a French king. Their descent, to be sure, was from Saint Louis, king in the thirteenth century, and they werenow, therefore, only distant cousins of the reigning kings, but as thelatter died off, one after another, leaving no direct successors, theBourbons by the French law of strict male succession became heirs tothe royal family. The head of the Bourbons, a certain Anthony, hadmarried the queen of Navarre and had become thereby king of Navarre, although the greater part of that country--the region south of thePyrenees--had been annexed to Spain in 1512. Anthony's brother Louis, prince of Conde, had a reputation for bravery, loyalty, and ability. Both Conde and the king of Navarre were Protestants. [Sidenote: The Guise Family] The Guise family was descended from a duke of Lorraine who had attachedhimself to the court of Francis I. It was really a foreign family, inasmuch as Lorraine was then a dependency of the Holy Roman Empire, but the patriotic exploits of the head of the family in defending Metzagainst the Emperor Charles V and in capturing Calais from the Englishendeared the Guises to a goodly part of the French nation. The duke ofGuise remained a stanch Catholic, and his brother, called the Cardinalof Lorraine, was head of as many as twelve bishoprics, which gave himan enormous revenue and made him the most conspicuous churchman inFrance. During the reign of Henry II (1547-1559) the Guises wereespecially influential. They fought valiantly in foreign wars. Theyspurred on the king to a great persecution of the Huguenots. Theyincreased their own landed estates. And they married one of theirrelatives--Mary, queen of Scots--to the heir to the throne. But afterthe brief reign of Mary's husband, Francis II (1559-1560), the Guisefamily encountered not only the active opposition of their chief noblerivals, the Bourbons, with their Huguenot allies, but likewise thejealousy and crafty intrigues of Catherine de' Medici. [Sidenote: Religious Wars in France] Catherine feared both the ambition of the powerful Guise family and thedisruptive tendencies of Protestantism. The result was a long series ofconfused civil wars between the ardent followers, respectivelyCatholic and Protestant, of the Guise and Bourbon families, in whichthe queen-mother gave support first to one side and then to the other. There were no fewer than eight of these sanguinary conflicts, each oneending with the grant of slight concessions to the Huguenots and themaintenance of the weak kings upon the throne. The massacre of SaintBartholomew's Day (1572) was a horrible incident of Catherine's policyof "trimming. " Fearing the undue influence over the king of Admiral deColigny, an upright and able Huguenot leader, the queen-mother, withthe aid of the Guises, prevailed upon the weak-minded Charles IX toauthorize the wholesale assassination of Protestants. The signal wasgiven by the ringing of a Parisian church-bell at two o'clock in themorning of 24 August, 1572, and the slaughter went on throughout theday in the capital and for several weeks in the provinces. Coligny wasmurdered; even women and children were not spared. It is estimated thatin all at least three thousand--perhaps ten thousand--lost their lives. [Sidenote: The "Politiques"] The massacre of Saint Bartholomew's Day did not destroy FrenchProtestantism or render the Huguenot leaders more timid inasserting their claims. On the other hand, it brought intoclear light a noteworthy division within the ranks of their Catholicopponents in France--on one side, the rigorous followers of the Guisefamily, who complained only that the massacre had not been sufficientlycomprehensive, and, on the other side, a group of moderate Catholics, usually styled the "Politiques" who, while continuing to adhere to theRoman Church, and, when called upon, bearing arms on the side of theking, were strongly opposed to the employment of force or violence orpersecution in matters of religion. The Politiques were particularlypatriotic, and they blamed the religious wars and the intolerant policyof the Guises for the seeming weakness of the French monarchy. Theythought the massacre of Saint Bartholomew's Day a blunder as well as acrime. The emergence of the Politiques did not immediately make for peace;rather, it substituted a three-sided for a two-sided conflict. [Sidenote: Philip II and the War of the Three Henries] After many years, filled with disorder, it became apparent that thechildren of Catherine de' Medici would have no direct male heirs andthat the crown would therefore legally devolve upon the son of Anthonyof Bourbon--Henry of Bourbon, king of Navarre and a Protestant. Such anoutcome was naturally distasteful to the Guises and abhorrent to PhilipII of Spain. In 1585 a definite league was formed between Henry, dukeof Guise, and the Spanish king, whereby the latter undertook bymilitary force to aid the former's family in seizing the throne: Frenchpolitics in that event would be controlled by Spain, and Philip wouldsecure valuable assistance in crushing the Netherlands and conqueringEngland. [Footnote: At that very time, Mary, Queen of Scots, cousin ofHenry, duke of Guise, was held a prisoner in England by QueenElizabeth. See above, p. 99. ] The immediate outcome of the agreementwas the war of the three Henries--Henry III, son of Catherine de'Medici and king of France; Henry of Bourbon, king of Navarre and heirto the French throne; and Henry, duke of Guise, with the foreignsupport of Philip II of Spain. Henry of Guise represented the extremeCatholic party; Henry of Navarre, the Protestant faction; and Henry ofFrance, the Catholic moderates--the Politiques--who wanted peace andwere willing to grant a measure of toleration. The last two wereupholders of French independence against the encroachments of Spain. The king was speedily gotten into the power of the Guises, but littleheadway was made by the extreme Catholics against Henry of Navarre, whonow received domestic aid from the _Politiques_ and foreignassistance from Queen Elizabeth of England and who benefited by thecontinued misfortunes of Philip II. At no time was the Spanish kingable to devote his whole attention and energy to the French war. Atlength in 1588 Henry III caused Henry of Guise to be assassinated. Theking never had a real chance to prove whether he could become anational leader in expelling the foreigners and putting an end to civilwar, for he himself was assassinated in 1589. With his dying breath hedesignated the king of Navarre as his successor. [Sidenote: Henry of Navarre] Henry of Navarre, the first of the Bourbon family upon the throne ofFrance, took the title of Henry IV (1589-1610). [Footnote: It is acurious fact that Henry of Navarre, like Henry of Guise and Henry ofFrance, died by the hand of an assassin. ] For four years after hisaccession, Henry IV was obliged to continue the civil war, but hisabjuration of Protestantism and his acceptance of Catholicism in 1593removed the chief source of opposition to him within France, and therebellion speedily collapsed. With the Spanish king, however, thestruggle dragged on until the treaty of Vervins, which in the last yearof Philip's life practically confirmed the peace of Cateau-Cambresis. [Sidenote: Decline of Spain and Rise of France] Thus Philip II had failed to conquer or to dismember France. He hadbeen unable to harmonize French policies with those of his own in theNetherlands or in England. Despite his endeavors, the French crown wasnow on the head of one of his enemies, who, if something of a renegadeProtestant himself, had nevertheless granted qualified toleration toheretics. Nor were these failures of Philip's political and religiouspolicies mere negative results to France. The unsuccessful interferenceof the Spanish king contributed to the assurance of Frenchindependence, patriotism, and solidarity. France, not Spain, was to bethe center of European politics during the succeeding century. [Sidenote: Philip II and the Turks] In concluding this chapter, a large section of which has been devotedto an account of the manifold failures of Philip II, a word should beadded about one exploit that brought glory to the Spanish monarch. Itwas he who administered the first effective check to the advancingOttoman Turks. After the death of Suleiman the Magnificent (1566), the Turks continuedto strengthen their hold upon Hungary and to fit out piraticalexpeditions in the Mediterranean. The latter repeatedly ravagedportions of Sicily, southern Italy, and even the Balearic Islands, andin 1570 an Ottoman fleet captured Cyprus from the Venetians. Malta andCrete remained as the only Christian outposts in the Mediterranean. Inthis extremity, a league was formed to save Italy. Its inspirer andpreacher was Pope Pius V, but Genoa and Venice furnished the bulk ofthe fleet, while Philip II supplied the necessary additional ships andthe commander-in-chief in the person of his half-brother, Don John ofAustria. The expedition, which comprised 208 vessels, met the Ottomanfleet of 273 ships in the Gulf of Lepanto, off the coast of Greece, on7 October, 1571, and inflicted upon it a crushing defeat. The Turkishwarships were almost all sunk or driven ashore; it is estimated that8000 Turks lost their lives. When news of the victory reached Rome, Pope Pius intoned the famous verse, "There was a man sent from Godwhose name was John. " [Sidenote: Lepanto] The battle of Lepanto was of great political importance. It gave thenaval power of the Mohammedans a blow from which it never recovered andended their aggressive warfare in the Mediterranean. It was, inreality, the last Crusade: Philip II was in his most becoming role aschampion of church and pope; hardly a noble family in Spain or Italywas not represented in the battle; volunteers came from all parts ofthe world; the celebrated Spanish writer Cervantes lost an arm atLepanto. Western Europe was henceforth to be comparatively free fromthe Ottoman peril. [Illustration: THE HABSBURG FAMILY IN THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTHCENTURIES] [Illustration: THE VALOIS, BOURBON, AND GUISE FAMILIES, PHILIP OF SPAINAND MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS] [Illustration: THE HOUSE OF TUDOR: SOVEREIGNS OF ENGLAND (1485-1603)] ADDITIONAL READING GENERAL, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE HABSBURG TERRITORIES. A. H. Johnson, _Europe in the Sixteenth Century, 1494-1598_ (1897), ch. Iii-ix, a political summary; Mary A. Hollings, _Renaissance andReformation, 1453-1660_ (1910), ch. Vi, ix, x, a brief outline; E. M. Hulme, _Renaissance and Reformation_, 2d ed. (1915), ch. X, xiv, xxiv-xxviii, a brief and fragmentary account; T. H. Dyer, _A History ofModern Europe_, 3d ed. , rev. By Arthur Hassall (1901), ch. Ix, xi-xxvii, old but containing a multitude of political facts; _CambridgeModern History_, Vol. II (1904), ch. Ii, iii, vii, viii, and Vol. III(1905), ch. Xv, v; _History of All Nations_, Vol. XI and Vol. XII, ch. I-iii, by the German scholar on the period, Martin Philippson;_Histoire generale_, Vol. IV, ch. Iii, ix, Vol. V, ch. Ii-v, xv. Of theEmperor Charles V the old standard English biography by WilliamRobertson, still readable, has now been largely superseded by that ofEdward Armstrong, 2 vols. (1902); two important German works on CharlesV are Baumgarten, _Geschichte Karls V_, 3 vols. (1885-1892), and KonradHaebler, _Geschichte Spaniens unter den Habsburgen_, Vol. I (1907). OfPhilip II the best brief biography in English is Martin Hume's (1902), which should be consulted, if possible, in connection with CharlesBratli, _Philippe II, Roi d'Espagne: Etude sur sa vie et soncaractere_, new ed. (1912), an attempt to counteract traditionalProtestant bias against the Spanish monarch. Also see M. A. S. Hume, _Spain, its Greatness and Decay, 1479-1788_ (1898), ch. I-vi, for ageneral account of the reigns of Philip II and Philip III; and PaulHerre, _Papstium und Papstwahl im Zeitalter Philipps II_ (1907) for asympathetic treatment of Philip's relations with the papacy. For aproper understanding of sixteenth-century politics the student shouldread that all-important book, Machiavelli's _Prince_, the mostconvenient English edition of which is in "Everyman's Library. " Forpolitical events in the Germanies in the sixteenth century: E. F. Henderson, _A Short History of Germany_, 2 vols. In 1 (1902); SidneyWhitman, _Austria_ (1899); Gustav Welf, _Deutsche Geschichte imZeitalter der Gegenreformation_ (1899), an elaborate study; FranzKrones, _Handbuch der Geschichte Oesterreichs von der aeltesten Zeit_, Vol. III (1877), Book XIII. FRANCE IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. A. J. Grant, _The French Monarchy, 1483-1789_ (1900), Vol. I, ch. Iii-v; G. W. Kitchin, _A History ofFrance, _ 4th ed. (1894-1899), Vol. II, Book II, ch. Iv-v, and Book III;_Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. III (1905), ch. I; Ernest Lavisse(editor), _Histoire de France_, Vol. V (1903), Books III, IV, VII, VIII, and Vol. VI (1904), Books I-III, the most thorough and besttreatment; Edward Armstrong, _The French Wars of Religion_ (1892); J. W. Thompson, _The Wars of Religion in France: the Huguenots, Catherinede Medici and Philip II of Spain_, 1559-1576 (1909), containing severalsuggestions on the economic conditions of the time; A. W. Whitehead, _Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France_ (1904); C. C. Jackson, _TheLast of the Valois_, 2 vols. (1888), and, by the same author, _TheFirst of the Bourbons_, 2 vols. (1890); Lucien Romier, _Les originespolitiques des Guerres de Religion_, Vol. I, _Henri II et l'Italie, 1547-1555_ (1913), scholarly and authoritative, stressing economicrather than political aspects; Louis Batiffol, _The Century of theRenaissance in France_, Eng. Trans. By Elsie F. Buckley (1916), covering the years 1483-1610, largely political. ENGLAND IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. Brief accounts: A. L. Cross, _Historyof England and Greater Britain_ (1914), ch. Xix-xxvi; E. P. Cheyney, _AShort History of England_ (1904), ch. Xii, xiii; _Cambridge ModernHistory, _ Vol. III (1905), ch. Viii-xi; J. F. Bright, _History ofEngland_, 5 vols. (1884-1904), Vol. II, _Personal Monarchy, 1485-1688_(in part); A. D. Innes, _History of England and the British Empire_, 4vols, (1914), Vol. II, ch. Iii-viii; J. R. Seeley, _Growth of BritishPolicy_, 2 vols. (1895), a brilliant work, of which Vol. I, Part I, affords an able account of the policy of Elizabeth. More detailedstudies: J. S. Brewer, _The Reign of Henry VIII from his Accession tothe Death of Wolsey_, 2 vols. (1884); H. A. L. Fisher, _PoliticalHistory of England, 1485-1547_ (1906), ch. Vi-xviii; A. F. Pollard, _History of England from the Accession of Edward VI to the Death ofElizabeth_ (1910); J. A. Froude, _History of England from the Fall ofWolsey to the Defeat of the Spanish Armada_, 12 vols. (1870-1872), amasterpiece of prose-style but strongly biased in favor of Henry VIIIand against anything connected with the Roman Church; E. P. Cheyney, _AHistory of England from the Defeat of the Armada to the Death ofElizabeth_, Vol. I (1914), scholarly and well-written. Also see AndrewLang, _A History of Scotland_, 2d ed. (1901-1907), Vols. I and II; andP. H. Brown, _History of Scotland_ (1899-1900), Vols. I and II. Important biographies: A. F. Pollard, _Henry VIII_ (1905), the resultof much research and distinctly favorable to Henry; E. L. Taunton, _Thomas Wolsey, Legate and Reformer_ (1902), the careful estimate of aCatholic scholar; Mandell Creighton, _Cardinal Wolsey_ (1888), a goodclear account, rather favorable to the cardinal; J. M. Stone, _Mary theFirst, Queen of England_ (1901), a sympathetic biography of Mary Tudor;Mandell Creighton, _Queen Elizabeth_ (1909), the best biography of theVirgin Queen; E. S. Beesly, _Queen Elizabeth_ (1892), another goodbiography. For Mary, Queen of Scots, see the histories of Scotlandmentioned above and also Andrew Lang, _The Mystery of Mary Stuart_(1901); P. H. Brown, _Scotland in the Time of Queen Mary_ (1904); andR. S. Rait, _Mary Queen of Scots_, 2d ed. (1899), containing importantsource-material concerning Mary. Walter Walsh, _The Jesuits in GreatBritain_ (1903), emphasizes their political opposition to Elizabeth. Martin Hume, _Two English Queens and Philip_ (1908), valuable for theEnglish relations of Philip II. For English maritime development seeDavid Hannay, _A Short History of the English Navy_ (1898); J. S. Corbett, _Drake and the Tudor Navy_, 2 vols. (1898), and, by the sameauthor, _The Successors of Drake_ (1900); J. A. Froude, _English Seamenin the Sixteenth Century_ (1895). THE NETHERLANDS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. A good brief account is thatof George Edmundson in the _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. III(1905), ch. Vi, vii, and Vol. II (1904), ch. Xix. For the DutchNetherlands the great standard work is now P. J. Blok, _History ofthe People of the Netherlands_, trans. In large part by O. A. Bierstadt, and for the Belgian Netherlands a corresponding function isperformed in French by Henri Pirenne. J. L. Motley, _Rise of theDutch Republic_, 3 vols. (many editions), is brilliantly written andstill famous, but it is based on an inadequate study of the sources andis marred throughout by bitter prejudice against the Spaniards and infavor of the Protestant Dutch: it is now completely superseded by theworks of Blok and Pirenne. Admirable accounts of William the Silent arethe two-volume biography by Ruth Putnam and the volume by the sameauthor in the "Heroes of the Nations" Series (1911); the most detailedstudy is the German work of Felix Rachfahl. THE TURKS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. III (1905), ch. Iv; A. H. Lybyer, _The Government of the OttomanEmpire in the Time of Suleiman the Magnificent_ (1913); StanleyLane-Poole, _Turkey_ (1889) in the "Story of the Nations" Series;Nicolae Jorga, _Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches_; Leopold vonRanke, _Die Osmanen und die spanische Monarchie im sechzehnten undsiebzehnten Jahrhundert_; Joseph von Hammer, _Geschichte desosmanischen Reiches_, 2d ed. , 4 vols. (1834-1835), Vol. II, a famousGerman work, which has been translated into French. CHAPTER IV THE PROTESTANT REVOLT AND THE CATHOLIC REFORMATION THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AT THE OPENING OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY [Sidenote: Differences between Religious Bodies in 1500 and Those in1900] Four hundred years ago, practically all people who lived in central orwestern Europe called themselves "Christians" and in common recognizedallegiance to an ecclesiastical body which was called the "CatholicChurch. " This Catholic Church in 1500 differed from any present-dayreligious society in the following respects: (1) Every child was borninto the Church as now he is born into the state; every person wasexpected to conform, at least outwardly, to the doctrines and practicesof the Church; in other words the Catholic Church claimed a universalmembership. (2) The Church was not supported by voluntary contributionsas now, but by compulsory taxes; every person was compelled to assistin defraying the expenses of the official religion. (3) The stateundertook to enforce obedience on the part of its subjects to theChurch; a person attacking the authority of the Catholic Church wouldbe liable to punishment by the state, and this held true in England andGermany as well as in Spain or Italy. [Sidenote: Rise of Protestantism] Then, within fifty years, between 1520 and 1570, a large number ofCatholic Christians, particularly in Germany, Scandinavia, Scotland, and England, and a smaller number in the Low Countries and in France, broke off communion with the ancient Church and became known asProtestants. Before the year 1500 there were no Protestants; since thesixteenth century, the dominant Christianity of western and centralEurope has been divided into two parts--Catholic and Protestant. It isimportant that we should know something of the origin and significanceof this division, because the Christian religion and the ChristianChurch had long played very great roles in the evolution of Europeancivilization and because ecclesiastical and religious questions havecontinued, since the division, to deserve general attention. [Sidenote: "Catholic" Christianity] Let us understand clearly what was meant in the year 1500 by theexpression "Catholic Christianity. " It embraced a belief in certainreligious precepts which it was believed Jesus of Nazareth had taughtat the beginning of the Christian era, the inculcation of certain moralteachings which were likewise derived from Jesus, and a definiteorganization--the Church--founded, it was assumed, by Jesus in order toteach and practice, till the end of time, His religious and moraldoctrines. By means of the Church, man would know best how to order hislife in this world and how to prepare his soul for everlastinghappiness in the world to come. [Sidenote: The Catholic Church] The Catholic Church was, therefore, a vast human society, believed tobe of divine foundation and sanction, and with a mission greater andmore lofty than that of any other organization. Church and state hadeach its own sphere, but the Church had insisted for centuries that itwas greater and more necessary than the state. The members of theChurch were the sum-total of Christian believers who had been baptized--practically the population of western and central Europe--and itsofficers constituted a regular governing hierarchy. [Sidenote: Head of the Church] At the head of the hierarchy was the bishop of Rome, styled the pope orsovereign pontiff, who from the first had probably enjoyed a leadingposition in the Church as the successor of St. Peter, prince of theapostles, and whose claims to be the divinely appointed chief bishophad been generally recognized throughout western Europe as early as thethird century--perhaps earlier. The bishop of Rome was elected for lifeby a group of clergymen, called cardinals, who originally had been indirect charge of the parish churches in the city of Rome, but who laterwere frequently selected by the pope from various countries becausethey were distinguished churchmen. The pope chose the cardinals; thecardinals elected the pope. Part of the cardinals resided in Rome, andin conjunction with a host of clerks, translators, lawyers, and specialofficials, constituted the _Curia_, or papal court, for theconduct of general church business. [Sidenote: Local Administration of the Church][Sidenote: Secular Clergy] For the local administration of church affairs, the Catholic world wasdivided under the pope into several territorial subdivisions, (1) Thepatriarchates had been under patriarchs who had their sees [Footnote:"See, " so called from the Latin _sedes_, referring to their seator chair of office. Similarly our word "cathedral" is derived from theLatin _cathedra_, the official chair which the bishop occupies inhis own church. ] in such ancient Christian centers as Rome. Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch. And Constantinople. (2) The provinces weredivisions of the patriarchates and usually centered in the mostimportant cities, such as Milan, Florence, Cologne, Upsala, Lyons, Seville, Lisbon, Canterbury, York; and the head of each was styled ametropolitan or archbishop. (3) The diocese--the most essential unit oflocal administration--was a subdivision of the province, commonly acity or a town, with a certain amount of surrounding country, under theimmediate supervision of a bishop. (4) Smaller divisions, particularlyparishes, were to be found in every diocese, embracing a village or asection of a city, and each parish had its church building and itspriest. Thus the Catholic Church possessed a veritable army ofofficials from pope and cardinals down through patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops, to the parish priests and their assistants, the deacons. This hierarchy, because it labored _in the world_ (_saeculo_), was called the "secular clergy. " [Sidenote: "Regular" Clergy] Another variety of clergy--the "regulars"--supplemented the work of theseculars. The regulars were monks, [Footnote: The word "monk" isapplied, of course, only to men; women who followed similar rules arecommonly styled nuns. ] that is, Christians who lived by a special_rule_ (_regula_), who renounced the world, took vows ofchastity, poverty, and obedience, and strove to imitate the life ofChrist as literally as possible. The regular clergy were organizedunder their own abbots, priors, provincials, or generals, being usuallyexempt from secular jurisdiction, except that of the pope. The regularswere the great missionaries of the Church, and many charitable andeducational institutions were in their hands. Among the various ordersof monks which had grown up in the course of time, the following shouldbe enumerated: (1) The monks who lived in fixed abodes, tilled thesoil, copied manuscripts, and conducted local schools. Most of themonks of this kind followed a rule, or society by-laws, which had beenprepared by the celebrated St. Benedict about the year 525: they werecalled therefore Benedictines. (2) The monks who organized crusades, often bore arms themselves, and tended the holy places connected withincidents in the life of Christ: such orders were the Knights Templars, the Knights Hospitalers of St. John and of Malta, and the TeutonicKnights who subsequently undertook the conversion of the Slavs. (3) Themonks who were called the begging friars or mendicants because they hadno fixed abode but wandered from place to place, preaching to thecommon people and dependent for their own living upon alms. Theseorders came into prominence in the thirteenth century and included, among others, the Franciscan, whose lovable founder Saint Francis ofAssisi had urged humility and love of the poor as its distinguishingcharacteristics, and the Dominican, or Order of the Preachers, devotedby the precept of its practical founder, Saint Dominic, to missionaryzeal. All the mendicant orders, as well as the Benedictine monasteries, became famous in the history of education, and the majority of thedistinguished scholars of the middle ages were monks. It was notuncommon, moreover, for regulars to enter the secular hierarchy andthus become parish priests or bishops, or even popes. [Sidenote: Church Councils][Sidenote: Conciliar Movement] The clergy--bishops, priests, and deacons--constituted, in popularbelief, the divinely ordained administration of the Catholic Church. The legislative authority in the Church similarly was vested in thepope and in the general councils, neither of which, however, could setaside a law of God, as affirmed in the gospels, or establish a doctrineat variance with the tradition of the early Christian writers. Thegeneral councils were assemblies of prelates of the Catholic world, andthere had been considerable discussion as to the relative authority oftheir decrees and the decisions and directions of the pope. [Footnote:Papal documents have been called by various names, such as decretals, bulls, or encyclicals. ] General church councils held in eastern Europefrom the fourth to the ninth centuries had issued important decrees orcanons defining Christian dogmas and establishing ecclesiasticaldiscipline, which had been subsequently ratified and promulgated by thepope as by other bishops and by the emperors; and several councils hadbeen held in western Europe from the twelfth to the fourteenthcenturies under the direct supervision of the bishop of Rome, all thecanons of which had been enacted in accordance with his wishes. Butearly in the fifteenth century a movement was inaugurated by certainCatholic bishops and scholars in favor of making the councils superiorto the pope and a regular source of supreme legislation for the Church. In this way, the councils of Constance (1414-1418) and Basel (1431 ff. )had endeavored to introduce representative, if not democratic, government into the Church. The popes, however, objected to thisconciliar movement and managed to have it condemned by the Council ofFerrara-Florence (1438-1442). By the year 1512 the papal theory hadtriumphed and Catholics generally recognized again that the governmentof the Church was essentially monarchical. The laws of the CatholicChurch were known as canons, and, of several codes of canon law whichhad been prepared, that of a monk named Gratian, compiled in thetwelfth century, was the most widely used. [Sidenote: The Pope and his Powers] We are now in a position to summarize the claims and prerogatives ofthe bishop of Rome or pope. (1) He was the supreme lawgiver. He couldissue decrees of his own, which might not be set aside by any otherperson. No council might enact canons without his approval. From anylaw, other than divine, he might dispense persons. (2) He was thesupreme judge in Christendom. He claimed that appeals might be takenfrom decisions in foreign courts to his own Curia, as court of lastresort. He himself frequently acted as arbitrator, as, for example, inthe famous dispute between Spain and Portugal concerning the boundariesof their newly discovered possessions. (3) He was the supremeadministrator. He claimed the right to supervise the general businessof the whole Church. No archbishop might perform the functions of hisoffice until he received his insignia--the pallium--from the pope. Nobishop might be canonically installed until his election had beenconfirmed by the pope. The pope claimed the right to transfer a bishopfrom one diocese to another and to settle all disputed elections. Heexercised immediate control over the regular clergy--the monks andnuns. He sent ambassadors, styled legates, to represent him at thevarious royal courts and to see that his instructions were obeyed. (4)He insisted upon certain temporal rights, as distinct from his directlyreligious prerogatives. He crowned the Holy Roman Emperor. He mightdepose an emperor or king and release a ruler's subjects from theiroath of allegiance. He might declare null and void, and forbid thepeople to obey, a law of any state, if he thought it was injurious tothe interests of the Church. He was temporal ruler of the city of Romeand the surrounding papal states, and over those territories heexercised a power similar to that of any duke or king. (5) He claimedfinancial powers. In order to defray the enormous expenses of hisgovernment, he charged fees for certain services at Rome, assessed thedioceses throughout the Catholic world, and levied a small tax--Peter'sPence--upon all Christian householders. [Sidenote: Purpose of the Church] So far we have concerned ourselves with the organization of theCatholic Church--its membership, its officers, the clergy, secular andregular, all culminating in the pope, the bishop of Rome. But why didthis great institution exist? Why was it loved, venerated, and wellserved? The purpose of the Church, according to its own teaching, wasto follow the instructions of its Divine Master, Jesus Christ, insaving souls. Only the Church might interpret those instructions; theChurch alone might apply the means of salvation; outside the Church noone could be saved. [Footnote: Catholic theologians have recognized, however, the possibility of salvation of persons outside the visibleChurch. Thus, the catechism of Pope Pius X says: "Whoever, without anyfault of his own, and in good faith, being outside the Church, happensto have been baptized or to have at least an implicit desire forbaptism, and, furthermore, has been sincere in seeking to find thetruth, and has done his best to do the will of God, such an one, although separated from the body of the Church, would still belong toher soul, and therefore be in the way of salvation. "] The salvation ofsouls for eternity was thus the supreme business of the Church. [Sidenote: Theology] This salvation of souls involved a theology and a sacramental system, which we shall proceed to explain. Theology was the study of God. Itsought to explain how and why man was created, what were his actual anddesirable relations with God, what would be the fate of man in a futurelife. The most famous theologians of the Catholic Church, for example, St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), studied carefully the teachings ofChrist, the Bible, the early Christian writings, and the decrees ofpopes and councils, and drew therefrom elaborate explanations ofChristian theology--the dogmas and faith of the Catholic Church. [Sidenote: The Sacramental System] The very center of Catholic theology was the sacramental system, forthat was the means, and essentially the only means, of saving souls. Itwas, therefore, for the purpose of the sacramental system that theChurch and its hierarchy existed. The sacraments were believed to havebeen instituted by Christ Himself, and were defined as "outward signsinstituted by Christ to give grace. " The number generally accepted wasseven: baptism, confirmation, holy eucharist, penance, extreme unction, holy orders, and matrimony. By means of the sacraments the Churchaccompanied the faithful throughout life. Baptism, the pouring ofwater, cleansed the child from original sin and from all previousactual sins, and made him a Christian, a child of God, and an heir ofheaven. The priest was the ordinary minister of baptism, but in case ofnecessity any one who had the use of reason might baptize. Confirmation, conferred usually by a bishop upon young persons by thelaying on of hands and the anointing with oil, gave them the Holy Ghostto render them strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of JesusChrist. Penance, one of the most important sacraments, was intended toforgive sins committed after baptism. To receive the sacrament ofpenance worthily it was necessary for the penitent (1) to examine hisconscience, (2) to have sorrow for his sins, (3) to make a firmresolution never more to offend God, (4) to confess his mortal sinsorally to a priest, (5) to receive absolution from the priest, (6) toaccept the particular penance--visitation of churches, saying ofcertain prayers, or almsgiving--which the priest might enjoin. The holyeucharist was the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the consecration ofbread and wine by priest or bishop, its miraculous transformation(transubstantiation) at his word into the very Body and Blood ofChrist, and its reception by the faithful. It was around the eucharistthat the elaborate ritual and ceremonies of the Mass developed, thatfine vestments and candles and incense and flowers were used, and thatmagnificent cathedrals were erected. Extreme unction was the anointingat the hands of a priest of the Christian who was in immediate dangerof death, and it was supposed to give health and strength to the souland sometimes to the body. By means of holy orders, --the specialimposition of hands on the part of a bishop, --priests, bishops, andother ministers of the Church were ordained and received the power andgrace to perform their sacred duties. Matrimony was the sacrament, heldto be indissoluble by human power, by which man and woman were unitedin lawful Christian marriage. Of the seven sacraments it will be noticed that two--baptism andpenance--dealt with the forgiveness of sins, and that two--holy ordersand matrimony--were received only by certain persons. Three--baptism, confirmation, and holy orders--could be received by a Christian onlyonce. Two--confirmation and holy orders--required the ministry of abishop; and all others, except baptism and possibly matrimony, requiredthe ministry of at least a priest. The priesthood was, therefore, theabsolutely indispensable agent of the Church in the administration ofthe sacramental system. It was the priesthood that absolved penitentsfrom their sins, wrought the great daily miracle of transubstantiation, and offered to God the holy sacrifice of the Mass. [Sidenote: Various Objections to the Church] It must not be supposed that either the theology or the organization ofthe Catholic Church, as they existed in the year 1500, had beenprecisely the same throughout the Christian era. While educatedCatholics insisted that Christ was indirectly the source of all faithand all practice, they were quite willing to admit that externalchanges and adaptations of institutions to varying conditions had takenplace. Moreover, it must not be supposed that the proud eminence towhich the Catholic Church had attained by 1500 in central and westernEurope had been won easily or at that time was readily maintained. Throughout the whole course of Christian history there had beenrepeated objections to new definitions of dogma--many positivelyrefused to accept the teaching of the Church as divine or infallible--and there had been likewise a good deal of opposition to the temporalclaims of the Church, resulting in increasing friction between theclergy and the lay rulers. Thus it often transpired that the kings whovied with one another in recognizing the spiritual and religiousheadship of the pope and in burning heretics who denied doctrines ofthe Catholic Church, were the very kings who quarreled with the popeconcerning the latter's civil jurisdiction and directed harsh lawsagainst its exercise. [Sidenote: Sources of Conflict between Church and State] As strong national monarchies rose in western Europe, this frictionbecame more acute. On one side the royal power was determined to exaltthe state and to bring into subjection to it not only the nobles andcommon people but the clergy as well; the national state must manageabsolutely every temporal affair. On the other side, the clergy stoutlydefended the special powers that they had long enjoyed in variousstates and which they believed to be rightly theirs. There were_four_ chief sources of conflict between the temporal andspiritual jurisdictions, (1) Appointments of bishops, abbots, and otherhigh church officers. Inasmuch as these were usually foremost citizensof their native kingdom, holding large estates and actuallyparticipating in the conduct of government, the kings frequentlyclaimed the right to dictate their election. On the other hand thepopes insisted upon their rights in the matter and often "reserved" tothemselves the appointment to certain valuable bishoprics. (2) Taxationof land and other property of the clergy. The clergy insisted that byright they were exempt from taxation and that in practice they had notbeen taxed since the first public recognition of Christianity in thefourth century. The kings pointed out that the wealth of the clergy andthe needs of the state had increased along parallel lines, that theclergy were citizens of the state and should pay a just share for itsmaintenance. (3) Ecclesiastical courts. For several centuries theChurch had maintained its own courts for trying clerical offenders andfor hearing certain cases, which nowadays are heard in state courts--probating of wills, the marriage relations, blasphemy, etc. From theselocal church courts, the pope insisted that appeals might be taken tothe Roman Curia. On their side, the kings were resolved to substituteroyal justice for that of both feudal and ecclesiastical courts: theydiminished, therefore, the privileges of the local church courts andforbade the taking of appeals to Rome. (4) How far might the pope, asuniversally acknowledged head of the Church, interfere in the internalaffairs of particular states? While the pope claimed to be the solejudge of his own rights and powers, several kings forbade thepublication of papal documents within their states or the reception ofpapal legates unless the royal assent had been vouchsafed. [Sidenote: Royal Restrictions on the Church] Gradually the national monarchs secured at least a partial control overepiscopal appointments, and in both England and France papaljurisdiction was seriously restricted in other ways. In England thepower of the ecclesiastical courts had been reduced (1164); no propertymight be bestowed upon the Church without royal permission (1279); thepope might not make provision in England for his personal appointees tooffice (1351); and appeals to Rome had been forbidden (1392). [Footnote: All these anti-papal enactments were very poorly enforced. ]In France the clergy had been taxed early in the fourteenth century, and the papacy, which had condemned such action, had been humiliated bya forced temporary removal from Rome to Avignon, where it wascontrolled by French rulers for nearly seventy years (1309-1377); andin 1438 the French king, Charles VII, in a document, styled thePragmatic Sanction of Bourges, solemnly proclaimed the "liberties ofthe Gallican Church, " that a general council was superior to the pope, that the pope might not interfere in episcopal elections, that he mightnot levy taxes on French dioceses. The Pragmatic Sanction was condemnedby the pope, but for three-quarters of a century after its issuancethere were strained relations between the Church in France and thesovereign pontiff. [Sidenote: Political Differences Distinct from Religious Differences] Similar conflicts between spiritual and temporal jurisdictions werecommon to all Christian states, but the national strength and thepatriotism of the western monarchies caused them to proceed furtherthan any other state in restricting the papal privileges. Despite theconflict over temporal affairs, which at times was exceedingly bitter, the kings and rulers of England and France never appear to haveseriously questioned the religious authority of the Church or thespiritual supremacy of the pope. Religiously, the Catholic Churchseemed in 1500 to hold absolute sway over all central and westernEurope. [Sidenote: Religious Opposition to Catholicism] Yet this very religious authority of the Catholic Church had been againand again brought into question and repeatedly rejected. Originally, aunited Christianity had conquered western Asia, northern Africa, andeastern Europe; by 1500 nearly all these wide regions were lost toCatholic Christianity as that phrase was understood in western Europe. The loss was due to (1) the development of a great Christian schism, and (2) the rise of a new religion--Mohammedanism. [Sidenote: The Schism between the East and the West] Eastern Europe had been lost through an ever-widening breach inChristian practice from the fifth to the eleventh century. The EasternChurch used the Greek language in its liturgy; that of the West usedthe Latin language. The former remained more dependent upon the state;the latter grew less dependent. Minor differences of doctrine appeared. And the Eastern Christians thought the pope was usurping unwarrantableprerogatives, while the Western Christians accused the Orientalpatriarchs of departing from their earlier loyalty to the pope anddestroying the unity of Christendom. Several attempts had been made toreunite the Catholic Church of the West and the Orthodox Church of theEast, but with slight success. In 1500, the Christians of Greece, theBalkan peninsula, and Russia were thought to be outside the CatholicChurch and were defined, therefore, by the pope as schismatics. [Sidenote: Mohammedanism] Far more numerous and dangerous to Catholic Christianity than theschismatic Easterners were the Mohammedans. Mohammed himself had livedin Arabia in the early part the seventh century and had taught that hewas the inspired prophet of the one true God. In a celebrated book, --the Koran, --which was compiled from the sayings of the prophet, are tobe found the precepts and commandments of the Mohammedan religion. Mohammedanism spread rapidly: within a hundred years of its founder'sdeath it had conquered western Asia and northern Africa and had gaineda temporary foothold in Spain; thenceforth it stretched eastward acrossPersia and Turkestan into India and southward into central Africa; andin the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, as we have seen, itpossessed itself of Constantinople, the Balkans, Greece, and part ofHungary, and threatened Christendom in the Germanies and in theMediterranean. [Sidenote: Western Heresies] Even in western Europe, the Catholic Church had had to encounterspasmodic opposition from "heretics, " as those persons were called who, although baptized as Christians, refused to accept all the dogmas ofCatholic Christianity. Such were the Arian Christians, who in earlytimes had been condemned for rejecting the doctrine of the divinity ofChrist, and who had eventually been won back to Catholicism only withthe greatest efforts. Then in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries theAlbigensian heretics in southern France had assailed the sacramentalsystem and the organization of the Church and had been suppressed onlyby armed force. In the fourteenth century, John Wycliffe appeared inEngland and John Hus in Bohemia, both preaching that the individualChristian needs no priestly mediation between himself and God and thatthe very sacraments of the Church, however desirable, are notessentially necessary to salvation. The Lollards, as Wycliffe's Englishfollowers were called, were speedily extirpated by fire and sword, through the stern orthodoxy of an English king, but the Hussites longdefied the pope and survivals of their heresy were to be found in 1500. [Sidenote: Skeptics] In addition to these heretics and the Jews, [Footnote: For detailedaccounts of the Jews during the middle ages as well as in modern times, see the _Jewish Encyclopaedia_, ed. By Isidore Singer, 12 vols. (1901-1906). ] many so-called skeptics no doubt existed. These werepeople who outwardly conformed to Catholicism but inwardly doubted andeven scoffed at the very foundations of Christianity. They wereessentially irreligious, but they seem to have suffered less frompersecution than the heretics. Many of the Italian humanists, concerning whom we shall later say a word, [Footnote: See below] werein the fifteenth century more or less avowed skeptics. THE PROTESTANT REVOLT [Sidenote: A Religious and Political Movement] We have seen in the preceding pages that prior to 1500 there had beenmany conflicts between kings and popes concerning their respectivetemporal rights and likewise there had been serious doubts in the mindsof various people as to the authority and teachings of the CatholicChurch. But these two facts--political and religious--had never beenunited in a general revolt against the Church until the sixteenthcentury. Then it was that Christians of Germany, Scandinavia, Scotland, and England, even of the Low Countries and France, successfullyrevolted against the papal monarchy and set up establishments of theirown, usually under the protection of their lay rulers, which becameknown as the Protestant churches. The movement is called, therefore, the Protestant Revolt. It was begun and practically completed between1520 and 1570. [Sidenote: Political Causes of Protestant Revolt] In explaining this remarkable and sudden break with the religious andecclesiastical development of a thousand years, it is well to bear inmind that its causes were at once political, economic, and religious. Politically, it was merely an accentuation of the conflict which hadlong been increasing in virulence between the spiritual and temporalauthorities. It cannot be stated too emphatically that the CatholicChurch during many centuries prior to the sixteenth had been not only areligious body, like a present-day church, but also a vast politicalpower which readily found sources of friction with other politicalinstitutions. The Catholic Church, as we have seen, had its ownelaborate organization in every country of western and central Europe;and its officials--pope, bishops, priests, and monks--denied allegianceto the secular government; the Church owned many valuable lands andestates, which normally were exempt from taxation and virtually outsidethe jurisdiction of the lay government; the Church had its ownindependent and compulsory income, and its own courts to try its ownofficers and certain kinds of cases for every one. Such politicaljurisdiction of the Church had been quite needful and satisfactory inthe period--from the fifth to the twelfth century, let us say--when thesecular governments were weak and the Church found itself the chiefunifying force in Christendom, the veritable heir to the universaldominion of the ancient Roman Empire. But gradually the temporal rulers themselves repressed feudalism. Political ambition increased in laymen, and local pride was exaltedinto patriotism. By the year 1200 was begun the growth of that notableidea of national monarchy, the general outline of which we sketched inthe opening chapter. We there indicated that at the commencement of thesixteenth century, England, France, Spain, and Portugal had becomestrong states, with well-organized lay governments under powerfulkings, with patriotic populations, and with well-developed, distinctivelanguages and literatures. The one thing that seemed to be needed tocomplete this national sovereignty was to bring the Church entirelyunder royal control. The autocratic sovereigns desired to enlist thewealth and influence of the Church in their behalf; they coveted herlands, her taxes, and her courts. Although Italy, the Netherlands, andthe Germanies were not yet developed as strong united monarchies, manyof their patriotic leaders longed for such a development, worked forit, and believed that the principal obstacle to it was the greatChristian Church with the pope at its head. Viewed from the politicalstandpoint, the Protestant Revolt was caused by the rise of nationalfeeling, which found itself in natural conflict with the oldercosmopolitan or catholic idea of the Church. It was nationalism_versus_ Catholicism. [Sidenote: Economic Causes of Protestant Revolt] Economically, the causes of the Protestant Revolt were twofold. In thefirst place, the Catholic Church had grown so wealthy that many people, particularly kings and princes, coveted her possessions. In the secondplace, financial abuses in ecclesiastical administration bore heavilyupon the common people and created serious scandal. Let us say a wordabout each one of these difficulties. At the opening of the sixteenth century, many bishops and abbots inwealth and power were not unlike great lay lords: they held vast fairdominions--in the Germanics a third of the whole country, in France afifth, etc. --and they were attended by armies of retainers. Most ofthem were sons of noblemen who had had them consecrated bishops so asto insure them fine positions. Even the monks, who now often lived inrich monasteries as though they had never taken vows of poverty, weresometimes of noble birth and quite worldly in their lives. The largeestates and vast revenues of Catholic ecclesiastics were thus at firstthe lure and then the prey of their royal and princely neighbors. Thelatter grew quite willing to utilize any favorable opportunity whichmight enable them to confiscate church property and add it to their ownpossessions. Later such confiscation was euphemistically styled"secularization. " On the other hand, many plain people, such as peasants and artisans, begrudged the numerous and burdensome ecclesiastical taxes, and anincreasing number felt that they were not getting the worth of theirmoney. There was universal complaint, particularly in the Germanies, that the people were exploited by the Roman Curia. Each ecclesiastic, be he bishop, abbot, or priest, had right to a benefice, that is, tothe revenue of a parcel of land attached to his post. When he tookpossession of a benefice, he paid the pope a special assessment, calledthe "annate, " amounting to a year's income--which of course came fromthe peasants living on the land. The pope likewise "reserved" tohimself the right of naming the holders of certain benefices: these hegave preferably to Italians who drew the revenues but remained in theirown country; the people thus supported foreign prelates in luxury andsometimes paid a second time in order to maintain residentecclesiastics. The archbishops paid enormous sums to the pope for theirbadges of office (_pallia_). Fat fees for dispensations or forcourt trials found their way across the Alps. And the bulk of theburden ultimately rested upon the backs of the people. At least in theGermanics the idea became very prevalent that the pope and Curia werereally robbing honest German Christians for the benefit of scandalouslyimmoral Italians. There were certainly grave financial abuses in church government in thefifteenth century and in the early part of the sixteenth. A project ofGerman reform, drawn up in 1438, had declared: "It is a shame whichcries to heaven, this oppression of tithes, dues, penalties, excommunication, and tolls of the peasant, on whose labor all mendepend for their existence. " An "apocalyptic pamphlet of 1508 shows onits cover the Church upside down, with the peasant performing theservices, while the priest guides the plow outside and a monk drivesthe horses. " It was, in fact, in the Germanics that all the socialclasses--princes, burghers, knights, and peasants--had special economicgrievances against the Church, and in many places were ready to combinein rejecting papal claims. This emphasis upon the political and particularly upon the economiccauses need not belittle the strictly religious factor in the movement. The success of the revolt was due to the fact that many kings, nobles, and commoners, for financial and political advantages to themselves, became the valuable allies of real religious reformers. It requireddogmatic differences as well as social grievances to destroy thedominion of the Church. [Sidenote: Abuses in the Catholic Church] Nearly all thoughtful men in the sixteenth century recognized theexistence of abuses in the Catholic Church. The scandals connected withthe papal court at Rome were notorious at the opening of the century. Several of the the popes lived grossly immoral lives. Simony (the saleof church offices for money) and nepotism (favoritism shown by a popeto his relatives) were not rare. The most lucrative ecclesiasticalpositions throughout Europe were frequently conferred upon Italians whoseldom discharged their duties. One person might be made bishop ofseveral foreign dioceses and yet continue to reside in Rome. Leo X, whowas pope when the Protestant Revolt began, and son of Lorenzo de'Medici, surnamed the Magnificent, had been ordained to the priesthoodat the age of seven, named cardinal when he was thirteen, and speedilyloaded with a multitude of rich benefices and preferments; this samepope, by his munificence and extravagance, was forced to resort to themost questionable means for raising money: he created many new officesand shamelessly sold them; he increased the revenue from indulgences, jubilees, and regular taxation; he pawned palace furniture, tableplate, pontifical jewels, even statues of the apostles; several bankingfirms and many individual creditors were ruined by his death. [Sidenote: Attacks on Immorality of Clergymen] What immorality and worldliness prevailed at Rome was reflected in thelives of many lesser churchmen. To one of the popes of the fifteenthcentury, a distinguished cardinal represented the disorders of theclergy, especially in the Germanics. "These disorders, " he said, "excite the hatred of the people against all ecclesiastical order; ifit is not corrected, it is to be feared that the laity, following theexample of the Hussites, will attack the clergy as they now openlymenace us with doing. " If the clergy of Germany were not reformedpromptly, he predicted that after the Bohemian heresy was crushedanother would speedily arise far more dangerous. "For they will say, "he continued, "that the clergy is incorrigible and is willing to applyno remedy to its disorders. They will attack us when they no longerhave any hope of our correction. Men's minds are waiting for what shallbe done; it seems as if shortly something tragic will be brought forth. The venom which they have against us is becoming evident; soon theywill believe they are making a sacrifice agreeable to God bymaltreating or despoiling the ecclesiastics as people odious to God andman and immersed to the utmost in evil. The little reverence stillremaining for the sacred order will be destroyed. Responsibility forall these disorders will be charged upon the Roman Curia, which will beregarded as the cause of all these evils because it has neglected toapply the necessary remedy. " To many other thoughtful persons, a moralreformation in the head and members of the Church seemed vitallynecessary. Complaints against the evil lives of the clergy as well as againsttheir ignorance and credulity were echoed by most of the great scholarsand humanists of the time. The patriotic knight and vagabond scholar, Ulrich von Hutten (1488-1523), contributed to a clever series ofsatirical "Letters of Obscure Men, " which were read widely, and whichpoked fun at the lack of learning among the monks and the ease withwhich the papal court emptied German pockets. [Sidenote: Ulrich von Hutten and Erasmus] Then, too, the great Erasmus (1466-1536) employed all his wit andsarcasm, in his celebrated "Praise of Folly, " against the theologiansand monks, complaining that the foolish people thought that religionconsisted simply in pilgrimages, the invocation of saints, and theveneration of relics. Erasmus would have suppressed the monasteries, put an end to the domination of the clergy, and swept away scandalousabuses. He wanted Christianity to regain its early spiritual force, andlargely for that purpose he published in 1516 the Greek text of the NewTestament with a new Latin translation and with notes which mercilesslyflayed hair-splitting theologians. Thus throughout the fifteenth century and the early part of thesixteenth, much was heard from scholars, princes, and people, of theneed for "reformation" of the Church. That did not signify a change ofthe old regulations but rather their restoration and enforcement. For along time it was not a question of abolishing the authority of thepope, or altering ecclesiastical organization, or changing creeds. Itwas merely a question of reforming the lives of the clergy and ofsuppressing the means by which Italians drew money from other nations. [Sidenote: Religious Causes of Protestant Revolt] In the sixteenth century, however, a group of religious leaders, suchas Luther, Cranmer, Zwingli, Calvin, and Knox, went much further thanErasmus and the majority of the humanists had gone: they applied theword "reformation" not only to a reform in morals but to an open breakwhich they made with the government and doctrines of the CatholicChurch. The new theology, which these reformers championed, was derivedmainly from the teachings of such heretics as Wycliffe and Hus and wassupposed to depend directly upon the Bible rather than upon the Church. The religious causes of the Protestant Revolt accordingly may be summedup as: first, the existence of abuses within the Catholic Church;second, the attacks of distinguished men upon the immorality andworldliness of the Catholic clergy; and third, the substitution bycertain religious leaders of new doctrines and practices, which werepresumed to have been authorized by the Bible, but which were atvariance with those of the medieval Church. [Sidenote: Date and Extent of the Protestant Revolt] For the great variety of reasons, which we have now indicated, --political, economic, and religious, --the peoples of northern Germany, Scandinavia, the Dutch Netherlands, most of Switzerland, Scotland, England, and a part of France and of Hungary, separated themselves, between the years 1520 and 1570, from the great religious and politicalbody which had been known historically for over a thousand years as theCatholic Christian Church. The name "Protestant" was first appliedexclusively to those followers of Martin Luther in the Holy RomanEmpire who in 1529 protested against an attempt of the Diet of Speyerto prevent the introduction of religious novelties, but subsequentlythe word passed into common parlance among historians and the generalreading public as betokening all Christians who rejected the papalsupremacy and who were not in communion with the Orthodox Church ofeastern Europe. Of this Protestant Christianity three main forms appeared in thesixteenth century--Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Anglicanism. Concerningthe origin and development of each one of these major forms, a briefsketch must be given. LUTHERANISM [Sidenote: Martin Luther] Lutheranism takes its name from its great apostle, Martin Luther. Luther was born in Eisleben in Germany in 1483 of a poor family whoseancestors had been peasants. Martin early showed himself bold, headstrong, willing to pit his own opinions against those of the world, but yet possessing ability, tact, and a love of sound knowledge. Educated at the university of Erfurt, where he became acquainted withthe humanistic movement, young Martin entered one of the mendicantorders--the Augustinian--in 1505 and went to live in a monastery. In1508 Luther was sent with some other monks to Wittenberg to assist auniversity which had been opened there recently by the elector ofSaxony, and a few years later was appointed professor of theology inthe institution. [Sidenote: Justification by Faith] While lecturing and preaching at Wittenberg, where he was very popular, Luther developed from the writings of St. Paul and St. Augustine animportant doctrinal conviction which differed widely from the faith ofthe Catholic Church. It concerned the means of eternal salvation. TheChurch taught, as we have seen, that she possessed the sole means, andthat every Christian must perform certain "good works" in order tosecure salvation. Luther, on the other hand, became convinced that manwas incapable, in the sight of God, of any good works whatsoever, andcould be saved only by faith in God's promises. In other words, thismonk placed his doctrine of "justification by faith" in opposition tothe generally accepted belief in "justification by faith and works. " [Sidenote: Tetzel's "Sale" of Indulgences] So far, Luther certainly had no thought of revolting against theauthority of the Church. In fact, when he visited Rome in 1511, it wasas a pious pilgrim rather than as a carping critic. But a significantevent in the year 1517 served to make clear a wide discrepancy betweenwhat he was teaching and what the Church taught. That year a certainpapal agent, Tetzel by name, was disposing of indulgences in the greatarchbishopric of Mainz. An indulgence, according to Catholic theology, was a remission of the temporal punishment in purgatory due to sin, andcould be granted only by authority of the Church; the grant ofindulgences depended upon the contrition and confession of theapplicant, and often at that time upon money-payments. Against what hebelieved was a corruption of Christian doctrine and a swindling of thepoorer people, Luther protested in a series of ninety-five Theses whichhe posted on the church door in Wittenberg (31 October, 1517). [Sidenote: The Ninety-five Theses] The Theses had been written in Latin for the educated class but theywere now speedily translated into German and spread like wildfire amongall classes throughout the country. Luther's underlying principle of"salvation through simple faith" was in sharp contrast with the theoryof "good works, " on which the indulgences rested. "The Christian whohas true repentance, " wrote Luther, "has already received pardon fromGod altogether apart from an indulgence, and does not need one; Christdemands this true repentance from every one. " Luther's attitudeprovoked spirited discussion throughout the Germanics, and the morediscussion, the more interest and excitement. The pope, who haddismissed the subject at first as a mere squabble among the monks, wasmoved at length to summon Luther to Rome to answer for the Theses, butthe elector of Saxony intervened and prevailed upon the pope not topress the matter. [Sidenote: Disputation at Leipzig, 1519] The next important step in the development of Luther's religious ideaswas a debate on the general question of papal supremacy, held atLeipzig in 1519, between himself and an eminent Catholic apologist, Johann Eck. Eck skillfully forced Luther to admit that certain views ofhis, especially those concerning man's direct relation with God, without the mediation of the Church, were the same as those which JohnHus had held a century earlier and which had been condemned both by thepope and by the great general council of Constance. Luther therebyvirtually admitted that a general council as well as a pope might err. For him, the divine authority of the Roman Catholic Church ceased tobe. [Sidenote: Separation of Luther from the Catholic Church] Separation from the traditional Church was the only course now open toLuther and this was consummated in the year 1520. In a series of threebold pamphlets, he vigorously and definitely attacked the position ofthe Church. In the first--_An Address to the Nobility of the GermanNation_--Luther stated that there was nothing inherently sacredabout the Christian priesthood and that the clergy should be deprivedimmediately of their special privileges; he urged the German princes tofree their country from foreign control and shrewdly called theirattention to the wealth and power of the Church which they might justlyappropriate to themselves. In the second--_On the BabylonianCaptivity of the Church of God_--he assailed the papacy and thewhole sacramental system. The third--_On the Freedom of a ChristianMan_--contained the essence of Luther's new theology that salvationwas not a painful _progress_ toward a goal by means of sacramentsand right conduct but a _condition_ "in which man found himself sosoon as he despaired absolutely of his own efforts and threw himself onGod's assurances"; the author claimed that man's utter personaldependence on God's grace rendered the system of the Churchsuperfluous. In the midst of these attacks upon the Church, the pope excommunicatedLuther, and in the following year (1521) influenced the Diet of theHoly Roman Empire, assembled at Worms, to pronounce him an outlaw. Butthe rebel calmly burnt the papal bull and from the imperial ban he wasprotected by the elector of Saxony. He at once devoted himself tomaking a new German translation of the Bible, which became very popularand is still prized as a monument in the history of German literature. [Footnote: The first edition of the Bible in German had been printed asearly as 1466. At least eighteen editions in German (including four LowGerman versions) had appeared before Luther issued his German NewTestament in 1522. ] [Sidenote: Spread of Lutheranism] Within the next few years the Lutheran teachings carried everythingbefore them throughout the northern and central Germanies. Nor are thereasons for Luther's success in defying pope and emperor and for therapid acceptance of his new theology hard to understand. The movementwas essentially popular and national. It appealed to the pious-mindedwho desired a simplification of Christian dogma and a comprehensiblemethod of salvation. It also appealed to the worldly minded who longedto seize ecclesiastical lands and revenues. Above all, it appealed tothe patriots who were tired of foreign despotism and of abuses whichthey traced directly to the Roman Curia. Then, too, the Emperor CharlesV, who remained a loyal Catholic, was too immersed in the difficultiesof foreign war and in the manifold administrative problems of his hugedominions to be able to devote much time to the extirpation of heresyin the Germanies. Finally, the character of Luther contributed toeffective leadership--he was tireless in flooding the country withpamphlets, letters, and inflammatory diatribes, tactful in keeping hisparty together, and always bold and courageous. Princes, burghers, artisans, and peasants joined hands in espousing the new cause. [Sidenote: Luther and the German Peasants] But the peasants espoused it in a manner altogether too logical and tooviolent to suit Luther or the desires of the princes. The Germanpeasants had grievances against the old order compared with which thoseof the knights and towns-folk were imaginary. For at least a centuryseveral causes had contributed to make their lot worse and worse. Whiletheir taxes and other burdens were increasing, the ability of theemperor to protect them was decreasing; they were plundered by everyclass in the community, especially by the higher clergy. Thus, underthe influence of social and economic conditions, various uprisings ofthe peasants had taken place during the latter part of the fifteenthcentury. These insurrections became almost regular in the southwesternGermanies, and were called _Bundschuhe_, a shoe fastened upon theend of a pole serving as a standard of revolt. When Luther urged theprinces to assail the ecclesiastics, to seize church lands, and to putan end to financial abuses, the peasants naturally listened to hiswords with open ears and proceeded with glad hearts to apply his advicethemselves. The new Lutheran theology may have been too refined for the peasants, but they imagined they understood its purport. And spurred on byfanatics, whom the religious ferment of the times produced in largenumbers, [Footnote: Many of these radical religious leaders were moreconsistent and thoroughgoing than Luther in maintaining the right ofeach Christian to interpret the Scriptures for himself. Since theygenerally refused to recognize infant baptism as valid and insistedthat baptism should be administered only to adults, they weresubsequently often referred to as "Anabaptists. " Many of the"Anabaptists" condemned oaths and capital punishment; some advocatedcommunism of worldly goods, in several instances even the community ofwomen. Nicholas Storch (d. 1525), a weaver, and Thomas Munzer (d. 1525), a Lutheran preacher, spread these doctrines widely among thepeasants. Luther vehemently denounced the "Anabaptists. "] the peasantsagain took arms against feudal oppression. That the peasants' demandswere essentially moderate and involved no more than is grantedeverywhere to-day as a matter of course, may be inferred from theirdeclaration of principles, the Twelve Articles, among which were:abolition of serfdom, free right of fishing and hunting, payment inwages for services rendered, and abolition of arbitrary punishment. Solong as the peasants directed their efforts against the Catholicecclesiastics, Luther expressed sympathy with them, but when therevolt, which broke out in 1524, became general all over central andsouthern Germany and was directed not only against the Catholic clergybut also against the lay lords, --many of whom were now Lutheran, --thereligious leader foresaw a grave danger to his new religion in a splitbetween peasants and nobles. Luther ended by taking strong sides withthe nobles--he had most to expect from them. He was shocked by theexcesses of the revolt, he said. Insisting upon toleration for his ownrevolt, he condemned the peasants to most horrible fates in this worldand in the world hereafter. [Footnote: Although Luther was particularlybitter against the "Anabaptist" exhorters, upon whom he fastenedresponsibility for the Peasants' Revolt, and although many of them metdeath thereby, the "Anabaptists" were by no means exterminated. Largely through the activity of a certain Melchior Hofmann, a widelytraveled furrier, "Anabaptist" doctrines were disseminated in northernGermany and the Netherlands. From 1533 to 1535 they reigned supreme, attended by much bloodshed and plenty of personal license, in theimportant city of Munster in western Germany. Subsequently, Carlstadt(1480-1541), an early associate of Luther, though his later antagonist, set forth Anabaptist views with greater moderation; and in course oftime the sect became more or less tinged with Calvinistic theology. ] Hefuriously begged the princes to put down the insurrection. "Whoevercan, should smite, strangle, or stab, secretly or publicly!" [Sidenote: The Peasants' Revolt] The Peasants' Revolt was crushed in 1525 with utmost cruelty. Probablyfifty thousand lost their lives in the vain effort. The general resultwas that the power of the territorial lords became greater than ever, although in a few cases, particularly in the Tyrol and in Baden, thecondition of the peasants was slightly improved. Elsewhere, however, this was not the case; and the German peasants were assigned for overtwo centuries to a lot worse than that of almost any people in Europe. Another result was the decline of Luther's influence among thepeasantry in southern and central Germany. They turned rapidly from onewho, they believed, had betrayed them. On the other hand, many Catholicprinces, who had been wavering in their religious support, now hadbefore their eyes what they thought was an object lesson of the resultsof Luther's appeal to revolution, and so they cast their lot decisivelywith the ancient Church. The Peasants' Revolt registered a distinctcheck to the further spread of Lutheranism. [Sidenote: Diets of Speyer 1526, 1529][Sidenote: The Word "Protestant"] The Diet of the Holy Roman Empire which assembled at Speyer in 1526 sawthe German princes divided into a Lutheran and a Roman Catholic party, but left the legal status of the new faith still in doubt, contentingitself with the vague declaration that "each prince should so conducthimself as he could answer for his behavior to God and to the emperor. "But at the next Diet, held at the same place in 1529, the emperordirected that the edict against heretics should be enforced and thatthe old ecclesiastical revenues should not be appropriated for the newworship. The Lutheran princes drafted a legal protest, in which theydeclared that they meant to abide by the law of 1526. From this protestcame the name _Protestant_. [Sidenote: Confession of Augsburg, 1530] The next year, Luther's great friend, Melancthon, presented to the Dietof Augsburg an account of the beliefs of the German reformers, whichlater became known as the Confession of Augsburg and constitutes to thepresent day the distinctive creed of the Lutheran Church. The emperorwas still unconvinced, however, of the truth or value of the reformeddoctrine, and declared his intention of ending the heresy by force ofarms. [Sidenote: Religious Peace of Augsburg, 1555] In this predicament, the Lutheran princes formed a league at Schmalkaldfor mutual protection (1531); and from 1546 to 1555 a desultory civilwar was waged. The Protestants received some assistance from the Frenchking, who, for political reasons, was bent on humiliating the emperor. The end of the religious conflict appeared to have been reached by thepeace of Augsburg (1555), which contained the following provisions: (1)Each prince was to be free to dictate the religion of his subjects[Footnote: _Cuius regio eius religio_. ]; (2) All church propertyappropriated by the Protestants before 1552 was to remain in theirhands; (3) No form of Protestantism except Lutheranism was to betolerated; (4) Lutheran subjects of ecclesiastical states were not tobe obliged to renounce their faith; (5) By an "ecclesiasticalreservation" any ecclesiastical prince on becoming a Protestant was togive up his see. [Sidenote: Lutheranism in the Germanies] Thus, between 1520 and 1555, Martin Luther [Footnote: He died in 1546, aged 62. ] had preached his new theology at variance with the Catholic, and had found general acceptance for it throughout the northern half ofthe Germanies; its creed had been settled and defined in 1530, and itsofficial toleration had been recognized in 1555. The toleration waslimited, however, to princes, and for many years Lutheran rulers showedthemselves quite as intolerant within their own dominions as did theCatholics. [Sidenote: Lutheranism in Scandinavia] The triumph of Lutheranism in the Scandinavian countries has beentraced largely to political and economic causes. When Martin Lutherbroke with the Catholic Church, Christian II (1513-1523) was reigningas elected king over Denmark and Norway and had recently conqueredSweden by force of arms. The king encountered political difficultieswith the Church although he maintained Catholic worship and doctrineand apparently recognized the spiritual supremacy of the pope. ButChristian II had trouble with most of his subjects, especially theSwedes, who were conscious of separate nationality and desirous ofpolitical independence; and the king eventually lost his throne in ageneral uprising. The definite separation of Sweden from Denmark andNorway followed immediately. The Swedes chose the celebrated GustavusVasa (1523-1560) as their king, while the Danish and Norwegian crownspassed to the uncle of Christian II, who assumed the title of FrederickI (1523-1533). [Sidenote: Denmark] In Denmark, King Frederick was very desirous of increasing the royalpower, and the subservient ecclesiastical organization which MartinLuther was advocating seemed to him for his purposes infinitelypreferable to the ancient self-willed Church. But Frederick realizedthat the Catholic Church was deeply rooted in the affections of hispeople and that changes would have to be effected slowly andcautiously. He therefore collected around him Lutheran teachers fromGermany and made his court the center of the propaganda of the newdoctrine, and so well was the work of the new teachers done that theking was able in 1527 to put the two religions on an equal footingbefore the law. Upon Frederick's death in 1533, the Catholics made adetermined effort to prevent the accession of his son, Christian III, who was not only an avowed Lutheran but was known to stand forabsolutist principles in government. The popular protest against royal despotism failed in Denmark and thetriumph of Christian III in 1536 sealed the fate of Catholicism in thatcountry and in Norway. It was promptly enacted that the Catholicbishops should forfeit their temporal and spiritual authority and alltheir property should be transferred to the crown "for the good of thecommonwealth. " After discussions with Luther the new religion wasdefinitely organized and declared the state religion in 1537. It mightbe added that Catholicism died with difficulty in Denmark, --manypeasants as well as high churchmen resented the changes, and Helgesen, the foremost Scandinavian scholar and humanist of the time, protestedvigorously against the new order. But the crown was growing powerful, and the crown prevailed. The enormous increase of royal revenue, consequent upon the confiscation of the property of the Church, enabledthe king to make Denmark the leading Scandinavian country throughoutthe second half of the sixteenth century and the first quarter of theseventeenth. In time national patriotism came to be intertwined withLutheranism. [Sidenote: Sweden] In Sweden the success of the new religion was due to the crown quite asmuch as in Denmark and Norway. Gustavus Vasa had obtained the Swedishthrone through the efforts of a nationalist party, but there was stilla hostile faction, headed by the chief churchman, the archbishop ofUpsala, who favored the maintenance of the union with Denmark. In orderto deprive the unionists of their leader, Gustavus begged the pope toremove the rebellious archbishop and to appoint one in sympathy withthe nationalist cause. This the pope peremptorily refused to do, andthe breach with Rome began. Gustavus succeeded in suppressing theinsurrection, and then persevered in introducing Protestantism. Theintroduction was very gradual, especially among the peasantry, and itseventual success was largely the result of the work of one strong manassisted by a subservient parliament. At first Gustavus maintained Catholic worship and doctrines, contentinghimself with the suppression of the monasteries, the seizure of two-thirds of the church tithes, and the circulation of a popular Swedishtranslation of the New Testament. In 1527 all ecclesiastical propertywas transferred to the crown and two Catholic bishops were cruelly putto death. Meanwhile Lutheran teachers were encouraged to take up theirresidence in Sweden and in 1531 the first Protestant archbishop ofUpsala was chosen. Thenceforth, the progress of Lutheranism was morerapid, although a Catholic reaction was threatened several times in thesecond half of the sixteenth century. The Confession of Augsburg wasadopted as the creed of the Swedish Church in 1593, and in 1604Catholics were deprived of offices and estates and banished from therealm. CALVINISM The second general type of Protestantism which appeared in thesixteenth century was the immediate forerunner of the modernPresbyterian, Congregational, and Reformed Churches and at one time oranother considerably affected the theology of the Episcopalians andBaptists and even of Lutherans. Taken as a group, it is usually calledCalvinism. Of its rise and spread, some idea may be gained from briefaccounts of the lives of two of its great apostles--Calvin and Knox. But first it will be necessary to say a few words concerning an olderreformer, Zwingli by name, who prepared the way for Calvin's work inthe Swiss cantons. [Sidenote: Zwingli] Switzerland comprised in the sixteenth century some thirteen cantons, all of which were technically under the suzerainty of the Holy RomanEmpire, but constituted in practice so many independent republics, bound together only by a number of protective treaties. To the town ofEinsiedeln in the canton of Schwyz came Huldreich Zwingli in the year1516 as a Catholic priest. Slightly younger than Luther, he was wellborn, had received an excellent university education in Vienna and inBasel, and had now been in holy orders about ten years. He had shownfor some time more interest in humanism than in the old-fashionedtheology, but hardly any one would have suspected him of heresy, for itwas well known that he was a regular pensioner of the pope. Zwingli's opposition to the Roman Church seems to have been based atfirst largely on political grounds. He preached eloquently against thepractice of hiring out Swiss troops to foreign rulers and abused theChurch for its share in this shameless traffic in soldiers. Then he wasled on to attack all manner of abuses in ecclesiastical organization, but it was not until he was installed in 1518 as preacher in the greatcathedral at Zuerich that he clearly denied papal supremacy andproceeded to proclaim the Scriptures as the sole guide of faith andmorals. He preached against fasting, the veneration of saints, and thecelibacy of the clergy. Some of his hearers began to put his teachingsinto practice: church edifices were profaned, statues demolished, windows smashed, and relics burned. Zwingli himself took a wife. [Sidenote: Zwinglian Revolt in Switzerland] In 1523 a papal appeal to Zuerich to abandon Zwingli was answered by thecanton's formal declaration of independence from the Catholic Church. Henceforth the revolt spread rapidly throughout Switzerland, except inthe five forest cantons, the very heart of the country, where theancient religion was still deeply intrenched. Serious efforts were madeto join the followers of Zwingli with those of Luther, and thus topresent a united front to the common enemy, but there seemed to beirreconcilable differences between Lutheranism and the views ofZwingli. The latter, which were succinctly expressed in sixty-sevenTheses published at Zuerich in 1523, insisted more firmly than theformer on the supreme authority of Scripture, and broke more thoroughlyand radically with the traditions of the Catholic Church. Zwingli aimedat a reformation of government and discipline as well as of theology, and entertained a notion of an ideal state in which the democracy wouldorder human activities, whether political or religious. Zwinglidiffered essentially from Luther in never distrusting "the people. "Perhaps the most distinctive mark of the Swiss reformer's theology washis idea that the Lord's Supper is not a miracle but simply a symboland a memorial. In 1531 Zwingli urged the Protestant Swiss to convert the five forestcantons to the new religion by force of arms. In answer to hisentreaties, civil war ensued, but the Catholic mountaineers won a greatvictory that very year and the reformer himself was killed. A truce wasthen arranged, the provisions of which foreshadowed the religioussettlement in the Germanies--each canton was to be free to determineits own religion. Switzerland has remained to this day part Catholicand part Protestant. [Sidenote: Calvin] By the sudden death of Zwingli, Swiss Protestantism was left without aleader, but not for long, because the more celebrated Calvin took uphis residence in Geneva in 1536. From that time until his death in 1564Calvin was the center of a movement which, starting from these smallZwinglian beginnings among the Swiss mountains, speedily spread overmore countries and affected more people than did Lutheranism. InCalvinism, Catholicism was to find her most implacable foe. John Calvin, who, next to Martin Luther, was the most conspicuousProtestant leader of the sixteenth century, was a Frenchman. Born ofmiddle-class parentage at Noyon in the province of Picardy in 1509, hewas intended from an early age for an ecclesiastical career. A pensionfrom the Catholic Church enabled him to study at Paris, where hedisplayed an aptitude for theology and literature. When he was nineteenyears of age, however, his father advised him to abandon the idea ofentering the priesthood in favor of becoming a lawyer--so young Calvinspent several years studying law. [Sidenote: Calvin in France] It was in 1529 that Calvin is said to have experienced a sudden"conversion. " Although as yet there had been no organized revolt inFrance against the Catholic Church, that country, like many others, wasteeming with religious critics. Thousands of Frenchmen were in sympathywith any attempt to improve the Church by education, by purer morals, or by better preaching. Lutheranism was winning a few converts, andvarious evangelical sects were appearing in divers places. The chiefproblem was whether reform should be sought within the traditionalChurch or by rebellion against it. Calvin believed that his conversionwas a divine call to forsake Roman Catholicism and to become theapostle of a purer life. His heart, he said, was "so subdued andreduced to docility that in comparison with his zeal for true piety heregarded all other studies with indifference, though not entirelyabandoning them. Though himself a beginner, many flocked to him tolearn the pure doctrine, and he began to seek some hiding-place andmeans of withdrawal from people. " [Sidenote: "The Institutes"] His search for a hiding-place was quickened by the announceddetermination of the French king, Francis I, to put an end to religiousdissent among his subjects. Calvin abruptly left France and found anasylum in the Swiss town of Basel, where he became acquainted at firsthand with the type of reformed religion which Zwingli had propagatedand where he proceeded to write a full account of the Protestantposition as contrasted with the Catholic. This exposition, --_TheInstitutes of the Christian Religion_, --which was published in 1536, was dedicated to King Francis I and was intended to influence him infavor of Protestantism. Although the book failed of its immediate purpose, it speedily won adeservedly great reputation. It was a statement of Calvin's views, borrowed in part from Zwingli, and in part from Luther and otherreformers. It was orderly and concise, and it did for Protestanttheology what the medieval writers had done for Catholic theology. Itcontained the germ of all that subsequently developed as Calvinism. [Sidenote: Calvin and Luther] It seemed for some time as if the _Institutes_ might provide acommon religious rule and guide for all Christians who rebelled againstRome. But Calvin, in mind and nature, was quite different from Luther. The latter was impetuous, excitable, but very human; the former wasascetic, calm, and inhumanly logical. Then, too, Luther was quitewilling to leave everything in the church which was not prohibited byScripture; Calvin insisted that nothing should remain in the churchwhich was not expressly authorized by Scripture. The _Institutes_had a tremendous influence upon Protestantism but did not unite thefollowers of Calvin and Luther. Calvin's book seems all the morewonderful, when it is recalled that it was written when the author wasbut twenty-six years of age. [Sidenote: Calvin at Geneva] In 1536 Calvin went to Geneva, which was then in the throes of arevolution at once political and religious, for the townsfolk werefreeing themselves from the feudal suzerainty of the duke of Savoy andbanishing the Catholic Church, whose cause the duke championed. Calvinaided in the work and was rewarded by an appointment as chief pastorand preacher in the city. This position he continued to hold, exceptfor a brief period when he was exiled, until his death in 1564. Itproved to be a commanding position not only in ordering the affairs ofthe town, but also in giving form to an important branch of ProtestantChristianity. The government of Geneva under Calvin's regime was a curious theocracyof which Calvin himself was both religious leader and political "boss. "The minister of the reformed faith became God's mouthpiece upon earthand inculcated an unbending puritanism in daily life. "No morefestivals, no more jovial reunions, no more theaters or society; therigid monotony of an austere rule weighed upon life. A poet wasdecapitated because of his verses; Calvin wished adultery to bepunished by death like heresy, and he had Michael Servetus [Footnote: Acelebrated Spanish reformer. ] burned for not entertaining the sameopinions as himself upon the mystery of the Trinity. " Under Calvin's theocratic despotism, Geneva became famous throughoutEurope as the center of elaborate Protestant propaganda. Calvin, whoset the example of stern simplicity and relentless activity, wassometimes styled the Protestant pope. He not only preached every day, wrote numerous theological treatises, and issued a French translationof the Bible, but he established important Protestant schools--including the University of Geneva--which attracted students fromdistant lands, and he conducted a correspondence with his disciples andwould-be reformers in all points of Europe. His letters alone wouldfill thirty folio volumes. [Sidenote: Diffusion of Calvinism] Such activities account for the almost bewildering diffusion ofCalvinism. French, Dutch, Germans, Scotch, and English flocked toGeneva to hear Calvin or to attend his schools, and when they returnedto their own countries they were likely to be so many glowing sparksready to start mighty conflagrations. Calvinism was known by various names in the different countries whichit entered. On the continent of Europe it was called the ReformedFaith, and in France its followers were styled Huguenots; in Scotlandit became Presbyterianism; and in England, Puritanism. Its essentialcharacteristics, however, remained the same wherever it was carried. [Sidenote: Calvinism in Switzerland] We have already noticed how Switzerland, except for the five forestcantons, had been converted to Protestantism by the preaching ofZwingli. Calvin was Zwingli's real theological successor, and themajority of the Swiss, especially those in the urban cantons of Zuerichand Bern as well as of Geneva, cheerfully accepted Calvinism. [Sidenote: Calvinism in France: the Huguenots] Calvinism also made converts in France. The doctrines and writings ofLuther had there encountered small success. Many French reformersbelieved that greater good would eventually be achieved within theCatholic Church than without. There appeared to be fewer abuses amongthe French clergy than among the ecclesiastics of northern Europe, forthey possessed less wealth and power. The French sovereign felt lessprompted to lay his hand upon the dominions of the clergy, because aspecial agreement with the pope in 1516 bestowed upon the king thenomination of bishops and the disposition of benefices. For thesereasons the bulk of the French people resisted Protestantism of everyform and remained loyally Catholic. What progress the new religion made in France was due to Calvin ratherthan to Luther. Calvin, as we have seen, was a Frenchman himself, andhis teachings and logic appealed to a small but influential body of hisfellow-countrymen. A considerable portion of the lower nobility, a fewmerchants and business men, and many magistrates conformed to Calvinismopenly; the majority of great lawyers and men of learning adhered to itin public or in secret. Probably from a twentieth to a thirtieth of thetotal population embraced Calvinism. The movement was essentiallyconfined to the middle-class or _bourgeoisie_, and almost from theoutset it acquired a political as well as a religious significance. Itrepresented among the lesser nobility an awakening of the aristocraticspirit and among the middle-class a reaction against the growing powerof the king. The financial and moneyed interests of the country werelargely attracted to French Calvinism. The Huguenots, as the FrenchCalvinists were called, were particularly strong in the law courts andin the Estates-General or parliament, and these had been the mainchecks upon royal despotism. [Sidenote: Edict of Nantes] The Huguenots were involved in sanguinary civil and religious warswhich raged in France throughout the greater part of the sixteenthcentury and which have already been treated in their appropriatepolitical aspect. The outcome was the settlement accorded by King HenryIV in the famous Edict of Nantes (1598), which contained the followingprovisions: (1) Private worship and liberty of conscience were allowedto the Calvinists throughout France; (2) Public Protestant worshipmight be held in 200 enumerated towns and over 3000 castles; (3) Afinancial grant was made to Protestant schools, and the publication ofCalvinist books was legalized; (4) Huguenots received full civilrights, with admission to all public offices; (5) Huguenots weregranted for eight years the political control of two hundred towns, thegarrisons of which were to be maintained by the crown; and (6)Huguenots were accorded certain judicial privileges and the right ofholding religious and political assemblies. For nearly a hundred yearsFrance practiced a religious toleration which was almost unique amongEuropean nations, and it was Calvinists who benefited. [Sidenote: Calvinism in the Netherlands] The Netherlands were too near the Germanies not to be affected by theLutheran revolt against the Catholic Church. And the northern or Dutchprovinces became quite thoroughly saturated with Lutheranism and alsowith the doctrines of various radical sects that from time to time wereexpelled from the German states. The Emperor Charles V tried to stampout heresy by harsh action of the Inquisition, but succeeded only inchanging its name and nature. Lutheranism disappeared from theNetherlands; but in its place came Calvinism, [Footnote: ManyAnabaptist refugees from Germany had already sought refuge in theNetherlands: they naturally found the teachings of Zwingli and Calvinmore radical, and therefore more appropriate to themselves, than theteachings of Luther. This fact also serves to explain the acceptance ofCalvinism in regions of southern Germany where Lutheranism, since thePeasants' Revolt, had failed to take root. ] descending from Genevathrough Alsace and thence down the Rhine, or entering from GreatBritain by means of the close commercial relations existing betweenthose countries. While the southern Netherlands eventually wererecovered for Catholicism, the protracted political and economicconflict which the northern Netherlands waged against the Catholic kingof Spain contributed to a final fixing of Calvinism as the nationalreligion of patriotic Dutchmen. Calvinism in Holland was known as theDutch Reformed religion. [Sidenote: Calvinism in Southern Germany] We have already noted that southern Germany had rejected aristocraticLutheranism, partially at least because of Luther's bitter words to thepeasants. Catholicism, however, was not destined to have complete swayin those regions, for democratic Calvinism permeated Wuerttemberg, Baden, and the Rhenish provinces, and the Reformed doctrines gainednumerous converts among the middle-class. The growth of Calvinism inGermany was seriously handicapped by the religious settlement ofAugsburg in 1555 which officially tolerated only Catholicism andLutheranism. It was not until after the close of the direful ThirtyYears' War in the seventeenth century that German Calvinists receivedformal recognition. [Sidenote: Scotland] Scotland, like every other European country in the early part of thesixteenth century, had been a place of protest against moral andfinancial abuses in the Catholic Church, but the beginnings ofecclesiastical rebellion are to be traced rather to political causes. The kingdom had long been a prey to the bitter rivalry of great noblefamilies, and the premature death of James V (1542), which left thethrone to his ill-fated infant daughter, Mary Stuart, gave free rein toa feudal reaction against the crown. In general, the Catholic clergysided with the royal cause, while the religious reformers egged on thenobles to champion Protestantism in order to deal an effective blowagainst the union of the altar and the throne. Thus Cardinal Beaton, head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, ordered numerous executions onthe score of protecting religion and the authority of the queen-regent;on the other hand several noblemen, professing the new theology, assassinated the cardinal and hung his body on the battlements of thecastle of St. Andrews (1546). Such was the general situation inScotland when John Knox appeared upon the scene. [Sidenote: John Knox] Born of peasant parents about 1515, John Knox [Footnote: John Knox (c. 1515-1572). ] had become a Catholic priest, albeit in sympathy with manyof the revolutionary ideas which were entering Scotland from theContinent and from England. In 1546 he openly rejected the authority ofthe Church and proceeded to preach "the Gospel" and a stern puritanicalmorality. "Others snipped the branches, " he said, "he struck at theroot. " But the Catholic court was able to banish Knox from Scotland. After romantic imprisonment in France, Knox spent a few years inEngland, preaching an extreme puritanism, holding a chaplaincy underEdward VI (1547-1553), and exerting his influence to insure anindelibly Protestant character to the Anglican Church. Then upon theaccession to the English throne of the Catholic Mary Tudor, Knox betookhimself to Geneva where he made the acquaintance of Calvin and foundhimself in essential agreement with the teachings of the Frenchreformer. [Sidenote: Calvinism in Scotland] After a stay of some five years on the Continent, Knox returned finallyto Scotland and became the organizer and director of the "Lords of theCongregation, " a league of the chief Protestant noblemen for purposesof religious propaganda and political power. In 1560 he drew up thecreed and discipline of the Presbyterian Church after the model ofCalvin's church at Geneva; and in the same year with the support of the"Lords of the Congregation" and the troops of Queen Elizabeth ofEngland, Knox effected a political and religious revolution inScotland. The queen-regent was imprisoned and the subservientparliament abolished the papal supremacy and enacted the death penaltyagainst any one who should even attend Catholic worship. John Knox hadcarried everything before him. Mary Stuart, during her brief stay in Scotland (1561-1567), tried invain to stem the tide. The jealous barons would brook no increase ofroyal authority. The austere Knox hounded the girl-queen in publicsermons and fairly flayed her character. The queen's downfall andsubsequent long imprisonment in England finally decided theecclesiastical future of Scotland. Except in a few fastnesses in thenorthern highlands, where Catholicism survived among the clansmen, thewhole country was committed to Calvinism. [Sidenote: Calvinism in England] Calvinism was not without influence in England. Introduced towards theclose of the reign of Henry VIII, it gave rise to a number of smallsects which troubled the king's Anglican Church almost as much as didthe Roman Catholics. Under Edward VI (1547-1553), it considerablyinfluenced the theology of the Anglican Church itself, but the moderatepolicies of Elizabeth (1558-1603) tended to fix an inseparable gulfbetween Anglicans and Calvinists. Thenceforth, Calvinism lived inEngland, in the forms of Presbyterianism, Independency, [Footnote:Among the "Independents" were the Baptists, a sect related not soimmediately to Calvinism as to the radical Anabaptists of Germany. Seeabove, pp. 134 f. , 145, footnotes] and Puritanism, as the religionlargely of the commercial middle class. It was treated with contempt, and even persecuted, by Anglicans, especially by the monarchs of theStuart family. After a complete but temporary triumph under Cromwell, in the seventeenth century, it was at length legally tolerated inEngland after the settlement of 1689. It was from England that NewEngland received the Calvinistic religion which dominated colonialforefathers of many present-day Americans. ANGLICANISM Anglicanism is the name frequently applied to that form ofProtestantism which stamped the state church in England in thesixteenth century and which is now represented by the Episcopal Churchin the United States as well as by the established Church of England. The Methodist churches are comparatively late off-shoots ofAnglicanism. The separation of England from the papacy was a more gradual andhalting process than were the contemporary revolutions on theContinent; and the new Anglicanism was correspondingly moreconservative than Lutheranism or Calvinism. [Sidenote: English Catholicism in 1500][Sidenote: Church of England] At the opening of the sixteenth century, the word "Catholic" meant thesame in England as in every other country of western or central Europe--belief in the seven sacraments, the sacrifice of the Mass, and theveneration of saints; acceptance of papal supremacy and support ofmonasticism and of other institutions and practices of the medievalChurch. During several centuries it had been customary in legaldocuments to refer to the Catholic Church in England as the _EcclesiaAnglicana_, or Anglican Church, just as the popes in their lettersrepeatedly referred to the "Gallican Church, " the "Spanish Church, " the"Neapolitan Church, " or the "Hungarian Church. " But such phraseologydid not imply a separation of any one national church from the commonCatholic communion, and for nearly a thousand years--ever since therehad been an _Ecclesia Anglicana_--the English had recognized thebishop of Rome as the center of Catholic unity. In the course of thesixteenth century, however, the great majority of Englishmen changedtheir conception of the _Ecclesia Anglicana_, so that to them itcontinued to exist as the Church of England, but henceforth on astrictly national basis, in communion neither with the pope nor withthe Orthodox Church of the East nor with the Lutherans or Calvinists, abandoning several doctrines that had been universally held in earliertimes and substituting in their place beliefs and customs which weredistinctively Protestant. This new conception of the Anglican Church--resulting from the revolution in the sixteenth century--is what we meanby Anglicanism as a form of Protestantism. It took shape in theeventful years between 1520 and 1570. [Sidenote: Religious Opposition to the Roman Catholic Church inEngland] In order to understand how this religious and ecclesiastical revolutionwas effected in England, we must appreciate the various elementsdistrustful of the Catholic Church in that country about the year 1525. In the first place, the Lutheran teachings were infiltrating into thecountry. As early as 1521 a small group at Cambridge had becomeinterested in the new German theology, and thence the sect spread toOxford, London, and other intellectual centers. It found its earlyconverts chiefly among the lower clergy and the merchants of the largetowns, but for several years it was not numerous. In the second place, there was the same feeling in England as we havealready noted throughout all Europe that the clergy needed reform inmorals and in manners. This view was shared not only by thecomparatively insignificant group of heretical Lutherans, but likewiseby a large proportion of the leading men who accounted themselvesorthodox members of the Catholic Church. The well-educated humanistswere especially eloquent in preaching reform. The writings of Erasmushad great vogue in England. John Colet (1467?-1519), a famous dean ofSt. Paul's cathedral in London, was a keen reformer who disapproved ofauricular confession and of the celibacy of the clergy. Sir Thomas More(1478-1535), one of the greatest minds of the century, thought themonks were lazy and indolent, and the whole body of churchmen in needof an intellectual betterment. But neither Colet nor More had anyintention of breaking away from the Roman Church. To them, and to manylike them, reform could be secured best within the traditionalecclesiastical body. [Sidenote: Political Opposition to the Roman Catholic Church inEngland] A third source of distrust of the Church was a purely political feelingagainst the papacy. As we have already seen, the English king andEnglish parliament on several earlier occasions had sought to restrictthe temporal and political jurisdiction of the pope in England, buteach restriction had been imposed for political reasons and even thenhad represented the will of the monarch rather than that of the nation. In fact, the most striking limitations of the pope's politicaljurisdiction in the kingdom had been enacted during the early stages ofthe Hundred Years' War, when the papacy was under French influence, andhad served, therefore, indirectly as political weapons against theFrench king. Before that war was over, the operation of the statuteshad been relaxed, and for a century or more prior to 1525 little washeard of even a political feeling against the bishop of Rome. Nevertheless an evolution in English government was in progress at thatvery time, which was bound sooner or later to create friction with theHoly See. On one hand, a sense of nationalism and of patriotism hadbeen steadily growing in England, and it was at variance with the oldercosmopolitan idea of Catholicism. On the other hand, a great increaseof royal power had appeared in the fifteenth century, notably after theaccession of the Tudor family in 1485. Henry VII (1485-1509) hadsubordinated to the crown both the nobility and the parliament, and thepatriotic support of the middle class he had secured. And when his son, Henry VIII (1509-1547), came to the throne, the only serious obstaclewhich appeared to be left in the way of royal absolutism was theprivileged independence of the Catholic Church. [Sidenote: Early Loyalty of Henry VIII to the Roman Catholic Church] Yet a number of years passed before Henry VIII laid violent hands uponthe Church. In the meanwhile, he proved himself a devoted RomanCatholic. He scented the new Lutheran heresy and sought speedily toexterminate it. He even wrote in 1521 with his own royal pen a bitterarraignment of the new theology, and sent his book, which he called_The Defence of the Seven Sacraments_, with a delightfuldedicatory epistle to the pope. For his prompt piety and filialorthodoxy, he received from the bishop of Rome the proud title of_Fidei Defensor_, or Defender of the Faith, a title which hejealously bore until his death, and which his successors, thesovereigns of Great Britain, with like humor have continued to bearever since. He seemed not even to question the pope's political claims. He allied himself on several occasions with Leo X in the great game ofEuropean politics. His chief minister and adviser in England for manyyears was Thomas Wolsey, the most conspicuous ecclesiastic in hiskingdom and a cardinal of the Roman Church. [Sidenote: The Marriage Difficulty of Henry VIII] Under these circumstances it is difficult to see how the AnglicanChurch would have immediately broken away from Catholic unity had itnot been for the peculiar marital troubles of Henry VIII. The king hadbeen married eighteen years to Catherine of Aragon, and had beenpresented by her with six children (of whom only one daughter, thePrincess Mary, had survived), when one day he informed her that theyhad been living all those years in mortal sin and that their union wasnot true marriage. The queen could hardly be expected to agree withsuch a definition, and there ensued a legal suit between the royalpair. To Henry VIII the matter was really quite simple. Henry was tired ofCatherine and wanted to get rid of her; he believed the queen couldbear him no more children and yet he ardently desired a male heir;rumor reported that the susceptible king had recently been smitten bythe brilliant black eyes of a certain Anne Boleyn, a maid-in-waiting atthe court. The purpose of Henry was obvious; so was the means, hethought. For it had occurred to him that Catherine was his elderbrother's widow, and, therefore, had no right, by church law, to marryhim. To be sure, a papal dispensation had been obtained from PopeJulius II authorizing the marriage, but why not now obtain a revocationof that dispensation from the reigning Pope Clement VII? Thus themarriage with Catherine could be declared null and void, and Henrywould be a bachelor, thirty-six years of age, free to wed someprincess, or haply Anne Boleyn. [Sidenote: Difficult Position of the Pope] There was no doubt that Clement VII would like to do a favor for hisgreat English champion, but two difficulties at once presentedthemselves. It would be a most dangerous precedent for the pope toreverse the decision of one of his predecessors. Worse still, theEmperor Charles V, the nephew of Queen Catherine, took up cudgels inhis aunt's behalf and threatened Clement with dire penalties if henullified the marriage. The pope complained truthfully that he wasbetween the anvil and the hammer. There was little for him to do exceptto temporize and to delay decision as long as possible. The protracted delay was very irritating to the impulsive English king, who was now really in love with Anne Boleyn. Gradually Henry's formereffusive loyalty to the Roman See gave way to a settled conviction ofthe tyranny of the papal power, and there rushed to his mind therecollection of efforts of earlier English rulers to restrict thatpower. A few salutary enactments against the Church might compel afavorable decision from the pope. Henry VIII seriously opened his campaign against the Roman Church in1531, when he frightened the English clergy into paying a fine of overhalf a million dollars for violating an obsolete statute that hadforbidden reception of papal legates without royal sanction, and in thesame year he forced the clergy to recognize himself as supreme head ofthe Church "as far as that is permitted by the law of Christ. " Hissubservient Parliament then empowered him to stop the payment ofannates and to appoint the bishops without recourse to the papacy. Without waiting longer for the papal decision, he had Cranmer, one ofhis own creatures, whom he had just named archbishop of Canterbury, declare his marriage with Catherine null and void and his union withAnne Boleyn canonical and legal. Pope Clement VII thereupon handed downhis long-delayed decision favorable to Queen Catherine, andexcommunicated Henry VIII for adultery. [Sidenote: Separation of England from the Roman Catholic Church: theAct of Supremacy] The formal breach between England and Rome occurred in 1534. Parliamentpassed a series of laws, one of which declared the king to be the "onlysupreme head in earth of the Church of England, " and others cut off allcommunication with the pope and inflicted the penalty of treason uponany one who should deny the king's ecclesiastical supremacy. One step in the transition of the Church of England had now been taken. For centuries its members had recognized the pope as theirecclesiastical head; henceforth they were to own the ecclesiasticalheadship of their king. From the former Catholic standpoint, this mightbe schism but it was not necessarily heresy. Yet Henry VIII encounteredconsiderable opposition from the higher clergy, from the monks, andfrom many intellectual leaders, as well as from large numbers of thelower classes. A popular uprising--the Pilgrimage of Grace--was sternlysuppressed, and such men as the brilliant Sir Thomas More and JohnFisher, the aged and saintly bishop of Rochester, were beheaded becausethey retained their former belief in papal supremacy. Tudor despotismtriumphed. [Sidenote: The "Six Articles"] The breach with Rome naturally encouraged the Lutherans and otherheretics to think that England was on the point of becoming Protestant, but nothing was further from the king's mind. The assailant of Lutherremained at least partially consistent. And the Six Articles (1539)reaffirmed the chief points in Catholic doctrine and practice andvisited dissenters with horrible punishment. While separating Englandfrom the papacy, Henry was firmly resolved to maintain every othertenet of the Catholic faith as he had received it. His middle-of-the-road policy was enforced with much bloodshed. On one side, the Catholicwho denied the royal supremacy was beheaded; on the other, theProtestant who denied transubstantiation was burned! It has beenestimated that during the reign of Henry VIII the number of capitalcondemnations for politico-religious offenses ran into the thousands--an inquisition that in terror and bloodshed is comparable to that ofSpain. [Sidenote: Suppression of the Monasteries] It was likewise during the reign of Henry VIII that one of the mostimportant of all earlier Christian institutions--monasticism--came toan end in England. There were certainly grave abuses and scandals insome of the monasteries which dotted the country, and a good deal ofpopular sentiment had been aroused against the institution. Then, toothe monks had generally opposed the royal pretensions to religiouscontrol and remained loyal to the pope. But the deciding factor in thesuppression of the monasteries was undoubtedly economic. Henry, alwaysin need of funds on account of his extravagances, appropriated part ofthe confiscated property for the benefit of the crown, and the rest heastutely distributed as gigantic bribes to the upper classes of thelaity. The nobles who accepted the ecclesiastical wealth were therebycommitted to the new anti-papal religious settlement in England. [Sidenote: Protestantizing the Church of England: Edward VI] The Church of England, separated from the papacy under Henry VIII, became Protestant under Edward VI (1547-1553). The young king'sguardian tolerated all manner of reforming propaganda, and Calvinistsas well as Lutherans preached their doctrines freely. Official articlesof religion, which were drawn up for the Anglican Church, showedunmistakably Protestant influence. The Latin service books of theCatholic Church were translated into English, under Cranmer's auspices, and the edition of the _Book of Common Prayer_, published in 1552, made clear that the Eucharist was no longer to be regarded as apropitiatory sacrifice: the names "Holy Communion" and "Lord's Supper"were substituted for "Mass, " while the word "altar" was replaced by"table. " The old places of Catholic worship were changed to suit a neworder: altars and images were taken down, the former service booksdestroyed, and stained-glass windows broken. Several peasant uprisingssignified that the nation was not completely united upon a policy ofreligious change, but the reformers had their way, and Protestantismadvanced. [Sidenote: Temporary Roman Catholic Revival under Mary Tudor] A temporary setback to the progress of the new Anglicanism was affordedby the reign of Mary Tudor (1553-1558), the daughter of Catherine ofAragon, and a devout Roman Catholic. She reinstated the bishops who hadrefused to take the oath of royal supremacy and punished those who hadtaken it. She prevailed upon Parliament to repeal the ecclesiasticallegislation of both her father's and her brother's reigns and toreconcile England once more with the bishop of Rome. A papal legate, inthe person of Cardinal Reginald Pole, sailed up the Thames with hiscross gleaming from the prow of his barge, and in full Parliamentadministered the absolution which freed the kingdom from the guiltunder Mary incurred by its schism and heresy. As an additional supportto her policy of restoring the Catholic Church in England, Queen Marymarried her cousin, Philip II of Spain, the great champion ofCatholicism upon the Continent. But events proved that despite outward appearances even the reign ofMary registered an advance of Protestantism. The new doctrines werezealously propagated by an ever-growing number of itinerant exhorters. The Spanish alliance was disastrous to English fortunes abroad anddistasteful to all patriotic Englishmen at home. And finally, theviolent means which the queen took to stamp out heresy gave her theunenviable surname of "Bloody" and reacted in the end in behalf of theviews for which the victims sacrificed their lives. During her reignnearly three hundred reformers perished, many of them, includingArchbishop Cranmer, by fire. The work of the queen was in vain. No heirwas born to Philip and Mary, and the crown, therefore, passed toElizabeth, the daughter of Anne Boleyn, a Protestant not so much fromconviction as from circumstance. [Sidenote: Definite Fashioning of Anglicanism: the Reign of Elizabeth] It was in the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) that the Church of Englandassumed definitely the doctrines and practices which we now connectwith the word "Anglicanism. " By act of Parliament, the English Churchwas again separated from the papacy, and placed under royal authority, Elizabeth assuming the title of "supreme governor. " The worship of thestate church was to be in conformity with a slightly altered version ofCranmer's _Book of Common Prayer_. A uniform doctrine was likewiseimposed by Parliament in the form of the _Thirty-nine Articles_, which set a distinctively Protestant mark upon the Anglican Church inits appeal to the Scriptures as the sole rule of faith, its insistenceon justification by faith alone, its repudiation of the sacrifice ofthe Mass, and its definition of the Church. All the bishops who hadbeen appointed under Mary, with one exception, refused to accept thechanges, and were therefore deposed and imprisoned, but new bishops, Elizabeth's own appointees, were consecrated and the "succession ofbishops" thereby maintained. Outwardly, the Church of England appearedto retain a corporate continuity throughout the sixteenth century;inwardly, a great revolution had changed it from Catholic toProtestant. Harsh laws sought to oblige all Englishmen to conform to Elizabeth'sreligious settlement. Liberty of public worship was denied to anydissenter from Anglicanism. To be a "papist" or "hear Mass"--which wereconstrued as the same thing--was punishable by death as high treason. Aspecial ecclesiastical court--the Court of High Commission--wasestablished under royal authority to search out heresy and to enforceuniformity; it served throughout Elizabeth's reign as a kind ofProtestant Inquisition. [Sidenote: English Dissent from Anglicanism] While the large majority of the English nation gradually conformed tothe official Anglican Church, a considerable number refused theirallegiance. On one hand were the Roman Catholics, who still maintainedthe doctrine of papal supremacy and were usually derisively styledpapists, and on the other hand were various Calvinistic sects, such asPresbyterians or Independents or Quakers, who went by the name of"Dissenters" or "Non-conformists. " In the course of time, the number ofRoman Catholics tended to diminish, largely because, for politicalreasons which have been indicated in the preceding chapter, Protestantism in England became almost synonymous with Englishpatriotism. But despite drastic laws and dreadful persecutions, RomanCatholicism survived in England among a conspicuous group of people. Onthe other hand, the Calvinists tended somewhat to increase theirnumbers so that in the seventeenth century they were able toprecipitate a great political and ecclesiastical conflict withAnglicanism. THE CATHOLIC REFORMATION We have now traced the origins of the Protestant Revolt against theCatholic Church, and have seen how, between 1520 and 1570, three majorvarieties of new theology--Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Anglicanism--appeared on the scene and divided among themselves the nations ofnorthern Europe. The story of how, during that critical half-century, the other civilized nations retained their loyalty to the CatholicChurch virtually as it had existed throughout the middle ages, remainsto be told. The preservation of the papal monarchy and Catholicdoctrine in southern Europe was due alike to religious and to politicalcircumstances. It must not be supposed that pious critics of ecclesiastical abuseswere confined to countries which subsequently became Protestant. Therewere many sincere Catholics in Italy, Austria, France, and Spain whocomplained of the scandals and worldliness that afflicted the Church atthe opening of the sixteenth century: they demanded sweeping reforms indiscipline and a return of the clergy to a simple apostolic life. Theybelieved, however, that whatever change was desirable could best beachieved by means of a reformation within the Catholic Church--that is, without disturbing the unity of its organization or denying thevalidity of its dogmas--while the critics of northern Europe, as wehave seen, preferred to put their reforms into practice by means of arevolution--an out-and-out break with century-old traditions ofCatholic Christianity. Even in northern Europe some of the foremostscholars of that period desired an intellectual reformation withinCatholicism rather than a dogmatic rebellion against it: with Luther'sdefiance of papal authority, the great Erasmus had small sympathy, andSir Thomas More, the eminent English humanist, sacrificed his life forhis belief in the divine sanction of the papal power. Thus, while the religious energy of northern Europe went intoProtestantism of various kinds, that of southern Europe fashioned areformation of the Catholic system. And this Catholic reformation, onits religious side, was brought to a successful issue by means of theimproved conditions in the papal court, the labors of a great churchcouncil, and the activity of new monastic orders. A few words must besaid about each one of these religious elements in the Catholicreformation. [Sidenote: Reforming Popes] Mention has been made of the corruption that prevailed in papal affairsin the fifteenth century, and of the Italian and family interests whichobscured to the Medici pope, Leo X (1513-1521), the importance of theLutheran movement in Germany. And Leo's nephew, who became Clement VII(1523-1534), continued to act too much as an Italian prince and toolittle as the moral and religious leader of Catholicism in the contestwhich under him was joined with Zwinglians and Anglicans as well aswith Lutherans. But under Paul III (1534-1549), a new policy wasinaugurated, by which men were appointed to high church offices fortheir virtue and learning rather than for family relationship orfinancial gain. This policy was maintained by a series of upright andfar-sighted popes during the second half of the sixteenth century, sothat by the year 1600 a remarkable reformation had been graduallywrought in the papacy, among the cardinals, down through the prelates, even to the parish priests and monks. [Sidenote: The Council of Trent] The reforming zeal of individual popes was stimulated and reinforced bythe work of the Council of Trent (1545-1563). The idea of effecting a"reformation in head and members" by means of a general council of theCatholic Church had been invoked several times during the century thatpreceded the Protestant Revolt, but, before Luther, little had beenaccomplished in that way. With the widening of the breach between Protestantism and the medievalChurch, what had formerly been desirable now became imperative. Itseemed to pious Catholics that every effort should be made to reconciledifferences and to restore the unity of the Church. The errors of themanifold new theologies which now appeared might be refuted by a clearstatement of Catholic doctrine, and a reformation of discipline andmorals would deprive the innovators of one of their most tellingweapons against the Church. It was no easy task, in that troublous time, to hold an ecumenicalcouncil. There was mutual distrust between Catholics and Protestants. There was uncertainty as to the relative powers and prerogatives ofcouncil and pope. There were bitter national rivalries, especiallybetween Italians and Germans. There was actual warfare between the twochief Catholic families--the Habsburgs of Germany and Spain and theroyal house of France. Yet despite these difficulties, which long postponed its convocationand repeatedly interrupted its labors, the Council of Trent [Footnote:Trent was selected largely by reason of its geographical location, being situated on the boundary between the German-speaking and Italian-speaking peoples. ] consummated a great reform in the Church andcontributed materially to the preservation of the Catholic faith. TheProtestants, whom the pope invited to participate, absented themselves;yet such was the number and renown of the Catholic bishops whoresponded to the summons that the Council of Trent easily ranked withthe eighteen oecumenical councils which had preceded it. [Footnote: Itsdecrees were signed at its close (1563) by 4 cardinal legates, 2cardinals, 3 patriarchs, 25 archbishops, 167 bishops, 7 abbots, 7generals of orders, and 19 proxies for 33 absent prelates. ] The work ofthe council was twofold--dogmatic and reformatory. Dogmatically, the fathers at Trent offered no compromise to theProtestants. They confirmed with inexorable frankness the main pointsin Catholic theology which had been worked out in the thirteenthcentury by Thomas Aquinas and which before the appearance ofProtestantism had been received everywhere in central and westernEurope. They declared that the tradition of the Church as well as theBible was to be taken as the basis of the Christian religion, and thatthe interpretation of the Holy Scripture belonged only to the Church. The Protestant teachings about grace and justification by faith werecondemned, and the seven sacraments were pronounced indispensable. Themiraculous and sacrificial character of the Lord's Supper (Mass) wasreaffirmed. Belief in the invocation of saints, in the veneration ofimages and of relics, in purgatory and indulgences was explicitlystated, but precautions were taken to clear some of the doctrines ofthe pernicious practices which at times had been connected with them. The spiritual authority of the Roman See was confirmed over allCatholicism: the pope was recognized as supreme interpreter of thecanons and incontestable chief of bishops. [Sidenote: Reformatory Canons of the Council of Trent ] A volume of disciplinary statutes constituted the second achievement ofthe Tridentine Council. The sale of church offices was condemned. Bishops and other prelates were to reside in their respective dioceses, abandon worldly pursuits, and give themselves entirely to spirituallabors. Seminaries were to be established for the proper education andtraining of priests. While Latin was retained as the official and liturgical language, frequent sermons were to be preached in the vernacular. Indulgenceswere not to be issued for money, and no charge should be made forconferring the sacraments. [Sidenote: Index and inquisition ] The seed sown by the council bore abundant fruit during severalsucceeding pontificates. The central government was completelyreorganized. A definite catechism was prepared at Rome and every laymaninstructed in the tenets and obligations of his religion. Revisionswere made in the service books of the Church, and a new standardedition of the Latin Bible, the Vulgate, was issued. A list, called theIndex, was prepared of dangerous and heretical books, which goodCatholics were prohibited from reading. By these methods, disciplinewas in fact confirmed, morals purified, and the scandal of the immenseriches and the worldly life of the clergy restrained. From an unusuallystrict law of faith and conduct, lapses were to be punishable by theancient ecclesiastical court of the Inquisition, which now zealouslyredoubled its activity, especially in Italy and in Spain. A very important factor in the Catholic revival--not only in preservingall southern Europe to the Church but also in preventing a completetriumph of Protestantism in the North--was the formation of several newreligious orders, which sought to purify the life of the people and tobulwark the position of the Church. The most celebrated of theseorders, both for its labors in the sixteenth century and for itssubsequent history, is the Society of Jesus, whose members are knowncommonly as Jesuits. The society was founded by Ignatius Loyola[Footnote: Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556). ] in 1534 and its constitutionwas formally approved by the pope six years later. [Sidenote: Ignatius Loyola] In his earlier years, Ignatius followed the profession of arms, and asa patriotic Spaniard fought valiantly in the armies of Emperor CharlesV against the French. But while he was in a hospital, suffering from awound, he chanced to read a Life of Christ and biographies of severalsaints, which, he tells us, worked a great change within him. Frombeing a soldier of an earthly king, he would now become a knight ofChrist and of the Church. Instead of fighting for the glory of Spainand of himself, he would henceforth strive for the greater glory ofGod. Thus in the very year in which the German monk, Martin Luther, became the leading and avowed adversary of the Catholic Church, thisSpanish soldier was starting on that remarkable career which was tomake him Catholicism's chief champion. After a few years' trial of his new life and several rather footlessefforts to serve the Church, Ignatius determined, at the age of thirty-three, to perfect his scanty education. It was while he was studyingLatin, philosophy, and theology at the University of Paris that he madethe acquaintance of the group of scholarly and saintly men who becamethe first members of the Society of Jesus. Intended at first primarilyfor missionary labors among the Mohammedans, the order was speedilyturned to other and greater ends. [Sidenote: The Jesuits] The organization of the Jesuits showed the military instincts of theirfounder. To the three usual vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, was added a fourth vow of special allegiance to the pope. The memberswere to be carefully trained during a long novitiate and were to beunder the personal direction of a general, resident in Rome. Authorityand obedience were stressed by the society. Then, too, St. IgnatiusLoyola understood that the Church was now confronted with conditions ofwar rather than of peace: accordingly he directed that his brothersshould not content themselves with prayer and works of peace, withcharity and local benevolence, but should adapt themselves to newcircumstances and should strive in a multiplicity of ways to restoreall things in the Catholic Church. Thus it happened that the Jesuits, from the very year of theirestablishment, rushed to the front in the religious conflict of thesixteenth century. In the first place, they sought to enlighten andeducate the young. As schoolmasters they had no equals in Europe formany years. No less a scholar and scientist than Lord Francis Baconsaid of the Jesuit teaching that "nothing better has been put inpractice. " Again, by their wide learning and culture, no less than bythe unimpeachable purity of their lives, they won back a considerablerespect for the Catholic clergy. As preachers, too, they earned a highesteem by the clearness and simplicity of their sermons andinstruction. It was in the mission field, however, that the Jesuits achieved themost considerable results. They were mainly responsible for therecovery of Poland after that country had almost become Lutheran. Theysimilarly conserved the Catholic faith in Bavaria and in the southernNetherlands. They insured a respectable Catholic party in Bohemia andin Hungary. They aided considerably in maintaining Catholicism inIreland. At the hourly risk of their lives, they ministered to theirfellow-Catholics in England under Elizabeth and the Stuarts. And whatthe Catholic Church lost in numbers through the defection of thegreater part of northern Europe was compensated for by Jesuit missionsamong the teeming millions in India and China, among the Huron andIroquois tribes of North America, and among the aborigines of Braziland Paraguay. No means of influence, no source of power, was neglectedthat would win men to religion and to the authority of the bishop ofRome. Politics and agriculture were utilized as well as literature andscience. The Jesuits were confessors of kings in Europe and apostles ofthe faith in Asia and America. [Sidenote: Political and Economic Factors in the Catholic Reformation] It has been pointed out already that the rapid diffusion ofProtestantism was due to economic and political causes as well as tothose narrowly religious. It may be said with equal truth thatpolitical and economic causes co-operated with the religiousdevelopments that we have just noted in maintaining the supremacy ofthe Catholic Church in at least half the countries over which she hadexercised her sway in 1500. For one thing, it is doubtful whetherfinancial abuses had flourished as long or as vigorously in southern asin northern Europe. For another, the political conditions in the statesof southern Europe help to explain the interesting situation. [Sidebar: Italy] In Italy was the pope's residence and See. He had bestowed many favorson important Italian families. He had often exploited foreign countriesin behalf of Italian patronage. He had taken advantage of the politicaldisunity of the peninsula to divide his local enemies and thereby toassure the victory of his own cause. Two popes of the sixteenth centurybelonged to the powerful Florentine family of the Medici--Florenceremained loyal. The hearty support of the Emperor Charles V preservedthe orthodoxy of Naples, and that of Philip II stamped out heresy inthe kingdom of the Two Sicilies. [Sidenote: France] In France, the concordat of 1516 between pope and king had peacefullysecured for the French monarch appointment of bishops and control ofbenefices within his country, --powers which the German princes and theEnglish sovereigns secured by revolutionary change. Moreover, FrenchProtestantism, by its political activities in behalf of effectivechecks upon the royal power, drove the king into Catholic arms: thecause of absolutism in France became the cause of Catholicism, and thelatter was bound up with French patriotism to quite the same extent asEnglish patriotism became linked with the fortunes of Anglicanism. [Sidenote: Spain and Portugal] In Spain and Portugal, the monarchs obtained concessions from the popelike those accorded the French sovereigns. They gained control of theCatholic Church within their countries and found it a most valuableally in forwarding their absolutist tendencies. Moreover, thecenturies-long struggle with Mohammedanism had endeared CatholicChristianity alike to Spaniards and to Portuguese and rendered it anintegral part of their national life. Spain and Portugal now remainedfiercely Catholic. [Sidenote: Austria] Somewhat similar was the case of Austria. Terrifying fear of theadvancing Turk, joined with the political exigencies of the Habsburgrulers, threw that duchy with most of its dependencies into the handsof the pope. If the bishop of Rome, by favoring the Habsburgs, had lostEngland, he had at least saved Austria. [Sidenote: Poland and Ireland] Ireland and Poland--those two extreme outposts of the Roman CatholicChurch in Europe--found their religion to be the most effectualsafeguard of their nationality, the most valuable weapon againstaggression or assimilation by powerful neighbors. SUMMARY OF THE RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY By the year 1570 the profound religious and ecclesiastical changeswhich we have been sketching had been made. For seventy-five years morea series of wars was to be waged in which the religious element wasdistinctly to enter. In fact these wars have often been called theReligious Wars--the ones connected with the career of Philip II ofSpain as well as the subsequent dismal civil war in the Germanies--butin each one the political and economic factors predominated. Nor didthe series of wars materially affect the strength or extent of thereligions implicated. It was prior to 1570 that the Protestant Revolthad been effected and the Catholic Reformation achieved. [Sidenote: Geographical Extent of the Revolt] In the year 1500, the Roman Catholic Church embraced central andwestern Europe; in the year 1600 nearly half of its former subjects--those throughout northern Europe--no longer recognized its authority orpracticed its beliefs. There were left to the Roman Catholic Church atthe close of the sixteenth century the Italian states, Spain, Portugal, most of France, the southern Netherlands, the forest cantons ofSwitzerland, the southern Germanies, Austria, Poland, Ireland, largefollowings in Bohemia and Hungary, and a straggling unimportantfollowing in other countries. Those who rejected the Roman Catholic Church in central and westernEurope were collectively called Protestants, but they were divided intothree major groups. Lutheranism was now the religion of the northernGermanies and the Scandinavian states of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Calvinism, under a bewildering variety of names, was the recognizedfaith of the majority of the cantons of Switzerland, of the northernNetherlands, and Scotland, and of important followings in Germany, Hungary, France, and England. Anglicanism was the established religionof England. [Sidenote: Doctrines Held in Common by Catholics and Protestants] The Protestants retained a large part of Catholic theology, so that allportions of western Christianity continued to have much in common. Theystill believed in the Trinity, in the divinity of Jesus Christ, in thesacredness of the Jewish scriptures and of the New Testament, the fallof man and his redemption through the sacrifice of the Cross, and in afuture life of rewards and punishments. The Christian moralities andvirtues continued to be inculcated by Protestants as well as byCatholics. [Sidenote: Doctrines Held by all Protestants Apart from Catholics] On the other hand, the Protestants held in common certain doctrineswhich separated all of them from Roman Catholicism. These were thedistinguishing marks of Protestantism: (1) denial of the claims of thebishop of Rome and consequent rejection of the papal government andjurisdiction; (2) rejection of such doctrines as were supposed to havedeveloped during the middle ages, --for example, purgatory, indulgences, invocation of saints, and veneration of relics, --together withimportant modifications in the sacramental system; (3) insistence uponthe right of the individual to interpret the Bible, and recognition ofthe individual's ability to save himself without the interposition ofecclesiastics--hence to the Protestant, authority resided in individualinterpretation of the Bible, while to the Catholic, it rested in aliving institution or Church. [Sidenote: Divisions among Protestants] Now the Protestant idea of authority made it possible and essentiallyinevitable that its supporters should not agree on many things amongthemselves. There would be almost as many ways of interpreting theScriptures as there were interested individuals. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the last Almanac some one hundred and sixty-fourvarieties or denominations of Protestants are listed in the UnitedStates alone. These divisions, however, are not so complex as at firstmight appear, because nearly all of them have come directly from thethree main forms of Protestantism which appeared in the sixteenthcentury. Just how Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Anglicanism differed fromeach other may be gathered from a short summary. (1) The Calvinists taught justification by election--that Goddetermines, or _predestines_, who is to be saved and who is to belost. The Lutherans were inclined to reject such doctrine, and toassure salvation to the mere believer. The Anglicans appeared to acceptthe Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith, although the Thirty-nine Articles might be likewise interpreted in harmony with theCalvinistic position. (2) The Calvinists recognized only two sacraments--baptism and theLord's Supper. Lutherans and Anglicans retained, in addition to the twosacraments, the rite of confirmation, and Anglicans also the rite ofordination. The official statement of Anglicanism that there are "twomajor sacraments" has made it possible for some Anglicans--the so-called High Church party--to hold the Catholic doctrine of sevensacraments. (3) Various substitutes were made for the Catholic doctrine oftransubstantiation, the idea that in the Lord's Supper the bread andwine by the word of the priest are actually changed into the Body andBlood of Christ. The Lutherans maintained what they calledconsubstantiation, that Christ was _with_ and _in_ the breadand wine, as fire is in a hot iron, to borrow the metaphor of Lutherhimself. The Calvinists, on the other hand, saw in the Eucharist, notthe efficacious sacrifice of Christ, but a simple commemoration of theLast Supper; to them the bread and wine were mere symbols of the Bodyand Blood. As to the Anglicans, their position was ambiguous, for theirofficial confession of faith declared at once that the Supper is thecommunion of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but that thecommunicant receives Jesus Christ only spiritually: the present-day"Low Church" Anglicans incline to a Calvinistic interpretation, thoseof the "High Church" to the Catholic explanation. (4) There were pronounced differences in ecclesiastical government. Allthe Protestants considerably modified the Catholic system of a divinelyappointed clergy of bishops, priests, and deacons, under the supremespiritual jurisdiction of the pope. The Anglicans rejected the papacy, although they retained the orders of bishop, priest, and deacon, andinsisted that their hierarchy was the direct continuation of themedieval Church in England, and therefore that their organization wason the same footing as the Orthodox Church of eastern Europe. TheLutherans rejected the divinely ordained character of episcopacy, butretained bishops as convenient administrative officers. The Calvinistsdid away with bishops altogether and kept only one order of clergymen--the presbyters. Such Calvinistic churches as were governed byassemblies or synods of presbyters were called Presbyterian; thosewhich subordinated the "minister" to the control of the people in eachseparate congregation were styled Independent, or Separatist, orCongregational. [Footnote: This latter type of church government wasmaintained also by the quasi-Calvinistic denomination of the Baptists. ] (5) In the ceremonies of public worship the Protestant churchesdiffered. Anglicanism kept a good deal of the Catholic ritual althoughin the form of translation from Latin to English, together with severalCatholic ceremonies, in some places even employing candles and incense. The Calvinists, on the other hand, worshiped with extreme simplicity:reading of the Bible, singing of hymns, extemporaneous prayer, andpreaching constituted the usual service in church buildings that werewithout superfluous ornaments. Between Anglican formalism andCalvinistic austerity, the Lutherans presented a compromise: theydevised no uniform liturgy, but showed some inclination to utilizeforms and ceremonies. [Sidenote: Significance of the Protestant Revolt] Of the true significance of the great religious and ecclesiasticalchanges of the sixteenth century many estimates in the past have beenmade, varying with the point of view, or bias, of each author. Severalresults, however, now stand out clearly and are accepted generally byall scholars, regardless of religious affiliations. These results maybe expressed as follows: In the first place, the Catholic Church of the middle ages wasdisrupted and the medieval ideal of a universal theocracy under thebishop of Rome was rudely shocked. In the second place, the Christian religion was largely nationalized. Protestantism was the religious aspect of nationalism; it naturallycame into being as a protest against the cosmopolitan character ofCatholicism; it received its support from _nations_; and itassumed everywhere a national form. The German states, the Scandinaviancountries, Scotland, England, each had its established state religion. What remained to the Catholic Church, as we have seen, was essentiallyfor national reasons and henceforth rested mainly on a national basis. Thirdly, the whole movement tended to narrow the Catholic Churchdogmatically. The exigencies of answering the Protestants called forthexplicit definitions of belief. The Catholic Church was henceforth onthe defensive, and among her members fewer differences of opinion weretolerated than formerly. Fourthly, a great impetus to individual morality, as well as totheological study, was afforded by the reformation. Not only were manymen's minds turned temporarily from other intellectual interests toreligious controversy, but the individual faithful Catholic orProtestant was encouraged to vie with his neighbor in actually provingthat his particular religion inculcated a higher moral standard thanany other. It rendered the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries moreearnest and serious and also more bigoted than the fifteenth. Finally, the Protestant Revolution led immediately to importantpolitical and social changes. The power of secular rulers wasimmeasurably increased. By confiscation of church lands and control ofthe clergy, the Tudor sovereigns in England, the kings in Scandinavia, and the German princes were personally enriched and freed from fear ofbeing hampered in absolutist tendencies by an independentecclesiastical organization. Even in Catholic countries, the monarchswere able to wring such concessions from the pope as resulted inshackling the Church to the crown. The wealth of the nobles was swelled, especially in Protestantcountries, by seizure of the property of the Church either directly orby means of bribes tendered for aristocratic support of the royalconfiscations. But despite such an access of wealth, the monarchs tookpains to see that the nobility acquired no new political influence. In order to prevent the nobles from recovering political power, theabsolutist monarchs enlisted the services of the faithful middle class, which speedily attained an enviable position in the principal Europeanstates. It is safe to say that the Protestant Revolution was one ofmany elements assisting in the development of this middle class. For the peasantry--still the bulk of European population--the religiousand ecclesiastical changes seem to have been peculiarly unfortunate. What they gained through a diminution of ecclesiastical dues and taxeswas more than lost through the growth of royal despotism and theexactions of hard-hearted lay proprietors. The peasants had changed thenames of their oppressors and found themselves in a worse conditionthan before. There is little doubt that, at least so far as theGermanies and the Scandinavian countries are concerned, the lot of thepeasants was less favorable immediately after, than immediately before, the rise of Protestantism. ADDITIONAL READING GENERAL. Good brief accounts of the whole religious revolution of thesixteenth century: Frederic Seebohm, _The Era of the ProtestantRevolution, _ new ed. (1904); J. H. Robinson, _Reformation_, in"Encyclopaedia Britannica, " 11th ed. (1911); A. H. Johnson, _Europe inthe Sixteenth Century_ (1897), ch. Iii-v and pp. 272 ff. ; E. M. Hulme, _Renaissance and Reformation, _ 2d ed. (1915), ch. X-xviii, xxi-xxiii;Victor Duruy, _History of Modern Times_, trans. And rev. By E. A. Grosvenor (1894), ch. Xiii, xiv. More detailed accounts are given inthe _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. II (1904), and in the _Histoiregenerate_, Vol. IV, ch. X-xvii, and Vol. V, ch. I. All the standardgeneral histories of the Christian Church contain accounts of the riseof Protestantism, naturally varying among themselves according to thereligious convictions of their authors. Among the best Protestanthistories may be cited: T. M. Lindsay, _A History of the Reformation, _2 vols. (1906-1910); Wilhelm Moeller, _History of the ChristianChurch_, trans. And condensed by J. H. Freese, 3 vols. (1893-1900);Philip Schaff, _History of the Christian Church_, Vols. VI and VII; A. H. Newman, A Manual of Church History, Vol. II (1903), Period V; G. P. Fisher, _History of the Christian Church_ (1887), Period VIII, ch. I-xii. From the Catholic standpoint the best ecclesiastical historiesare: John Alzog, _Manual of Universal Church History_, trans. From 9thGerman edition (1903), Vol. II and Vol. Ill, Epoch I; and the historiesin German by Joseph (Cardinal) Hergen-rother [ed. By J. P. Kirsch, 2vols. (1902-1904)], by Alois Knopfler (5th ed. , 1910) [based on thefamous _Conciliengeschichte_ of K. J. (Bishop) von Hefele], and by F. X. Von Funk (5th ed. , 1911); see, also, Alfred Baudrillart, _TheCatholic Church, the Renaissance and Protestantism_, Eng. Trans. ByMrs. Philip Gibbs (1908). Many pertinent articles are to be found inthe scholarly _Catholic Encyclopedia_, 15 vols. (1907-1912), in thefamous _Realencyklopaedie fuer protestantische Theologie und Kirche_, 3ded. , 24 vols. (1896-1913), and in the (Non-Catholic) _Encyclopedia ofReligion and Ethics_, ed. By James Hastings and now (1916) in course ofpublication. For the popes of the period, see Ludwig Pastor, _TheHistory of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages_, the monumentalwork of a distinguished Catholic historian, the twelfth volume of which(coming down to 1549) was published in English translation in 1912; andthe older but still useful (Protestant) _History of the Papacy from theGreat Schism to the Sack of Rome_ by Mandell Creighton, new ed. In 6vols. (1899-1901), and _History of the Popes_ by Leopold von Ranke, 3vols. In the Bonn Library (1885). Heinrich Denziger, _EnchiridionSymbolorum, Definitionum, et Declarationium de rebus fidei el morum, _11nth ed. (1911), is a convenient collection of official pronouncementsin Latin on the Catholic Faith. Philip Schaff, _The Creeds ofChristendom, _ 3 vols. (1878), contains the chief Greek, Latin, andProtestant creeds in the original and usually also in Englishtranslation. Also useful is B. J. Kidd (editor), _DocumentsIllustrative of the Continental Reformation_ (1911). For additionaldetails of the relation of the Reformation to sixteenth-centurypolitics, consult the bibliography appended to Chapter III, above. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE EARLY SIXTEENTH CENTURY. In the _CambridgeModern History, _ Vol. I (1902), a severe indictment of the Church ispresented (ch. Xix) by H. C. Lea, and a defense is offered (ch. Xviii)by William Barry. The former opinions are developed startlingly by H. C. Lea in Vol. I, ch. I, of his _History of the Inquisition in theMiddle Ages. _ An old-fashioned, though still interesting, Protestantview is that of William Roscoe, _Life and Pontificate of Leo X, _ 4vols. (first pub. 1805-1806, many subsequent editions). For anexcellent description of the organization of the Catholic Church, seeAndre Mater, _L'eglise catholique, sa constitution, son administration_(1906). The best edition of the canon law is that of Friedberg, 2 vols. (1881). On the social work of the Church: E. L. Cutts, _Parish Priestsand their People in the Middle Ages in England_ (1898), and G. A. Prevost, _L'eglise et les campagnes au moyen age_ (1892). The mostrecent and comprehensive study of the Catholic Church on the eve of theProtestant Revolt is that of Pierre Imbart de la Tour, _Les origines dela Reforme, _ Vol. I, _La France moderne_ (1905), and Vol. II, _L'eglisecatholique, la crise et la renaissance_ (1909). For the Orthodox Churchof the East see Louis Duchesne, _The Churches Separated from Rome, _trans. By A. H. Mathew (1908). MOHAMMEDANISM. Sir William Muir, _Life of Mohammed, _ new and rev. Ed. By T. H. Weir (1912); Ameer Ali, _Life and Teachings of Mohammed_(1891), and, by the same author, warmly sympathetic, Islam (1914); D. S. Margoliouth, _Mohammed and the Rise of Islam_ (1905), in the "Heroesof the Nations" Series, and, by the same author, _The Early Developmentof Mohammedanism_ (1914); Arthur Gilman, _Story of the Saracens_(1902), in the "Story of the Nations" Series. Edward Gibbon has twofamous chapters (1, li) on Mohammed and the Arabian conquests in hismasterpiece, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. _ The _Koran, _ thesacred book of Mohammedans, has been translated into English by E. H. Palmer, 2 vols. (1880): entertaining extracts are given in StanleyLane-Poole, _Speeches and Table Talk of the Prophet Mohammad. _ LUTHER AND LUTHERANISM. Of innumerable biographies of Luther the bestfrom sympathetic Protestant pens are: Julius Koestlin, _Life of Luther, _trans. And abridged from the German (1900); T. M. Lindsay, _Luther andthe German Reformation_ (1900); A. C. McGiffert, _Martin Luther, theMan and his Work_ (1911); Preserved Smith, _The Life and Letters ofMartin Luther_ (1911); Charles Beard, _Martin Luther and theReformation in Germany until the Close of the Diet of Worms_ (1889). Aremarkable arraignment of Luther is the work of the eminent Catholichistorian, F. H. S. Denifle, _Luther und Luthertum in der erstenEntwickelung, _ 3 vols. (1904-1909), trans. Into French by J. Pasquier(1911-1912). The most available Catholic study of Luther's personalityand career is the scholarly work of Hartmann Grisar, _Luther, _ 3 vols. (1911-1913), trans. From German into English by E. M. Lamond, 4 vols. (1913-1915). _First Principles of the Reformation, _ ed. By Henry Waceand C. A. Buchheim (1885), contains an English translation of Luther's"Theses, " and of his three pamphlets of 1520. The best edition ofLuther's complete works is the Weimar edition; English translations ofportions of his _Table Talk, _ by William Hazlitt, have appeared in theBonn Library; and _Luther's Correspondence and Other ContemporaryLetters_ is now (1916) in course of translation and publication byPreserved Smith. J. W. Richard, _Philip Melanchthon_ (1898) is a briefbiography of one of the most famous friends and associates of Luther. For the Protestant Revolt in Germany: E. F. Henderson, _A Short Historyof Germany_ (1902), Vol. I, ch. X-xvi, a brief sketch of the politicaland social background; Johannes Janssen, _History of the GermanPeople, _ a monumental treatise on German social history just before andduring the revolt, scholarly and very favorable to the Catholic Church, trans. Into English by M. A. Mitchell and A. M. Christie, 16 vols. (1896-1910); Gottlob Egelhaaf, _Deutsche Geschichte im sechzehntenJahrhundert bis zum Augsburger Religionsfrieden, _ 2 vols. (1889-1892), a Protestant rejoinder to some of the Catholic Janssen's deductions;Karl Lamprecht, _Deutsche Geschichte, _ Vol. V, Part I (1896), suggestive philosophizing; Leopold von Ranke, _History of theReformation in Germany, _ Eng. Trans. , 3 vols. , a careful study, comingdown in the original German to 1555, but stopping short in the Englishform with the year 1534; Friedrich von Bezold, _Geschichte derdeutschen Reformation, _ 2 vols. (1886-1890), in the bulky OnckenSeries, voluminous and moderately Protestant in tone; J. J. I. VonDoellinger, _Die Reformation, ihre innere Entwicklung und ihreWirkungen, _ 3 vols. (1853-1854), pointing out the opposition of manyeducated people of the sixteenth century to Luther; A. E. Berger, _DieKulturaufgaben der Reformation, _ 2d ed. (1908), a study of the culturalaspects of the Lutheran movement, Protestant in tendency and opposed incertain instances to the generalizations of Janssen and Doellinger; J. S. Schapiro, _Social Reform and the Reformation_ (1909), a brief butvery suggestive treatment of some of the economic factors of the GermanReformation; H. C. Vedder, _The Reformation in Germany_ (1914), likewise stressing economic factors, and sympathetic toward theAnabaptists. For additional facts concerning the establishment ofLutheranism in Scandinavia, see R. N. Bain, _Scandinavia, a PoliticalHistory of Denmark, Norway and Sweden from 1513 to 1900_ (1905), andJohn Wordsworth (Bishop of Salisbury), _The National Church of Sweden_(1911). Zwingli, Calvin, and Calvinism. The best biography of Zwingliin English is that of S. M. Jackson (1901), who likewise has edited the_Selected Works of Zwingli_; a more exhaustive biography in German isRudolf Stahelin, _Huldreich Zwingli: sein Leben und Wirken_, 2 vols. (1895 1897). Biographies of Calvin: H. Y. Reyburn, _John Calvin: hisLife, Letters, and Work_ (1914); Williston Walker, John Calvin, theOrganizer of Reformed Protestantism (1906); Emile Doumergue, _JeanCalvin: les hommes et les choses de son temps_, 4 vols. (1899-1910); L. Penning, _Life and Times of Calvin_, trans. From Dutch by B. S. Berrington (1912); William Barry, _Calvin_, in the "CatholicEncyclopaedia. " Many of Calvin's writings have been published in Englishtranslation by the "Presbyterian Board of Publication" in Philadelphia, 22 vols. In 52 (1844-1856), and his _Institutes of the ChristianReligion_ has several times been published in English. H. M. Baird, _Theodore Beza_ (1899) is a popular biography of one of the best-knownfriends and associates of Calvin. For Calvinism in Switzerland: W. D. McCracken, _The Rise of the Swiss Republic_, 2d ed. (1901); F. W. Kampschulte, _Johann Calvin, seine Kirche und sein Staat in Genf_, 2vols. (1869-1899). For Calvinism in France: H. M. Baird, _History ofthe Rise of the Huguenots of France_, 2 vols. (1879), and by the sameauthor, a warm partisan of Calvinism, _The Huguenots and Henry ofNavarre_, 2 vols. (1886); the brothers Haag, _France protestante_, 2ded. , 10 vols. (1877-1895), an exhaustive history of Protestantism inFrance; E. Lavisse (editor), _Histoire de France_, Vol. V, Livre IX, byHenry Lemonnier (1904), most recent and best. For Calvinism inScotland: P. H. Brown, _John Knox, a Biography_, 2 vols. (1895); AndrewLang, _John Knox and the Reformation_ (1905); John Herkless and R. K. Hannay, _The Archbishops of St. Andrews_, 4 vols. (1907-1913); D. H. Fleming, _The Reformation in Scotland: its Causes, Characteristics, andConsequences_ (1910); John Macpherson, _History of the Church inScotland_ (1901), ch. Iii-v. THE PROTESTANT REVOLUTION IN ENGLAND. The eve of the revolution:Frederic Seebohm, _The Oxford Reformers_, 3d ed. (1887), a sympathetictreatment of Colet, Erasmus, and More; F. A. (Cardinal) Gasquet, _TheEve of the Reformation in England_ (1899), and, by the same author, aneminent Catholic scholar, _England under the Old Religion_ (1912). General histories of the English Reformation: H. O. Wakeman, _AnIntroduction to the History of the Church of England_, 8th ed. (1914), ch. X-xiv, the best brief "High Church" survey; J. R. Green, _ShortHistory of the English People_, new illust. Ed. By C. H. Firth (1913), ch. Vi, vii, a popular "Low Church" view; W. R. W. Stephens and WilliamHunt (editors), _A History of the Church of England_, Vols. IV (1902)and V (1904) by James Gairdner and W. H. Frere respectively; JamesGairdner, _Lollardy and the Reformation in England_, 4 vols. (1908-1913), the last word of an eminent authority on the period, who wasconvinced of the revolutionary character of the English Reformation;John Lingard, _History of England to 1688_, Vols. IV-VI, the standardRoman Catholic work; R. W. Dixon, _History of the Church of Englandfrom the Abolition of the Roman Jurisdiction_, 6 vols. (1878-1902), athorough treatment from the High Anglican position; H. W. Clark, _History of English Nonconformity_, Vol. I (1911), Book I, valuable forthe history of the radical Protestants; Henry Gee and W. J. Hardy, _Documents Illustrative of English Church History_ (1896), an admirablecollection of official pronouncements. Valuable special works andmonographs: C. B. Lumsden, _The Dawn of Modern England, being a Historyof the Reformation in England, 1509-1525_ (1910), pronouncedly RomanCatholic in tone; Martin Hume, _The Wives of Henry VIII_ (1905); F. A. (Cardinal) Gasquet, _Henry VIII and the English Monasteries_, 3d ed. , 2vols. (1888), popular ed. In 1 vol. (1902); R. B. Merriman, _Life andLetters of Thomas Cromwell_, 2 vols. (1902), a standard work; Dom BedeCamm, _Lives of the English Martyrs_ (1904), with special reference toRoman Catholics under Henry VIII; A. F. Pollard, [Footnote: See alsoother works of A. F. Pollard listed in bibliography appended to ChapterIII, p. 110, above. ] _Life of Cranmer_ (1904), scholarly andsympathetic, and, by the same author, _England under ProtectorSomerset_ (1900), distinctly apologetic; Frances Rose-Troup, _TheWestern Rebellion of 1549_ (1913), a study of an unsuccessful popularuprising against religious innovations; M. J. Stone, _Mary I, Queen ofEngland_ (1901), an apology for Mary Tudor; John Foxe (1516-1587), _Acts and Monuments of the Church_, popularly known as the _Book ofMartyrs_, the chief contemporary account of the Marian persecutions, uncritical and naturally strongly biased; R. G. Usher, _TheReconstruction of the English Church_, 2 vols. (1910), a popularaccount of the changes under Elizabeth and James I; H. N. Birt, _TheElizabethan Religious Settlement_ (1907), from the Roman Catholicstandpoint; G. E. Phillips, _The Extinction of the Ancient Hierarchy, an Account of the Death in Prison of the Eleven Bishops Honored at Romeamongst the Martyrs of the Elizabethan Persecution_ (1905), also RomanCatholic; A. O. Meyer, _England und die katholische Kirche unterElisabeth und den Stuarts_, Vol. I (1911), Eng. Trans. By J. R. McKee(1915), based in part on use of source-material in the Vatican Library;Martin Hume, _Treason and Plot_ (1901), deals with the struggles of theRoman Catholics for supremacy in the reign of Elizabeth; E. L. Taunton, _The History of the Jesuits in England_, 1580-1773 (1901); RichardSimpson, _Life of Campion_ (1867), an account of a devoted Jesuit whosuffered martyrdom under Elizabeth; Champlin Burrage, _The EarlyEnglish Dissenters in the Light of Recent Research, 1550-1641_, 2 vols. (1912). THE REFORMATION WITHIN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Brief narratives: WilliamBarry, _The Papacy and Modern Times_ (1911), in "Home UniversityLibrary, " ch. I-iii; A. W. Ward, _The Counter Reformation_ (1889) in"Epochs of Church History" Series; _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. Ill(1905), ch. Xiii by Ugo (Count) Balzani on "Rome under Sixtus V. "Longer accounts: G. V. Jourdan, _The Movement towards Catholic Reformin the Early Sixteenth Century, 1496-1536_ (1914); K. W. Maurenbrecher, _Geschichte der katholischen Reformation_, Vol. I (1880), excellentdown to 1534 but never completed; J. A. Symonds, _Renaissance inItaly_, Vols. VI and VII, _The Catholic Reaction_, replete withinaccuracy, bias, and prejudice. The _Canons and Decrees of the Councilof Trent_ have been translated by J. Waterworth, new ed. (1896), andthe _Catechism of the Council of Trent_, by J. Donovan (1829). NicholasHilling, _Procedure at the Roman Curia_, 2d ed. (1909), contains aconcise account of the "congregations" and other reformed agencies ofadministration introduced into church government in the sixteenth andseventeenth centuries. The famous _Autobiography of St. IgnatiusLoyola_ has been trans. And ed. By J. F. X. O'Conor (1900), and thetext of his _Spiritual Exercises_, trans. From Spanish into English, has been published by Joseph Rickaby (1915). See Stewart Rose (LadyBuchan), _St. Ignatius Loyola and the Early Jesuits_, ed. By W. H. Eyre(1891); Francis Thompson, _Life of Saint Ignatius_ (1910); T. A. Hughes, _Loyola and the Educational System of the Jesuits_ (1892). Monumental national histories of the Jesuits are now (1916) appearingunder the auspices of the Order: for Germany, by Bernhard Duhr, Vol. I(1907), Vol. II (1913); for Italy, by Pietro Tacchi Venturi, Vol. I(1910); for France, by Henri Fouqueray, Vol. I (1910), Vol. II (1913);for Paraguay, by Pablo Pastells, Vol. I (1912); for North America, byThomas Hughes, 3 vols. (1907-1910); for Spain, by Antonio Astrain, Vols. I-IV (1902-1913). Concerning the Index, see G. H. Putnam, _TheCensorship of the Church of Rome and its Influence upon the Productionand Distribution of Literature_, 2 vols. (1907). On the Inquisition, see H. C. Lea, _A History of the Inquisition of Spain_, 4 vols. (1907), and, by the same author, _The Inquisition in the Spanish Dependencies_(1908), on the whole a dark picture; and, for a Catholic account, Elphege Vacandard, _The Inquisition: a Critical and Historical Study ofthe Coercive Power of the Church_, trans. By B. L. Conway (1908). FOR THE OUTCOME OF THE PROTESTANT REVOLT AND THE CATHOLIC REFORMATIONFROM THE THEOLOGICAL STANDPOINT, see Adolph Harnack, _History ofDogma_, Eng. Trans. , Vol. VII (1900). Charles Beard, _The Reformationof the Sixteenth Century in its Relation to Modern Thought andKnowledge_ (1883) is a strongly Protestant estimate of the significanceof the whole movement. J. Balmes, _European Civilization: Protestantismand Catholicity Compared in their Effects on the Civilization ofEurope_ (1850), though old, is a suggestive resume from the Catholicstandpoint. CHAPTER V THE CULTURE OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY [Sidenote: "Culture"] "Culture" is a word generally used to denote learning and refinement inmanners and art. The development of culture--the acquisition of newknowledge and the creation of beautiful things--is ordinarily the workof a comparatively small number of scientists and artists. Now if inany particular period or among any special people, we find a relativelylarger group of intellectual leaders who succeed in establishing animportant educated class and in making permanent contributions to thecivilization of posterity, then we say that it is a cultured century ora cultured nation. [Sidenote: Greek Culture] All races and all generations have had some kind of culture, but withinthe recorded history of humanity, certain peoples and certain centuriesstand out most distinctly as influencing its evolution. Thus, theGreeks of the fourth and fifth centuries before Christ gatheredtogether and handed down to us all manner of speculation about thenature of the universe, all manner of hypothetical answers to theeternal questions--Whence do we come, What are we doing, Where do wego?--and this was the foundation of modern philosophy and metaphysics. From the same Greeks came our geometry and the rudiments of oursciences of astronomy and medicine. It was they who gave us the modelfor nearly every form of literature--dramatic, epic, and lyric poetry, dialogues, oratory, history--and in their well-proportioned temples, intheir balanced columns and elaborate friezes, in their marblechiselings of the perfect human form, they fashioned for us forever theclassical expression of art. [Sidenote: Roman Culture] Still in ancient times, the Romans developed classical architecture inthe great triumphal arches and in the high-domed public buildings whichstrewed their empire. They adapted the fine forms of Greek literatureto their own more pompous, but less subtle, Latin language. Theydevised a code of law and a legal system which made them in a realsense the teachers of order and the founders of the modern study oflaw. [Sidenote: Mohammedan Culture] The Mohammedans, too, at the very time when the Christians of westernEurope were neglecting much of the ancient heritage, kept alive thetraditions of Greek philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, and medicine. From eastern Asia they borrowed algebra, the Arabic numerals, and thecompass, and, in their own great cities of Bagdad, Damascus, andCordova, they themselves developed the curiously woven curtains andrugs, the strangely wrought blades and metallic ornaments, theluxurious dwellings and graceful minarets which distinguish Arabic orMohammedan art. [Sidenote: Medieval Culture] In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries--the height of the middle ages--came a wonderful outburst of intellectual and artistic activity. Under the immediate auspices of the Catholic Church it brought forthabundantly a peculiarly Christian culture. Renewed acquaintance withGreek philosophy, especially with that of Aristotle, was joined with alively religious faith to produce the so called scholastic philosophyand theology. Great institutions of higher learning--the universities--were now founded, in which centered the revived study not only ofphilosophy but of law and medicine as well, and over which appeared thefirst cloud-wrapped dawn of modern experimental science. And side byside with the sonorous Latin tongue, which long continued to be used byscholars, were formed the vernacular languages--German, English, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. --that gave a wealth ofvariety to reviving popular literature. Majestic cathedrals withpointed arch and flying buttress, with lofty spire and delicatetracery, wonderful wood carvings, illuminated manuscripts, quaintgargoyles, myriad statues of saints and martyrs, delicately coloredpaintings of surpassing beauty--all betokened the great Christian, orGothic, art of the middle ages. [Sidenote: New Elements in Culture of Sixteenth Century] The educated person of the sixteenth century was heir to all thesecultural periods: intellectually and artistically he was descended fromGreeks, Romans, Mohammedans, and his medieval Christian forbears. Butthe sixteenth century itself added cultural contributions to theoriginal store, which help to explain not only the social, political, and ecclesiastical activities of that time but also many of ourpresent-day actions and ideas. The essentially new factors insixteenth-century culture may be reckoned as (1) the diffusion ofknowledge as a result of the invention of printing; (2) the developmentof literary criticism by means of humanism; (3) a golden age ofpainting and architecture; (4) the flowering of national literature;(5) the beginnings of modern natural science. THE INVENTION OF PRINTING The present day is notably distinguished by the prevalence of enormousnumbers of printed books, periodicals, and newspapers. Yet this veryprinting, which seems so commonplace to us now, has had, in all, but acomparatively brief existence. From the earliest recorded history up toless than five hundred years ago every book in Europe [Footnote: For anaccount of early printing in China, Japan, and Korea, see the informingarticle "Typography" in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 11thedition, Vol. XXVII, p. 510. ] was laboriously written by hand, [Footnote: It is interesting to note the meaning of our present word"manuscript, " which is derived from the Latin--_manu scriptum_("written by hand"). ] and, although copyists acquired an astonishingswiftness in reproducing books, libraries of any size were the propertyexclusively of rich institutions or wealthy individuals. It was at thebeginning of modern times that the invention of printing revolutionizedintellectual history. Printing is an extremely complicated process, and it is small wonderthat centuries of human progress elapsed before its invention wascomplete. Among the most essential elements of the perfected processare _movable type_ with which the impression is made, and_paper_, on which it is made. A few facts may be convenientlyculled from the long involved story of the development of each of theseelements. [Sidenote: Development of paper] For their manuscripts the Greeks and Romans had used papyrus, theprepared fiber of a tough reed which grew in the valley of the NileRiver. This papyrus was very expensive and heavy, and not at allsuitable for printing. Parchment, the dressed skins of certain animals, especially sheep, which became the standard material for the hand-written documents of the middle ages, was extremely durable, but likepapyrus, it was costly, unwieldy, and ill adapted for printing. The forerunner of modern European paper was probably that which theChinese made from silk as early as the second century before Christ. For silk the Mohammedans at Mecca and Damascus in the middle of theeighth century appear to have substituted cotton, and this so-calledDamascus paper was later imported into Greece and southern Italy andinto Spain. In the latter country the native-grown hemp and flax wereagain substituted for cotton, and the resulting linen paper was usedconsiderably in Castile in the thirteenth century and thence penetratedacross the Pyrenees into France and gradually all over western andcentral Europe. Parchment, however, for a long time kept itspreeminence over silk, cotton, or linen paper, because of its greaterfirmness and durability, and notaries were long forbidden to use anyother substance in their official writings. Not until the second halfof the fifteenth century was assured the triumph of modern paper, [Footnote: The word "paper" is derived from the ancient "papyrus. "] asdistinct from papyrus or parchment, when printing, then on thethreshold of its career, demanded a substance of moderate price thatwould easily receive the impression of movable type. [Sidenote: Development of Movable Type] The idea of movable type was derived from an older practice of carvingreverse letters or even whole inscriptions upon blocks of wood so thatwhen they were inked and applied to writing material they would leave aclear impression. Medieval kings and princes frequently had theirsignatures cut on these blocks of wood or metal, in order to impressthem on charters, and a kind of engraving was employed to reproducepictures or written pages as early as the twelfth century. It was a natural but slow evolution from block-impressing to thepractice of casting individual letters in separate little pieces ofmetal, all of the same height and thickness, and then arranging them inany desired sequence for printing. The great advantage of movable typeover the blocks was the infinite variety of work which could be done bysimply setting and resetting the type. The actual history of the transition from the use of blocks to movabletype--the real invention of modern printing--is shrouded in a good dealof mystery and dispute. It now appears likely that by the year 1450, anobscure Lourens Coster of the Dutch town of Haarlem had devised movabletype, that Coster's invention was being utilized by a certain JohanGutenberg in the German city of Mainz, and that improvements were beingadded by various other contemporaries. Papal letters of indulgence anda version of the Bible, both printed in 1454, are the earliestmonuments of the new art. Slowly evolved, the marvelous art, once thoroughly developed, spreadwith almost lightning rapidity from Mainz throughout the Germanics, theItalian states, France, and England, --in fact, throughout all ChristianEurope. It was welcomed by scholars and applauded by popes. Printingpresses were erected at Rome in 1466, and book-publishing speedilybecame an honorable and lucrative business in every large city. Thus, at the opening of the sixteenth century, the scholarly Aldus Manutiuswas operating in Venice the famous Aldine press, whose beautifuleditions of the Greek and Latin classics are still esteemed asmasterpieces of the printer's art. The early printers fashioned the characters of their type after theletters that the scribes had used in long-hand writing. Different kindsof common hand-writing gave rise, therefore, to such varieties of typeas the heavy black-faced Gothic that prevailed in the Germanics or theseveral adaptations of the clear, neat Roman characters whichpredominated in southern Europe and in England. The compressed "italic"type was devised in the Aldine press in Venice to enable the publisherto crowd more words upon a page. [Sidenote: Results of Invention of Printing] A constant development of the new art characterized the sixteenthcentury, and at least three remarkable results became evident. (1)There was an almost incalculable increase in the supply of books. Underearlier conditions, a skilled and conscientious copyist might, byprodigious toil, produce two books in a year. Now, in a single year ofthe sixteenth century, some 24, 000 copies of one of Erasmus's bookswere struck off by one printing press. (2) This indirectly increased the demand for books. By lessening theexpense of books and enabling at least all members of the middle class, as well as nobles and princes, to possess private libraries, printingbecame the most powerful means of diffusing knowledge and broadeningeducation. (3) A greater degree of accuracy was guaranteed by printing than bymanual copying. Before the invention of printing, it was well-nighimpossible to secure two copies of any work that would be exactlyalike. Now, the constant proof-reading and the fact that an entireedition was printed from the same type were securities against theanciently recurring faults of forgery or of error. HUMANISM Printing, the invention of which has just been described, was the newvehicle of expression for the ideas of the sixteenth century. Theseideas centered in something which commonly is called "humanism. " Toappreciate precisely what humanism means--to understand the dominantintellectual interests of the educated people of the sixteenth century--it will be necessary first to turn back some two hundred yearsearlier and say a few words about the first great humanist, FrancescoPetrarca, or, as he is known to us, Petrarch. [Sidenote: Petrarch, "the Father of Humanism"] The name of Petrarch, who flourished in the fourteenth century (1304-1374), has been made familiar to most of us by sentimentalists or byliterary scholars who in the one case have pitied his loves and hispassions or in the other have admired the grace and form of his Italiansonnets. But to the student of history Petrarch has seemed even moreimportant as the reflection, if not the source, of a brilliantintellectual movement, which, taking rise in his century, was to growin brightness in the fifteenth and flood the sixteenth with resplendentlight. In some respects Petrarch was a typical product of the fourteenthcentury. He was in close touch with the great medieval Christianculture of his day. He held papal office at Avignon in France. He waspious and "old-fashioned" in many of his religious views, especially inhis dislike for heretics. Moreover, he wrote what he professed to behis best work in Latin and expressed naught but contempt for the newItalian language, which, under the immortal Dante, had already acquiredliterary polish. [Footnote: Ironically enough, it was not his Latinwritings but his beautiful Italian sonnets, of which he confessed to beashamed, that have preserved the popular fame of Petrarch to thepresent day. ] He showed no interest in natural science or in thephysical world about him--no sympathy for any novelty. Yet despite a good deal of natural conservatism, Petrarch added onesignificant element to the former medieval culture. That was anappreciation, amounting almost to worship, of the pagan Greek and Latinliterature. Nor was he interested in antique things because theysupported his theology or inculcated Christian morals; his fondness forthem was simply and solely because they were inherently interesting. Ina multitude of polished Latin letters and in many of his poems, as wellas by daily example and precept to his admiring contemporaries, hepreached the revival of the classics. [Sidenote: Characteristics of Petrarch's Humanism] This one obsessing idea of Petrarch carried with it several corollarieswhich constituted the essence of humanism and profoundly affectedEuropean thought for several generations after the Italian poet. Theymay be enumerated as follows: (1) Petrarch felt as no man had felt since pagan days the pleasure ofmere human life, --the "joy of living. " This, he believed, was not inopposition to the Christian religion, although it contradicted thebasis of ascetic life. He remained a Catholic Christian, but heassailed the monks. (2) Petrarch possessed a confidence in himself, which in the constantrepetition in his writings of first-person pronouns partook ofboastfulness. He replaced a reliance upon Divine Providence by a senseof his own human ability and power. (3) Petrarch entertained a clear notion of a living bond betweenhimself and men of like sort in the ancient world. Greek and Romancivilization was to him no dead and buried antiquity, but its poets andthinkers lived again as if they were his neighbors. His love for thepast amounted almost to an ecstatic enthusiasm. (4) Petrarch tremendously influenced his contemporaries. He was nolocal, or even national, figure. He was revered and respected as "thescholar of Europe. " Kings vied with each other in heaping benefits uponhim. The Venetian senate gave him the freedom of the city. Both theUniversity of Paris and the municipality of Rome crowned him withlaurel. [Sidenote: "Humanism" and the "Humanities"; Definitions] The admirers and disciples of Petrarch were attracted by the fresh andoriginal human ideas of life with which such classical writers asVirgil, Horace, and Cicero overflowed. This new-found charm thescholars called humanity (_Humanitas_) and themselves they styled"humanists. " Their studies, which comprised the Greek and Latinlanguages and literatures, and, incidentally, profane history, were thehumanities or "letters" (_litterae humaniores_), and the pursuitof them was humanism. Petrarch himself was a serious Latin scholar but knew Greek quiteindifferently. About the close of his century, however, Greek teacherscame in considerable numbers from Constantinople and Greece across theAdriatic to Italy, and a certain Chrysoloras set up an influentialGreek school at Florence. [Footnote: This was before the capture ofConstantinople by the Turks in 1453. ] Thenceforth, the study of bothLatin and Greek went on apace. Monasteries were searched for oldmanuscripts; libraries for the classics were established; many anancient masterpiece, long lost, was now recovered and treasured as finegold. [Footnote: It was during this time that long-lost writings ofTacitus, Cicero, Quintilian, Plautus, Lucretius, etc. , wererediscovered. ] [Sidenote: Humanism and Christianity] At first, humanism met with some opposition from ardent churchmen whofeared that the revival of pagan literature might exert an unwholesomeinfluence upon Christianity. But gradually the humanists came to betolerated and even encourage, until several popes, notably Julius IIand Leo X at the opening of the sixteenth century, themselves espousedthe cause of humanism. The father of Leo X was the celebrated Lorenzode' Medici, who subsidized humanists and established the greatFlorentine library of Greek and Latin classics; and the pope provedhimself at once the patron and exemplar of the new learning: he enjoyedmusic and the theater, art and poetry, the masterpieces of the ancientsand the creations of his humanistic contemporaries, the spiritual andthe witty--life in every form. [Sidenote: Spread of Humanism] The zeal for humanism reached its highest pitch in Italy in thefifteenth century and the first half of the sixteenth, but it graduallygained entrance into other countries and at length became theintellectual spirit of sixteenth-century Europe. Greek was first taughtboth in England and in France about the middle of the fifteenthcentury. The Italian expeditions of the French kings Charles VIII, Louis XII, and Francis I, 1494-1547, served to familiarize Frenchmenwith humanism. And the rise of important new German universities calledhumanists to the Holy Roman Empire. As has been said, humanismdominated all Christian Europe in the sixteenth century. [Sidenote: Erasmus, Chief Humanist of the Sixteenth Century] Towering above all his contemporaries was Erasmus, the foremosthumanist and the intellectual arbiter of the sixteenth century. Erasmus(1466-1536) was a native of Rotterdam in the Netherlands, butthroughout a long and studious life he lived in Germany, France, England, Italy, and Switzerland. He took holy orders in the Church andsecured the degree of doctor of sacred theology, but it was as a loverof books and a prolific writer that he earned his title to fame. Erasmus, to an even greater degree than Petrarch, became a greatinternational figure--the scholar of Europe. He corresponded with everyimportant writer of his generation, and he was on terms of personalfriendship with Aldus Manutius, the famous publisher of Venice, withSir Thomas More, the distinguished statesman and scholar of England, with Pope Leo X, with Francis I of France, and with Henry VIII ofEngland. For a time he presided at Paris over the new College ofFrance. A part of the work of Erasmus--his Greek edition of the New Testamentand his _Praise of Folly_--has already been mentioned. In a seriesof satirical dialogues--the _Adages_ and the _Colloquies_--hedisplayed a brilliant intellect and a sparkling wit. With quip and jesthe made light of the ignorance and credulity of many clergymen, especially of the monks. He laughed at every one, himself included. "Literary people, " said he, "resemble the great figured tapestries ofFlanders, which produce effect only when seen from the distance. " [Sidenote: Humanism and Protestantism] At first Erasmus was friendly with Luther, but as he stronglydisapproved of rebellion against the Church, he subsequently assailedLuther and the whole Protestant movement. He remained outside the groupof radical reformers, to the end devoted to his favorite authors, simply a lover of good Latin. Perhaps the chief reason why Erasmus opposed Protestantism was becausehe imagined that the theological tempest which Luther aroused all overCatholic Europe would destroy fair-minded scholarship--the very essenceof humanism. Be that as it may, the leading humanists of Europe--Morein England, Helgesen in Denmark, and Erasmus himself--remainedCatholic. And while many of the sixteenth-century humanists of Italygrew skeptical regarding all religion, their country, as we have seen, did not become Protestant but adhered to the Roman Church. [Sidenote: Decline of Humanism] Gradually, as the sixteenth century advanced, many persons who in anearlier generation would have applied their minds to the study of Latinor Greek, now devoted themselves to theological discussion or moralexposition. The religious differences between Catholics andProtestants, to say nothing of the refinements of dispute betweenCalvinists and Lutherans or Presbyterians and Congregationalists, absorbed much of the mental energy of the time and seriously distractedthe humanists. In fact, we may say that, from the second half of thesixteenth century, humanism as an independent intellectual interestslowly but steadily declined. Nevertheless, it was not lost, for it wasmerged with other interests, and with them has been preserved eversince. Humanism, whose seed was sown by Petrarch in the fourteenth century andwhose fruit was plucked by Erasmus in the sixteenth, still lives inhigher education throughout Europe and America. The historical"humanities"--Latin, Greek, and history--are still taught in collegeand in high school. They constitute the contribution of the dominantintellectual interest of the sixteenth century. ART IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY [Sidenote: Humanism and the Renaissance of Art] The effect of the revived interest in Greek and Roman culture, which, as we have seen, dominated European thought from the fourteenth to thesixteenth century, was felt not only in literature and in the outwardlife of its devotees--in ransacking monasteries for lost manuscriptsscripts, in critically studying ancient learning, and in consciouslyimitating antique behavior--but likewise in a marvelous and many-sideddevelopment of art. The art of the middle ages had been essentially Christian--it sprangfrom the doctrine and devotions of the Catholic Church and wasinextricably bound up with Christian life. The graceful Gothiccathedrals, pointing their roofs and airy spires in heavenlyaspiration, the fantastic and mysterious carvings of wood or stone, theimaginative portraiture of saintly heroes and heroines as well as ofthe sublime story of the fall and redemption of the human race, therichly stained glass, and the spiritual organ music--all betokened thesupreme thought of medieval Christianity. But humanism recalled tomen's minds the previous existence of an art simpler and morerestrained, if less ethereal. The reading of Greek and Latin writersheightened an esteem for pagan culture in all its phases. Therefore, European art underwent a transformation in the fifteenth andsixteenth centuries. While much of the distinctively medieval cultureremained, civilization was enriched by a revival of classical art. Thepainters, the sculptors, and the architects now sought models notexclusively in their own Christian masters but in many cases in paganGreek and Roman forms. Gradually the two lines of development werebrought together, and the resulting union--the adaptation of classicalart-forms to Christian uses--was marked by an unparalleled outburst ofartistic energy. From that period of exuberant art-expression in the fifteenth andsixteenth centuries, our present-day love of beautiful things has comedown in unbroken succession. With no exaggeration it may be said thatthe sixteenth century is as much the basis of our modern artistic lifeas it is the foundation of modern Protestantism or of modern worldempire. The revolutions in commerce and religion synchronized with thebeginning of a new era in art. All arts were affected--architecture, sculpture, painting, engraving, and music. [Sidenote: Architecture] In architecture, the severely straight and plain line of the ancientGreek temples or the elegant gentle curve of the Roman dome wassubstituted for the fanciful lofty Gothic. A rounded arch replaced thepointed. And the ancient Greek orders--Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian--were dragged from oblivion to embellish the simple symmetricalbuildings. The newer architecture was used for ecclesiastical and otherstructures, reaching perhaps its highest expression in the vastcathedral of St. Peter, which was erected at Rome in the sixteenthcentury under the personal direction of great artists, among whomRaphael and Michelangelo are numbered. [Sidenote: In Italy] The revival of Greek and Roman architecture, like humanism, had itsorigin in Italy; and in the cities of the peninsula, under patronage ofwealthy princes and noble families, it attained its most generalacceptance. But, like humanism, it spread to other countries, which inturn it deeply affected. The chronic wars, in which the petty Italianstates were engaged throughout the sixteenth century, were attended, aswe have seen, by perpetual foreign interference. But Italy, vanquishedin politics, became the victor in art. While her towns surrendered toforeign armies, her architects and builders subdued Europe and broughtthe Christian countries for a time under her artistic sway. [Sidenote: In France] Thus in France the revival was accelerated by the military campaigns ofCharles VIII, Louis XII, and Francis I, which led to the revelation ofthe architectural triumphs in Italy, the result being the importationof great numbers of Italian designers and craftsmen. Architecture afterthe Greek or Roman manner at once became fashionable. Long, horizontallines appeared in many public buildings, of which the celebrated palaceof the Louvre, begun in the last year of the reign of Francis I (1546), and to-day the home of one of the world's greatest art collections, isa conspicuous example. [Sidenote: In Other Countries] In the second half of the sixteenth century, the new architecturesimilarly entered Spain and received encouragement from Philip II. About the same time it manifested itself in the Netherlands and in theGermanies. In England, its appearance hardly took place in thesixteenth century. It was not until 1619 that a famous architect, InigoJones (1573-1651), designed and reared the classical banqueting housein Whitehall, and not until the second half of the seventeenth centurydid Sir Christopher Wren (1632-1723), by means of the majestic St. Paul's cathedral in London, render the new architecture popular inEngland. [Sidenote: Sculpture] Sculpture is usually an attendant of architecture, and it is notsurprising, therefore, that transformation of the one should beconnected with change in the other. The new movement snowed itself inItalian sculpture as early as the fourteenth century, owing to theinfluence of the ancient monuments which still abounded throughout thepeninsula and to which the humanists attracted attention. In thefifteenth century archaeological discoveries were made and a specialinterest fostered by the Florentine family of the Medici, who not onlybecame enthusiastic collectors of ancient works of art but promoted thestudy of the antique figure. Sculpture followed more and more the Greekand Roman traditions in form and often in subject as well. The plasticart of Italy in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was strikinglyakin to that of Athens in the fifth or fourth centuries before Christ. The first great apostle of the new sculpture was Lorenzo Ghiberti(1378-1455), whose marvelous doors on the baptistery at Florenceelicited the comment of Michelangelo that they were "worthy of beingplaced at the entrance of paradise. " Slightly younger than Ghiberti wasDonatello (1383-1466), who, among other triumphs, fashioned therealistic statue of St. Mark in Venice. Luca della Robbia (1400-1482), with a classic purity of style and simplicity of expression, founded awhole dynasty of sculptors in glazed terra-cotta. Elaborate tomb-monuments, the construction of which started in the fifteenth century, reached their highest magnificence in the gorgeous sixteenth-centurytomb of Giovanni Galeazzo Visconti, the founder of the princely familyof Visconti in Milan. Michelangelo himself was as famous for hissculpture as for his painting or his architecture; the heroic head ofhis David at Florence is a work of unrivaled dignity. As the style ofclassic sculpture became very popular in the sixteenth century, thesubjects were increasingly borrowed from pagan literature. Monumentswere erected to illustrious men of ancient Rome, and Greek mythologywas once more carved in stone. The extension of the new sculpture beyond Italy was even more rapidthan the spread of the new architecture. Henry VII invited Italiansculptors to England; Louis XII patronized the great Leonardo da Vinci, and Francis I brought him to France. The tomb of Ferdinand and Isabellain Spain was fashioned in classic form. The new sculpture was famous inGermany before Luther; in fact, it was to be found everywhere insixteenth-century Europe. [Sidenote: Painting] Painting accompanied sculpture. Prior to the sixteenth century, most ofthe pictures were painted directly upon the plaster walls of churchesor of sumptuous dwellings and were called frescoes, although a few wereexecuted on wooden panels. In the sixteenth century, however, easelpaintings--that is, detached pictures on canvas, wood, or othermaterial--became common. The progress in painting was not so much animitation of classical models as was the case with sculpture andarchitecture, for the reason that painting, being one of the mostperishable of the arts, had preserved few of its ancient Greek or Romanexamples. But the artists who were interested in architecture andsculpture were likewise naturally interested in painting; and painting, bound by fewer antique traditions, reached a higher degree ofperfection in the sixteenth century than did any of its allied arts. Modern painting was born in Italy. In Italy it found its four greatmasters--Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, and Titian. Thefirst two acquired as great a fame in architecture and in sculpture asin painting; the last two were primarily painters. Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), a Florentine by birth and training, waspatronized in turn by the Sforza family of Milan, by the Medici ofFlorence, and by the French royal line. His great paintings--the HolySupper and Madonna Lisa, usually called La Gioconda--carried to a highdegree the art of composition and the science of light and shade andcolor. In fact, Leonardo was a scientific painter--he carefully studiedthe laws of perspective and painstakingly carried them into practice. He was also a remarkable sculptor, as is testified by his admirablehorses in relief. As an engineer, too, he built a canal in northernItaly and constructed fortifications about Milan. He was a musician anda natural philosopher as well. This many-sided man liked to toy withmechanical devices. One day when Louis XII visited Milan, he was met bya large mechanical lion that roared and then reared itself upon itshaunches, displaying upon its breast the coat-of-arms of France: it wasthe work of Leonardo da Vinci. Leonardo influenced his age perhaps morethan any other artist. He wrote extensively. He gathered about himselfa large group of disciples. And in his last years spent in France, as apensioner of Francis I, he encouraged painting in that country as wellas in Italy. Michelangelo (1475-1564), Florentine like Leonardo, was probably themost wonderful of all these artists because of his triumphs in a vastvariety of endeavors. It might almost be said of him that "jack of alltrades, he was master of all. " He was a painter of the first rank, anincomparable sculptor, a great architect, an eminent engineer, acharming poet, and a profound scholar in anatomy and physiology. Dividing his time between Florence and Rome, he served the Medicifamily and a succession of art-loving popes. With his other qualitiesof genius he combined austerity in morals, uprightness in character, alively patriotism for his native city and people, and a proudindependence. To give any idea of his achievements is impossible in abook of this size. His tomb of Julius II in Rome and his colossalstatue of David in Florence are examples of his sculpture; thecathedral of St. Peter, which he practically completed, is his mostenduring monument; the mural decorations in the Sistine Chapel at Rome, telling on a grandiose scale the Biblical story from Creation to theFlood, are marvels of design; and his grand fresco of the Last Judgmentis probably the most famous single painting in the world. [Sidenote: Raphael] Younger than Michelangelo and living only about half as long, Raphael(1483-1520), nevertheless, surpassed him in the harmonious compositionand linear beauty of his painting. For ineffable charm of grace, "thedivine" Raphael has always stood without a peer. Raphael lived thebetter part of his life at Rome under the patronage of Julius II andLeo X, and spent several years in decorating the papal palace of theVatican. Although he was, for a time, architect of St. Peter'scathedral, and displayed some aptitude for sculpture and for thescholarly study of archaeeology, it is as the greatest of modernpainters that he is now regarded. Raphael lived fortunately, always infavor, and rich, and bearing himself like a prince. [Sidenote: Titian] Titian (c. 1477-1576) was the typical representative of the Venetianschool of painting which acquired great distinction in bright coloring. Official painter for the city of Venice and patronized both by theEmperor Charles V and by Philip II of Spain, he secured considerablewealth and fame. He was not a man of universal genius like Leonardo daVinci or Michelangelo; his one great and supreme endowment was that ofoil painting. In harmony, light, and color, his work has never beenequaled. Titian's portrait of Philip II was sent to England and proveda potent auxiliary in the suit of the Spanish king for the hand of MaryTudor. His celebrated picture of the Council of Trent was executedafter the aged artist's visit to the council about 1555. From Italy as a center, great painting became the heritage of allEurope. Italian painters were brought to France by Louis XII andFrancis I, and French painters were subsidized to imitate them. PhilipII proved himself a liberal patron of painting throughout hisdominions. [Sidenote: Duerer] In Germany, painting was developed by Albrecht Duerer (1471-1528), anative of Nuremberg, who received a stimulus from Italian work and wasroyally patronized by the Emperor Maximilian. The career of Duerer washonored and fortunate: he was on terms of friendship with all the firstmasters of his age; he even visited and painted Erasmus. But it is asan etcher or engraver, rather than as a painter, that Duerer'sreputation was earned. His greatest engravings--such as the Knight andDeath, and St. Jerome in his Study--set a standard in a new art whichhas never been reached by his successors. The first considerableemployment of engraving, one of the most useful of the arts, synchronized with the invention of printing. Just as books were a meansof multiplying, cheapening, and disseminating ideas, so engravings oncopper or wood were the means of multiplying, cheapening, anddisseminating pictures which gave vividness to the ideas, or served inplace of books for those who could not read. The impetus afforded by this extraordinary development of paintingcontinued to affect the sixteenth century and a greater part of theseventeenth. The scene shifted, however, from Italy to the Spanishpossessions. And Spanish kings, the successors of Philip II, patronizedsuch men as Rubens (1577-1640) and Van Dyck (1599-1641) in the BelgianNetherlands, or Velasquez (1590-1660) and Murillo (1617-1682) in Spainitself. [Sidenote: Rubens and Van Dyck] If the work of Rubens displayed little of the earlier Italian grace andrefinement, it at any rate attained to distinction in the purelyfanciful pictures which he painted in bewildering numbers, many ofwhich, commissioned by Marie de' Medici and King Louis XIII of France, are now to be seen in the Louvre galleries in Paris. And Van Dyckraised portrait painting to unthought-of excellence: his portraits ofthe English royal children and of King Charles I are world-famous. [Sidenote: Velasquez][Sidenote: Murillo] Within the last century, many connoisseurs of art have been led tobelieve that Velasquez formerly has been much underrated and that hedeserves to rank with the foremost Italian masters. Certainly in allhis work there is a dignity, power, and charm, especially in that well-known Maids of Honor, where a little Spanish princess is depictedholding her court, surrounded by her ladies-in-waiting, her dwarfs andher mastiff, while the artist himself stands at his easel. The lastfeat of Velasquez was to superintend the elaborate decorations in honorof the marriage of the Spanish Infanta with King Louis XIV of France. Murillo, the youngest of all these great painters, did most of his workfor the Catholic Church and naturally dealt with ecclesiasticalsubjects. A somewhat different type of painter is found in the Dutchman, Rembrandt (1606-1669), who lived a stormy and unhappy life in the townsof Leyden and Amsterdam. It must be remembered that Holland, whilefollowing her national career of independence, commerce, and colonialundertaking, had become stanchly Protestant. Neither the immoralpaganism of antiquity nor the medieval legends of Catholicism wouldlonger appeal to the Dutch people as fit subjects of art. Rembrandt, prototype of a new school, therefore painted the actual life of thepeople among whom he lived and the things which concerned them--livelyportraits of contemporary burgomasters, happy pictures of popularamusements, stern scenes from the Old Testament. His Lesson in Anatomyand his Night Watch in their somber settings, are wonderfully realisticproducts of Rembrandt's mastery of the brush. [Sidenote: Rembrandt][Sidenote: Music] Thus painting, like architecture and sculpture, was perfected insixteenth-century Italy and speedily became the common property ofChristian Europe. Music, too, the most primitive and universal of thearts, owes in its modern form very much to the sixteenth century. During that period the barbarous and uncouth instruments of the middleages were reformed. The rebeck, to whose loud and harsh strains themedieval rustic had danced, [Footnote: The rebeck probably had beenborrowed from the Mohammedans. ] by the addition of a fourth string anda few changes in form, became the sweet-toned violin, the mostimportant and expressive instrument of the modern orchestra. Asimmediate forerunner of our present-day pianoforte, the harpsichord wasinvented with a keyboard carried to four octaves and the chords of eachnote doubled or quadrupled to obtain prolonged tones. [Sidenote: Palestrina] In the person of the papal organist and choir-master, Palestrina (1524-1594), appeared the first master-composer. He is justly esteemed as thefather of modern religious music and for four hundred years theCatholic Church has repeated his inspired accents. A pope of thetwentieth century declared his music to be still unrivaled and directedits universal use. Palestrina directly influenced much of the Italianmusic of the seventeenth century and the classical German productionsof the eighteenth. NATIONAL LITERATURE OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY [Sidenote: Latin and the Vernaculars] Latin had been the learned language of the middle ages: it was used inthe Church, in the universities, and in polite society. If a lecturertaught a class or an author wrote a book, Latin was usually employed. In those very middle ages, however, the nations of western Europe weredeveloping spoken languages quite at variance with the classical, scholarly tongue. These so-called vernacular languages were not oftenwritten and remained a long time the exclusive means of expression ofthe lower classes--they consequently not only differed from each otherbut tended in each case to fall into a number of petty local dialects. So long as they were not largely written, they could achieve no fixity, and it was not until after the invention of printing that the nationallanguages produced extensive national literatures. Just when printing was invented, the humanists--the foremost scholarsof Europe--were diligently engaged in strengthening the position ofLatin by encouraging the study of the pagan classics. Virgil, Cicero, Caesar, Tacitus, and the comedies of Plautus and Terence were againread by educated people for their substance and for their style. Petrarch imitated the manner of Latin classics in his letters; Erasmuswrote his great works in Latin. The revival of Greek, which was alsodue to the humanists, added to the learning and to the literature ofthe cultured folk, but Greek, even more than Latin, was hardlyunderstood or appreciated by the bulk of the people. Then came the sixteenth century, with its artistic developments, itsnational rivalries, its far-away discoveries, its theological debates, and its social and religious unrest. The common people, especially thecommercial middle class, clamored to understand: and the result was theappearance of national literatures on a large scale. Alongside ofLatin, which was henceforth restricted to the liturgy of the RomanCatholic Church and to particularly learned treatises, there nowemerged truly literary works in Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, English, etc. The printing of these works at once stereotypedtheir respective languages, so that since the sixteenth century thewritten forms of the vernacular tongues have been subject to relativelyminor change. Speaking generally, the sixteenth century witnessed thefixing of our best known modern languages. To review all the leading writers who employed the various vernacularsin the sixteenth century would encroach too much upon the province ofprofessed histories of comparative literature, but a few references tocertain figures that tower head and shoulders above all others in theirrespective countries may serve to call vividly to mind the importanceof the period for national literatures. [Sidenote: Italian Literature] At the very outset, one important exception must be made in favor ofItaly, whose poetry and prose had already been immortalized by Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio a hundred years and more before the opening ofthe sixteenth century. But that country, as we have already repeatedlyobserved in many kinds of art, anticipated all others in modern times. Italy, almost the last European land to be politically unified, was thefirst to develop a great national literature. But Italian literature was broadened and popularized by severalinfluential writers in the sixteenth century, among whom standpreeminent the Florentine diplomat Machiavelli (1469-1527), whose_Prince_ really founded the modern science of politics, and whotaught the dangerous doctrine that a ruler, bent on exercising abenevolent despotism, is justified in employing any means to achievehis purpose; Ariosto (1474-1533), whose great poem _OrlandoFurioso_ displayed a powerful imagination no less than a rare andcultivated taste; and the unhappy mad Tasso (1544-1595), who in_Jerusalem Delivered_ produced a bulky epic poem, adapting themanner of Virgil to a crusading subject, and in Aminta gave to hiscountrymen a delightful pastoral drama, the exquisite lyrics of whichwere long sung in opera. [Sidenote: French literature] French literature, like other French art, was encouraged by Francis I. He set up printing presses, established the College of France, andpensioned native writers. The most famous French author of the time wasthe sarcastic and clever Rabelais (c. 1490-1553), whose memorable_Gargantua_ comprised a series of daring fanciful tales, told withhumor of a rather vulgar sort. The language of _Gargantua_ issomewhat archaic--perhaps the French version of Calvin's_Institutes_ would be a better example of the French of thesixteenth century. But France, thus seriously beginning her nationalliterature, was to wait for its supremacy until the seventeenthcentury--until the institution of the French Academy and the age ofLouis XIV. [Sidenote: Spanish Literature] Spanish literature flourished in the golden era when Velasquez andMurillo were painting their masterpieces. The immortal _DonQuixote_, which was published in 1604, entitles its author, Cervantes (1547-1616), to rank with the greatest writers of all time. Lope de Vega (1562-1635), far-famed poet, virtually founded the Spanishtheater and is said to have composed eighteen hundred dramatic pieces. Calderon (1600-1681), although less effective in his numerous dramas, wrote allegorical poems of unequaled merit. The printing of large cheapeditions of many of these works made Spanish literature immediatelypopular. [Sidenote: Portuguese Literature] How closely the new vernacular literatures reflected significantelements in the national life is particularly observable in the case ofPortugal. It was of the wonderful exploring voyages of Vasco da Gamathat Camoens (1524-1580), prince of Portuguese poets, sang his stirring_Lusiads_. [Sidenote: German Literature] In the Germanies, the extraordinary influence of humanism at firstmilitated against the development of literature in the vernacular, butthe Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, in his desire to reach the earsof the common people, turned from Latin to German. Luther's translationof the Bible constitutes the greatest monument in the rise of modernGerman. To speak of what our own English language and literature owe to thesixteenth century seems superfluous. The popular writings of Chaucer inthe fourteenth century were historically important, but the presence ofvery many archaic words makes them now difficult to read. But inEngland, from the appearance in 1551 of the English version of SirThomas More's _Utopia_, [Footnote: Originally published in Latinin 1516. ] a representation of an ideal state, to the publication ofMilton's grandiose epic, _Paradise Lost_, in 1667, there was acontinuity of great literature. There were Cranmer's Book of CommonPrayer and the King James Version of the Bible; Edmund Spenser'sgraceful _Faerie Queene_; [Footnote: For its scenery and mechanism, theOrlando Furioso of Ariosto furnished the framework; and it similarlyshows the influence of Tasso. ] the supreme Shakespeare; Ben Jonson andMarlowe; Francis Bacon and Richard Hooker; Thomas Hobbes and JeremyTaylor; and the somber Milton himself. BEGINNINGS OF MODERN NATURAL SCIENCE [Sidenote: Two-fold Development of Culture, Science and Art] Human civilization, or culture, always depends upon progress in twodirections--the reason, and the feelings or emotions. Art is theexpression of the latter, and science of the former. Every great periodin the world's history, therefore, is marked by a high appreciation ofaesthetics and an advance in knowledge. To this general rule, thesixteenth century was no exception, for it was distinguished not onlyby a wonderful development of architecture, sculpture, painting, engraving, music, and literature, --whether Roman, Greek, orvernacular, --but it is the most obvious starting point of our modernideas of natural and experimental science. Nowadays, we believe that science is at once the legitimate means andthe proper goal of the progress of the race, and we fill our schoolcurricula with scientific studies. But this spirit is essentiallymodern: it owes its chief stimulus to important achievements in thesixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth. [Sidenote: Characteristics of the Sixteenth Century] Five elements contributed to impress the period that we are nowreviewing with a scientific character. In the first place, thehumanists encouraged a critical spirit in comparing and contrastingancient manuscripts and in investigating the history of the distantpast; and their discovery and application of pagan writings served tobring clearly and abruptly before the educated people of the sixteenthcentury all that the Greeks and Romans had done in astronomy, physics, mathematics, and medicine, as well as in philosophy, art, andliterature. Secondly, the invention of printing itself was a scientificfeat, and its extended use enabled scientists, no less than artists, immediately to acquaint the whole civilized world with their ideas anddemonstrations. Thirdly, the marvelous maritime discoveries of new routes to India andof a new world, which revolutionized European commerce, added much togeographical knowledge and led to the construction of scientific mapsof the earth's surface. Fourthly, the painstaking study of a smallgroup of scholars afforded us our first glimpse of the real characterof the vast universe about our own globe--the scientific basis ofmodern astronomy. Lastly, two profound thinkers, early in theseventeenth century, --Francis Bacon and Descartes, --pointed out newways of using the reason--the method of modern science. In an earlier chapter, an account has been given of the maritimediscoveries of the sixteenth century and their immediate results inbroadening intellectual interests. In this chapter, some attentionalready has been devoted to the rise of humanism and likewise to theinvention of printing. It remains, therefore, to say a few words aboutthe changes in astronomy and in scientific method that characterizedthe beginning of modern times. [Side Note: Astronomy] In the year 1500 the average European knew something about the universeof sun, moon, planets, and stars, but it was scarcely more than theancient Greeks had known, and its chief use was to foretell the future. This practical aspect of astronomy was a curious ancient misconception, which now passes under the name of astrology. It was popularly believedprior to the sixteenth century that every heavenly body exerted adirect and arbitrary influence upon human character and events, [Footnote: Disease was attributed to planetary influence. Thisconnection between medicine and astrology survives in the sign ofJupiter 4, which still heads medicinal prescriptions. ] and that bycasting "horoscopes, " showing just how the stars appeared at the birthof any person, the subsequent career of such an one might be foreseen. Many silly notions and superstitions grew up about astrology, yet thepractice persisted. Charles V and Francis I, great rivals in war, viedwith each other in securing the services of most eminent astrologers, and Catherine de' Medici never tired of reading horoscopes. [Sidenote: "The Ptolemaic System"] Throughout the middle ages the foremost scholars had continued tocherish the astronomical knowledge of the Greeks, which had beenconveniently collected and systematized by a celebrated mathematicianand scholar living in Egypt in the second century of the Christian era--Ptolemy by name. Among other theories and ideas, Ptolemy taught thatthe earth is the center of the universe, that revolving about it arethe moon, Mercury, Venus, the sun, the other planets, and the fixedstars, and that the entire machine is turned with incredible velocitycompletely around every twenty-four hours. This so-called Ptolemaicsystem of astronomy fitted in very nicely with the language of theBible and with the popular prejudice that the earth remains stationarywhile the heavenly bodies daily rise and set. It was natural that formany centuries the Christians should accept the views of Ptolemy asalmost divinely inspired. [Sidenote: "The Copernican System"] However, a contradictory theory of the solar system was propounded andupheld in the sixteenth century, quite supplanting the Ptolemaic theoryin the course of the seventeenth. The new system is called Copernicanafter its first modern exponent--and its general acceptance went far toannihilate astrology and to place astronomy upon a rational basis. Copernicus [the Latin form of his real name, Koppernigk (1473-1543)]was a native of Poland, who divided his time between official work forthe Catholic Church and private researches in astronomy. It was duringa ten-year sojourn in Italy (1496-1505), studying canon law andmedicine, and familiarizing himself, through humanistic teachers, withancient Greek astronomers, that Copernicus was led seriously toquestion the Ptolemaic system and to cast about in search of a truthfulsubstitute. Thenceforth for many years he studied and reflected, but itwas not until the year of his death (1543) that his results werepublished to the world. His book--_On the Revolutions of theCelestial Bodies_, dedicated to Pope Paul III--offered the theorythat the earth is not the center of the universe but simply one of anumber of planets which revolve about the sun. The earth seemed muchless important in the Copernican universe than in the Ptolemaic. The Copernican thesis was supported and developed by two distinguishedastronomers at the beginning of the next century--Kepler (1571-1630)and Galileo (1564-1642), one a German, the other an Italian. Keplertaught astronomy for a number of years at Gratz and subsequently madehis home in Prague, where he acquired a remarkable collection ofinstruments [Footnote: From Tycho Brahe, whose assistant he was in1600-1601. ] that enabled him to conduct numerous interestingexperiments. While he entertained many fantastic and mystical theoriesof the "harmony of the spheres" and was not above casting horoscopesfor the emperor and for Wallenstein, that soldier of fortune, [Footnote: See below, pp. 223, 226. ] he nevertheless establishedseveral of the fundamental laws of modern astronomy, such as thosegoverning the form and magnitude of the planetary orbits. It was Keplerwho made clear that the planets revolve about the sun in ellipticalrather than in strictly circular paths. Galileo popularized the Copernican theory. [Footnote: Another"popularizer" was Giordano Bruno (c. 1548-1600). ] His charming lecturesin the university of Padua, where he taught from 1592 to 1610, were solargely attended that a hall seating 2000 had to be provided. In 1609he perfected a telescope, which, although hardly more powerful than apresent-day opera glass, showed unmistakably that the sun was turningon its axis, that Jupiter was attended by revolving moons, and that theessential truth of the Copernican system was established. Unfortunatelyfor Galileo, his enthusiastic desire to convert the pope immediately tohis own ideas got him into trouble with the Roman Curia and broughtupon him a prohibition from further writing. Galileo submitted like aloyal Catholic to the papal decree, but had he lived another hundredyears, he would have rejoiced that almost all men of learning--popesincluded--had come to accept his own conclusions. Thus modern astronomywas suggested by Copernicus, developed by Kepler, and popularized byGalileo. The acquisition of sound knowledge in astronomy and likewise in everyother science rests primarily upon the observation of natural facts orphenomena and then upon deducing rational conclusions from suchobservation. Yet this seemingly simple rule had not been continuouslyand effectively applied in any period of history prior to the sixteenthcentury. The scientific method of most of the medieval as well as ofthe ancient scholars was essentially that of Aristotle. [Footnote:Exception to this sweeping generalization must be made in favor ofseveral medieval scientists and philosophers, including--Roger Bacon, aFranciscan friar of the thirteenth century. ] This so-called deductivemethod of Aristotle assumed as a starting-point some general ofprinciple as a premise or hypothesis and thence proceeded, by logicalreasoning, to deduce concrete applications or consequences. It had beenextremely valuable in stimulating the logical faculties and in showingmen how to draw accurate conclusions, but it had shown a woefulinability to devise new general principles. It evolved an elaboratetheology and a remarkable philosophy, but natural experimental scienceprogressed relatively little until the deductive method of Aristotlewas supplemented by the inductive method of Francis Bacon. [Sidenote: Modern Method of Science: Introduction. Francis Bacon] Aristotle was partially discredited by radical humanists, who made funof the medieval scholars who had taken him most seriously, and by theProtestant reformers, who assailed the Catholic theology which had beencarefully constructed by Aristotelian deduction. But it was reservedfor Francis Bacon, known as Lord Bacon (1561-1626), to point out allthe shortcomings of the ancient method and to propose a practicablesupplement. A famous lawyer, lord chancellor of England under James I, a born scientist, a brilliant essayist, he wrote several philosophicalworks of first-rate importance, of which the _Advancement ofLearning_ (1604) and the _Novum Organum_ (1620) are the mostfamous. It is in these works that he summed up the faults which thewidening of knowledge in his own day was disclosing in ancient andmedieval thought and set forth the necessity of slow laboriousobservation of facts as antecedent to the assumption of any generalprinciple. [Sidenote: Descartes] What of scientific method occurred to Lord Bacon appealed even more tothe intellectual genius of the Frenchman Descartes (1596-1660). Acurious combination of sincere practicing Catholic and of originaldaring rationalist was this man, traveling all about Europe, serving asa soldier in the Netherlands, in Bavaria, in Hungary, living inHolland, dying in Sweden, with a mind as restless as his body. Nowinterested in mathematics, now in philosophy, presently absorbed inphysics or in the proof of man's existence, throughout his whole careerhe held fast to the faith that science depends not upon the authorityof books but upon the observation of facts. "Here are my books, " hetold a visitor, as he pointed to a basket of rabbits that he was aboutto dissect. The _Discourse on Method_ (1637) and the _Principlesof Philosophy_ (1644), taken in conjunction with Bacon's work, ushered in a new scientific era, to some later phases of which we shallhave occasion to refer in subsequent chapters. ADDITIONAL READING THE RENAISSANCE. GENERAL. _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. I (1902), ch. Xvi, xvii; _Histoire generale_, Vol. IV, ch. Vii, viii, Vol. V, ch. X, xi; E. M. Hulme, _Renaissance and Reformation_, 2d ed. (1915), ch. V-vii, xix, xxix, xxx. More detailed accounts: Jakob Burckhardt, _TheCivilization of the Period of the Renaissance in Italy_, trans. By S. G. C. Middlemore, 2 vols. (1878), 1 vol. Ed. (1898), scholarly andprofound; J. A. Symonds, _Renaissance in Italy_, 5 parts in 7 vols. (1897-1898), interesting and suggestive but less reliable thanBurckhardt; Ludwig Geiger, _Renaissance und Humanismus in Italien undDeutschland_ (1882), in the great Oncken Series; F. X. Kraus, _Geschichte der christlichen Kunst_, 2 vols. In 4 (1896-1908), amonumental work of great interest and importance, by a German Catholic. HUMANISM. The best description of the rise and spread of humanism is J. E. Sandys, _A History of Classical Scholarship_, Vol. II (1908). Forthe spirit of early humanism see H. C. Hollway-Calthrop, _Petrarch: hisLife and Times_ (1907); J. H. Robinson and H. W. Rolfe, _Petrarch, theFirst Modern Scholar and Man of Letters_, 2d ed. (1914), a selectionfrom Petrarch's letters to Boccaccio and other contemporaries, translated into English, with a valuable introduction; Pierre deNolhac, _Petrarque et l'humanisme_, 2d ed. , 2 vols. In 1 (1907). Of theantecedents of humanism a convenient summary is presented by LouiseLoomis, _Mediaeval Hellenism_ (1906). A popular biography of Erasmus isthat of Ephraim Emerton, _Desiderius Erasmus_ (1899); the Latin_Letters of Erasmus_ are now (1916) in course of publication by P. S. Allen; F. M. Nichols, _The Epistles of Erasmus_, 2 vols. (1901-1906), an excellent translation of letters written prior to 1517; Erasmus's_Praise of Folly_, in English translation, is obtainable in manyeditions. D. F. Strauss, _Ulrich von Hutten, his Life and Times_, trans. By Mrs. G. Sturge (1874), gives a good account of the wholehumanistic movement and treats Hutten very sympathetically; _TheLetters of Obscure Men_, to which Hutten contributed, were published, with English translation, by F. G. Stokes in 1909. An excellent editionof _The Utopia_ of Sir Thomas More, the famous English humanist, isthat of George Sampson (1910), containing also an English translationand the charming contemporary _Biography_ by More's son-in-law, WilliamRoper. The standard summary of the work of the humanists is the Germanwriting of Georg Voigt, _Die Wiederbelebung des classischenAlterthums_, 3d ed. , 2 vols. (1893). Interesting extracts from thewritings of a considerable variety of humanists are translated byMerrick Whitcomb in his _Literary Source Books_ of the Renaissance inGermany and in Italy (1898-1899). INVENTION OF PRINTING. T. L. De Vinne, _Invention of Printing_, 2ded. (1878), and, by the same author, _Notable Printers of Italyduring the Fifteenth Century_ (1910), two valuable works by aneminent authority on the subject; G. H. Putnam, _Books and theirMakers during the Middle Ages_, 2 vols. (1896-1897), a usefulcontribution of another experienced publisher; Johannes Janssen, _History of the German People_, Vol. I, Book I, ch. I. There is aninteresting essay on "Publication before Printing" by R. K. Root in the_Publications of the Modern Language Association_, Vol. XXVIII(1913), pp. 417-431. NATIONAL LITERATURES. Among the many extended bibliographies ofnational literatures the student certainly should be familiar with the_Cambridge History of English Literature_, ed. By A. W. Ward andA. R. Waller, 12 vols. (1907-1916); and with G. Lanson, _Manuelbibliographique de la litterature francaise moderne_, 1500-1900, 4vols. (1909-1913). See also, as suggestive references, PasqualeVillari, _The Life and Times of Machiavelli_, 2 vols. In i (1898);A. A. Tilley, _The Literature of the French Renaissance_, 2 vols. (1904); George Saintsbury, _A History of Elizabethan Literature_(1887); and Sir Sidney Lee, _Life of Shakespeare_, new rev. Ed. (1915). ART IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. Architecture: A. D. F. Hamlin, _ATextbook of the History of Architecture_, 5th ed. (1902), a briefgeneral survey; _A History of Architecture_, Vols. I, II by RussellSturgis (1906), III, IV by A. L. Frothingham (1915); Banister Fletcher, _A History of Architecture_, 5th ed. (1905); James Fergusson, _Historyof Architecture in All Countries_, 3d rev. Ed. , 5 vols. (1891-1899). Sculpture: Allan Marquand and A. L. Frothingham, _A Text-book of theHistory of Sculpture_ (1896); Wilhelm von Lubke, _History ofSculpture_, Eng. Trans. , 2 vols. (1872). Painting: J. C. Van Dyke, _AText-book of the History of Painting_, new rev. Ed. (1915); Alfred vonWoltmann and Karl Woermann, _History of Painting_, Eng. Trans. , 2 vols. (1894). Music: W. S. Pratt, _The History of Music_ (1907). See also the_Lives of Seventy of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors, andArchitects_ by Giorgio Vasari (1512-1574), the contemporary and friendof Michelangelo, trans. By Mrs. Foster in the Bohn Library; OsvaldSiren, _Leonardo da Vinci: the Artist and the Man_ (1915); and RomainRolland, _Michelangelo_ (1915). SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. _Cambridge ModemHistory_, Vol. V (1908), ch. Xxiii, Vol. IV (1906), ch. Xxvii, scholarly accounts of Galileo, Bacon, Descartes, and theircontemporaries. A veritable storehouse of scientific facts is H. S. AndE. H. Williams, _A History of Science_, 10 vols. (1904-1910). Specifically, see Arthur Berry, _Short History of Astronomy_ (1899);Karl von Gebler, _Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia_, Eng. Trans. ByMrs. George Sturge (1879); B. L. Conway, _The Condemnation of Galileo_(1913); and Galileo, _Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences_, Eng. Trans. By Crew and Salvio (1914). _The Philosophical Works of FrancisBacon_, ed. By J. M. Robertson (1905), is a convenient edition. On theimportant thinkers from the time of Machiavelli to the middle of theeighteenth century, see Harald Hoffding, _A History of ModernPhilosophy_, Vol. I (1900); W. A. Dunning, _A History of PoliticalTheories from Luther to Montesquieu_ (1905); Paul Janet, _Histoire dela science politique dans ses rapports avec la morale_, 3d ed. , Vol. II(1887). PART II DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY In the seventeenth century and in the greater part of the eighteenth, public attention was directed chiefly toward dynastic and colonialrivalries. In the European group of national states, France was themost important. Politically the French evolved a form of absolutistdivine-right monarchy, which became the pattern of all Europeanmonarchies, that of England alone excepted. In international affairsthe reigning family of France--the Bourbon dynasty after a longstruggle succeeded in humiliating the rulers of Spain and of Austria--the Habsburg dynasty. The hegemony which, in the sixteenth century, Spain had exercised in the newly established state-system of Europe wasnow supplanted by that of France. Intellectually, too, Italianleadership yielded to French, until France set the fashion alike inmanners, morals, and art. Only in the sphere of commerce and trade andexploitation of lands beyond the seas was French supremacy questioned, and there not by declining Portugal or Spain but by the vigorousEnglish nation. France, victorious in her struggle for dynasticaggrandizement on the continent of Europe, was destined to sufferdefeat in her efforts to secure colonies in Asia and America. This period of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was markedlikewise by the constant decay of old political and social institutionsin Italy and in Germany, by the gradual decline of the might andprestige of the Ottoman Turks, and by the extinction of the ancientkingdom of Poland. In their place appeared as great world powers thenorthern monarchies of Prussia and Russia, whose royal lines--Hohenzollerns and Romanovs--were to vie in ambition and prowess, beforethe close of the period, with Habsburgs and Bourbons. Socially, the influence of nobles and clergy steadily declined. Assteadily arose the numbers, the ability, and the importance of thetraders and commercial magnates, the moneyed people, all those who wereidentified with the new wealth that the Commercial Revolution wascreating, the lawyers, the doctors, the professors, the merchants, --theso-called middle class, the _bourgeoisie_, who gradually grewdiscontented with the restrictive institutions of their time. Withinthe _bourgeoisie_ was the seed of revolution: they would one day intheir own interests overturn monarchy, nobility, the Church, the wholesocial fabric. That was to be the death-knell of the old regime--theannunciation of the nineteenth century. CHAPTER VI THE GROWTH OF ABSOLUTISM IN FRANCE AND THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN BOURBONSAND HABSBURGS, 1589-1661 GROWTH OF ABSOLUTISM IN FRANCE: HENRY IV, RICHELIEU, AND MAZARIN For the first time in many years France in 1598 was at peace. The Edictof Nantes, which in that year accorded qualified religious tolerationto the Huguenots, removed the most serious danger to internal order, and the treaty of Vervins, concluded in the same year with the king ofSpain, put an end to a long and exhausting foreign war. Henry IV wasnow free to undertake the internal reformation of his country. Sorry, indeed, was the plight of France at the close of the sixteenthcentury. Protracted civil and foreign wars had produced theirinevitable consequences. The state was nearly bankrupt. Countrydistricts lay largely uncultivated. Towns were burned or abandoned. Roads were rough and neglected, and bridges in ruins. Many of thedischarged soldiers turned highwaymen, pillaged farmhouses, and robbedtravelers. Trade was at a standstill and the artisans of the citieswere out of work. During the wars, moreover, great noblemen had takenmany rights into their own hands and had acquired a habit of notobeying the king. The French crown seemed to be in danger of losingwhat power it had gained in the fifteenth century. That the seventeenth century was to witness not a diminution but apronounced increase of royal power, was due to the character of theFrench king at this critical juncture. Henry IV (1589-1610) was strongand vivacious. With his high forehead, sparkling eyes, smiling mouth, and his neatly pointed beard (_Henri quatre_), he wasprepossessing in looks, while his affability, simplicity, and constantexpression of interest in the welfare of his subjects earned him theappellation of "Good King Henry. " His closest companions knew that hewas selfish and avaricious, but that his quick decisions were likely tobe good and certain to be put in force. Above all, Henry had soldierlyqualities and would brook no disloyalty or disobedience. [Sidenote: Sully] Throughout his reign, Henry IV was well served by his chief minister, the duke of Sully, [Footnote: 1560-1641. ] an able, loyal, uprightHuguenot, though avaricious like the king and subject to furious fitsof jealousy and temper. Appointed to the general oversight of financialaffairs, Sully made a tour of inspection throughout the country andcompletely reformed the royal finances. He forbade provincial governorsto raise money on their own authority, removed many abuses of tax-collecting, and by an honest, rigorous administration was able between1600 and 1610 to save an average of a million livres a year. The kingzealously upheld Sully's policy of retrenchment: he reduced thesubsidies to artists and the grants to favorites, and retained only asmall part of his army, sufficient to overawe rebellious nobles and torestore order and security throughout the realm. To promote andpreserve universal peace, he even proposed the formation of a WorldConfederation--his so-called "Grand Design"--which, however, came tonaught through the mutual jealousies and rival ambitions of the variousEuropean sovereigns. It proved to be much too early to talkconvincingly of general pacifism and disarmament. [Sidenote: Agricultural Development] While domestic peace was being established and provision was being madefor immediate financial contingencies, Henry IV and his great ministerwere both laboring to increase the resources of their country andthereby to promote the prosperity and contentment of the people. Sullybelieved that the true wealth of the nation lay in farming pursuits, and, therefore, agriculture should be encouraged even, if necessary, tothe neglect of trade and industry. While the king allowed Sully todevelop the farming interests, he himself encouraged the new commercialclasses. In order to promote agriculture, Sully urged the abolition of interiorcustoms lines and the free circulation of grain, subsidized stockraising, forbade the destruction of the forests, drained swamps, rebuilt the roads and bridges, and planned a vast system of canals. On his side, Henry IV was contributing to the wealth of the middleclass. It was he who introduced silkworms and the mulberry trees, onwhich they feed, thereby giving an impetus to the industry which is nowone of the most important in France. The beginnings of the industrialimportance of Paris, Lyons, and Marseilles date from the reign of HenryIV. The king likewise encouraged commerce. A French merchant marine wasbuilt up by means of royal bounties. A navy was started. Little bylittle the French began to compete for trade on the high seas at firstwith the Dutch, and subsequently with the English. French trading postswere established in India; and Champlain was dispatched to the NewWorld to lay the foundations of a French empire in America. It wasfortunate for France that she had two men like Henry IV and Sully, eachsupplementing the work of the other. The assassination of Henry IV by a crazed fanatic in 1610 threatenedfor a time to nullify the effects of his labors, for supreme powerpassed to his widow, Marie de' Medici, an ambitious but incompetentwoman, who dismissed Sully and undertook to act as regent for her nine-year-old son, Louis XIII. The queen-regent was surrounded by worthlessfavorites and was hated by the Huguenots, who feared her rigidCatholicism, and by the nobles, Catholic and Huguenot alike, who weredetermined to maintain their privileges and power. The hard savings of Henry IV were quickly exhausted, and France oncemore faced a financial crisis. In this emergency the Estates-Generalwas again convened (1614). Since the accession of Louis XI (1461), theFrench monarchs with their absolutist tendencies had endeavored toremove this ancient check upon their authority: they had convoked itonly in times of public confusion or economic necessity. Had theEstates-General really been an effective body in 1614, it might havetaken a position similar to that of the seventeenth-century Parliamentin England and established constitutional government in France, but itsorganization and personnel militated against such heroic action. Thethree estates--clergy, nobles, and commoners (bourgeois)--satseparately in as many chambers; the clergy and nobles would neither taxthemselves nor cooperate with the Third Estate; the commoners, many ofwhom were Huguenots, were disliked by the court, despised by the Firstand Second Estates, and quite out of sympathy with the peasants, thebulk of the French nation. It is not surprising, under thecircumstances, that the session of 1614 lasted but three weeks andended as a farce: the queen-regent locked up the halls and sent therepresentatives home--she needed the room for a dance, she said. It wasnot until the momentous year of 1789--after a lapse of 175 years--thatthe Estates-General again assembled. After the fiasco of 1614, affairs went from bad to worse. Nobles andHuguenots contended between themselves, and both against the courtfavorites. As many as five distinct uprisings occurred. Marie de'Medici was forced to relinquish the government, but Louis XIII, onreaching maturity, gave evidence of little executive ability. The kingwas far more interested in music and hunting than in business of state. No improvement appeared until Cardinal Richelieu assumed the guidanceof affairs of state in 1624. Henceforth, the royal power was exercisednot so much by Louis XIII as by his great minister. [Sidenote: Cardinal Richelieu] Born of a noble family of Poitou, Armand de Richelieu (1585-1642), atthe age of twenty-one had been appointed bishop of the small diocese ofLucon. His eloquence and ability as spokesman for the clergy in thefatuous Estates-General of 1614 attracted the notice of Marie de'Medici, who invited him to court, gave him a seat in the royal council, and secured his nomination as a cardinal of the Roman Church. From 1624until his death in 1642, Richelieu was the most important man inFrance. With undoubted loyalty and imperious will, with the most delicatediplomacy and all the blandishments of subtle court intrigue, sometimeswith sternest and most merciless cruelty, Richelieu maintained hisinfluence over the king and proceeded to destroy the enemies of theFrench crown. [Sidenote: Richelieu's Policies] Richelieu's policies were quite simple: (1) To make the royal powersupreme in France; (2) to make France predominant in Europe. The firstinvolved the removal of checks upon royal authority and the triumph ofabsolutism; the second meant a vigorous foreign policy, leading to thehumiliation of the rival Habsburgs. In both these policies Richelieuwas following the general traditions of the preceding century, essentially those of Henry IV, but to an exaggerated extent and withunparalleled success. Postponing consideration of general Europeanaffairs, let us first see what the great cardinal accomplished inFrance. [Sidenote: Disappearance of Representative Government] First of all, Richelieu disregarded the Estates-General. He wasconvinced of its futility and unhesitatingly declined to consult it. Gradually the idea became current that the Estates-General was an out-worn, medieval institution, totally unfit for modern purposes, and thatofficial business could best--and therefore properly--be conducted, notby the representatives of the chief social classes in the nation, butby personal appointees of the king. Thus the royal council became thesupreme lawmaking and administrative body in the country. Local estates, or parliaments, continued to exist in certain of themost recently acquired provinces of France, such as Brittany, Provence, Burgundy, and Languedoc, but they had little influence except inapportioning taxes: Richelieu tampered with their privileges and vetoedmany of their acts. [Sidenote: The Royal Army] The royal prerogative extended not only to matters of taxation andlegislation, including the right to levy taxes and to make expendituresfor any purpose without public accounting, but it was preserved andenforced by means of a large standing army, which received its pay andits orders exclusively from the crown. To the royal might, as well asto its right, Richelieu contributed. He energetically aided Louis XIIIin organizing and equipping what proved to be the best army in Europe. Two factions in the state aroused the cardinal's ire--one theHuguenots, and the other the nobles--for both threatened the autocracywhich he was bent upon erecting. Both factions suffered defeat andhumiliation at his hands. Richelieu, though a cardinal of the Roman Church, was more politicianand statesman than ecclesiastic; though living in an age of religiousfanaticism, he was by no means a bigot. As we shall presently see, thisCatholic cardinal actually gave military support to Protestants inGermany--for political purposes; it was similarly for politicalpurposes that he attacked the Protestants in France. As has already been pointed out, French Protestantism meant aninfluential political party as well as a religion. Since Henry IV hadissued the Edict of Nantes, the Huguenots had had their own assemblies, officers, judges, and even certain fortified towns, all of whichinterfered with the sovereign authority and impaired that uniformitywhich thoughtful royalists believed to be the very cornerstone ofabsolutism. Richelieu had no desire to deprive the Huguenots ofreligious freedom, but he was resolved that in political matters theyshould obey the king. Consequently, when they revolted in 1625, hedetermined to crush them. In spite of the considerable aid whichEngland endeavored to give them, the Huguenots were entirely subdued. Richelieu's long siege of La Rochelle, lasting nearly fifteen months, showed his forceful resolution. When the whole country had submitted, the Edict of Alais was published (1629), leaving to the Protestantsfreedom of conscience and of worship but depriving them of theirfortifications and forbidding them to hold assemblies. Public officewas still open to them and their representatives kept their judicialposts. "The honest Huguenot retained all that he would have beenwilling to protect with his life, while the factious and turbulentHuguenot was deprived of the means of embarrassing the government. " The repression of the nobles was a similar statesmanlike achievement, and one made in the face of redoubtable opposition. It had long beencustomary to name noblemen as governors of the various provinces, butthe governors had gradually become masters instead of administrators:they commanded detachments of the army; they claimed allegiance of thegarrisons in their towns; they repeatedly and openly defied the royalwill. The country, moreover, was sprinkled with noblemen's castles or_chateaux_, protected by fortifications and armed retainers, standing menaces to the prompt execution of the king's orders. Finally, the noblemen at court, jealous of the cardinal's advancement andspurred on by the intrigues of the disaffected Marie de' Medici or ofthe king's own brother, hampered the minister at every turn. Of suchintolerable conditions, Richelieu determined to be quit. Into the ranks of noble courtiers, Richelieu struck terror. By means ofspies and trickery, he ferreted out conspiracies and arbitrarily puttheir leaders to death. Every attempt at rebellion was mercilesslypunished, no matter how exalted in rank the rebel might be. Richelieuwas never moved by entreaties or threats--he was as inexorable as fateitself. [Sidenote: Demolition of Private Fortifications ] The cardinal did not confine his attention to noblemen at court. Asearly as 1626 he published an edict ordering the immediate demolitionof all fortified castles not needed for defense against foreigninvasion. In carrying this edict into force, Richelieu found warmsupporters in peasantry and townsfolk who had long suffered from theexactions and depredations of their noble but warlike neighbors. Theruins of many a _chateau_ throughout modern France bear eloquentwitness to the cardinal's activity. [Sidenote: Centralization of Administration][Sidenote: The Intendants] Another enduring monument to Richelieu was the centralization of Frenchadministration. The great minister was tired of the proud, independentbearing of the noble governors. Without getting rid of them altogether, he checked these proud officials by transferring most of their powersto a new kind of royal officer, the intendant. Appointed by the crownusually from among the intelligent, loyal middle class, each intendanthad charge of a certain district, supervising therein the assessmentand collection of royal taxes, the organization of local police ormilitia, the enforcement of order, and the conduct of courts. Theseintendants, with their wide powers of taxation, police, and justice, were later dubbed, from their approximate number, the "thirty tyrants"of France. But they owed their positions solely to the favor of thecrown; they were drawn from a class whose economic interests were longand well served by the royal power; and their loyalty to the king, therefore, could be depended upon. The intendants constantly madereports to, and received orders from, the central government at Paris. They were so many eyes, all over the kingdom, for an ever-watchfulRichelieu. And in measure as the power of the _bourgeois_intendants increased, that of the noble governors diminished, until, bythe eighteenth century, the offices of the latter had become largelyhonorary though still richly remunerative. To keep the nobles amusedand in money, and thereby out of mischief and politics, became, fromRichelieu's time, a maxim of the royal policy in France. [Side Note: Richelieu's Significance] Such, in brief, was the work of this grim figure that moved across thestage at a critical period in French history. Richelieu, more than anyother man, was responsible for the assurance of absolutism in hiscountry at the very time when England, by means of revolution andbloodshed, was establishing parliamentary government; and, as we shallsoon see, his foreign policy covered France with European glory andprestige. In person, Richelieu was frail and sickly, yet when clothed in hiscardinal's red robes he appeared distinguished and commanding. Hispale, drawn face displayed a firm determination and an inflexible will. Unscrupulous, exacting, and without pity, he preserved to the end aproud faith in his moral strength and in his loyalty to country and toking. Richelieu died in 1642, and the very next year the monarch whom he hadserved so gloriously followed him to the grave, leaving the crown to aboy of five years--Louis XIV. [Side Note: Minority of Louis XIV][Sidenote: Cardinal Mazarin] The minority of Louis XIV might have been disastrous to France and tothe royal power, had not the strong policies of Richelieu beenexemplified and enforced by another remarkable minister and cardinal, Mazarin. Mazarin (1602-1661) was an Italian, born near Naples, educatedfor an ecclesiastical career at Rome and in Spain. In the discharge ofseveral delicate diplomatic missions for the pope, he had acted asnuncio at Paris, where he so ingratiated himself in Richelieu's favorthat he was invited to enter the service of the king of France, and in1639 he became a naturalized Frenchman. Despite his foreign birth and the fact that he never spoke Frenchwithout a bad accent, he rose rapidly in public service. He was namedcardinal and was recognized as Richelieu's disciple and imitator. Fromthe death of the greater cardinal in 1642 to his own death in 1661, Mazarin actually governed France. [Sidenote: Unrest of the Nobles] Against the Habsburgs, Mazarin continued the great war which Richelieuhad begun and brought it to a successful conclusion. In domesticaffairs, he encountered greater troubles. The nobles had naturallytaken umbrage at the vigorous policies of Richelieu, from which Mazarinseemed to have no thought of departing. They were strengthened, moreover, by a good deal of popular dislike of Mazarin's foreign birth, his avarice, his unscrupulous plundering of the revenues of the realmfor the benefit of his own family, and his tricky double-dealing ways. [Sidenote: The Fronde] The result was the Fronde, [Footnote: Probably so called from the nameof a street game played by Parisian children and often stopped bypolicemen. ] the last attempt prior to the French Revolution to cast offroyal absolutism in France. It was a vague popular protest coupled witha selfish reaction on the part of the influential nobles: the pretextwas Mazarin's interference with the parlement of Paris. [Sidenote: The Parlements] The parlements were judicial bodies [Footnote: There were thirteen inthe seventeenth century. ] which tried important cases and heard appealsfrom lower courts. That of Paris, being the most eminent, had, incourse of time, secured to itself the right of registering royaldecrees--that is, of receiving the king's edicts in formal fashion andentering them upon the statute books so that the law of the land mightbe known generally. From making such a claim, it was only a step forthe parlement of Paris to refuse to register certain new edicts on theground that the king was not well informed or that they were inconflict with older and more binding enactments. If these claims weresubstantiated, the royal will would be subjected to revision by theparlement of Paris. To prevent their substantiation, both Louis XIIIand Louis XIV held "beds of justice"--that is, appeared in personbefore the parlement, and from their seat of cushions and pillowsdeclared their will regarding the new edict and directed that it bepromulgated. There were amusing scenes when the boy-king, at thedirection of Mazarin, gave orders in his shrill treble to the learnedlawyers and grave old judges. Egged on by seeming popular sympathy and no doubt by thecontemporaneous political revolution in England, the parlement of Parisat length defied the prime minister. It proclaimed its immunity fromroyal control; declared the illegality of any public tax which it hadnot freely and expressly authorized; ordered the abolition of theoffice of intendant; and protested against arbitrary arrest orimprisonment. To these demands, the people of Paris gave support--barricades were erected in the streets, and Mazarin, whose loyal armywas still fighting in the Germanies, was obliged temporarily torecognize the new order. Within six months, however, sufficient troopshad been collected to enable him to overawe Paris and to annul hisconcessions. [Sidenote: Suppression of the Fronde][Sidenote: Triumph of Absolutism in France] Subsequent uprisings, engineered by prominent noblemen, were often morehumorous than harmful. To be sure, no less a commander than the greatConde, one of the chief heroes of the Thirty Years' War, took armsagainst the Cardinalists, as Mazarin's party was called, but so slightwas the aid which he received from the French people that he wasspeedily driven from his country and joined the Spanish army. Theupshot of the Fronde was (1) the nobility were more discredited thanever; (2) the parlement was forbidden to devote attention to politicalor financial affairs; (3) Paris was disarmed and lost the right ofelecting its own municipal officers; (4) the royal authority was evenstronger than under Richelieu because an unsuccessful attempt had beenmade to weaken it. Henry IV, Richelieu, and Mazarin had made straightthe way for the despotism of Louis XIV. STRUGGLE BETWEEN BOURBONS AND HABSBURGS THE THIRTY YEARS' WAR [Sidenote: Dynastic Character of Wars in the Seventeenth Century. ] Every European country, except England, was marked in the seventeenthcentury by a continued growth of monarchical power. The kings werebusily engaged in strengthening their hold upon their respective statesand in reaching out for additional lands and wealth. Internationalwars, therefore, assumed the character of struggles for dynasticaggrandizement. How might this or that royal family obtain widerterritories and richer towns? There was certainly sufficient nationallife in western Europe to make the common people proud of theirnationality; hence the kings could normally count upon popular support. But wars were undertaken upon the continent of Europe in theseventeenth century not primarily for national or patriotic motives, but for the exaltation of a particular royal family. Citizens of borderprovinces were treated like so many cattle or so much soil that mightbe conveniently bartered among the kings of France, Spain, or Sweden. [Sidenote: Habsburg Dominions in 1600. ] This idea had been quite evident in the increase of the Habsburg powerduring the sixteenth century. In an earlier chapter we have noticed howthat family had acquired one district after another until theirproperty included: (1) Under the Spanish branch--Spain, the TwoSicilies, Milan, Franche Comte, the Belgian Netherlands, Portugal, anda huge colonial empire; (2) Under the Austrian branch--Austria and itsdependencies, Hungary, Bohemia, and the title of Holy Roman Emperor. Despite the herculean labors of Philip II, France remained outsideHabsburg influence, a big gap in what would otherwise have been aseries of connected territories. [Sidenote: Ambition of the Bourbons. ] In measure as the French kings--the Bourbons--strengthened theirposition in their own country, they looked abroad not merely to wardoff foreign attacks but to add land at their neighbors' expense. Richelieu understood that his two policies went hand in glove--to makethe Bourbons predominant in Europe was but a corollary to making theroyal power supreme in France. [Sidenote: The Thirty Years' War. ] The chief warfare of the seventeenth century centers, therefore, in thelong, terrible conflict between the Habsburgs and the Bourbons. Of thisstruggle, the so-called Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) may be treated asthe first stage. Let us endeavor to obtain a clear idea of theinterests involved. When Richelieu became the chief minister of Louis XIII (1624), hefound the Habsburgs in serious trouble and he resolved to takeadvantage of the situation to enhance the prestige of the Bourbons. TheAustrian Habsburgs were facing a vast civil and religious war in theGermanies, and the Spanish Habsburgs were dispatching aid to theirhard-pressed kinsmen. The war, which proved momentous both to the Habsburgs and to theirenemies, resulted from a variety of reasons--religious, economic, andpolitical. [Sidenote: The Thirty Years' War: Ecclesiastical Causes] The peace of Augsburg (1555) had been expected to settle the religiousquestion in the Germanies. But in practice it had failed to fix twoimportant matters. In the first place, the provision forbidding furthersecularization of church property ("Ecclesiastical Reservation") wasnot carried out, nor could it be while human nature and humantemptation remained. Every Catholic ecclesiastic who became Protestantwould naturally endeavor to take his church lands with him. Then, inthe second place, the peace had recognized only Catholics andLutherans: meanwhile the Calvinists had increased their numbers, especially in southern and central Germany and in Bohemia, and demandedequal rights. In order to extort concessions from the emperor, a unionof Protestant princes was formed, containing among its members thezealous young Calvinist prince of the Palatinate, Frederick, commonlycalled the Elector Palatine of the Rhine. The Catholics were in anequally belligerent frame of mind. Not only were they determined toprevent further secularization of church property, but, emboldened bythe progress of the Catholic Reformation in the Germanies during thesecond half of the sixteenth century, they were now anxious to revisethe earlier religious settlement in their own interest and to regain, if possible, the lands that had been lost by the Church to theProtestants. The Catholics relied for political and military supportupon the Catholic Habsburg emperor and upon Maximilian, duke of Bavariaand head of the Catholic League of Princes. Religiously, the enemies ofthe Habsburgs were the German Protestants. [Sidenote: The Thirty Years' War: Political Causes] But a hardly less important cause of the Thirty Years' War lay in thepolitics of the Holy Roman Empire. The German princes had greatlyincreased their territories and their wealth during the ProtestantRevolution. They aspired, each and all, to complete sovereignty. Theywould rid themselves of the outworn bonds of a medieval empire andassume their proper place among the independent and autocratic rulersof Europe. On his side, the emperor was insistent upon strengtheninghis position and securing a united powerful Germany under his personalcontrol. Politically, the enemies of the Habsburgs were the Germanprinces. With the princes was almost invariably allied any European monarch whohad anything to gain from dividing Germany or weakening Habsburginfluence. In case of a civil war, the Habsburgs might reasonablyexpect to find enemies in Denmark, Sweden, and France. [Sidenote: Four Periods in the Thirty Years' War] The war naturally divides itself into four periods: (1) The BohemianRevolt; (2) The Danish Period; (3) The Swedish Period; (4) The Frenchor International Period. [Sidenote: 1. The Bohemian Revolt] The signal for the outbreak of hostilities in the Germanics was givenby a rebellion in Bohemia against the Habsburgs. Following the death ofRudolph II (1576-1612), a narrow-minded, art-loving, and unbalancedrecluse, his childless brother Matthias (1612-1619) had desired tosecure the succession of a cousin, Ferdinand II (1619-1637), who, although a man of blameless life and resolute character, was known tobe devoted to the cause of absolutism and fanatically loyal to theCatholic Church. Little opposition to this settlement was encounteredin the various Habsburg Bohemian dominions, except in Bohemia. In thatcountry, however, the nobles, many of whom were Calvinists, dreaded theprospective accession of Ferdinand, who would be likely to deprive themof their special privileges and to impede, if not to forbid, theexercise of the Protestant religion in their territories. Already therehad been encroachments on their religious liberty. One day in 1618, a group of Bohemian noblemen broke into the room wherethe imperial envoys were stopping and hurled them out of a window intoa castle moat some sixty feet below. This so-called "defenestration" ofFerdinand's representatives was followed by the proclamation of thedethronement of the Habsburgs in Bohemia and the election to thekingship of Frederick, the Calvinistic Elector Palatine. Frederick wascrowned at Prague and prepared to defend his new lands. Ferdinand II, raising a large army in his other possessions, and receiving assistancefrom Maximilian of Bavaria and the Catholic League as well as fromTuscany and the Spanish Habsburgs, intrusted the allied forces to anable veteran general, Count Tilly (1559-1632). King Frederick hadexpected support from his father-in-law, James I of England, and fromthe Lutheran princes of northern Germany, but in both respects he wasdisappointed. What with parliamentary quarrels at home and a curiouslymistaken foreign policy of a Spanish alliance, James confined hisassistance to pompous advice and long words. Then, too, most of theLutheran princes, led by the tactful John George, elector of Saxony, hoped by remaining neutral to obtain special concessions from theemperor. Within a very brief period, Tilly subdued Bohemia, drove out Frederick, and reestablished the Habsburg power. Many rebellious nobles lost theirproperty and lives, and the practice of the Protestant religion wasagain forbidden in Bohemia. Nor was that all. The victoriousimperialists drove the fugitive Frederick, now derisively dubbed the"winter king, " out of his original wealthy possessions on the Rhine, into miserable exile, an outcast without land or money. The conqueredPalatinate was turned over to Maximilian of Bavaria, who was furtherrewarded for his services by being recognized as an elector of the HolyRoman Empire in place of the deposed Frederick. The first period of the war was thus favorable to the Habsburg andCatholic causes. Between 1618 and 1620, revolt had been suppressed inBohemia and an influential Rhenish electorate had been transferred fromCalvinist to Catholic hands. Now, however, the northern Protestant princes took alarm. If they hadviewed with composure the failure of Frederick's foolhardy efforts inBohemia, they beheld with downright dismay the expansion of Bavaria andthe destruction of a balance of power long maintained between Catholicand Protestant Germany. And so long as the ill-disciplined remnants ofFrederick's armies were behaving like highwaymen, pillaging and burningthroughout the Germanics, the emperor declined to consider the grant ofany concessions. [Sidenote: 2. Danish Intervention. Christian IV] At this critical juncture, while the Protestant princes were waveringbetween obedience and rebellion, Christian IV of Denmark intervened andprecipitated the second period of the war. Christian IV (1588-1648) wasimpulsive and ambitious: as duke of Holstein he was a member of theHoly Roman Empire and opposed to Habsburg domination; as king ofDenmark and Norway he was anxious to extend his influence over theNorth Sea ports; and as a Lutheran, he sought to champion the rights ofhis German co-religionists and to help them retain the rich lands whichthey had appropriated from the Catholic Church. In 1625, therefore, Christian invaded Germany, supported by liberal grants of money fromEngland and by the troops of many of the German princes, both Calvinistand Lutheran. [Sidenote: Wallenstein] Against the Danish invasion, Tilly unaided might have had difficulty tostand, but fortune seemed to have raised up a codefender of theimperialist cause in the person of an extraordinary adventurer, Wallenstein. This man had enriched himself enormously out of therecently confiscated estates of rebellious Bohemians, and now, in orderto benefit himself still further, he secured permission from theEmperor Ferdinand II to raise an independent army of his own to restoreorder in the empire and to expel the Danes. By liberal promises of payand plunder, the soldier of fortune soon recruited an army of some50, 000 men, and what a motley collection it was! Italian, Swiss, Spaniard, German, Pole, Englishman, and Scot, --Protestant was welcomedas heartily as Catholic, --any one who loved adventure or hoped forgain, all united by the single tie of loyalty and devotion toWallenstein. The force was whipped into shape by the undoubted geniusof its commander and at once became an effective machine of war. Yetthe perpetual plundering of the land, on which it lived, was a constantsource of reproach to the army of Wallenstein. The campaigning of the second period of the war took place in NorthGermany. At Lutter, King Christian IV was defeated overwhelmingly bythe combined forces of Tilly and Wallenstein, and the Lutheran stateswere left at the mercy of the Catholic League. Brandenburg openlyespoused the imperialist cause and aided Ferdinand's generals inexpelling the Danish king from German soil. Only the lack of navalcontrol of the Baltic and North seas prevented the victors from seizingDenmark. The desperation of Christian and the growingly suspiciousactivity of Sweden resulted in the peace of Lubeck (1629), by which theking of Denmark was left in possession of Jutland, Schleswig, andHolstein, but deprived of the German bishoprics which various membersof his family had taken from the Catholic Church. Following up its successes, the Catholic League prevailed upon theEmperor Ferdinand II in the same year (1629) to sign the Edict ofRestitution, restoring to the Church all the property that had beensecularized in violation of the peace of Augsburg of 1555. The edictwas to be executed by imperial commissioners, all of whom wereCatholics, and so well did they do their work that, within three yearsof the promulgation of the edict, Roman Catholicism in the Germanieshad recovered five bishoprics, thirty Hanse towns, and nearly a hundredmonasteries, to say nothing of parish churches of which the number canhardly be estimated. So far, the religious and economic grievances against the Habsburgs hadbeen confined mainly to Calvinists, but now the Lutheran princes werealarmed. The enforcement of the Edict of Restitution against allProtestants alike was the signal for an emphatic protest from Lutheransas well as from Calvinists. A favorable opportunity for interventionseemed to present itself to the foremost Lutheran power--Sweden. Notonly were many Protestant princes in Germany in a mood to welcomeforeign assistance against the Catholics, but the emperor was less ableto resist invasion, since in 1630, yielding to the urgent entreaties ofthe Catholic League, he dismissed the plundering and ambitiousWallenstein from his service. The king of Sweden at this time was Gustavus Adolphus (1611-1632), thegrandson of that Gustavus Vasa who had established both theindependence and the Lutheranism of his country. Gustavus Adolphus wasone of the most attractive figures of his age--in the prime of life, tall, fair, and blue-eyed, well educated and versed in seven languages, fond of music and poetry, skilled and daring in war, impetuous, wellbalanced, and versatile. A rare combination of the idealist and thepractical man of affairs, Gustavus Adolphus had dreamed of makingProtestant Sweden the leading power in northern Europe and hadvigorously set to work to achieve his ends. His determination toencircle the whole Baltic with his own territories--making it literallya Swedish lake--brought him first into conflict with Muscovy, or, as wecall it today, Russia. Finland and Esthonia were occupied, and Russiaagreed in 1617 to exclusion from the Baltic sea coast. Next a stubbornconflict with Poland (1621-1629) secured for Sweden the province ofLivonia and the mouth of the Vistula River. Gustavus then turned hislonging eyes to the Baltic coast of northern Germany, at the very timewhen the Edict of Restitution promised him aggrieved allies in thatquarter. [Sidenote: 3. Swedish Intervention: Gustavus Adolphus] It was likewise at the very time when Cardinal Richelieu had crushedout all insurrection, whether Huguenot or noble, in France and wasseeking some effective means of prolonging the war in the Germanies tothe end that the rival Habsburgs might be irretrievably weakened andhumiliated. He entered into definite alliance with Gustavus Adolphusand provided him arms and money, for the time asking only that theProtestant champion accord the liberty of Catholic worship in conquereddistricts. [Sidenote: French Aid] Gustavus Adolphus landed in Pomerania in 1630 and proceeded to occupythe chief northern fortresses and to treat for alliances with theinfluential Protestant electors of Brandenburg and Saxony. WhileGustavus tarried at Potsdam, in protracted negotiation with the electorof Brandenburg, Tilly and the imperialists succeeded, after a longsiege, in capturing the Lutheran stronghold of Magdeburg (May, 1631). The fall of the city was attended by a mad massacre of the garrison, and of armed and unarmed citizens, in streets, houses, and churches; atleast 20, 000 perished; wholesale plundering and a general conflagrationcompleted the havoc. The sack of Magdeburg evoked the greatestindignation from the Lutherans. Gustavus Adolphus, now joined by theelectors of Brandenburg and Saxony and by many other Protestant princesof northern Germany, advanced into Saxony, where, in September, 1631, he avenged the destruction of Magdeburg by defeating decisively thesmaller army of Tilly on the Breitenfeld, near Leipzig. Then Gustavusturned southwestward, making for the Rhine valley, with the idea offorming a union with the Calvinist princes. Only the prompt protest ofhis powerful ally, Richelieu, prevented the rich archbishoprics ofCologne, Trier, and Mainz from passing immediately under Swedishcontrol. Next Gustavus Adolphus turned east and invaded Bavaria. Tilly, who had reassembled his forces, failed to check the invasion and losthis life in a battle on the Lech (April, 1632). The victorious Swedishking now made ready to carry the war into the hereditary dominions ofthe Austrian Habsburgs. As a last resort to check the invader, theemperor recalled Wallenstein with full power over his freelance army. About the same time the emperor concluded a close alliance with hiskinsman, the ambitious Philip IV of Spain. The memorable contest between the two great generals--Gustavus Adolphusand Wallenstein--was brought to a tragic close in the late autumn ofthe same year on the fateful field of Luetzen. Wallenstein was defeated, but Gustavus was killed. Although the Swedes continued the struggle, they were comparatively few in numbers and possessed no such general astheir fallen king. On the other side, Wallenstein's loyalty could notbe depended upon; rumors reached the ear of the emperor that hisforemost general was negotiating with the Protestants to make peace onhis own terms; and Wallenstein was assassinated in his camp byfanatical imperialists (February, 1634). The tragic removal of bothWallenstein and Gustavus Adolphus, the economic exhaustion of the wholeempire, and the national desire on the part of many Protestant princes, as well as on the part of the Catholic emperor, to rid the Germanies offoreign soldiers and foreign influence--all these developments seemedto point to the possibility of concluding the third, or Swedish, periodof the war, not perhaps as advantageously for the imperialist cause ashad ended the Bohemian revolt or the Danish intervention, but at anyrate in a spirit of reasonable compromise. In fact, in May, 1635, atreaty was signed at Prague between the emperor and such princes aswere then willing to lay down their arms, whereby all the militaryforces in the empire were henceforth to be under the direct control ofthe emperor (with the exception of a contingent under the specialcommand of the Lutheran elector of Saxony); all princely leagues withinthe empire were to be dissolved; mutual restoration of capturedterritory was to be made; and, as to the fundamental question of theownership of ecclesiastical lands, it was settled that any such landsactually held in the year 1627, whether acquired before or after thereligious peace of Augsburg of 1555, should continue so to be held forforty years or until in each case an amicable arrangement could bereached. What wrecked the peace of Prague was not so much the disinclination ofthe Protestant princes of Germany to accept its terms as the policy ofCardinal Richelieu of France. Richelieu was convinced more than everthat French greatness depended upon Habsburg defeat; he would notsuffer the princes to make peace with the emperor until the latter wassoundly trounced and all Germany devastated; instead of supplying theSwedes and the German Protestants with assistance from behind thescenes, he now would come boldly upon the stage and engage the emperorin open combat. [Sidenote: 4. French Intervention. Richelieu's Policy in the Germanies] The final, or French, period of the Thirty Years' War lasted from 1635to 1648--almost as long as the other three periods put together. Richelieu entered the war not only to humble the Austrian Habsburgsand, if possible, to wrest the valuable Rhenish province of Alsace fromthe Holy Roman Empire, but also to strike telling blows at theContinental supremacy of the Spanish Habsburgs, who, since 1632, hadbeen actively helping their German kinsmen. The Spanish king, it willbe remembered, still held the Belgian Netherlands, on the northernfrontier of France, and Franche Comte on the east, while oft-contestedMilan in northern Italy was a Spanish dependency. France was almostsurrounded by Spanish possessions, and Richelieu naturally declared waragainst Spain as against the emperor. The wily French cardinal couldcount upon the Swedes and many of the German Protestants to keep theAustrian Habsburgs busily engaged and upon the assistance of the Dutchin humbling the Spaniard, for Spain had not yet formally recognized theindependence of the Dutch Netherlands. Inasmuch as England was chieflyconcerned with troublesome internal affairs, the enemies of Francecould hardly expect aid from across the Channel. [Sidenote: Conde and Turenne] At first, the French suffered a series of military reverses, due inlarge part to unpreparedness, incompetent commanders, and ill-disciplined troops. At one time it looked as if the Spaniards mightcapture Paris. But with unflagging zeal and patriotic devotion, Richelieu pressed on the war. He raised armies, drilled them, anddispatched them into the Netherlands, into Alsace, into Franche Comte, into northern Italy, and into Roussillon. He stirred up the Portugueseto revolt and recover their independence (1640). And Mazarin, whosucceeded him in 1642, preserved his foreign policy intact. Young andbrilliant generals now appeared at the head of the French forces, amongwhom were the dashing Prince of Conde (1621-1686), and the masterstrategist Turenne (1611-1675), the greatest soldier of his day. Theformer's victory of Rocroi (1643) dated the commencement of thesupremacy of France in war, a supremacy which was retained for acentury. [Sidenote: Peace of Westphalia (1648)] Finally, Turenne's masterly maneuvering against the Spaniards and hisforcible detachment of Maximilian of Bavaria from the imperial alliancebroke down effective opposition and ended the Thirty Years' War in theGermanies. The various treaties which were signed in 1648 constitutedthe peace of Westphalia. The political clauses of the peace of Westphalia provided: (1) EachGerman state was free to make peace or war without consulting theemperor--each prince was invested with sovereign authority; (2) Francereceived Alsace, except the free city of Strassburg, and was confirmedin the possession of the bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun; (3)Sweden was given territory in Pomerania controlling the mouth of theOder, and the secularized bishopric of Bremen, surrounding the city ofthat name and dominating the mouths of the Elbe and the Weser; (4)France and Sweden received votes in the Diet of the Holy Roman Empire, with implied rights to exercise an oversight of German affairs; (5)Brandenburg secured eastern Pomerania and several bishoprics, includingMagdeburg; (6) The Palatinate was divided between Maximilian of Bavariaand the son of the deposed Frederick--each bearing the title ofelector; (7) Switzerland and the United Provinces (Holland) wereformally recognized as independent of the empire and of Spainrespectively. The religious difficulties were settled as follows: (1) Calvinists wereto share all the privileges of their Lutheran fellow-Protestants; (2)All church property was to be secured in the possession of those, whether Catholics or Protestants, who held it on 1 January, 1624; (3)An equal number of Catholic and Protestant judges were to sit in theimperial courts. Inasmuch as after 1648 there was little relativechange of religion in Germany, this religious settlement waspractically permanent. [Sidenote: Evil Effects of the Thirty Years' War on Germany] One of the most striking results of the peace of Westphalia was thecompletion of a long process of political disruption in the Germanies. Only the form of the Holy Roman Empire survived. The already shadowyimperial power became a mere phantom, nor was a change destined to comeuntil, centuries later, the Prussian Hohenzollerns should replace theAustrian Habsburgs. Meanwhile the weakness of Germany enabled France toextend her northern boundaries toward the Rhine. Far more serious than her political losses were the economic results toGermany. The Thirty Years' War left Germany almost a desert. "Abouttwo-thirds of the total population had disappeared; the misery of thosethat survived was piteous in the extreme. Five-sixths of the villagesin the empire had been destroyed. We read of one in the Palatinate thatin two years had been plundered twenty-eight times. In Saxony, packs ofwolves roamed about, for in the north quite one-third of the land hadgone out of cultivation, and trade had drifted into the hands of theFrench or Dutch. Education had almost disappeared; and the moraldecline of the people was seen in the coarsening of manners and thegrowth of superstition, as witnessed by frequent burning of witches. " [Sidenote: Continuation of War between French Bourbons and SpanishHapsburgs. Peace of the Pyrenees 1659] The peace of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years' War in the Germanies, but it did not stop the bitter contest between France and Spain. Mazarin was determined to secure even greater territorial gains for hiscountry, and, although Conde deserted to Spain, Turenne was more than amatch for any commander whom the Spaniards could put in the field. Mazarin, moreover, by ceding the fortress of Dunkirk to the English, obtained aid from the veteran troops of Cromwell. It was not until 1659that, in the celebrated treaty of the Pyrenees, peace was concludedbetween France and Spain. This provided: (1) France added the provinceof Roussillon on her southern frontier and that of Artois on the north;(2) France was recognized as protector of the duchy of Lorraine; (3)Conde was pardoned and reinstated in French service; (4) Maria Theresa, eldest daughter of the Spanish Habsburg king, Philip IV, was to marrythe young French Bourbon king, Louis XIV, and, in consideration of thepayment of a large dowry, was to renounce all claims to the Spanishdominions. The treaty of the Pyrenees was the last important achievement ofCardinal Mazarin. But before he died in 1661 he had the satisfaction ofseeing the triumph of those policies which he had adopted fromRichelieu: the royal power firmly established within France; theHabsburgs, whether Austrian or Spanish, defeated and humiliated; theBourbon king of France respected and feared throughout Europe. [Sidenote: Development of International Law][Sidenote: In Italy] Not least among the results of the conflict between Habsburgs andBourbons was the stimulus given to the acceptance of fixed principlesof international law and of definite usages for internationaldiplomacy. In ancient times the existence of the all-embracing RomanEmpire had militated against the development of international relationsas we know them to-day. In the early middle ages feudal society hadleft little room for diplomacy. Of course, both in ancient times and inthe middle ages, there had been embassies and negotiations andtreaties; but the embassies had been no more than temporary missionsdirected to a particular end, and there had been neither permanentdiplomatic agents nor a professional diplomatic class. To thedevelopment of such a class the Italy of the fifteenth century hadgiven the first impetus. Northern and central Italy was then filled, aswe have discovered, with a large number of city-states, all strugglingfor political and economic mastery, all dependent for the maintenanceof a "balance of power" upon alliances and counter alliances, allemploying diplomacy quite as much as war in the game of peninsularpolitics. It was in Italy that there grew up the institution ofpassports, the distinction between armed forces and civilians, international comity, and in fact the very notion that states have aninterest in the observance of law and order among themselves. Ofspecial importance, in this connection, was Venice, which graduallyevolved a regular system of permanent diplomats, and incidentallyobliged her ambassadors to present detailed reports on foreign affairs;and, because of their commercial preeminence in the Mediterranean, theVenetians contributed a good deal to the development of rules of thesea first in time of peace, and subsequently in time of war. [Sidenote: In Europe in Sixteenth Century] During the sixteenth century the Italian ideas of statecraft and inter-state relations, ably championed by Machiavelli, were communicated tothe nations of western Europe. Permanent embassies were established inforeign countries by the kings of Spain, Portugal, France, and England. Customs of international intercourse grew up. Diplomacy became arecognized occupation of distinguished statesmen. [Sidenote: Thirty Years' War and International Law] Two institutions might have thwarted or retarded the development ofinternational law: one was the Catholic Church with its internationalorganization and its claim to universal spiritual supremacy; the otherwas the Holy Roman Empire, with its claim to temporal predominance andwith its insistence upon the essential inequality between itself andall other states. But the Protestant Revolt in the sixteenth centurydealt a severe blow to the claim and power of the Catholic Church. Andthe long struggle between Bourbons and Habsburgs, culminating in theThirty Years' War, reduced the Holy Roman Empire to a position, intheory as well as in fact, certainly no higher than that of thenational monarchies of France, England, and Spain, or that of the DutchRepublic. From the treaties of Westphalia emerged a real state-system in Europe, based on the theory of the essential equality of independent sovereignstates, though admitting of the fact that there were Great Powers. Henceforth the public law of Europe was to be made by diplomats and bycongresses of ambassadors. Westphalia pointed the new path. Another aspect of international relations was emphasized in the firsthalf of the seventeenth century. It was the Thirty Years' War, with itsrevolting cruelty, which brought out the contrast between the morehumane practice of war as an art in Italy and the savagery whichdisgraced the Germanies. The brutality of the struggle turned thinkers'attention to the need of formulating rules for the protection of non-combatants in time of war, the treatment of the sick and wounded, theprohibition of wanton pillage and other horrors which shocked theawakening conscience of seventeenth-century Europe. It was thestarting-point of the publication of treatises on international law. [Sidenote: Grotius] The first effective work, the one which was destined long to influencesovereigns and diplomats, was Grotius's _On the Law of War andPeace_. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) [Footnote: Known in his nativecountry as Huig van Groot. The last years of his life he spent asambassador of Sweden at the French court. ] was a learned Dutchhumanist, whose active participation in politics against the stadholderof the Netherlands and whose strong protests for religious tolerationagainst the dominant orthodox Calvinists of his country combined tobring upon himself a sentence of life imprisonment. Immured in a Dutchfortress in 1619, he managed to escape and fled to Paris, where heprepared and in 1625 published his immortal work. _On the Law of Warand Peace_ is an exhaustive and masterly text-book--the first andone of the best of the systematic treatises on the fundamentalprinciples of international law. ADDITIONAL READING HENRY IV, RICHELIEU, AND MAZARIN. Brief general accounts: H. O. Wakeman, _The Ascendancy of France, 1598-1715_ (1894), ch. I-vii; MaryA. Hollings, _Renaissance and Reformation, 1453-1660_ (1910), ch. Xi, xii; J. H. Sacret, _Bourbon and Vasa, 1610-1715_ (1914), ch. I-vii; A. J. Grant, _The French Monarchy, 1483-1789_, Vol. I (1900), ch. Vi-ix;G. W. Kitchin, _A History of France_, 3d and 4th editions (1894-1899), Vol. II, Book IV, ch. I-iii, Vol. III, Book IV, ch. Iv-viii; H. T. Dyer, _A History of Modern Europe from the Fall of Constantinople_, 3ded. Rev. By Arthur Hassall (1901), ch. Xxix-xxxv; Victor Duruy, _History of Modern Times_, trans. And rev. By E. A. Grosvenor (1894), ch. Xvii, xviii, xx; _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. II, ch. Xx (byStanley Leathes, on Henry IV), Vol. IV, ch. Iv (on Richelieu), xxi (onMazarin); _Histoire generale_, Vol. V, ch. Vi-viii, Vol. VI, ch. I. More detailed works: _Histoire de France_, ed. By Ernest Lavisse, Vol. VI, Part I (1904), Livre IV (on Henry IV), Vol. VI, Part II (1905), Livres I-III (on Henry IV and Richelieu, by J. H. Mariejol), Vol. VII, Part I (1906), Livre I (on Mazarin, by E. Lavisse); P. F. Willert, _Henry of Navarre_ (1897), in "Heroes of the Nations" Series; C. C. Jackson, _The First of the Bourbons_, 2 vols. (1890); J. B. Perkins, _Richelieu and the Growth of French Power_ (1900), in the "Heroes ofthe Nations" Series, and, by the same author, an admirable writer andauthority on the whole period, _France under Mazarin_, 2 vols. (1886);Georges (Vicomte) d'Avenel, _Richelieu et la monarchie absolue_, 4vols. (1884-1890), the foremost French work on the subject; GabrielHanotaux, _Origines de l'institution des intendants de provinces_(1884), a careful study of the beginnings of the office of intendant bya famous French statesman and historian; P. A. Cheruel, _Histoire deFrance pendant la minorite de Louis XIV_, 4 vols. (1879-1880), and, bythe same author, _Histoire de France sous le ministere de Mazarin, 1651-1661_, 3 vols. (1882), a very elaborate treatment of Mazarin'spublic career in France; Louis Batiffol, _The Century of theRenaissance in France_, Eng. Trans. By Elsie F. Buckley (1916), containing an excellent chapter on the French monarchy at the close ofthe sixteenth century. THE THIRTY YEARS' WAR. General treatments: E. F. Henderson, _A ShortHistory of Germany_, Vol. I (1902), ch. Xvii, xviii, a good, shortintroduction; S. R. Gardiner, _The Thirty Years' War_ (1897), in the"Epochs of Modern History" Series, the best brief survey; _History ofAll Nations_, Vol. XII, ch. Iv-viii, by Martin Philippson, a well-knownGerman historian; _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. IV (1906), ch. I, iii, v-vii, xiii, xiv, xx, xxii; _Histoire generale_, Vol. V, ch. Xii;Anton Gindely, _The Thirty Years' War_, trans. From the German byAndrew Ten Brook, 2 vols. (1884), a popular treatment by a recognizedauthority in this field, breaking off, unfortunately, in the year 1623;Gustav Droysen, _Das Zeitalter des dreissigjaehrigen Krieges_ (1888) andGeorg Winter, _Geschichte des dreissigjaehrigen Krieges_ (1893), twobulky volumes in the Oncken Series devoted respectively to thepolitical and military aspects of the war; Emile Charveriat, _Histoirede la guerre de trente ans_, 2 vols. (1878), a reliable French accountof the whole struggle. On the history of the Germanies from thereligious peace of Augsburg to the peace of Westphalia there is thepainstaking _Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Gegenreformation unddes dreissigjaehrigen Krieges, 1555-1648_, by Moritz Ritter, 3 vols. (1889-1908). For the history of Austria during the period, see FranzKroncs, _Handbuch der Geschichte Oesterreichs von der aeltesten Zeit_, Vol. III (1877), Books XIV-XV. For the Netherlands, with specialreference to Spain's part in the war: Henri Pirenne, _Histoire deBelgique_, Vol. IV, _1567-1648_ (1911). For Bohemia: Ernest Denis, _Finde l'independance boheme_, Vol. II (1890), and, by the same author, _LaBoheme depuis la Montagne-Blanche_, Vol. I (1903). For Denmark andSweden: R. N. Bain, _Scandinavia, a Political History of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, from 1513 to 1900_ (1905). There is a convenientbiography of _Gustavus Adolphus_ by C. R. L. Fletcher in the "Heroes ofthe Nations" Series (1890), and a more detailed study in German byGustav Droysen, 2 vols. (1869-1870). On Wallenstein there are twostandard German works: Leopold von Ranke, _Geschichte Wallensteins_, 3ded. (1872), and Anton Gindely, _Waldstein_, 1625-1630, 2 vols. (1886). The best brief treatment of European international relations in thetime of Richelieu and Mazarin is Emile Bourgeois, _Manuel historique depolitique etrangere_, 4th ed. , Vol. I (1906), ch. I, ii, vi. For abrief treatment of the development of international law during theperiod, see D. J. Hill, _History of Diplomacy in the InternationalDevelopment of Europe_, Vol. II (1906), ch. Vii. The treaties ofWestphalia are in the famous old compilation of Jean Dumont, _Corpsuniversel diplomatique du droit des gens_, 8 vols. (1726-1731). CHAPTER VII THE GROWTH OF ABSOLUTISM IN FRANCE AND THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN BOURBONSAND HABSBURGS, 1661-1743 THE AGE OF LOUIS XIV Upon the death of Cardinal Mazarin in 1661, the young king Louis XIVdeclared that he would assume personal charge of the domestic andforeign affairs of the French monarchy. From that date, throughout along reign, Louis was in fact as well as in name ruler of the nation, and his rule, like that of Napoleon, stands out as a distinct epoch inFrench history. [Sidenote: Louis XIV the Heir to Absolutist Tendencies] Louis XIV profited by the earlier work of Henry IV, Sully, Richelieu, and Mazarin. He inherited a fairly compact state, the population ofwhich was patriotic and loyal to the crown. Insurrections ofProtestants or rebellions of the nobles were now things of the past. The Estates-General, the ancient form of representative government, hadfallen into disuse and oblivion. Local administration was conducted byfaithful middle-class officials, the intendants; and all powers oftaxation, war, public improvements, police, and justice were centeredin the hands of the king. Abroad, the rival Habsburgs had been humbledand French boundaries had been extended and French prestige heightened. Everything was in readiness for a great king to practice absolutism ona scale never before realized. [Sidenote: Absolutism. Monarchy by Divine Right] The theories of government upon which the absolutism of Louis XIV wasbased received a classic expression in a celebrated book written byBossuet (1627-1704), a learned and upright bishop of the time. Government, according to Bossuet, [Footnote: The statements of thearguments in favor of monarchy by divine right are taken from Bossuet'sfamous book, _La politique tiree des propres paroles de l'EcritureSainte_. ] is divinely ordained in order to enable mankind to satisfythe natural instincts of living together in organized society. UnderGod, monarchy is, of all forms of government, the most usual and themost ancient, and therefore the most natural: it is likewise thestrongest and most efficient, therefore the best. It is analogous tothe rule of a family by the father, and, like that rule, should behereditary. Four qualities are referred by the eloquent bishop to suchan hereditary monarch: (1) That he is sacred is attested by hisanointing at the time of coronation by the priests of the Church--it isaccordingly blasphemy and sacrilege to assail the person of the king orto conspire against him; (2) That he is to provide for the welfare ofhis people and watch over their every activity may be gathered from thefact that he is, in a very real sense, the father of his people, thepaternal king; (3) His power is absolute and autocratic, and for itsexercise he is accountable to God alone--no man on earth may rightfullyresist the royal commands, and the only recourse for subjects againstan evil king is to pray God that his heart be changed; (4) Greaterreason is given to a king than to any one else--the king is an earthlyimage of God's majesty, and it is wrong, therefore, to look upon him asa mere man. The king is a public person and in him the whole nation isembodied. "As in God are united all perfection and every virtue, so allthe power of all the individuals in a community is united in the personof the king. " [Sidenote: Louis XIV] Such was the theory of what is called divine-right monarchy orabsolutism. It must be remembered that it had been gaining groundduring the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, until it was acceptedpractically by all the French people as well as by most of theirContinental neighbors. Even in England, as we shall presentlysee, [Footnote: See below, pp. 263 ff. ] the Stuart kings attempted, fora time with success, to assert and maintain the doctrine. It was apolitical idea as popular in the seventeenth century as that ofdemocracy is to-day. And Louis XIV was its foremost personification. Suave, dignified, elegant in manners and speech, the French king playedhis part well; he appeared to have been born and divinely appointed tothe kingly calling. For a king, Louis worked hard. He was conscientious and painstaking. Day after day he reviewed the details of administration. Over allthings he had a watchful eye. Systematically he practiced what hetermed the "trade of a king. " "One reigns by work and for work, " hewrote his grandson. No prince was more fortunate than Louis XIV in his personal advisersand lieutenants. Not only were his praises proclaimed by the silver-tongued Bossuet, but he was served by such men as Colbert, thefinancier and reformer; Louvois, the military organizer; Vauban, themaster builder of fortifications; Conde and Turenne, unconquerablegenerals; and by a host of literary lights, whom he patronized andpensioned, and who cast about his person a glamour of renown. Louis washailed as the "Grand Monarch, " and his age was appropriately designatedthe Age of Louis the Fourteenth. [Sidenote: Versailles and the Court of Louis XIV] At Versailles, some twelve miles from Paris, in the midst of what hadbeen a sandy waste, the Grand Monarch erected those stately palaces, with their lavish furnishings, and broad parks and great groves andmyriads of delightful fountains, which became Europe's pleasure center. Thither were drawn the French nobility, who, if shorn of all politicalpower, were now exempted from disagreeable taxes and exalted asessential parts of a magnificent social pageant. The king must havenoblemen as _valets-de-chambre_, as masters of the wardrobe or ofthe chase or of the revels. Only a nobleman was fit to comb the royalhair or to dry off the king after a bath. The nobles became, like somany chandeliers, mere decorations for the palace. Thus, aboutVersailles gathered the court of France, and the leaders of fashion metthose of brains. [Sidenote: "The Age of Louis XIV"] It was a time when French manners, dress, speech, art, literature, andscience were adopted as the models and property of civilized Europe. Corneille (1606-1684), the father of the French stage; Moliere (1622-1673), the greatest of French dramatists; Racine (1639-1699), thepolished, formal playwright; Madame de Sevigne (1626-1696), thebrilliant and witty authoress of memoirs; La Fontaine (1621-1695), thepopular rhymer of whimsical fables and teller of scandalous tales; andmany another graced the court of Versailles and tasted the royalbounty. French became the language of fashion as well as of diplomacy--a position it has ever since maintained. [Sidenote: "Rule of the Robe"] While the court of Louis XIV was thus the focal point of French--almostof European--life, the professional and mercantile classes, whoconstituted the Third Estate, enjoyed comparative security andprosperity and under the king held all of the important offices ofactual administration. Because of the judicial offices which the middleclass filled, the government was popularly styled the "rule of therobe. " [Sidenote: "Colbert"] Colbert (1619-1683), one of Louis's greatest ministers, was the son ofa merchant, and was intensely interested in the welfare of the class towhich he belonged. Installed in office through the favor of Mazarin, hewas successively named, after the cardinal's death, superintendent ofpublic works, controller-general of finances, minister of marine, ofcommerce and agriculture, and of the colonies. In short, until hisdeath in 1683, he exerted power in every department of governmentexcept that of war. Although he never possessed the absolute personalauthority which marked the ministries of Richelieu and Mazarin, beingplainly subservient to the king's commands, nevertheless he enjoyed formany years the royal favor and by incessant toil succeeded inaccomplishing a good deal for the material prosperity of France. Inmany respects his policies and achievements resembled Sully's. [Sidenote: Attempted Financial Reform] First, financial reform claimed all the energies of Colbert. Under thegovernment of Richelieu, and more particularly under that of Mazarin, the hard savings of Sully had been squandered, enormous sums had beengranted to favorites, and the ever-increasing noble class had beenexempted from taxation, an evil system of tax-gathering, called"farming the taxes, " [Footnote: "Farming the taxes, " that is, intrusting the collection of taxes to individuals or corporations thatsqueezed as much money as they could from the taxpayers and kept forthemselves what they collected over and above the lump sum due thegovernment. ] had grown up, and the weight of the financial burden hadfallen almost exclusively upon the wretched peasantry. Colbert sternlyand fearlessly set about his task. He appointed agents whose honesty hecould trust and reformed many of the abuses in tax-collecting. While hewas unable to impose the direct land tax--the _taille_--upon theprivileged nobility, he stoutly resisted every attempt further toaugment the number of exemptions, and actually lowered this direct taxupon the peasantry by substituting indirect taxes, or customs duties, which would in some degree affect all the people. To lighten the burdenof the country-folk, he sought to promote agriculture. He provided thatno farmers' tools might be seized for debt. He encouraged the breedingof horses and cattle. He improved the roads and other means of interiorcommunication. The great canal of Languedoc, joining the Mediterraneanwith the Garonne River and thence with the Atlantic, was planned andconstructed under his patronage. As far as possible, the duties on thepassage of agricultural produce from province to province wereequalized. [Sidenote: Colbert and French Merchantilism] In forwarding what he believed to be his own class interests, Colbertwas especially zealous. Manufactures and commerce were fostered inevery way he could devise. New industries were established, inventorsprotected, workmen invited from foreign countries, native workmenprohibited to leave France. A heavy tariff was placed upon foreignimports in order to protect "infant industries" and increase the gainof French manufacturers and traders. Liberal bounties were allowed toFrench ships engaged in commerce, and foreign ships were compelled topay heavy tonnage duties for using French ports. And along with theprotective tariff and subsidizing of the merchant marine, went otherpet policies of mercantilism, [Footnote: See above, pp. 63 f. ] such asmeasures to prevent the exportation of precious metals from France, toencourage corporations and monopolies, and to extend minutegovernmental supervision over the manufacture, quality, quantity, andsale of all commodities. What advantages accrued from Colbert's effortsin this direction were more than offset by the unfortunate fact thatthe mercantile class was unduly enriched at the expense of other andnumerically larger classes in the community, and that the centralizedmonarchy, in which the people had no part, proved itself unfit, in thelong run, to oversee the details of business with wisdom or honesty. [Sidenote: Colbert's "World Policy"] Stimulation of industry and commerce has usually necessitated thecreation of a protecting navy. Colbert appreciated the requirement andhastened to fulfill it. He reconstructed the docks and arsenal ofToulon and established great ship-yards at Rochefort, Calais, Brest, and Havre. He fitted out a large royal navy that could comparefavorably with that of England or Spain or Holland. To supply it withrecruits he drafted seamen from the maritime provinces and resorted tothe use of criminals, who were often chained to the galleys like somany slaves of the new industry. Likewise, the adoption of the mercantile policy seemed to demand theacquisition of a colonial empire, in which the mother-country shouldenjoy a trade monopoly. So Colbert became a vigorous colonial minister. He purchased Martinique and Guadeloupe in the West Indies, encouragedsettlements in San Domingo, in Canada, and in Louisiana, and set upimportant posts in India, in Senegal, and in Madagascar. France, underColbert, became a serious colonial competitor with her older Europeanrivals. Colbert was essentially a financier and economist. But to the arts ofpeace, which adorned the reign of Louis XIV, he was a potentcontributor. He strengthened the French Academy, which had been foundedby Richelieu, and himself established the Academy of Sciences, nowcalled the Institute of France, and the great astronomical observatoryat Paris. He pensioned many writers, and attracted foreign artists andscientists to France. Many buildings and triumphal arches were erectedunder his patronage. [Sidenote: Louvois and French Militarism under Louis XIV] In the arts of war, Louis XIV possessed an equally able and hard-working assistant. Louvois (1641-1691) was one of the greatest warministers that the world has ever seen. He recruited and supported thelargest and finest standing army of his day. He introduced severeregulations and discipline. He prescribed, for the first time inhistory, a distinctive military uniform and introduced the custom ofmarching in step. Under his supervision, camp life was placed upon asanitary basis. And under his influence, promotion in the service nolonger depended primarily on social position but upon merit as well. InVauban (1633-1707), Louvois had the greatest military engineer inhistory--for it was Vauban who built those rows of superbfortifications on the northern and eastern frontiers of France. InConde and Turenne, moreover, Louvois had first-class generals who couldgive immediate effect to his reforms and policies. [Sidenote: Deceptive Character of the Glamour of the Age of Louis XIV] Thus was the Grand Monarch well and faithfully served. Yet the outwardshow and glamour of his reign were very deceptive of the true internalconditions. Colbert tried to do too many things, with the result thathis plans repeatedly miscarried. The nobles became more indolent, wasteful, and pleasure-loving, and the middle class more selfish andmore devoted to their own class interests, while the lot of thepeasantry, --the bulk of the nation, --despite the spasmodic efforts ofthe paternal government, steadily grew worse under the unrelievedburden of taxation. Then, too, the king was extravagant in maintaininghis mistresses, his court, and his favorites. His excessive vanity hadto be appeased by expensive entertainment and show. He preferred thespectacular but woeful feats of arms to the less pretentious but moresolid triumphs of peace. Indeed, in course of time, Colbert found hisinfluence with the king waning before that of Louvois, and when he diedit was with the bitter thought that his financial retrenchment had beenin vain, that his husbanded resources were being rapidly dissipated inforeign war. It was Louis's wars that deprived his reign of truegrandeur and paved the way for future disaster. [Sidenote: Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, 1685] Before turning our attention to the foreign wars of Louis XIV, mentionmust be made of another blot on his reign. It was Louis XIV who renewedthe persecution of the Protestants. He was moved alike by theabsolutist's desire to secure complete uniformity throughout France andby the penitent's religious fervor to make amends for earlier scandalsof his private life. For a time he contented himself with so-calleddragonnades--quartering licentious soldiers upon the Huguenots--but atlength in 1685 he formally revoked the Edict of Nantes. France, whichfor almost a century had led Europe in the principle and practice ofreligious toleration, was henceforth reactionary. Huguenots were stillgranted liberty of conscience, but were denied freedom of worship anddeprived of all civil rights in the kingdom. The immediate effect ofthis arbitrary and mistaken action was the emigration of large numbersof industrious and valuable citizens, who added materially to thepolitical and economic life of England, Holland, and Prussia, the chiefProtestant foes of France. EXTENSION OF FRENCH FRONTIERS Louis XIV was not a soldier himself. He never appeared in militaryuniform or rode at the head of his troops. What he lacked, however, inpersonal genius as a great military commander, he compensated for in agenuine fondness for war and in remarkable personal gifts of diplomacy. He was one of the greatest diplomats of his age, and, as we have seen, he possessed large loyal armies and able generals that he could employin prosecuting the traditional foreign policy of France. [Sidenote: Traditional Foreign Policy of France] This foreign policy, which had been pursued by Francis I, Henry II, Henry IV, Richelieu, and Mazarin, had for its goal the humiliation ofthe powerful Habsburgs, whether of Austria or of Spain. Although Francehad gained materially at their expense in the treaties of Westphaliaand of the Pyrenees, much remained to be done by Louis XIV. When theGrand Monarch assumed direct control of affairs in 1661, the SpanishHabsburgs still ruled not only the peninsular kingdom south of France, but the Belgian Netherlands to the north, Franche Comte to the east, and Milan in northern Italy, while their kinsmen of Austria maintainedshadowy imperial government over the rich Rhenish provinces on thenortheastern boundary of France. France was still almost completelyencircled by Habsburg holdings. [Sidebar: Doctrine of "Natural Boundaries"] To justify his subsequent aggressions, Louis XIV propounded thedoctrine of "natural boundaries. " Every country, he maintained, shouldsecure such frontiers as nature had obviously provided--mountains, lakes, or rivers; and France was naturally provided with the frontiersof ancient Gaul--the Pyrenees, the Alps, the Rhine River, and theOcean. Any foreign monarch or state that claimed power within suchfrontiers was an interloper and should be expelled. [Sidenote: The Wars of Louis XIV] For many years, and in three great wars, Louis XIV endeavored, withsome success, to reach the Rhine. These three wars--the War ofDevolution, the Dutch War, and the War of the League of Augsburg--weshall now discuss. A fourth great war, directed toward the acquisitionof the Spanish throne by the Bourbon family, will be treated separatelyon account of the wide and varied interests involved. [Sidenote: The "War of Devolution"] The War of Devolution was an attempt of Louis to gain the Spanish orBelgian Netherlands. It will be remembered that in accordance with thepeace of the Pyrenees, Louis had married Maria Theresa, the eldestdaughter of Philip IV of Spain. Now by a subsequent marriage Philip IVhad had a son, a weak-bodied, half-witted prince, who came to thethrone in 1665 as Charles II. Louis XIV at once took advantage of thisturn of affairs to assert in behalf of his wife a claim to a portion ofthe Spanish inheritance. The claim was based on a curious custom whichhad prevailed in the inheritance of private property in theNetherlands, to the effect that children of a first marriage shouldinherit to the exclusion of those of a subsequent marriage. Louisinsisted that this custom, called "devolution, " should be applied notonly to private property but also to sovereignty and that his wifeshould be recognized, therefore, as sovereign of the BelgianNetherlands. In reality the claim was a pure invention, but the Frenchking thought it would be a sufficient apology for the robbery of a weakbrother-in-law. Before opening hostilities, Louis XIV made use of his diplomatic wilesin order to guard himself against assistance which other states mightrender to Spain. In the first place, he obtained promises of friendlyneutrality from Holland, Sweden, and the Protestant states of Germanywhich had been allied with France during the Thirty Years' War. In thesecond place, he threatened to stir up another civil war in the HolyRoman Empire if the Austrian Habsburgs should help their Spanishkinsman. Finally, he had no fear of England because that country was inthe midst of a peculiarly bitter trade war with the Dutch. [Footnote:It was on the eve of this second trade war between England and Holland(1665-1667) that the English took New Amsterdam from the Dutch (1664)and rechristened it New York, and during this struggle that theremarkable Dutch admiral, De Ruyter, burned the English fleet andshipping on the Thames (June, 1667). ] [Sidenote: The "Balance of Power"] The War of Devolution lasted from 1667 to 1668. The well-disciplinedand splendidly generaled armies of Louis XIV had no difficulty inoccupying the border fortresses in the Spanish Netherlands. The wholeterritory would undoubtedly have fallen to France, had not a changeunexpectedly occurred in international affairs. The trade war betweenEngland and Holland came to a speedy end, and the two former rivals nowjoined with Sweden in forming the Triple Alliance to arrest the war andto put a stop to the French advance. The "balance of power" demanded, said the allies, that the other European states should combine in orderto prevent any one state from becoming too powerful. This plea for the"balance of power" was the reply to the French king's plea for "naturalboundaries. " [Sidenote: Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, 1668] The threats of the Triple Alliance caused Louis XIV to negotiate thetreaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, by which Spain surrendered to France animportant section of territory in Flanders, including the fortifiedcities of Charleroi, Tournai, and Lille, but still retained the greaterpart of the Belgian Netherlands. The taste of the Grand Monarch wasthereby whetted, but his appetite hardly appeased. [Sidenote: Franco-Dutch Rivalry] Louis blamed the Dutch for his rebuff. He was thoroughly alive to thefact that Holland would never take kindly to having powerful France asa near neighbor, and that French acquisition of the BelgianNetherlands, therefore, would always be opposed by the Dutch. Nor werewounded vanity and political considerations the only motives for theGrand Monarch's second war, that against the Dutch. France, as well asEngland, was now becoming a commercial and colonial rival of Holland, and it seemed both to Louis XIV and to Colbert that the French middleclass would be greatly benefited by breaking the trade monopolies ofthe Dutch. Louis's second war was quite as much a trade war as apolitical conflict. [Sidenote: Civil Strife in Holland] First, Louis bent his energies to breaking up the Triple Alliance andisolating Holland. He took advantage of the political situation inEngland to arrange (1670) the secret treaty of Dover with Charles II, the king of that country: in return for a large pension, which shouldfree him from reliance upon Parliament, the English king undertook todeclare himself a Roman Catholic and to withdraw from the TripleAlliance. Liberal pensions likewise bought off the Swedish government. It seemed now as if Holland, alone and friendless, would have to endurea war with her powerful enemy. Nor was Holland in shape for asuccessful resistance. Ever since she had gained formal recognition ofher independence (1648), she had been torn by civil strife. On oneside, the head of the Orange family, who bore the title of stadholder, supported by the country districts, the nobles, the Calvinistic clergy, and the peasantry, hoped to consolidate the state and to establish anhereditary monarchy. On the other side, the aristocratic burghers andreligious liberals, the townsfolk generally, found an able leader inthe celebrated Grand Pensionary, John DeWitt (1625-1672), who sought topreserve the republic and the rights of the several provinces. For overtwenty years, the latter party was in power, but as the young prince ofOrange, William III, grew to maturity, signs were not lacking of areaction in favor of his party. [Sidenote: The Dutch War] Under these circumstances, Louis XIV declared war against Holland in1672. French troops at once occupied Lorraine on the pretext that itsduke was plotting with the Dutch, and thence, proceeding down theRhine, past Cologne, invaded Holland and threatened the prosperous cityof Amsterdam. The Dutch people, in a frenzy of despair, murdered JohnDeWitt, whom they unjustly blamed for their reverses; and, at the orderof the young William III, who now assumed supreme command, they cut thedykes and flooded a large part of northern Holland. The same expedientwhich had enabled them to expel the Spaniards in the War ofIndependence now stayed the victorious advance of the French. The refusal of Louis XIV to accept the advantageous terms of peaceoffered by the Dutch aroused general apprehension throughout Europe. The Emperor Leopold and the Great Elector of Brandenburg made anoffensive alliance with Holland, which subsequently was joined by Spainand several German states. The general struggle, thus precipitated, continued indeed with success for France. Turenne, by a brilliantvictory, compelled the Great Elector to make peace. The emperor wasdefeated. The war was carried into the Spanish Netherlands and FrancheComte. [Sidenote: Treaty of Nijmwegen, 1678] But when at length the English Parliament compelled Charles II toadhere to the general anti-French alliance, Louis XIV thought it wastime to make peace. As events proved, it was not Holland but Spain thathad to pay the penalties of Louis's second war. By the treaty ofNijmwegen, the former lost nothing, while the latter ceded to Francethe long-coveted province of Franche Comte and several strongfortresses in the Belgian Netherlands. France, moreover, continued tooccupy the duchy of Lorraine. [Sidenote: Effects of the Dutch War on France] Thus, if Louis XIV had failed to punish the insolence of the Dutch, hehad at least succeeded in extending the French frontiers one stagenearer the Rhine. He had become the greatest and most-feared monarch inEurope. Yet for these gains France paid heavily. The border provinceshad been wasted by war. The treasury was empty, and the necessity ofnegotiating loans and increasing taxes put Colbert in despair. Turenne, the best general, had been killed late in the contest, and Conde, onaccount of ill health, was obliged to withdraw from active service. Yet at the darker side of the picture, the Grand Monarch refused tolook. He was puffed up with pride by his successes in war anddiplomacy. Like many another vain, ambitious ruler, he felt that whateconomic grievances or social discontent might exist within his countrycould readily be forgotten or obscured in a blaze of foreign glory--inthe splendor of ambassadors, the glint and din of arms, the grimshedding of human blood. Having picked the sanguinary path, and atfirst found pleasure therein, the Grand Monarch pursued it to an endbitter for his family and tragic for his people. [Sidenote: The "Chambers of Reunion" and Further French Annexations] No sooner was the Dutch War concluded than Louis XIV set out by apolicy of trickery and diplomacy further to augment the Frenchterritories. The cessions, which the treaties of Westphalia andNijmwegen guaranteed to France, had been made "with theirdependencies. " It now occurred to Louis that doubtless in the oldfeudal days of the middle ages or early modern times some, if not all, of his new acquisitions had possessed feudal suzerainty over othertowns or territories not yet incorporated into France. Although in mostcases such ancient feudal ties had practically lapsed by the close ofthe seventeenth century, nevertheless the French king decided toreinvoke them in order, if possible, to add to his holdings. Heaccordingly constituted special courts, called "Chambers of Reunion, "composed of his own obedient judges, who were to decide what districtsby right of ancient feudal usage should be annexed. So painstaking andminute were the investigations of these Chambers of Reunion that theyadjudged to their own country, France, no less than twenty importanttowns of the Holy Roman Empire, including Luxemburg and Strassburg. Nothing seemed to prevent the prompt execution of these judgments bythe French king. He had kept his army on a war footing. The king ofEngland was again in his pay and his alliance. The emperor was hardpressed by an invasion of the Ottoman Turks. Armed imperial resistanceat Strassburg was quickly overcome (1681), and Vauban, the greatengineer, proceeded to make that city the chief French fortress uponthe Rhine. A weak effort of the Spanish monarch to protect Luxemburgfrom French aggression was doomed to dismal failure (1684). [Sidenote: War of the League of Augsburg or of the Palatinate] Alarmed by the steady advance of French power, the Emperor Leopold in1686 succeeded in forming the League of Augsburg with Spain, Sweden, and several German princes, in order to preserve the territorialintegrity of the Holy Roman Empire. Nor was it long before the Leagueof Augsburg was called upon to resist further encroachments of theFrench king. In 1688 Louis dispatched a large army into the RhenishPalatinate to enforce a preposterous claim which he had advanced tothat valuable district. The war which resulted was Louis's thirdstruggle, and has been variously styled the War of the League ofAugsburg or the War of the Palatinate. In America, where it was to beparalleled by an opening conflict between French and English colonists, it has been known as King William's War. [Sidenote: William III, Stadholder of Holland and King of England] In his first two wars, Louis XIV could count upon the neutrality, ifnot the friendly aid, of the English. Their king was dependent upon himfor financial support in maintaining an absolutist government. Theirinfluential commercial and trading classes, who still suffered morefrom Dutch than from French rivalry, displayed no anxiety to mix undulyin the dynastic conflicts on the Continent. Louis had an idea that hecould count upon the continuation of the same English policy; he wascertainly on good terms with the English king, James II (1685-1688). But the deciding factor in England and in the war was destined to benot the subservient James II but the implacable William III. ThisWilliam III, [Footnote: William III (1650-1702), Dutch stadholder in1672 and British king in 1689. ] as stadholder of Holland, had long beena stubborn opponent of Louis XIV on the Continent; he had repeatedlydisplayed his ability as a warrior and as a cool, crafty schemer. Through his marriage with the princess Mary, elder daughter of JamesII, he now managed adroitly to ingratiate himself with the Protestant, parliamentary, and commercial parties in England that were opposing theCatholic, absolutist, and tyrannical policies of James. We shall presently see that the English Revolution of 1688, which droveJames II into exile, was a decisive step in the establishment ofconstitutional government in England. It was likewise of supremeimportance in its effects upon the foreign policy of Louis XIV, for itcalled to the English throne the son-in-law of James, William III, thestadholder of Holland and arch enemy of the French king. [Sidenote: Beginning of a new Hundred Years' War between France andEngland] England, under the guidance of her new sovereign, promptly joined theLeague of Augsburg, and declared war against France. Trade rivalriesbetween Holland and England were in large part composed, and thecolonial empires of the two states, now united under a joint ruler, naturally came into conflict with the colonial empire of France. Thus, in addition to the difficulties which the Bourbons encountered inpromoting their dynastic interests on the continent of Europe, theywere henceforth confronted by a vast colonial and commercial strugglewith England. It was the beginning of a Hundred Years' War that was tobe fought for the mastery of India and America. Louis XIV never seemed to appreciate the importance of the colonialside of the contest. He was too much engrossed in his ambition ofstretching French boundaries to the Rhine. So in discussing the War ofthe League of Augsburg as well as the subsequent War of the SpanishSuccession, we shall devote our attention in this chapter primarily tothe European and dynastic elements, reserving the account of theparallel colonial struggle to a later chapter on the "World Conflict ofFrance and Great Britain. " The War of the League of Augsburg, Louis' third war, lasted from 1689to 1697. Notwithstanding the loss of Turenne and Conde, the splendidlyorganized French armies were able to hold the allies at bay and to savetheir country from invasion. They even won several victories on thefrontier. But on the sea, the struggle was less successful for Louis, and a French expedition to Ireland in favor of James II proveddisastrous. After many years of strife, ruinous to all the combatants, the Grand Monarch sued for peace. [Sidenote: The Treaty of Ryswick, 1697] By the treaty of Ryswick, which concluded the War of the League ofAugsburg, Louis XIV (1) surrendered nearly all the places adjudged tohim by the Chambers of Reunion, except Strassburg; (2) allowed theDutch to garrison the chief fortresses in the Spanish Netherlands as a"barrier" against French aggression; (3) granted the Dutch a favorablecommercial treaty; (4) restored Lorraine to its duke; (5) abandoned hisclaim to the Palatinate; (6) acknowledged William III as king ofEngland and promised to support no attempt against his throne. Thus, the French king lost no territory, --in fact, he obtained fullrecognition of his ownership of the whole province of Alsace, --but hisreputation and vanity had been uncomfortably wounded. THE WAR OF THE SPANISH SUCCESSION One of the main reasons that prompted Louis XIV to sue for peace and toabandon his claims on Lorraine and the Palatinate was the rapidphysical decline of the inglorious Spanish monarch, Charles II, ofwhose enormous possessions the French king hoped by diplomacy andintrigue to secure valuable portions. [Sidenote: The Spanish Inheritance] Spain was still a great power. Under its crown were gathered not onlythe ancient kingdoms of Castile, Aragon, and Navarre in the Spanishpeninsula, but the greater part of the Belgian Netherlands, and inItaly the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the duchy of Milan, and thecontrol of Tuscany, as well as the huge colonial empire in America andthe Philippines. At the time when kings were absolute rulers andreckoned their territories as personal possessions, much depended uponthe royal succession. [Sidenote: The Spanish Succession] Now it happened that the Spanish Habsburgs were dying out in the maleline. Charles II was himself without children or brothers. Of hissisters, the elder was the wife of Louis XIV and the younger wasmarried to the Emperor Leopold, the heir of the Austrian Habsburgs. Louis XIV had renounced by the peace of the Pyrenees (1659) all claimsto the Spanish throne on condition that a large dowry be paid him, butthe impoverished state of the Spanish exchequer had prevented thepayment of the dowry. Louis, therefore, might lay claim to the wholeinheritance of Charles II and entertain the hope of seeing the Bourbonssupplant the Habsburgs in some of the fairest lands of Christendom. Inopposition to the French contention, the emperor was properly moved byfamily pride to put forth the claim of his wife and that of himself asthe nearest male relative of the Spanish king. If the contention ofLeopold were sustained, a single Habsburg ruler might once more unitean empire as vast as that which the Emperor Charles V had once ruled. On the other side, if the ambition of Louis XIV were realized, a newand formidable Bourbon empire would be erected. In either case theEuropean "balance of power" would be destroyed. [Sidenote: Commercial and Colonial Complications] Bound up with the political problem in Europe were grave commercial andcolonial questions. According to the mercantilist theories thatflourished throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, everycountry which possessed colonies should reserve trade privileges withthem exclusively to its own citizens. So long as France and Spain wereseparate and each was only moderately powerful, their commercialrivals, notably England and Holland, might hope to gain special trade-concessions from time to time in French or Spanish colonies. But oncethe colonial empires of France and Spain were united under a jointruler, such a vast monopoly would be created as would effectuallyprevent the expansion of English or Dutch commerce while it heightenedthe economic prosperity of the Bourbon subjects. [Sidenote: Attempts to Partition the Spanish Inheritance] It was natural, therefore, that William III, as stadholder of Hollandand king of England, should hold the balance of power between theAustrian Habsburgs and the French Bourbons. Both the claimantsappreciated this fact and understood that neither would be allowedpeacefully to appropriate the entire Spanish inheritance. In fact, several "partition treaties" were patched up between Louis and WilliamIII, with a view to maintaining the balance of power and preventingeither France or Austria from unduly increasing its power. But flawswere repeatedly found in the treaties, and, as time went on, theproblem grew more vexatious. After the conclusion of the peace ofRyswick, Louis XIV was absorbed in the game of dividing the property ofthe dying Spanish king. One of the very greatest triumphs of Louis'diplomatic art was the way in which he ingratiated himself in Spanishfavor. It must be remembered that it was Spain which the Grand Monarchhad attacked and despoiled in his earlier wars of aggrandizement, andneither the Spanish court nor the Spanish people could have manypatriotic motives for loving him. Yet such was his tact and his finessethat within three years after the treaty of Ryswick he had secured therespect of the feeble Charles II and the gratitude of the Spanishpeople. [Sidenote: Will of Charles II of Spain in Favor of the French Bourbons] A month before his pitiful death (1700), Charles II, the last of theSpanish Habsburgs, summoned all his strength and dictated a will thatawarded his whole inheritance to Philip of Anjou, the grandson of LouisXIV, with the resolute proviso that under no circumstances should theSpanish possessions be dismembered. When the news reached Versailles, the Grand Monarch hesitated. He knew that acceptance meant war at leastwith Austria, probably with England. Perhaps he thought of the wretchedcondition into which his other wars had plunged his people. [Sidenote: Acceptance of the Will by Louis XIV] Hesitation was but an interlude. Ambition triumphed over fear, and theglory of the royal family over the welfare of France. In the great hallof mirrors at Versailles, the Grand Monarch heralded his grandson asPhilip V, the first Bourbon king of Spain. And when Philip, left forMadrid, his now aged grandfather kissed him, and the Spanish ambassadorexultantly declared that "the Pyrenees no longer exist. " Anticipating the inevitable outbreak of hostilities, Louis proceeded toviolate the treaty of Ryswick by seizing the "barrier" fortresses fromthe Dutch and by recognizing the son of James II as king of England. Hethen made hasty alliances with Bavaria and Savoy, and called out thecombined armies of France and Spain. [Sidenote: The Grand Alliance against the Bourbons] Meanwhile, William III and the Emperor Leopold formed the GrandAlliance, to which at first England, Holland, Austria, and the Germanelectors of Brandenburg-Prussia, Hanover, and the Palatinate adhered. Subsequently, Portugal, by means of a favorable commercial treaty withEngland, [Footnote: The "Methuen Treaty" (1703). ] was induced to jointhe alliance, and the duke of Savoy abandoned France in favor ofAustria with the understanding that his country should be recognized asa kingdom. The allies demanded that the Spanish crown should pass tothe Archduke Charles, the grandson of the emperor, that Spanish trademonopolies should be broken, and that the power of the French kingshould be curtailed. [Sidenote: The War of the Spanish Succession] The War of the Spanish Succession--the fourth and final war of LouisXIV--lasted from 1702 to 1713. Although William III died at its verycommencement, he was certain that it would be vigorously pushed by theEnglish government of his sister-in-law, Queen Anne (1702-1714). Thebitter struggle on the high seas and in the colonies, where it wasknown as Queen Anne's War, will be treated in another place. [Footnote:See below, p. 308. ] The military campaigns in Europe were on a largerscale than had hitherto been known. Fighting was carried on in theNetherlands, in the southern Germanies, in Italy, and in Spain. The tide of war turned steadily for several years against the Bourbons. The allies possessed the ablest generals of the time in the duke ofMarlborough (1650-1722), the conscientious self-possessed Englishcommander, and in the skillful and daring Prince Eugene of Savoy (1663-1736). The great battle of Blenheim (1704) drove the French from theHoly Roman Empire, and the capture of Gibraltar (1704) gave England afoothold in Spain and a naval base for the Mediterranean. Prince Eugenecrowded the French out of Italy (1706); and by the victories ofRamillies (1706), Oudenarde (1708), and Malplaquet (1709), Marlboroughcleared the Netherlands. On land and sea one reverse followed another. The allies at length were advancing on French soil. It appearedinevitable that they would settle peace at Paris on their own terms. Then it was that Louis XIV displayed an energy and devotion worthy of abetter cause. He appealed straight to the patriotism of his people. Heset an example of untiring application to toil. Nor was he disappointedin his expectations. New recruits hurried to the front; rich and poorpoured in their contributions; a supreme effort was made to stay theadvancing enemy. The fact that Louis XIV was not worse punished was due to thisremarkable uprising of the French and Spanish nations and likewise todissensions among the allies. A change of ministry in England led tothe disgrace and retirement of the duke of Marlborough and made thatcountry lukewarm in prosecuting the war. Then, too, the unexpectedaccession of the Archduke Charles to the imperial and Austrian thrones(1711) now rendered the claims of the allies' candidate for the Spanishthrone as menacing to the European balance of power as would be therecognition of the French claimant, Philip of Bourbon. These circumstances made possible the conclusion of the peace ofUtrecht, with the following major provisions: [Sidenote: The Peace of Utrecht 1713-1714] (1) Philip V, grandson of Louis XIV, was acknowledged king of Spain andthe Indies, on condition that the crowns of France and Spain shouldnever be united. (2) The Austrian Habsburgs were indemnified bysecuring Naples, Sardinia, [Footnote: By the treaty of London (1720), Austria exchanged Sardinia for Sicily. ] Milan, and the BelgianNetherlands. The last-named, which had been called the SpanishNetherlands since the days of Philip II, were henceforth for a centurystyled the Austrian Netherlands. (3) England received the lion's share of the spoils. She obtainedNewfoundland, Acadia (Nova Scotia), and Hudson Bay from France, andGibraltar and Minorca from Spain. She also secured a preferentialtariff for her imports into the great port of Cadiz, the monopoly ofthe slave trade, and the right of sending one ship of merchandise ayear to the Spanish colonies. France promised not to assist the Stuartsin their attempts to regain the English throne. (4) The Dutch recovered the "barrier" fortresses and for garrisoningthem were promised financial aid by Austria. The Dutch were alsoallowed to establish a trade monopoly on the River Scheldt. (5) The elector of Brandenburg was acknowledged king of Prussia, animportant step In the fortunes of the Hohenzollern family which at thepresent time reigns in Germany. (6) The duchy of Savoy was recognized similarly as a kingdom and wasgiven the island of Sicily. [Footnote: The title of king was recognizedby the emperor only in 1720, when Savoy exchanged Sicily for Sardinia. Henceforth the kingdom of Savoy was usually referred to as the kingdomof Sardinia. ] From the house of Savoy has descended the reigningsovereign of present-day Italy. [Sidenote: Significance of the Settlement of Utrecht] The peace of Utrecht marked the cessation of a long conflict betweenSpanish Habsburgs and French Bourbons. For nearly a century thereafterboth France and Spain pursued similar foreign policies for the commoninterests of the Bourbon family. Bourbon sovereigns have continued, with few interruptions, to reign in Spain to the present moment. The Habsburg influence, however, remained paramount in Austria, in theHoly Roman Empire, in Italy, and in the Belgian Netherlands. It wasagainst this predominance that the Bourbons were to direct theirdynastic policies throughout the greater part of the eighteenthcentury. The peace of Utrecht likewise marked the rise of English power upon theseas and the gradual elimination of France as a successful competitorin the race for colonial mastery. Two states also came into prominenceupon the continent of Europe--Prussia and Savoy--about which the newGerman Empire and the unified Italian Kingdom were respectively to bebuilded. [Sidenote: Last Years of the Grand Monarch] While France was shorn of none of her European conquests, neverthelessthe War of the Spanish Succession was exceedingly disastrous for thatcountry. In its wake came famine and pestilence, excessive imposts andtaxes, official debasement of the currency, and bankruptcy--a long lineof social and economic disorders. Louis XIV survived the treaty ofUtrecht but two years, and to such depths had his prestige and gloryfallen among his own people, that his corpse, as it passed along theroyal road to the stately tombs of the French kings at St. Denis, "wassaluted by the curses of a noisy crowd sitting in the wine-rooms, celebrating his death by drinking more than their fill as acompensation for having suffered too much from hunger during hislifetime. Such was the coarse but true epitaph which popular opinionaccorded to the Grand Monarch. " [Sidenote: Misgovernment of France during Minority of Louis XV] Nor had the immediate future much better things in store for exhaustedFrance. The successor upon the absolutist throne was Louis XV, great-grandson of Louis XIV and a boy of five years of age, who did notundertake to exercise personal power until near the middle of theeighteenth century. In the meantime the country was governed for abouteight years by the king's uncle, the duke of Orleans, and then fortwenty years by Cardinal Fleury. [Sidenote: John Law] Orleans loved pleasure and gave himself to a life of debauchery; hecared little for the boy-king, whose education and training hegrievously neglected. His foreign policy was weak and vacillating, andhis several efforts to reform abuses in the political and economicinstitutions of Louis XIV invariably ended in failure. It was whileexperimenting with the disorganized finances that he was duped by aScotch adventurer and promoter, a certain John Law (1671-1729). Law hadan idea that a gigantic corporation might be formed for French colonialtrade, [Footnote: Law's corporation was actually important in thedevelopment of Louisiana. ] shares might be widely sold throughout thecountry, and the proceeds therefrom utilized to wipe out the publicdebt. Orleans accepted the scheme and for a while the country went madwith the fever of speculation. In due time, however, the stock wasdiscovered to be worthless, the bubble burst, and a terrible panicensued. The net result was increased misery for the nation. [Sidenote: Fleury and the War of the Polish Election] The little sense which Orleans possessed was sufficient to keep him outof foreign war [Footnote: France was at peace throughout his regency, except for a brief time (1719-1720) when Orleans joined the Britishgovernment in preventing his Spanish cousin, Philip V, from upsettingthe treaty of Utrecht. ] but even that was lacking to his successor, Cardinal Fleury. Fleury was dragged into a war (1733-1738) with Austriaand Russia over the election of a Polish king. The allies supported theelector of Saxony; France supported a Pole, the father-in-law of LouisXV, Stanislaus Leszczinski. France was defeated and Louis XV had tocontent himself with securing the duchy of Lorraine for his father-in-law. Thus, family ambition merely added to the economic distress of theFrench people. It was during the War of the Polish Election, however, that the Bourbonking of Spain, perceiving his rivals engaged elsewhere, seized thekingdom of the Two Sicilies from Austria and put a member of his ownfamily on its throne. Thus, in the eighteenth century, the Bourbonsdominated France, Spain, and southern Italy. [Illustration: THE SPANISH SUCCESSION] [Illustration: THE BOURBON FAMILY, 1589-1915 KINGS OF FRANCE, SPAIN, AND NAPLES] ADDITIONAL READING GENERAL. Brief accounts: J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard, _TheDevelopment of Modern Europe_, Vol. I (1907), ch. I-iii; H. O. Wakeman, _The Ascendancy of France, 1598-1715_ (1894), ch. Ix-xi, xiv, xv; A. H. Johnson, _The Age of the Enlightened Despot, 1660-1789_ (1910), ch i-iii, vi; J. H. Sacret, _Bourbon and Vasa, 1610-1715_ (1914), ch. Viii-xii; Arthur Hassall, _Louis XIV and the Zenith of the French Monarchy_(1897) in the "Heroes of the Nations" Series; H. T. Dyer, _A History ofModern Europe from the Fall of Constantinople_, 3d ed. Rev. By ArthurHassall (1901), ch. Xxxvii, xxxix-xl, xlii-xliv; A. J. Grant, _TheFrench Monarchy, 1483-1789_, Vol. II (1900), ch. X-xvi; G. W. Kitchin, _A History of France_, Vol. III (1899), Books V and VI, ch. I, ii;Victor Duruy, _History of Modern Times_, trans. And rev. By E. A. Grosvenor (1894), ch. Xxi-xxiii. More detailed treatments: _CambridgeModern History_, Vol. V (1908), ch. I-iii, vii-ix, xiii, xiv, Vol. VI(1909), ch. Iv-vi; _Histoire generale_, Vol. VI, ch. Iii-v, vii-ix, xii-xvi, xx, Vol. VII, ch. I-iii; _Histoire de France_, ed. By ErnestLavisse, Vols. VII and VIII (1906-1909); _History of All Nations_, Vol. XIII, _The Age of Louis XIV_, by Martin Philippson. DOMESTIC AFFAIRS OF FRANCE. Cecile Hugon, _Social France in theSeventeenth Century_ (1911), popular, suggestive, and well-illustrated. On Colbert: A. J. Sargent, _Economic Policy of Colbert_(1899); S. L. Mims, _Colbert's West India Policy_ (1912); EmileLevasseur, _Histoire des classes ouvrieres et de l'industrie en Franceavant 1789_, Vol. II (1901), Book VI; Pierre Clement (editor), _Lettres, Instructions et Memoires de Colbert_, 7 vols. In 9 (1861-1873). H. M. Baird, _The Huguenots and the Revocation of the Edict ofNantes_, 2 vols. (1895), a detailed study by a warm partisan of theFrench Protestants. Among the numerous important sources for the reignof Louis XIV should be mentioned especially F. A. Isambert (editor), _Recueil general des anciennes lois_, Vols. XVIII-XX, containingsignificant statutes of the reign; G. B. Depping (editor), _Correspondance administrative sous le regne de Louis XIV_, 4 vols. (1850-1855), for the system of government; Arthur de Boislisle(editor), _Correspondance des controleurs generaux_, 2 vols. , for thefiscal system. Voltaire's brilliant _Age of Louis the Fourteenth_ hasbeen translated into English; an authoritative history of Frenchliterature in the Age of Louis XIV is Louis Petit de Julleville(editor), _Histoire de la langue et de la litterature francaise_, Vol. V (1898). The best account of the minority of Louis XV is that of J. B. Perkins, _France under the Regency_ (1892); a brief summary is ArthurHassall, _The Balance of Power, 1715-1789_ (1896), ch. I-iv. FOREIGN WARS OF LOUIS XIV. On Louis XIV's relations with the Dutch: P. J. Blok, _History of the People of the Netherlands_, Part IV, _Frederick Henry, John DeWitt, William III_, abridged Eng. Trans. By O. A. Bierstadt (1907). On his relations with the empire: RuthPutnam, _Alsace and Lorraine from Caesar to Kaiser, 58 B. C. -1871A. D. _ (1914), a popular narrative; Franz Krones, _Handbuch derGeschichte Oesterreichs_, Vol. III, Book XVI, Vol. IV, Book XVII(1878), a standard German work. On his relations with Spain: M. A. S. Hume, _Spain, its Greatness and Decay, 1479-1788_ (1898), ch. Ix-xiii. On Louis XIV's relations with England: Osmund Airy, _TheEnglish Restoration and Louis XIV_ (1895), in the "Epochs of ModernHistory" Series; Sir J. R. Seeley, _The Growth of British Policy_, 2 vols. (1895), especially Vol. II, Parts IV and V; Earl Stanhope, _History of England, Comprising the Reign of Queen Anne until thePeace of Utrecht_ (1870), a rather dry account of the War of theSpanish Succession; G. J. (Viscount) Wolseley, _Life of JohnChurchill, Duke of Marlborough, to the Accession of Queen Anne_, 4thed. , 2 vols. (1894), an apology for Marlborough; J. S. Corbett, _England in the Mediterranean, 1603-1713_, Vol. II (1904), forEnglish naval operations; J. W. Gerard, _The Peace of Utrecht_(1885). On the diplomacy of the whole period: D. T. Hill, _History ofDiplomacy in the International Development of Europe, _ Vol. III(1914), ch. I-iv, a clear outline; Emile Bourgeois, _Manuelhistorique de politique etrangere_, 4th ed. , Vol. I (1906), ch. Iii, iv, vii, ix, xiv; Arsene Legrelle, _La diplomatie francaise et lasuccession d'Espagne, 1659-1725_, 4 vols. (1888-1892), a minutestudy of an important phase of Louis XIV's diplomacy; the text of theprincipal diplomatic documents is in course of publication at Paris (20vols. , 1884-1913) as the _Recueil des instructions donnees auxambassadeurs et ministres de France depuis les traites de Westphaliejusqu'a la revolution francaise_. MEMOIRS OF THE AGE OF LOUIS XIV. Among the multitudinous memoirs of theperiod, the most significant, from the standpoint of the generalhistorian, are: Marquise de Sevigne, _Lettres_, delightfulepistles relating mainly to the years 1670-1696, edited in fullest formfor "Les grands ecrivains de la France" by Monmerque, 14 vols. (1862-1868), selections of which have been translated into English by C. Syms(1898); Duc de Saint-Simon, _Memoires_, the most celebrated ofmemoirs, dealing with many events of the years 1692-1723, gossipy andracily written but occasionally inaccurate and frequently partisan, edited many times--most recently and best for "Les grands ecrivains dela France" by Arthur de Boislisle, 30 vols. (1879-1916), of which amuch-abridged translation has been published in English, 4 vols. ;Marquis de Dangeau, _Journal_, 19 vols. (1854-1882), written dayby day, throughout the years 1684-1720, by a conscientious and well-informed member of the royal entourage; _Life and Letters ofCharlotte Elizabeth_ (1889), select letters, trans. Into English, ofa German princess who married Louis XIV's brother, of which the mostcomplete French edition is that of Jaegle, 3 vols. (1890). See alsoComtesse de Puliga, _Madame de Sevigne, her Correspondents andContemporaries_, 2 vols. (1873), and, for important collections ofmiscellaneous memoirs of the period, J. F. Michaud and J. J. F. Poujoulat, _Nouvelle collection des memoires relatifs a l'histoire deFrance depuis le 13e siecle jusqu'a la fin du 18e siecle_, 34 vols. (1854), and Louis Lafaist and L. F. Danjou, _Archives curieuses del'histoire de France_, 27 vols. (1834-1840). CHAPTER VIII THE TRIUMPH OF PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND CONFLICTING POLITICAL TENDENCIES IN ENGLAND: ABSOLUTISM _VERSUS_PARLIAMENTARIANISM Through all the wars of dynastic rivalry which have been traced in thetwo preceding chapters, we have noticed the increasing prestige of thepowerful French monarchy, culminating in the reign of Louis XIV. We nowturn to a nation which played but a minor role in the internationalrivalries of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Later, from 1689to 1763, England was to engage in a tremendous colonial struggle withFrance. But from 1560 to 1689 England for the most part held herselfaloof from the continental rivalries of Bourbons and Habsburgs, andnever fought in earnest except against Philip II of Spain, whothreatened England's economic and political independence, and againstthe Dutch, who were England's commercial rivals. While the continentalstates were engaged in dynastic quarrels, England was absorbed in aconflict between rival principles of domestic government--betweenconstitutional parliamentary government and unlimited royal power. Tothe triumph of the parliamentary principle in England we owe many ofour modern ideas and practices of constitutional government. [Sidenote: Absolutism of the Tudors, 1485-1603] Absolutism had reached its high-water mark in England long before thepower and prestige of the French monarchy had culminated in the personof Louis XIV. In the sixteenth century--the very century in which theFrench sovereigns faced constant foreign war and chronic civilcommotion--the Tudor rulers of England were gradually freeingthemselves from reliance upon Parliament and were commanding the unitedsupport of the English nation. From the accession of Henry VII in 1485to the death of his grand-daughter Elizabeth in 1603, the practice ofabsolutism, though not the theory of divine-right monarchy, seemed everto be gaining ground. How Tudor despotism was established and maintained is explained in partby reference to the personality of Henry VII and to the circumstancesthat brought him to the throne. [Footnote: For the character and mainachievements of Henry VII (1485-1500), see above, pp. 4 ff. ] It is alsoexplicable by reference to historical developments in Englandthroughout the sixteenth century. [Footnote: For the reigns of HenryVIII, Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth, see above, pp. 86, 97 ff. , 150ff. ] As Henry VII humbled the nobility, so Henry VIII and Elizabethsubordinated the Church to the crown. And all the Tudors asserted theirsupremacy in the sphere of industry and commerce. By a law of 1503, thecraft gilds had been obliged to obtain the approval of royal officersfor whatever new ordinances the gilds might wish to make. In the firstyear of the reign of Edward VI the gilds were crippled by the loss ofpart of their property, which was confiscated under the pretext ofreligious reform. Elizabeth's reign was notable for laws regulatingapprenticeship, prescribing the terms of employment of laborers, providing that wages should be fixed by justices of the peace, andordering vagabonds to be set to work. In the case of commerce, theroyal power was exerted encouragingly, as when Henry VII negotiated the_Intercursus Magnus_ with the duke of Burgundy to gain admittancefor English goods into the Netherlands, or chartered the "MerchantAdventurers" to carry on trade in English woolen cloth, or sent JohnCabot to seek an Atlantic route to Asia; or as when Elizabethcountenanced and abetted explorers and privateers and smugglers andslave-traders in extending her country's maritime power at the expenseof Spain. All this meant that the strong hand of the English monarchhad been laid upon commerce and industry as well as upon justice, finance, and religion. The power of the Tudors had rested largely upon their popularity withthe growing influential middle class. They had subdued sedition, hadrepelled the Armada, had fostered prosperity, and had been willing attimes to cater to the whims of their subjects. They had faithfullypersonified national patriotism; and the English nation, in turn, hadextolled them. Yet despite this absolutist tradition of more than a century'sduration, England was destined in the seventeenth century to witness along bitter struggle between royal and parliamentary factions, thebeheading of one king and the exiling of another, and in the end theirrevocable rejection of the theory and practice of absolutist divine-right monarchy, and this at the very time when Louis XIV was holdingmajestic court at Versailles and all the lesser princes on theContinent were zealously patterning their proud words and boastfuldeeds after the model of the Grand Monarch. In that day a mereparliament was to become dominant in England. [Sidenote: Accession of the Stuarts: James I, 1603-1625] The death of Elizabeth, the last of the Tudors, and the accession(1603) of her cousin James, the first of the Stuarts, marked the realbeginning of the struggle. When he was but a year old, this James hadacquired through the deposition of his unfortunate mother, Mary Stuart, the crown of Scotland (1567), and had been proclaimed James VI in thatdisorderly and distracted country. The boy who was whipped by his tutorand kidnapped by his barons and browbeaten by Presbyterian divineslearned to rule Scotland with a rod of iron and incidentally acquiredsuch astonishing erudition, especially in theology, that the cleverKing Henry IV of France called him "the wisest fool in Christendom. " Atthe age of thirty-seven, this Scotchman succeeded to the throne ofEngland as James I. "He was indeed, " says Macaulay, "made up of twomen--a witty, well-read scholar who wrote, disputed, and harangued, anda nervous, driveling idiot who acted. " [Sidenote: The Stuart Theory of Absolutist Divine-right Monarchy] James was not content, like his Tudor predecessors, merely to be anabsolute ruler in practice; he insisted also upon the theory of divine-right monarchy. Such a theory was carefully worked out by the pedanticStuart king eighty years before Bishop Bossuet wrote his classictreatise on divine-right monarchy for the guidance of the young son ofLouis XIV. To James it seemed quite clear that God had divinelyordained kings to rule, for had not Saul been anointed by Jehovah'sprophet, had not Peter and Paul urged Christians to obey their masters, and had not Christ Himself said, "Render unto Caesar that which isCaesar's"? As the father corrects his children, so should the kingcorrect his subjects. As the head directs the hands and feet, so mustthe king control the members of the body politic. Royal power was thusthe most natural and the most effective instrument for suppressinganarchy and rebellion. James I summarized his idea of government in thefamous Latin epigram, "_a deo rex, a rege lex_, "--"the king isfrom God, and law from the king. " [Sidenote: Stuart Theory Opposed to Medieval English Tradition] It has been remarked already [Footnote: See above, pp. 4-7] that in oneimportant respect the past governmental evolution of England differedfrom that of France. While both countries in the sixteenth centuryfollowed absolutist tendencies, in France the medieval tradition ofconstitutional limitations upon the power of the king was far weakerthan in England, with the result that in the seventeenth century theFrench accepted and consecrated absolutism while the English gave newforce and life to their medieval tradition and practice ofconstitutional government. [Sidenote: Restrictions on Royal Power in England: Magna Carta] The tradition of English restrictions upon royal power centered in theold document of _Magna Carta_ and in an ancient institution calledParliament. _Magna Carta_ dated back, almost four centuries beforeKing James, to the year 1215 when King John had been compelled by hisrebellious barons to sign a long list of promises; that list was the"long charter" or _Magna Carta_, [Footnote: _Magna Carta_ wasmany times reissued after 1215. ] and it was important in threerespects. (1) It served as a constant reminder that "the people" ofEngland had once risen in arms to defend their "rights" against adespotic king, although as a matter of fact _Magna Carta_ was moreconcerned with the rights of the feudal nobles (the barons) and of theclergy than with the rights of the common people. (2) Its mostimportant provisions, by which the king could not levy extraordinarytaxes on the nobles without the consent of the Great Council, furnishedsomething of a basis for the idea of self-taxation. (3) Clauses such as"To no man will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice, " althoughnever effectively enforced, established the idea that justice shouldnot be sold, denied, or delayed. [Sidenote: Parliament] Parliament was a more or less representative assembly of clergy, nobility, and commoners, claiming to have powers of taxation andlegislation. The beginnings of Parliament are traced back centuriesbefore James I. There had been an advisory body of prelates and lordseven before the Norman conquest (1066). After the conquest a somewhatsimilar assembly of the king's chief feudal vassals--lay andecclesiastical--had been called the Great Council, and its right toresist unjust taxation had been recognized by _Magna Carta_. Henceforth it had steadily acquired power. The "Provisions of Oxford"(1258) had provided, in addition, for "twelve honest men" to representthe "commonalty" and to "treat of the wants of the king; and thecommonalty shall hold as established that which these men shall do. " [Sidenote: House of Lords and House of Commons] For the beginnings of the House of Commons we may go back to thethirteenth century. In 1254 the king summoned to Parliament not onlythe bishops, abbots, earls, and barons, but also two knights from everyshire. Then, in an irregular Parliament, convened in 1265 by Simon deMontfort, a great baronial leader against the king, two burgesses fromeach of twenty-one towns for the first time sat with the others andhelped to decide how their liberties were to be protected. Theseknights and burgesses were the elements from which the House of Commonswas subsequently to be formed. Similar bodies met repeatedly in thenext thirty years, and in 1295 Edward I called a "model Parliament" ofarchbishops, bishops, abbots, representative clergy, earls, and barons, two knights from every shire, and two citizens from each privilegedcity or borough, --more than four hundred in all. For some time after1295 the clergy, nobility, and commoners [Footnote: _I. E. _, theknights of the shires and the burgesses from the towns. ] may havedeliberated separately much as did the three "estates" in France. Atany rate, early in the fourteenth century the lesser clergy droppedout, the greater prelates and nobles were fused into one body--theHouse of "Lords spiritual and temporal, "--and the knights joined theburgesses to form the House of Commons. Parliament was henceforth abicameral body, consisting of a House of Commons and a House of Lords. [Sidenote: Powers of Parliament: Taxation] The primary function of Parliament was to give information to the kingand to hear and grant his requests for new "subsidies" or direct taxes. The right to refuse grants was gradually assumed and legallyrecognized. As taxes on the middle class soon exceeded those on theclergy and nobility, it became customary in the fifteenth century formoney bills to be introduced in the Commons, approved by the Lords, andsigned by the king. [Sidenote: Legislation] The right to make laws had always been a royal prerogative, in theoryat least. Parliament, however, soon utilized its financial control inorder to obtain initiative in legislation. A threat of withholdingsubsidies had been an effective way of forcing Henry III to confirm_Magna Carta_ in 1225; it proved no less effective in securingroyal enactment of later "petitions" for laws. In the fifteenth centurylegislation by "petition" was supplanted by legislation by "bill, " thatis, introducing in either House of Parliament measures which, in formand language, were complete statutes and which became such by theunited assent of Commons, Lords, and king. To this day English lawshave continued to be made formally "by the King's most ExcellentMajesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual andTemporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by theauthority of the same. " [Sidenote: Influence on Administration] The right to demand an account of expenditures, to cause the removal ofroyal officers, to request the king to abandon unpopular policies, orotherwise to control administrative affairs, had occasionally beenasserted by Parliament, but not consistently maintained. [Sidenote: Parliament under the Tudors] From what has been said, it will now be clear that the fulcrum ofparliamentary power was control of finance. What had enabled the Tudorsto incline toward absolutism was the fact that for more than a hundredyears they had made themselves fairly independent of Parliament inmatters of finance; and this they had done by means of economy, bycareful collection of taxes, by irregular expedients, by confiscationof religious property, and by tampering with the currency. Parliamentstill met, however, but irregularly, and during Elizabeth's reign itwas in session on the average only three or four weeks of the year. Parliament still transacted business, but rarely differed with themonarch on matters of importance. [Sidenote: James I and Parliament] At the end of the Tudor period, then, we have an ancient tradition ofconstitutional, parliamentary government on the one hand, and a strong, practical, royal power on the other. The conflict between Parliamentand king, which had been avoided by the tactful Tudors, soon began inearnest when James I ascended the throne in 1603, with his exaggeratednotion of his own authority. James I was an extravagant monarch, andneeded parliamentary subsidies, yet his own pedantic principlesprevented him from humoring Parliament in any dream of power. Theinevitable result was a conflict for political supremacy betweenParliament and king. When Parliament refused him money, James resortedto the imposition of customs duties, grants of monopolies, sale ofpeerages, and the solicitation of "benevolences" (forced loans). Parliament promptly protested against such practices, as well asagainst his foreign and religious policies and against his absolutecontrol of the appointment and operation of the judiciary. Parliament'sprotests only increased the wrath of the king. The noisiestparliamentarians were imprisoned or sent home with royal scoldings. In1621 the Commoners entered in their journal a "Great Protestation"against the king's interference with their free right to discuss theaffairs of the realm. This so angered the king that he tore theProtestation out of the journal and presently dissolved the intractableParliament; but the quarrel continued, and James's last Parliament hadthe audacity to impeach his lord treasurer. [Sidenote: Political Dispute Complicated by Religious Difference][Sidenote: Calvinists in England][Sidenote: The "Puritans"] The political dispute was made more bitter by the co-existence of areligious conflict. James, educated as a devout Anglican, was naturallyinclined to continue to uphold the compromise by which the Tudors hadsevered the English Church from the Roman Catholic hierarchy, yet hadretained many forms of the Catholic Church and the episcopalorganization by means of which the sovereign was able to control theChurch. During Elizabeth's reign, however, a large part of the middleclass--the townsmen especially--and many of the lower clergy had comeunder the influence of Calvinistic teaching. [Footnote: On thedoctrines of Calvinism, see above, pp. 139 ff. , 156, 164 ff. ] Themovement was marked (1) by a virulent hatred for even the most trivialforms reminiscent of "popery, " as the Roman Catholic religion wascalled; and (2) by a tendency to place emphasis upon the spirit of theOld Testament as well as upon the precepts of the New. Along withausterity of manner, speech, dress, and fast-day observance, theyrevived much of the mercilessness with which the Israelites hadconquered Canaan. The same men who held it a deadly sin to dance rounda may-pole or to hang out holly on Christmas were later to experience afierce and exalted pleasure in conquering New England from the heathenIndians. They knew neither self-indulgence nor compassion. Littlewonder that Elizabeth feared men of such mold and used the episcopaladministration of the Anglican Church to restrain them. Many of theseso-called Puritans remained members of the Anglican Church and soughtto reform it from within. But restraint only caused the more radical tocondemn altogether the fabric of bishops and archbishops, and toadvocate a presbyterian church. Others went still further and wished toseparate from the Established Anglican Church into independentreligious groups, and were therefore called Independents orSeparatists. [Sidenote: Hostility of James I to the Puritans] These religious radicals, often grouped together as "Puritans, " werecontinually working against Elizabeth's strict enforcement of Anglicanorthodoxy. The accession of James was seized by them as an occasion forthe presentation of a great petition for a modification of churchgovernment and ritual. The petition bore no fruit, however, and in areligious debate at Hampton Court in 1604 James made a brusquedeclaration that bishops like kings were set over the multitude by thehand of God, and, as for these Puritans who would do away with bishops, he would make them conform or "harry them out of the land. " From thistime forth he insisted on conformity, and deprived many clergymen oftheir offices for refusing to subscribe to the regulations framed in1604. [Sidenote: Hatred of the Puritans for James I] The hard rule of this monarch who claimed to govern by the will of Godwas rendered even more abhorrent to the stern Puritan moralists byreports of "drunken orgies" and horrible vices which made the royalcourt appear to be a veritable den of Satan. But worst of all was hissuspected leaning towards "popery. " The Puritans had a passionatehatred for anything that even remotely suggested RomanCatholicism. Consequently it was not with extreme pleasure that theywelcomed a king whose mother had been a Catholic, whose wife wassuspected of harboring a priest, a ruler who at times openly exertedhimself to obtain greater toleration for Roman Catholics and tomaintain the Anglican ritual against Puritan modification. With growingalarm and resentment they learned that Catholic conspirators hadplotted to blow up the houses of Parliament, and that in his foreignpolicy James was decidedly friendly to Catholic princes. The cardinal points of James's foreign policy, --union with Scotland, peace, and a Spanish alliance, --were all calculated to arouseantagonism. The English, having for centuries nourished enmity fortheir northern neighbors and perceiving no apparent advantage in closeunion, defeated the project of amalgamating the two kingdoms of Englandand Scotland. James's policy of non-intervention in the Thirty Years'War evoked bitter criticism; he was accused of favoring the Catholicsand of deserting his son-in-law, the Protestant elector of thePalatinate. The most hotly contested point was, however, the Spanishpolicy. Time and time again, Parliament protested, but James pursuedhis plans, making peace with Spain, and negotiating for a marriagebetween his son Charles and the Infanta of Spain, and Prince Charlesactually went to Spain to court the daughter of Philip III. [Sidenote: Interconnection of Puritanism, Commercialism, andParliamentarianism] It was essentially the Puritan middle classes who were antagonized bythe king. The strength of the Puritans rested in the middle class ofmerchants, seamen, and squires. It was this class which had profited bythe war with Spain in the days of "good Queen Bess" when many a Spanishprize, laden with silver and dye woods, had been towed into Plymouthharbor. Their dreams of erecting an English colonial and commercialempire on the ruins of Spain's were rudely shattered by James. It wasto this Puritan middle class that papist and Spaniard were bywords forassassin and enemy. By his Spanish policy, as well as by his irregularmethods of taxation, James had touched the Puritans in theirpocketbooks. The Puritans, too, were grieved to see so sinful a man siton the throne of England, and so wasteful a man squander their money. They were even hindered in the exercise of their religious convictions. Every fiber in them rebelled. Puritans throughout the country looked to the large Puritan majority inthe House of Commons to redress their grievances. The parliamentarystruggle became then not only a defense of abstract ideals of democracybut also a bitter battle in defense of class interests. Parliamentarytraditions were weapons against an oppressive monarch; religiousscruples gave divine sanction to an attack on royalist bishops;consciousness of being God's elect gave confidence in assailing thearistocracy of land and birth. For the present, the class interests ofthe Puritans were to be defended best by the constitutional limitationof royal power, and in their struggle with James's son and successor, Charles I (1625-1649), they represent by chance the forces ofdemocracy. [Sidenote: Charles I, 1625-1649][Sidenote: A True Stuart in Devotion to Absolutism] For a time it appeared as if the second Stuart king would be verypopular. Unlike his father, Charles seemed thoroughly English; and hisathletic frame, his dignified manners, and his purity of lifecontrasted most favorably with James's deformities in character andphysique. Two years before his father's death Charles had been jiltedby his Spanish fiancee and had returned to England amid wild rejoicingto aid Parliament in demanding war with Spain. He had again rejoicedthe bulk of the English nation by solemnly assuring Parliament on theoccasion of his marriage contract with Henrietta Maria, sister of LouisXIII of France, that he would grant no concessions to Roman Catholicsin England. As a matter of fact, Charles simultaneously but secretlyassured the French government not only that he would allow the queenthe free exercise of her religion but that he would make generalconcessions to Roman Catholics in England. This duplicity on the partof the young king, which augured ill for the harmony of futurerelations between himself and Parliament, throws a flood of light uponhis character and policies. Though Charles was sincerely religious andwell-intentioned, he was as devoted to the theory of divine-rightmonarchy as his father had been; and as to the means which he mightemploy in order to establish absolutism upon a firm foundation hehonestly believed himself responsible only to God and to his ownconscience, certainly not to Parliament. This fact, together with acertain inherent aptitude for shirking the settlement of difficulties, explains in large part the faults which historians have usuallyascribed to him--his meanness and ingratitude toward his most devotedfollowers, his chronic obstinacy which only feigned compliance, and hisincurable untruthfulness. Just before Charles came to the throne, Parliament granted subsidies inexpectation of a war against Spain, but, when he had used up the war-money without showing any serious inclination to open hostilities withSpain, and had then demanded additional grants, Parliament gaveevidence of its growing distrust by limiting a levy of customs dutiesto one year, instead of granting them as usual for the whole reign. Inview of the increasingly obstinate temper manifested by the House ofCommons in withholding subsidies and in assailing his worthlessfavorite, the Duke of Buckingham, Charles angrily dissolved his firstParliament. [Sidenote: Continued Conflict between King and Parliament][Sidenote: The Petition of Right, 1628] The difficulties of the administration were augmented not only by thisarbitrary treatment of Parliament but also by the miserable failure ofan English fleet sent against Cadiz, and by the humiliating result ofan attempt to relieve the French Huguenots. Meanwhile, a secondParliament, more intractable even than its predecessor, had beendissolved for its insistence on the impeachment of Buckingham. Attemptsto raise money by forced loans in place of taxes failed to remove thefinancial distress into which Charles had fallen, and consequently, in1628, he consented to summon a third Parliament. In return for grantsof subsidies, he signed the _Petition of Right_ (1628), preparedby the two houses. By it he promised not to levy taxes without consentof Parliament, not to quarter soldiers in private houses, not toestablish martial law in time of peace, not to order arbitraryimprisonment. Even these concessions were not enough. Parliament again demanded theremoval of Buckingham, and only the assassination of the unpopularminister obviated prolonged dispute on that matter. The Commoners nextattempted to check the unauthorized collection of customs duties, whichproduced as much as one-fourth of the total royal revenue, and toprevent the introduction of "popish" innovations in religion, but forthis trouble they were sent home. [Sidenote: "Personal" Rule of Charles I, 1629-1640] Charles was now so thoroughly disgusted with the members of Parliamentthat he determined to rule without them, and for eleven years (1629-1640) he successfully carried on a "personal" as distinct from aparliamentary government, in spite of financial and religiousdifficulties. Without the consent of Parliament, Charles was bound not to levy directtaxes. During the period of his personal rule, therefore, he wascompelled to adopt all sorts of expedients to replenish his treasury. He revived old feudal laws and collected fines for their infraction. Asum of one hundred thousand pounds was gained by fines on suburbanhouseholders who had disobeyed a proclamation of James I forbidding theextension of London. The courts levied enormous fines merely for thesake of revenue. Monopolies of wine, salt, soap, and other articleswere sold to companies for large sums of money; but the high pricescharged by the companies caused much popular discontent. [Sidenote: "Personal" Rule of Charles I, 1629-1640][Sidenote: "Ship money"] The most obnoxious of all devices for raising money were the levies of"ship-money. " Claiming that it had always been the duty of seaboardtowns to equip ships for the defense of the country, Charles demandedthat since they no longer built ships, the towns should contributemoney for the maintenance of the navy. In 1634, therefore, each townwas ordered to pay a specified amount of "ship-money" into the royaltreasury, and the next year the tax was extended to inland towns andcounties. [Footnote: The first writ of ship-money yielded L100, 000(Cunningham). ] To test the legality of this exaction, a certain JohnHampden refused to pay his twenty shillings ship-money, and took thematter to court, claiming that ship-money was illegal taxation. Themajority of the judges, who held office during the king's pleasure andwere therefore strictly under royal influence, upheld the legality ofship-money and even went so far as to assert that in times of emergencythe king's prerogative was unlimited, but the country rang withprotests and Hampden was hailed as a hero. [Sidenote: Devotion of Charles I to the Anglican Church: ArchbishopLaud][Sidenote: Puritan Opposition] Opposition to financial exactions went hand in hand with bitterreligious disputes. Charles had intrusted the control of religiousaffairs to William Laud, whom he named archbishop of Canterbury, andshowed favor to other clergymen of marked Catholic leanings. The lawsagainst Roman Catholics were relaxed, and the restrictions on Puritansincreased. It seemed as if Charles and his bishops were bent upongoading the Puritans to fury, at the very time when one by one thepractices, the vestments, and even the dogmas of the Catholic Churchwere being reintroduced into the Anglican Church, when the tyrannicalKing James was declared to have been divinely inspired, and whenPuritan divines were forced to read from their pulpits a royaldeclaration permitting the "sinful" practices of dancing on the greenor shooting at the butts (targets) on the Sabbath. [Footnote: It is aninteresting if not a significant fact that the Puritans with theiraustere views about observance of the Sabbath not only decreased thenumber of holidays for workingmen, but interfered with innocentrecreation on the remaining day of rest. One aspect of the resultingmonotonous life of the laborer was, according to Cunningham, theremarkable increase of drunkenness at this period. ] So hard was the lotof the extreme Protestants in England that thousands fled the countryand established themselves in America. [Footnote: In the decade 1630-1640 some 20, 000 Englishmen sailed for the colonies. Many of these, however, emigrated by reason of strictly economic distress. ] [Sidenote: The Scotch Covenant, and Beginnings of Armed Opposition tothe King][Sidenote: Convocation of the Long Parliament, 1640] In his Scotch policy Charles overreached himself. With the zealouscooeperation of Archbishop Laud, imprudently attempted to strengthen theepiscopacy (system of bishops) in the northern kingdom, and likewise tointroduce an un-Calvinistic order of public worship. Thereupon theangry Scotch Presbyterians signed a great Covenant, swearing to defendtheir religion (1638); they deposed the bishops set over them by theking and rose in revolt. Failing in a first effort to crush the Scotchrebellion, the king summoned a Parliament in order to secure financialsupport for an adequate royal army. This Parliament--the so-calledShort Parliament--was dissolved, however, after some three weeks ofbootless wrangling. Now unable to check the advance of the rebelliousScotch forces into northern England, Charles in desperation convoked(1640) a new Parliament, which, by reason of its extended duration(1640-1660), has been commonly called the Long Parliament. In Englandand Scotland divine-right monarchy had failed. THE PURITAN REVOLUTION [Sidenote: Reforms of the Long Parliament] Confident that Charles could neither fight nor buy off the Scotchwithout parliamentary subsidies, the Long Parliament showed a decidedlystubborn spirit. Its leader, John Pym, a country gentleman alreadyfamous for speeches against despotism, openly maintained that in theHouse of Commons resided supreme authority to disregard ill-advisedacts of the Upper House or of the king. Hardly less radical were theviews of John Hampden and of Oliver Cromwell, the future dictator ofEngland. The right of the Commons to impeach ministers of state, asserted underJames I, was now used to send to the Tower both Archbishop Laud andThomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, who, since 1629, had been theking's most valued and enthusiastically loyal minister. [Footnote:Strafford was accused of treason, but was executed in 1641 inaccordance with a special "bill of attainder" enacted by Parliament. Laud was put to death in 1645. ] The special tribunals--the Court ofHigh Commission, the Court of Star Chamber, and others--which hadserved to convict important ecclesiastical and political offenders wereabolished. No more irregular financial expedients, such as theimposition of ship-money, were to be adopted, except by the consent ofParliament. As if this were not enough to put the king under the thumbof his Parliament, the royal prerogative of dissolving that body wasabrogated, and meetings at least every three years were provided for bya "Triennial Act. " [Sidenote: Violation of Parliamentary Privileges: Attempted Seizure byCharles of the Five Members][Sidenote: The Great Rebellion, 1642-1646] All the contested points of government had been decided adversely tothe king. But his position was now somewhat stronger. He had been ableto raise money, the Scotch invaders had turned back, and the House ofCommons had shown itself to be badly divided on the question of churchreform and in its debates on the publication of a "Grand Remonstrance"--a document exposing the grievances of the nation and apologizing forthe acts of Parliament. Moreover, a rebellion had broken out in Irelandand Charles expected to be put at the head of an army for itssuppression. With this much in his favor, the king in person enteredthe House of Commons and attempted to arrest five of its leaders, buthis dismal failure only further antagonized the Commons, who nowproceeded to pass ordinances without the royal seal, and to issue acall to arms. The levy of troops contrary to the king's will was an actof rebellion; Charles, therefore, raised the royal standard atNottingham and called his loyal subjects to suppress the GreatRebellion (1642-1646). [Sidenote: The Parties to the Civil War: "Cavaliers" and "Roundheads"] To the king's standard rallied the bulk of the nobles, high churchmen, and Roman Catholics, the country "squires, " and all those who dislikedthe austere moral code of the Puritans. In opposition to him a fewgreat earls led the middle classes--small land-holders, merchants, manufacturers, shop-keepers, especially in London and other busy townsthroughout the south and east of England. The close-cropped heads ofthese "God-fearing" tradesmen won them the nickname "Roundheads, " whilethe royalist upper classes, not thinking it a sinful vanity to weartheir hair in long curls, were called "Cavaliers. " [Sidenote: Parliament and the Presbyterians] In the Long Parliament there was a predominance of the Presbyterians--that class of Puritans midway between the reforming Episcopalians andthe radical Independents. Accordingly a "solemn league and covenant"was formed (1643) with the Scotch Presbyterians for the establishmentof religious uniformity on a Presbyterian basis in England and Irelandas well as in Scotland. After the defeat of Charles at Marston Moor(1644) the Presbyterians abolished the office of bishop, removed altarsand communion rails from the churches, and smashed crucifixes, images, and stained-glass windows. Presbyterianism became a more intolerantstate religion than Anglicanism had been. Satisfied with their work, the Presbyterian majority in Parliament were now willing to restore theking, provided he would give permanence to their religious settlement. [Sidenote: The Army and the Independents: Oliver Cromwell] The Independent army, however, was growing restive. Oliver Cromwell, anIndependent, had organized a cavalry regiment of "honest soberChristians" who were fined 12 pence if they swore, who charged inbattle while "singing psalms, " and who went about the business ofkilling their enemies in a pious and prayerful, but withal a highlyeffective, manner. Indeed, so successful were Cromwell's "Ironsides"that a considerable part of the Parliamentary army was reorganized onhis plan. The "New Model" army, as it was termed, was Independent insympathy, that is to say, it wished to carry on the war, and tooverthrow the tyranny of the Presbyterians as well as that of theAnglicans. [Sidenote: Cromwell's Army Defeats the King and Dominates Parliament][Sidenote: The "Rump Parliament"] The "New Model" army, under the command of Fairfax and Cromwell, defeated Charles and forced him to surrender in 1646. For almost twoyears the Presbyterian Parliament negotiated for the restoration of theking and at last would have made peace with the royalists, had not thearmy, which still remembered Charles's schemes to bring Irish andforeign "papists" to fight Englishmen, now taken a hand in affairs. Colonel Pride, stationed with his soldiers at the door of the House ofCommons, arrested the 143 Presbyterian Commoners, and left theIndependents--some sixty strong--to deliberate alone upon the nation'sweal (1648). This "Rump" or sitting part of Parliament, acting on itsown authority, appointed a "High Court of justice" by whose sentenceCharles I was beheaded, 30 January, 1649. It then decreed England to bea Commonwealth with neither king nor House of Lords. [Sidenote: The Commonwealth, 1649-1660] The executive functions, hitherto exercised by the king, were intrustedto a Council of State, of whose forty-one members thirty were membersof the House. The Rump Parliament, instead of calling for newelections, as had been expected, continued to sit as the"representatives of the people, " although they represented thesentiments of only a small fraction of the people. England was in thehands of an oligarchy whose sole support was the vigorous army ofCromwell. Menacing conditions confronted the newly born Commonwealth. War withScotland and with Holland was imminent; mutiny and unrest showed thatthe execution of Charles had infused new life into the royalists;Catholic-royalist rebels mastered all of Ireland except Dublin. Underthese circumstances, the Commonwealth would have perished but for threesources of strength: (1) Its financial resources proved adequate:customs duties were collected, excise taxes on drinks and food werelevied, and confiscated royalist estates were sold; (2) its enemies hadno well-drilled armies; and (3) its own army was remarkably powerful. [Sidenote: Cromwell and the Restoration of Order] Cromwell, victor in a series of bloody engagements in Ireland, afterbutchering thousands of the defeated royalists and shipping others asslaves to Barbados, was able to return to London in 1650, declaring, "Iam persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon thesebarbarous wretches [the Irish] who have imbrued their hands in so muchinnocent blood, and that it will tend to prevent the effusion of bloodfor the future. " The next movement of Cromwell, as Parliamentarycommander-in-chief, was against the Scotch, who had declared forCharles II, the son of Charles I. The Scotch armies were annihilated, and Prince Charles fled in disguise to France. [Sidenote: Navigation Act, 1651] Meanwhile the members of the Rump, still the nominal rulers of England, finding opportunity for profit in the sale of royalist lands and in theadministration of finance, had exasperated Cromwell by theirmaladministration and neglect of the public welfare. The life of theRump was temporarily prolonged, however, by the popularity of itslegislation against the Dutch, at this time the rivals of England onthe seas and in the colonies. In 1651 the Rump passed the firstNavigation Act, forbidding the importation of goods from Asia, Africa, or America, except in English or colonial ships, and providing thatcommodities of European production should be imported only in vesselsof England or of the producing country. The framers of the NavigationAct intended thereby to exclude Dutch vessels from trading betweenEngland and other lands. The next year a commercial and naval war(1652-1654) broke out between England and Holland, leading to nodecisive result, but, on the whole, increasing the prestige of theEnglish navy. With renewed confidence the Rump contemplatedperpetuating its narrow oligarchy, but Cromwell's patience wasexhausted, and in 1653 he turned Parliament out of doors, declaring, "Your hour is come, the Lord hath done with you!" Cromwell remained asmilitary and religious dictator. [Sidenote: Oliver Cromwell] Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658) is the most interesting figure inseventeenth-century England. Belonging by birth to the class of countrygentlemen, his first appearance in public life was in the Parliament of1628 as a pleader for the liberty of Puritan preaching. When the LongParliament met in 1640, Cromwell, now forty-one years of age, assumed aconspicuous place. His clothes were cheap and homely, "his countenanceswollen and reddish, his voice sharp and untuneable, " nevertheless hisfervid eloquence and energy soon made him "very much hearkened unto. "From the Civil War, as we know, Cromwell emerged as an unequaledmilitary leader, the idol of his soldiers, fearing God but not man. Hisfrequent use of Biblical phrases in ordinary conversation and hismanifest confidence that he was performing God's work flowed from anintense religious zeal. He belonged, properly speaking, to theIndependents, who believed that each local congregation of Christiansshould be practically free, excepting that "prelacy" (_i. E. _, theepiscopal form of church government) and "popery" (_i. E. _, RomanCatholic Christianity) were not to be tolerated. In private lifeCromwell was fond of "honest sport, " of music and art. It is said thathis gayety when he had "drunken a cup of wine too much" and his tastein statuary shocked his more austere fellow-Puritans. In public life hewas a man of great forcefulness, occasionally giving way to violenttemper; he was a statesman of signal ability, aiming to secure goodgovernment and economic prosperity for England and religious freedomfor Protestant Dissenters. [Sidenote: Radical Experiments under Cromwell] After arbitrarily dissolving the Rump of the Long Parliament (1653), Cromwell and his Council of State broke with tradition entirely byselecting 140 men to constitute a legislative body or convention. Thisbody speedily received the popular appellation of "Barebone'sParliament" after one of its members, a certain leather merchant, whobore the descriptive Puritan name of Praisegod Barebone. The newlegislators were good Independents--"faithful, fearing God, and hatingcovetousness. " Recommended by Independent ministers, they felt that Godhad called them to rule in righteousness. Their zeal for reform foundexpression in the reduction of public expenditure, in the equalizationof taxes, and in the compilation of a single code of laws; but theirradical proposals for civil marriage and for the abolition of tithesstartled the clergy and elicited from the larger landowners the cry of"confiscation!" Before much was accomplished, however, the moreconservative members of "Barebone's Parliament" voted to "deliver upunto the Lord-General [Cromwell] the powers we received from him. " [Sidenote: The Protectorate, 1653-1659] Upon the failure of this experiment, Cromwell's supporters in the armyprepared an "Instrument of Government, " or constitution. By thisInstrument of Government--the first written constitution in moderntimes--a "Protectorate" was established, which was a constitutionalmonarchy in all but name. Oliver Cromwell, who became "Lord Protector"for life, was to govern with the aid of a small Council of State. Parliaments, meeting at least every three years, were to make laws andlevy taxes, the Protector possessing the right to delay, but not toveto, legislation. Puritanism was made the state religion. [Sidenote: Parliament under the Protectorate] The first Parliament under the Protectorate was important for threereasons. (1) It consisted of only one House; (2) it was the Parliamentof Great Britain and Ireland rather than of England alone; (3) itsmembers were elected on a reformed basis of representation, --that is, the right of representation had been taken from many small places andtransferred to more important towns. [Sidenote: Practical Dictatorship of Cromwell, 1655-1658] Although royalists were excluded from the polls, the Independents wereunable to control a majority in the general election, for, it must beremembered, they formed a very small, though a powerful, minority ofthe population. The Presbyterians in the new Parliament, withcharacteristic stubbornness, quarreled with Cromwell, until he abruptlydismissed them (1655). Thenceforth Cromwell governed as a militarydictator, placing England under the rule of his generals, andquarreling with his Parliaments. To raise money he obliged all thosewho had borne arms for the king to pay him 10 per cent of their rental. While permitting his office to be made hereditary, he refused to acceptthe title of king, but no Stuart monarch had ruled with such absolutepower, nor was there much to choose between James's "_a deo rex, arege lex_" and Cromwell's, "If my calling be from God and mytestimony from the people, God and the people shall take it from me, else I will not part from it. " The question is often raised, how Cromwell, representing thenumerically insignificant Independents, contrived to maintain himselfas absolute ruler of the British Isles. Three circumstances may havecontributed to his strength. (1) He was the beloved leader of an armyrespected for its rigid discipline and feared for its grimmercilessness. (2) Under his strict enforcement of law and order, tradeand industry brought domestic prosperity. (3) His conduct of foreignaffairs was both satisfactory to English patriotism and profitable toEnglish purses. Advantageous commercial treaties were made with theDutch and the French. Industrious Jews were allowed to enter England. Barbary pirates were chastised. In a war against Spain, the army wonDunkirk; and the navy, now becoming truly powerful, sank a Spanishfleet, wrested Jamaica from Spain, and brought home ship-loads ofSpanish silver. The weakness of Cromwell's position, however, was obvious. Cavalierswere openly hostile to a regime of religious zealots; moderateAnglicans would suffer the despotism of Cromwell only as long as itpromoted prosperity; Presbyterians were anxious to end the tolerationwhich was accorded to all Puritan sects; radicals and republicans wereeager to try new experiments. [Sidenote: Disorganization following the Death of Oliver Cromwell] The death of Cromwell (1658) left the army without a master and thecountry without a government. True, Oliver's son, Richard Cromwell(1626-1712), attempted for a time to fill his father's place, but soonabdicated after having lost control of both army and Parliament. Armyofficers restored the Rump of the Long Parliament, dissolved it, set itup again, and forced it to recall the Presbyterian members who had beenexpelled in 1648, and ended by obliging the reconstituted LongParliament to convoke a new and freely elected "Convention Parliament. "Meanwhile, General Monck opened negotiations for the return of CharlesII. THE RESTORATION: THE REIGN OF CHARLES II [Sidenote: Popular Grievances against the Protectorate] The widespread and exuberant enthusiasm which restored the Stuarts wasnot entirely without causes, social and religious, as well aspolitical. The grievances and ideals which had inspired the GreatRebellion were being forgotten, and a new generation was finding faultwith the Protectorate. The simple country folk longed for their may-poles, their dances, and games on the green; only fear compelled themto bear with the tyranny of the sanctimonious soldiers who broke thewindows in their churches. Especially hard was the lot of tenants andlaborers on the many estates purchased or seized by Puritans during theRebellion. Many townsmen, too, excluded from the ruling oligarchy, found the Puritan government as oppressive and arbitrary as that ofCharles I. [Sidenote: Opposition to Puritanism] The religious situation was especially favorable for Charles II. Theoutrages committed by Cromwell's soldiery had caused the Independentsto be looked upon as terrible fanatics, Even the Presbyterians werewilling to yield some points to the king, if only Independency could beoverthrown; and many who had been inclined to Puritanism were nowunwavering in loyalty to the Anglican Church. Orthodox Anglicanism, from its origin, had been bound up with the monarchy, and it nowconsistently expected a double triumph of the "divine-right" of kingsand of bishops. Most bitter of all against the Cromwellian regime werethe Roman Catholics in Ireland. Though Cromwell as Lord Protector hadfavored toleration for Protestants, it would be long before Catholicscould forget the Irish priests whom Cromwell's soldiery had brutallyknocked on the head, or the thousands of Catholic girls and boys whomCromwell's agents had sold into horrible slavery in the West Indies. [Sidenote: Royalist Reaction] This strong royalist undercurrent, flowing from religious and socialconditions, makes more comprehensible the ease with which Englanddrifted back into the Stuart monarchy. The younger generation, with nomemory of Stuart despotism, and with a keen dislike for the confusionin which no constitutional form was proof against military tyranny, gave ready credence to Prince Charles's promises of constitutionalgovernment. There seemed to be little probability that the youngmonarch would attempt that arbitrary rule which had brought hisfather's head to the block. [Sidenote: Charles II, 1660-1685] The experiment in Puritan republicanism had resulted only in convincingthe majority of the people that "the government is, and ought to be, byKing, Lords, and Commons. " The people merely asked for some assurancesagainst despotism, --and when a throne was thus to be purchased withpromises, Charles II was a ready buyer. He swore to observe _MagnaCarta_ and the "Petition of Right, " to respect Parliament, not tointerfere with its religious policy, nor to levy illegal taxes. Boundby these promises, he was welcomed back to England in 1660 and crownedthe following year. The reinstatement of the king was accompanied by ageneral resumption by bishops and royalist nobles of their offices andlands: things seemed to slip back into the old grooves. Charles IIdated his reign not from his actual accession but from his father'sdeath, and his first Parliament declared invalid all those acts andordinances passed since 1642 which it did not specifically confirm. The history of constitutional government under the restored Stuarts isa history of renewed financial and religious disputes. Charles II andhis younger brother and heir, Prince James, duke of York, alike adheredto the political faith of their Stuart father and grandfather. Cousinson their mother's side of Louis XIV of France, in whose court they hadbeen reared, they were more used to the practices of French absolutismthan to the peculiar customs of parliamentary government in England. Unlike their father, who had been most upright in private life and mostloyal to the Anglican Church, both Charles and James had acquired fromtheir foreign environment at once a taste for vicious living and astrong attachment to the Roman Catholic Church. In these two StuartsCatholicism was combined with absolutism; and the Englishmenrepresented in Parliament were therefore brought face to face not onlywith a revival of the earlier Stuart theory of divine-right monarchybut with a new and far more hateful possibility of the royalestablishment of Roman Catholicism in England. Charles II did notpublicly confess his conversion to Catholicism until his deathbed, butJames became a zealous convert in 1672. That Charles II was able to round out a reign of twenty-five years anddie a natural death as king of England was due not so much to hisvirtues as to his faults. He was so hypocritical that his real aimswere usually successfully concealed. He was so indolent that with someshow of right he could blame his ministers and advisers for his ownmistakes and misdeeds. He was so selfish that he would make concessionshere and there rather than "embark again upon his travels. " In fact, pure selfishness was the basis of his policy in domestic and foreignaffairs, but it was always a selfishness veiled in wit, good humor, andcaptivating affability. [Sidenote: Renewal of Financial Disputes between King and Parliament] At the beginning of the reign of Charles II, the country gentlemen wereastute enough to secure the abolition of the surviving feudal rights bywhich the king might demand certain specified services from them andcertain sums of money when an heiress married or a minor inherited anestate. This action, seemingly insignificant, was in reality of thegreatest importance, for it indicated the abandonment in England of thefeudal theory that land is held by nobles in return for militaryservice, and at the same time it consecrated the newer principle thatthe land should be owned freely and personally--a principle which hassince been fully recognized in the United States and other moderncountries as well as in England. The extinction of feudal prerogativesin the early days of the Stuart Restoration benefited the landlordsprimarily, but the annual lump sum of L100, 000 which Charles II wasgiven in return, was voted by Parliament and was paid by all classes inthe form of excise taxes on alcoholic drinks. Customs duties of L410_s_. On every tun of wine and 5 per cent _ad valorem_ onother imports, hearth-money (a tax on houses), and profits on the postoffice contributed to make up the royal revenue of somewhat less thanL1, 200, 000. This was intended to defray the ordinary expenses of courtand government but seemed insufficient to Charles, who was not onlyextravagantly luxurious, but desirous of increasing his power bybribing members of Parliament and by maintaining a standing army. Thecountry squires who had sold their plate for the royalist cause back inthe 'forties and were now suffering from hard times, thought the courtwas too extravagant; to this feeling was added fear that Charles mighthire foreign soldiers to oppress Englishmen. Consequently Parliamentgrew more parsimonious, and in 1665-1667 claimed a new and importantprivilege--that of devoting its grants to specific objects anddemanding an account of expenditures. Charles, however, was determined to have money by fair means or foul. Agroup of London goldsmiths had loaned more than a million and a quarterpounds sterling to the government. In 1672 Charles announced thatinstead of paying the money back, he would consider it a permanentloan. Two years earlier he had signed the secret treaty of Dover (1670)with Louis XIV, by which Louis promised him an annual subsidy ofL200, 000 and troops in case of rebellion, while Charles was openly tojoin the Roman Catholic Church and to aid Louis in his French warsagainst Spain and Holland. [Sidenote: Continued Religious Complications][Sidenote: Legislation against Protestant Dissenters] In his ambition to reestablish Catholicism in England, Charlesunderestimated the intense hostility of the bulk of the English squiresto any religious innovation. During the first decade of theRestoration, Puritanism had been most feared. Some two thousandclergymen, mostly Presbyterian, had been deprived of their offices byan Act of Uniformity (1662), requiring their assent to the Anglicanprayer-book; these dissenting clergymen might not return within fivemiles of their old churches unless they renounced the "Solemn Leagueand Covenant" and swore loyalty to the king (Five-mile Act, 1665); forrepeated attendance at their meetings (conventicles) Dissenters mightbe condemned to penal servitude in the West Indies against (ConventicleAct, 1664); and the Corporation Act of 1661 excluded Dissenters fromtown offices. [Sidenote: Leanings of Charles II toward Roman Catholicism] As the danger from Puritanism disappeared, the Catholic cloud darkenedthe horizon. In 1672 Prince James, the heir to the throne, embracedCatholicism; and in the same year Charles II issued a "Declaration ofIndulgence, " suspending the laws which oppressed Roman Catholics andincidentally the Dissenters likewise. The Declaration threw Englandinto paroxysms of fear; it was believed that the Catholic monarch ofFrance was about to aid in the subversion of the Anglican Church. [Sidenote: Leanings of Charles II toward Roman Catholicism][Sidenote: The Exclusion Bill] Parliament, already somewhat distrustful of Charles's foreign policy, and fearful of his leanings toward Roman Catholicism, found in theDeclaration of Indulgence a serious infraction of parliamentaryauthority. The royal right to "suspend" laws upon occasion hadundoubtedly been exercised before, but Parliament was now strong enoughto insist upon the binding force of its enactments and to obligeCharles to withdraw his Indulgence. The fear of Catholicism everincreased; gentlemen who at other times were quite rational gaveunhesitating credence to wild tales of a "Popish Plot" (1678). In 1679an Exclusion Bill was brought forward which would debar Prince Jamesfrom the throne, because of his conversion to Roman Catholicism. [Sidenote: The "Whigs"] In the excitement over this latest assertion of parliamentary power, [Footnote: In the course of the debate over Exclusion, theparliamentary party won an important concession--the Habeas Corpus Actof 1679, which was designed to prevent arbitrary imprisonment. ] twogreat factions were formed. The supporters of Exclusion were led bycertain great nobles who were jealous of the royal power, and wererecruited from merchants and shop-keepers who looked to Parliament toprotect their economic interests. Since many of the adherents of thispolitical group were Dissenters, whose dislike of Anglicanism wasexceeded only by their hatred of "popery, " the whole party was calledby a nickname--"Whig"--which had formerly been applied to rebelliousPresbyterians in Scotland. [Sidenote: The "Tories"] Opposed to the Whigs were the "Tories" [Footnote: Tory, a name appliedto "popish" outlaws in Ireland. ]--squires and country clergymen and allothers of an essentially conservative turn of mind. They were anxiousto preserve the Church and state alike from Puritans and from"papists, " but most of all to prevent a recurrence of civil war. In theopinion of the Tories, the best and most effective safeguard againstquarreling earls and insolent tradesmen was the hereditary monarchy. Better submit to a Roman Catholic sovereign, they said, than invitecivil war by disturbing the regular succession. In the contest over theExclusion Bill, the Tories finally carried the day, for, although thebill was passed by the Commons (1680), it was rejected by the House ofLords. [Sidenote: Temporary Success of the Tories] In the last few years of Charles's reign the cause of the Whigs wasdiscredited. Rumors got abroad that they were plotting to assassinatethe king and it was said that the Whiggish nobles who brought armedretainers to Parliament were planning to use force to establishCharles's illegitimate son--the duke of Monmouth--on the throne. Theseand similar accusations hurt the Whigs tremendously, and help explainthe violent Tory reaction which enabled Charles to rule withoutParliament from 1681 to his death in 1685. As had been feared, upon thedeath of Charles II, the duke of Monmouth organized a revolt, but this, together with a simultaneous insurrection in Scotland, was easilycrushed, and James II was securely seated on the throne. THE "GLORIOUS REVOLUTION" AND THE FINAL ESTABLISHMENT OF PARLIAMENTARYGOVERNMENT IN GREAT BRITAIN [Sidenote: James II (1685-1688): His Futile Combination of Absolutismand Roman Catholicism] In his short reign of three years James II (1685-1688) succeeded instirring up opposition on all sides. The Tories, the party mostfavorable to the royal prerogative, upon whom he might have relied, were shocked by his attempts to create a standing army commanded byCatholics, for such an army might prove as disastrous to theirliberties as Cromwell's "New Model"; and the Whigs, too, were drivenfrom sullenness to desperation by James's religious policy and despoticgovernment. James, like his brother, claiming the right to "suspend"the laws and statutes which Parliament had enacted against RomanCatholics and Dissenters, issued a Declaration of Indulgence in 1687, which exempted Catholics and Dissenters from punishment for infractionsof these laws. Furthermore, he appointed Roman Catholics to office inthe army and in the civil government. In spite of protests, he issued asecond Declaration of Indulgence in 1688 and ordered it to be read inall Anglican churches, and, when seven bishops remonstrated, he accusedthem of seditious libel. No jury would convict the seven bishops, however, for James had alienated every class, and they were acquitted. The Tories were estranged by what seemed to be a deliberate attack onthe Anglican Church and by fear of a standing army. The arbitrarydisregard of parliamentary legislation, and the favor shown to RomanCatholics, goaded the Whigs into fury. [Sidenote: The "Glorious Revolution" (1688): Dethronement of James II] So long as Whigs and Tories alike could expect the accession on thedeath of James II of one of his Protestant daughters--Mary or Anne--they continued to acquiesce in his arbitrary government. But theoutlook became gloomier when on 10 June, 1688, a son was born to JamesII by his second wife, a Catholic. Most Protestants believed that theprince was not really James's son; politicians prophesied that he wouldbe educated in his father's "popish" and absolutist doctrines, and thatthus England would continue to be ruled by papist despots. Even thosewho professed to believe in the divine right of kings and had deniedthe right of Parliament to alter the succession were dejected at thisprospect, and many of them were willing to join with the Whigs ininviting a Protestant to take the throne. The next in line ofsuccession after the infant prince was Mary, the elder of James's twodaughters, wife of William of Orange, [Footnote: See above, pp. 245, 248] and an Anglican. Upon the invitation of Whig and Tory leaders, William crossed over to England with an army and entered London withoutopposition (1688). Deserted even by his army James fled to France. [Footnote: Risings in favor of James were suppressed in Ireland and inScotland. In Ireland the famous battle of the Boyne (1 July, 1690) wasdecisive. ] [Sidenote: Accession of William and Mary, 1689][Sidenote: Constitutional Settlement: the Bill of Rights (1689) andTriumph of Parliament][Sidenote: The Mutiny Act] A bloodless revolution was now accomplished and the crown was formallypresented to William and Mary by an irregular Parliament, which alsodeclared that James II, having endeavored to subvert the constitutionand having fled the kingdom, had vacated the throne. In offering thecrown to William and Mary, Parliament was very careful to safeguard itsown power and the Protestant religion by issuing a Declaration ofRights (13 February, 1689), which was enacted as the Bill of Rights, 16December, 1689. This act decreed that the sovereign must henceforthbelong to the Anglican Church, thereby debarring the Catholic son ofJames II. The act also denied the power of a king to "suspend" laws orto "dispense" subjects from obeying the laws, to levy money, or tomaintain an army without consent of Parliament; asserted that neitherthe free election nor the free speech and proceedings of members ofParliament should be interfered with; affirmed the right of subjects topetition the sovereign; and demanded impartial juries and frequentParliaments. The Bill of Rights, far more important in English historythan the Petition of Right (1628), inasmuch as Parliament was nowpowerful enough to maintain as well as to define its rights, wassupplemented by the practice, begun in the same year, 1689, of grantingtaxes and making appropriations for the army for one year only. UnlessParliament were called every year to pass a Mutiny Act (provision forthe army), the soldiers would receive no pay and in case of mutinywould not be punishable by court martial. [Sidenote: Measures Favorable to Landlords][Sidenote: Religious Toleration for Protestant Dissenters: ContinuedPersecution of Roman Catholics] Both Whigs and Tories had participated in the Revolution, and bothreaped rewards. The Tories were especially pleased with the army lawsand with an arrangement by which farmers were given a "bounty" or moneypremium for every bushel of grain exported. [Footnote: That is, whenwheat was selling for less than 6s. A bushel. ] The Whigs, having playeda more prominent part in the deposition of James II, were able tosecure the long-coveted political supremacy of Parliament, andreligious toleration of Dissenters. The Toleration Act of 1689 did notgo as far as the Dissenters might have desired, but it gave them thelegal right to worship in public, while their enemies, the RomanCatholics, remained under the ban. [Sidenote: Commercial Gains for England][Sidenote: Union of England and Scotland: the Kingdom of Great Britain, 1707] In the foreign policy of the reigns of William (1689-1702) and Mary, and of Anne (1702-1714), Whiggish policies generally predominated. Themerchants and shippers who formed an important wing of the Whig partywere highly gratified by the Wars of the League of Augsburg and theSpanish Succession, [Footnote: See above, pp. 248 ff. , and below, pp. 306 ff. ] in which England fought at once against France, her commercialand colonial rival, and against Louis XIV, the friend of the CatholicStuart pretenders to the English throne. [Footnote: Louis XIV openlysupported the pretensions of James (III), the "Old Pretender. "] TheMethuen Treaty (1703) was also advantageous: it allowed Englishmerchants to sell their manufactures in Portugal without hindrance; inreturn for this concession England lowered the duties on Portuguesewines, and "Port" supplanted "Burgundy" on the tables of Englishgentlemen. The Act of Union of 1707 was not unfavorable either, for itestablished common trade regulations, customs, and excise in Englandand in Scotland. To the merely personal union between the crowns ofEngland and Scotland which had been inaugurated (1603) by the first ofthe Stuart monarchs of England now succeeded under the last of theStuart sovereigns a corporate union of the two monarchies under thetitle of the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707). [Sidenote: Accession of the Hanoverians (1714); Continued Decline ofRoyal Power] Upon the death of Anne (1714), the crown passed [Footnote: Inaccordance with the Act of Settlement (1701). ] to her cousin, the sonof Sophia of Hanover, George I (1714-1727). The new king, unable evento speak the English language, much less to understand the complicatedtraditions of parliamentary government, was neither able nor anxious torule, but was content merely to reign. The business of administration, therefore, was handed over to a group of ministers who strove not onlyto please their royal master but to retain the good-will of thepredominant party in Parliament. [Sidenote: Rise of the Cabinet] Since this practice, with the many customs which have grown up aboutit, has become a most essential part of the government of the UnitedKingdom today, and has been copied in recent times by many othercountries, it is important to understand its early history. Even beforethe accession of the Tudors, the Great Council of nobles and prelateswhich had advised and assisted early kings in matters of administrationhad surrendered most of its actual functions to a score or so of "PrivyCouncilors. " The Privy Council in turn became unwieldy, and allowed aninner circle or "cabal" of its most energetic members to direct theconduct of affairs. This inner circle was called a cabinet or cabinetcouncil, because it conferred with the king in a small private room(cabinet), and under the restored Stuarts it was extremely unpopular. William III, more interested in getting money and troops to defend hisnative Holland against Louis XIV than in governing England, allowed hisministers free rein in most matters. So long as the Whigs held amajority of the seats in the Commons, William found that the wheels ofgovernment turned smoothly if all his ministers were Whigs. On theother hand, when the Tories gained a preponderance in the Commons, theWhig ministers were so distasteful to the new majority of the Commonsthat it was necessary to replace them with Tories. Queen Anne, althoughher sincere devotion to Anglicanism inclined her to the Tories, wasforced to appoint Whig ministers. Only toward the close of her reign(1710) did Anne venture to dismiss the Whigs. [Sidenote: Era of Whig Domination, 1714-1761][Sidenote: Robert Walpole and his Policies] Under George I (1714-1727) it became customary for the king to absenthimself from cabinet-meetings. (It will be remembered that George couldnot speak English. ) This tended to make the cabinet even moreindependent of the sovereign, as shown by the fact that Anne was thelast to use her prerogative to veto bills. From 1714 to 1761 was thegreat era of Whig domination. Both George I and George II naturallyfavored the Whigs, because the Tories were supposed to desire a secondrestoration of the Stuarts. Certainly many of the Tories hadparticipated in the vain attempt of the "Old Pretender" in 1715 to seathimself on the British throne as James III, and again in 1745 extremeTories took part in the insurrection in Scotland, gallantly led by theYoung Pretender, "Prince Charlie" the grandson of James II. Under thesecircumstances practically all classes rallied to the support of theWhigs, who stood for the Protestant monarchy. Great Whig landownerscontrolled the rural districts, and the aristocracy of the towns waswon by the Whiggish policy of devotion to public credit and theprotection of commerce. The extensive and continued power of the Whigsmade it possible for Sir Robert Walpole, [Footnote: Created earl ofOrford in 1742. ] a great Whig leader, to hold office for twenty-oneyears (1721-1742), jealously watching and maintaining his supremacyunder two sovereigns--George I (1714-1727) and George II (1727-1760). Though disclaiming the title, he was recognized by every one as the"prime minister"--prime in importance, prime in power. The otherministers, nominally appointed by the sovereign, were in point of factdependent upon him for office, and he, though nominally appointed bythe crown, was really dependent only upon the support of a Whigmajority in the Commons. [Sidenote: William Pitt, Earl of Chatham] Walpole's power was based on policy and political manipulation. Hispolicy was twofold, the maintenance of peace and of prosperity. Weshall see elsewhere how he kept England clear of costly Continentalwars. [Footnote: See above, p. 256, and below, pp. 309 ff. , 324 f. ] Hispolicy of prosperity was based on mercantilist ideas and consisted instrict attention to business methods in public finance, [Footnote:Walpole was called the "best master of figures of any man of histime. "] the removal of duties on imported raw materials, and onexported manufactures. In spite of the great prosperity of the period, there was considerable criticism of Walpole's policy, and "politics"alone enabled him to persevere in it. By skillful partisan patronage, by bestowal of state offices and pensions upon members of Parliament, by open bribery, and by electioneering, he secured his ends andmaintained his majority in the House of Commons. Walpole's successors, --Henry Pelham and the duke of Newcastle, --likehim represented the oligarchy of Whig nobles and millionaires, and evenoutdid him in corrupt methods. Another section of the Whig party underthe leadership of William Pitt the elder (the earl of Chatham) wongreat popularity by its condemnation of political "graft. " Pitt's fierydemands for war first against Spain (1739-1748) and then against France(1756-1763) were echoed by patriotic squires and by the merchants whowished to ruin French commerce and to throw off the restrictions laidby Spain on American commerce. Pitt had his way until George III, amonarch determined to destroy the power of the Whigs, appointed Toryministers, such as Lord Bute and Lord North. The attempt of George IIIto regain the power his great-grandfather had lost, to rule as well asto reign, was in the end a failure, and later Hanoverians might wellhave joined George II in declaring that "ministers are kings in thiscountry. " [Sidenote: Significance of English Constitutional Development in theSeventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries] This indeed is the salient fact in the evolution of constitutionalgovernment in England. While in other countries late in the eighteenthcentury monarchs still ruled by divine right, in England Parliament andministers were the real rulers, and, in theory at least, they ruled bythe will of the people. That England was able to develop this form ofgovernment may have been due in part to her insular position, herconstitutional traditions, and the ill-advised conduct of the Stuartkings, but most of all it was due to the great commercial andindustrial development which made her merchant class rich and powerfulenough to demand and secure a share in government. [Sidenote: Great Britain Parliamentarian but not Democratic] In their admiration for the English government, many popular writershave fallen into the error of confounding the struggle forparliamentary supremacy with the struggle for democracy. Nothing couldbe more misleading. The "Glorious Revolution" of 1689 was a _coupd'etat_ engineered by the upper classes, and the liberty itpreserved was the liberty of nobles, squires, and merchants--not thepolitical liberty of the common people. [Sidenote: The Unreformed Parliament] The House of Commons was essentially undemocratic. Only one man inevery ten had even the nominal right to vote. It is estimated that from1760 to 1832 nearly one-half of the members owed their seats topatrons, and the reformed representatives of large towns werefrequently chosen by a handful of rich merchants. In fact, thegovernment was controlled by the upper class of society, and by only apart of that. No representatives sat for the numerous manufacturingtowns which had sprung into importance during the last few decades, andrich manufacturers everywhere complained that the country was beingruined by the selfish administration of great landowners and commercialaristocrats. Certain it is that the Parliament of the seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies, while wonderfully earnest and successful in enrichingEngland's landlords and in demolishing every obstacle to Britishcommerce, at the same time either willfully neglected or woefullyfailed to do away with intolerance in the Church and injustice in thecourts, or to defend the great majority of the people from the greed oflandlords and the avarice of employers. Designed as it was for the protection of selfish class interests, theEnglish government was nevertheless a step in the direction ofdemocracy. The idea of representative government as expressed byParliament and cabinet was as yet very narrow, but it was capable ofbeing expanded without violent revolution, slowly but inevitably, so asto include the whole people. [Illustration: THE HOUSE OF STUART] [Illustration: THE HANOVERIAN SOVEREIGNS OF GREAT BRITAIN (1714-1915)] ADDITIONAL READING GENERAL. Brief surveys: A. L. Cross, _History of England and GreaterBritain (1914)_, ch. Xxvii-xli; T. F. Tout, _An Advanced History ofGreat Britain (1906)_, Book VI, Book VII, ch. I, ii; Benjamin Terry, _AHistory of England (1901)_, Part III, Book III and Book IV, ch. I-iii;E. P. Cheyney, _A Short History of England (1904)_, ch. Xiv-xvi, and, by the same author, _An Introduction to the Industrial and SocialHistory of England (1901)_. More detailed narratives: J. F. Bright, _History of England_, 5 vols. (1884-1904), especially Vol. II, _Personal Monarchy_, 1485-1688, and Vol. III, _Constitutional Monarchy, 1689-1837_; _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. IV (1906). Ch. Viii-xi, xv-xix, Vol. V (1908), ch. V, ix-xi, xv; H. D. Traill and J. S. Mann(editors), _Social England_, illus. Ed. , 6 vols. In 12 (1909), Vol. IV;A. D. Innes, _History of England and the British Empire_, 4 vols. (1914), Vol. II, ch. X-xvi; G. M. Trevelyan, _England under theStuarts_, 1603-1714 (1904), brilliant and suggestive; Leopold vonRanke, _History of England, Principally in the Seventeenth Century_, Eng. Trans. , 6 vols. (1875), particularly valuable for foreignrelations; Edward Dowden, _Puritan and Anglican_ (1901), an interestingstudy of literary and intellectual England in the seventeenth century;John Lingard, _History of England to 1688_, new ed. (1910) of an oldbut valuable work by a scholarly Roman Catholic, Vols. VII-X; H. W. Clark, _History of English Nonconformity_, Vol. I (1911), Book II, ch. I-iii, and Vol. II (1913), Book III, ch. I, ii, the best and mostrecent study of the role of the Protestant Dissenters; W. R. W. Stephens and William Hunt (editors), _History of the Church ofEngland_, the standard history of Anglicanism, of which Vol. V (1904), by W. H. Frere, treats of the years 1558-1625, and Vol. VI (1903), byW. H. Hutton, of the years 1625-1714. On Scotland during the period: P. H. Brown, _History of Scotland_, 3 vols. (1899-1909), Vols. II, III;Andrew Lang, _A History of Scotland_ from the Roman Occupation, 2d ed. , 4 vols. (1901-1907), Vols. III, IV. On Ireland: Richard Bagwell, _Ireland under the Tudors_, 3 vols. (1885-1890), and _Ireland under theStuarts and during the Interregnum_, 2 vols. (1909). Convenient source-material: G. W. Prothero, _Select Statutes and Other ConstitutionalDocuments Illustrative of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I_, 4th ed. (1913); S. R. Gardiner, _The Constitutional Documents of the PuritanRevolution_, 1628-1660, 2d ed. (1899); C. G. Robertson, _SelectStatutes, Cases, and Documents, 1660-1832_ (1904); E. P. Cheyney, _Readings in English History Drawn from the Original Sources_ (1908);Frederick York Powell, _English History by Contemporary Writers_, 8vols. (1887); C. A. Beard, _An Introduction to the English Historians_(1906), a collection of extracts from famous secondary works. THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. F. W. Maitland, _The Constitutional History of England_ (1908), Periods III, IV, special studies of the English government in 1625 and in 1702 by aneminent authority; D. J. Medley, _A Student's Manual of EnglishConstitutional History_, 5th ed. (1913), topical treatment, encyclopedic and dry; T. P. Taswell-Langmead, _English ConstitutionalHistory_, 7th ed. Rev. By P. A. Ashworth (1911), ch. Xiii-xvi, narrative style and brief; Henry Hallam, _Constitutional History ofEngland from the Accession of Henry VII to the Death of George II_, an old work, first pub. In 1827, still useful, new ed. , 3 vols. (1897). The best summary of the evolution of English parliamentary governmentin the middle ages is A. B. White, _The Making of the EnglishConstitution, 449-1485_ (1908), Part III. In support of thepretensions of the Stuart kings; see J. N. Figgis, _The Divine Rightof Kings_, 2d ed. (1914); and in opposition to them, see G. P. Gooch, _English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century_(1898). JAMES I AND CHARLES I. S. R. Gardiner, _The First Two Stuarts and thePuritan Revolution_, 7th ed. (1887), a brief survey in the "Epochs ofModern History" Series by the most prolific and most distinguishedwriter on the period, and, by the same author, the elaborate _Historyof England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the CivilWar_, 10 vols. (1883-1884), _History of the Great Civil War, 1642-1640_, 4 vols. (1893), and _Constitutional Documents of the PuritanRevolution_ (1899); F. C. Montague, _Political History of England, 1603-1660_ (1907), an accurate and strictly political narrative;_Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. III, ch. Xvi, xvii, on Spain andEngland in the time of James I. Clarendon's _History of the GreatRebellion_, the classic work of a famous royalist of the seventeenthcentury, is strongly partisan and sometimes untrustworthy: the bestedition is that of W. D. Macray, 6 vols. (1886). R. G. Usher, _The Riseand Fall of the High Commission_ (1913), is an account of one of thearbitrary royal courts. Valuable biographies: H. D. Traill, _Strafford_(1889); W. H. Hutton, _Laud_ (1895); E. C. Wade, John Pym (1912); C. R. Markham, _Life of Lord Fairfax_ (1870). THE CROMWELLIAN REGIME. The standard treatise is that of S. R. Gardiner, _The History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate_, 4 vols. (1903). Among numerous biographies of Oliver Cromwell, the followingare noteworthy: C. H. Firth, _Cromwell_ (1900). In "Heroes of theNations" Series; S. R. Gardiner, _Cromwell_ (1899), and, by the sameauthor, _Cromwell's Place in History_ (1897); John (Viscount) Morley, _Oliver Cromwell_ (1899); A. F. Pollard, _Factors in Modern History_(1907), ch. Ix-x; Thomas Carlyle, _Cromwell's Letters and Speeches_, ed. By S. C. Lomas, 3 vols. (1904). The _Diary_ of John Evelyn, aroyalist contemporary, affords naturally a somewhat different point ofview: the best edition is that of H. B. Wheatley, 4 vols. (1906). Various special phases of the regime: C. H. Firth, _Cromwell's Army_, 2d ed. (1912); Edward Jenks, _The Constitutional Experiments of theProtectorate_ (1890); Sir J. R. Seeley, _Growth of British Policy_, Vol. II (1895), Part III; G. L. Beer, _Cromwell's Policy in itsEconomic Aspects_ (1902); Sir W. L. Clowes, _The Royal Navy: aHistory_, Vol. II (1898); G. B. Tatham, _The Puritans in Power, a Studyof the English Church from 1640 to 1660_ (1913); W. A. Shaw, _Historyof the English Church, 1640-1660_, 2 vols. (1900); Robert Dunlop, _Ireland under the Commonwealth_, 2 vols. (1913), largely a collectionof documents; C. H. Firth, _The Last Years of the Protectorate_, 2vols. (1909). THE RESTORATION. Richard Lodge, _The Political History of England, 1660-1702_, a survey of the chief political facts, conservative intone; J. N. Figgis, _English History Illustrated from Original Sources, 1660-1715_ (1902), a convenient companion volume to Lodge's; OsmundAiry, _Charles II_ (1901), inimical to the first of the restored Stuartkings. Of contemporary accounts of the Restoration, the mostentertaining is Samuel Pepys, _Diary_, covering the years 1659-1669 andwritten by a bibulous public official, while the most valuable, thoughtainted with strong Whig partisanship, is Gilbert (Bishop) Burnet, _History of My Own Times_, edited by Osmund Airy, 2 vols. (1897-1900). See also H. B. Wheatley, _Samuel Pepys and the World he Lived In_(1880). Special topics in the reign of Charles II: W. E. Sydney, _Social Life in England, 1660-1660_ (1892); J. H. Overton, _Life in theEnglish Church, 1663-1714_ (1885); John Pollock, _The Popish Plot_(1903); G. B. Hertz, _English Public Opinion after the Restoration_(1902); C. B. R. Kent, _The Early History of the Tories_ (1908). JAMES II AND THE "GLORIOUS REVOLUTION. " The best brief account is thatof Arthur Hassall, _The Restoration and the Revolution_ (1912). Theclassic treatment is that of T. B. (Lord) Macaulay, _History ofEngland, 1685-1702_, a literary masterpiece but marred by vigorous Whigsympathies, new ed. By C. H. Firth, 6 vols. (1913-1914). Sir JamesMackintosh, _Review of the Causes of the Revolution of 1688_ (1834), anold work but still prized for the large collection of documents in theappendix; _Adventures of James II_ (1904), an anonymous and sympatheticaccount of the career of the deposed king; H. B. Irving, _Life of LordJeffreys_ (1898), an apology for a much-assailed agent of James II;Alice Shield and Andrew Lang, _The King over the Water_ (1907), and, bythe same authors, _Henry Stuart, Cardinal of York, and his Times_(1908), popular treatments of subsequent Stuart pretenders to theBritish throne. A good account of the reign of William III is that ofSir J. R. Seeley, _Growth of British Policy_, Vol. II (1895), Part V. GREAT BRITAIN IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. Generalhistories: _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. VI (1909), ch. I-iii; I. S. Leadam, _Political History of England, 1702-1760_ (1909), conservativeand matter-of-fact; W. E. H. Lecky, _A History of England in theEighteenth Century_, new ed. , 7 vols. (1892-1899), especially Vol. I, brilliantly written and very informing, and, by the same author, _AHistory of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century_, 5 vols. (1893); C. G. Robertson, _England under the Hanoverians_ (1911), ch. I, ii, iv; EarlStanhope (Lord Mahon), _History of England from the Peace of Utrecht tothe Peace of Versailles, 1713-1783_, 5th ed. , 7 vols. (1858), particularly Vols. I, II, tedious but still useful especially forforeign affairs. On the union of England and Scotland: P. H. Brown, _The Legislative Union of England and Scotland_ (1914); W. L. Matthieson, _Scotland and the Union_, 1695-1747 (1905); Daniel Defoe, _History of the Union between England and Scotland_ (1709). On the riseof the cabinet system: Mary T. Blauvelt, _The Development of CabinetGovernment in England_ (1902), a clear brief outline; Edward Jenks, _Parliamentary England: the Evolution of the Cabinet System_ (1903);and the general constitutional histories mentioned above. The bestaccount of _Sir Robert Walpole_ is the biography by John (Viscount)Morley (1889). CHAPTER IX THE WORLD CONFLICT OF FRANCE AND GREAT BRITAIN FRENCH AND ENGLISH COLONIES IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY In the sixteenth century, while Spain and Portugal were carving outvast empires beyond the seas, the sovereigns of France and England, distracted by religious dissensions or absorbed in European politics, did little more than to send out a few privateers and explorers. But inthe seventeenth century the England of the Stuarts and the France ofthe Bourbons found in colonies a refuge for their discontented orventuresome subjects, a source of profit for their merchants, a fieldfor the exercise of religious zeal, or gratification for nationalpride. Everywhere were commerce and colonization growing apace, andespecially were they beginning to play a large part in the nationallife of England and of France. We have already noticed how the Dutch, themselves the despoilers of Portugal [Footnote: See above, pp. 58f] inthe first half of the seventeenth century, were in turn attacked by theEnglish in a series of commercial wars [Footnote: The Dutch Wars of1652-1654, 1665-1667, and 1672-1674. See above pp. 59, 243, 278. ]during the second half of the seventeenth century. By 1688 the periodof active growth was past for the colonial empires of Holland, Portugal, and Spain; but England and France, beginning to realize thepossibilities for power in North America, in India, and on the highseas, were just on the verge of a world conflict, which, after ragingintermittently for more than a hundred years, was to leave GreatBritain the "mistress of the seas. " [Sidenote: Relative Position of the Rivals in 1688. In North America] Before plunging into the struggle itself, let us review the position ofthe two rivals in 1688: first, their claims and possessions in the NewWorld and in the Old; secondly, their comparative resources andpolicies. It will be remembered that the voyage of John Cabot (1497)gave England a claim to the mainland of North America. The Tudors(1485-1603), however, could not occupy so vast a territory, nor werethere any fences for the exclusion of intruders. Consequently theactual English settlements in North America, made wholly under theStuarts, [Footnote: However much modern Englishmen may condemn theefforts of the Stuart sovereigns to establish political absolutism athome, they can well afford to praise these same royal Stuarts forcontributing powerfully to the foundations of England's commercial andcolonial greatness abroad. ] were confined to Newfoundland, to a few furdepots in the region of Hudson Bay, and to a strip of coastland fromMaine to South Carolina; while the French not only had sent Verrazano(1524), who explored the coast of North America, and Cartier (1534-1536), who sailed up the St. Lawrence, but by virtue of voyages ofdiscovery and exploration, especially that of La Salle (1682), laidclaim to the whole interior of the Continent. Of all the North American colonies, the most populous were those whichlater became the United States. In the year 1688 there were ten ofthese colonies. The oldest one, Virginia, had been settled in 1607 bythe London Company under a charter from King James I. Plymouth, foundedin 1620 by the Pilgrims (Separatists or Independents driven fromEngland by the enforcement of religious conformity to the AnglicanChurch), was presently to be merged with the neighboring Puritan colonyof Massachusetts. Near these first, New England settlements had grownup the colonies of Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire: Mainewas then a part of Massachusetts. Just as New England was the Puritans'refuge, so Maryland, granted to Lord Baltimore in 1632, was a haven forthe persecuted Roman Catholics. A large tract south of Virginia, knownas Carolina, had been granted to eight nobles in 1663; but it wasprospering so poorly that its proprietors were willing to sell it tothe king in 1729 for a mere L50, 000. The capture of the Dutch colony ofNew Netherland [Footnote: Rechristened New York. It included New Jerseyalso. ] in 1664, and the settlement of Pennsylvania (1681) by WilliamPenn and his fellow Quakers [Footnote: The Swedish colony on theDelaware was temporarily merged with Pennsylvania. ] at last filled upthe gap between the North and the South. Numerous causes had contributed to the growth of the British coloniesin America. Religious intolerance had driven Puritans to New Englandand Roman Catholics to Maryland; the success of the Puritan Revolutionhad sent Cavaliers to Virginia; thousands of others had come merely toacquire wealth or to escape starvation. And America seemed a placewherein to mend broken fortunes. Upon the estates (plantations) ofsouthern gentlemen negro slaves toiled without pay in the tobaccofields. [Footnote: Subsequently, rice and cotton became importantproducts of Southern agriculture. ] New England was less fertile, butshrewd Yankees found wealth in fish, lumber, and trade. No wonder, then, that the colonies grew in wealth and in population until in 1688there were nearly three hundred thousand English subjects in the NewWorld. The French settlers were far less numerous [Footnote: Probably not morethan 20, 000 Frenchmen were residing in the New World in 1688. By 1750their number had increased perhaps to 60, 000. ] but more widespread. From their first posts in Acadia (1604) and Quebec (1608) they hadpushed on up the St. Lawrence. Jesuit and other Roman Catholicmissionaries had led the way from Montreal westward to Lake Superiorand southward to the Ohio River. In 1682 the Sieur de La Salle, afterpaddling down the Mississippi, laid claim to the whole basin of thatmighty stream, and named the region Louisiana in honor of Louis XIV ofFrance. Nominally, at least, this territory was claimed by the English, for in most of the colonial charters emanating from the English crownin the seventeenth century were clauses which granted lands "from seato sea"--that is, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The heart of "NewFrance" remained on the St. Lawrence, but, despite English claims, French forts were commencing to mark the trails of French fur-tradersdown into the "Louisiana, " and it was clear that whenever the Englishcolonists should cross the Appalachian Mountains to the westward theywould have to fight the French. [Sidenote: In West Indies] French and English were neighbors also in the West Indies. Martiniqueand Guadeloupe acknowledged French sovereignty, while Jamaica, Barbados, and the Bahamas were English. [Footnote: The following WestIndies were also English: Nevis, Montserrat, Antigua, Honduras, St. Lucia, Virgin Islands, and the Turks and Caicos Islands. St. Kitts wasdivided between England and France; and the western part of Haiti, already visited by French buccaneers, was definitely annexed to Francein 1697. The Bermudas, lying outside the "West Indies, " were alreadyEnglish. ] These holdings in the West Indies were valuable not only fortheir sugar plantations, but for their convenience as stations fortrade with Mexico and South America. [Sidenote: In Africa] In Africa the French had made settlements in Madagascar, at Goree, andat the mouth of the Senegal River, and the English had establishedthemselves in Gambia and on the Gold Coast, but as yet the Africanposts were mere stations for trade in gold-dust, [Footnote: Gold coinsare still often called "guineas" in England, from the fact that a gooddeal of gold used to come from the Guinea coast of Africa. ] ivory, wax, or slaves. The real struggle for Africa was not to come until thenineteenth and twentieth centuries. [Sidenote: In India] Of far greater importance was Asiatic India, which, unlike America oreven Africa, offered a field favorable for commerce rather than forconquest or for colonization. For it happened that the fertility andextent of India--its area was half as large as that of Europe--weretaxed to their uttermost to support a population of probably twohundred millions; and all, therefore, which Europeans desired was anopportunity to buy Indian products, such as cotton, indigo, Spices, dyes, drugs, silk, precious stones, and peculiar manufactures. In the seventeenth century India was ruled by a dynasty of Mohammedanemperors called Moguls, [Footnote: So called because racially they werefalsely supposed to be Mongols or Moguls. ] who had entered thepeninsula as conquerors in the previous century and had established asplendid court in the city of Delhi on a branch of the Ganges. The bulkof the people, however, maintained their ancient "Hindu" religion withtheir social ranks or "castes" and preserved their distinctive speechand customs. Over a country like India, broken up into many sections byphysical features, climate, industries, and language, the Mohammedanconquerors, --the "Great Mogul" and his viceroys, called nawabs, [Footnote: More popularly "nabobs. "]--found it impossible to establishmore than a loose sovereignty, many of the native princes or "rajas"still being allowed to rule with considerable independence, and themillions of Hindus feeling little love or loyalty for their emperor. Itwas this fatal weakness of the Great Mogul which enabled the Europeantraders, who in the seventeenth century besought his favor andprotection, to set themselves up in the eighteenth as his masters. It will be remembered that after the voyage of Vasco da Gama thePortuguese had monopolized the trade with India and the East until theyhad been attacked by the Dutch toward the close of the sixteenthcentury. This was the very time when the English were making theirfirst voyages [Footnote: Actually the first English voyage to the EastIndies was made between 1591 and 1594, almost a century after the firstPortuguese voyage. ] to the East and were taking advantage of their ownwar with Philip II to attack his Portuguese possessions. The firstEnglish trading stations were opened at Masulipatam (1611) and at Surat(1612). In the latter year and again in 1615 Portuguese fleets weredefeated, and in 1622 the Portuguese were driven out of the importantPersian city of Ormuz. By 1688 the English had acquired three importantpoints in India, (1) Calcutta in the delta of the Ganges had beenoccupied in 1686, but it was yet uncertain whether the English couldhold it against the will of the Mogul emperor. (2) At Madras, furthersouth, Sir Francis Day had built Fort St. George (1640). (3) On thewestern coast, the trading station of Surat was now surpassed in valueby Bombay, the dowry of Catherine of Braganza, a Portuguese princess, who had married King Charles II (1662). The first French Company for Eastern trade had been formed only fouryears [Footnote: Charters to French companies had been granted in 1604and in 1615. The _Compagnie des Indes_ was formed in 1642, andreconstructed in 1664. ] after the English East India Company, but thefirst French factory in India--at Surat--was not established until 1668and the French did not seriously compete with the English and Dutch inIndia until the close of the seventeenth century. However, their postat Chandarnagar (1672), in dangerous proximity to Calcutta, and theirthriving station at Pondicherry (1674), within a hundred miles ofMadras, augured ill for the future harmony of French and English inIndia. [Sidenote: Comparative Resources of France and England] From the foregoing brief review of the respective colonial possessionsof Great Britain and France in the year 1688, it must now be clear thatalthough France had entered the colonial competition tardily, she hadsucceeded remarkably well in becoming a formidable rival of theEnglish. The great struggle for supremacy was to be decided, nevertheless, not by priority of settlement or validity of claim, butby the fighting power of the contestants. Strange as it may seem, France, a larger, more populous, and richer country than England, ablethen single-handed to keep the rest of Europe at bay, was to prove theweaker of the two in the struggle for world empire. In the first place, England's maritime power was increasing moreirresistibly than that of France. Although Richelieu (1624-1642) hadrecognized the need for a French navy and had given a great impetus toship-building, France had become inextricably entangled in Europeanpolitics, and the navy was half forgotten in the ambitious land wars ofLouis XIV. The English, on the other hand, were predisposed to the seaby the very fact of their insularity, and since the days of the greatArmada, their most patriotic boast had been of the deeds of mariners. In the commercial wars with Holland, the first great English admiral--Robert Blake--had won glorious victories. Then, too, the Navigation Acts (1651, 1660), by excluding foreign shipsfrom trade between Great Britain and the colonies, may have lessenedthe volume of trade, but they resulted in undoubted prosperity forEnglish shippers. English shipbuilders, encouraged by bounties, learnedto build stronger and more powerful vessels than those of othernations. Whether capturing galleons on the "Spanish main" or defeatingPortuguese fleets in the Far East, English pirates, slavers, andmerchantmen were not to be encountered without fear or envy. Englishcommerce and industry, springing up under the protection andencouragement of the Tudors, had given birth, as we have seen, to amiddle class powerful enough to secure special rights and privilegesthrough Parliament. The French, on the other hand, labored under most serious commercialhandicaps. Local tolls and internal customs-duties hindered traffic;and the medieval gild system had retained in France its power to hamperindustry with absurd regulations. The long civil and religious wars, which called workmen from their benches and endangered the property andlives of merchants, had resulted in reducing French commerce to ashadow before 1600. Under Henry IV prosperity revived, but the growthof royal power made it impossible for the Huguenot merchants in Franceto achieve political power comparable with that which the Puritans wonin England. Consequently the mercantile classes were quite unable toprevent Louis XIV from ruining his country by foreign war, --they couldnot vote themselves privileges and bounties as in England, nor couldthey declare war on commercial rivals. True, Colbert (1662-1683), thegreat "mercantilist" minister, did his best to encourage newindustries, such as silk production, to make rules for the betterconduct of old industries, and to lay taxes on such imported goods asmight compete with home products, but French industry could not be madeto thrive like that of England. It is often said that Colbert's carefulregulations did much harm by stifling the spirit of free enterprise;but far more destructive were the wars and taxes [Footnote: In order toobtain money for his court, diplomacy, and wars, Louis XIV not onlyincreased taxes but debased the coinage. Particularly unfortunate, economically, was the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685), as aresult of which some 50, 000 of the most industrious and thriftycitizens of France fled to increase the industry of England, Holland, and Brandenburg (Prussia). ] of the Grand Monarch. The only wonder isthat France bore the drain of men and money so well. The English, then, had a more promising navy and a more prosperoustrade than the French, and were therefore able to gain control of theseas and to bear the expense of war. [Sidenote: Comparative Colonial Policies of France and England] In general colonial policy France seemed decidedly superior. Louis XIVhad taken over the whole of "New France" as a royal province, and theFrench could present a united front against the divided and discordantEnglish colonies. Under Colbert the number of French colonists inAmerica increased 300 per cent in twenty years. Moreover the French, both in India and in America, were almost uniformly successful ingaining the friendship and trust of the natives, whereas, at least withmost of the redmen, the English were constantly at war. The English, however, had a great advantage in the number of colonists. The population of France, held in check by wars, did not naturallyoverflow to America; and the Huguenots, persecuted in the mothercountry, were not allowed to emigrate to New France, lest theirpresence might impede the missionary labors of the Jesuits among theIndians. [Footnote: The statement is frequently made that the"paternalism" or fatherly care with which Richelieu and Colbert maderegulations for the colonies was responsible for the paucity ofcolonists and the discouragement of colonial industry. This, however, will be taken with considerable reservation when it is remembered thatEngland attempted to prevent the growth of such industries in hercolonies as might compete with those at home. ] England was morefortunate in that her Puritan, Quaker, and Catholic exiles went to hercolonies rather than to foreign lands. The English colonists, lessunder the direct protection of the mother country, learned to defendthemselves against the Indians, and were better able to help the mothercountry against their common foe, the French. Taken all in all, the situation was favorable to Great Britain. As longas French monarchs wasted the resources of France in Europe, they couldscarcely hope to cope with the superior navy, the thriving commerce, and the more populous colonies, of their ancient enemies. PRELIMINARY ENCOUNTERS, 1689-1748 [Sidenote: War of the League of Augsburg] Colonial and commercial rivalry could hardly bring France and GreatBritain to blows while the Stuart kings looked to Louis XIV forfriendly aid in the erection of absolutism and the reinstatement ofCatholicism in England. The Revolution of 1689, which we have already discussed [Footnote: Seeabove, pp. 286 ff. ] in its political significance, was important in itsbearing on foreign relations, for it placed on the English throne thearch-enemy of France, William III, whose chief concern was theprotection of his ancestral possessions--the Dutch Netherlands--againstthe encroachments of Louis XIV. The support given by the latter to thepretensions of James II was a second cause of war. In an earlierchapter [Footnote: See above, pp. 247 ff. ] we have seen howinternational relations in 1689 led to the juncture of England andHolland with the League of Augsburg, which included the emperor, thekings of Spain and Sweden, and the electors of Bavaria, Saxony, and thePalatinate; and how the resulting War of the League of Augsburg waswaged in Europe from 1689 to 1697. It was during that struggle, it willbe remembered, that King William finally defeated James II and thelatter's French and Irish allies in the battle of the Boyne (1690). Itwas also during that struggle that the French navy, though successfulagainst combined Dutch and English squadrons off Beachy Head (1690), was decisively beaten by the English in a three-day battle near LaHogue (1692). [Sidenote: King William's War, 1689-1697] The War of the League of Augsburg had its counterpart in the American"King William's War, " of which two aspects should be noted. In thefirst place, the New England colonists aided in the capture (1690) ofthe French fortress of Port Royal in Acadia (Nova Scotia) and in aninconsequential attack on Quebec. In the second place, we must noticethe role of the Indians. As early as 1670, Roger Williams, a famous NewEngland preacher, had declared, "the French and Romish Jesuits, thefirebrands of the world, for their godbelly sake, are kindling at ourback in this country their hellish fires with all the natives of thiscountry. " The outbreak of King William's War was a signal for thekindling of fires more to be feared than those imagined by the gooddivine; the burning of Dover (N. H. ), Schenectady (N. Y. ), and Groton(Mass. ) by the red allies of the French governor, Count Frontenac, earned the latter the lasting hatred of the "Yankees. " [Sidenote: Treaty of Ryswick, 1697] The contest was interrupted rather than settled by the colorless treatyof Ryswick (1697), according to which Louis XIV promised not toquestion William's right to the English throne, and all colonialconquests, including Port Royal, were restored. [Sidenote: War of the Spanish Succession] Only five years later Europe was plunged into the long War of theSpanish Succession (1702-1713). King William and the Habsburg emperorwith other European princes formed a Grand Alliance to prevent Louis'grandson Philip from inheriting the Spanish crowns. For if France andSpain were united under the Bourbon family, their armies would overaweEurope; their united colonial empires would surround and perhaps engulfthe British colonies; their combined navies might drive the Britishfrom the seas. Furthermore, the English were angered when Louis XIV, upon the death of James II (1701), openly recognized the Catholic sonof the exiled royal Stuart as "James III, " king of Great Britain. [Sidenote: Queen Anne's War, 1702-1713] While the duke of Marlborough and Prince Eugene were winning greatvictories in Europe, [Footnote: See above, pp. 249 ff. ] the Britishcolonists in America were fighting "Queen Anne's War" against theFrench. Again the French sent Indians to destroy New England villages, and again the English retaliated by attacking Port Royal and Quebec. After withstanding two unsuccessful assaults, Port Royal fell in 1710and left Acadia open to the British. In the following year a fleet ofnine war vessels and sixty transports carried twelve thousandBritishers to attack Quebec, while an army of 2300 moved on Montreal byway of Lake Champlain; but both expeditions failed of their object. On the high seas, as well as in America and in Europe, the British wonfresh laurels. It was during Queen Anne's War that the British navy, sometimes with the valuable aid of the Dutch, played an important partin defeating the French fleet in the Mediterranean and driving Frenchprivateers from the sea, in besieging and capturing Gibraltar, inseizing a rich squadron of Spanish treasure ships near Cartagena, andin terrorizing the French West Indies. [Sidenote: Treaty of Utrecht, 1713] The main provisions of the treaty of Utrecht, which terminated thisstage of the conflict, in so far as they affected the colonial ofsituation, [Footnote: For the European settlement, see above, pp. 253f. ] were as follows: (1) The French Bourbons, were allowed to becomethe reigning family in Spain, and though the proviso was inserted thatthe crowns of France and Spain should never be united, nevertheless solong as Bourbons reigned in both countries, the colonies of Spain andFrance might almost be regarded as one immense Bourbon empire. (2)Great Britain was confirmed in possession of Acadia, [Footnote: Adispute later arose whether, as the British claimed, "Acadia" includedCape Breton Island. ] which was rechristened Nova Scotia, and Franceabandoned her claims to Hudson Bay, Newfoundland, and the island of St. Kitts in the West Indies. (3) Great Britain secured from Spain thecession of the island of Minorca and the rocky stronghold of Gibraltar--bulwarks of Mediterranean commerce. (4) Of more immediate value toGreat Britain was the trade concession, called the Asiento, made bySpain (1713). Prior to the Asiento, the British had been forbidden totrade with the Spanish possessions in America, and the French hadmonopolized the sale of slaves to the Spanish colonies. [Sidenote: The Asiento, 1713] The Asiento, however, allowed Great Britain exclusive right to supplySpanish America with negro slaves, at the rate of 4800 a year, forthirty years. They were still forbidden to sell other commodities inthe domains of the Spanish king, except that once a year one Britishship of five hundred tons burden might visit Porto Bello on the Isthmusof Panama for purposes of general trade. For almost three decades afterthe peace of Utrecht, the smoldering colonial jealousies were notallowed to break forth into the flame of open war. [Sidenote: The Interlude of Peace, 1713-1739] During the interval, however, British ambitions were coming more andmore obviously into conflict with the claims of Spain and France inAmerica, and with those of France in India. [Sidenote: French Aggressiveness in America] In spite of her losses by the treaty of Utrecht, France still held theSt. Lawrence River, with Cape Breton Island defending its mouth; herfishermen still had special privileges on the Newfoundland banks; herislands in the West Indies flourished under greater freedom of tradethan that enjoyed by the English; and her pioneers were occupying thevast valley of the Mississippi. Moreover, in preparing for the nextstage of the conflict, France displayed astonishing energy. FortLouisburg was erected on Cape Breton Island to command the entrance tothe Gulf of St. Lawrence. A long series of fortifications wasconstructed to stake out and guarantee the French claims. From CrownPoint on Lake Champlain, the line was carried westward by Fort Niagara, Fort Detroit, Sault Sainte Marie, on to Lake Winnipeg and even beyond;other forts commanded the Wabash and Illinois rivers, and followed theMississippi down to the Gulf. [Footnote: By the year 1750 there wereover sixty French forts between Montreal and New Orleans. ] Settlementswere made at Mobile (1702) and at New Orleans (1718), and Britishsailors were given to understand that the Mississippi was Frenchproperty. The governors of British colonies had ample cause for alarm. [Sidenote: French Aggressiveness in India: Dupleix] In India, likewise, the French were too enterprising to be goodneighbors. Under the leadership of a wonderfully able governor-general, Dupleix, who was appointed in 1741, they were prospering and wereextending their influence in the effete empire of the Great Mogul. Dupleix exhibited a restless ambition; he began to interfere in nativepolitics and to assume the pompous bearing, gorgeous apparel, and proudtitles of a native prince. He conceived the idea of augmenting hisslender garrisons of Europeans with "sepoys, " or carefully drillednatives, and fortified his capital, Pondicherry, as if for war. [Sidenote: Trade Disputes between Spain and Great Britain] To the dangerous rivalry between British and French colonists andtraders in America and in India, during the thirty years which followedthe treaty of Utrecht, was added the continuous bickering which grewout of the Asiento concluded in 1713 between Great Britain and Spain. Spaniards complained of British smugglers and protested with justicethat the British outrageously abused their special privilege by keepingthe single stipulated vessel in the harbor of Porto Bello and refillingit at night from other ships. On the other hand, British merchantsresented their general exclusion from Spanish markets and recited towilling listeners at home the tale of their grievances against theSpanish authorities. Of such tales the most notorious was that of acertain Captain Robert Jenkins, who with dramatic detail told how thebloody Spaniards had attacked his good ship, plundered it, and in thefray cut off one of his ears, and to prove his story he is said to haveproduced a box containing what purported to be the ear in question. Inthe face of the popular excitement aroused in England by this andsimilar incidents, Sir Robert Walpole, the peace-loving prime minister, was unable to restrain his fellow-countrymen from declaring war againstSpain. [Sidenote: The "War of Jenkins's Ear, " 1739] It was in 1739 that the commercial and colonial warfare was thusresumed, --on this occasion involving at the outset only Spain and GreatBritain, --in a curious struggle commonly referred to as the War ofJenkins's Ear. A British fleet captured Porto Bello, but failed to takeCartagena. In North America the war was carried on fruitlessly by JamesOglethorpe, who had recently (1733) founded the English colony of"Georgia" [Footnote: So named in honor of the then reigning King GeorgeII (1727-1760)] to the south of the Carolinas, in territory claimed bythe Spanish colony of Florida. [Sidenote: War of the Austrian Succession. King George's War, 1744-1748] The War of Jenkins's Ear proved but an introduction to the resumptionof hostilities on a large scale between France and Great Britain. In alater chapter [Footnote: See below, pp. 354 ff. ] it is explained how in1740 the War of the Austrian Succession broke out on the continent ofEurope--a war stubbornly fought for eight years, and a war in whichGreat Britain entered the lists for Maria Theresa of Austria againstFrance and Prussia and other states. And the European conflict wasnaturally reflected in "King George's War" (1744-1748) in America, andin simultaneous hostilities in India. The only remarkable incident of King George's War was the capture ofLouisburg (1745) by Colonel William Pepperell of New Hampshire with aforce of British colonists, who were sorely disappointed when, in 1748, the captured fortress was returned to France by the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. The war in India was similarly indecisive. In 1746 a Frenchsquadron easily captured the British post at Madras; other Britishposts were attacked, and Dupleix defeated the nawab of the Carnatic, who would have punished him for violating Indian peace and neutrality. [Sidenote: Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, 1748] The tables were turned by the arrival of a British fleet in 1748, whichlaid siege to Dupleix in Pondicherry. At this juncture, news arrivedthat Great Britain and France had concluded the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748), whereby all conquests, including Madras and Louisburg, were to be restored. So far as Spain was concerned. Great Britain in1750 renounced the privileges of the Asiento in return for a moneypayment of L100, 000. THE TRIUMPH OF GREAT BRITAIN: THE SEVEN YEARS' WAR, 1756-1763 [Sidenote: Questions at Issue in 1750][Sidenote: World-wide Extent of the Seven Years' War] Up to this point, the wars had been generally indecisive, althoughGreat Britain had gained Hudson Bay, Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia bythe peace of Utrecht (1713). British naval power, too, was undoubtedlyin the ascendancy. But two great questions were still unanswered. Should France be allowed to make good her claim to the Mississippivalley and possibly to drive the British from their slender foothold onthe coast of America? Should Dupleix, wily diplomat as he was, beallowed to make India a French empire? To these major disputes wasadded a minor quarrel over the boundary of Nova Scotia, which, it willbe remembered, had been ceded to Great Britain in 1713. Such questionscould be decided only by the crushing defeat of one nation, and thatdefeat France was to suffer in the years between 1754 and 1763. Herloss was fourfold: (1) Her European armies were defeated in Germany byFrederick the Great, who was aided by English gold, in the Seven Years'War (1756-1763). [Footnote: For an account of the European aspects ofthis struggle, see below, pp. 358 ff. ] (2) At the same time her navalpower was almost annihilated by the British, whose war vessels andprivateers conquered most of the French West Indies and almost sweptFrench commerce from the seas. (3) In India, the machinations ofDupleix were foiled by the equally astute but more martial Clive. (4)In America, the "French and Indian War" (1754-1763) dispelled the dreamof a New France across the Atlantic. We shall first consider the war inthe New World. [Sidenote: The American Phase of the Seven Years' War: the "French andIndian" War, 1754-1763] The immediate cause of the French and Indian War was a contest for thepossession of the Ohio valley. The English had already organized anOhio Company (1749) for colonization of the valley, but they did notfully realize the pressing need of action until the French had begunthe construction of a line of forts in western Pennsylvania--FortPresqu'Isle (Erie), Fort Le Boeuf (Waterford), and Fort Venango(Franklin). The most important position--the junction of theMonongahela and Allegheny rivers--being still unoccupied, the OhioCompany, early in 1754, sent a small force to seize and fortify it. TheFrench, however, were not to be so easily outwitted; they captured thenewly built fort with its handful of defenders, enlarged it, andchristened it Fort Duquesne in honor of the governor of Canada. Soonafterward a young Virginian, George Washington by name, arrived on thescene with four hundred men, too late to reenforce the English fort-builders, and he also was defeated on 4 July, 1754. Hope was revived, however, in 1755 when the British General Braddockarrived with a regular army and an ambitious plan to attack the Frenchin three places--Crown Point (on Lake Champlain), Fort Niagara, andFort Duquesne. Against the last-named fort he himself led a mixed forceof British regulars and colonial militia, and so incautiously did headvance that presently he fell into an ambush. From behind trees androcks the Frenchmen and redskins peppered the surprised redcoats. The"seasoned" veterans of European battlefields were defeated, and mighthave been annihilated but for the timely aid of a few "raw" colonialmilitiamen, who knew how to shoot straight from behind trees. Theexpedition against Niagara also failed of its object but entailed nosuch disaster. Failing to take Crown Point, the English built FortsEdward and William Henry on Lake George, while the French constructedthe famous Fort Ticonderoga. [Footnote: This same year, 1755, sounfortunate for the English, was a cruel year for the French settlersin Nova Scotia; like so many cattle, seven thousand of them were packedinto English vessels and shipped to various parts of North America. TheEnglish feared their possible disloyalty. ] [Sidenote: Montcalm] The gloom which gathered about British fortunes seemed to increaseduring the years 1756 and 1757. Great Britain's most valuable ally, Frederick the Great of Prussia, was defeated in Europe; an Englishsquadron had been sadly defeated in the Mediterranean; the French hadcaptured the island of Minorca; and a British attack on the Frenchfortress of Louisburg had failed. To the French in America, the year1756 brought Montcalm and continued success. The Marquis de Montcalm(1712-1759) had learned the art of war on European battlefields, but hereadily adapted himself to new conditions, and proved to be an ablecommander of the French and Indian forces in the New World. The Englishfort of Oswego on Lake Ontario, and Fort William Henry on Lake George, were captured, and all the campaigns projected by the English werefoiled. In 1757, however, new vigor was infused into the war on the part of theBritish, largely by reason of the entrance of William Pitt (the Elder)into the cabinet. Pitt was determined to arouse all British subjects tofight for their country. Stirred with martial enthusiasm, colonialvolunteers now joined with British regulars to provide a force of about50, 000 men for simultaneous attacks on four important French posts inAmerica--Louisburg, Ticonderoga, Niagara, and Duquesne. The success ofthe attack on Louisburg (1758) was insured by the support of a strongBritish squadron; Fort Duquesne was taken and renamed Fort Pitt[Footnote: Whence the name of the modern city of Pittsburgh. ] (1758);Ticonderoga repulsed one expedition (1758) but surrendered on 26 July, 1759, one day after the capture of Fort Niagara by the British. [Sidenote: Wolfe] Not content with the capture of the menacing French frontier forts, theBritish next aimed at the central strongholds of the French. While onearmy marched up the Hudson valley to attack Montreal, General Wolfe, incommand of another army of 7000, and accompanied by a strong fleet, moved up the St. Lawrence against Quebec. An inordinate thirst formilitary glory had been Wolfe's heritage from his father, himself ageneral. An ensign at fourteen, Wolfe had become an officer in activeservice while still in his teens, had commanded a detachment in theattack on Louisburg in 1758, and now at the age of thirty-three wascharged with the capture of Quebec, a natural stronghold, defended bythe redoubtable Montcalm. The task seemed impossible; weeks were wastedin futile efforts; sickness and apparent defeat weighed heavily on theyoung commander. With the energy of despair he fastened at last upon adaring idea. Thirty-six hundred of his men were ferried in the dead ofnight to a point above the city where his soldiers might scramblethrough bushes and over rocks up a precipitous path to a high plain--the Plains of Abraham--commanding the town. [Sidenote: British Victory at Quebec, 1759] Wolfe's presence on the heights was revealed at daybreak on 13September, 1759, and Montcalm hastened to repel the attack. For a timeit seemed as if Wolfe's force would be over-powered, but a well-directed volley and an impetuous charge threw the French lines intodisorder. In the moment of victory, General Wolfe, already twicewounded, received a musket-ball in the breast. His death was made happyby the news of success, but no such exultation filled the heart of themortally wounded Montcalm, dying in the bitterness of defeat. Quebec surrendered a few days later. It was the beginning of the end ofthe French colonial empire in America. All hope was lost when, inOctober, 1759, a great armada, ready to embark against England, wasdestroyed in Quiberon Bay by Admiral Hawke. In 1760 Montreal fell andthe British completed the conquest of New France, at the very time whenthe last vestiges of French power were disappearing in India. [Sidenote: Futile Intervention of Spain, 1762] In his extremity, Louis XV of France secured the aid of his Bourbonkinsman, the king of Spain, against England, but Spain was a worthlessally, and in 1762 British squadrons captured Cuba and the PhilippineIslands as well as the French possessions in the West Indies. [Sidenote: Phase of the Seven Years' War in India][Sidenote: Continued Activity of Dupleix] Let us now turn back and see how the loss of New France was paralleledby French defeat in the contest for the vastly more populous andopulent empire of India. The Mogul Empire, to which reference hasalready been made, had been rapidly falling to pieces throughout thefirst half of the eighteenth century. The rulers or nawabs (nabobs) ofthe Deccan, of Bengal, and of Oudh had become semi-independent princes. In a time when conspiracy and intrigue were common avenues to power, the French governor, Dupleix, had conceived the idea of making himselfthe political leader of India, and in pursuit of his goal, as we haveseen, he had affected Oriental magnificence and grandiloquent titles, had formed alliances with half the neighboring native magnates, hadfortified Pondicherry, and begun the enrollment and organization of hissepoy army. In 1750 he succeeded in overthrowing the nawab of theCarnatic [Footnote: The province in India which includes Madras andPondicherry and has its capital at Arcot. ] and in establishing apretender whom he could dominate more easily. [Sidenote: Robert Clive][Sidenote: French Failure in the Carnatic] The hopes of the experienced and crafty Dupleix were frustrated, however, by a young man of twenty-seven--Robert Clive. At the age ofeighteen, Clive had entered the employ of the English East IndiaCompany as a clerk at Madras. His restless and discontented spiritfound relief, at times, in omnivorous reading; at other times he grewdespondent. More than once he planned to take his own life. During theWar of the Austrian Succession, he had resigned his civil post andentered the army. The hazards of military life were more to his liking, and he soon gave abundant evidence of ability. After the peace of 1748he had returned to civil life, but in 1751 he came forward with a boldscheme for attacking Arcot, the capital of the Carnatic, andoverthrowing the upstart nawab who was supported by Dupleix. Clivecould muster only some two hundred Europeans and three hundred sepoys, but this slender force, infused with the daring and irresistibledetermination of the young leader, sufficed to seize and hold thecitadel of Arcot against thousands of assailants. With the aid ofnative and British reenforcements, the hero of Arcot further defeatedthe pretender; and, in 1754, the French had to acknowledge theirfailure in the Carnatic and withdraw support from their vanquishedprotege. Dupleix was recalled to France in disgrace; and the Britishwere left to enjoy the favor of the nawab who owed his throne to Clive. [Sidenote: Plassey][Sidenote: British Success in India] Clive's next work was in Bengal. In 1756 the young nawab of Bengal, Suraj-ud-Dowlah by name, seized the English fort at Calcutta and locked146 Englishmen overnight in a stifling prison--the "Black Hole" ofCalcutta--from which only twenty-three emerged alive the next morning. Clive, hastening from Madras, chastised Suraj for this atrocity, andforced him to give up Calcutta. And since by this time Great Britainand France were openly at war, Clive did not hesitate to capture thenear-by French post of Chandarnagar. His next move was to give activeaid to a certain Mir Jafir, a pretender to the throne of the unfriendlySuraj-ud-Dowlah. The French naturally took sides with Suraj againstClive. In 1757 Clive drew up 1100 Europeans, 2100 sepoys, and ninecannon in a grove of mango trees at Plassey, a few miles south of thecity of Murshidabad, and there attacked Suraj, who, with an army of68, 000 native troops and with French artillerymen to work his fifty-three cannon, anticipated an easy victory. The outcome was a brilliantvictory for Clive, as overwhelming as it was unexpected. The Britishcandidate forthwith became nawab of Bengal and as token of hisindebtedness he paid over L1, 500, 000 to the English East India Company, and made Clive a rich man. The British were henceforth dominant inBengal. The capture of Masulipatam in 1758, the defeat of the French atWandewash, between Madras and Pondicherry, and the successful siege ofPondicherry in 1761, finally established the British as masters of allthe coveted eastern coast of India. [Sidenote: The Treaty of Paris, 1763] The fall of Quebec (1759) and of Pondicherry (1761) practically decidedthe issue of the colonial struggle, but the war dragged on until, in1763, France, Spain, and Great Britain concluded the peace of Paris. Ofher American possessions France retained only two insignificant islandson the Newfoundland coast, [Footnote: St. Pierre and Miquelon. ] a fewislands in the West Indies, [Footnote: Including Guadeloupe andMartinique. ] and a foothold in Guiana in South America. Great Britainreceived from France the whole of the St. Lawrence valley and all theterritory east of the Mississippi River, together with the island ofGrenada in the West Indies; and from Spain, Great Britain securedFlorida. Beyond the surrender of the sparsely settled territory ofFlorida, Spain suffered no loss, for Cuba and the Philippines wererestored to her, and France gave her western Louisiana, that is, thewestern half of the Mississippi valley. The French were allowed toreturn to their old posts in India, but were not to maintain troops inBengal or to build any fort. In other words, the French returned toIndia as traders but not as empire builders. [Footnote: During the war, the French posts in Africa had been taken, and now Goree was returnedwhile the mouth of the Senegal River was retained by the British. ] [Sidenote: Significance of the Seven Years' War to Great Britain andFrance] Let us attempt to summarize the chief results of the war. In the firstplace, Great Britain preserved half of what was later to constitute theUnited States, and gained Canada and an ascendancy in India--empireswider, richer, and more diverse than those of a Caesar or an Alexander. Henceforth Great Britain was indisputably the preeminent colonizingcountry--a nation upon whose domains the sun never set. It meant thatthe English language was to spread as no other language, until to-dayone hundred and sixty millions of people use the tongue which in thefifteenth century was spoken by hardly five millions. Secondly, even more important than this vast land empire was thedominion of the sea which Great Britain acquired, for from the seriesof wars just considered, and especially from the last, dates themaritime supremacy of England. Since then her commerce, protected andadvertised by the most powerful navy in the world, has mounted by leapsand bounds, so that now half the vessels which sail the seas bear attheir masthead the Union Jack. From her dominions beyond the oceans andfrom her ships upon the seas Great Britain drew power and prestige;British merchants acquired opulence with resulting social and politicalimportance to themselves and to their country, and British manufacturesreceived that stimulation which prepared the way for the IndustrialRevolution of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Thirdly, the gains of Great Britain were at least the temporary ruin ofher rival. Not without reluctance did France abandon her colonialambitions, but nearly a century was to elapse after the treaty of Parisbefore the French should seriously reenter the race for the upbuildingof world empire. Nor was France without a desire for revenge, which wassubsequently made manifest in her alliance with Britain's rebelliousAmerican colonies in 1778. But French naval power had suffered a blowfrom which it was difficult to recover, [Footnote: Yet between 1763 and1778 the French made heroic and expensive efforts to rebuild theirnavy. And as we shall presently see in studying the general war whichaccompanied the American revolt, France attempted in vain to reversethe main result of the Seven Years' War. ] and much of her commerce wasirretrievably lost. If toward the close of the eighteenth centurybankruptcy was to threaten the Bourbon court and government atVersailles, and if at the opening of the next century, British sea-power was to undermine Napoleon's empire, it was in no slight degreethe result in either case of the Seven Years' disaster. India and America were lost to France. Her trade in India soon dwindledinto insignificance before the powerful and wealthy British East IndiaCompany. "French India" to-day consists of Pondicherry, Karikal, Yanaon, Mahe, and Chandarnagar--196 square miles in all, --while theIndian Empire of Britain spreads over an area of 1, 800, 000 squaremiles. French empire in America is now represented only by two punyislands off the coast of Newfoundland, two small islands in the WestIndies, and an unimportant tract of tropical Guiana, but historictraces of its former greatness and promise have survived alike inCanada and in Louisiana. In Canada the French population has stubbornlyheld itself aloof from the British in language and in religion, andeven to-day two of the seven millions of Canadians are Frenchmen, quiteas intent on the preservation of their ancient nationality as upontheir allegiance to the British rule. In the United States the Frenchelement is less in evidence; nevertheless in New Orleans sidewalks arecalled "banquettes, " and embankments, "levees"; and still the names ofSt. Louis, Des Moines, Detroit, and Lake Champlain perpetuate thememory of a lost empire. ADDITIONAL READING GENERAL. Textbooks and brief treatises: J. S. Bassett, _A Short Historyof the United States_ (1914), ch. Iii-vii; A. L. Cross, _History ofEngland and Greater Britain_ (1914), ch. Xxxvi-xlii; J. H. Robinson andC. A. Beard, _The Development of Modern Europe_, Vol. I (1907), ch. Vi, vii; A. D. Innes, _History of England and the British Empire_, Vol. III(1914), ch. I-vi; W. H. Woodward, _A Short History of the Expansion ofthe British Empire, 1500-1911_, 3d ed. (1912), ch. I-v; A. T. Story, _The Building of the British Empire_ (1898), Part I, _1558-1688_; H. C. Morris, _The History of Colonization_ (1900), Vol. I, Part III, ch. X-xii, Vol. II, ch. Xvi-xviii. More detailed and specialized studies:John Fiske, _New France and New England_(1902), a delightful review ofthe development of the French empire in America, its struggle with theBritish, and its collapse, and, by the same author, _Colonization ofthe New World_, ch. Vii-x, and _Independence of the New World_, ch. I-iii, the last two books being respectively Vols. XXI and XXII of the_History of All Nations; Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. V (1908), ch. Xxii, on the growth of the French and English empires, Vol. VI (1909), ch. Xv, on the English and French in India, 1720-1763, and Vol. VII(1903), ch. I-iv, on the struggle in the New World; Pelham Edgar, _TheStruggle for a Continent_ (1902), an excellent account of the conflictin North America, edited from the writings of Parkman; E. B. Greene, _Provincial America, 1690-1740_ (1905), being Vol. VI of the "AmericanNation" Series; Emile Levasseur, _Histoire du commerce de la France_, Vol. I (1911), the best treatment of French commercial and colonialpolicy prior to 1789; Sir J. R. Seeley, _Expansion of England_ (1895), stimulating and suggestive on the relations of general European historyto the struggle for world dominion; A. W. Tilby, _The English PeopleOverseas_, a great history of the British empire, projected in 8 vols. , of which three (1912) are particularly important--Vol. I, _The AmericanColonies, 1583-1763_, Vol. II, _British India, 1600-1828_, and Vol. IV, _Britain in the Tropics, 1527-1910_; A. T. Mahan, _The Influence of SeaPower upon History, 1660-1783_, 24th ed. (1914), an epoch-making work;Sir W. L. Clowes (editor), _The Royal Navy: a History_, 7 vols. (1897-1903), ch. Xx-xxviii; J. S. Corbett, _England in the Seven Years' War_, 2 vols. (1907), strongly British and concerned chiefly with navalwarfare; J. W. Fortescue, _History of the British Army_, Vols. I and II(1899). See also the general histories of imperialism and of theBritish Empire listed in the bibliographies appended to Chapters XXVIIand XXIX, of Volume II. WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE BRITISH IN AMERICA. C. M. Andrews, _TheColonial Period_ (1912) in "Home University Library, " and C. L. Becker, _Beginnings of the American People_ (1915) in "The Riverside History, "able and stimulating resumes; L. G. Tyler, _England in America, 1580-1652_ (1904), Vol. IV of "American Nation" Series; John Fiske, _OldVirginia and her Neighbors_ (1900), and, by the same author, in hisusually accurate and captivating manner, _Beginnings of New England_(1898), and _Dutch and Quaker Colonies in America_ (1903); H. L. Osgood, _The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century_, 3 vols. (1904-1907), the standard authority, together with J. A. Doyle, _English Colonies in America_, 5 vols. (1882-1907); Edward Channing, _AHistory of the United States_, Vol. II, _A Century of Colonial History, 1660-1760_ (1908), very favorable to New England. WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE FRENCH IN AMERICA. R. G. Thwaites, _France in America, 1497-1763_ (1905), Vol. VII of the "AmericanNation" Series, is a clear and scholarly survey. For all concerningFrench Canada prior to the British conquest, the works of FrancisParkman occupy an almost unique position: they are well known for theirattractive qualities, descriptive powers, and charm of style; on thewhole, they are accurate, though occasionally Parkman seems to havemisunderstood the Jesuit missionaries. The proper sequence of Parkman'swritings is as follows: _Pioneers of France in the New World_ (1865), _The Jesuits in North America_ (1867), _La Salle and the Discovery ofthe Great West_ (1869), _The Old Regime in Canada_ (1874), _CountFrontenac and New France under Louis XIV_ (1877), _A Half Century ofConflict_, 2 vols. (1892), _Montcalm and Wolfe_, 2 vols. (1884), _TheConspiracy of Pontiac, and the Indian War after the Conquest ofCanada_, 2 vols. (1851). Other useful studies: C. W. Colby, _CanadianTypes of the Old Regime, 1608-1698_ (1908); G. M. Wrong, _The Fall ofCanada: a Chapter in the History of the Seven Years' War_ (1914);Thomas Hughes, S. J. , _History of the Society of Jesus in NorthAmerica_, Vols. I, II (1907-1908), the authoritative work of a learnedJesuit; T. J. Campbell, S. J. , _Pioneer Priests of North America, 1642-1710_, 3 vols. (1911-1914); William Kingsford, _History of Canada_, 10vols. (1887-1897), elaborate, moderately English in point of view, andcovering the years from 1608 to 1841; F. X. Garneau, _Histoire duCanada_, 5th ed. Of the famous work of a French Canadian, revised byhis grandson Hector Garneau, Vol. I to 1713 (1913). INDIA IN THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES. A monumental_History of India_ in 6 bulky volumes is now (1916) in preparationby the Cambridge University Press on the model of the "Cambridge ModernHistory. " Of brief accounts, the best are: A. C. Lyall, _The Rise andExpansion of British Dominion in India_, 5th ed. (1910); A. D. Innes, _A Short History of the British in India_ (1902); and G. B. Malleson, _History of the French in India, 1674-1761_, 2d ed. Reissued (1909). See also the English biography of _Dupleix_ by G. B. Malleson (1895) and the French lives by Tibulle Hamont (1881) andEugene Guenin (1908). An excellent brief biography of _Clive_ isthat of G. B. Malleson (1895). Robert Orme (1728-1801), _History ofthe Military Transactions of the British Nation in Indostan from1745_ [to 1761], 2 vols. In 3, is an almost contemporaneous accountby an agent of the English East India Company who had access to thecompany's records, and Beckles Willson, _Ledger and Sword_, 2vols. (1903), deals with the economic and political policies of theEnglish East India Company. For history of the natives during theperiod, see Sir H. M. Elliot, _History of India, as told by its ownHistorians: the Muhammadan Period_, 8 vols. (1867-1877); and J. G. Duff, _History of the Mahrattas_, new ed. , 3 vols. (1913). WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM. Of the character of the Elder Pitt, suchan important factor in the British triumph over France, many differentestimates have been made by historians. The two great biographies ofthe English statesman are those of Basil Williams, 2 vols. (1913), veryfavorable to Pitt, and Albert von Ruville, Eng. Trans. , 3 vols. (1907), hostile to Pitt. See also Lord Rosebery, _Lord Chatham, His EarlyLife and Connections_ (1910); D. A. Winstanley, _Lord Chatham andthe Whig Opposition_ (1912); and the famous essay on Pitt by LordMacaulay. CHAPTER X THE REVOLUTION WITHIN THE BRITISH EMPIRE THE BRITISH COLONIAL SYSTEM IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY The contest for world-empire, from which we have seen Great Britainemerge victorious, was closely followed by a less successful struggleto preserve that empire from disrupting forces. We may properly leaveto American history the details of the process by which, as thecolonies became more acutely conscious of the inherent conflict betweentheir economic interests and the colonial and commercial policy ofGreat Britain, they grew at the same time into a self-confident anddefiant independence. Nevertheless, as an epochal event in the historyof British imperialism, the American War of Independence deserves aprominent place in European history. [Sidenote: Mercantilism and the British Colonies] The germs of disease were imbedded in the very policy to which manystatesmen of the eighteenth century ascribed England's great career, --the mercantilist theories, whose acquaintance we made in an earlierchapter. [Footnote: See above, pp. 63 ff, and likewise pp. 239 f. ] Themercantilist statesman, anxious to build up the power, and thereforethe wealth, of his country, logically conceived three main ideas aboutcolonies: (1) they should furnish the mother country with commoditieswhich could not be produced at home; (2) they should not injure themother country by competing with her industries or by enriching hercommercial rivals; and (3) they should help bear the burdens of thegovernment, army, and navy. Each one of these ideas was reflected inthe actual policy which the British government in the eighteenthcentury adopted and enforced in respect of the American colonies. [Sidenote: Regulation of Colonial Industry. Bounties] (1) Various expedients were employed to encourage the production ofparticular colonial commodities which the British Parliament thoughtdesirable. The commodity might be exempted from customs duties, orParliament might forbid the importation into Great Britain of similarproducts from foreign countries, or might even bestow outright upon thecolonial producer "bounties, " or sums of money, as an incentive topersevere in the industry. Thus the cultivation of indigo in Carolina, of coffee in Jamaica, of tobacco in Virginia, was encouraged, so thatthe British would not have to buy these desirable commodities fromSpain. Similarly, bounties were given for tar, pitch, hemp, masts, andspars imported from America rather than from Sweden. [Sidenote: Restrictions on Colonial Industry] (2) The chief concern of the mercantilist was the framing of suchgovernmental regulations of trade as would deter colonial commerce orindustry from taking a turn which conceivably might lessen theprosperity of the British manufacturers or shippers, on whom Parliamentdepended for taxes. Of the colonial industries which were discouragedfor this reason, two or three are particularly noteworthy. Thus the hatmanufacturers in America, though they could make hats cheaply, becauseof the plentiful supply of fur in the New World, were forbidden tomanufacture any for export, lest they should ruin the hatters ofLondon. The weaving of cloth was likewise discouraged by a law of 1699which prohibited the export of woolen fabrics from one colony toanother. Again, it was thought necessary to protect British iron-masters by forbidding (1750) the colonists to manufacture wrought ironor its finished products. Such restrictions on manufacture wereimposed, not so much for fear of actual competition in the Englishmarket, as to keep the colonial markets for English manufacturers. Theycaused a good deal of rancor, but they were too ill enforced to bearheavily upon the colonies. [Sidenote: Restrictions on Colonial Trade] More irksome were the restrictions on commerce. As far back as 1651, when Dutch traders were bringing spices from the East and sugar fromthe West to sell in London at a handsome profit, Parliament had passedthe first famous Navigation Act, [Footnote: See above, pp. 277 f. , 304f. ] which had been successful in its general design--to destroy theDutch carrying trade and to stimulate British ship-building. In theeighteenth century a similar policy was applied to the colonies. For itwas claimed that the New England traders who sold their fish and lumberfor sugar, molasses, and rum in the French West Indies were enrichingFrench planters rather than English. Consequently, a heavy tariff waslaid on French sugar-products. Moreover, inasmuch as it was deemed mostessential for a naval power to have many and skilled ship-builders, theNavigation Acts [Footnote: Subsequent to the Act of 1651, importantNavigation Acts were passed in 1660, 1663, 1672, and 1696. ] were sodeveloped and expanded as to include the following prescriptions: (1)In general all import and export trade must be conducted in ships builtin England, in Ireland, or in the colonies, manned and commanded byBritish subjects. Thus, if a French or Dutch merchantman appeared inMassachusetts Bay, offering to sell at a great bargain his cargo ofspices or silks, the shrewd merchants of Boston were legally bound notto buy of him. (2) Certain "enumerated" articles, such as sugar, tobacco, cotton, indigo, and, later, rice and furs, could be exportedonly to England. A Virginia planter, wishing to send tobacco to aFrench snuff-maker, would have to ship it to London in an English ship, pay duties on it there, and then have it reshipped to Havre. (3) Allgoods imported into the American colonies from Europe must come by wayof England and must pay duties there. Silks might be more expensiveafter they had paid customs duties in London and had followed aroundabout route to Virginia, but the proud colonial dame was supposedto pay dearly and to rejoice that English ships and English sailorswere employed in transporting her finery. [Sidenote: Reasons for Early Colonial Toleration of Restrictions on theIndustry and Trade] It would seem as if such restrictive measures would not have beentolerated in the colonies, even when imposed by the mother country. There were, however, several very good reasons why the traderestrictions were long tolerated. [Sidenote: Leniency of Enforcement] In the first place, for many years they had been very poorly enforced. During his long ministry, from 1721 to 1742, Sir Robert Walpole hadwinked at infractions of the law and had allowed the colonies todevelop as best they might under his policy of "salutary neglect. "Then, during the colonial wars, it had been inexpedient and impossibleto insist upon the Navigation Acts; and smuggling had become so commonthat respectable merchants made no effort to conceal their traffic ingoods which had been imported contrary to provisions of the law. [Sidenote: Fear of the French] Moreover, the colonies would gladly endure a good deal of economichardship in order to have the help of the mother country against theFrench. So long as Count de Frontenac and his successors were sendingtheir Indians southward and eastward to burn New England villages, itwas very comforting to think that the mother country would send armiesof redcoats to conquer the savages and defeat the French. [Sidenote: Weakness and Disunion of the Thirteen Colonies] But even had there been every motive for armed resistance to GreatBritain, the American colonies could hardly have attempted it untilafter the conclusion of the French and Indian War. Until the secondhalf of the eighteenth century the British colonies were both weak anddivided. They had no navy and very few fortifications to defend theircoastline. They had no army except raw and unreliable militia. Even in1750 their inhabitants numbered but a paltry 1, 300, 000 as compared witha population in Great Britain of more than 10, 000, 000; and in wealthand resources they could not dream of rivaling the mother country. The lack of union among the colonies sprang from fundamentalindustrial, social, and religious differences. The southern provinces--Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia--were agricultural, and theirproducts were plantation-grown rice, indigo, and tobacco. New York andPennsylvania produced corn and timber. In New England, although therewere many small farmers, the growing interest was in trade andmanufacture. The social distinctions were equally marked. The northerncolonists were middle-class traders and small farmers, with democratictown governments, and with an intense pride in education. In the South, gentlemen of good old English families lived like feudal lords amongtheir slaves and cultivated manners quite as assiduously as morals. Offorms of the Christian religion, the Atlantic coast presented a bizarremixture. In the main, New England was emphatically Calvinistic andsternly Puritanical; Virginia, proudly Episcopalian (Anglican); andMaryland, partly Roman Catholic. Plain-spoken Quakers in Pennsylvania, Presbyterians and Baptists in New Jersey, and German Lutherans inCarolina added to the confusion. Between colonies so radically different in religion, manners, andindustries, there could be at the outset little harmony or cooperation. It would be hard to arouse them to concerted action, and even harder toconduct a war. Financial cooperation was impeded by the fact that thepaper money issued by any one colony was not worth much in the others. Military cooperation was difficult because while each colony might callon its farmers temporarily to join the militia in order to repel anIndian raid, the militia-men were always anxious to get back to theircrops and would obey a strange commander with ill grace. [Sidenote: Altered Situation in the Thirteen Colonies after 1763] With the conclusion of the French and Indian War, however, conditionswere materially changed, (1) The fear of the French was no longerpresent to bind the colonies to the mother country. (2) During the warsthe colonies had grown not only more populous (they numbered about2, 000, 000 inhabitants in 1763) and more wealthy, but also more self-confident. Recruits from the northern colonies had captured Louisburgin 1745 and had helped to conquer Canada in the last French war. Virginia volunteers had seen how helpless were General Braddock'sredcoats in forest-warfare. Experiences like these gave the provincialriflemen pride and confidence. Important also was the Albany Congressof 1754, in which delegates from seven colonies came together anddiscussed Benjamin Franklin's scheme for federating the thirteencolonies. Although the plan was not adopted, it set men to thinkingabout the advantages of confederation and so prepared the way forsubsequent union. [Sidenote: More Rigorous Attitude of Great Britain toward the Coloniesafter Accession of George III, 1760] Not only were the colonists in a more independent frame of mind, butthe British government became more oppressive. During two reigns--thoseof George I and George II--ministers had been the power behind thethrone, but in 1760 George III had come to the throne as aninexperienced and poorly educated youth of twenty-two, full of ambitionto be the power behind the ministers. Not without justice havehistorians accused George III of prejudice, stubbornness, andstupidity. Nevertheless, he had many friends. The fact that he, thefirst really English king since the Revolution of 1688, should manifesta great personal interest and industry in affairs of state, endearedhim to many who already respected his irreproachable private moralityand admired his flawless and unfailing courtesy. Under the inspirationof Lord Bute, [Footnote: The earl of Bute (1713-1792) became primeminister in 1762, after the resignations of Pitt, who had been the realhead of the cabinet, and the duke of Newcastle, who had been thenominal premier. Bute in turn was succeeded by George Grenville (1712-1770). ] the "king's friends" became a political party, avowedly intenton breaking the power of the great Whig noblemen who had so longdominated corrupt Parliaments and unscrupulous ministries. [Sidenote: Grenville, Prime Minister, 1763-1765, Executor of theColonial Policies of George III] George III attempted at the outset to gain control of Parliament bywholesale bribery of its members, but, since even this questionableexpedient did not give him a majority, he tried dividing the forces ofhis Whig opponents. This was somewhat less difficult since Pitt, themost prominent Whig, the eloquent Chauvinist [Footnote: Chauvin, asoldier in Napoleon's army, was so enthusiastic for the glory of thegreat general that his name has since been used as an adjectivedenoting excessive patriotism and fondness for war. ] minister, "friendof the colonies, " and idol of the cities, had lost control of theministry. England, too, felt the burdensome expense of war, and thepublic debt had mounted to what was then the enormous sum ofL140, 000, 000. George III, therefore, chose for prime minister (1763-1765) George Grenville, a representative of a faction of Whigaristocrats, who, alarmed by the growth of the public debt, and jealousof Pitt's power, were quite willing to favor the king's colonialpolicies. Great Britain, they argued, had undergone a costly war todefend the colonists on the Atlantic coast from French aggression. Thecolonies were obviously too weak and too divided to garrison and policethe great Mississippi and St. Lawrence valleys; and yet, in order toprevent renewed danger from French, Spaniards, or Indians, at least tenthousand regular soldiers would be needed at an annual expense ofL300, 000. What could be more natural than that the colonists, to whosebenefit the war had redounded, and to whose safety the army would add, should pay at least a part of the expense? This idea, put forward bycertain Whig statesmen, that the colonists should bear part of thefinancial burden of imperial defense, was eagerly seized upon by GeorgeIII and utilized as the cornerstone of his colonial policy. To such apolicy the Tories, as ardent upholders of the monarchy, lent theirsupport. [Sidenote: The Sugar Act, 1764] Grenville, the new minister, accordingly proposed that the colonistsshould pay about L150, 000 a year, --roughly a half of the estimatedtotal amount, --and for raising the money, he championed two specialfinance acts in the British Parliament. The first was the Sugar Act of1764. Grenville recognized that a very high tariff on the importationof foreign sugar-products into the colonies invited smuggling on alarge scale, was therefore generally evaded, and yielded little revenueto the government. As a matter of fact, in the previous year, Massachusetts merchants had smuggled 15, 000 hogsheads of molasses[Footnote: Large quantities of molasses were used in New England forthe manufacture of rum. ] from the French West Indies. Now, inaccordance with the new enactment, the duty was actually halved, but aserious attempt was made to collect what remained. For the purpose ofthe efficient collection of the sugar tax, the Navigation Acts wererevived and enforced; British naval officers were ordered to put aperemptory stop to smuggling; and magistrates were empowered to issue"writs of assistance" enabling customs collectors to search privatehouses for smuggled goods. The Sugar Act was expected to yield one-third of the amount demanded by the British ministry. [Sidenote: The Stamp Act, 1765][Sidenote: Opposition in the Colonies] The other two-thirds of the L150, 000 was to be raised under the StampAct of 1765. Bills of lading, official documents, deeds, wills, mortgages, notes, newspapers, and pamphlets were to be written orprinted only on special stamped paper, on which the tax had been paid. Playing cards paid a stamp tax of a shilling; dice paid ten shillings;and on a college diploma the tax amounted to L2. The Stamp Act boreheavily on just the most dangerous classes of the population--newspaper-publishers, pamphleteers, lawyers, bankers, and merchants. Naturally the newspapers protested and the lawyers argued that theStamp Act was unconstitutional, that Parliament had no right to levytaxes on the colonies. The very battle-cry, "Taxation withoutRepresentation is Tyranny, " was the phrase of a Boston lawyer, JamesOtis. At once the claim was made that the colonists were true Britishsubjects and that taxation without representation was a flagrantviolation of the "immemorial rights of Englishmen. " Now the colonistshad come to believe that their only true representatives were those forwhom they voted personally, the members of the provincial assemblies. Each colony had its representative assembly; and these assemblies, likethe parent Parliament in Great Britain, had become very important byacquiring the function of voting taxes. The colonists, therefore, claimed that taxes could be voted only by their own assemblies, whilethe British government replied, with some pertinency, that Parliament, although elected by a very small minority of the population, wasconsidered to be generally representative of all British subjects. [Sidenote: The Stamp Act Congress, 1765] Many colonists, less learned than the lawyers, were unacquainted withthe subtleties of the argument, but they were quite willing to bepersuaded that in refusing to pay British taxes they were contendingfor a great principle of liberty and self-government. Opposition to thestamp tax spread like wildfire and culminated in a congress at New Yorkin October, 1765, comprising delegates from nine colonies. The "StampAct Congress, " for so it was called, issued a declaration of rights--the rights of trial by jury [Footnote: The right of trial by jury hadbeen violated by British officials in punishing smugglers. ] and ofself-taxation--and formally protested against the Stamp Act. [Sidenote: Repeal of the Stamp Act, 1776] Parliament might have disregarded the declaration of the Congress, butnot the tidings of popular excitement, of mob violence, of stamp-collectors burned in effigy. Moreover, colonial boycotts againstBritish goods--"nonimportation agreements"--were effective in creatingsentiment in England in favor of conciliation. Taking advantage ofGrenville's resignation, a new ministry under the marquess ofRockingham, [Footnote: Rockingham retired in July, 1766] a liberalWhig, procured the repeal of the obnoxious Stamp Act in March, 1766. While the particular tax was abandoned, a Declaratory Act was issued, affirming the constitutional right of Parliament to bind the coloniesin all cases. [Sidenote: The Townshend Acts, 1767] That right was asserted again in 1767 by a brilliant but recklesschancellor of the exchequer, Charles Townshend, who, without theconsent of the other ministers, put through Parliament the series ofacts which bear his name. His intention was to raise a regular colonialrevenue for the support of colonial governors, judges, and otherofficers as well as for the defense of the colonies. For thesepurposes, import duties were laid on glass, lead, painters' colors, paper, and tea; the duties were to be collected by Englishcommissioners resident in the American ports; and infractions of thelaw in America were to be tried in courts without juries. [Sidenote: "The Boston Massacre"] The Townshend Acts brought forth immediate and indignant protests. Colonial merchants renewed and extended their nonimportationagreements. Within a year the imports Boston from Great Britain felloff by more than L700, 000. The customs officers were unable or afraidto collect the duties strictly, and it is said that in three years thetotal revenue from them amounted only to L16, 000. Troops weredispatched to overawe Boston, but the angry Bostonians hooted andhissed the "lobsterbacks, " as the redcoats were derisively styled, andin 1770 provoked them to actual bloodshed--the so-called "BostonMassacre. " [Sidenote: Lord North, Prime Minister, 1770] At this crucial moment, King George III chose a new prime minister, Lord North, a gentleman of wit, ability, and affability, unfailinglyhumorous, and unswervingly faithful to the king. Among his firstmeasures was the repeal (1770) of the hated Townshend duties. Merely atax of threepence a pound on tea was retained, in order that thecolonies might not think that Parliament had surrendered its right totax them. Lord North even made an arrangement with the East IndiaCompany whereby tea was sold so cheaply that it would not pay tosmuggle tea from the Dutch. [Sidenote: "The Boston Tea Party, " 1773] But the colonists would not now yield even the principle ofParliamentary taxation. [Footnote: Despite the fact that the colonistshad regularly been paying import duties on molasses and on foreignwine. ] They insisted that were they to pay this tax, trifling as itmight be, Parliament would assert that they had acknowledged its rightto tax them, and would soon lay heavier taxes upon them. They, therefore, refused to buy the tea, and on a cold December night in 1773a number of Boston citizens dressed up like Indians, boarded a Britishtea ship, and emptied 342 chests of tea into the harbor. [Sidenote: The Five "Intolerable Acts, " 1774] Boston's "Tea-Party" brought punishment swift and sure in the famousfive "intolerable acts" (1774). Boston harbor was closed; Massachusettswas practically deprived of self-government; royal officers whocommitted capital offenses were to be tried in England or in othercolonies; royal troops were quartered on the colonists; and theprovince of Quebec was extended south to the Ohio, cutting off vastterritories claimed by Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Virginia. Thislast act, by recognizing and establishing the Roman Catholic Church inFrench-speaking Quebec, excited the liveliest fear and apprehension onthe part of Protestants in the English-speaking colonies. [Sidenote: First Continental Congress, 1774] Agitators in the other colonies feared that their turn would come next, and rallied to the aid of Massachusetts. The first Continental Congressof delegations from all the colonies [Footnote: Except Georgia. ] met in1774 in Philadelphia "to deliberate and determine upon wise and propermeasures, to be by them recommended to all the colonies, for therecovery and establishment of their just rights and liberties, civiland religious, and the restoration of union and harmony between GreatBritain and the colonies. " The Congress dispatched a petition to theking and urged the colonists to be faithful to the "AmericanAssociation" for the non-importation of British goods. THE WAR OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE, 1775-1783 [Sidenote: Revolt of the Thirteen Colonies] Neither king nor colonies would yield a single point. William Pitt, nowearl of Chatham, in vain proposed conciliatory measures. The coloniesfast drifted into actual revolt. In May, 1775, the second ContinentalCongress met at Philadelphia, but already blood had been shed atLexington (Massachusetts), 19 April, 1775, and New England was a hotbedof rebellion. The Congress accepted facts as they were, declared war, appointed George Washington commander-in-chief, sent agents to Franceand other foreign countries, and addressed a final petition to theking. [Sidenote: The Declaration of Independence, 1776] But it was too late for reconciliation, and events marched rapidlyuntil on 4 July, 1776, the colonies declared themselves "free andindependent states. " [Footnote: The colonies on the recommendation ofCongress set up independent governments and these state governmentswere formally federated in accordance with "articles of Confederationand perpetual Union, " drawn up in Congress in 1777 and finally ratifiedin 1781. ] The Declaration of Independence was remarkable for twothings, its philosophy and its effects. The philosophy was that held bymany radical thinkers of the time--"that all men are endowed by theirCreator with certain unalienable rights"; that among such rights arelife, liberty, and the exclusive right to tax themselves; and that anypeople may rightfully depose a tyrannical ruler. We shall find asimilar philosophy applied more boldly in the French Revolution. In America the Declaration was denounced by "Tories" as treason, butwas welcomed by "patriots" as an inspiration and a stimulus. To showtheir joy, the people of New York City pulled down the leaden statue ofKing George and molded it into bullets. Instead of rebellious subjects, the English-speaking Americans now claimed to be a belligerent nation, and on the basis of this claim they sought recognition and aid fromother nations. [Sidenote: Difficulties and Early Successes of the British] For over three years, however, the war was carried on simply betweenrebellious colonies and the mother country. Had the grave nature of therevolt been thoroughly understood in England from the outset, thecolonists might possibly have been crushed within a short time, formany of the richest colonists were opposed to the war; and even had the"people of the United States" supported the struggle unanimously, theywere no match for Great Britain in wealth, population, or naval power. As it was, Great Britain allowed the revolution to get under fullheadway before making a serious effort to suppress it. In 1776, however, a force of about 30, 000 men, many of whom were mercenaryGerman soldiers, commonly called "Hessians, " was sent to occupy NewYork. Thenceforward, the British pursued aggressive tactics, andinasmuch as their armies were generally superior to those of thecolonists in numbers, discipline, and equipment, and besides weresupported by powerful fleets, they were able to possess themselves ofthe important colonial ports of New York, Philadelphia, andCharlestown, [Footnote: Name changed to Charleston in 1783. ] and to winmany victories. On the other hand, the region to be conquered wasextensive and the rebel armies stubborn and elusive. Moreover, thecolonists possessed a skillful leader in the person of the aristocraticVirginian planter who has already been mentioned as taking a part inthe French and Indian War. At first, George Washington was criticizedfor bringing the gravity of a judge and the dignified bearing of acourtier to the battlefield, but he soon proved his ability. He waswise enough to retreat before superior forces, always keeping just outof harm's way, and occasionally catching his incautious pursuerunawares, as at Princeton or Trenton. [Sidenote: British Reverse at Saratoga, 1777] One of the crucial events of the war was the surrender of the BritishGeneral Burgoyne with some six thousand men at Saratoga, on 17 October, 1777, after an unsuccessful invasion of northern New York. At that verytime, Benjamin Franklin, the public-spirited Philadelphia publisher, was in Paris attempting to persuade France to ally herself with theUnited States. Franklin's charming personality, his "republicanplainness, " his shrewd common sense, as well as his knowledge ofphilosophy and science, made him welcome at the brilliant French court;but France, although still smarting under the humiliating treaty of1763, would not yield to his persuasion until the American victory atSaratoga seemed to indicate that the time had come to strike. Analliance with the United States was concluded, and in 1778 war wasdeclared against Great Britain. [Sidenote: Entrance into the War of France (1778), Spain (1779), Holland (1780)][Sidenote: Isolation of Great Britain] The war now took on a larger aspect, and in its scale of operations andin its immediate significance the fighting in the colonies was dwarfedinto comparative insignificance. In the attack upon Great Britain, France was dutifully joined by Spain (1779). Holland, indignant at theway in which Great Britain had tried to exclude Dutch traders fromcommerce with America, joined the Bourbons (1780) against their commonfoe. Other nations, too, had become alarmed at the rapid growth anddomineering maritime policy of Great Britain. Since the outbreak ofhostilities, British captains and admirals had claimed the right tosearch and seize neutral vessels trading with America or bearingcontraband of war. Against this dangerous practice, Catherine II ofRussia protested vigorously, and in 1780 formed the "armed neutralityof the North" with Sweden and Denmark to uphold the protest with force, if necessary. Prussia, Portugal, the Two Sicilies, and the Holy RomanEmpire subsequently pronounced their adherence to the Armed Neutrality, and Great Britain was confronted by a unanimously hostile Europe. [Sidenote: The War in Europe] In the actual operations only three nations figured--France, Spain, andHolland; and of the three the last named gave little trouble except inthe North Sea. More to be feared were France and Spain, for by them theBritish Empire was attacked in all its parts. For a while in 1779 eventhe home country was threatened by a Franco-Spanish fleet of sixty-sixsail, convoying an army of 60, 000 men; but the plan came to naught. Powerful Spanish and French forces, launched against Great Britain'sMediterranean possessions, succeeded in taking Minorca, but wererepulsed by the British garrison of Gibraltar. [Sidenote: The War in America] On the continent of North America the insurgent colonists, aided byFrench fleets and French soldiers, gained a signal victory. An Americanand French army under Washington and Lafayette and a French fleet underDe Grasse suddenly closed in upon the British general, Lord Cornwallis, in Yorktown, Virginia, and compelled him to surrender on 19 October, 1781, with over 7000 men. The capitulation of Cornwallis practicallydecided the struggle in America, for all the reserve forces of GreatBritain were required in Europe, in the West Indies, and in Asia. [Sidenote: The War in the West Indies][Sidenote: Battle of Saints, 1782] Matters were going badly for Great Britain until a naval victory in theCaribbean Sea partially redeemed the day. For three winters anindecisive war had been carried on in the West Indies, but in 1782thirty-six British ships, under the gallant Rodney, met the FrenchCount de Grasse with thirty-three sail of the line near the group ofislands known as "the Saints, " and a great battle ensued--the "battleof Saints"--on 12 April, 1782. During the fight the wind suddenlyveered around, making a great gap in the line of French ships, and intothis gap sailed the British admiral, breaking up the French fleet, and, in the confusion, capturing six vessels. [Sidenote: The War in India] While the battle of Saints saved the British power in the West Indies, the outlook in the East became less favorable. At first the British hadbeen successful in seizing the French forts in India (1778) and indefeating (1781) the native ally of the French, Hyder Ali, the sultanof Mysore. But in 1782 the tide was turned by the appearance of theFrench admiral De Suffren, whose brilliant victories over a superiorBritish fleet gave the French temporary control of the Bay of Bengal. [Sidenote: Defeat but not Ruin of Great Britain][Sidenote: Treaties of Paris and Versailles, 1783] Unsuccessful in America, inglorious in India, expelled from Minorca, unable to control Ireland, [Footnote: The Protestants in Ireland hadarmed and organized volunteer forces, and threatened rebellion unlessGreat Britain granted "home rule" to them. Great Britain yielded and in1782 granted legislative autonomy to the Irish Parliament. See below, p. 431. ] and weary with war, England was very ready for peace, but notentirely humbled, for was she not still secure in the British Channel, victorious over the Dutch, triumphant in the Caribbean, unshaken inIndia, and unmoved on Gibraltar? Defeat, but not humiliation, was thekeynote of the treaties (1783) which Great Britain concluded, one atParis with the United States, and one at Versailles with France andSpain. Let us consider the provisions of these treaties in order, asthey affected the United States, France, and Spain. [Sidenote: The United States of America] By the treaty of Paris (3 September, 1783), the former thirteencolonies were recognized as the sovereign and independent United Statesof America, --bounded on the north by Canada and the Great Lakes, on theeast by the Atlantic, on the west by the Mississippi, and on the southby Florida. Important fishing rights on the Newfoundland Banks and theprivilege of navigation on the Mississippi were extended to the newnation. When the treaty of Paris was signed, the United States werestill held loosely together by the articles of Confederation, but afterseveral years of political confusion, a new and stronger federalconstitution was drawn up in 1787, and in 1789 George Washington becamefirst president of the republic. The republic thus created was thefirst important embodiment of the political theories of Montesquieu andother French philosophers, who, while condemning titled nobility andabsolute monarchy, distrusted the ignorant classes of the people, andbelieved in placing political control chiefly in the hands ofintelligent men of property and position. [Sidenote: Results to France] Had it not been for the disastrous battle of Saints, France might havedictated very favorable terms in the treaty of Versailles, [Footnote:In 1786 a supplementary Anglo-French treaty restored regular commercebetween the two nations, and recognized that Great Britain had no rightto seize traders flying a neutral flag, except for contraband of war, _i. E. _, guns, powder, and provisions of war. ] but, as it was, shemerely regained Tobago in the West Indies and Senegal in Africa, whichshe had lost in 1763. [Footnote: See above, p. 317. ] The equipment ofnavies and armies had exhausted the finances of the French government, and was largely responsible for the bankruptcy which was soon tooccasion the fall of absolutism in France. Moreover, French "radicals, "having seen the Americans revolt against a king, were, themselves, themore ready to enter upon a revolution. [Sidenote: Results to Spain] Better than France fared Spain. By the treaty of Versailles shereceived the island of Minorca and the territory of Florida, which thenincluded the southern portions of what later became the American statesof Alabama and Mississippi. [Footnote: The Louisiana territory, whichhad come into Spanish possession in 1763, was re-ceded to France in1800 and sold by France to the United States in 1803. Eighteen yearslater (1821) all of Florida was formally transferred to the UnitedStates. And see below, p. 532. ] [Sidenote: Settlement between Great Britain and Holland, 1784] Holland, the least important participant in the war, was not a party tothe treaty of Versailles, but was left to conclude a separate peacewith Great Britain in the following year (1784). The Dutch not onlylost some of their East Indian possessions, [Footnote: Includingstations on the Malabar and Coromandel coasts of India. ] but, what wasmore essential, they were forced to throw open to British merchants thevaluable trade of the Malay Archipelago. THE REFORMATION OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE [Sidenote: New Conciliatory Colonial Policy] The War of American Independence not only had cost Great Britain thethirteen colonies, hitherto the most important, [Footnote: The thirteencolonies were not actually then so profitable, however, as the fertileWest Indies, nor did they fit in so well with the mercantilist theoryof Colonialism. ] oldest, and strongest of her possessions, and likewiseSenegal, Florida, Tobago, and Minorca, but it had necessitated aterrible expenditure of men, money, and ships. More bitter than thedisastrous results of the war, however, was the reflection thatpossibly all might have been avoided by a policy of conciliation andconcession. Still it was not too late to learn, and in its treatment ofthe remaining colonies, the British government showed that the lessonhad not been lost. [Sidenote: Quebec Act, 1774][Sidenote: Board of Control in India, 1784][Sidenote: Separate Parliament for Ireland, 1782] On the eve of the revolt of the English-speaking colonies in America, awise measure of toleration was accorded to the French inhabitants ofCanada by the Quebec Act of 1774, which allowed them freely to professtheir Roman Catholic religion, and to enjoy the continuance of theFrench civil law. To these advantages was added in 1791 the privilegeof a representative assembly. India, too, felt the influence of the newpolicy, when in 1784 Parliament created a Board of Control to see thatthe East India Company did not abuse its political functions. EvenIreland, which was practically a colony, was accorded in 1782 the rightto make its own local laws, a measure of self-government enjoyed till 1January, 1801. [Footnote: See below, p. 431. ] [Sidenote: Decline and Gradual Abandonment of Mercantilism] British commercial policy, too, underwent a change, for the NavigationActs, which had angered the American colonies, could not now be appliedto the free nation of the United States. Moreover, the mercantilisttheory, having in this case produced such unfortunate results, henceforth began to lose ground, and it is not without interest thatAdam Smith's _Wealth of Nations_, the classic expression of thenew political economy of free trade, --of _laisser-faire_, as theFrench styled it, --which was destined to supplant mercantilism, waspublished in 1776, the very year of the declaration of Americanindependence. Of course Great Britain's mercantilist trade regulationswere not at once abandoned, but they had received a death-blow, andBritish commerce seemed none the worse for it. The southern Americanstates began to grow cotton [Footnote: During the war, cotton wasintroduced into Georgia and Carolina from the Bahamas, and soon becamean important product. In 1794, 1, 600, 000 pounds were shipped to GreatBritain. ] for the busy looms of British manufacturers, and of their ownfree will the citizens of the United States bought the Britishmanufactures which previously they had boycotted as aggrievedcolonists. In this particular, at least, the loss of the colonies washardly a loss at all. [Sidenote: Extent of the British Empire at Close of Eighteenth Century] Even for those ardent British patriots who wished to see their flagwaving over half the world and who were deeply chagrined by theuntoward political schism that had rent kindred English-speakingpeoples asunder, there was still some consolation and there was aboutto be some compensation. In the New World, Canada, Bermuda, theBahamas, Jamaica, and smaller islands of the West Indies, and a part ofHonduras, made no mean empire; and in the Old World the British flagflew over the forts at Gibraltar, Gambia, and the Gold Coast, whileIndia offered almost limitless scope for ambition and even for greed. [Sidenote: Extension of the British Empire in India][Sidenote: Warren Hastings] To the extension and solidification of her empire in the East, GreatBritain now devoted herself, and with encouraging results. It will beremembered that British predominance in India had already been assuredby the brilliant and daring Clive, who had defeated the French, set upa puppet nawab in Bengal, and attempted to eliminate corruption fromthe administration, Clive's work was continued by a man no less famous, Warren Hastings (1732-1818), whose term as governor-general of India(1774-1785) covered the whole period of the American revolt. At the ageof seven-teen, Hastings had first entered the employ of the BritishEast India Company, and an apprenticeship of over twenty years in Indiahad browned his face and inured his lean body to the peculiarities ofthe climate, as well as giving him a thorough insight into the nativecharacter. When at last, in 1774, he became head of the Indianadministration, Hastings inaugurated a policy which he pursued withtireless attention to details--a policy involving the transference ofBritish headquarters to Calcutta, and a thorough reform of the police, military, and financial systems. In his wars and intrigues with nativeprinces and in many of his financial transactions, a Parliament, whichwas inclined to censure, found occasion to attack his honor, and thefamous Edmund Burke, with all the force of oratory and hatred, attempted to convict the great governor of "high crimes andmisdemeanors. " But the tirades of Burke were powerless against the manwho had so potently strengthened the foundations of the British empirein India. [Sidenote: Cornwallis] In 1785 Hastings was succeeded by Lord Cornwallis--the same who hadsurrendered to Washington at Yorktown. Cornwallis was as successful inIndia as he had been unfortunate in America. His organization of thetax system proved him a wise administrator, and his reputation as ageneral was enhanced by the defeat of the rebellious sultan of Mysore. The work begun so well by Clive, Hastings, and Cornwallis, was ablycarried on by subsequent administrators, [Footnote: For detailsconcerning British rule in India between 1785 and 1858, see Vol. II, pp. 662 ff. ] until in 1858 the crown finally took over the empire ofthe East India Company, an empire stretching northward to theHimalayas, westward to the Indus River, and eastward to theBrahmaputra. [Sidenote: The Straits Settlements][Sidenote: Australia] In the years immediately following the War of American Independenceoccurred two other important extensions of British power. One was theoccupation of the "Straits Settlements" which gave Great Britaincontrol of the Malay peninsula and of the Straits of Malacca throughwhich the spice ships passed. But more valuable as a future home forEnglish-speaking Europeans, and, therefore, as partial compensation forthe loss of the United States, was the vast island-continent ofAustralia, which had been almost unknown until the famous voyage ofCaptain Cook to Botany Bay in 1770. For many years Great Britainregarded Australia as a kind of open-air prison for her criminals, andthe first British settlers at Port Jackson (1788) were exiled convicts. The introduction of sheep-raising and the discovery of gold made theisland a more attractive home for colonists, and thenceforth itsdevelopment was rapid. To-day, with an area of almost 3, 000, 000 squaremiles, and a population of some 4, 800, 000 English-speaking people, Australia is a commonwealth more populous than and three times as largeas were the thirteen colonies with which Great Britain so unwillinglyparted in 1783. ADDITIONAL READING BRITISH COLONIAL POLICY. A very brief survey: J. S. Bassett, _A ShortHistory of the United States_ (1914), ch. Viii, ix. The most readableand reliable detailed account of mercantilism as applied by the Britishto their colonies is to be found in the volumes of G. L. Beer, _TheOrigin of the British Colonial System_, 1578-1660 (1908); _The OldColonial System_, 1660-1754, Part I, _The Establishment of the System_, 2 vols. (1912); _British Colonial Policy_, 1754-1765 (1907); and _TheCommercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies_ (1893), asurvey. From the English standpoint, the best summary is that of H. E. Egerton, _A Short History of British Colonial Policy_ (1897). Othervaluable works: C. M. Andrews, _Colonial Self-Government_ (1904), Vol. V of the "American Nation" Series; O. M. Dickerson, _American ColonialGovernment, 1696-1765_ (1912), a study of the British Board of Trade inits relation to the American colonies, political, industrial, andadministrative; G. E. Howard, _Preliminaries of the Revolution, 1763-1775_ (1905), Vol. VIII of the "American Nation" Series; ReginaldLucas, _Lord North, Second Earl of Guilford_, 2 vols. (1913); and thestandard treatises of H. L. Osgood and of J. A. Doyle cited in thebibliography to Chapter IX, above. THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. Sir G. 0. Trevelyan, _The AmericanRevolution_, 4 vols. (1899-1912), and, by the same author, _George theThird and Charles Fox: the Concluding Part of the American Revolution_, 2 vols. (1914), scholarly and literary accounts, sympathetic toward thecolonists and the English Whigs; Edward Channing, _A History of theUnited States_, Vol. III (1912), the best general work; C. H. Van Tyne, _The American Revolution_ (1905), Vol. IX of the "American Nation"Series, accurate and informing; John Fiske, _American Revolution_, 2vols. (1891), a very readable popular treatment; S. G. Fisher, _TheStruggle for American Independence_, 2 vols. (1908), unusuallyfavorable to the British loyalists in America; _Cambridge ModernHistory_, Vol. VII (1903), ch. V-vii, written in great part by J. A. Doyle, the English specialist on the American colonies; J. B. Perkins, _France in the American Revolution_ (1911), entertaining andinstructive; Arthur Hassall, _The Balance of Power_, 1715-1789 (1896), ch. Xii, a very brief but suggestive indication of the internationalsetting of the War of American Independence; J. W. Fortescue, _Historyof the British Army_, Vol. III (1902), an account of the militaryoperations from the English standpoint. THE REFORMATION OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE. A good general history: M. R. P. Dorman, _History of the British Empire in the Nineteenth Century_, Vol. I, 1793-1805 (1902), Vol. II, 1806-1900 (1904). On Ireland: W. O'C. Morris, _Ireland_, 1494-1905, 2d ed. (1909). On Canada: Sir C. P. Lucas, _A History of Canada_, 1763-1812 (1909). On India: Sir AlfredLyall, _Warren Hastings_, originally published in 1889, reprinted(1908), an excellent biography; G. W. Hastings, _Vindication of WarrenHastings_ (1909), the best apology for the remarkable governor ofIndia, and should be contrasted with Lord Macaulay's celebratedindictment of Hastings; Sir John Strachey, _Hastings and the RohillaWar_ (1892), favorable to Hastings' work in India. On Australia:Greville Tregarthen, _Australian Commonwealth_, 3d ed. (1901), a goodoutline, in the "Story of the Nations" Series; Edward Jenks, _A Historyof the Australasian Colonies_ (1896), an excellent summary; EdwardHeawood, _A History of Geographical Discovery in the Seventeenth andEighteenth Centuries_ (1912); Arthur Kitson, _Captain James Cook_(1907). CHAPTER XI THE GERMANIES IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE IN DECLINE [Sidenote: Backwardness of the Germanies] In another connection we have already described the political conditionof the Germanies in the sixteenth century. [Footnote: See above, pp. 10ff. ] Outwardly, little change was observable in the eighteenth. TheHoly Roman Empire still existed as a nominal bond of union for a looseassemblage of varied states. There was still a Habsburg emperor. Therewere still electors--the number had been increased from seven to nine[Footnote: Bavaria became an electorate in 1623 and Hanover in 1708; in1778 Bavaria and the Palatinate were joined, again making eight. ]--withsome influence and considerable honor. There was still a Diet, composedof representatives of the princes and of the free cities, meetingregularly at Ratisbon. [Footnote: Ratisbon or Regensburg--in theBavarian Palatinate. The Diet met there regularly after 1663. ] But theempire was clearly in decline. The wave of national enthusiasm whichMartin Luther evoked had spent itself in religious wrangling anddissension, and in the inglorious conflicts of the Thirty Years' War. The Germans had become so many pawns that might be moved back and forthupon the international chessboard by Habsburg and Bourbon gamesters. Switzerland had been lost to the empire; both France and Sweden haddeliberately dismembered other valuable districts. [Footnote: For theprovisions of the treaties of Westphalia, see above, pp. 228 f. ] [Sidenote: Deplorable Results of the Thirty Years' War] It seemed as though slight foundation remained on which a substantialpolitical structure could be reared, for the social conditions in theGermanies were deplorable. It is not an exaggeration to say that duringthe Thirty Years' War Germany lost at least half of its population andmore than two-thirds of its movable property. In the middle of theseventeenth century, at about the time Louis XIV succeeded to a fairlyprosperous France, German towns and villages were in ashes, and vastdistricts turned into deserts. Churches and schools were closed byhundreds, and religious and intellectual torpor prevailed. Industry andtrade were so completely paralyzed that by 1635 the Hanseatic Leaguewas virtually abandoned, because the free commercial cities, formerlyso wealthy, could not meet the necessary expenses. Economic expansionand colonial enterprise, together with the consequent upbuilding of awell-to-do middle class, were resigned to Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, or England, without a protest from what had once been a proudburgher class in Germany. This elimination of an influentialbourgeoisie was accompanied by a sorry impoverishment and oppression ofthe peasantry. These native sons of the German soil had fondly hopedfor better things from the religious revolution and agrarianinsurrections of the sixteenth century; but they were doomed to failureand disappointment. The peasantry were in a worse plight in theeighteenth century in Germany than in any other country of western orcentral Europe. [Sidenote: The German Princes] The princes alone knew how to profit by the national prostration. Enriched by the confiscation of ecclesiastical property in thesixteenth century and relieved of meddlesome interference on the partof the emperor or the Diet, they utilized the decline of the middleclass and the dismal serfdom of the peasantry to exalt their personalpolitical power. They got rid of the local assemblies or greatlycurtailed their privileges, and gradually established petty tyrannies. After the Thirty Years' War, it became fashionable for the heirs ofGerman principalities to travel and especially to spend some time atthe court of France. Here they imbibed the political ideas of the GrandMonarch, and in a short time nearly every petty court in the Germanicswas a small-sized reproduction of the court of Versailles. In a sillyand ridiculous way the princes aped their great French neighbor: theytoo maintained armies, palaces, and swarms of household officials, which, though a crushing burden upon the people, were yet soinsignificant in comparison with the real pomp of France, that theywere in many instances the laughingstock of Europe. Beneath an externalgloss of refinement, these princes were, as a class, coarse andselfish, and devoid of any compensating virtues. Neither the commonpeople, whom they had impoverished, nor the Church, which they hadrobbed, was now strong enough to resist the growing absolutism andselfishness of the princes. THE HABSBURG DOMINIONS [Sidenote: Charles VI and his Hereditary Dominions] At the opening of the eighteenth century, the largest and mostimportant states of the Holy Roman Empire were those which owned thedirect sovereignty of the Austrian Habsburgs. Charles VI (1711-1740), who as the Archduke Charles had vainly struggled against Louis XIV tosecure the whole Spanish inheritance in the War of the SpanishSuccession (1702-1713), reigned over extensive and scattered dominions. Around Vienna, his capital city, were gathered his hereditarypossessions: (1) Lower Austria, or Austria proper, on the Danube; (2)Inner Austria, which comprised Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola; (3)Further Austria, consisting of the mountainous regions about Innsbruck, commonly designated the Tyrol; and (4) Upper Austria, embracingBreisgau on the upper Rhine near the Black Forest. To this nucleus oflands, in the greater part of which the German language was spokenuniversally, had been added in course of time the Czech or Slavickingdom of Bohemia with its German dependency of Silesia and its Slavicdependency of Moravia, and a portion of the Magyar kingdom of Hungary, with its Slavic dependencies of Croatia and Slavonia and its Rumaniandependency of Transylvania. Charles VI, like so many of his Habsburgancestors, was also emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and was therebyaccounted the foremost of German princes. But neither Bohemia norHungary was predominantly German in language or feeling, and Hungarywas not even a part of the Holy Roman Empire. [Sidenote: Conquests of Charles VI] What additions were made to the Habsburg dominions by Charles VI wereall of non-German peoples. The treaty of Utrecht had given him theFlemish- and French-speaking Belgian Netherlands and the Italian-speaking duchy of Milan and kingdom of the Two Sicilies. [Footnote: Seeabove, p. 253, footnote. ] A series of wars with the Ottoman Turks hadenabled his family to press the Hungarian boundaries south as far asBosnia and Serbia and to incorporate as a dependency of Hungary theRumanian-speaking principality of Transylvania. [Footnote: Definitelyceded by Turkey by the treaty of Karlowitz (1699). ] Of course all thesenewer states of the Habsburgs remained outside of the Holy RomanEmpire. [Sidenote: Diversity of Habsburg Dominions] Between the various peoples who were thus brought under the Habsburgsway, the bond was of loosest description. They spoke a dozen differentlanguages and presented an even greater diversity of interests. Theydid not constitute a compact, strongly centralized, national state likeFrance. Charles VI ruled his territories by manifold titles: he wasarchduke of Austria, king of Bohemia, king of Hungary, duke of Milan, and prince of the Netherlands; and the administration of each of thesefive major groups was independent of the others. The single bond ofunion was the common allegiance to the Habsburg monarch. [Sidenote: Check upon Habsburg Ambitions in the Germanies] To adopt and pursue a policy which would suit all these lands andpeoples would hardly be possible for any mortal: it certainly surpassedthe wit of the Habsburgs. They had made an attempt in the seventeenthcentury to develop a vigorous German policy, to unify the empire and tostrengthen their hold upon it, but they had failed dismally. Thedisasters of the Thirty Years' War, the jealousies and ambitions of theother German princes, the interested intervention of foreign powers, notably Sweden and France, made it brutally clear that Habsburginfluence in the Germanies had already reached its highest pitch andthat henceforth it would tend gradually to wane. Blocked in the Germanies, the Austrian Habsburgs looked elsewhere tosatisfy their aspirations. But almost equal difficulties confrontedthem. Extension to the southeast in the direction of the Balkanpeninsula involved almost incessant warfare with the Turks. Increase ofterritory in Italy incited Spain, France, and Sardinia to armedresistance. Development of the trade of the Belgian Netherlands arousedthe hostility of the influential commercial classes in England, Holland, and France. The time and toil spent upon these non-Germanprojects obviously could not be devoted to the internal affairs of theHoly Roman Empire. Thus, not only were the Germanies a source ofweakness to the Habsburgs, but the Habsburgs were a source of weaknessto the Germanies. [Sidenote: Continued Prestige of the Habsburgs] Despite these drawbacks, the Habsburg family was still powerful. Thenatural resources and native wealth of many of the regions, the large, if rather cosmopolitan, armies which might be raised, the intricatemarriage relationships with most of the sovereign families of Europe, the championship of the Catholic Church, the absolutist principles andpractices of the reigning prince, all contributed to cloak theweaknesses, under a proud name and pretentious fame, of the imperialAustrian line. [Sidenote: Question of the Habsburg Inheritance][Sidenote: The "Pragmatic Sanction" of Charles VI] In the eighteenth century a particularly unkind fate seemed to attendthe Habsburgs. We have already noticed how the extinction of the maleline in the Spanish branch precipitated a great international war ofsuccession, with the result that the Spanish inheritance was dividedand the greater part passed to the rival Bourbon family. Now Charles VIwas obliged to face a similar danger in the Austrian inheritance. Hehimself had neither sons nor brothers, but only a daughter, MariaTheresa. Spurred on by the fate of his Spanish kinsman, Charles VIdirected his energies toward securing a settlement of his possessionsprior to his death. Early in his reign he promulgated a so-calledPragmatic Sanction which declared that the Habsburg dominions wereindivisible and that, contrary to long custom, they might be inheritedby female heirs in default of male. Then he subordinated his wholeforeign policy to securing general European recognition of the right ofMaria Theresa to succeed to all his territories. One after another ofhis manifold principalities swore to observe the Pragmatic Sanction. One after another of the foreign powers--Prussia, Russia, GreatBritain, Holland, the Empire, Poland, France, Spain, and Sardinia, --towhom liberal concessions were made--pledged their word and their honormost sacredly to preserve the Pragmatic Sanction. When Charles VI diedin 1740, he left his daughter a disorganized state, a bankrupttreasury, and a small ill-disciplined army, but he bequeathed her anample number of parchment guarantees. The cynical Prussian kingremarked that 200, 000 fighting men would have been a more usefullegacy, and, as events proved, he was right. THE RISE OF PRUSSIA. THE HOHENZOLLERNS [Sidenote: The Hohenzollern Family] Next to the Habsburgs, the most influential German family in theeighteenth century was the Hohenzollern. As far back as the tenthcentury, a line of counts was ruling over a castle on the hill ofZollern just north of what is now Switzerland. These counts slowlyextended their lands and their power through the fortunes of feudalwarfare and by means of a kindly interest on the part of the Holy RomanEmperors, until at length, in the twelfth century, a representative ofthe Hohenzollerns became by marriage burgrave of the important city ofNuremberg. [Sidenote: Brandenburg] So far the Hohenzollerns had been fortunate, but as yet they were nomore conspicuous than hundreds of petty potentates throughout theempire. It was not until they were invested by the Habsburg emperorwith the electorate of Brandenburg in 1415 that they became prominent. Brandenburg was a district of northern Germany, centering in the townof Berlin and lying along the Oder River. As a mark, or frontierprovince, it was the northern and eastern outpost of the Germanlanguage and German culture, and the exigencies of almost perpetualwarfare with the neighboring Slavic peoples had given Brandenburg agood deal of military experience and prestige. As an electorate, moreover, it possessed considerable influence in the internal affairsof the Holy Roman Empire. In the sixteenth century, the acceptance of Lutheranism by theHohenzollern electors of Brandenburg enabled them, like many otherprinces of northern Germany, to seize valuable properties of theCatholic Church and to rid themselves of a foreign power which hadcurtailed their political and social sway. Brandenburg subsequentlybecame the chief Protestant state of Germany, just as to Austria wasconceded the leadership of the Catholic states. [Sidenote: The Hohenzollerns and the Thirty Years' War] The period of the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) was as auspicious tothe Hohenzollerns as it was unlucky for the Habsburgs. On the eve ofthe contest, propitious marriage alliances bestowed two importantlegacies upon the family--the duchy of Cleves [Footnote: Though thealliance between Brandenburg and Cleves dated from 1614, theHohenzollerns did not reign over Cleves until 1666. With Cleves wentits dependencies of Mark and Ravensberg. ] on the lower Rhine, and theduchy of East Prussia, [Footnote: Prussia was then an almost purelySlavic state. It had been formed and governed from the thirteenth tothe sixteenth century by the Teutonic Knights, a military, crusadingorder of German Catholics, who aided in converting the Slavs toChristianity. In the sixteenth century the Grand Master of the TeutonicKnights professed the Lutheran faith and transformed Prussia into anhereditary duchy in his own family. In a series of wars West Prussiawas incorporated into Poland, while East Prussia became a fief of thatkingdom. It was to East Prussia only that the Hohenzollern elector ofBrandenburg succeeded in 1618. ] on the Baltic north of Poland. Henceforth the head of the Hohenzollern family could sign himselfmargrave and elector of Brandenburg, duke of Cleves, and duke ofPrussia. In the last-named role, he was a vassal of the king of Poland;in the others, of the Holy Roman Emperor. In the course of the ThirtyYears' War, the Hohenzollerns helped materially to lessen imperialcontrol, and at the close of the struggle secured the wealthybishoprics of Halberstadt, Minden, and Magdeburg, [Footnote: The rightof accession to Magdeburg was accorded the Hohenzollerns in 1648; theydid not formally possess it until 1680. ] and the eastern half of theduchy of Pomerania. [Sidenote: The Great Elector] The international reputation of the Hohenzollerns was established byFrederick William, commonly styled the Great Elector (1640-1688). Whenhe ascended the throne, the Thirty Years' War had reduced his scattereddominions to utmost misery: he was resolved to restore prosperity, tounify his various possessions, and to make his realm a factor ingeneral European politics. By diplomacy more than by military prowess, he obtained the new territories by the peace of Westphalia. Then, taking advantage of a war between Sweden and Poland, he made himself soinvaluable to both sides, now helping one, now deserting to the other, that by cunning and sometimes by unscrupulous intrigue, he induced theking of Poland to renounce suzerainty over East Prussia and to give himthat duchy in full sovereignty. In the Dutch War of Louis XIV (1672-1678) he completely defeated the Swedes, who were in alliance withFrance, and, although he was not allowed by the provisions of the peaceto keep what he had conquered, nevertheless the fame of his army wasestablished and Brandenburg-Prussia took rank as the chief competitorof Sweden's hegemony in the Baltic. In matters of government, the Great Elector was, like his contemporaryLouis XIV, a firm believer in absolutism. At the commencement of hisreign, each one of the three parts of his lands--Brandenburg, Cleves, and East Prussia--was organized as a separate, petty state, with itsown Diet or form of representative government, its own army, and itsown independent administration. After a hard constitutional struggle, Frederick William deprived the several Diets of their significantfunctions, centered financial control in his own person, declared thelocal armies national, and merged the three separate administrationsinto one, strictly subservient to his royal council at Berlin. Thus, the three states were amalgamated into one; and, to all intents andpurposes, they constituted a united monarchy. The Great Elector was a tireless worker. He encouraged industry andagriculture, drained marshes, and built the Frederick William Canal, joining the Oder with the Elbe. When the revocation of the Edict ofNantes caused so many Huguenots to leave France, the Great Elector'swarm invitation attracted to Brandenburg some 20, 000, who were settledaround Berlin and who gave French genius as well as French names totheir adopted country. The capital city, which at the Great Elector'saccession numbered barely 8000, counted at his death a population ofover 20, 000. [Sidenote: Brandenburg-Prussia a "Kingdom, " 1701] Brandenburg-Prussia was already an important monarchy, but its rulerwas not recognized as "king" until 1701, when the Emperor Leopoldconferred upon him that title in order to enlist his support in the Warof the Spanish Succession. In 1713, by the treaty of Utrecht, the otherEuropean powers acknowledged the title. It was Prussia, rather thanBrandenburg, which gave its name to the new kingdom, because the formerwas an entirely independent state, while the latter was a member of theHoly Roman Empire. Thereafter the "kingdom of Prussia" [Footnote: Atfirst the Hohenzollern monarch assumed the title of king _in_Prussia, because West Prussia was still a province of the kingdom ofPoland. Gradually, however, under Frederick William I (1713-1740), thepopular appellation of "king of Prussia" prevailed over the formal"king in Prussia. " West Prussia was definitely acquired in 1772 (seebelow, p. 387). ] designated the combined territories of theHohenzollern family. Prussia rose rapidly in the eighteenth century. She shared with Austriathe leadership of the Germanies and secured a position in Europe as afirst-rate power. This rise was the result largely of the efforts ofFrederick William I (1713-1740). [Sidenote: King Frederick William I, 1713-1740] King Frederick William was a curious reversion to the type of hisgrandfather: he was the Great Elector over again with all his practicalgood sense if without his taste for diplomacy. His own ideal ofkingship was a paternal despotism, and his ambition, to use mostadvantageously the limited resources of his country in order to renderPrussia feared and respected abroad. He felt that absolutism was theonly kind of government consonant with the character of his varied andscattered dominions, and he understood in a canny way the need of aneffective army and of the closest economy which would permit arelatively small kingdom to support a relatively large army. UnderFrederick William I, money, military might, and divine-right monarchybecame the indispensable props of the Hohenzollern rule in Prussia. By a close thrift that often bordered on miserliness King FrederickWilliam I managed to increase his standing army from 38, 000 to 80, 000men, bringing it up in numbers so as to rank with the regular armies ofsuch first-rate states as France or Austria. In efficiency, it probablysurpassed the others. An iron discipline molded the Prussian troopsinto the most precise military engine then to be found in Europe, and astaff of officers, who were not allowed to buy their commissions, as inmany European states, but who were appointed on a merit basis, commanded the army with truly professional skill and devoted loyalty. In civil administration, the king persevered in the work ofcentralizing the various departments. A "general directory" wasintrusted with the businesslike conduct of the finances and graduallyevolved an elaborate civil service--the famous Prussian bureaucracy, which, in spite of inevitable "red tape, " is notable to this day forits efficiency and devotion to duty. The king endeavored to encourageindustry and trade by enforcing up-to-date mercantilist regulations, and, although he repeatedly expressed contempt for current culturebecause of what he thought were its weakening tendencies, henevertheless prescribed compulsory elementary education for his people. King Frederick William, who did so much for Prussia, had many personaleccentricities that highly amused Europe. Imbued with patriarchalinstincts, he had his eye on everybody and everything. He treated hiskingdom as a schoolroom, and, like a zealous schoolmaster, flogged hisnaughty subjects unmercifully. If he suspected a man of possessingadequate means, he might command him to erect a fine residence so as toimprove the appearance of the capital. If he met an idler in thestreets, he would belabor him with his cane and probably put him in thearmy. And a funny craze for tall soldiers led to the creation of thefamous Potsdam Guard of Giants, a special company whose members mustmeasure at least six feet in height, and for whose service he attractedmany foreigners by liberal financial offers: it was the only luxurywhich the parsimonious king allowed himself. [Sidenote: Accession of Frederick the Great, 1740] During a portion of his reign the crabbed old king feared that all hislabors and savings would go for naught, for he was supremelydisappointed in his son, the crown-prince Frederick. The stern fatherhad no sympathy for the literary, musical, artistic tastes of his son, whom he thought effeminate, and whom he abused roundly with a quick andviolent temper. When Prince Frederick tried to run away, the kingarrested him and for punishment put him through such an arduous, slave-like training in the civil and military administration, from the lowestgrades upward, as perhaps no other royal personage ever received. Itwas this despised and misunderstood prince who as Frederick IIsucceeded his father on the throne of Prussia in 1740 and is known inhistory as Frederick the Great. The year 1740 marked the accession of Frederick the Great in theHohenzollern possessions and of Maria Theresa in the Habsburgterritories. [Footnote: Below are discussed the foreign achievements(pp. 354 ff. ) of these two rival sovereigns, and in Chapter XIV (pp. 440 ff. ) their internal policies. ] It also marked the outbreak of aprotracted struggle within the Holy Roman Empire between the twoforemost German states--Austria and Prussia. THE MINOR GERMAN STATES [Sidenote: German States Other than Austria and Prussia] Of the three hundred other states which composed the empire, few weresufficiently large or important to exert any considerable influence onthe issue of the contest. A few, however, which took sides, deservemention not only because in the eighteenth century they preserved akind of balance of power between the rivals but also because they havebeen more or less conspicuous factors in the progress of recent times. Such are Bavaria, Saxony, and Hanover. [Sidenote: Bavaria] Bavaria lay on the upper Danube to the west of Austria and in theextreme southeastern corner of what is now the German Empire. Forcenturies it was ruled by the Wittelsbach family, whose remarkableprince, Maximilian I (1597-1651), had headed the Catholic League andloyally supported the Habsburgs in the Thirty Years' War, and by thepeace of Westphalia had gained a part of the Palatinate [Footnote: Theother part of the Palatinate, under another branch of the Wittelsbachs, was reunited with Bavaria in 1779. ] together with the title of"elector. " His successor had labored with much credit in the secondhalf of the seventeenth century to repair the wounds caused by the war, encouraging agriculture and industries, building or restoring numerouschurches and monasteries. But the Bavarian electors in the first halfof the eighteenth century sacrificed a sound, vigorous policy ofinternal reform to a far-reaching ambition in international politics. Despite the bond of a common religion which united them to Austria, they felt that their proximity to their powerful neighbor made theHabsburgs their natural enemies. In the War of the Spanish Succession, therefore, Bavaria took the side of France against Austria, and whenMaria Theresa ascended the throne in 1740, the elector of Bavaria, whohad married a Habsburg princess disbarred by the Pragmatic Sanction ofCharles VI, immediately allied himself with Frederick of Prussia andwith France in order to dismember the Austrian dominions. [Sidenote: Saxony] The Saxony of the eighteenth century was but a very small fraction ofthe vast Saxon duchy which once comprised all northwestern Germany andwhose people in early times had emigrated to England or had beensubjugated by Charlemagne. Saxony had been restricted since thethirteenth century to a district on the upper Elbe, wedged in betweenHabsburg Bohemia and Hohenzollern Brandenburg. Here, however, severalelements combined to give it an importance far beyond its extent orpopulation. It was the geographical center of the Germanies. Itoccupied a strategic position between Prussia and Austria. Its rulingfamily--the Wettins--were electors of the empire. It had been, moreover, after the championship of Martin Luther by one of its mostnotable electors, [footnote: Frederick the Wise( 1486-1525)] a leaderof the Lutheran cause, and the reformer's celebrated translation of theBible had fixed the Saxon dialect as the literary language of Germany. At one time it seemed as if Saxony, rather than Brandenburg-Prussia, might become the dominant state among the Germanies. But the trend ofevents determined otherwise. A number of amiable but weak electors inthe seventeenth century repeatedly allied themselves with Austriaagainst the Hohenzollerns and thereby practically conceded toBrandenburg the leadership of the Protestant states of northernGermany. [Footnote: Another source of weakness in Saxony was the customin the Wettin family of dividing the inheritance among members of thefamily. Such was the origin of the present infinitesimal states ofSaxe-Weimar, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Saxe-Meiningen, and Saxe-Altenburg. ] [Sidenote: Personal Union of Saxony and Poland] Then, too, toward the close of the century, the elector separatedhimself from his people by becoming a Roman Catholic, and, in orderthat he might establish himself as king of Poland, he burdened thestate with continued Austrian alliance, with war, and with heavy taxes. The unnatural union of Saxony and Poland was maintained throughout thegreater part of the eighteenth century: it was singularly disastrousfor both parties. [Sidenote: Hanover, and its Personal Union with Great Britain] A part of the original ancient territory of the Saxons in north westernGermany was included in the eighteenth century in the state of Hanover, extending between the Elbe and the Weser and reaching from Brandenburgdown to the North Sea. Hanover was recognized as an electorate duringthe War of the Spanish Succession, [Footnote: The emperor had given thetitle of elector to Ernest Augustus in 1692; the Powers recognizedGeorge I as elector in 1708. ] but its real importance rested on thefact that its first elector, through his mother's family, became in1714 George I of Great Britain, the founder of the Hanoverian dynastyin that country. This personal union between the British kingdom andthe electorate of Hanover continued for over a century, and was notwithout vital significance in international negotiations. Both George Iand George II preferred Hanover to England as a place of residence anddirected their primary efforts towards the protection of their Germanlands from Habsburg or Hohenzollern encroachments. Enough has now been said to give some idea of the distracted conditionof the Germanies in the eighteenth century and to explain why the HolyRoman Empire was an unimportant bond of union. Austria, traditionallythe chief of the Germanies, was increasingly absorbed in her non-Germanpossessions in Hungary, Italy, and the Netherlands. Prussia, the risingkingdom of the North, comprised a population in which Slavs constituteda large minority. Saxony was linked with Poland; Hanover, with GreatBritain. Bavaria was a chronic ally of France. Add to this situation, the political domination of France or Sweden over a number of the pettystates of the empire, the selfishness and jealousies of all the Germanrulers, the looming bitter rivalry between Prussia and Austria, and thesum-total is political chaos, bloodshed, and oppression. THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN HOHENZOLLERNS AND HABSBURGS [Sidenote: Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa] In the struggle between Prussia and Austria--between Hohenzollerns andHabsburgs--centered the European diplomacy and wars of the mid-eighteenth century. On one side was the young king Frederick II (1740-1786); on the other, the young queen Maria Theresa (1740-1780). Bothhad ability and sincere devotion to their respective states andpeoples, --a high sense of royal responsibilities. Maria Theresa wasbeautiful, emotional, and proud; the Great Frederick was domineering, cynical, and always rational. The Austrian princess was a firm believerin Catholic Christianity; the Prussian king was a friend of Voltaireand a devotee of skepticism. [Sidenote: Coalition against Maria Theresa] Frederick inherited from his father a fairly compact monarchy and asplendidly trained and equipped army of 80, 000 men. He smiled at thedisorganized troops, the disordered finances, the conflicting interestsin the hodge-podge of territories which his rival had inherited fromher father. He also smiled at the solemn promise which Prussia had madeto respect the Austrian dominions. No sooner was the Emperor Charles VIdead and Maria Theresa proclaimed at Vienna than Frederick II enteredinto engagements with Bavaria and France to dismember her realm. Theelector of Bavaria was to be made Holy Roman Emperor as Charles VII andPrussia was to appropriate Silesia. France was suspected of designsupon the Austrian Netherlands. [Sidenote: Frederick's Designs on Silesia] Silesia thus became the bone of contention between Frederick II andMaria Theresa. Silesia covered the fertile valley of the upper Oder, separating the Slavic Czechs of Frederick's Bohemia on the west fromthe Slavic Poles on the east. Its population, which was largely German, was as numerous as that of the whole kingdom of Prussia, and if annexedto the Hohenzollern possessions would make them overwhelmingly German. On the other hand, the loss of Silesia would give Austria less directinfluence in strictly German affairs and would deprive her of aconvenient point of attack against Berlin and the heart of Prussia. [Sidenote: Outbreak of the War of the Austrian Succession, 1740] Trumping up an ancient family claim to the duchy, Frederick immediatelymarched his army into Silesia and occupied Breslau, its capital. To thewest, a combined Bavarian and French army prepared to invade Austriaand Bohemia. Maria Theresa, pressed on all sides, fled to Hungary andbegged the Magyars to help her. The effect was electrical. Hungarians, Austrians, and Bohemians rallied to the support of the Habsburg throne;recruits were drilled and hurried to the front; the War of the AustrianSuccession (1740-1748) was soon in full swing. [Sidenote: Entrance of Great Britain and Spain] A trade war had broken out between Great Britain and Spain in 1739, [Footnote: Commonly called the War of Jenkins's Ear. See above, p. 311]which speedily became merged with the continental struggle. GreatBritain was bent on maintaining liberal trading privileges in theBelgian Netherlands and always opposed the incorporation of thoseprovinces into the rival and powerful monarchy of France, preferringthat they should remain in the hands of some distant and less-feared, less commercial power, such as Austria. Great Britain, moreover, hadfully recognized the Pragmatic Sanction and now determined that it wasin accordance with her own best interests to supply Maria Theresa withmoney and to dispatch armies to the Continent to defend the Netherlandsagainst France and to protect Hanover against Prussia. On the otherside, the royal family of Spain sympathized with their Bourbon kinsmenin France and hoped to recover from Austria all the Italian possessionsof which Spain had been deprived by the treaty of Utrecht (1713). The main parties to the War of the Austrian Succession were, therefore, on the one hand, Prussia, France, Spain, and Bavaria, and, on theother, Austria and Great Britain. With the former at first joined theelector of Saxony, who wished to play off Prussia against Austria forthe benefit of his Saxon and Polish lands, and the king of Sardinia, who was ever balancing in Italy between Habsburg and Bourbonpretensions. With Austria and Great Britain was united Holland, becauseof her desire to protect herself from possible French aggression. [Sidenote: Course of the War] The war was not so terrible or bloody as its duration and the number ofcontestants would seem to indicate. Saxony, which inclined morenaturally to Austrian than to Prussian friendship, was easily persuadedby bribes to desert her allies and to make peace with Maria Theresa. Spain would fight only in Italy; and Sardinia, alarmed by the prospectof substantial Bourbon gains in that peninsula, went over to the sideof Austria. The Dutch were content to defend their own territories. [Sidenote: Success of Frederick] Despite the greatest exertions, Maria Theresa was unable to expelFrederick from Silesia. Her generals suffered repeated reverses at hishands, and three times she was forced to recognize his occupation inorder that she might employ all her forces against her western enemies. By the third treaty between the two German sovereigns, concluded atDresden in 1745, Silesia [Footnote: Except a very small district, whichthereafter was known as "Austrian Silesia. "] was definitely ceded byAustria to Prussia. Frederick had gained his ends: he coolly desertedhis allies and withdrew from the war. Meanwhile the Austrian arms had elsewhere been more successful. TheFrench and Bavarians, after winning a few trifling victories inBohemia, had been forced back to the upper Danube. Munich was occupiedby the troops of Maria Theresa at the very time when the elector wasbeing crowned at Frankfort as Holy Roman Emperor. The whole of Bavariawas soon in Austrian possession, and the French were in retreat acrossthe Rhine. Gradually, also, the combined forces of Austria and Sardiniamade headway in Italy against the Bourbon armies of France and Spain. In the last years of the war, the French managed to protect Alsace andLorraine from Austrian invasion, and, under the command of the giftedMarshal Saxe, they actually succeeded in subjugating the greater partof the Austrian Netherlands and in carrying the struggle into Holland. On the high seas and in the colonies, the conflict raged between Franceand Great Britain as "King George's War, " which has already beenseparately noted. [Footnote: See above, pp. 311 f. ] [Sidenote: Treaties of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748): Indecisive Character ofStruggle between Prussia and Austria] The treaties which ended the War of the Austrian Succession were signedat Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748. They guaranteed the acquisition of Silesiaby Frederick II of Prussia and restored everything else to thesituation at the opening of the conflict. The Wittelsbach family wasreinstated in Bavaria and in the Palatinate, and the husband of MariaTheresa, Francis of Lorraine, succeeded Charles VII as Holy RomanEmperor. France, for all her expenditures and sacrifices, gainednothing. The War of the Austrian Succession was but a preliminaryencounter in the great duel for German leadership between Prussia andAustria. It was similarly only an indecisive round in the prolongedbattle between France and Great Britain for the mastery of the colonialand commercial world. [Sidenote: Coalition against Frederick the Great] In the war just closed, Austria had been the chief loser, and theresolute Maria Theresa set herself at once to the difficult task ofrecovering her prestige and her ceded territory. Her first efforts weredirected toward internal reform--consolidating the administrations ofher various dominions by the creation of a strong central council atVienna, encouraging agriculture, equalizing and augmenting the taxes, and increasing the army. Her next step was to form a great league ofrulers that would find a common interest with her in dismembering thekingdom of Frederick. She knew she could count on Saxony. She easilysecured an ally in the Tsarina Elizabeth of Russia, who had been deeplyoffended by the caustic wit of the Prussian king. She was alreadyunited by friendly agreements with Great Britain and Holland. She hadonly France to win to her side, and in this policy she had the servicesof an invaluable agent, Count Kaunitz, the greatest diplomat of theage. Kaunitz held out to France, as the price for the abandonment ofthe Prussian alliance and the acceptance of that of Austria, thetempting bait of Frederick's Rhenish provinces. But Louis XV at firstrefused an Austrian alliance: it would be a departure from thetraditional French policy of opposing the Habsburgs. Kaunitz thenappealed to the king's mistress, the ambitious Madame de Pompadour, who, like the Tsarina Elizabeth, had had plenty of occasions for takingoffense at the witty verses of the Prussian monarch: the favor of thePompadour was won, and France entered the league against Prussia. [Sidenote: The "Diplomatic Revolution"] Meanwhile, however, Great Britain had entered into a special agreementwith Frederick with the object of guaranteeing the integrity of Hanoverand the general peace of the Germanies. When, therefore, the colonialwar between Great Britain and France was renewed in 1754, it was quitenatural that the former should contract a definite alliance withPrussia. Thus it befell that, whereas in the indecisive War of theAustrian Succession Prussia and France were pitted against Austria andGreat Britain, in the determinant Seven Years' War, which ensued, Austria and France were in arms against Prussia and Great Britain. Thisoverturn of traditional alliances has been commonly designated the"Diplomatic Revolution. " [Sidenote: The Seven Years' War, 1756-1763] The Seven Years' War lasted in Europe from 1756 to 1763, and, asregards both the number of combatants and the brilliant generalshipdisplayed, deserves to rank with the War of the Spanish Succession asthe greatest war which the modern world had so far witnessed. The storyhas already been told of its maritime and colonial counterpart, whichembraced the French and Indian War in America (1754-1763) and thetriumphant campaigns of Clive in India, and which decisivelyestablished the supremacy of Great Britain on the seas, in the FarEast, and in the New World. [Footnote: See above, pp. 312 ff. ] Thereremains to sketch its course on the European continent. [Sidenote: Frederick's Victory at Rossbach, 1757] Without waiting for a formal declaration of hostilities, Frederickseized Saxony, from which he exacted large indemnities and draftednumerous recruits, and, with his well-trained veteran troops, crossedthe mountains into Bohemia. He was obliged by superior Austrian forcesto raise the siege of Prague and to fall back on his own kingdom. Thence converged from all sides the allied armies of his enemies. Russians moved into East Prussia, Swedes from Pomerania into northernBrandenburg, Austrians into Silesia, while the French were advancingfrom the west. Here it was that Frederick displayed those qualitieswhich entitle him to rank as one of the greatest military commanders ofall time and to justify his title of "the Great. " Inferior in numbersto any one of his opponents, he dashed with lightning rapidity intocentral Germany and at Rossbach (1757) inflicted an overwhelming defeatupon the French, whose general wrote to Louis XV, "The rout of our armyis complete: I cannot tell you how many of our officers have beenkilled, captured, or lost. " No sooner was he relieved of danger in thewest than he was back in Silesia. He flung himself upon the Austriansat Leuthen, took captive a third of their army, and put the rest toflight. The victories of Frederick, however, decimated his army. He still hadmoney, thanks to the subsidies which Pitt poured in from Great Britain, but he found it very difficult to procure men: he gathered recruitsfrom hostile countries; he granted amnesty to deserters; he evenenrolled prisoners of war. He was no longer sufficiently sure of hissoldiers to take the offensive, and for five years he was reduced todefensive campaigns in Silesia. The Russians occupied East Prussia andpenetrated into Brandenburg; in 1759 they captured Berlin. [Sidenote: French Reverses. The "Family Compact"] The French, after suffering defeat at Rossbach, directed their energiesagainst Hanover but encountered unexpected resistance at the hands ofan army collected by Pitt's gold and commanded by a Prussian general, the prince of Brunswick. Brunswick defeated them and gradually drovethem out of Germany. This series of reverses, coupled with disastersthat attended French armies in America and in India, caused the Frenchking to call upon his cousin, the king of Spain, for assistance. Theresult was the formation of the defensive alliance (1761) between theBourbon states of France, Spain, and the Two Sicilies, and the entranceof Spain into the war (1762). [Sidenote: Withdrawal of Russia] What really saved Frederick the Great was the death of the TsarinaElizabeth (1762) and the accession to the Russian throne of Peter III, a dangerous madman but a warm admirer of the military prowess of thePrussian king. Peter in brusque style transferred the Russian forcesfrom the standard of Maria Theresa to that of Frederick and restored toPrussia the conquests of his predecessor. [Footnote: Peter III wasdethroned in the same year; his wife, Catherine II, who succeeded him, refused to give active military support to either side. ] Spain enteredthe war too late to affect its fortunes materially. She was unable toregain what France had lost, and in fact the Bourbon states wereutterly exhausted. The Austrians, after frantic but vain attempts towrest Silesia from Frederick, finally despaired of their cause. [Sidenote: Treaty of Hubertusburg (1763): Humiliation of the Habsburgsand Triumph of the Hohenzollerns] The treaty of Hubertusburg (1763) put an end to the Seven Years' War inEurope. Maria Theresa finally, though reluctantly, surrendered allclaims to Silesia. Prussia had clearly humiliated Austria and become afirst-rate power. The Hohenzollerns were henceforth the acknowledgedpeers of the Habsburgs. The almost synchronous treaty of Paris closedthe war between Great Britain, on the one hand, and France and Spain onthe other, by ceding the bulk of the French colonial empire to theBritish. Thereafter, Great Britain was practically undisputed mistressof the seas and chief colonial power of the world. [Sidenote: Frederick the Great and the Partition of Poland] Frederick the Great devoted the last years of his life to theconsolidation of his monarchy [Footnote: For the internal reforms ofFrederick, see below, pp. 440 ff. ] and to enlarging its sphere ofinfluence rather by diplomacy than by war. Frederick felt that the bestsafeguard against further attempts of Austria to recover Silesia was afirm alliance between Prussia and Russia. And it was an outcome of thatalliance that in 1772 he joined with the Tsarina Catherine in makingthe first partition of Poland. Catherine appropriated the country eastof the Duena and the Dnieper rivers. Frederick annexed West Prussia, except the towns of Danzig and Thorn, thereby linking up Prussia andBrandenburg by a continuous line of territory. Maria Theresa, moved bythe loss of Silesia and by fear of the undue preponderance which thepartition of Poland would give to her northern rivals, thought toadjust the balance of power by sharing in the shameful transaction: sheoccupied Galicia, including the important city of Cracow. Maria Theresarepeatedly expressed her abhorrence of the whole business, but, as thescoffing Frederick said, "She wept, but she kept on taking. " The partition of Poland was more favorable to Prussia than to Austria. In the former case, the land annexed lay along the Baltic and served torender East Prussia, Brandenburg, and Silesia a geographical andpolitical unit. On the other hand, Austria to some extent waspositively weakened by the acquisition of territory outside her naturalfrontiers, and the addition of a turbulent Polish people furtherincreased the diversity of races and the clash of interests within theHabsburg dominions. When, a few years later, the succession to the electorate of Bavariawas in some doubt and Austria laid claims to the greater part of thatstate (1777-1779), Frederick again stepped in, and now by intrigue andnow by threats of armed force again prevented any considerableextension of Habsburg control. His last important act was the formationof a league of princes to champion the lesser German states againstAustrian aggression. By hard work, by military might, by force of will, unhampered by anymoral code, Frederick the Great perfected the policies of the GreatElector and of Frederick William I and raised Prussia to the rank ofpartner with Austria in German leadership and to an eminent position inthe international affairs of Europe. Had Frederick lived, however, buta score of years longer, he would have witnessed the total extinctionof the Holy Roman Empire, the apparent ruin of the Germanies, and thedegradation of his own country as well as that of Austria. [Footnote:See below, Chapter XVI. ] He might even have perceived that a personaldespotism, built by bloodshed and unblushing deceit, was hardly proofagainst a nation stirred by idealism and by a consciousness of its ownrights and power. [Illustration: THE HOHENZOLLERN FAMILY (1415-1915): ELECTORS OFBRANDENBURG, KINGS OF PRUSSIA, AND GERMAN EMPERORS] ADDITIONAL READING GENERAL. Brief narratives: J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard, _TheDevelopment of Modern Europe_, Vol. I (1907), ch. Iv, v; E. F. Henderson, _A Short History of Germany_, Vol. II (1902), ch. I-iv; A. H. Johnson, _The Age of the Enlightened Despot, 1660-1789_ (1910), ch. Vii, viii; Ferdinand Schevill, _The Making of Modern Germany (1916)_, ch. I, ii; Arthur Hassall, _The Balance of Power, 1715-1789_ (1896), ch. Vi-ix; C. T. Atkinson, _A History of Germany, 1715-1813_ (1908), almost exclusively a military history; H. T. Dyer, _A History of ModernEurope from the Fall of Constantinople_, 3d ed. Rev. By Arthur Hassall, 6 vols. (1901), ch. Xlv-xlviii. Longer accounts: _Cambridge ModernHistory_, Vol. V (1908), ch. Xii, xx, xxi, and Vol. VI (1909), ch. Vii-ix, xx; _Histoire generale_, Vol. V, ch. Xix, Vol. VI, ch. Xvi, andVol. VII, ch. Iv, v; Emile Bourgeois, _Manuel historique de politiqueetrangere_, 4th ed. , Vol. I (1906), ch. Vi, xii, valuable forinternational relations of the Germanies; Bernhard Erdmannsdoerffer, _Deutsche Geschichte, 1648-1740_, 2 vols. (1892-1893). THE HABSBURG DOMINIONS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. In English: SidneyWhitman, _Austria (1899)_, and, by the same author, _The Realm of theHabsburgs_ (1893), brief outlines; Louis Leger, _A History of Austro-Hungary from the Earliest Time to the Year 1889_, trans. By Mrs. B. Hill from a popular French work (1889); William Coxe, _House ofAustria_, 4 vols. (1893-1895) in the Bohn Library, originally publishednearly a century ago but still useful, especially Vol. Ill; C. M. Knatchbull-Hugessen, _The Political Evolution of the Hungarian Nation_, Vol. I (1908), ch. Iv-vii; Armin Vambery, _The Story of Hungary_(1894), in the "Story of the Nations" Series. In German: Franz Krones, _Handbuch der Geschichte Oesterreichs_, 5 vols. (1876-1879), Vol. IV, Book XVIII. There is a good brief English biography of _Maria Theresa_by J. F. Bright (1897) in the "Foreign Statesmen" Series, and a greatstandard German biography by Alfred von Arneth, _Geschichte MariaTheresias_, 10 vols. (1863-1879). See also A. Wolf and Hans vonZwiedineck-Suedenhorst, _Oesterreich unter Maria Theresia_ (1884). THE RISE OF PRUSSIA. _History of All Nations_, Vol. XV, _The Ageof Frederick the Great_, Eng. Trans. Of a well-known German historyby Martin Philippson; Herbert Tuttle, _History of Prussia to theAccession of Frederick the Great_ (1884), and, by the same author, _History of Prussia under Frederick the Great_, 3 vols. , comingdown to 1757 (1888-1896), primarily constitutional and political;Reinhold Koser, _Geschichte der brandenburgisch-preussischenPolitik_, Vol. I (1914), from earliest times through the ThirtyYears' War, by the late general director of the Prussian StateArchives, an eminent authority on the history of his country; J. G. Droysen, _Geschichte der preussischen Politik_, 14 vols. (1868-1876), the most elaborate history of Prussia down to 1756 by a famousnational historian; Ernst Berner, _Geschichte des preussischenStaates_ (1891), a briefer, popular account, richly illustrated;Hans von Zwiedineck-Suedenhorst, _Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitraum derGruendung des preussischen Koenigtums_, 2 vols. (1890-1894), anenthusiastic German appreciation; Albert Waddington, _Histoire dePrusse_, Vol. I (1911), from the origins of the state to the deathof the Great Elector, an able French presentation. There is anadmirable old German biography of Frederick the Great's father, withcopious extracts from the sources, by F. C. Forster, _FriedrichWilhelm I Koenig von Preussen_, 3 vols. (1834-1835). On Frederick theGreat: F. W. Longman, _Frederick the Great and the Seven Years'War_, 2d ed. (1886), a good summary in English; W. F. Reddaway, _Frederick the Great and the Rise of Prussia_ (1904) in the"Heroes of the Nations" Series; Thomas Carlyle, _Frederick theGreat_, an English classic in many editions, sympathetic and inspots inaccurate; Reinhold Koser, _Geschichte Friedrichs desGrossen_, 5th ed. , 4 vols. (1912-1914), a most thorough andauthoritative biography; _Politische Korrespondenz Friedrichs desGrossen_, ed. By Reinhold Koser and others, in many volumes, constitutes the most valuable original source for the reign ofFrederick the Great. THE WARS OF FREDERICK THE GREAT. G. M. Priest, _Germany since 1740_(1915), ch. I-iii, a useful outline; D. J. Hill, _History of Diplomacyin the International Development of Europe_, Vol. III (1914), ch. Vi-viii, valuable for diplomatic relations; Richard Waddington, _La guerrede sept ans: histoire diplomatique et militaire_, 5 vols. (1899-1914), the best history of the Seven Years' War; A. D. Schaefer, _Geschichtedes siebenjaehrigen Kriegs_, 2 vols. In 3 (1867-1874), a careful Germanaccount; Wilhelm Oncken, _Das Zeitalter Friedrichs des Grossen_, 2vols. (1881-1882), an important work on Frederick's reign, in theimposing Oncken Series. See also A. W. Ward, _Great Britain andHanover, Some Aspects of their Personal Union_ (1899). CHAPTER XII THE RISE OF RUSSIA AND THE DECLINE OF TURKEY, SWEDEN, AND POLAND RUSSIA IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY How the backward, Oriental tsardom of Muscovy has been transformed intothe huge empire of Russia, now comprising one-sixth of the land surfaceand one-twelfth of the population of the earth, is one of the mostfascinating phases of the history of modern times. It was not until theeighteenth century that Russia came into close contact with thecommerce and culture of western Christendom; not until then did shebecome a great power in the European family of nations. [Sidenote: Russian Expansion] Several occurrences during the two centuries which separated the reignof the Tsar Ivan the Great from that of Peter the Great paved the wayfor the subsequent, almost startling rise of the powerful empire ofnorthern and eastern Europe. The first in importance was the expansionof the Russian race and dominion. Throughout the sixteenth andseventeenth centuries the farming folk of the region about Moscow wereemigrating south and east and establishing themselves in the fertileplains of the Don, the Volga, and the Irtysh. [Footnote: Armies of thetsar backed up the colonists: they occupied Kazan in 1552 andAstrakhan, near the Caspian Sea, in 1554. ] A glance at the map ofRussia will show how the network of rivers combined with the levelcharacter of the country to facilitate this process of racialexpansion. The gentle southerly flowing Dnieper, Don, and Volga, radiating from the same central region, and connected by way of theKama with the headwaters of the Dwina, which empties into the White Seain the extreme north, became chief channels of trade and migration, andcontributed much more to the elaboration of national unity than anypolitical institutions. Boats could be conveyed over flat and easyportages from one river-basin to another, and these portages with arelatively small amount of labor were gradually changed into navigablechannels, so that even now the canals are more important than many ofthe railways as arteries of commerce. [Sidenote: The Cossacks] As the emigrants threaded their way along the river courses and overthe broad plains they had to be constantly on the alert against attacksof troublesome natives, and they accordingly organized themselves insemi-military fashion. Those in the vanguard of territorial expansionconstituted a peculiar class known as Cossacks, who, like frontiersmenof other times and places, for example, like those that gained for theUnited States its vast western domain, lived a wild life in whichagricultural and pastoral pursuits were intermingled with hunting andfighting. In the basins of the southern rivers, the Cossacks formedsemi-independent military communities: those of the Volga and the Donprofessed allegiance to the tsar of Muscovy, while those of the Dnieperusually recognized the sovereignty of the king of Poland. [Sidenote: Eastword Expansion into Asia] Nor was the migration of the Russian race restricted to Europe. Thedivision between Europe and Asia is largely imaginary, as anotherglance at the map will prove, --the low-lying Urals are a barrier onlytoward the north, while southward the plains of Russia stretch oninterminably above the Caspian until they are merged in the steppes ofSiberia. Across these plains moved a steady stream of Cossacks andpeasants and adventurers, carrying with them the habits and traditionsof their Russian homes. Ever eastward wended the emigrants. Theyfounded Tobolsk in 1587 and Tomsk in 1604; they established Yakutsk onthe Lena River in 1632, and Irkutsk on Lake Baikal in 1652; in 1638they reached the Sea of Okhotsk, and, by the close of the seventeenthcentury, they occupied the peninsula of Kamchatka and looked upon thebroad Pacific. Thus at the time when the Spaniards were extending theirspeech and laws throughout South America and the English were layingthe foundations for the predominance of their institutions in NorthAmerica, the Russians were appropriating northern Asia anddemonstrating that, with them at least, the course of empire takes itsway eastward. Ivan the Great had already been described in church service as "theruler and autocrat of all Russia, the new Tsar Constantine [Footnote:The last Caesar of the Graeco-Roman Empire, Constantine XI, had perishedin 1453 in vain defense of Constantinople against the Turks. It was asignificant fact that the Russian rulers, who owed their Christianityand their nation's culture to the Greeks, should now revive the titleof Caesar (Russian form, tsar or czar). ] in the new city ofConstantine, Moscow. " His successors invariably had themselves crownedas tsars and autocrats of all Russia. By military might they maintainedtheir control over the ever-widening territories of the Russian people;with racial pride and religious fervor, the distant emigrants regardedtheir royal family at Moscow. The power of the tsars kept pace with theexpansion of the state. [Sidenote: Oriental Characteristics of Russia] Yet this greater Russia remained essentially Oriental. Its form ofChristianity was derived from the East rather than from the West. Itssocial customs savored more of Asia than of Europe. Its nobles and evenits tsars were rated by western Christendom as little better thanbarbarians. In fact, the Russian state was looked upon in theseventeenth century in much the same way as China was regarded in thenineteenth century. The reasons for this relative backwardness are not hard to ascertain. In the first place, the religion of the state was a direct heritage ofthe expiring Eastern Empire and was different from either theCatholicism or the Protestantism of western Europe. Secondly, long andclose contact with the conquering Mongols or Tatars of Asia hadsaturated the Russian people with Oriental customs andhabits. [Footnote: See above, pp. 21 f. ] Thirdly, the nature of thecountry tended to exalt agriculture and to discourage industry andforeign commerce, and at the same time to turn emigration and expansioneastward rather than westward. Finally, so long as the neighboringwestern states of Sweden, Poland, and Turkey remained powerful andretained the entire coast of the Baltic and Black seas, Russia wasdeprived of seaports that would enable her to engage in traffic withwestern Europe and thus to partake of the common culture ofChristendom. Not until Russia was modernized and westernized, and had madeconsiderable headway against one or all of her western neighbors, couldshe hope to become a European Power. Not until the accession of theRomanov dynasty did she enter seriously upon this twofold policy. [Sidenote: The "Troublous Times"] The direct line of Ivan the Great had died out at the close of thesixteenth century, and there ensued what in Russian history are knownas "the troublous times. " Disputes over the succession led to a seriesof civil wars, and the consequent anarchy invited foreign intervention. For a time the Poles harassed the country and even occupied theKremlin, or citadel, of Moscow. The Swedes, also, took advantage of thetroublous times in Russia to enlarge their conquests on the easternshore of the Baltic and to seize the important trading center ofNovgorod. In the south, the Turks warred with the Cossacks and broughtmany of the Crimean principalities under their control. [Sidenote: The Accession of the Romanovs, 1613] Under these discouraging circumstances a great national assembly met atMoscow in 1613 to elect a tsar, and their choice fell upon one of theirown number, a certain Michael Romanov, whose family had been connectedby marriage ties with the ancient royal line. It is an interesting factthat the present autocrat of Russia is a lineal descendant of theRomanov who was thus popularly elected to supreme authority in 1613. Michael Romanov proved an excellent choice. Accepted by all classes, hereestablished order and security throughout the country andsuccessfully resisted foreign encroachments. He founded severalfortified towns in the south against the Tatars and the Turks. Herecovered Novgorod from the Swedes. During the reign of his son, Polishdepredations were stopped and the Dnieper River was fixed upon[Footnote: Treaty of Andrussovo (1667), in accordance with which Polandceded to Russia Kiev, Smolensk, and eastern Ukraine. ] as the generaldividing line between Poland and Russia. PETER THE GREAT [Sidenote: His Accession and Early Travels] The grandson of Michael Romanov was the celebrated Peter the Great, whomay rightfully be designated as the father of modern Russia. His olderbrothers, with whom during his youth he was nominally associated in thegovernment, died in turn without leaving direct heirs, and Peter becamesole ruler in 1696. From the outset he showed an insatiable curiosityabout the arts and sciences of western Europe, the authority of itskings and the organization of its armies and fleets. To an intensecuriosity, Peter added an indomitable will. He was resolved to satisfyhis every curiosity and to utilize whatever he learned or found. From childhood, Peter had displayed an aptitude for mechanical toolsand inventions and especially for boat-making. Shipbuilding and ship-sailing became his favorite pastimes. When he was barely twenty-one, helaunched at Archangel, on the ice-bound White Sea, a ship which he hadbuilt with his own hands. Now in 1696, being sole tsar at the age oftwenty-four, he fitted out a fleet which defeated the Turks on theBlack Sea and allowed him to capture the valuable port of Azov. Noother successes were gained, however, in this Turkish War; and theyoung tsar began to perceive that if he were to succeed in hischerished project he would have to obtain Western aid. In 1697, therefore, a special commission left Moscow for the purpose ofsoliciting the cooperation of the principal Powers against Turkey, andto this commission the young tsar attached himself as a volunteersailor, "Peter Mikhailov, " in order that he might incidentally learnmuch about ship-building and other technical sciences. In its primary purpose, the Russian commission failed signally. WesternEurope was on the eve of the War of the Spanish Succession, and all theEuropean sovereigns seemed to be engrossed in the distractions ofdynastic politics. No help against the Turks was forthcoming. Butpersonally Peter learned many useful things. In Holland he studiedship-building as well as anatomy and engraving. In England heinvestigated industry and commerce. He closely scrutinized the militaryestablishment of Prussia. In all places which he visited he collectedartisans, sailors, engineers, or other workmen, whom he sent back toRussia to instruct his people. [Sidenote: Suppression of the Streltsi] While he was on his way from Vienna to Venice, news reached him thatthe royal bodyguard, called the _streltsi_, had taken advantage ofhis absence of a year and a half and had mutinied at Moscow. In hothaste he hurried home and wreaked dire vengeance upon the mutineers. Two thousand were hung or broken on the wheel, five thousand werebeheaded, and Peter for many days amused himself and edified his courtby the wonderful dexterity he displayed in slicing off the heads of_streltsi_ with his own royal arm. The severe punishment of the rebellious _streltsi_ and theimmediate abolition of their military organization was clear evidencethat Peter was fully determined both to break with the past traditionsof his country and to compel all the Russian people to do likewise. [Sidenote: Military Reform] His first care was the reconstruction of the army on the Prussianmodel. Officered and disciplined by foreigners dependent entirely uponthe tsar, the new army replaced the _streltsi_ and proved a potentfactor in furthering the domestic and foreign policies of Peter theGreat. [Sidenote: Introduction of Occidental Customs] The young reformer next turned his attention to the customs of hispeople--their clothing and manners--which he would transform fromOriental to Occidental. Edict followed edict with amazing rapidity. Thechief potentates of the empire were solemnly assembled so that Peterwith his own hand might deliberately clip off their long beards andflowing mustaches. A heavy tax was imposed on such as persisted inwearing beards. French or German clothes were to be substituted, underpenalty of large fines, for the traditional Russian costume. The use oftobacco was made compulsory. The Oriental semi-seclusion of women wasprohibited. Both sexes were to mingle freely in the festivities of thecourt. These innovations were largely superficial: they partiallypermeated the nobility and clergy, but made little impression on themass of the population. Peter had begun a work, however, which wascertain of great results in the future. [Sidenote: Development of Autocracy] The reign of Peter the Great is notable for the removal of seriouschecks upon the power of the tsar and the definitive establishment ofthat form of absolutism which in Russia is called "autocracy. " By sheerability and will-power, the tsar was qualified to play the role ofdivine-right monarch, and his observation of the centralized governmentof Louis XIV, as well as the appreciation of his country's needs, convinced him that that kind of government was the most suitable forRussia. [Sidenote: Subordination of the Orthodox Church to the Russian State][Sidenote: The Holy Synod] We have already observed how Peter replaced the independent, turbulent_streltsi_ with a thoroughly devoted and orderly standing army. That was one important step in the direction of autocracy. The next wasthe subordination of the Church to the state. The tsar understood thevery great influence which the Holy Orthodox Church exerted over theRussian people and the danger to his policies that ecclesiasticalopposition might create. He was naturally anxious that the Churchshould become the ally, not the enemy, of autocracy. He, therefore, took such steps as would exalt the Church in the opinion of hiscountrymen and at the same time would render it a serviceable agent ofthe government. Professing the warmest faith in its religious tenets, he deprived the patriarch [Footnote: Until late in the sixteenthcentury, the metropolitan of Moscow was in theory under the authorityof the patriarch of Constantinople; thereafter, through Boris Godunov, he became independent with full consent and approval of the whole GreekOrthodox Church and was styled the patriarch of Moscow. ] of Moscow ofhis privilege of controlling the ecclesiastical organization and vestedall powers of church government in a body, called the Holy Synod, whosemembers were bishops and whose chief was a layman, all chosen by thetsar himself. No appointment to ecclesiastical office could henceforthbe made without the approval of the Holy Synod; no sermon could bepreached and no book could be published unless it had received thesanction of that august body. The authority which the tsar therebyobtained over the Russian Church was as complete and far-reaching asthat which Henry VIII had acquired, two centuries earlier, over theAnglican Church. The results have been in keeping with Peter's fondestexpectations, for the Orthodox Church in Russia has been from his timeto the present the right-hand support of absolutism. The tsars haveexalted the Church as the fountain of order and holiness; as averitable ark of the covenant have the clergy magnified and extolledthe autocracy. [Sidenote: Secular Power of the Tsar] A remodeling of the secular government of Russia along autocratic lineswas another achievement of Peter the Great which long endured. At thehead of the state was the tsar or emperor, possessing absolute, unlimited powers. An ancient assembly, or Duma, of nobles, which hadformerly exercised vague legislative rights, was practically abolished, its place being taken by an advisory Council of State whose members, usually noblemen, were selected by the tsar. All traces of local self-government were similarly swept away, and the country was henceforthadministered by the tsar's personal agents. To enforce his autocraticwill, a system of police was organized on a militia basis, its chiefsbeing made dependent on the central authority. In these, as in all hisother reforms, the tsar encountered a good deal of opposition, and fora while was obliged to rely largely on foreigners to carry them out. Assoon as possible, however, Peter employed natives, for it was acardinal point in his policy that the Russians themselves must managetheir own state without foreign interference or help. [Sidenote: Attempted Social Reforms of Peter the Great] Like his contemporaries in western Europe, Peter gave considerableattention to the economic condition of the monarchy. He strove, thoughoften in a bungling manner, to promote agriculture and to improve thelot of the peasantry, who still constituted the overwhelming bulk offorms of the population. He certainly deprived the nobles of many oftheir former privileges and sought to rest political power and socialposition on ability rather than on birth. He understood that Russiagrievously lacked a numerous and prosperous middle class, and he aimedto create one by encouraging trade and industries. His almost constantparticipation in wars, however, prevented him from bringing many of hiseconomic and social plans to fruition. [Sidenote: Ambitious Foreign Policy of Peter the Great] Internal reforms were but one-half of Peter's ambitious program. To himRussia owes not only the abolition of the _streltsi_, the loss ofthe independence of the Church, the Europeanization of manners andcustoms, and the firm establishment of autocracy, but also thepronouncement and enforcement of an elaborate scheme of foreignaggrandizement. On one hand, the tsar showed a lively interest in theexploration and colonization of Siberia and in the extension of Russiandominion around the Caspian Sea and towards the Persian Empire. On theother hand, --and this, for our purposes, is far more important, --he wasresolved to make the cultural and commercial connection between Russiaand Europe strong and intimate, to open a way to the west by gainingoutlets on both the Black and Baltic seas--"windows" to the west, as hetermed them. On the Baltic Sea, Sweden blocked him; toward the Black Sea, theOttoman power hemmed him in. It was, therefore, against Sweden andTurkey that Peter the Great waged war. It seemed to him a matter ofdire necessity for the preservation of European civilization in Russiathat he should defeat one or both of these states. Against the Turks, as events proved, he made little headway; against the Swedes he faredbetter. In order that we may understand the nature of the momentous conflictbetween Russia and Sweden in the first quarter of the eighteenthcentury, it will be necessary at this point to notice the paralleldevelopment of Sweden. SWEDEN AND THE CAREER OF CHARLES XII [Sidenote: Sweden a Great Power in the Seventeenth Century] It will be recalled that a century before Peter the Great, theremarkable Gustavus Adolphus had aimed to make the Baltic a Swedishlake. To his own kingdom, lying along the western shore of that sea, and to the dependency of Finland, he had added by conquest the easternprovinces of Karelia, Ingria, Esthonia, and Livonia [Footnote: Livonia, occupied by Gustavus Adolphus during the Polish War of 1621-1629, wasnot formally relinquished by Poland until 1660. Esthonia had beenconquered by the Swedes in 1561, but Russia did not renounce herpretensions to this province until 1617. ], and his successfulinterference in the Thirty Years' War had given Sweden possession ofwestern Pomerania and the mouths of the Elbe, Oder, and Weser riversand a considerable influence in German affairs. For many years afterthe death of Gustavus Adolphus, Sweden was the recognized leader ofcontinental Protestantism, and her trade on the Baltic grew andthrived. The exports of Russia and Poland found a convenient outletthrough the Swedish port of Riga, and those of the northern Germanicswere frequently dispatched on Swedish vessels from Stettin orStralsund. Repeated efforts were made by Denmark, Poland, and Brandenburg to breakthe commercial monopoly which Sweden enjoyed upon the Baltic and todeprive her of her conquests, but for a long time in vain. Victorycontinued to attend Swedish arms and a general treaty in 1660 confirmedher dominion. At that time Sweden was not only a military power of thefirst magnitude but also one of the largest states of Europe, possessing about twice as much area as present-day Sweden. Her areaembraced a land-surface 7000 square miles larger than the modern GermanEmpire. All the islands and the greater part of the coast of the Balticbelonged to her. Stockholm, the capital, lay in the very center of theempire, whose second city was Riga, on the other side of the sea. Inpolitics, in religion, and in trade, Sweden was feared and respected. [Sidenote: Elements of Weakness in Sweden's Position] Yet the greatness of Sweden in the seventeenth century was moreapparent than real. Her commerce provoked the jealousy of all herneighbors. Her dependencies across the Baltic were difficult to hold:peopled by Finns, Russians, Poles, Germans, and Danes, their bond withSweden was essentially artificial, and they usually sympathized, naturally enough, with their sovereign's enemies. They, therefore, imposed on the mother country the duty of remaining a militarymonarchy, armed from head to foot for every possible emergency. Forsuch a tremendous destiny Sweden was quite unfitted. Her wide territorywas very sparsely populated, and her peasantry were very poor. Only theFrench alliance gave her solid backing in the Germanies, and, with thedecline of the fortunes of Louis XIV and the rise of Prussia andRussia, she was bound to lose her leadership in the North. To the fate of Sweden, her rulers in the seventeenth centurycontributed no small share. Nearly all of them were born fighters andnearly all of them were neglectful of home interests and of the worksof peace. The military instincts of the Swedish kings not onlysacrificed thousands of lives that were urgently needed in building uptheir country and cost the kingdom enormous sums of money but likewiseimpaired commerce, surrounded the empire with a broad belt of desolatedterritory, and implanted an ineradicable hatred in every adjacentstate. Then, too, the extravagance and negligence of the sovereigns ledto chaos in domestic government. Taxes were heavy and badlyapportioned. The nobles recovered many of their political privileges. The royal power steadily dwindled away at the very time when it wasmost needed; and a selfish, grasping aristocracy hastened theircountry's ruin. [Footnote: A reaction appeared under the capableCharles XI (1660-1697), but its fruits were completely lost by his sonand successor, Charles XII. ] [Sidenote: Coalition against Charles XII] At length, in 1697, when Charles XII, a boy of fifteen years, ascendedthe throne of Sweden, the neighboring Powers thought the time hadarrived to partition his territories among themselves. Tsar Peter, while returning home the following year from his travels abroad, haddiscussed with Augustus II, elector of Saxony and king of Poland, aplan which the latter had formed for the dismemberment of the SwedishEmpire: Poland was to recover Livonia and annex Esthonia; Russia was toobtain Ingria and Karelia and thereby a port on the Baltic; Brandenburgwas to occupy western Pomerania; and Denmark was to take possession ofHolstein and the mouths of the Elbe and Weser. Charles XII was toretain only his kingdom in the Scandinavian peninsula and the grandduchy of Finland. At the last moment Brandenburg balked, but Saxony, Denmark, and Russia signed the nefarious alliance in 1699. The alliesexpected quick and decisive victory. All western and southern Europewas on the verge of a great struggle for the Spanish inheritance andwould clearly be unable to prevent them from despoiling Sweden. [Sidenote: Military Exploits of Charles XII] But the allies grossly underrated their foe. Charles XII was a mereboy, but precocious, gloomy, and sensitive, and endowed with all themartial determination and heroism of his ancestors. He desired nothingbetter than to fight against overwhelming odds, and the fury of theyouthful commander soon earned him the sobriquet of the "madman of theNorth. " The alliance of 1699 precipitated the Great Northern War whichwas to last until 1721 and slowly, but no less inevitably, lower Swedento the position of a third-rate power. It was amid the most spectacularexploits of the boy-king that the ruin of Sweden was accomplished. Itwas a grander but more tragic fate than in the same period befellSpain. Charles XII did not give the allies time to unite. Hurriedly crossingthe straits, he invaded Denmark, whose terrified king promptly signed atreaty with him (1700), paying a large indemnity and engaging to keepthe peace in future. Thence Charles hastened across the Baltic to Esthonia in order to dealwith the invading Russians. At Narva he met and annihilated their army. Then he turned southward, clearing Livonia and Lithuania of Poles, Saxons, and Russians. Into the very heart of Poland he carried the war, possessing himself ofboth Warsaw and Cracow. He obliged the Polish Diet to dethrone Augustusand to accept a king of his own choice in the person of a certainStanislaus Leszczynski (1704). All these things had been done by a young man between the age ofseventeen and twenty--two. It was quite natural that he should bepuffed up with pride in his ability and successes. It was almost asnatural that, hardened at an early age to the horrors of war, he shouldbecome increasingly callous and cruel. Many instructions the impulsiveyouth sent out over conquered districts in Russia, Poland, and Saxony"to slay, burn, and destroy. " "Better that the innocent suffer thanthat the guilty escape" was his favorite adage. Small wonder, then, that neither Peter the Great nor the ElectorAugustus would abandon the struggle. While Charles was overrunningPoland, Peter was reorganizing his army and occupying Karelia andIngria; and when the Swedish king returned to engage the Russians, Augustus drove out Stanislaus and regained the crown of Poland. YetCharles, with an unreasoning stubbornness, would not perceive that thetime had arrived for terminating the conflict with a few concessions. Russia at that time asked only a port on the Gulf of Finland as theprice of an alliance against Poland. [Sidenote: Battle of Poltava (1709): Defeat of Charles XII] To all entreaties for peace, Charles XII turned a deaf ear, and pressedthe war in Russia. Unable to take Moscow, he turned southward in orderto effect a juncture with some rebellious Cossacks, but met the army ofPeter the Great at Poltava (1709). Poltava marks the decisive triumphof Russia over Sweden. The Swedish army was destroyed, only a smallnumber being able to accompany the flight of their king across thesouthern Russian frontier into Turkish territory. Then Charles stirred up the Turks to attack the tsar, but from the newcontest he was himself unable to profit. Peter bought peace with theOttoman government by re-ceding the town of Azov, and the lattergradually tired of their guest's continual and frantic clamor for war. After a sojourn of over five years in Ottoman lands, Charles suddenlyand unexpectedly appeared, with but a single attendant, at Stralsund, which by that time was all that remained to him outside of Sweden andFinland. [Sidenote: Obstinacy and Death of Charles XII] Still, however, the war dragged on. The allies grew in numbers and indemands. Peter the Great and Augustus were again joined by the Danishking. Great Britain, Hanover, and Prussia, all covetous of Swedishtrade or Swedish territory, were now members of the coalition. CharlesXII stood like adamant: he would retain all or he would lose all. So hestood until the last. It was while he was directing an invasion ofNorway that the brilliant but ill-balanced Charles lost his life(1718), being then but thirty-six years of age. [Sidenote: Decline of Sweden] Peace which had been impossible during the lifetime of Charles, becamea reality soon after his death. It certainly came none too soon for theexhausted and enfeebled condition of Sweden. By the treaties ofStockholm (1719 and 1720), Sweden resigned all her German holdingsexcept a small district of western Pomerania including the town ofStralsund. Denmark received Holstein and a money indemnity. Hanovergained the mouths of the Elbe and Weser; Prussia, the mouth of the Oderand the important city of Stettin. Augustus was restored to the Polishthrone, though without territorial gain. Great Britain, Denmark, andPrussia became the principal commercial heirs of Sweden. [Sidenote: Treaty of Nystad (1721): Russia on the Baltic][Sidenote: Petrograd] The treaty of Nystad (1721) was the turning point for Russia, forthereby she acquired from Sweden full sovereignty over not only Kareliaand Ingria but the important Baltic provinces of Esthonia and Livoniaand a narrow strip of southern Finland including the strong fortress ofViborg. Peter the Great had realized his ambition of affording hiscountry a "window to the west. " On the waste marshes of the Neva hesucceeded with enormous effort and sacrifice of life in building agreat city which might be a center of commerce and a bond of connectionbetween Russia and the western world. He named his new city St. Petersburg [Footnote: Known generally in the Teutonic form "St. Petersburg" from its foundation until the War of the Nations in 1914, when the Slavic form of "Petrograd" was substituted. ] and to it hetransferred his government from Moscow. Russia supplanted Sweden in theleadership of the Baltic and assumed a place among the Powers ofEurope. Peter the Great did not realize his other ambition of securing aRussian port on the Black Sea. Although he captured and held Azov for atime, he was obliged to relinquish it, as we have seen, in order toprevent the Turks from joining hands with Charles XII. [Sidenote: Character of Peter the Great] Nevertheless, when Peter died in 1725, he left his empire a compactstate, well-organized, and well-administered, westernized at leastsuperficially, and ready to play a conspicuous role in theinternational politics of Europe. The man who succeeded in doing allthese things has been variously estimated. By some he has beenrepresented as a monster of cruelty and a murderer, [Footnote: Peterhad his son and heir, the Grand Duke Alexius, put to death because hedid not sympathize with his reforms. The tsar's other punishments oftenassumed a most revolting and disgusting character. ] by others as ademon of the grossest sensuality, by still others as a great nationalhero. Probably he merited all such opinions. But, above all, he was agenius of fierce energy and will, who toiled always for what heconsidered to be the welfare of his country. CATHERINE THE GREAT: THE DEFEAT OF TURKEY AND THE DISMEMBERMENT OFPOLAND It is hardly possible to feel much respect for the character of theRussian rulers who succeeded Peter the Great in the eighteenth century. Most of them were women with loose morals and ugly manners. But theyhad little to fear from Sweden, which, utterly exhausted, was now on asteady decline; and domestic difficulties both in Poland and in Turkeyremoved any apprehension of attacks from those countries. In policiesof internal government, Peter had blazed a trail so clear andunmistakable that one would have difficulty in losing it. [Sidenote: Character of the Tsarina Catherine II] Of those female sovereigns of the Russian Empire, the most notable wasCatherine II, usually called Catherine the Great (1762-1796). By birthshe was not even a Russian, but a princess of Protestant Germany, whomdynastic considerations made the wife of the heir to the Russian crown. [Footnote: The marriage was arranged by Frederick the Great in order tominimize Austrian influence at Petrograd. ] No sooner was she in her adopted country than she set to work toingratiate herself with its people. She learned the Russian language. She outwardly conformed to the Orthodox Church. She slighted her Germanrelatives and surrounded herself with Russians. She established areputation for quick wit and lofty patriotism. So great was her successthat when her half-insane husband ascended the throne as Peter III in1762, the people looked to her rather than to him as the real ruler, and before the year was over she had managed to make away with him andto become sovereign in name as well as in fact. For thirty-four yearsCatherine was tsarina of Russia. Immoral to the last, withoutconscience or scruple, she ruled the country with a firm hand andconsummated the work of Peter the Great. [Sidenote: Her Administration] In the administrative system Catherine introduced the "governments" and"districts, " divisions and subdivisions of Russia, over which wereplaced respectively governors and vice-governors, all appointed by thecentral authority. To the ecclesiastical alterations of Peter, sheadded the secularization of church property, thereby making the clergydistinctly dependent upon her bounty and strengthening the autocracy. [Sidenote: Her Patronage of Learning] The tsarina had some personal interest in the literary and scientificprogress of the eighteenth century and was determined to make Russiaappear cultured in the eyes of western Europe. She corresponded withVoltaire and many other philosophers and learned men of the time. Shepensioned Diderot, the author of the great Encyclopaedia, and invitedscholars to her court. She posed as the friend of higher education. [Sidenote: Her Foreign Policy] Of the three foreign countries which in the eighteenth century blockedthe western expansion of Russia, Sweden had been humbled by Peter inthe Great Northern War and the treaty of Nystad. Poland and Turkeyremained to be dealt with by Catherine the Great. Let us see what hadlately transpired to render this task comparatively easy for thetsarina. [Sidenote: Poland in the Eighteenth Century] Poland in the first half of the eighteenth century was geographically alarge state, but a variety of circumstances contributed to render itweak and unstable. In the first place, it was without naturalboundaries or adequate means of defense. To the west it was separatedfrom Prussia and Austria by an artificial line drawn through levelplains or over low-lying hills. To the south a fluctuating frontier, fixed usually along the Dniester River, set it off from the OttomanEmpire. The fertile valleys of the Dnieper, to the east, and of theDona, to the north, were shared by Russia and Poland. No chains ofmountains and no strongly fortified places protected the Polish peoplefrom Germans, Turks, or Russians. Nor was this wide, but indefensible, territory inhabited by a singlehomogeneous people. The Poles themselves, centering in the westerncities of Warsaw and Cracow, constituted a majority of the population, but the Lithuanians, a kindred Slavic folk, covered the east-centralpart of the kingdom and a large number of Cossacks and "LittleRussians" [Footnote: Ruthenians. ] lived in the extreme east, whilealong the northern and western borders were settlements of Germans andSwedes. Between the Poles and the Lithuanians existed a long-standingfeud, and the Germans regarded all the Slavs with ill-disguisedcontempt. Religion added its share to the dissension created by race and languagewithin Poland. The Poles and most of the Lithuanians were stanch RomanCatholics. Other Lithuanians--especially the great nobles--togetherwith the Russians and Cossacks adhered to the Greek Orthodox faith, while Lutheran Protestantism was upheld by the western settlements ofSwedes and Germans. The Dissenters, as the Orthodox and Protestantswere called, demanded from the Catholic majority a toleration and afreedom of worship which at that time existed in no other country ofEurope. When it was not forthcoming, they appealed to foreign Powers--the Lutherans to Prussia, the Orthodox to Russia. [Sidenote: Wretched Social Conditions in Poland] Worst of all were the social conditions in Poland. By the eighteenthcentury, the towns had sunk into relative insignificance, leavingPoland without a numerous or wealthy middle class. Of the otherclasses, the great nobles or magnates owned the land, lived in luxury, selfishly looked out for their own interests, and jealously playedpolitics, while the mass of the nation were degraded into a state ofserfdom and wretchedness that would be difficult to parallel elsewherein Europe. With a grasping, haughty nobility on one hand, and anoppressed, ignorant peasantry on the other, social solidarity, the bestguarantee of political independence, was entirely lacking. [Sidenote: Weakness of Polish Political Institutions] An enlightened progressive government might have done something toremedy the social ills, but of all governments that the world has everseen, the most ineffectual and pernicious was the Polish. Since thesixteenth century, the monarchy had been elective, with the result thatthe reign of every sovereign was disfigured by foreign intrigues anddomestic squabbles over the choice of his successor, and also that thenoble electors were able not only to secure liberal bribes but to wringfrom the elect such concessions as gradually reduced the kingship to anornamental figurehead. Most of the later kings were foreigners who usedwhat little power was left to them in furtherance of their nativeinterests rather than of the welfare of Poland. Thus the kings in thefirst half of the eighteenth century were German electors of Saxony, who owed their new position to the interested friendship of Austria, Prussia, or Russia, and to the large sums of money which they lavishedupon the Polish magnates; these same Saxon rulers cheerfully appliedthe Polish resources to their German policies. Another absurdity of the Polish constitution was the famous "_liberumveto_, " a kind of gentlemen's agreement among the magnates, wherebyno law whatsoever could be enacted by the Diet if a single member feltit was prejudicial to his interests, and objected. In the course of theseventeenth century the principle of the _liberum veto_ had beenso far extended as to recognize the lawful right of any one of the tenthousand noblemen of Poland to refuse to obey a law which he had notapproved. This amounted to anarchism. And anarchism, however beautifulit might appear as an ideal, was hardly a trustworthy weapon with whichto oppose the greedy, hard-hearted, despotic monarchs who governed allthe surrounding countries. [Sidenote: Steady Decline of Ottoman Power during Seventeenth Century] The Ottoman Empire was not in such sore straits as Poland, but itspower and prestige were obviously waning. In another place we havereviewed the achievements of the Turks in the fifteenth and sixteenthcenturies--how they overran the Balkan peninsula, capturedConstantinople, put an end to the ancient Graeco-Roman Empire and underSuleiman the Magnificent extended their conquests along the northerncoast of Africa and in Europe across the Danube into the very heart ofHungary. Although the sea-power of the Turks suffered a serious reverseat Lepanto (1571), their continued land advances provoked inChristendom the liveliest apprehension throughout the seventeenthcentury. After a twenty-five-years conflict they took Crete fromVenice. They subjugated to their dominion the Tatars and Russiansimmediately north of the Black Sea. They exacted homage from theprinces of Rumania and Transylvania. They annexed Hungary. For a timethey received tribute from the king of Poland. In 1683 they laid siegeto the city of Vienna and would have taken it had not the patrioticPolish monarch, John Sobieski, brought timely aid to the beleagueredAustrians. That was the high-water mark of the Mohammedan advance inEurope. Thenceforth the Turkish boundaries gradually receded. An alliance ofVenice, Poland, the pope, and Austria waged long and arduous warfarewith the Ottomans, and the resulting treaty of Karlowitz, signed at thevery close of the seventeenth century, gave the greater part ofHungary, including Transylvania, to the Austrian Habsburgs, extendedthe southern boundary of Poland to the Dniester River, and surrenderedimportant trading centers on the Dalmatian and Greek coasts to theVenetians. Two subsequent wars between the sultan and the Habsburgsdefinitely freed the whole of Hungary from the Ottoman yoke. Thereasons for the wane of Turkey's power are scarcely to be sought in theinherent strength of her neighbors, for, with the possible exception ofAustria and Russia, they were notoriously weak and had seldom been ableor willing to work together in behalf of any common cause. The realreasons lay rather in the character and nature of the Turkish poweritself. Domestic, not foreign, difficulties prepared the way for futuredisasters. [Sidenote: Nature of the Turkish Conquests] It should be borne in mind that the Turks never constituted a majorityof the population of their European possessions. They were a mere bodyof conquerors, who in frenzies of religious or martial enthusiasm, inspired with the idea that Divine Providence was using them as agentsfor the spread of Mohammedanism, had fought valiantly with the sword orcunningly taken advantage of their enemies' quarrels to plant over wideareas the crescent in place of the cross. In the conquered regions, thenative Christian peoples were reduced to serfdom, and the Turkishconquerors became great landholders and the official class. To extend, even to maintain, such an artificial order of things, the Turks wouldbe obliged to keep their military organization always at the highestpitch of excellence and to preserve their government from weakness andcorruption. In neither of these respects did the Turks ultimatelysucceed. [Sidenote: Corruption In the Turkish Government] The sultans of the eighteenth century were not of the stuff of which aSuleiman the Magnificent had been made. To the grim risks of battlethey preferred the cushioned ease of the palace, and all their powersof administration and government were quite consumed in the managementof the household and the harem. Actual authority was graduallytransferred to the Divan, or board of ministers, whose appointments ordismissals were the results of palace intrigues, sometimes petty butmore often bloody. Corruption ate its way through the entire office-holding element of the Ottoman state: positions were bought and soldfrom the Divan down to the obscure village, and office was held toexist primarily for financial profit and secondarily as a means ofoppressing the subject people. The army, on which so much in the Turkish state depended, naturallyreflected the demoralized condition of the government. While Peter theGreat was organizing a powerful army in Russia, and Frederick the Greatwas perfecting the Prussian military machine, the Ottoman army steadilydeclined. It failed to keep pace with the development of tactics and offirearms in western Europe, and fell behind the times. The all-prevalent corruption ruined its discipline, and its regularly organizedportion--the "janissaries"--became the masters rather than the servantsof the sultans and of the whole Turkish government. It was the fortune of the Russian tsarina--Catherine the Great--toappreciate the real weakness of both Turkey and Poland and to turn herneighbors' distress to the profit of her own country. [Sidenote: Catherine's Interference in Poland] No sooner had Catherine secured the Russian crown and by her inactivitypermitted Frederick the Great to bring the Seven Years' War to asuccessful issue, than the death of Augustus III, elector of Saxony andking of Poland, gave her an opportunity to interfere in Polish affairs. She was not content with the Saxon line which was more or less underAustrian influence, and, with the astute aid of Frederick, she inducedthe Polish nobles to elect one of her own courtiers and favorites, Stanislaus Poniatowski, who thus in 1764 became the last king of anindependent Poland. With the accession of Stanislaus, the predominance of Russia was fullyestablished in Poland. Russia entered into an execrable agreement withPrussia and Austria to uphold the anarchical constitution of theunhappy and victimized country. When patriotic Poles made efforts--asthey now frequently did--to reform their government, to abolish the_liberum veto_, and to strengthen the state, they found theirattempts thwarted by the allies either by force of arms or by bribes ofmoney. The racial animosities and the religious differences withinPoland afforded sufficient pretexts for the intervention of theneighboring Powers, especially Prussia and Russia. A popular insurrection of Polish Catholics against the intolerablemeddling of foreigners was crushed by the troops of Catherine, with thesingle result that the Russians, in pursuing some fleeing insurgentsacross the southern frontier, violated Turkish territory andprecipitated a war between the Ottoman Empire and Russia. [Sidenote: Catherine's War with the Turks, 1768-1774] This Turkish War lasted from 1768 to 1774. The Ottoman government wasprofoundly alarmed by the Russian foreign policy, believing that theintrigues in Poland would end in the annexation of that state to Russiaand the consequent upsetting of the balance of power in the East, andthat, Poland once being disposed of, the turn of Turkey would comenext. The Turks, moreover, were egged on by the French government, which, anxious also to preserve the balance of power and to defend theliberties of Poland, was too financially embarrassed itself toundertake a great war against Prussia and Russia. This war between Russia and Turkey fully confirmed the belief that thepower of the latter was waning. The Ottoman troops, badly armed andbadly led, suffered a series of reverses. The Russians again occupiedAzov, which Peter the Great had been compelled to relinquish; theyoverran Moldavia and Wallachia; they seized Bucharest; and they seemedlikely to cross the Danube. Catherine went so far as to fan a revoltamong the Greek subjects of the sultan. [Sidenote: Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji (1774): Russia on the Black Sea] At length, in 1774, the treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji was concluded betweenthe belligerents. It was most important in marking the southernextension of Russia. By its provisions, (1) Turkey formally ceded Azovand adjacent territory to Russia and renounced sovereignty over allland north of the Black Sea; (2) Turkey recovered Wallachia, Moldavia, and Greece, on condition that they should be better governed; (3)Russia obtained the right of free navigation for her merchant ships inTurkish waters; and (4) Russia was recognized as the protector ofcertain churches in the city of Constantinople. Within a few years after the signature of the treaty of KuchukKainarji, Catherine established Russian control over the various Tatarprincipalities north of the Black Sea, whose sovereignty Turkey hadrenounced, and by a supplementary agreement in 1792, the Dniester Riverwas fixed upon as the boundary between the Russian and Ottoman empires. The Turkish policy of Catherine the Great bore three significantresults. In the first place, Russia acquired a natural boundary insouthern Europe, and became the chief Power on the Black Sea, whenceher ships might pass freely through the Bosphorus and the Dardanellesout into the Mediterranean to trade with western Europe. Russia'ssecond "window to the west" was gained. Then, in the second place, Russia was henceforth looked upon as the natural ally and friend ofoppressed nationalities within the Turkish Empire. Finally, the specialclause conferring on Russia the protectorate of certain churches inConstantinople afforded her a pretext for a later claim to protectChristians throughout the Ottoman state and consequently to interfereincessantly in Turkish affairs. Since the treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji, Turkey has declined with ever-increasing rapidity, and Russia hasbecome an eager candidate for a liberal share of the spoils. [Sidenote: Catherine and the Partition of Poland][Sidenote: First Partition, 1772] Even while the Turkish War was in progress, Catherine the Great had notlost sight of her Polish policy. Frederick of Prussia had doubtlesshoped that she would, in order that he might have a free rein to directa distribution of territory entirely satisfactory to himself and toPrussia But the wily tsarina was never so immersed in other mattersthat she neglected Russian interests in Poland. In 1772, therefore, shejoined with Frederick and with Maria Theresa of Austria in making thefirst partition of Poland. Russia took all the country which lay eastof the Dona and Dnieper rivers. Prussia took West Prussia except thetown of Danzig. Austria took Galicia and the city of Cracow. In all, Poland was deprived of about a fourth of her territory. [Sidenote: Second Partition, 1793][Sidenote: Third and Last Partition, 1795] The partition of 1772 sobered the Polish people and brought them to afull realizing sense of the necessity of radical political reform. Butthe shameful and hypocritical attitude of the neighboring sovereignscontinued to render their every effort abortive. For another twenty-oneyears the wretched country struggled on, a victim of selfish foreigntutelage. Although both Frederick and Maria Theresa died in theinterval, their successors proved themselves quite as willing tocooeperate with the implacable tsarina. In 1793 Russia and Prussiaeffected the second partition of Poland, and in 1795, following a lastdesperate attempt of the Poles to establish a new government, theyadmitted Austria to a share in the final dismemberment of the unhappycountry. Desperately did the brave Kosciuszko try to stem the tide ofinvasion which poured in from all sides. His few forces, in spite ofgreat valor, were no match for the veteran allies, and the defense wasvain. "Freedom shrieked when Kosciuszko fell. " King StanislausPoniatowski resigned his crown and betook himself to Petrograd. Polandceased to exist as an independent state. By the partitions of 1793 and 1795, Austria obtained the upper valleyof the Vistula, and Prussia the lower, including the city of Warsaw, while the rest--the major share--went to Russia. Little Russia(Ruthenia) and approximately all of Lithuania thus passed into thehands of the tsarina. Russia thenceforth bordered immediately onPrussia and Austria and became geographically a vital member of theEuropean family of nations. Catherine the Great survived the third and final partition of Polandbut a year, dying in 1796. If it can be said of Peter that he madeRussia a European Power, it can be affirmed with equal truth thatCatherine made Russia a Great Power. The eighteenth century hadwitnessed a marvelous growth of Russia in Europe. She had acquiredterritory and a capital on the Baltic. She had secured valuable portson the Black Sea. She had pushed her boundaries westward into the verycenter of the Continent. The rise of Russia was at the expense of her neighbors. Sweden hadsurrendered her eastern provinces and lost her control of the Baltic. Turkey had abandoned her monopoly of the shores and trade of the BlackSea. Poland had disappeared from the map. [Illustration: THE ROMANOV FAMILY: RUSSIAN SOVEREIGNS (1613-1915)] ADDITIONAL READING THE RISE OF RUSSIA. Elementary sketches: J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard, _The Development of Modern Europe_, Vol. I (1907), ch. Iv;H. O. Wakeman, _The Ascendancy of France, 1598-1715_ (1894), ch. Viii, xii, xiii; Arthur Hassall, _The Balance of Power, 1715-1789_(1896), ch. V, xi; A. H. Johnson, _The Age of the Enlightened Despot, 1660-1789_ (1910), ch. Iv, v; H. T. Dyer, _A History of ModernEurope from the Fall of Constantinople_, 3d ed. Rev. By ArthurHassall, 6 vols. (1901), ch. Xxxvi, xxxviii, xli, xlix, 1. Moredetailed histories: _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. V (1908), ch. Xvi-xix, and Vol. VI (1909), ch. X, xix; _Histoire generale_, Vol. V, ch. Xvi-xviii, xx, Vol. VI, ch. Xvii-xix, xxi, xxii, Vol. VII, ch. Viii, ix, excellent chapters in French by such eminent scholars asLouis Leger and Alfred Rambaud; V. 0. Kliuchevsky, _A History ofRussia_, Eng. Trans. By C. J. Hogarth, 3 vols. (1911-1913), authoritative on the early history of Russia, but comes down only to1610; Alfred Rambaud, _Histoire de la Russie depuis les originesjusqu'a nos jours_, 6th ed. (1914), ch. Xiv-xxxii, --an earlieredition of this standard work was translated into English by Leonora B. Lang and published in two volumes, of which the larger part treats ofthe seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; James Mayor, _EconomicHistory of Russia_, Vol. I (1914), Book I, ch. Iv-vii, especiallyuseful for the economic and social reforms of Peter the Great. On theRussian sovereigns: R. N. Bain, _The First Romanovs, 1613-1725_(1905), and, by the same author, _Pupils of Peter the Great: aHistory of the Russian Court and Empire from 1697 to 1740_ (1897);Eugene Schuyler, _Peter the Great_, 2 vols. (1884), a scholarlywork; Kazimierz Waliszewski, _Peter the Great_, an admirable studytrans. From the French by Lady Mary Loyd (1900), and, by the sameauthor, though not as yet translated, _L'heritage de Pierre le Grand:regne des femmes, gouvernement des favoris, 1725-1741_ (1900) and_La derniere des Romanov, Elisabeth R_ (1902); Alexander Bruckner, _Peter der Grosse_ (1879), and, by the same author, _Katharinadie Zweite_ (1883), important German works, in the Oncken Series; E. A. B. Hodgetts, _The Life of Catherine the Great of Russia_(1914), a recent fair-minded treatment in English. On the expansion ofthe Russian people: Alfred Rambaud, _The Expansion of Russia_, 2ded. (1904); F. A. Golder, _Russian Expansion on the Pacific, 1641-1850_; Hans Uebersberger, _Russlands Orientpolitik in den letztenzwei Jahrhunderten_, Vol. I, down to 1792 (1913). THE DECLINE OF SWEDEN, TURKEY, AND POLAND. On Sweden: R. N. Bain, _Scandinavia, a Political History of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, 1513-1900_ (1905), and, by the same author, _Charles XII_(1899) in the "Heroes of the Nations" Series. On Turkey: Stanley Lane-Poole, _Turkey_ (1889), in the "Story of the Nations" Series, andE. A. Freeman, _The Ottoman Power in Europe, its Nature, its Growth, and its Decline_ (1877), suggestive outlines by eminent Englishhistorians; Nicolae Jorga, _Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches_, 5vols. (1908-1913), particularly Vols. III, IV, the best and most up-to-date history of the Ottoman Empire; Joseph von Hammer, _Geschichtedes osmanischen Reiches_, 10 vols. (1827-1835), an old work, verydetailed and still famous, of which Vols. VI-VIII treat of theeighteenth century prior to 1774. On Poland: W. A. Phillips, _Poland_ (1915), ch. I-vi, a convenient volume in the "HomeUniversity Library"; R. N. Bain, _Slavonic Europe: a PoliticalHistory of Poland and Russia from 1447 to 1796_ (1908), ch. V-xix;_Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. VIII (1904), ch. Xvii; W. R. A. Morfill, _Poland_ (1893), in the "Story of the Nations" Series; R. H. Lord, _The Second Partition of Poland: a Study in DiplomaticHistory_ (1915), scholarly and well-written; R. N. Bain, _The LastKing of Poland and his Contemporaries_ (1909); U. L. Lehtonen, _Die polnischen Provinzen Russlands unter Katharina II in den Jahren1772-1782_ (1907), a German translation of an important Finnishwork. An excellent French account of international relations in theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries, affecting Russia, Sweden, Poland, and Turkey, is Emile Bourgeois, _Manuel historique de politiqueetrangere_, 4th ed. , Vol. I (1906), ch. Viii, x, xiii. PART III "LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" Our narrative of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries thus far hasbeen full of intrigue, dynastic rivalry, and colonial competition. Wehave sat with red-robed cardinals in council to exalt the monarch ofFrance; we have witnessed the worldwide wars by which Great Britain wonand lost vast imperial domains; we have followed the thundering marchof Frederick's armies through the Germanies, wasted with war; but wehave been blind indeed if the glare of bright helmets and the glamourof courtly diplomacy have hidden from our eyes a phenomenon moremomentous than even the growth of Russia or the conquest of New France. It is the rise of the bourgeoisie. Driven on by insatiable ambition, not content to be lords of the worldof business, with ships and warehouses for castles and with clerks forretainers, the bourgeoisie have placed their lawyers in the royalservice, their learned men in the academies, their economists at theking's elbow, and with restless energy they push on to shape state andsociety to their own ends. In England they have already helped todethrone kings and have secured some hold on Parliament, but on theContinent their power and place is less advanced. For the eighteenth century is still the grand age of monarchs, who takeLouis XIV as the pattern of princely power and pomp. "Benevolentdespots" they are, these monarchs meaning well to govern their peoplewith fatherly kindness. But their plans go wrong and their reforms fallflat, while the bourgeoisie become self-conscious and self-reliant, andrise up against the throne of the sixteenth Louis in France. It is thebourgeoisie that start the revolutionary cry of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, " and it is this cry in the throats of the masses whichsends terror to the hearts of nobles and kings. Desperately the oldorder--the old regime--defends itself. First France, then all Europe, is affected. Revolutionary wars convulse the Continent. Never had theworld witnessed wars so disastrous, so bloody. Yet the triumph of the bourgeoisie is not assured. The Revolution hasbeen but one battle in the long war between the rival aristocracies ofbirth and of business--a war in which peasants and artisans now givetheir lives for illusory dreams of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, " nowfight their feudal lords, and now turn on their pretended liberators, the bourgeoisie. For already it begins to dawn on the dull masses that"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" are chiefly for their masters. The old regime, its decay, the rise of the bourgeoisie, thedisappointment of the common people, --these are the bold landmarks onwhich the student must fix his attention, while in the followingchapters we sketch the condition of Europe in the eighteenth century, and trace the course of the French Revolution, the career of Napoleon, and the restoration of "law and order" under Metternich. CHAPTER XIII EUROPEAN SOCIETY IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY AGRICULTURE IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY [Sidenote: General Backwardness] If some "Rip Van Winkle" of the sixteenth century could have slept fortwo centuries to awake in 1750, he would have found far less to marvelat in the common life of the people than would one of us. Much of thefarming, even of the weaving, buying, and selling, was done just as ithad been done centuries before; and the great changes that were torevolutionize the life and work of the people were as yet hardlydreamed of. In fact, there was so much in common between the sixteenthand eighteenth centuries, that the reader who has already made himselffamiliar with the manor and the gild, as described in Chapter II, willfind himself quite at home in the "old regime, " as the order of thingsin the eighteenth century is now termed. One might still see the countless little agricultural villages andmanor houses nestling among the hills or dotting the plains, surroundedby green fields and fringed with forest or wasteland. The simplevillagers still cultivated their strips in the common fields in thetime-honored way, working hard for meager returns. A third of the landstood idle every year; it often took a whole day merely to scratch thesurface of a single acre with the rude wooden plow then in use; cattlewere killed off in the autumn for want of good hay; fertilizers wereonly crudely applied, if at all; many a humble peasant was content ifhis bushel of seed brought him three bushels of grain, and was proud ifhis fatted ox weighed over four hundred pounds, though a modern farmerwould grumble at results three or four times as good. [Sidenote: "Gentlemen Farmers" and "Husbandry"][Sidenote: "Rotation of Crops"] There were some enterprising and prosperous landowners who used newerand better methods, and even wrote books about "husbandry, " asagriculture was called. The Dutch, especially, learned to cultivatetheir narrow territory carefully, and from them English farmerslearned many secrets of tillage. They grew clover and "artificialgrasses"--such as rye--for their cattle, cultivated turnips for winterfodder, tilled the soil more thoroughly, used fertilizers morediligently, and even learned how to shift their crops from field tofield according to a regular plan, so that the soil would not lose itsfertility and would not have to be left idle or "fallow" every thirdyear. [Sidenote: Survival of Primitive Methods] These new methods were all very fine for "gentlemen farmers, " but forthe average peasant the old "open-field" system was an effectivebarrier to progress. He could not plant new crops on his strips in thegrain fields, for custom forbade it; he could not breed his cowsscientifically, while they ran in with the rest of the village cattle. At best he could only work hard and pray that his cows would not catchcontagion from the rest, and that the weeds from his neighbor's wheat-patch might not spread into his own, for between such patches there wasneither wall nor fence. [Sidenote: Survival of Serfdom][Sidenote: Sorry Condition of the Peasantry] Primitive methods were not the only survivals of manorial life. Actualserfdom still prevailed in most of the countries of Europe exceptFrance [Footnote: Even in France, some serfdom still survived. ] andEngland, and even in these countries nominal freedom lifted thepeasantry but little above the common lot. It is true, indeed, thatcountless differences in the degree and conditions of servitude existedbetween Russians and Frenchmen, and even between peasants in the samecountry or village. The English or French plowman, perhaps, might notbe sold to fight for other countries like the Hessians, nor could he becommanded to marry an undesired bride, as were of the tenants of aRussian nobleman. But in a general way we may say that all the peasantsof Europe suffered from much the same causes. With no voice in makingthe laws, they were liable to heavy fines or capital punishment forbreaking the laws. Their advice was not asked when taxes were levied orapportioned, but upon them fell the heaviest burdens of the state. It was vexatious to pay outrageous fees for the use of a lord's mill, bridge, oven, or wine-press, to be haled to court for an imaginaryoffense, or to be called from one's fields to war, or to work on theroads without pay. It was hard for the hungry serf to see the fat deerventuring into his very dooryard, and to remember that the master ofthe mansion house was so fond of the chase that he would not allow hisgame to be killed for food for vulgar plowmen. But these and similar vexations sank into insignificance in comparisonwith the burdens of the taxes paid to lord, to church, and to king. Inevery country of Europe the peasants were taxed, directly orindirectly, for the support of the three pillars of the "old regime. "The form of such taxation in England differed widely from that inHungary; in Sweden, from that in Spain. But beneath discrepancies ofform, the system was essentially the same. Some idea of the tripletaxation that everywhere bore so heavily upon the peasantry may beobtained from a brief resume of the financial obligations of anordinary French peasant to his king, his Church, and his lord. [Sidenote: Peasant Obligations to Landlord] To the lord the serf owed often three days' labor a week, in additionto stated portions of grain and poultry. In place of servile work thefreeman paid a "quit-rent, " that is, a sum of money instead of theservices which were considered to accompany the occupation of land. Double rent was paid on the death of the peasant, and, if the farm wassold, one-fifth of the price went to the lord. Sometimes, however, afreeman held his land without quit-rent, but still had numerousobligations which had survived from medieval times, such as the annualsum paid for a "military protection" which he neither demanded norreceived. [Sidenote: Peasant Obligation to Church] The second obligation was to the church--the tithe or tenth, whichusually amounted every year to a twelfth or a fifteenth of the grossproduce of the peasant's land. [Sidenote: Peasant Obligations to King and State] Heaviest of all were the taxes levied by the king. The _taille_, or land tax, was the most important. The amount was not fixed, but wassupposed to be proportional to the value of the peasant's land anddwelling. In practice the tax-collectors often took as much as theycould get. And a shrewd peasant would let his house go to pieces andpretend to be utterly destitute in order that the assessors might notincrease the valuation of his property. The other direct taxes were the poll tax, _i. E. _, a certain sumwhich everybody alike must pay, and the income tax, usually a twentiethpart of the income. Finally, there were indirect taxes, such as thesalt _gabelle_. Thus, in certain provinces every person had to buyseven pounds of salt a year from the government salt-works at a priceten times its real value. Road-making, too, was the duty of thepeasant, and the _corvee_, or labor on roads, often took severalweeks in a year. [Sidenote: Burden of Taxation on Peasants] All these burdens--dues to the lord, tithes to the church, taxes to theking--left the peasant but little for himself. It is so difficult toget exact figures that we can put no trust in the estimate of a famouswriter that dues, tithes, and taxes absorbed over four-fifths of theFrench peasant's produce: nevertheless, we may be sure that the burdenwas very great. In a few favored districts of France and Englandfarmers were able to pay their taxes and still live comfortably. Butelsewhere the misery of the people was such as can hardly be imagined. With the best of harvests they could barely provide for their families, and a dry summer or long winter would bring them to want. There wasonly the coarsest of bread--and little of that; meat was a luxury; anddelicacies were for the rich. We read how starving peasants in Francetried to appease their hunger with roots and herbs, and in hard timessuccumbed by thousands to famine. One-roomed mud huts with leakythatched roofs, bare and windowless, were good enough dwellings forthese tillers of the soil. In the dark corners of the dirt-floorslurked germs of pestilence and death. Fuel was expensive, and thebitter winter nights must have found many a peasant shiveringsupperless on his bed of straw. True, the gloom of such conditions was relieved here and there by aprosperous village or a well-to-do peasant. But, speaking in a generalway, the sufferings of the poorer European peasants and serfs canhardly be exaggerated. It was they who in large part had paid for thewars, theaters, palaces, and pleasures of the courts of Europe. COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY [Sidenote: Growth of Towns] Let us now turn our eyes from the country to the city, for in the townsare to be found the bourgeoisie, the class in which we are mostinterested. The steady expansion of commerce and industry during thesixteenth and seventeenth centuries had been attended by a remarkabledevelopment of town life. Little villages had grown, until in 1787there were 78 towns of over 10, 000 inhabitants each. London, thegreatest city in Europe, had increased in population from about half amillion in 1685 to over a million in 1800. Paris was at least half aslarge; Amsterdam was a great city; and several German towns likeHamburg, Bremen, and Frankfort were important trading centers. The towns had begun to lose some of their medieval characteristics. They had spread out beyond their cramping walls; roomy streets andpleasant squares made the newer sections more attractive. The oldfortifications, no longer needed for protection, served now aspromenades. City thoroughfares were kept cleaner, sometimes well pavedwith cobbles; and at night the feeble but cheerful glow of oil street-lamps lessened the terrors of the belated burgher who had been at thetheater or listened to protracted debates at the great town hall. [Sidenote: Industry Gild Regulation] The life of the town was nourished by industry and commerce. Industryin the eighteenth century meant far more than baking bread, makingclothes, cobbling shoes, and fashioning furniture for use in the town;it meant the production on a large scale of goods to sell in distantplaces, --cloth, clocks, shoes, beads, dishes, hats, buttons, and whatnot. Many of these articles were still manufactured under theregulations of the old craft gilds. For although the gild system waspretty well broken up in England, it still maintained its hold on theContinent. In France the division of crafts had become so complicatedthat innumerable bickerings arose between cobblers' gilds andshoemakers' gilds, between watch-makers and clock-makers. In Germanyconditions were worse. The gilds, now aristocratic and practicallyhereditary corporations, used their power to prevent all competition, to keep their apprentices and journeymen working for little or nothing, to insure high profits, and to prevent any technical improvements whichmight conceivably injure them. "A hatter who improved his wares bymixing silk with the wool was attacked by all the other hatters; theinventor of sheet lead was opposed by the plumbers; a man who had madea success in print-cloths was forced to return to antiquated methods bythe dyers. " [Sidenote: Government Regulation of Industry: Mercantilism] To gild regulation was added government regulation. It will beremembered that many seventeenth-century statesmen had urged theirkings to make laws for the greater prosperity of industry, and thatColbert had given the classic expression in France to the mercantilistidea that wealth could be cultivated by regulating and encouragingmanufactures. In order that French dyers might acquire a reputation forthorough work, he issued over three hundred articles of instruction forthe better conduct of the dyeing business. In an age when unscrupulousEnglish merchants were hurting the market with poorly woven fabrics, French weavers were given careful orders about the quality of thethread, the breadth of the cloth, and the fineness of the weave. It issaid that in 1787 the regulations for French manufactures filled eightvolumes in quarto; and other governments, while less thorough, wereequally convinced of the wisdom of such a policy. The mercantilist was not content with making rules for establishedindustries. In justice to him it should be explained that he wasanxious to plant new trades. Privileges, titles of nobility, exemptionfrom taxation, generous grants of money, and other favors were accordedto enterprising business men who undertook to introduce new branches ofmanufacture. In general, however, the efforts of such mercantilists as Colbert havebeen adversely criticized by economists. The regulations caused muchinconvenience and loss to many manufacturers, and the privilegesgranted to new enterprises often favored unstable and unsuitableindustries at the expense of more natural and valuable trades. It isimpossible to estimate the value to France of Colbert's pet industries, and equally impossible to see what would have happened had industrybeen allowed free rein. But we must not entirely condemn the systemsimply because its faults are so obvious and its benefits so hard toascertain. [Sidenote: Restrictions on Commerce] Commerce, like industry, was subject to restrictions and impeded byantiquated customs. Merchants traversing the country were hindered bypoor roads; at frequent intervals they must pay toll before passing aknight's castle, a bridge, or a town gate. Customs duties were leviedon commerce between the provinces of a single kingdom. And the cost oftransportation was thus made so high that the price of a cask of winepassing from the Orleanais to Normandy--two provinces in northwesternFrance--increased twenty-fold. From our past study of the commercial and colonial wars of theeighteenth century, especially those between France and Great Britain, we have already learned that mercantilist ideas were still dominant inforeign commerce. We have noted the heavy protective tariffs which weredesigned to shut out foreign competition. We have discussed theNavigation Acts, by means of which England encouraged her ship-owners. We have also mentioned the absorption, by specially charteredcompanies, of the profits of the lucrative European trade with theIndies. The East India Company, the Hudson's Bay Company, the DutchEast India Company, and the French _Compagnie des Indes_ were buta few famous examples of the chartered companies which stillpractically monopolized the trade of most non-European countries. [Sidenote: Great Growth of Commerce] Customs and companies may have been injurious in many respects, butcommerce grew out of all bounds. The New World gave furs, timber, tobacco, cotton, rice, sugar, rum, molasses, coffee, dyes, gold, andsilver, in return for negro slaves, manufactures, and Oriental wares;and the broad Atlantic highways were traversed by many hundreds ofheavily laden ships. The spices, jewels, tea, and textiles of the FarEast made rich cargoes for well-built East Indiamen. Important, too, was the traffic which occupied English and Dutch merchant fleets in theBaltic; and the flags of many nations were carried by traders coastwisealong all the shores of Europe. Great Britain at the opening of theeighteenth century possessed a foreign commerce estimated at$60, 000, 000, and that of France was at least two-thirds as great. During the century the volume of commerce was probably more thanquadrupled. It is difficult to realize the tremendous importance of this expansionof commerce and industry. It had erected colonial empires, caused wars, lured millions of peasants from their farms, and built populous cities. But most important of all--it had given strength to the bourgeoisie. [Sidenote: Rise of the Bourgeoisie] Merchants, bankers, wholesalers, rich gild-masters, and even lessopulent shopkeepers, formed a distinct "middle class, " between theprivileged clergy and nobility on the one hand, and the oppressedpeasant and artisan, or manual laborer, on the other. The middle class, often called by the French word _bourgeoisie_ because it dwelt intowns or _bourgs_, was strongest in England, the foremostcommercial nation of Europe, was somewhat weaker in France, and verymuch weaker in less commercial countries, such as Germany, Austria, andRussia. If the bourgeoisie was all-powerful in the world of business, it wasinfluential in other spheres. Lawyers came almost exclusively fromcommercial families. Judges, local magistrates, keepers of prisons, government secretaries, intendants, all the world of officialdom wasthronged with scions of bourgeois families. The better and oldermiddle-class families prided themselves on their wealth, influence, andculture. They read the latest books on science and philosophy; theysometimes criticized the religious ideas of the past; and they eagerlydiscussed questions of constitutional law and political economy. [Sidenote: Ambition of the Bourgeoisie] Ambition came quite naturally with wealth and learning. The bourgeoisiewanted power and privilege commensurate with their place in businessand administration. It seemed unbearable that a foppish noble whoseonly claims to respect were a moldy castle and a worm-eaten patent ofnobility should everywhere take precedence over men of means andbrains. Why should the highest social distinctions, the richestsinecures, and the posts of greatest honor in the army and at court beclosed to men of ignoble birth, as if a man were any better for thepossession of a high-sounding title? Moreover, the bourgeoisie desired a more direct say in politics. InEngland, to be sure, the sons of rich merchants were frequentlyadmitted to the nobility, and commercial interests were pretty wellrepresented in Parliament. In France, however, the feudal nobility wasmore arrogant and exclusive, and the government less in harmony withmiddle-class notions. The extravagant and wasteful administration ofroyal money was censured by every good business man. It was argued thatif France might only have bourgeois representation in a nationalparliament to regulate finance and to see that customs duties, trade-laws, and foreign relations were managed in accordance with businessinterests, then all would be well. THE PRIVILEGED CLASSES Thus far, in analyzing social and economic conditions in the eighteenthcentury, we have concerned ourselves with the lowest class, thepeasants and day laborers, and with the middle class or bourgeoisie--the "Third Estate" of France and the "Commons" of Great Britain. All ofthese were technically unprivileged or ignoble classes. The highestplace in society was reserved for the classes of the privileged, theclergy and the nobility, constituting the First and the Second Estates, respectively. And it is to these that we must now direct our attention. [Sidenote: Small Number of "Privileged"] The privileged classes formed a very small minority of the population. Of the 25, 000, 000 inhabitants of France, probably less than 150, 000were nobles and 130, 000 clerics; about one out of every hundred of thepeople was therefore privileged. [Sidenote: Large Number of "Privileges"] This small upper class was distinguished from the common herd by rank, possessions, and privileges. The person of noble birth, _i. E. _, the son of a noble, was esteemed to be inherently finer and better thanother men; so much so that he would disdain to marry a person of thelower class. He was addressed in terms of respect--"my lord, " "yourGrace"; common men saluted him as their superior. His clothes were moregorgeous than those of the plain people; on his breast glittered thebadges of honorary societies, and his coach was proudly decorated withan ancestral coat of arms. His "gentle" birth admitted him to thepolite society of the court and enabled him to seek preferment inchurch or army. More substantial than marks of honor were the actual possessions ofnobles and clergy. Each noble bequeathed to his eldest son a castle ora mansion with more or less territory from which to collect rents orfeudal dues. Bishops, abbots, and archbishops received their office byelection or appointment rather than by inheritance, and, beingunmarried, could not transmit their stations to children. But incountries where the wealth of the Church had not been confiscated byProtestants, the "prince of the Church" often enjoyed during hislifetime magnificent possessions. The bishop of Strassburg had anannual income approximating 500, 000 francs. Castles, cathedrals, palaces, rich vestments, invaluable pictures, golden chalices, rentalsfrom broad lands, tithes from the people, --these were the property ofthe clergy. It is estimated that the clergy and nobility each ownedone-fifth of France, and that one-third of all the land of Europe, one-half the revenue, and two-thirds the capital, were in the hands ofChristian churches. The noble families, possessing thousands of acres, and monopolizing thehigher offices of church and army, were further enriched, especially inFrance, by presents of money from the king, by pensions, by grants ofmonopolies, and by high-salaried positions which entailed little or nowork. "One young man was given a salary of $3600 for an office whosesole duty consisted in signing his name twice a year. " [Sidenote: Exemption from Taxation] With all their wealth the first two orders contributed almost nothingto lighten the financial burdens of the state. [Footnote: Exemptionfrom taxation was often and similarly granted to bourgeois incumbentsof government offices. ] The Church in France claimed exemption fromtaxation, but made annual gifts to the king of several hundred thousanddollars, though such grants represented less than one per cent of itsincome. The nobles, too, considered the payment of direct taxes adisgrace to their gentle blood, and did not hesitate by trickery toevade indirect taxation, leaving the chief burdens to fall upon thelower classes, and most of all upon the peasantry. [Sidenote: Failure of the Privileged to Perform Real Services][Sidenote: The Higher Nobility] All these advantages, privileges, and immunities might be looked uponas a fitting reward which medieval Europe had given to her nobles forprotecting peaceable plowmen from the marauding bands then so common, and which she had bestowed upon her clergy for preserving education, for encouraging agriculture, for fostering the arts, for tending thepoor, the sick, and the traveler, and for performing the offices ofreligion. But long before the eighteenth century the protectivefunctions of feudal nobles had been transferred to the royalgovernment. No longer useful, the hereditary nobility was merelyburdensome, and ornamental. Such as could afford it, spent their livesin the cities or at the royal court where they rarely did anythingworth while, unless it were to invent an unusually delicate complimentor to fashion a flawless sonnet. Their morals were not of the best--itwas almost fashionable to be vicious--but their manners were perfect. Meanwhile, the landed estates of these absentee lords were in charge offlint-hearted agents, whose sole mission was to squeeze money from thepeasants, to make them pay well for mill, bridge, and oven, to press tothe uttermost every claim which might give the absent master a largerrevenue. [Sidenote: The Country Gentry] The poorer noble, the "country gentleman, " was hardly able to live soextravagant a life, and accordingly remained at home, sometimes makingfriends of the villagers, standing god-father to peasant-children, orinviting heavy-booted but light-hearted plowmen to dance in the castlecourtyard. But often his life was dull enough, with rents hard tocollect, and only hunting, drinking, and gossip to pass the time away. [Sidenote: The Clergy] A similar and sharper contrast was observable between the higher andlower clergy, in England as well as in Roman Catholic countries. Veryfrequently dissipated young nobles were nominated bishops or abbots:they looked upon their office as a source of revenue, but never dreamedof discharging any spiritual duties. While a Cardinal de Rohan with2, 500, 000 livres a year astonished the court of France with hismagnificence and luxury, many a shabby but faithful country curate, with an uncertain income of less than $150 a year, was doing his bestto make both ends meet, with a little to spare for charity. RELIGIOUS AND ECCLESIASTICAL CONDITIONS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY [Sidenote: The Catholic Church] The great ecclesiastical organization that had dominated the middleages was no longer the one church of Europe, but was still the mostimpressive. Although the Protestant Revolt of the sixteenth century hadestablished independent denominations in the countries of northernEurope, as we have seen in Chapter IV, Roman Catholic Christianityremained the state religion of Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, Austria, the Austrian Netherlands, Bavaria, Poland, and several of the SwissCantons. Moreover, large sections of the population of Ireland, Bohemia, Hungary, Asia, and America professed Catholic Christianity. Orthodox Roman Catholics held fast to their faith in dogmas andsacraments and looked for spiritual guidance, correction, and comfortto the regular and secular clergy of their Church. The "secular"hierarchy of pope, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, anddeacons, did not cease its pious labor "in the world"; nor was therelack of zealous souls willing to forego the pleasures of this world, that they might live holier lives as monks, nuns, or begging friars, --the "regular" clergy. [Sidenote: Relations of the Catholic Church with Lay States] In its relations with lay states, the Roman Catholic Church had changedmore than in its internal organization. Many Protestant rulers nowrecognized the pope merely as an Italian prince, [Footnote: The pope, it will be remembered, ruled the central part of Italy as a temporalprince. ] and head of an undesirable religious sect--Roman Catholicswere either persecuted, or, as in Great Britain, deprived of politicaland civil rights. The Pope, on the other hand, could hardly regard asfriends those who had denied the spiritual mission and confiscated thetemporal possessions of the Church. In Roman Catholic countries, too, the power of the pope had beenlessened. The old dispute whether pope or king should control theappointment of bishops, abbots, and other high church officers had atlast been settled in favor of the king. The pope consented to recognizeroyal appointees, provided they were "godly and suitable" men; inreturn he usually received a fee ("annate") from the newly appointedprelate. Other taxes the pope rarely ventured to levy; but good RomanCatholics continued to pay "Peter's Pence" as a free-will offering, andthe bishops occasionally taxed themselves for his benefit. In otherways, also, the power of the Church was curtailed. Royal courts nowtook cognizance of the greater part of those cases which had once beenwithin the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts;[Footnote: Blasphemy, contempt of religion, and heresy were, however, still matters forchurch courts. ] the right of appeal to the Roman Curia was limited;and the lower clergy might be tried in civil courts. Finally, papaledicts were no longer published in a country without the sanction ofthe king. These curtailments of papal privilege were doubtlessimportant, but they meant little or nothing to the millions of peasantsand humble workmen who heard Mass, were confessed, and received thesacraments as their fathers had done before them. [Sidenote: Surviving Privileges of the Church] Besides their incalculable influence over the souls of men, the clergywere an important factor in the civil life of Roman Catholic countries. Education was mostly under their auspices; they conducted the hospitalsand relieved the poor. Marriages were void unless solemnized in theorthodox manner, and, in the eye of the law, children born outside ofChristian wedlock might not inherit property. Heretics who diedunshriven, were denied the privilege of burial in Catholic cemeteries. Of the exemption of the clergy from taxation, and of the wealth of theChurch, we have already spoken, as well as of the high social rank ofits prelates--a rank more in keeping with that of wealthy worldlynoblemen than with that of devout "servants of the Lord. " But we haveyet to mention the influence of the Church in suppressing heresy. In theory the Roman Catholic religion was still obligatory in Catholicstates. Uniformity of faith was still considered essential to politicalunity. Kings still promised at coronation faithfully to extirpateheretical sects. In Spain, during the first half of the eighteenthcentury hundreds of heretics were condemned by the Inquisition andburned at the stake; only toward the close of the century was there anabatement of religious intolerance. In France, King Louis XIV hadrevoked the Edict of Nantes in 1685, and in the eighteenth century onemight have found laws on the French statute-books directing that menwho attended Protestant services should be made galley-slaves, thatmedical aid should be withheld from impenitent heretics, and thatwriters of irreligious books should suffer death. Such laws were verypoorly enforced, however, and active religious persecution was dyingout in France in the second half of the eighteenth century. Buttoleration did not mean equality; full civil and political rights werestill denied the several hundred thousand Huguenots in France. [Sidenote: Summary of Weaknesses in the Catholic Church] The strength of the Roman Catholic Church in the eighteenth century wasimpaired by four circumstances: (1) the existence of bitterlyantagonistic Protestant sects; (2) the growth of royal power and of thesentiment of nationalism, at the expense of papal power and ofinternationalism; (3) the indolence and worldliness of some of theprelates; and (4) the presence of internal dissensions. The first threecircumstances should be clear from what has already been said, but aword of explanation is necessary about the fourth. [Sidenote: Jansenism] The first of these dissensions arose concerning the teachings of acertain Flemish bishop by the name of Cornelius Janssen (1585-1638), [Footnote: Janssen is commonly cited by the Latin version of his name--Jansenius. ] whose followers, known as Jansenists, had possessedthemselves of a sort of hermitage and nunnery at Port-Royal in thevicinity of Paris. Jansenism found a number of earnest disciples andable exponents, whose educational work and reforming zeal brought theminto conflict with the Jesuits. The Jesuits accused the Jansenists ofheresy, affirming that Janssen's doctrine of conversion-by-the-will-of-God was in last analysis practically Calvin's predestination. For someyears the controversy raged. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), a famousmathematician and experimenter in physics, defended the Jansenistseloquently and learnedly, but Jesuits had the ear of Louis XIV andbroke up the little colony at Port-Royal. Four years later the popeissued a famous bull, called "Unigenitus" (1713), definitivelycondemning Jansenist doctrines as heretical; but the sect still livedon, especially in Holland, and "Unigenitus" was disliked by manyorthodox Roman Catholics, who thought its condemnations too sweepingand too severe. [Sidenote: Febronianism] A second dispute, questioning the authority of the papacy, centered ina German theologian [Footnote: Johann Nikolaus von Hoatheim, auxiliarybishop of Trier. His famous work was published in 1763. ] who wroteunder the Latin name of Febronius. Febronianism was an attemptedrevival of the conciliar movement of the fifteenth century and closelyresembled "Gallicanism, " as the movement in favor of the "Liberties ofthe Gallican Church" was called. These "Liberties" had been formulatedin a French declaration of 1682 and involved two major claims: (1) thatthe pope had no right to depose or otherwise to interfere with temporalmonarchs, and (2) that in spiritual affairs the general council ofbishops (oecumenical council) was superior to the sovereign pontiff. This twofold movement towards nationalism and representative churchgovernment was most strongly controverted by the Jesuits, who tooktheir stand on the assertion that the pope was supreme in all things. By the opponents of the Jesuits, this looking "beyond the mountains" tothe Roman Curia for ultimate authority was called Ultramontanism(beyond-the-mountainism). In almost every Catholic country of Europethe struggle between Ultramontanism and Febronianism arousedcontroversy, and the nature of papal supremacy remained a mooted pointwell into the nineteenth century. [Sidenote: Suppression of the Jesuit Order] Towards the close of the eighteenth century Ultramontanism received aserious though temporary setback by the suppression of the Jesuits(1773). For over two centuries members of the Society of Jesus had beenfamed as schoolmasters, preachers, controversialists, and missionaries;but in the eighteenth century the order became increasingly involved intemporal business; its power and wealth were abused; its politicalentanglements incurred the resentment of reforming royal ministers; andsome of its missionaries became scandalously lax in their doctrines. The result was the suppression of the order, first in Portugal (1759), then in other countries, and finally altogether by a papal decree of1773. [Footnote: In Russia, where the order of suppression was notenforced, the Jesuits kept their corporate organization. Subsequently, on 7 August, 1814, the entire society was restored by papal bull, andis now in a flourishing condition in many countries. ] [Sidenote: The Anglican Church] We shall next consider the Anglican Church, whose complete independencefrom the papacy, it will be remembered, was established by Henry VIIIof England, and whose doctrinal position had been defined in theThirty-nine Articles of Elizabeth's reign. It was the state Church ofEngland, Ireland, and Wales, and had scattering adherents in Scotlandand in the British colonies. Like the Roman Catholic Church in France, the Anglican Church enjoyed in the British Isles, excepting Scotland, special privileges, great wealth, and the collection of tithes fromAnglicans and non-Anglicans alike. It was intensely national, independent of papal control or other foreign influence, and patrioticin spirit. It retained a hierarchical government similar to that of theRoman Catholics. As in France, the bishops were inclined to use theemoluments without doing the work of their office, while the countrycurates were very poor. In its relations with others, the Anglican Church was not very liberal. In England, Protestant (Calvinistic) Dissenters had been grantedliberty of worship in 1689 (Toleration Act) but still they might nothold civil, military, or political office without the specialdispensation of Parliament. Baptism, registration of births and deaths, and marriage could be performed legally only by Anglican clergymen. Non-Anglicans were barred from Oxford and could take no degree atCambridge University. Worst of all was the lot of the Roman Catholics. In England they hadpractically no civil, political, or religious rights. By a law of 1700[Footnote: Repealed in 1778, but on condition that Roman Catholicsshould deny the temporal power of the pope and his right to deposekings. ] the Roman Catholic must abjure the Mass or lose his property, and priests celebrating Mass were liable to life imprisonment. InIreland the communicants of the "Church of Ireland" (Anglican)constituted a very small minority, [Footnote: Even in the nineteenthcentury, there were only about 500, 000 Anglicans out of a population ofsomewhat less than 6, 000, 000. ] while the native Roman Catholics, comprising over four-fifths of the population, were not only seriouslyhindered from exercising their own religion, not only deprived of theirpolitical rights, not only made subservient to the economic interestsof the Protestants, but actually forced to pay the tithe to supportEnglish bishops and curates, who too often lived in England, sincetheir parishioners were all Roman Catholics. [Sidenote: Protestant Sects in England: Baptists] The Dissenters from the Anglican Church embraced many different creeds. We have already spoken of the Calvinistic Presbyterians andSeparatists. Besides these, several new sects had appeared. The BaptistChurch was a seventeenth-century off-shoot of Separatism. ToCalvinistic theology and Congregational Church government, the Baptistshad added a belief in adult baptism, immersion, and religious liberty. [Sidenote: Unitarians] A group of persons who denied the divinity of Christ, thereby departingwidely from usual Protestantism as well as from traditionalCatholicism, came into some prominence in the eighteenth centurythrough secessions from the Anglican Church and through the preachingof the scientist Joseph Priestley, and gradually assumed the name ofUnitarians. It was not until 1844 that the sect obtained completereligious liberty in England. [Sidenote: Quakers] A most remarkable departure from conventional forms was made under theleadership of George Fox, the son of a weaver, whose followers, looselyorganized as the Society of Friends, were often derisively calledQuakers, because they insisted that true religion was accompanied bydeep emotions and quakings of spirit. Although severely persecuted, [Footnote: In 1685 as many as 1460 Quakers lay in English prisons. ] theQuakers grew to be influential at home, and in the colonies, where theyfounded Pennsylvania (1681). Their refusal to take oaths, their quaint"thee" and "thou, " their simple and somber costumes, and their habit ofsitting silent in religious meeting until the spirit should move amember to speak, made them a most picturesque body. Professionalministers and the ceremonial observance of Baptism and the Lord'sSupper, they held to be forms destructive of spontaneous religion. War, they said, gave free rein to un-Christian cruelty, selfishness, andgreed; and, therefore, they would not fight. They were also vigorousopponents of negro slavery. [Sidenote: Methodists] The Methodist movement did not come until the eighteenth century. Bythe year 1740, a group of earnest Oxford students had won the nicknameof "Methodists" by their abstinence from frivolous amusements and theirmethodical cultivation of fervor, piety, and charity. Their leader, John Wesley (1703-1791), was a man of remarkable energy, rising at fourin the morning, filling every moment with work, living frugally on L28a year, visiting prisons, and exhorting his companions to piety. TheMethodist leaders were very devout and orthodox Anglicans, but theywere so anxious "to spread Scriptural Holiness over the land" that theypreached in open fields as well as in churches. Wesley and other greatorators appealed to the emotions of thousands of miners, prisoners, andignorant weavers, and often moved them to tears. It is said that JohnWesley preached more than 40, 000 sermons. The Methodist preachers gradually became estranged from the AnglicanChurch, established themselves as a new dissenting sect, and droppedmuch of the Anglican ritual. The influence of their preaching was verymarked, however, and many orthodox Anglican clergymen traveled aboutpreaching to the lower classes. This "evangelical movement" issignificant because it showed that a new class of industrial workershad grown up without benefit of the church or protection of the state. We shall subsequently hear more of them in connection with the eventsof the Industrial Revolution. [Sidenote: Lutheran Churches on the Continent] In the eighteenth century, Lutheranism was the state religion ofDenmark (including Norway), Sweden, and of several German states, notably Prussia, Saxony, and Brunswick. The Lutheran churches retainedmuch of the old ritual and episcopal government. Ecclesiastical lands, however, had been secularized, and Lutheran pastors were supported byfree-will offerings and state subventions. In Prussia, [Footnote:Later, in 1817, the Lutherans and Calvinists of Prussia were broughttogether, under royal pressure, to form the "Evangelical Church. "According to the king, this was not a fusion of the two Protestantfaiths, but merely an external union. ] Denmark, and Sweden the churchrecognized the king as its _summus episcopus_ or supreme head. [Sidenote: Reformed Churches] Zwinglian and Calvinistic churches were usually called "Reformed" or"Presbyterian" and represented a more radical deviation thanLutheranism from Roman Catholic theology and ritual, holding the Lord'sSupper to be but a commemorative ceremony, doing away with altar-lights, crucifixes, and set prayers, and governing themselves by synodsof priests or presbyters. In the eighteenth century Presbyterianism wasstill the established religion of Scotland, and of the DutchNetherlands. In France the Huguenots, in Switzerland the French-speaking Calvinists and German-speaking Zwinglians, and numerouscongregations in southern Germany still represented the Reformed Churchof Calvin and Zwingli. [Footnote: For the Orthodox Church in Russia, see above, pp. 122, 372, 380. Some reforms in the ritual had beenintroduced by a certain Nikon, a patriarch of the seventeenth century. ] [Sidenote: Growth of Skepticism. Deism] One of the most noteworthy features of the eighteenth century was theappearance of a large number of doubters of Christianity. In thecomparatively long history of the Christian Church, there had oftenbeen reformers, who attacked specific doctrines or abuses, but neverbefore, with the possible exception of Italian humanists of thefifteenth century, [Footnote: See above, pp. 124, 182 ff. ] had therebeen such a considerable and influential number who ventured to assailthe very foundations of the Christian belief. During the last quarterof the seventeenth century, a number of English philosophers, imbuedwith enthusiasm for the discovery of scientific laws, went on to applythe newer scientific methods to religion. They claimed that the Biblewas untrustworthy, that the dogmas and ceremonies of the churches wereuseless if not actually harmful, and that true religion was quitenatural in man and independent of miraculous revelation. God, theyasserted, had created the universe and established laws for it. Hewould not upset these laws to answer the foolish prayers of a punyhuman being. Men served God best by discounting miracles, discrediting"superstition, " and living in accordance with natural law. Just whatthis law was, they left largely to the common sense of each man todetermine. As a result, the positive side of Deism, as the body of thenew teachings was called, was lost in vagueness, and the negative side--the mere denial of orthodox Christianity--became uppermost in men'sminds. Deism was important in several ways, especially for France, whence itwas carried from England. (1) For a large part of the most intelligentand influential classes, it _destroyed reverence_ for the Church, and prepared the way for the religious experiments of the FrenchRevolution. (2) It gave an impetus to _philosophers_ who evolvedgreat systems and exhibited wonderful ingenuity and confidence informulating laws which would explain the why, what, whence, and whitherof human life. (3) While casting doubt on the efficacy of particularreligions, it demanded _toleration_ for all. (4) Finally, it wasresponsible for a great increase of _indifference_ to religion. People too lazy or too ignorant to understand the philosophic basis ofDeism, used the arguments of Deists in justification of their contemptfor religion, and to many people disbelief and intelligence seemed tobe synonymous. We have considered Deism here for its significantbearing on the religious situation in the eighteenth century. In thefollowing section we shall see how it was part and parcel of thescientific and intellectual spirit of the times. SCIENTIFIC AND INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY [Sidenote: Art] As we have observed in an earlier chapter, both science and artflowered in the sixteenth century. The great men of the eighteenthcentury, however, devoted themselves almost exclusively to science; andthe artists of the time were too insincere, too intent upon pleasingshallow-brained and frivolous courtiers, to produce much that was worthwhile. Great numbers of plays were written, it is true, but they werehopelessly dull imitations of classic models. Imitative and uninspiredlikewise were statues and paintings and poems. One merit theypossessed. If a French painter lacked force and originality, he couldat least portray with elegance and charm a group of fine ladies anglingin an artificial pool. Elegance, indeed, redeemed the eighteenthcentury from imitative dullness and stupid ostentation: eleganceexpressed more often in perfumes, laces, and mahogany than in paint ormarble. The silk-stockinged courtier accompanying his exquisitelyperfect bow with a nicely worded compliment was surely as much anartist as the sculptor. Nor can one help feeling that the chairs ofLouis XV were made not to sit in, but to admire; for their curvingmahogany legs look too slenderly delicate, their carved and gildedbacks too uncomfortable, for mere use. Chairs and fine gentlemen werealike useless, and alike elegant. [Sidenote: The New Science] More substantial were the achievements of eighteenth-centuryscientists. From philosophers of an earlier century--Francis Bacon(1561-1626) and Rene Descartes (1596-1650)--they learned to questioneverything, to seek new knowledge by actual experiment, to thinkboldly. You must not blindly believe in God, they said, you must firstprove His existence. Or, if you will learn how the body is made, itwill not do to believe what Hippocrates or any other Greek authoritysaid about it; you must cut rabbits open and see with your own eyeswhere heart and lungs are hidden beneath the coat of fur. Seeing andthinking for oneself were the twin principles of the new scientificmethod. [Sidenote: Isaac Newton] The new science found many able exponents in the seventeenth andeighteenth centuries, and of them all Sir Isaac Newton (1646-1727) wasprobably the most illustrious. Coming from a humble family in a littleEnglish village, Newton at an early age gave evidence of uncommonintelligence. At Cambridge University he astonished his professors andshowed such great skill in mathematics that he was given a professor'schair when only twenty-three years old. For Descartes, Newton conceived great admiration, and, like Descartes, he applied himself to experimentation as well as to formal mathematics. His boyish ingenuity in the construction of windmills, kites, andwater-clocks was now turned to more serious ends. Like other scientistsof the day, he experimented with chemicals in his laboratory, and trieddifferent combinations of lenses, prisms, and reflectors, until he wasable to design a great telescope with which to observe the stars. His greatest achievement was in astronomy. Galileo, Copernicus, andother investigators had already concluded that the earth is but one ofmany similar bodies moving around the sun, which in turn is only one ofcountless suns--for every star is a sun. Now Newton wondered what heldthese mighty spheres in their places in space, for they appeared tomove in definite and well-regulated orbits without any visible supportor prop. It is alleged that the answer to the problem was suggested bythe great philosopher's observation of a falling apple. The sameinvisible force that made the apple fall to the ground must, he is saidto have reasoned, control the moon, sun, and stars. The earth is pulledtoward the sun, as the apple to the earth, but it is also pulled towardthe stars, each of which is a sun so far away that it looks to us verysmall. The result is that the earth neither falls to the sun nor to anyone star, but moves around the sun in a regular path. This suggestive principle by which every body in the universe is pulledtowards every other body, Newton called the law of universalgravitation. Newton's law [Footnote: It was really only a shrewd guess, but it appears to work so well that we often call it a "law. "] wasexpressed in a simple mathematical formula [Footnote: "The forceincreases directly in proportion to the product of the masses, andinversely in proportion to the square of the distance. "] by means ofwhich physics and astronomy were developed as mathematical sciences. When a modern astronomer foretells an eclipse of the sun or discussesthe course of a comet, or when a physicist informs us that he hasweighed the earth, he is depending directly or indirectly upon Newton'sdiscovery. [Sidenote: Experimental and Applied Science] The brilliance of Sir Isaac Newton's individual achievement should notobscure the fame of a host of other justly celebrated scientists andinventors. One of Newton's contemporaries, the German philosopherGottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz (1646-1716), elaborated a new andvaluable branch of mathematics, the differential calculus, [Footnote:The credit for this achievement was also claimed by Newton. ] which hasproved to be of immense service in modern engineering. At the sametime, the first experiments were being made with the mysteriouspotencies of electricity: the electrical researches of BenjaminFranklin (1706-1790), his discovery that flashes of lightning aremerely electrical phenomena and his invention of the lightning rod aretoo familiar to need repeating; the work of Luigi Galvani (1737-1798)and of Count Alessandro Volta (1745-1827), two famous Italianphysicists, is less well known, but their labors contributed much tothe development of physical science, and their memory is perpetuatedwhenever the modern electrician refers to a "voltaic cell" or when thetinsmith speaks of "galvanized" iron. In this same period, the firstimportant advances were made in the construction of balloons, and theconquest of the air was begun. In the eighteenth century, moreover, thefoundations of modern chemistry were laid by Joseph Priestley (1733-1804), Antoine Laurent Lavoisier (1743-1794), and Henry Cavendish(1731-1810); oxygen was discovered, water was decomposed into itselements, and the nomenclature of modern chemistry had its inception. In medicine and surgery, too, pioneer work was done by John Hunter(1728-1793), a noted Scotch surgeon and anatomist, and by the Swissprofessor Albrecht von Haller (1708-1777), the "father of modernphysiology"; the facts which eighteenth-century physicians discoveredregarding the circulation of the blood made possible more intelligentand more effective methods of treating disease; and just at the closeof the eighteenth century, Edward Jenner (1749-1823), an Englishphysician, demonstrated that the dread disease of smallpox could beprevented by vaccination. Geographical knowledge was vastly extended bythe voyages of scientific explorers, like the English navigator CaptainJames Cook [Footnote: The Captain Cook who discovered, or rediscovered, Australia. See above, P. 340. ] (1728-1779) and the French sailor Louisde Bougainville (1739-1811), in the hitherto uncharted expanses of thesouthern Pacific. Furthermore, since these explorers frequently broughthome specimens of unfamiliar tropical animals and plants, rich materialwas provided for zoology and botany, which, thanks to the efforts ofthe Frenchman Georges de Buffon (1707-1788) and of the Swede CarolusLinnaeus (1707-1778), were just becoming important sciences. [Sidenote: Popularity of the New Science] One reason for the rapid development of natural science in theeighteenth century was the unprecedented popularity and favor enjoyedby scientists. Kings granted large pensions to scientists; Britishministers bestowed remunerative offices, and petty princes showeredvaluable gifts upon them. Pretentious observatories with ponderoustelescopes were built, often at public expense, in almost every countryof Europe. Groups of learned men were everywhere banded together in"academies" or "societies. " The "Royal Society" of London, founded in1662, listened to reports of the latest achievements in mathematics, astronomy, and physics. The members of the _Academie francaise(French Academy) were granted pensions by Louis XIV and even reckonedNewton among their honorary members. Never before had there been such interest in science, and never beforehad there been such opportunity to learn. Printing was now welldeveloped; the learned societies and observatories published reports ofthe latest development in all branches of knowledge. Encyclopedias weregotten out professing to embody in one set of volumes the latestinformation relative to all the new sciences. Books were too expensivefor the common person, but not so for the bourgeoisie, nor for numerousnobles. Indeed, it became quite the fashion in society to be a"savant, " a scientist, a philosopher, to dabble in chemistry, perhapseven to have a little laboratory or a telescope, and to dazzle one'sfriends with one's knowledge. [Sidenote: The Spirit of Progress and Reform] It seemed as if the golden age was dawning: the human mind seemed to beawakening from the slumber of centuries to con the world, to unravelthe mysteries of life, and to discover the secrets of the universe. Confident that only a little thought would be necessary to free theworld from vice, ignorance, and superstition, thinkers now turnedboldly to attack the vexing problems of religion and morality, tocriticize state, society, and church, and to point the way to a new andearthly paradise. This tendency--this enthusiasm--has usually been styled "rationalism"because its champions sought to make everything _rational_ orreasonable. Its foremost representatives were to be found in GreatBritain between 1675 and 1725. They wrote many books discussingabstruse problems of philosophy, which can have slight interest for us;but certain ideas they had of very practical importance, ideas whichprobably found their most notable expression in the writings of JohnLocke (1632-1704). Locke argued (1) that all government exists, orshould exist, by consent of the governed--by a "social" contract, as itwere; (2) that education should be more widespread; (3) thatsuperstition and religious formalism should not be allowed to obscure"natural laws" and "natural religion"; and (4) that religioustoleration should be granted to all but atheists. The ideas of these English philosophers were destined to exercise a fargreater influence upon France than upon England. They found delightedadmirers among the nobility, ardent disciples among the bourgeoisie, and eloquent apostles in Voltaire, Diderot, and Rousseau. Without a doubt, the foremost figure in the intellectual world of theeighteenth century was Francois Marie Arouet, or, as he called himself, Francois M. A. De Voltaire (1694-1778). Even from his boyhood he hadbeen a clever hand at turning verses, and had fully appreciated his owncleverness. His businesslike father did not enjoy the boy's poetry, especially if it was written when young Francois should have beenstudying law. But Francois had a mind of his own; he liked to show hiscleverness in gay society and relished making witty rhymes about thefoibles of public ministers or the stupidity of the prince regent ofFrance. His sharp tongue and sarcastic pen were a source of constant danger toVoltaire. For libel the regent had him imprisoned a year in theBastille. Some years later he was beaten by the lackeys of an offendednobleman, again sent to the Bastille, and then exiled three years inEngland. At times he was the idol of Paris, applauded by _philosophes_ andpetted by the court, or again he would be a refugee from the wrath ofoutraged authorities. For a great part of his life he resided at Cireyin Lorraine, --with his mistress, his books, his half-finished plays, and his laboratory--for Voltaire, like all _philosophes_, had toplay at science. Here he lived in constant readiness to flee over theborder if the king should move against him. For a time he lived inGermany as the protege of Frederick the Great, but he treated thatirascible monarch with neither tact nor deference, and soon left Berlinto escape the king's ire. He visited Catherine the Great of Russia. Healso lived at Geneva for a while, but even there he failed to keeppeace with the magistrates. Such conflicts with established authority only increased his fame. Moreover, his three years' exile in England (1726-1729) had been ofuntold value, for they had given him a first-hand acquaintance withEnglish rationalism. He had been brought up to discount religious"superstition" but the English thinkers provided him with a well-considered philosophy. Full of enthusiasm for the ideas of his Englishfriends, he wrote _Letters on the English_--a triumph of deisticphilosophy and sarcastic criticism of church and society. The opinions which Voltaire henceforth never ceased to expound had longbeen held by English rationalists. He combined (1) admiration forexperimental science with (2) an exalted opinion of his own ability toreason out the "natural laws" which were supposed to lie at the base ofhuman nature, religion, society, the state, and the universe ingeneral. (3) He was a typical Deist, thinking that the God who had madethe myriad stars of the firmament and who had promulgated eternal lawsfor the universe, would hardly concern Himself with the soul of Pierreor Jean. To him all priests were impostors, and sacraments meaninglessmummery, and yet he would not abolish religion entirely. Voltaire oftensaid that he believed in a "natural religion, " but never explained itfully. Indeed, he was far more interested in tearing down than inbuilding up, and disposed rather to scoff at the priests, teachings, and practices of the Catholic Church than to convert men to a betterreligion. (4) Likewise in his criticism of government and of society, he confined himself mostly to bitter denunciations of contemporaneousconditions, without offering a substitute or suggesting practicalreforms. His nearest approach to the practical was his admiration forEnglish institutions, but he never explained how the "liberties" ofEngland were to be transplanted into France. Voltaire was not an acutely original thinker. Nevertheless, hisinnumerable tragedies, comedies, histories, essays, and lettersestablished his reputation as the most versatile and accomplishedwriter of his age. But all the "hundred volumes" of Voltaire are rarelyread today. They are clever, to be sure, witty, graceful, --butadmittedly superficial. He thought that he could understand at a glancethe problems upon which more earnest men had spent their lives; hewould hurriedly dash off a tragedy, or in spare moments write apretentious history. He was not always accurate but he was alwaysclever. Let us remember him as, at the age of eighty-four, he pays a famousvisit to Paris, --a sprightly old man with wrinkled face, and with sharpold eyes peering out from either side of the long nose, beaming withpride at the flattery of his admirers, sparkling with pleasure as hemakes a witty repartee. The ladies call him a most amusing old cynic. Cynic he is, and old. His life work has been scoffing. Yet Voltaire isunquestionably the intellectual dictator of Europe. His genius forsatire and his fearless attacks on long-standing abuses have made himhated, and feared, and admired. He has given tone and character to theOld Regime. [Sidenote: Diderot and the Encyclopedists] Voltaire was not alone in the work of spreading discontent. Less famousbut hardly less brilliant or versatile, was Denis Diderot (1713-1784). His great achievement was the editing of the _Encyclopedia_. Thegathering of all human knowledge into one set of volumes--anencyclopedia--had been for generations a favorite idea in Europe. Diderot associated with himself the most distinguished mathematicians, astronomers, scientists, and philosophers of the time in thecompilation of a work which in seventeen volumes [Footnote: Notcounting pictorial supplements. ] undertook to summarize the latestfindings of the scholarship of the age. Over four thousand copies hadbeen subscribed when the _Encyclopedia_ appeared in 1765. Itproved to be more than a monument of learning: it was a manifesto ofradicalism. Its contributors were the apostles of rationalism anddeism, [Footnote: Some went even further and practically denied theexistence of God. ] and their criticism of current ideas about religion, society, and science won many disciples to the new ideas. The mission of Voltaire and the Encyclopedists (as the editors of the_Encyclopedia_ are called) was to disseminate knowledge and todestroy prejudice, especially in religion. Practical specific reformswere suggested by Montesquieu, Rousseau, Beccaria, and Adam Smith. [Sidenote: Montesquieu] Montesquieu (1689-1755), a French lawyer-nobleman, a student of naturalscience, and an admirer of Newton, was the foremost writer of theeighteenth century on the practice of government. In his _PersianLetters_, and more especially in _The Spirit of the Laws_(1748), he argued that government is a complicated matter and, to besuccessful, must be adapted to the peculiarities of a particularpeople. Theoretically he preferred a republic, and the Constitution ofthe United States consciously embodied many of his theories. Practically, he considered the government of Great Britain veryadmirable, and although it sheltered many abuses, as we shall presentlysee, [Footnote: See below, pp. 432 ff. ] nevertheless he urged theFrench to pattern their political organization after it. Moderation wasthe motto of Montesquieu. [Sidenote: Rousseau] A more radical reformer was Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). In hislife Rousseau was everything he should not have been. He was a failureas footman, as servant, as tutor, as secretary, as music copier, aslace maker. He wandered in Turin, Paris, Vienna, London. His immoralitywas notorious, --he was not faithful in love, and his children were sentto a foundling asylum. He was poverty-stricken, dishonest, discontented, and, in his last years, demented. Yet this man, who knew so little how to live his own life, exercised awonderful influence over the lives of others. Sordid as was his career, the man himself was not without beautiful and generous impulses. Heloved nature in an age when other men simply studied nature. He likedto look at the clear blue sky, or to admire the soft green fields andshapely trees, and he was not ashamed to confess it. The emotions hadbeen forgotten while philosophers were praising the intellect: Rousseaureminded the eighteenth century that after all it may be as sane toenjoy a sunset as to solve a problem in algebra. Rousseau possessed thesoul of a poet. To him right feeling was as important as right thinking, and in thisrespect he quarreled with the rationalists who claimed that commonsense alone was worth while. Rousseau was a Deist--at most he believedbut vaguely in a "Being, whatever He may be, Who moves the universe andorders all things. " But he detested the cold reasoning of philosopherswho conceived of God as too much interested in watching the countlessstars obey His eternal laws, to stoop to help puny mortals with theirpetty affairs. "0 great philosophers!" cried Rousseau, "How much God isobliged to you for your easy methods and for sparing Him work. " Andagain Rousseau warns us to "flee from those [Voltaire and his like]who, under the pretense of explaining nature, sow desolating doctrinesin the hearts of men, and whose apparent skepticism is a hundred timesmore . .. Dogmatic" than the teachings of priests. Rousseau was not anorthodox Christian, nor a calmly rational Deist; he simply felt that"to love God above all things, and your neighbor as yourself, is thesum of the law. " This he reproached the philosophers with not doing. Rousseau had seenand felt the bitter suffering of the poor, and he had perceived thecynical indifference with which educated men often regarded it. Scienceand learning seemed to have made men only more selfish. Indeed, theignorant peasant seemed to him humbler and more virtuous than thepompous pedant. In a passionate protest--his _Discourse on Arts andSciences_ (1749)--Rousseau denounced learning as the badge ofselfishness and corruption, for it was used to gratify the pride andchildish curiosity of the rich, rather than to right the wrongs of thepoor. In fact, it were better, he contended, that all men should be savages, than that a few of the most cunning, cruel, and greedy should makeslaves of the rest. His love of nature, his contempt for the sillyshowiness and shallow hypocrisy of eighteenth-century society, made theidea a favorite one. He loved to dream of the times [Footnote: It mustbe confessed that here Rousseau was dreaming of times that probablynever existed. ] when men were all free and equal, when nobody claimedto own the land which God had made for all, when there were no wars tokill, no taxes to oppress, no philosophers to deceive the people. In an essay inquiring _What is the Origin of Inequality among Men_(1753), Rousseau sought to show how vanity, greed, and selfishness hadfound lodgment in the hearts of these "simple savages, " how thestrongest had fenced off plots of land for themselves and forced theweak to acknowledge the right of private property. This, said Rousseau, was the real origin of inequality among men, of the tyranny of thestrong over the weak; and this law of private property "for the profitof a few ambitious men, subjected thenceforth all the human race tolabor, servitude, and misery. " The idea was applied to government in a treatise entitled the _SocialContract_ (1761). The "social-contract" theory was not new, butRousseau made it famous. He taught that government, law, and socialconventions were the outcome of an agreement or contract by which atthe misty dawn of history all members of the state had voluntarilybound themselves. All governments exercised their power in lastanalysis by virtue of this social contract, by will of the people. Laws, therefore, should be submitted to popular vote. The republic isthe best form of government, because it is the most sensitive to thedesires of the people. This idea of "popular sovereignty, " or rule ofthe people, was in men's minds when they set up a republic in Francefourteen years after the death of Rousseau. Rousseau's cry, "Back to nature, " had still another aspect. He saidthat children should be allowed to follow their natural inclinations, instead of being driven to study. They should learn practical, usefulthings, instead of Latin and Greek. "Let them learn what they must dowhen they are men, and not what they must forget. " It is hard to fix limits to the influence of Rousseau's writings. True, both the orthodox Catholics and the philosophical Deists condemned him. But his followers were many, both bourgeois and noble. "Back to nature"became the fad of the day, and court ladies pretended to live a"natural" life and to go fishing. His theory of the social contract, his contention that wealth should not be divided among a few, his ideathat the people should rule themselves, --these were to be theinspiration of the republican stage of the French Revolution, and intime to permeate all Europe. [Sidenote: Beccaria] The spirit of reform was applied not only against the clergy, thenobles, the monarchy, and faulty systems of law and education, butlikewise to the administration of justice. Hitherto the most barbarous"punishments" had been meted out. A pickpocket might be hung forstealing a couple of shillings [Footnote: In England. ]; for a moreserious offense the criminal might have his bones broken and then belaid on his back on a cart-wheel, to die in agony while crowds lookedon and jeered. In a book entitled _Crimes and Punishments_ (1764), an Italian marquis of the name of Beccaria (1738-1794) held that suchpunishments were not only brutal and barbarous, but did not serve toprevent crimes as effectually as milder sentences, promptly and surelyadministered. Beccaria's ideas are the basis of our modern laws, although the death penalty still lingers in a few cases. [Sidenote: Political Economy: the Physiocrats] In yet another sphere--that of economics--philosophers were examiningthe old order of things, and asking, as ever, "Is it reasonable?" As wehave repeatedly observed, most governments had long followed themercantilist plan more or less consistently. But in the eighteenthcentury, Francois Quesnay, a bourgeois physician at the court of LouisXV, announced to his friends that mercantilism was all wrong. He becamethe center of a little group of philosophers who called themselves"economists, " and who taught that a nation's wealth comes from farmingand mining; that manufacturers and traders produce nothing new, butmerely exchange or transport commodities. The manufacturers andmerchants should therefore be untaxed and unhampered. _Laissez-faire_--"Let them do as they will. " Let the farmers pay the taxes. The foremost disciple of _laisser-faire_ in France was Turgot(1727-1781). As minister of finance under Louis XVI he attempted toabolish duties and restrictions on commerce, but his efforts were onlypartially successful. [Sidenote: Adam Smith] Meanwhile, a Scotchman, who had visited France and had known Quesnay, was conveying the new ideas across the Channel. It was Adam Smith, the"father of political economy. " Smith was quite in harmony with thephilosophic spirit, with its "natural rights, " "natural religion, " and"natural laws. " He was a professor of "moral philosophy" in theUniversity of Glasgow, and as an incident of his philosophicalspeculations, he thought out a system of political economy, _i. E. _, the "laws" by which a nation might increase its wealth, onthe lines suggested by Quesnay. Adam Smith's famous book _The Wealthof Nations_ appeared in 1776, the year of American independence. Itwas a declaration of independence for industry. Let each man, eachemployer of labor, each seller of merchandise follow his own personalbusiness interests without let or hindrance, for in so doing he is "ledby an invisible hand" to promote the good of all. Let the governmentabolish all monopolies, [Footnote: He was somewhat inconsistent inapproving joint-stock monopolies and shipping regulations. ] allrestrictions on trade, all customs duties, all burdens on industry. Thus only can the true wealth of a nation be promoted. Smith's opinions were so plausible and his arguments so ingenious thathis doctrines steadily gained in influence, and in the first half ofthe nineteenth century pretty generally triumphed. In actual practicethe abolition of restrictions on industry was destined to give freerein to the avarice and cruelty of the most selfish employers, toenrich the bourgeoisie, and to leave the lower classes more miserablethan ever. The "Wealth of Nations" was to be the wealth of thebourgeoisie. But meanwhile, it was to destroy mercantilism. [Sidenote: Conclusion] We have now completed our survey of the social, religious, andintellectual conditions in the Europe of the eighteenth century. Beforeour eyes have passed poverty-stricken peasants plowing their fields, prosperous merchants who demand power, frivolous nobles squanderingtheir lives and fortunes, worldly bishops neglecting their duties, humble priests remaining faithful, sober Quakers refusing to fight, earnest astronomers who search the skies, sarcastic Deists who scoff atpriests, and bourgeois philosophers who urge reform. The procession isnot quite done. Last of all come the kings in their royal ermine andministers in robes of state. To them we dedicate a new chapter. It willbe the last occasion on which kings will merit such detailed attention. ADDITIONAL READING GENERAL SOCIAL CONDITIONS IN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY EUROPE. Brief outlines:J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard, _The Development of Modern Europe_, Vol. I (1907), ch. Viii, ix; H. E. Bourne, _The Revolutionary Period inEurope, 1763-1815_ (1914), ch. I, iii; Clive Day, _History of Commerce_(1907). More detailed accounts: _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. VI;and _Histoire generale_, Vol. VII, ch. Xiii-xvii. The most scholarlyand exhaustive study of social conditions is that of Maxime Kovalevsky, _Die oekonomische Entwicklung Europas bis zum Beginn derkapitalistischen Wirtschaftsform_, trans. Into German from Russian byLeo Motzkin, 7 vols. (1901-1914), especially Vols. VI, VII. FRENCH SOCIETY ON THE EVE OF THE REVOLUTION. Shailer Mathews, _TheFrench Revolution_ (reprint, 1912), ch. I-v, a clear summary; E. J. Lowell, _The Eve of the French Revolution_ (1892), probably the bestintroduction in English; Alexis de Tocqueville, _The State of Societyin France before the Revolution of 1789_, Eng. Trans. By Henry Reeve, 3d ed. (1888), a brilliant and justly famous work; H. A. Taine, _TheAncient Regime_, Eng. Trans. By John Durand, new rev. Ed. (1896), another very celebrated work, better on the literary and philosophicalaspects of the Old Regime than on the economic; Albert Sorel, _L'Europeet la Revolution francaise, Vol. I (1885) of this monumental history isan able presentation of French social conditions in the eighteenthcentury; Arthur Young, _Travels in France, 1787, 1788, and 1789_, valuable observations of a contemporary English gentleman-farmer onconditions in France, published in several editions, notably in theBohn Library. Detailed treatises in French: _Histoire de France_, Vol. IX, Part I (1910), _Regne de Louis XVI, 1774-1789_, by H. Carre, P. Sagnac, and E. Lavisse, especially livres III, IV; Emile Levasseur, _Histoire des classes ouvrieres et de l'industrie en France avant1789_, Vol. II (1901), livre VII; Maxime Kovalevsky, _La Franceeconomique et sociale a la veille de la Revolution_, 2 vols. (1909-1911), an admirable study of common life both rural and urban; Georgesd'Avenel, _Histoire economique de la propriete, des salaires, etc. , 1200-1800_, 6 vols. (1894-1912), elaborate treatments of such topics asmoney, land, salaries, the wealthy and bourgeois classes, the growth ofprivate expenses, etc. ; Albert Babeau's careful monographs on manyphases of the Old Regime, such as _Les voyageurs en France_ (1885), _Laville_ (1884), _La vie rurale_ (1885), _Les artisans et lesdomestiques_ (1886), _Les bourgeois_ (1886), _La vie militaire_, 2vols. (1890), _Le village_ (1891), _La province_, 2 vols. (1894);Nicolas Kareiev, _Les paysans et la question paysanne en France dans ledernier quart du XVIIIe siecle_, Fr. Trans. (1899); Edme Champion, _LaFrance d'apres les cahiers de 1789_ (1897). Also see books listed underTHE FRENCH MONARCHY, 1743-1789, p. 463, below. ENGLISH SOCIETY IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. Brief surveys: A. L. Cross, _History of England and Greater Britain_ (1914), ch. Xliv; G. T. Warner, _Landmarks in English Industrial History_, 11th ed. (1912), ch. Xiv; H. De B. Gibbins, _Industry in England_, 6th ed. (1910), ch. Xvii-xx; G. H. Perris, _The Industrial History of Modern England_ (1914), ch. I. Fuller treatments: H. D. Traill and J. S. Mann (editors), _Social England_, illus. Ed. , 6 vols. In 12 (1909), ch. Xvi-xviii; W. G. Sydney, _England and the English in the Eighteenth Century_, 2 vols. (1891); E. S. Roscoe, _The English Scene in the Eighteenth Century_(1912); Sir H. T. Wood, _Industrial England in the Middle of theEighteenth Century_ (1910); Sidney and Beatrice Webb, _English LocalGovernment from the Revolution to the Municipal Corporations Act, 1688-1835, The Manor and the Borough_, 2 parts (1908), and _The Story of theKing's Highway_ (1913); W. E. H. Lecky, _A History of England in theEighteenth Century_, London ed. , 7 vols. (1907), particularly full onsocial and intellectual conditions. Special studies and monographs: A. Andreades, _History of the Bank of England_, Eng. Trans. By ChristabelMeredith (1909), an authoritative review by a Greek scholar; Sir WalterBesant, _London in the Eighteenth Century_ (1903), charmingly writtenbut not always trustworthy; J. L. And B. Hammond, _The VillageLabourer, 1760-1832_ (1911); J. E. Thorold Rogers, _History ofAgriculture and Prices in England_, 7 vols. (1866-1902), a monumentalwork, of which Vol. VII deals with the eighteenth century; R. E. Prothero, _English Farming Past and Present_ (1912); E. C. K. Gonner, _Common Land and Inclosure_ (1912); A. H. Johnson, _The Disappearanceof the Small Landowner_ (1909); Wilhelm Hasbach, _A History of theEnglish Agricultural Labourer_, new ed. Trans. Into English by RuthKenyon (1908); R. M. Gamier, _History of the English Landed Interest, its Customs, Laws and Agriculture_, 2 vols. (1892-1893), and, by thesame author, _Annals of the British Peasantry_ (1895). For interestingcontemporary accounts of English agriculture in the eighteenth century, see the journals of Arthur Young, _A Six Weeks' Tour through theSouthern Counties_ (1768), _A Six Months' Tour through the North ofEngland_, 4 vols. (1791), and _The Farmer's Tour through the East ofEngland_, 4 vols. (1791). Also see books listed under THE BRITISHMONARCHY, 1760-1800, pp. 461 f. , below. SPECIAL STUDIES OF SOCIAL CONDITIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES. For Scotland:H. G. Graham, _Social Life in Scotland in the Eighteenth Century_, 2 vols. (1900). For Hungary: Henry Marczali, _Hungary in theEighteenth Century_ (1910). For Russia: James Mavor, _An EconomicHistory of Russia_, Vol. I (1914), Book II, ch. I-iv. For Spain:Georges Desdevises du Dezert, _L'Espagne de l'ancien regime_, 3vols. (1897-1904). For the Germanies: Karl Biedermann, _Deutschlandim achtsehnten Jahrhundert_, 2 vols. In 3 (1867-1880). ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. The general historiesof Christianity, cited in the bibliography to Chapter IV, above, shouldbe consulted. Additional information can be gathered from thefollowing. On the Catholic Church: William Barry, _The Papacy andModern Times_ (1911), ch. V; _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. V (1908), ch. Iv, on Gallicanism and Jansenism, by Viscount St. Cyres, a vigorousopponent of Ultramontanism; _Histoire generale_, Vol. VI, ch. Vi, andVol. VII, ch. Xvii, both by Emile Chenon; Joseph de Maistre, _Du pape_, 24th ed. (1876), and _De l'eglise gallicane_, most celebratedtreatments of Gallicanism from the standpoint of an Ultramontane andorthodox Roman Catholic; C. A. Sainte-Beuve, _Port-Royal_, 2d ed. , 5vols. (1860), the best literary account of Jansenism; R. B. C. Graham, _A Vanished Arcadia: being some account of the Jesuits in Paraguay, 1607 to 1767_ (1901); Paul de Crousaz-Cretet, _L'eglise et l'etat, oules deux puissances au XVIIIe siecle, 1713-1789_ (1893), on therelations of church and state; Leon Mention, _Documents relatifs auxrapports du clerge avec la royaute de 1682 a 1789_, 2 vols. (1893-1903), containing many important documents. On Protestantism inEngland: H. O. Wakeman, _An Introduction to the History of the Churchof England_, 5th ed. (1898), ch. Xviii, xix; J. H. Overton and FredericRelton, _A History of the Church of England, 1714-1800_ (1906), beingVol. VII of a comprehensive work ed. By W. R. W. Stephens and WilliamHunt; John Stoughton, _Religion under Queen Anne and the Georges, 1702-1800_, 2 vols. (1878); H. W. Clark, _History of English Nonconformity_, 2 vols. (1911-1913), especially Vol. II, Book IV, ch. I, ii, onMethodism; W. C. Braithwaite, _The Beginnings of Quakerism_ (1912); F. J. Snell, _Wesley and Methodism_ (1900); and T. E. Thorpe, _JosephPriestley_ (1906). DEISM AND THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. V, ch. Xxiii, and Vol. VIII, ch. I;_Histoire generale_, Vol. VI, ch. X, and Vol. VII, ch. Xv, twoexcellent chapters on natural science, 1648-1788, by Paul Tannery; SirOliver Lodge, _Pioneers of Science_ (1893); Sir Leslie Stephen, _History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century_, 3d ed. , 2 vols. (1902), an interesting account of the English Deists and of the newpolitical and economic theorists, and, by the same author, _EnglishLiterature and Society in the Eighteenth Century_ (1909); Edmund Gosse, _A History of Eighteenth Century Literature, 1660-1780_ (1911); J. M. Robertson, _A Short History of Free Thought_, 3d rev. Ed. , 2 vols. (1915), a sympathetic treatment of deism and rationalism; C. S. Devas, _The Key to the World's Progress_ (1906), suggestive criticism of thethought of the eighteenth century from the standpoint of a well-informed Roman Catholic. On the most celebrated French philosophers ofthe time, see the entertaining and enthusiastic biographies by John(Viscount) Morley, _Rousseau_, 2 vols. (1873), _Diderot and theEncyclopaedists_, 2 vols. (1891), _Voltaire_ (1903), and the essays onTurgot, etc. , scattered throughout his _Critical Miscellanies_, 4 vols. (1892-1908). There is a convenient little biography of _Montesquieu_ byAlbert Sorel, Eng. Trans. By Gustave Masson (1887), and usefulmonographs by J. C. Collins, _Bolingbroke, a Historical Study; andVoltaire in England_ (1886). Such epochal works as Montesquieu's_Spirit of the Laws_, Voltaire's _Letters on the English_ and_Philosophical Dictionary_, and Rousseau's _Social Contract_ and_Emile_, are readily procurable in English. On the rise of politicaleconomy: Henry Higgs, _The Physiocrats_ (1897); Charles Gide andCharles Rist, _A History of Economic Doctrines from the Time of thePhysiocrats_, Eng. Trans. (1915), Book I, ch. I, ii; L. L. Price, _AShort History of Political Economy in England from Adam Smith to ArnoldToynbee_, 7th ed. (1911); R. B. (Viscount) Haldane, _Life of AdamSmith_ (1887) in the "Great Writers" Series; John Rae, _Life of AdamSmith_ (1895), containing copious extracts from Smith's letters andpapers; Georges Weulersse, _Le mouvement physiocratique en France de1756 a 1770_, 2 vols. (1910), scholarly and elaborate. There is a two-volume edition of Adam Smith's _Wealth of Nations_ (1910) in"Everyman's Library, " with an admirable introductory essay by E. R. A. Seligman. CHAPTER XIV EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY [Sidenote: General] In the foregoing chapter we have seen how the social structure of theeighteenth century rested on injustice, poverty, and suffering; we havelistened to the complaints of the bourgeoisie and to their demands forreform. Philosophers might plead for reform, but only the king couldgrant it. For in him were vested all powers of government: he was theabsolute monarch. Such was the situation in virtually every important country in Europe. In Great Britain alone were the people even reputed to have a share inthe government, and to Great Britain the Voltaires and the Montesquieusof the Continent turned for a model in politics. Let us join them inconsidering the peculiar organization of the British monarchy, and thenwe shall observe how the other governments of Europe met the demand forreform. THE BRITISH MONARCHY [Sidenote: England. Scotland] In the eighteenth century, what was the British monarchy? It was, firstof all, the government of England (which included Wales). Secondly, itembraced Scotland, for since 1603 Scotland and England had been subjectto the same king, and in 1707 by the Act of Union the two kingdoms hadbeen united to form the monarchy of "Great Britain, " with a common kingand a common Parliament. [Sidenote: Great Britain] The British monarchy was properly, then, the government of unitedEngland (Wales) and Scotland. But in addition the crown had numeroussubordinate possessions: the royal colonies, [Footnote: The royalcolonies were, in 1800: Newfoundland (1583), Barbados (1605), Bermudas(1609), Gambia (c. 1618), St. Christopher (1623), Nevis (1628), Montserrat (1632), Antigua (1632), Honduras (1638), St. Lucia (1638), Gold Coast (c. 1650), St. Helena (1651), Jamaica (1655), Bahamas(1666), Virgin Islands (1666), Gibraltar (1704), Hudson Bay Territory(1713), Nova Scotia (1713), New Brunswick (1713), Quebec, Ontario, andPrince Edward Island (1763), Dominica (17633), St. Vincent (1763), Grenada (1763), Tobago (1763), Falkland (1765), Pitcairn (1780), Straits Settlements (1786 ff. ), Sierra Leone (1787), New South Wales(1788), Ceylon (1795), Trinidad (1797), and, under the East IndiaCompany, Madras (1639), Bombay (1661), and Bengal (1633-1765). ] andIreland. For these dependencies the home government appointedgovernors, made laws, and levied taxes, in theory at least; but theywere possessions rather than integral parts of the monarchy. [Sidenote: Ireland] A few words should be said in explanation of the political status ofIreland under the British crown. The English kings had begun theirconquests in that island as far back as the twelfth century; and bydint of much bloodshed and many efforts they had long maintainedpossession. In the seventeenth century Oliver Cromwell had put down abitter revolt and had encouraged Protestant English and Scotchimmigrants to settle in the north and east, taking the land from thenative Irishmen, who were Roman Catholics. An Irish parliament hadexisted since the middle ages, but from the close of the fifteenthcentury its acts to be valid required the approval of the English PrivyCouncil, and from the middle of the seventeenth century Roman Catholicswere debarred from it. In 1782, however, while Great Britain wasengaged in the War of American Independence, the Protestants in Irelandsecured the right to make most of their own laws, and ten years laterthe Catholic disqualifications were removed. From 1782 to 1801, Irelandretained this half-way independence; but a Protestant minority actuallycontrolled the Irish Parliament, incurring the dislike of the RomanCatholic Irish and of the British government, so that in 1800, following an Irish revolt, an Act of Union was passed, according towhich, in 1801, Great Britain and Ireland became the United Kingdom. Thenceforth Ireland was represented by 28 peers and 100 Commoners inthe Parliament of the United Kingdom (often called, carelessly, theBritish Parliament). It may be said, then, that except during the brief period of Irishsemi-independence (1782-1801), the British Parliament governed not onlyGreat Britain, but Ireland and the crown colonies as well. How theBritish monarchy was governed, we have now to discover. [Sidenote: The King and his Nominal Powers] In theory the king was still the ruler of his kingdom. In his name alllaws were made, treaties sealed, governmental officials appointed. Likeother monarchs, he had his "Privy Councilors" to advise him, andministers (Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretaries of State, theLord Chancellor, etc. ) to supervise various details of centraladministration. But this was largely a matter of form. In fact, thekings of Great Britain had lost most of their power, and retained onlytheir dignity; they were becoming figureheads. [Sidenote: The British Constitution] Ever since the signing of _Magna Carta_, back in 1215, the Englishpeople had been exacting from their sovereigns written promises bywhich the crown surrendered certain powers. Greatest progress in thisdirection had been made amid those stirring scenes of the seventeenthcentury which have been described already in the chapter on the Triumphof Parliamentary Government in England. In addition to formaldocuments, there had been slowly evolved a body of customs and usages, which were almost as sacred and binding as if they had been inscribedon parchment. Taken together, these written and customary limitationson royal authority were called the "British Constitution. " [Sidenote: Limitations on the Actual Powers of the King] This Constitution limited the king's power in four important ways. (1)It deprived him of the right to levy taxes. For his household expenseshe was now granted an allowance, called the Civil List. William III, for instance, was allowed L700, 000 pounds a year. (2) The king had noright either to make laws on his own responsibility or to prevent lawsbeing made against his will. The sovereign's prerogative to vetoParliament's bills still existed in theory, but was not exercised afterthe reign of Queen Anne. (3) The king had lost control of the judicialsystem (_i. E. _, the courts): he could not remove judges even ifthey gave decisions unfavorable to him; and the Habeas Corpus Act of1679 provided that any one thrown into prison should be told why, andgiven a fair legal trial. (4) The king could not maintain a standingarmy without consent of Parliament. These restrictions made GreatBritain a "limited, " rather than an "absolute, " monarchy. [Sidenote: Parliament] The powers taken from the king were now exercised by Parliament. Theconstitutional conflict of the seventeenth century had left Parliamentnot only in enjoyment of freedom of speech for its members but withfull power to levy taxes, to make laws, to remove or retain judges, andessentially to determine the policy of the government in war and inpeace. Parliament had even taken upon itself on one celebrated occasion(1689) to deprive a monarch of his "divine right" to rule, to establisha new sovereign, and to decree that never again should Great Britainhave a king of the Roman Catholic faith. French philosophers who saw so much power vested in a representativebody could not be too loud in their praise of "English liberty. " Hadthey investigated more closely, these same observers might have learnedto their surprise that Parliament represented the people of GreatBritain only in name. [Sidenote: Undemocratic Character of Parliament] As we have seen in an earlier chapter [Footnote: See above, pp. 265f. ], Parliament consisted of two legislative assemblies or "Houses, "neither one of which could make laws without the consent of the other. One of these houses, the House of Lords, was frankly aristocratic andundemocratic. Its members were the "lords spiritual"--rich andinfluential bishops of the Anglican Church, --and the "lords temporal, "or peers, haughty descendants of the ancient feudal nobles or haughtierheirs of millionaires recently ennobled by the king. [Footnote: A peerwas technically a titled noble who possessed an hereditary seat in theHouse of Lords. George III created many peers: at his death there wereover 300 in all. ] These proud gentlemen were mainly landlords, and as aclass they were almost as selfish and undemocratic as the courtiers ofFrance. But, the French philosopher replies, the representatives of the peopleare found in the lower house, the House of Commons; the peers merelygive stability to the government. Let us see. One thing at least is certain, that in the eighteenth century themajority of the people of Great Britain had no voice in choosing their"representatives. " In the country, the "knights of the shire" weresupposedly elected, two for each shire or county. But a man could notvote unless he had an estate worth an annual rent of forty shillings, and, since the same amount of money would then buy a good deal morethan nowadays, forty shillings was a fairly large sum. Persons whocould vote were often afraid to vote independently, and frequently theysold their vote to a rich noble, so that many "knights of the shire"were practically named by the landed aristocracy, the wealthy andtitled landlords. Matters were even worse in the towns, or "boroughs. " By no means all ofthe towns had representation. Moreover, for the towns that did choosetheir two members to sit in the House of Commons, no method of electionwas prescribed by law; but each borough followed its own custom. In onetown the aristocratic municipal corporation would choose therepresentatives; in another place the gilds would control the election;and in yet another city there might be a few so-called "freemen" (ofcourse everybody was free, --"freeman" was a technical term for a memberof the town corporation) who had the right to vote, and sold theirvotes regularly for about L5 apiece. In general the townrepresentatives were named by a few well-to-do politicians, while thecommon 'prentices and journeymen worked uninterruptedly at theirbenches. It has been estimated that fewer than 1500 persons controlleda majority in the House of Commons. In many places a nobleman or a clique of townsmen appointed theircandidates without even the formality of an election. In other places, where rival influences clashed, bribery would decide the day. For incontested elections, the voting lasted forty days, during which timethe price of votes might rise to L25 or more. Votes might be purchasedwith safety, too, for voting was public and any one might learn fromthe poll-book how each man had voted. Not infrequently it cost severalthousand pounds to carry such an election. [Sidenote: "Rotten Boroughs"] We may summarize these evils by saying that the peasants and artisansgenerally were not allowed to vote, and that the methods of electiongave rise to corruption. But this was not all. There was neither rhymenor reason to be found in the distribution of representation betweendifferent sections of the country. Old Sarum had once been a prosperousvillage and had been accorded representation, but after the village haddisappeared, leaving to view but a lonely hill, no one in England couldhave told why two members should still sit for Old Sarum. Nor, for thatmatter, could there have been much need of representation in Parliamentfor the sea-coast town of Dunwich. Long ago the coast had sunk and thesalt-sea waves now washed the remains of a ruined town. Bosseney inCornwall was a hamlet of three cottages, but its citizens were entitledto send two men to Parliament. While these decayed towns and "rotten boroughs" continued to enjoyrepresentation, populous and opulent cities like Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, and Sheffield were ignored. They had grown with thegrowth of industry, while the older towns had declined. YetParliamentary representation underwent no change from the days ofCharles II to the third decade of the nineteenth century. ThusParliament in the eighteenth century represented neither the differentclasses of society nor the masses of population. Politics was agentleman's game. The nobleman who sat in the upper house had hisdummies in the lower chamber. A certain Sir James Lowther had nineproteges in the lower house, who were commonly called "Lowther'sNinepins. " A distinguished statesman of the time described the positionof such a protege: "He is sent here by the lord of this or the duke ofthat, and if he does not obey the instructions which he receives, he isheld to be a dishonest man. " [Sidenote: Parliamentary Bribery and Corruption] Under conditions such as these it is not hard to understand how seatsin Parliament were bought and sold like boxes at the opera or seats ina stock-exchange. Nor is it surprising that after having paid a smallfortune for the privilege of representing the people, the worldly-wiseCommoner should be willing to indemnify himself by accepting bribes, or, if perchance his tender conscience forbade monetary bribes, byaccepting a government post with fat salary and few duties except tovote with the government. [Sidenote: The Cabinet] For many years (1714-1761) the arts of corruption were practiced withastonishing success by a group of clever Whig politicians. As has beennoticed in an earlier chapter, [Footnote: See above, pp. 291 f. ] it wasto their most conspicuous leader, Sir Robert Walpole, that the firsttwo Georges intrusted the conduct of affairs; and Walpole filled theimportant offices of state with his Whig friends. Likewise it has beennoticed [Footnote: See above, p. 290. ] that during the same period theidea of the cabinet system became more firmly fixed. Just as Walpolesecured the appointment of his friends to the high offices of state, sosubsequent statesmen put their supporters in office. The practice wasnot yet rigid, but it was customary for a dozen or so of the leaders ofthe faction in power to hold "cabinet" meetings, in which they decidedin advance what measures should be presented to Parliament. If ameasure indorsed by the cabinet should be defeated by the Commons, theleader of the party would normally resign, and the ministers he hadappointed would follow his example. In other words, the cabinet actedin concert and resigned as a whole. If the affairs of the government were all carried on by the cabinet, and if the cabinet depended for its support on the majority in theHouse of Commons, what remained for the king to do? Obviously, verylittle! [Sidenote: British Government under George III] George I and George II had not been averse from cabinet-government: itwas easy and convenient. But George III (1760-1820) was determined tomake his authority felt. He wished to preside at cabinet meetings; heoutbribed the Whigs; and he repeatedly asked his ministers to resignbecause he disliked their policies. Besides the friends he purchased, George III possessed a considerablenumber of enthusiastic and conscientious supporters. The countrysquires and clergy who believed in the Anglican Church and looked withdistrust upon the power of corrupt Whig politicians in Parliament, werequite willing that a painstaking and gentlemanly monarch should do hisown ruling. Such persons formed the backbone of the Tory party andsometimes called themselves the "king's friends. " With their supportand by means of a liberal use of patronage, George III was able to keepLord North, a minister after his own heart, in power twelve years(1770-1782). But as we have learned, [Footnote: See above, pp. 332 ff. ]the War of American Independence caused the downfall of Lord North, andfor the next year or two, politics were in confusion. During 1782-1783the old Whig and Tory parties [Footnote: See above, pp. 285 f. ] weresadly broken up, and a new element was unmistakably infused into party-warfare by the spirit of reform. [Sidenote: Need and Demand for Reform] Surely, if ever a country needed reform, it was Great Britain in 1783. The country was filled with paupers maintained by the taxes; poorpeople might be shut up in workhouses and see their children carted offto factories; sailors were kidnapped for the royal navy; the farmhandwas practically bound to the soil like a serf; over two hundredoffenses, such as stealing a shilling or cutting down an apple tree, were punishable by death; religious intolerance flourished--Quakerswere imprisoned and Roman Catholics were debarred from office andParliament. And Ireland was being ruined by the selfish and obstinateminority which controlled its parliament. But about these things English "reformers" were not much concerned. Afew altruistic souls decried the traffic in black slaves, but that evilwas quite far from English shores. The reform movement was chieflydirected against parliamentary corruption and received its support fromthe small country gentlemen who hated the great Whig owners of "pocket-boroughs, " [Footnote: Boroughs whose members were named by a political"patron. "] and from the lower and newer ranks of the bourgeoisie. Forthe small shop-keepers and tradesmen, and especially the richmanufacturers in new industrial towns like Birmingham, felt thatParliament did not represent their interests, and they set up a cry forpure politics and reformed representation. [Sidenote: Wilkes] The spirit of reform spread rapidly. In the 'sixties of the eighteenthcentury, John Wilkes, a squint-eyed and immoral but very persuasiveeditor, had raised a hubbub of reform talk. He had criticized thepolicy of George III, had been elected to Parliament, and, when theHouse of Commons expelled him, had insisted upon the right of thepeople to elect him, regardless of the will of the House. His admirers--and he had many--shouted for "Wilkes and Liberty, " elected him LordMayor of London, and enabled him to carry his point. The founding of four newspapers furthered the reform movement. Theytook it upon themselves to report parliamentary debates, and along withinformation they spread discontent. Their activity was somewhatchecked, however, by the operation of the old laws which punishedlibelous attacks on the king with imprisonment or exile, and also by astamp duty of 2-1/2d. A sheet (1789). [Sidenote: Charles James Fox] Under the new influence a number of Whigs became advocates of reform. George III had outdone them at corruption; they now sought toreestablish their own power and Parliament's by advocating reform. Ofthese Whigs, Charles James Fox (1749-1806) was the most prominent. Foxhad been taught to gamble by his father and took to it readily. Cardsand horse-racing kept him in constant bankruptcy; many of his nightswere spent in debauchery and his mornings in bed; and his closeassociation with the rakish heir to the throne was the scandal ofLondon. In spite of his eloquence and ability, the loose manner of hislife militated against the success of Fox as a reformer. His friendsknew him to be a free-hearted, impulsive sympathizer with all who wereoppressed, and they entertained no doubt of his sincere wish to bringabout parliamentary reform, complete religious toleration, and theabolition of the slave trade. But strangers could not easily reconcilehis private life with his public words, and were antagonized by hisfrequent lack of political tact. [Sidenote: The Program of Reform] Despite drawbacks Fox furthered the cause of reform to a considerableextent. He it was who presided over a great mass meeting, held underthe auspices of a reform club, at which meeting was drawn up a programof liberal reform, a program which was to be the battle-cry of Britishpolitical radicals for several generations. It comprised six demands:(1) Votes for all adult males, (2) each district to have representationproportionate to its population, (3) payment of the members ofParliament so as to enable poor men to accept election, (4) abolitionof the property qualifications for members of Parliament, (5) adoptionof the secret ballot, and (6) Parliaments to be elected annually. [Sidenote: William Pitt the Younger] Such reform seemed less likely of accomplishment by Fox than by ayounger statesman, William Pitt (1759-1806), second son of the famousearl of Chatham. When but seven years old, Pitt had said: "I want tospeak in the House of Commons like papa. " Throughout his boyhood andyouth he had kept this ambition constantly before him; he had studied, practiced oratory, and learned the arts of debate. At the age oftwenty-one, he was a tall, slender, and sickly youth, with sonorousvoice, devouring ambition, and sublime self-confidence. He secured aseat in the Commons as one of Sir James Lowther's "ninepins, " andspeedily won the respect of the House. He was the youngest and mostpromising of the politicians of the day. At the outset he was a Whig. [Sidenote: The "New Tories"] By a combination of circumstances young Pitt was enabled to form anessentially new political party--the "New Tories. " By his scrupuloushonesty and earnest advocacy of parliamentary reform, he won to hisside the unrepresented bourgeoisie and the opponents of "bossism. " Onthe other hand, by accepting from King George III an appointment aschief minister, and holding the position in spite of a temporarilyhostile majority in the House of Commons, Pitt won the respect of theTory country squires and the clergy, who stood for the king againstParliament. And finally, being quite moral himself (if chronicindulgence in port wine be excepted), and supporting a notoriouslyvirtuous king against corrupt politicians and against the gambling Fox, Pitt became an idol of all lovers of "respectability. " In the parliamentary elections of 1784 Pitt won a great victory. Inthat year he was prime minister with loyal majorities in both Houses ofParliament, with royal favor, and with the support of popularenthusiasm. He was feasted in Grocers' Hall in London; the shopkeepersof the Strand illuminated their dwellings in his honor; and crowdscheered his carriage. Reform seemed to be within sight. The horrors of the slave trade weremitigated, and greater freedom was given the press. Bills wereintroduced to abolish the representation of "rotten" boroughs and togrant representation to the newer towns. [Sidenote: Halt of Reform in Great Britain] It can hardly be doubted that Pitt would have gone further had notaffairs in France--the French Revolution--alarmed him at the criticaltime and caused him fear a similar outbreak in England. [Footnote: Forthe effect of the French Revolution upon England, see pp. 494 f. , 504. ]The government and upper classes of Great Britain at once abandonedtheir roles as reformers, and set themselves sternly to repressanything that might savor of revolution. [Sidenote: Conclusion] Two important conclusions may now be drawn from our study of theBritish government in the eighteenth century. In the first place, despite the admiration with which the French philosophers regarded theBritish monarchy as a model of political liberty and freedom, it was infact both corrupt and oppressive. Secondly, the spirit of reform seemedfor a time as active and as promising in Great Britain as in France, but from the island kingdom it was frightened away by the tumult ofrevolution across the Channel. THE ENLIGHTENED DESPOTS The spirit of progress and reform had slowly made itself felt in GreatBritain through popular agitation and in Parliament. On the Continentit naturally took a different turn, for there government certainly wasnot by Parliaments, but by sovereigns "by the Grace of God. " In France, Prussia, Austria, Spain, and Russia, therefore, the question wasalways, "Will his Majesty be cruel, extravagant, and unprogressive; orwill he prove himself an able and liberal-minded monarch?" [Sidenote: The Era of Benevolent Despotism on the Continent] It happened during the eighteenth century that most of the Continentalrulers were of this latter sort--conscientious and well-meaning. On thethrones of Austria, Prussia, Spain, Portugal, Tuscany, Sardinia, Bavaria, and Sweden sat men of extraordinary ability, who sought ratherthe welfare of their country than careless personal pleasure. These were the benevolent despots. They were despots, absolute rulers, countenancing no attempt to diminish royal authority, believing ingovernment by one strong hand rather than by the democratic many. Butwith despotism they combined benevolence; they were anxious for theglory of their nation, and no less solicitous for the happiness andprosperity of their people. Thus the development of absolute monarchyand the rationalism of the eighteenth century united to produce thebenevolent despot. For this reason the term "enlightened" (i. E. , philosophical) despot is frequently applied to these autocrats whoattempted to rule in the light of reason. [Sidenote: Frederick the Great of Prussia, 1740-1786] One of the most successful of the enlightened despots was Frederick II(the Great) of Prussia. In our chapter on the Germanies, [Footnote: Seeabove, ch. Xi. ] we have seen how he fought all Europe to gain prestigeand power for Prussia; we shall now see how he endeavored to applyscientific methods to the government of his own country. With the major intellectual interests of the eighteenth century, Frederick II became acquainted quite naturally. As a boy he had beenfond of reading French plays, had learned Latin against his father'swill, had filled his mind with the ideas of deistic philosophers, andhad seemed likely to become a dreamer instead of a ruler. But thedogged determination of his father, King Frederick William I, to makesomething out of Frederick besides a flute-playing, poetizingphilosopher, had resulted in familiarizing him with elaborate financialreports and monotonous minutes of tiresome official transactions. YoungFrederick, however, learned to like the details of administration andwhen he came to the throne in 1740 he was not only enlightened butindustrious. The young king had a clear conception of his duties, and even wrote abook in French about the theory of government. "The prince, " he said, "is to the nation he governs what the head is to the man; it is hisduty to see, think, and act for the whole community, that he mayprocure it every advantage of which it is capable. " "The monarch is notthe absolute master, but only the first servant of the state. "Frederick was indeed the first servant of Prussia, rising at five inthe morning, working on official business until eleven o'clock, andspending the afternoon at committee meetings or army reviews. He set about laboriously to make Prussia the best and most governedstate in Europe. He carefully watched the judges to see that they didnot render wrongful decisions or take bribes. He commissioned juriststo compile the laws and to make them so simple and clear that no onewould violate them through ignorance. He abolished the old practice oftorturing suspected criminals to make them confess their guilt. Education, as well as justice, claimed his attention; he foundedelementary schools, so that as many as possible of his subjects couldlearn at least to read and write. In religious affairs, Frederickallowed great individual liberty; for he was a deist, and, like otherdeists of the time, believed in religious toleration. More important even than justice, education, and toleration, heconsidered the promotion of material prosperity among his people. Hewould have considered himself a failure, had his reign not meant "goodtimes" for farmers and merchants. He encouraged industry. He fosteredthe manufacture of silk. He invited thrifty farmers to move from othercountries and to settle in Prussia. He built canals. Marshes weredrained and transformed into rich pasture-land. If war desolated a partof the country, then, when peace was concluded, Frederick gave thefarmers seed and let them use his war-horses before the plow. Headvised landlords to improve their estates by planting orchards; and heencouraged peasants to grow turnips as fodder for cattle. Much was doneto lighten the financial burdens of the peasantry, for (as Frederickhimself declared) if a man worked all day in the fields, "he should notbe hounded to despair by tax-collectors. " Taxes were not light by any means, but everybody knew that the king wasnot squandering the money. Frederick was not a man to lavish fortuneson worthless courtiers; he diligently examined all accounts; and hisofficials dared not be extravagant for fear of being corporallypunished, or, what was worse, of being held up to ridicule by the cruelwit of their royal master. It was only this marvelous economy and careful planning that enabledPrussia to support an army of 200, 000 men and to embark upon a policyof conquest, by which Silesia and a third of Poland were won. On thearmy alone Frederick was willing to spend freely, but even in thisdepartment he made sure that Prussia received its money's worth. Tireless drill, strict discipline, up-to-date arms, and well-trainedofficers made the Prussian army the envy and terror of eighteenth-century Europe. In dwelling upon his seemingly successful attempts to govern in thelight of reason and common sense, we have almost forgotten Frederick'slove of philosophy. Let us recur to it before we take leave of him; forbenevolent despotism was only one side of the philosophical monarch. Heliked to play his flute while thinking how to outwit Maria Theresa; hedelighted in making witty answers to tiresome reports and petitions; heenjoyed sitting at table with congenial companions discussing poetry, science, and the drama. True, he did not encourage the rising youngGerman poets Lessing and Goethe. He thought their work vulgar anduninspired. But he invited literary Frenchmen to come to Berlin, and heput new life into the Berlin Academy of Science. Even Voltaire was fora time a guest at Frederick's court, and the amateurish poems writtenin French by the Prussian king were corrected by the "prince ofphilosophers. " [Sidenote: Catherine the Great of Russia, 1762-1796] While Frederick was demonstrating that "the prince is but the firstservant of the state, " Catherine II was playing the enlightened despotin Russia. In the course of her remarkable career, [Footnote: Seeabove, pp. 380 ff. ] Catherine found time to write flattering letters toFrench philosophers, to make presents to Voltaire, and to inviteDiderot to tutor her son. She posed, too, as a liberal-minded monarch, willing to discuss the advisability of giving Russia a writtenconstitution, or of emancipating the serfs. Schools and academies wereestablished, and French became the language of polite Russian society. At heart Catherine was little moved by desire for real reform or bypity for the peasants. She had the heavy whip--the knout--applied tothe bared backs of earnest reformers. Her court was scandalouslyimmoral, and she violated the conventions of matrimony without a qualm. For some excuse or another, the promised constitution was neverwritten, and the lot of the serfs tended to become actually worse. Tothe governor of Moscow, the tsarina wrote: "My dear prince, do notcomplain that the Russians have no desire for instruction; if Iinstitute schools, it is not for us, --it is for Europe, where we mustkeep our position in public opinion. But the day when our peasantsshall wish to become enlightened, both you and I will lose our places. "This shows clearly that while Catherine wished to be considered anenlightened despot, she was at heart quite the reverse. Her truecharacter was not to be made manifest until the outbreak of the FrenchRevolution, and then Catherine of Russia was to preach a crusadeagainst reform. [Sidenote: Charles III of Spain, 1759-1788] There were other benevolent despots, however, who were undoubtedlysincere. Charles III, with able ministers, made many changes in Spain. [Footnote: Charles III had previously been king of Naples (1735-1759)and had instituted many reforms in that kingdom] The Jesuits weresuppressed; the exaggerated zeal of the Inquisition was effectuallychecked; police were put on the streets of Madrid; German farmers wereencouraged to settle in Spain; roads and canals were built;manufactures were fostered; science was patronized; and the fleet wasnearly doubled. When Charles III died, after a reign of almost thirtyyears, the revenues of Spain had tripled, and its population hadincreased from seven to eleven millions. [Sidenote: Joseph I of Portugal, 1750-1777] Charles's neighbor, Joseph I of Portugal, possessed in the famousPombal a minister who was both a typical philosopher and an activestatesman. Under his administration, industry, education, and commercethrove in Portugal as in Spain. Gustavus III (1771-1792) of Swedensimilarly made himself the patron of industry and the friend of theworkingman. In Italy, the king of Sardinia was freeing his serfs, whilein Tuscany several important reforms were being effected by DukeLeopold, a younger brother of the Habsburg emperor, Joseph II. [Sidenote: Joseph II of Austria, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire] Joseph II, archduke of Austria and emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, carried the theory of enlightened despotism to its greatest lengths. Hewas at once the most enthusiastic and the most unsuccessful of all thebenevolent despots. In him is to be observed the most striking exampleof the aims, and likewise the weaknesses, of this generation ofphilosopher-kings. [Sidenote: His Heritage from Maria Theresa] Before we consider Joseph's career, it is important to understand whathis mother, Maria Theresa (1740-1780), had already done for theHabsburg realms. We are familiar with her brave conduct in defense ofher hereditary lands against the unscrupulous ambition of Frederick theGreat. [Footnote: See above ch. Xi. ] For her loss of Silesia she hadobtained through the partition of Poland some compensation in Galiciaand Moldavia. Her domestic policy is of present concern. The troops furnished by vote of provincial assemblies, she weldedtogether into a national army. German became the official language ofmilitary officers; and a movement was begun to supplant Latin by Germanin the civil administration. The privileges of religious orders werecurtailed in the interest of strong government; and the papal bullsuppressing the Jesuits was enforced. The universities were remodeled;and the elaborate system of elementary and secondary schools, thenestablished, survived with but little change until 1869. Maria Theresa had begun reform along most of the lines which her sonwas to follow. But in two important particulars she was unlike him andunlike the usual enlightened despot. In the first place, she waspolitic rather than philosophical. She did not attempt wholesalereforms, or blindly follow fine theories, but introduced practical andmoderate measures in order to remedy evils. She was very careful not tooffend the prejudices or traditions of her subjects. Secondly, MariaTheresa was a devout Roman Catholic. Love of her subjects was not atheory with her, --it was a religious duty. A cynical Frederick theGreat might laugh at conscience, and to a Catherine morality might meannothing; but Maria Theresa remained an ardent Christian in an age ofunbelief and a pure woman when loose living was fashionable. [Sidenote: Policies and Plans of Joseph II, 1780-1790] Her eldest son, Joseph II, [Footnote: Holy Roman Emperor (1765-1790), and sole ruler of the Habsburg dominions (1780-1790). ] was brought up aRoman Catholic, and although strongly influenced by Rousseau'swritings, never seceded from the Church. But neither religion norexpediency was his guiding principle. He said, "I have made Philosophythe legislator of my Empire: her logical principles shall transformAustria. " There was something very noble in the determination of the young rulerto do away with all injustice, to relieve the oppressed, and to lift upthose who had been trampled under foot. His ambition was to makeAustria a strong, united, and prosperous kingdom, to be himself thebenefactor of his people, to protect the manufacturer, and to free theserf. Austria was to be remodeled as Rousseau would have wished--exceptin respect of Rousseau's basic idea of popular sovereignty. It is a pity that Joseph II cannot be judged simply by his goodintentions, for he was quite unfitted to carry out wholesome reforms. He had derived his ideas from French philosophers rather than fromactual life; he was so sure that his theories were right that he wouldtake no advice; he was impatient and would brook no delay in thewholesale application of his theories. Regardless of prejudice, regardless of tradition, regardless of every consideration of politicalexpediency, he rushed ahead on the path of reform. To Joseph II it mattered not that Austria had long been the strongholdand her rulers the champions of Catholic Christianity. He insisted thatno papal bulls should be published in his dominions without his ownauthorization; he nominated the bishops; he confiscated church lands. Side altars and various emblems were removed from the churches, notbecause they were useless, for humble Christians still prayed to theirGod before such altars, but because the emperor thought side altarswere signs of superstition. The old and well-loved ceremonies werealtered at his command. Many monasteries were abolished. The clergywere to be trained in schools controlled by the emperor. And, to capthe climax, heretics and Jews were to be not only tolerated, butactually given the same rights as orthodox Catholics. Many of these measures were no doubt desirable, and one or two of themmight have been accomplished without causing much disturbance, but bytrying to reform everything at once, Joseph only shocked and angeredthe clergy and such of his people as piously loved their religion. His political policies, which were no more wisely conceived orexecuted, were three in number. (1) He desired to extend hispossessions eastward to the Black Sea and southward to the Adriatic, while the distant Netherlands might conveniently be exchanged for near-by Bavaria. (2) He wished to get rid of all provincial assemblies andother vestiges of local independence, and to have all his territoriesgoverned uniformly by officials subject to himself. (3) He aimed touplift the lower classes of his people, and to put down the proudnobles, so that all should be equal and all alike should look up totheir benevolent, but all-powerful, ruler. The first of these policies brought him only disastrous wars. Hisdesigns on Bavaria were frustrated by Frederick the Great, who posed asthe protector of the smaller German states. In the Balkan peninsula hisarmies fought much and gained little. His administrative policy was as unfortunate as his territorialambition. Maria Theresa had taken some steps to simplify theadministration of her heterogeneous dominions, but she had wiselyallowed Hungary, Lombardy, and the Netherlands to preserve certain ofthe traditions and formulas of self-government, and she did everythingto win the loyalty and confidence of her Hungarian subjects. Joseph, onthe other hand, carried the sacred crown of St. Stephen--treasured byall Hungarians--to Vienna; abolished the privileges of the HungarianDiet, or congress; and with a stroke of the pen established a newsystem of government. He divided his lands into thirteen provinces, each under a military commander. Each province was divided intodistricts or counties, and these again into townships. There would beno more local privileges but all was to be managed from Vienna. Thearmy was henceforth to be on the Prussian model, and the peasants wereto be forced to serve their terms in it. German was to be the officiallanguage throughout the Habsburg realm. This was all very fine onpaper, but in practice it was a gigantic failure. The AustrianNetherlands rose in revolt rather than lose their local autonomy; theTyrol did likewise; and angry protests came from Hungary. Localliberties and traditions could not be abolished by an imperial decree. Finally, in his attempts to reconstruct society, Joseph came to grief. He directed that all serfs should become free men, able to marrywithout the consent of their lord, privileged to sell their land and topay a fixed rent instead of being compelled to labor four days a weekfor their lord. Nobles and peasants alike were to share the burdens oftaxation, all paying 13 per cent on their land. Joseph intended stillfurther to help the peasantry, for, he said "I could never bring myselfto skin two hundred good peasants to pay one do-nothing lord more thanhe ought to have. " He planned to give everybody a free elementaryeducation, to encourage industry, and to make all his subjectsprosperous and happy. [Sidenote: Failure of Joseph II] But the peasants disliked compulsory military service and misunderstoodhis reforms; the nobles were not willing to be deprived of their feudalrights; the bourgeoisie was irritated by his blundering attempts toencourage industry; the clergy preached against his religious policy. He reigned only ten years; yet he was hated by many and loved by none;he had met defeat abroad, and at home his subjects were in revolt. Little wonder that as he lay dying (1790) with hardly friend orrelative near to comfort him, the discouraged reformer should havesighed: "After all my trouble, I have made but few happy, and manyungrateful. " He directed that most of his "reforms" should be canceled, and proposed as an epitaph for himself the gloomy sentence: "Here liesthe man who, with the best intentions, never succeeded in anything. "[Footnote: The epitaph was not quite true. The serfs in Austriaretained at least part of the liberty he had granted. ] [Sidenote: Weakness of Benevolent Despotism] Joseph II was not the only benevolent despot who met withdiscouragement. The fatal weakness of "enlightened despotism" was itsfailure to enlist the sympathy and support of the people. Absoluterulers like Joseph II tried to force reforms on their peoples whetherthe reforms were popularly desired or not. As a result, few of theirmeasures were lasting, and ingratitude was uniformly their reward. If all kings had possessed the supreme ability and genius of aFrederick the Great, enlightened despotism might still be in vogue. Thetrouble was that even well-meaning monarchs like Joseph II wereunpractical; and many sovereigns were not even well-meaning. InPrussia, the successor of Frederick the Great, King Frederick WilliamII, had neither ability nor character; his weak rule undid the work ofFrederick. The same thing happened in other countries: weaknesssucceeded ability, extravagance wasted the fruits of economy, andcorruption ruined the work of reform. Absolute monarchy without goodintentions proved terribly oppressive. THE FRENCH MONARCHY In no country was the evil side of absolutism exhibited so unmistakablyas in France. During the eighteenth century the French government wentfrom bad to worse, until at last it was altered not by peaceful reformbut by violent revolution. [Sidenote: French People better off than their Neighbors] As far as their actual condition was concerned, the people of Francewere, on the whole, better off than most Germans or Italians. Next toEngland, France had the most numerous, prosperous, and intelligentmiddle class; and her peasants were slightly above the serfs of otherContinental countries. But the very fact that in material well-beingthey were a little better off than their neighbors, made the Frenchpeople more critical of their government. The lower classes had not allbeen ground down until they were mere slaves without hope or courage;on the contrary, there were many sturdy farmers and thrifty artisanswho hoped for better days and bitterly resented inequalities in societyand abuses in the government. The bourgeoisie was even less inclined tobow to tyranny; it was numerous, intelligent, wealthy, and influential;it could see the mistakes of the royal administration and was hopefulof gaining a voice in the government. Thus, the people of France werekeener to feel wrongs and to resent the injustice of undutifulmonarchs. Let us glance at the crying abuses in the French state of theeighteenth century, and then we shall understand how great was theguilt of that pleasure-loving despot--Louis XV (1715-1774). [Sidenote: The Administration][Sidenote: The King] The French administrative system was confused and oppressive. Intheory, it was quite simple--the government was the king. As Louis XVhaughtily remarked: "The sovereign authority is vested in my person. .. The legislative power exists in myself alone. .. My people are one onlywith me; national rights and national interests are necessarilycombined with my own and only rest in my hands. " But in practice, the king could not alone make laws, keep order, andcollect taxes, especially when he spent whole days hunting or gambling. He contented himself with spending the state money, getting into wars, and occasionally interfering with the work of his ministers. And it wasnecessary to intrust the actual conduct of affairs to a complicatedsystem or no-system of royal officials. [Sidenote: The Royal Council] The highest rung in the ladder of officialdom was the Royal Council. Itwas composed of the half dozen chief ministers and about thirtycouncilors who helped their chiefs to supervise the affairs of thekingdom, --issuing decrees, conferring on foreign policy, levying taxes, and acting on endless reports from local officials. [Sidenote: Local Administration. The Intendants] The Royal Council had numerous local representatives. There were thebailiffs and seneschals, whose actual powers had quite disappeared, butwhose offices served to complicate matters. Then there were thegovernors of provinces, well-fed gentlemen with fat salaries and littleto do. The bulk of local administration fell into the hands of theintendants and their sub-delegates. Each of the thirty-four intendants--the so-called "Thirty Tyrants of France"--was appointed by the king'sministers and was like a petty despot in his district(_generalite_). The powers of the intendant were extensive. He decided what share ofthe district taxes each village and taxpayer should bear. He had hisrepresentatives in each parish of his district, and through them hesupervised the police, the preservation of order, and the recruiting ofthe army. He relieved the poor in bad seasons. The erection of achurch, or the repair of a town hall, needed his sanction. When theRoyal Council ordered roads to be built, it was the intendant and hismen who directed the work and called the peasants out to do the labor. With powers such as these, it was little wonder that the intendant wascalled _Monseigneur_--"My lord. " [Sidenote: The Parlement of Paris] The system of Royal Council, intendants, and sub-intendants would havebeen comparatively simple, had it not been complicated by the presenceof numerous other political bodies, each of which claimed certaincustomary powers. First of all, there was the _Parlement_, orsupreme court, of Paris, primarily a judicial body which registered theroyal decrees. If the Parlement disliked a decree, it might refuse toregister it, until the king should hold a "bed of justice"--that is, should formally summon the Parlement and in person command it toregister his decree. [Sidenote: Provincial Estates] Then there were provincial "Estates, " or assemblies, in a few of theprovinces. [Footnote: Such provinces were called _pays d'etat_ andincluded Brittany, Languedoc, Provence, Roussillon, Dauphine, Burgundy, Franche Comte, Alsace, Lorraine, Artois, Flanders, Corsica, etc. Thelocal assemblies in these _pays d'etat_ were by no meansrepresentative of all the inhabitants. The remaining provinces, inwhich no vestiges of provincial self-government survived, were called_pays d'election_: they included Ile de France, Orleanais, Champagne and Brie, Maine, Anjou, Poitou, Guyenne and Gascony, Limousin, Auvergne, Lyonnais, Bourbonnais, Touraine, Normandy, Picardy, etc. ] These bodies, survivals of the middle ages, did not make lawsbut had a voice in the apportionment of taxes among the parishes of theprovince, and exercised powers of supervision over road-building andthe collection of taxes. [Sidenote: Town Councils] The government of the towns was peculiar. The old gilds, now includingonly a small number of the wealthiest burghers, elected a Town Council, which managed the property of the town, appointed tax-collectors, sawthat the town hall was kept in repair, and supervised the collection ofcustoms duties on goods brought into the town. It is easy to perceivehow the Town Council and the intendant would have overlapping powers, and how considerable confusion might arise, especially since indifferent towns the nature and the powers of the Town Council differedwidely. Matters were complicated still further by the fact that themayors of the towns were not elected by the council, but appointed bythe crown. In rural districts there was a trace of the same conflict between thesystem of intendants and the survivals of local self-government. Summoned by the clanging church bell, all the men of the village met onthe village green. And the simple villagers, thus gathered together asa town meeting or communal assembly, might elect collectors of the_taille_, or might perhaps petition the intendant to repair theparsonage or the bridge. [Sidenote: Confusion in Administration] Possibly the reader may now begin to realize that confusion was a primeattribute of the French administrative system. The common people werenaturally bewildered by the overlapping functions of Royal Council, Parlement, provincial estates, governors, bailiffs, intendants, subintendants, mayors, town councils, and village assemblies. Thesystem, or lack of system, gave rise to corruption and complicationwithout insuring liberty. The most trivial affairs were regulated byoverbearing and exacting royal officials. Everything depended upon thehonesty and industry or upon the meanness and caprice of theseofficials. Each petty officer transmitted long reports to his superior;but the general public was kept in the dark about official matters, andwas left to guess, as best it could, the reasons for the seeminglyunreasonable acts of the government. If an intendant increased thetaxes on a village, the ignorant inhabitants blamed it upon official"graft" or favoritism. Or, if hard times prevailed, or if a shakybridge broke down, the villagers were prone in any case to find faultwith the government, for the more mysterious and powerful thegovernment was, the more likely was it to bear the blame for all ills. Confusion in administrative offices was not the only confusion ineighteenth-century France. There was no uniformity or simplicity instandards of weight and measure, in coinage, in tolls, in internalcustoms-duties. But worst of all were the laws and the courts ofjustice. [Sidenote: Confusion in Laws] What was lawful in one town was often illegal in a place not five milesdistant. Almost four hundred sets or bodies of law were in force indifferent parts of France. In some districts the old Roman laws werestill retained; elsewhere laws derived from early German tribes wereenforceable. Many laws were not even in writing; and such as werewritten were more often in Latin than in French. The result was thatonly unusually learned men knew the law, and common people stumbledalong in the dark. The laws, moreover, were full of injustice andcruelty. An offender might have his hand or ear cut off, or his tonguetorn out; he might be burned with red-hot irons or have molten leadpoured into his flesh. Hanging was an easy death compared to thelingering torture of having one's bones broken on a wheel. [Sidenote: Confusion in Law Courts] The courts were nearly as bad as the laws. There were royal courts, feudal courts, church courts, courts of finance, and military courts;and it was a wise offender who knew before which court he might betried. Extremely important cases might be carried on appeal to thehighest courts of the realm--the Parlements--of which there werethirteen, headed in honor by that of Paris. [Sidenote: Prevalence of Injustice] Although courts were so plenteous, justice was seldom to be found. Persons wrongfully accused of crime were tortured until they confesseddeeds they had never committed. The public was not admitted to trials, so no one knew on what grounds the sentence was passed, and the judgegave no reason for his verdict. Civil lawsuits were appealed from courtto court and might drag on for years until the parties had spent alltheir money. Lawyers were more anxious to extract large fees from theirclients than to secure justice for them. [Sidenote: "Noblesse de la Robe"] Confused laws and conflicting jurisdictions were often made worse bythe character of the judges who presided over royal courts. Many ofthem were rich bourgeois who had purchased their appointment from theking. For a large price it was possible to buy a judgeship or seat in aParlement, not only for a lifetime but as an hereditary possession. Ithas been estimated that 50, 000 bourgeois families possessed suchjudicial offices: they formed a sort of lower nobility, exempted fromcertain taxes and very proud of their honors. Naturally envious werehis neighbors when the "councilor" appeared in his grand wig and hisenormous robe of silk and velvet, attended by a page who kept the robefrom trailing in the dust. No wonder these bourgeois judges were called"the nobility of the robe. " In some way or other the "noble of the robe" had to compensate himselffor the price of his office and the cost of his robe. One bought anoffice for profit as well as for honor. For to the judge were paid thecourt fees and fines; and no shrewd judge would let a case pass himwithout exacting some kind of a fee. Even more profitable were theindirect gains. If Monsieur A had gained his case in court, it wasquite to be expected that in his joy Monsieur A would make a handsomepresent to the judge who had given the decision. At least, that is theway the judge would have put it. As a plain matter of fact the judgeswere bribed, and justice was too often bought and sold like judgeships. [Sidenote: Abuses in the Army] Corruption and abuses were not confined to the civil government and thecourts of law; the army, too, was infected. In the ranks were to befound hired foreigners, unwilling peasants dragged from their farms, and the scum of the city slums. Thousands deserted every year. Had thediscontented troops been well commanded, they might still have answeredthe purpose. But such was not the case. There were certainly enoughofficers--an average of one general for every 157 privates. But whatofficers they were! Dissolute and dandified generals drawing their payand never visiting their troops, lieutenants reveling in vice, insteadof drilling and caring for their commands. Noble blood, not ability, was the qualification of a commander. Counts, who had never seen abattlefield, were given military offices, and the seven-year-old Duc deFrousac was a colonel. [Sidenote: Confusion in Finance] Confused administration, antiquated laws, corrupt magistrates, and adisorganized army showed the weakness of the French monarchy; butfinancial disorders threatened its very existence, --for a governmentout of money is as helpless as a fish out of water. The destructive wars, costly armies, luxurious palaces, and extravagantcourt of Louis XIV had left to the successors of the Grand Monarch manydebts, an empty treasury, and an overtaxed people. If ever there wasneed of care and thrift, it was in the French monarchy in theeighteenth century. Yet the king's ministers did not even trouble themselves to keeporderly accounts. Bills and receipts were carelessly laid away; no oneknew how much was owed or how much was to be expected by the treasury;and even the king himself could not have told how much he would runinto debt during the year. While it lasted, money was spent freely. [Sidenote: Royal Revenue] The amount of money required by the king would have made taxes veryheavy anyway, but bad methods of assessment and collection added to theburden. The royal revenue was derived chiefly from three sources: theroyal domains, the direct taxes, and the indirect taxes. From the royaldomains, the lands of which the king was landlord as well as sovereign, a considerable but ever-diminishing income was derived. [Sidenote: Direct Taxes][Sidenote: The Income Tax][Sidenote: The Poll Tax] The direct taxes were the prop of the treasury, for they could beincreased to meet the demand, at least as long as the people would pay. There were three direct taxes--the _taille_, the _capitation_, and the_vingtieme_. The _vingtieme_, or "twentieth, " was a tax on incomes--5per cent [Footnote: Five per cent in theory; in practice in the reignof Louis XVI it was 11 per cent] on the salary of the judge, on therents of the noble, on the earning of the artisan, on the produce ofthe peasant. The clergy were entirely exempted from this tax; the moreinfluential nobles and bourgeois contrived to have their incomesunderestimated, and the burden fell heaviest on the poorer classes. _Capitation_ was a general poll or head tax, varying in amountaccording to whichever of twenty-two classes claimed the individualtaxpayer. Maid-servants, for example, paid annually three _livres_ andtwelve _sous_. [Footnote: A _livre_ was worth about a _franc_ (20cents) and a _sou_ was equivalent to one cent. ] [Sidenote: The Taille or Land Tax] The most important and hated direct tax was the _taille_ or landtax, --practically a tax on peasants alone. The total amount to beraised was apportioned among the intendants by the Royal Council, andby the intendants among the villages of their respective districts. Atthe village assembly collectors were elected, who were therebyauthorized to demand from each villager a share of the tax, accordingto his ability to pay. As a result of this method, each villager triedto appear poor so as to be taxed lightly; whole villages looked run-down in order to be held for only a small share; and influentialpoliticians often obtained alleviation for parts of the country. [Sidenote: Indirect Taxes][Sidenote: "Tax Farming"] The indirect taxes were not so heavy, but they were bitterly detested. There were taxes on alcohol, metal-ware, cards, paper, and starch, butmost disliked of all was that on salt (the _gabelle_). Everyperson above seven years of age was supposed annually to buy from thegovernment salt-works seven pounds of salt at about ten times its realvalue. [Footnote: It should be understood, of course, that the_gabelle_ was higher and more burdensome in some provinces than inothers. ] Only government agents could legally sell salt, and smugglerswere fined heavily or sent to the galleys. These indirect taxes wereusually "farmed out, " that is, in return for a lump sum the governmentwould grant to a company of speculators the right to collect what theycould. These speculators were called "farmers-general, "--France couldbe called their farm [Footnote: Etymologically, the French word forfarm (_ferme_) was not necessarily connected with agriculture, butsignified a fixed sum (_firma_) paid for a certain privilege, suchas that of collecting a tax. ] and money its produce. And they farmedwell. After paying the government, the "farmers" still had millions offrancs to distribute as bribes or as presents to great personages or toretain for themselves. Thus, millions were lost to the treasury. [Sidenote: The Burden of Taxation] Taxes could not always be raised to cover emergencies, nor collected sowastefully. The peasants of France were crushed by feudal dues, tithes, and royal taxes. The bourgeoisie were angered by the income tax, by theindirect taxes, by the tolls and internal customs, and by themonopolistic privileges which the king sold to his favorites. How longthe unprivileged classes would bear the burden of taxation, while thenobles and clergy were almost free, no one could tell; but signs ofdiscontent were too patent to be ignored. Louis XIV (1643-1715) at the end of his long reign perceived thedanger. As the aged monarch lay on his deathbed, flushed with fever, hecalled his five-year-old great-grandson and heir, the future Louis XV, to the bedside and said: "My child, you will soon be sovereign of agreat kingdom. Do not forget your obligations to God; remember that itis to Him that you owe all that you are. Endeavor to live at peace withyour neighbors; do not imitate me in my fondness for war, nor in theexorbitant expenditure which I have incurred. Take counsel in all youractions. Endeavor to _relieve the people at the earliest possiblemoment_, and thus to accomplish what, unfortunately, I am unable todo myself. " [Sidenote: Louis XV, 1715-1774] It was good advice. But Louis XV was only a boy, a plaything in thehands of his ministers. In an earlier chapter [Footnote: See above, pp. 255 f. ] we have seen how under the duke of Orleans, who was princeregent from 1715 to 1723, France entered into war with Spain, and howfinance was upset by speculation; and how under Cardinal Fleury, whowas minister from 1726 to 1743, the War of the Polish Election (1733-1738) was fought and the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748)begun. When in 1743 the ninety-year-old Cardinal Fleury died, Louis XVannounced that he would be his own minister. But he was not a Frederickthe Great. At the council table poor Louis "opened his mouth, saidlittle, and thought not at all. " State business seemed terribly dull, and the king left most of it to others. But of one thing, Louis XV could not have enough--and that waspleasure. He much preferred pretty girls to pompous ministers of state, and spent most of his time with the ladies and the rest of the timeeither hunting or gambling. In spite of the fact that he was married, Louis very easily fell in love with a charming face; at one time he wasinfatuated by the duchess of Chateauroux, then by Madame de Pompadour, and later by Madame du Barry. Upon his mistresses he was willing tolavish princely presents, --he gave them estates and titles, had themlive at Versailles, and criminally allowed them to interfere inpolitics; for their sake he was willing to let his country go to ruin. The character of the king was reflected in his court. It becamefashionable to neglect one's wife, to gamble all night, to laugh atvirtue, to be wasteful and extravagant. Versailles was gay; the ladiespainted their cheeks more brightly than ever, and the lords spent theirfortunes more recklessly. But Versailles was not France. France was ruined with wars and taxes. Louis XIV had said, "Live at peace with your neighbors"; but since hisdeath four wars had been waged, culminating in the disastrous SevenYears' War (1756-1763), by which French commerce had been destroyed andthe French colonies had been lost. [Footnote: The formal annexation ofLorraine in 1766 and of Corsica in 1768 afforded some crumbs of comfortfor Louis XV. ] Debts were multiplied and taxes increased. What withwar, extravagance, and poor management, Louis XV left France a bankruptstate. [Sidenote: Growing complaints against the French Monarchy under LouisXV] Complaints were loud and remonstrances bitter, and Louis XV could notsilence them, try as he might. Authors who criticized the governmentwere thrown into prison: radical writings were confiscated or burned;but criticism persisted. Enemies of the government were imprisonedwithout trial in the Bastille by _lettres de cachet_, which wereorders for arrest signed in blank by the king, who sometimes gave orsold them to his favorites, so that they, too, might have their enemiesjailed. Yet the opposition to the court ever increased. Resistance totaxation centered in the Parlement of Paris. It refused to register theking's decrees, and remained defiant even after Louis XV had angrilyannounced that he would not tolerate interference with hisprerogatives. The quarrel grew so bitter that all the thirteenParlements of France were suppressed (1771), and in their stead newroyal courts were established. Opposition was only temporarily crushed; and Louis XV knew that gravertrouble was brewing. He grew afraid to ride openly among thediscontented crowds of Paris; the peasants saluted him sullenly; thetreasury was empty; the monarchy was tottering. Yet Louis XV feltneither responsibility nor care. "It will surely last as long as I, " hecynically affirmed; "my successor may take care of himself. " [Sidenote: Louis XVI, 1774-1792] His successor was his grandson, Louis XVI (1774-1792), a weak-kneedprince of twenty years, very virtuous and well-meaning, but lacking inintelligence and will-power. He was too awkward and shy to preside withdignity over the ceremonious court; he was too stupid and lazy todominate the ministry. He liked to shoot deer from out the palacewindow, or to play at lock-making in his royal carpentry shop. Government he left to his ministers. [Sidenote: Turgot] At first, hopes ran high, for Turgot, friend of Voltaire andcontributor to the _Encyclopedia_, was minister of finance (1774-1776), and reform was in the air. Industry and commerce were to beunshackled; _laisser-faire_ was to be the order of the day;finances were to be reformed, and taxes lowered. The clergy and nobleswere no longer to escape taxation; taxes on food were to be abolished;the peasants were to be freed from forced labor on the roads. ButTurgot only stirred up opposition. The nobles and clergy were notanxious to be taxed; courtiers resented any reduction of theirpensions; tax-farmers feared the reforming minister; owners ofindustrial monopolies were frightened; the peasants misunderstood hisintentions; and riots broke out. Everybody seemed to be relieved when, in 1776, Turgot was dismissed. [Sidenote: Necker] Turgot had been a theorist; his successor was a businessman. JacquesNecker was well known in Paris as a hard-headed Swiss banker, andMadame Necker's receptions were attended by the chief personages of thebourgeois society of Paris. During his five years in office (1776-1781)Necker applied business methods to the royal finances. He borrowed400, 000, 000 francs from his banker friends, reformed the collection oftaxes, reduced expenditures, and carefully audited the accounts. In1781 he issued a report or "Account Rendered of the FinancialCondition. " The bankers were delighted; the secrets of the royaltreasury were at last common property; [Footnote: _The CompteRendu_, as it was called in France, was really not accurate; Necker, in order to secure credit for his financial administration, madematters appear better than they actually were. ] and Necker was praisedto the skies. [Sidenote: Marie Antoinette] While Necker's Parisian friends rejoiced, his enemies at court preparedhis downfall. Now the most powerful enemy of Necker's reforms andeconomies was the queen, Marie Antoinette. She was an Austrianprincess, the daughter of Maria Theresa, and in the eyes of the Frenchpeople she always remained a hated foreigner--"the Austrian, " theycalled her--the living symbol of the ruinous alliance between Habsburgsand Bourbons which had been arranged by a Madame de Pompadour and whichhad contributed to the disasters and disgrace of the Seven Years' War[Footnote: See above, pp. 358 ff]. While grave ministers of financewere puzzling their heads over the deficit, gay Marie Antoinette wasbuying new dresses and jewelry, making presents to her friends, givingprivate theatricals, attending horse-races and masked balls. The light-hearted girl-queen had little serious interest in politics, but whenher friends complained of Necker's miserliness, she at once demandedhis dismissal. Her demand was granted, for the kind-hearted, well-intentioned LouisXVI could not bear to deprive his pretty, irresponsible MarieAntoinette and her charming friends, --gallant nobles of France, --oftheir pleasures. Their pleasures were very costly; and fresh loanscould be secured by the obsequious new finance-minister, Calonne, onlyat high rates of interest. From the standpoint of France, the greatest folly of Louis XVI's reignwas the ruinous intervention in the War of American Independence (1778-1783). The United States became free; Great Britain was humbled;Frenchmen proved that their valor was equal to their chivalry; but whenthe impulsive Marquis de Lafayette returned from assisting theAmericans to win their liberty, he found a ruined France. The treasurywas on the verge of collapse. From the conclusion of the war in 1783 tothe outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789, every possible financialexpedient was tried--in vain. [Sidenote: The Problem of Taxation] To tax the so-called privileged classes--the clergy and the nobles--might have helped; and successive finance ministers so counseled theking. But it was absolutely against the spirit of the "old regime. "What was the good of being a clergyman or a noble, if one had noprivileges and was obliged to pay taxes like the rest? To tax all alikewould be in itself a revolution, and the tottering divine-rightmonarchy sought reform, not revolution. [Sidenote: The Assembly of Notables, 1787] Yet in 1786 the interest-bearing debt had mounted to $600, 000, 000, thegovernment was running in debt at least $25, 000, 000 a year, and thetreasury-officials were experiencing the utmost difficulty innegotiating new loans. Something had to be done. As a last resort, theking convened (1787) an Assembly of Notables--145 of the chief nobles, bishops, and magistrates--in the vain hope that they would consent tothe taxation of the privileged and unprivileged alike. The Notableswere not so self-sacrificing, however, and contented themselves withabolishing compulsory labor on the roads, voting to have provincialassemblies established, and demanding the dismissal of Calonne, theminister of finance. The question of taxation, they said, should bereferred to the Estates-General. All this helped the treasury in nomaterial way. [Sidenote: Convocation of the Estates-General] A new minister of finance, who succeeded Calonne, --Archbishop Lomeniede Brienne, --politely thanked the Notables and sent them home. He madeso many fine promises that hope temporarily revived, and a new loan wasraised. But the Parlement of Paris, which together with the otherParlements had been restored early in the reign of Louis XVI, soon sawthrough the artifices of the suave minister, and positively refused toregister further loans or taxes. Encouraged by popular approval, theParlement went on to draw up a declaration of rights, and to assertthat subsidies could constitutionally be granted only by the nation'srepresentatives--the ancient Estates-General. This sounded to thegovernment like revolution, and the Parlements were again abolished. The abolition of the Parlements raised a great cry of indignation;excited crowds assembled in Paris and other cities; and the soldiersrefused to arrest the judges. Here was real revolution, and Louis XVI, frightened and anxious, yielded to the popular demand for the Estates-General. In spite of the fact that every one talked so glibly about the Estates-General and of the great things that body would do, few knew just whatthe Estates-General was. Most people had heard that once upon a timeFrance had had a representative body of clergy, nobility, andcommoners, somewhat like the British Parliament. But no such assemblyhad been convoked for almost two centuries, and only scholars andlawyers knew what the old Estates-General had been. Nevertheless, itwas believed that nothing else could save France from ruin; and inAugust, 1788, Louis XVI, after consulting the learned men, issued asummons for the election of the Estates-General, to meet in May of thefollowing year. [Sidenote: Failure of Absolutism in France] The convocation of the Estates-General was the death-warrant of divine-right monarchy in France. It meant that absolutism had failed. The kingwas bankrupt. No half-way reforms or pitiful economies would do now. The Revolution was at hand. ADDITIONAL READING THE BRITISH MONARCHY, 1760-1800. General accounts: A. L. Cross, _History of England and Greater Britain_ (1914), ch. Xlv, a briefresume; _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. VI (1909), ch. Xiii; A. D. Innes, _History of England and the British Empire_, Vol. III (1914), ch. Vii-ix, xi; C. G. Robertson, _England under the Hanoverians_(1911); J. F. Bright, _History of England_, Vol. III, _ConstitutionalMonarchy_, 1689-1837; William Hunt, _Political History of England, 1760-1801_ (1905), Tory in sympathy; and W. E. H. Lecky, _A History ofEngland in the Eighteenth Century_, London ed. , 7 vols. (1907), and _AHistory of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century_, 5 vols. (1893), the mostcomplete general histories of the century. Special studies: E. And A. G. Porritt, _The Unreformed House of Commons_, new ed. , 2 vols. (1909), a careful description of the undemocratic character of theparliamentary system; J. R. Fisher, _The End of the Irish Parliament_(1911); W. L. Mathieson, _The Awakening of Scotland, 1747-1797_ (1910);_Correspondence of George III with Lord North, 1768-1783_, ed. By W. B. Donne, 2 vols. (1867), excellent for illustrating the king's system ofpersonal government; Horace Walpole, _Letters_, ed. By Mrs. P. Toynbee, 16 vols. (1903-1905), a valuable contemporary source as "Walpole is theacknowledged prince of letter writers"; G. S. Veitch, _The Genesis ofParliamentary Reform_ (1913), a clear and useful account of theagitation in the time of Pitt and Fox; W. P. Hall, _British Radicalism, 1791-1797_ (1912), an admirable and entertaining survey of the movementfor political and social reform in England; J. H. Rose, _William Pittand National Revival_ (1911), dealing with the years 1781-1791. Thereare biographies of _William Pitt_ (the Younger) by Lord Rosebery (1891)and by W. D. Green (1901); and _The Early Life of Charles James Fox_ bySir G. 0. Trevelyan (1880) affords a delightful picture of the life ofthe time. Also see books listed under ENGLISH SOCIETY IN THE EIGHTEENTHCENTURY, pp. 427 f. , above. THE BENEVOLENT DESPOTS. Brief general accounts: H. E. Bourne, _TheRevolutionary Period in Europe, 1763-1815_ (1914), ch. Ii, iv, v; J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard, _The Development of Modern Europe_, Vol. I (1907), ch. X, xi; H. M. Stephens, _Revolutionary Europe, 1789-1815_ (1893), ch. I; _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. VI(1909), ch. Xii, xviii-xx, xxii, xvi; E. F. Henderson, _A ShortHistory of Germany_, Vol. II (1902), ch. V, excellent on Frederickthe Great. With special reference to the career of Charles III ofSpain: Joseph Addison, _Charles III of Spain_ (1900); M. A. S. Hume, _Spain, its Greatness and Decay, 1479-1788_ (1898), ch. Xiv, xv; Francois Rousseau, _Regne de Charles III d'Espagne, 1759-1788, _ 2 vols. (1907), the best and most exhaustive work on thesubject; Gustav Diercks, _Geschichte Spaniens von der fruhestenZeiten bis auf die Gegenwart_, 2 vols. (1895-1896), a good generalhistory of Spain by a German scholar. On Gustavus III of Sweden: R. N. Bain, _Scandinavia, a Political History of Denmark, Norway, andSweden, from 1513 to 1900_ (1905). On the Dutch Netherlands in theeighteenth century: H. W. Van Loon, _The Fall of the DutchRepublic_ (1913). On Joseph II: A. H. Johnson, _The Age of theEnlightened Despot, 1660-1789_ (1910), ch. X, an admirable briefintroduction to the subject; _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. VIII(1904), ch. Xi, on Joseph's foreign policy; William Coxe (1747-1828), _History of the House of Austria_, Vol. III, an excellent accountthough somewhat antiquated; Franz Krones, _Handbuch der GeschichteOesterreichs_, Vol. IV (1878), Books XIX, XX, a standard work; KarlRitter, _Kaiser Joseph II und seine kirchlichen Reformen_; G. Holzknecht, _Ursprung und Herkunft der reformideen Kaiser Josefs IIauf kirchlichem Gebiete_ (1914). For further details of the projectsand achievements of Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa, seebibliographies accompanying Chapter XI, above; and for those ofCatherine II of Russia, see bibliography of Chapter XII, above. THE FRENCH MONARCHY, 1743-1789. Brief general accounts: ShailerMathews, _The French Revolution_ (reprint 1912), ch. Vi-viii; A. J. Grant, _The French Monarchy, 1483-1789_, Vol. II (1900), ch. Xix-xxi;G. W. Kitchin, _A History of France_, Vol. III (4th ed. , 1899), BookVI, ch. Iii-vii; _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. VIII (1904), ch. Ii-iv; E. J. Lowell, _The Eve of the French Revolution_ (1892), an ablesurvey; Sophia H. MacLehose, _The Last Days of the French Monarchy_(1901), a popular narrative. More detailed studies: J. B. Perkins, _France under Louis XV_, 2 vols. (1897), an admirable treatment; ErnestLavisse (editor), _Histoire de France_, Vol. VIII, Part II, _Regne deLouis XV, 1715-1774_ (1909), and Vol. IX, Part I, _Regne de Louis XVI, 1774-1789_ (1910), the latest and most authoritative treatment inFrench; Felix Rocquain, _The Revolutionary Spirit Preceding the FrenchRevolution_, condensed Eng. Trans. By J. D. Hunting (1891), asuggestive account of various disorders immediately preceding 1789;Leon Say, _Turgot_, a famous little biography translated from theFrench by M. B. Anderson (1888); W. W. Stephens, _Life and Writings ofTurgot_ (1895), containing extracts from important decrees of Turgot;Alphonse Jobez, _La France sous Louis XV_, 6 vols. (1864-1873), and, by the same author, _La France sous Louis XVI_, 3 vols. (1877-1893), exhaustive works, still useful for particular details but in generalnow largely superseded by the _Histoire de France_ of Ernest Lavisse;Charles Gomel, _Les causes financieres de la revolution francaise: lesderniers controleurs generaux_, 2 vols. (1892-1893), scholarly andespecially valuable for the public career of Turgot, Necker, Calonne, and Lomenie de Brienne; Rene Stourm, _Les finances de l'ancien regimeet de la revolution_, 2 vols. (1885); Aime Cherest, _La chute del'ancien regime_, 1787-1789, 3 vols. (1884-1886), a very detailed studyof the three critical years immediately preceding the Revolution; F. C. Von Mercy-Argenteau, _Correspondance secrete avec l'imperatrice Marie-Therese, avec les lettres de Marie-Therese et de Marie-Antoinette_, 3vols. (1875); and _Correspondance secrete avec l'empereur Joseph II etle prince de Kaunitz_, 2 vols. (1889-1891), editions of originalletters and other information which Mercy-Argenteau transmitted toVienna from 1766 to 1790, very valuable for the contemporary picturesof court-life at Versailles (selections have been translated andpublished in English). Also see books listed under FRENCH SOCIETY ONTHE EVE OF THE REVOLUTION, p. 427, above. CHAPTER XV THE FRENCH REVOLUTION INTRODUCTORY The governments and other political institutions which flourished inthe first half of the eighteenth century owed their origins to muchearlier times. They had undergone only such alterations as wereabsolutely necessary to adapt them to various places and changingcircumstances. Likewise, the same social classes existed as had alwayscharacterized western Europe; and these classes--the court, the nobles, the clergy, the bourgeoisie, the artisans, the peasants--continued tobear relations to each other which a hoary antiquity had sanctioned. Every individual was born into his class, or, as the popular phrasewent, to "a station to which God had called him, " and to question thefundamental divine nature of class distinctions seemed silly if notdownright blasphemous. [Sidenote: Dislocation of Society in Eighteenth Century] Such ideas were practical so long as society was comparatively staticand fixed, but they were endangered as soon as the human world wasconceived of as dynamic and progressive. The development of trade andindustry, as has been emphasized, rapidly increased the numbers, wealth, and influence of the bourgeoisie, or middle class, and quitenaturally threw the social machine out of gear. The merchants, thelawyers, the doctors, the professors, the literary men, began to envythe nobles and clergy, and in turn were envied by the poor townsfolkand by the downtrodden peasants. With the progress of learning andstudy, thoughtful persons of all classes began to doubt whether the oldorder of politics and society was best suited to the new conditions andnew relations. The "old regime" was for old needs; did it satisfy newrequirements? [Sidenote: Influence of Philosophy] To this question the philosophers of the eighteenth century respondedunequivocally in the negative. Scientists, of whom the period was full, had done much to exalt the notions that the universe is run inaccordance with immutable laws of nature and that man must foreverutilize his reasoning faculties. It was not long before thephilosophers were applying the scientists' notions to socialconditions. "Is this reasonable?" they asked, or, "Is that rational?"Montesquieu insisted that divine-right monarchy is unreasonable. Voltaire poked fun at the Church and the clergy for being irrational. Rousseau claimed that class inequalities have no basis in reason. Beccaria taught that arbitrary or cruel interference with personalliberty is not in accordance with dictates of nature or reason. Philosophy did not directly effect a change; it was merely anexpression of a growing belief in the advisability of change. Itreflected a conviction, deep in many minds, that the old politicalinstitutions and social distinctions had served their purpose andshould now be radically adapted to the new order. Every country ingreater or less degree heard the radical philosophy, but it was inFrance that it was first heeded. [Sidenote: The Revolution] In France, between the years 1789 and 1799, occurred a series ofevents, by which the doctrine of democracy supplanted that of divine-right monarchy, and the theory of class distinctions gave way to thatof social equality. These events, taken together, constitute what weterm the French Revolution, and, inasmuch as they have profoundlyaffected all political thought and social action throughout thenineteenth and twentieth centuries, they are styled, by way ofeminence, the Revolution. [Sidenote: The Revolution French] Why the Revolution started in France may be suggested by reference tocertain points which have already been mentioned in the history of thatcountry. France was the country which, above any other, had perfectedthe theory and practice of divine-right monarchy. In France haddeveloped the sharpest contrasts between the various social classes. Itwas likewise in France that the relatively high level of education andenlightenment had given great vogue to a peculiarly destructivecriticism of political and social conditions. Louis XIV had erected hisabsolutism and had won for it foreign glory and prestige only byplacing the severest burdens upon the French people. The exploitationof the state by the selfish, immoral Louis XV had served not to lightenthose burdens but rather to set forth in boldest relief the inherentweaknesses of the "old regime. " And Louis XVI, despite all manner ofpious wishes and good intentions, had been unable to square conditionsas they were with the operation of antique institutions. One royalminister after another discovered to his chagrin that mere "reform" wasworse than useless. A "revolution" would be required to sweep away themass of abuses that in the course of centuries had adhered to the bodypolitic. [Sidenote: Differences between the French and English Revolutions] At the outset, any idea of likening the French Revolution to theEnglish Revolution of the preceding century must be dismissed. Ofcourse the English had put one king to death and had expelled another, and had clearly limited the powers of the crown; they had "establishedparliamentary government. " But the English Revolution did not set upgenuine representative government, much less did it recognize thetheory of democracy. Voting remained a special privilege, conferred oncertain persons, not a natural right to be freely exercised by all. Norwas the English Revolution accompanied by a great social upheaval: itwas in the first instance political, in the second instance religiousand ecclesiastical; it was never distinctly social. To all intents andpurposes, the same social classes existed in the England of theeighteenth century as in the England of the sixteenth century, and, with the exception of the merchants, in much the same relation to oneanother. [Sidenote: The French Revolution in Two Periods] How radical and far-reaching was the French Revolution in contrast tothat of England will become apparent as we review the course of eventsin France during the decade 1789-1799. A brief summary at the close ofthis chapter will aim to explain the significance of the Revolution. Meanwhile, we shall devote our attention to a narrative of the mainevents. The story falls naturally into two parts: First, 1789-1791, thecomparatively peaceful transformation of the absolute, divine-rightmonarchy into a limited monarchy, accompanied by a definition of therights of the individual and a profound change in the social order;second, 1792-1799, the transformation of the limited monarchy into arepublic, attended by the first genuine trial of democracy, andattended likewise by foreign war and internal tumult. The story, ineither of its parts, is not an easy one, for the reason that importantroles are played simultaneously by five distinct groups of interestedpersons. [Sidenote: Role of the Court and the Privileged] In the first place, the people who benefit by the political and socialarrangements of the "old regime" will oppose its destruction. Amongthese friends of the "old regime" may be included the royal court, headed by the queen, Marie Antoinette, and by the king's brothers, thecount of Provence and the count of Artois, and likewise the bulk of thehigher clergy and the nobles--the privileged classes, generally. Thesepersons cannot be expected to surrender their privileges without astruggle, especially since they have been long taught that suchprivileges are of divine sanction. Only dire necessity compels them toacquiesce in the convocation of the Estates-General and only themildest measures of reform can be palatable to them. They hate anddread revolution or the thought of revolution. Yet at their expense theRevolution will be achieved. [Sidenote: Role of the Bourgeoisie] In the second place, the bourgeoisie, who have the most to lose if the"old regime" is continued and the most to gain if reforms are obtained, will constitute the majority in all the legislative bodies which willassemble in France between 1789 and 1799. Their legislative decreeswill in large measure reflect their class interests, and on one handwill terrify the court party and on the other will not fully satisfythe lower classes. The real achievements of the Revolution, however, will be those of the bourgeois assemblies. [Sidenote: Role of the Urban Proletariat] In the third place, the artisans and poverty-stricken populace of thecities, notably of Paris, will through bitter years lack for bread. They will expect great things from the assemblies and will revile theefforts of the court to impede the Revolution. They will shed blood atfirst to defend the freedom of the assemblies from the court, subsequently to bring the assemblies under their own domination. Without their cooperation the Revolution will not be achieved. [Sidenote: Role of the Peasantry] In the fourth place, the dull, heavy peasants, in whom no one hashitherto suspected brains or passions, long dumb under oppression, willnow find speech and opinions and an unwonted strength. They will riseagainst their noble oppressors and burn castles and perhaps do murder. They will force the astonished bourgeoisie and upper classes to takenotice of them and indirectly they will impress a significant socialcharacter upon the achievements of the Revolution. [Sidenote: Role of the Foreign Powers] Finally, the foreign monarchs must be watched, for they will beintensely interested in the story as it unfolds. If the French peoplebe permitted with impunity to destroy the very basis of divine-rightmonarchy and to overturn the whole social fabric of the "old regime, "how long, pray, will it be before Prussians, or Austrians, or Russiansshall be doing likewise? With some thought for Louis XVI and a gooddeal of thought for themselves, the monarchs will call each other"brother" and will by and by send combined armies against therevolutionaries in France. At that very time the success of theRevolution will be achieved, for all classes, save only the handful ofthe privileged, will unite in the cause of France, which incidentallybecomes the cause of humanity. Bourgeoisie, townsfolk, peasants, willgo to the front and revolutionary France will then be found in herarmies. Thereby not only will the Revolution be saved in France, but inthe end it will be communicated to the uttermost parts of Europe. THE END OF ABSOLUTISM IN FRANCE, 1789 [Sidenote: France on the Eve of the Revolution] When the story opens, France is still the absolute, divine-rightmonarchy which Louis XIV had perfected and Louis XV had exploited. Thesocial classes are still in the time-honored position which has beendescribed in Chapter XIII. But all is not well with the "old regime. "In the country districts the taxes are distressingly burdensome. In thecities there is scarcity of food side by side with starvation wages. Among the bourgeoisie are envy of the upper classes, an appreciation ofthe critical philosophy of the day, and a sincere admiration of whatseem to be happier political and social conditions across the Channelin Great Britain. The public debt of France is enormous, and a largepart of the national income must, therefore, be applied to the paymentof interest: even the courtiers of Louis XVI find their pensions andfavors and sinecures somewhat reduced. When the privileged classesbegin to feel the pinch of hard times, it is certain that the financesare in sore straits. [Sidenote: Financial Embarrassment] In fact, all the great general causes of the French Revolution, whichmay be inferred from the two preceding chapters, may be narrowed downto the financial embarrassment of the government of Louis XVI. The kingand his ministers had already had recourse to every expedientconsistent with the maintenance of the "old regime" save one, and thatone--the convocation of the Estates-General--was now to be tried. Itmight be that the representatives of the three chief classes of therealm would be able to offer suggestions to the court, whereby thefinances could be improved and at the same time the divine-rightmonarchy and the divinely ordained social distinctions would beunimpaired. [Sidenote: Convocation of the Estates-General] With this idea of simple reform in mind, Louis XVI in 1788 summoned theEstates-General to meet at Versailles the following May. The Estates-General were certainly not a revolutionary body. Though for a hundredand seventy-five years the French monarchs had been able to do withoutthem, they were in theory still a legitimate part of the old-timegovernment. Summoned by King Philip the Fair in 1302, they had beenthenceforth convoked at irregular intervals until 1614. Theirorganization had been in three separate bodies, representing byelection the three estates of the realm--clergy, nobility, andcommoners (Third Estate). Each estate voted as a unit, and two out ofthe three estates were sufficient to carry a measure. It usuallyhappened that the clergy and nobility joined forces to outvote thecommoners. The powers of the Estates-General had always been advisoryrather than legislative, and the kings had frequently ignored orviolated the enactments of the assembly. In its powers as well as inits organization, the Estates-General differed essentially from theParliament of England. By the Estates-General the ultimate supremacy ofthe royal authority had never been seriously questioned. [Sidenote: Election of the Estates-General] The elections to the Estates-General were held in accordance withancient usage throughout France in the winter of 1788-1789. Also, inaccordance with custom, the electors were invited by the king toprepare reports on the condition of the locality with which they werefamiliar and to indicate what abuses, if any, existed, and whatremedies, in their opinion, were advisable. [Sidenote: The Cahiers] By the time the elections were complete, it was apparent that themajority of the French people desired and expected a greater measure ofreform than their sovereign had anticipated. The reports and lists ofgrievances that had been drafted in every part of the country wereastounding. To be sure, these documents, called _cahiers_, werenot revolutionary in wording: with wonderful uniformity they expressedloyalty to the monarchy and fidelity to the king: in not a single oneout of the thousand _cahiers_ was there a threat of violentchange. But in spirit the _cahiers_ were eloquent. All of themreflected the idea which philosophy had made popular that reasondemanded fundamental, thoroughgoing reforms in government and society. Those of the Third Estate were particularly insistent upon the socialinequalities and abuses long associated with the "old regime. " It wasclear that if the elected representatives of the Third Estate carriedout the instructions of their constituents, the voting of additionaltaxes to the government would be delayed until a thorough investigationhad been made and many grievances had been redressed. [Sidenote: The Third Estate] On the whole, it was probable that the elected representatives of theThird Estate would heed the _cahiers_. They were educated andbrainy men. Two-thirds of them were lawyers or judges; many, also, werescholars; only ten could possibly be considered as belonging to thelower classes. A goodly number admired the governmental system of GreatBritain, in which the royal power had been reduced; the class interestsof all of them were directly opposed to the prevailing policies of theFrench monarchy. The Third Estate was too intelligent to follow blindlyor unhesitatingly the dictates of the court. In the earliest history of the Estates-General, the Third Estate hadbeen of comparatively slight importance either in society or inpolitics, and Philip the Fair had proclaimed that the duty of itsmembers was "to hear, receive, approve, and perform what should becommanded of them by the king. " But between the fourteenth andeighteenth centuries the relative social importance of the bourgeoisiehad enormously increased. The class was more numerous, wealthier, moreenlightened, and more experienced in the conduct of business. It becameclearer with the lapse of time that it, more than nobility or clergy, deserved the right of representing the bulk of the nation. This rightLouis XVI had seemed in part to recognize by providing that the numberof elected representatives of the Third Estate should equal thecombined numbers of those of the First and Second Estates. Thecommoners naturally drew the deduction from the royal concession thatthey were to exercise paramount political influence in the Estates-General of 1789. The Third Estate, as elected in the winter of 1788-1789, was fortunatein possessing two very capable leaders, Mirabeau and Sieyes, both ofwhom belonged by office or birth to the upper classes, but who hadgladly accepted election as deputies of the unprivileged classes. Withtwo such leaders, it was extremely doubtful whether the Third Estatewould tamely submit to playing an inferior role in future. [Sidenote: Mirabeau] Mirabeau (1749-1791) was the son of a bluff but good-hearted oldmarquis who was not very successful in bringing up his family. YoungMirabeau had been so immoral and unruly that his father had repeatedlyobtained _lettres de cachet_ from the king in order that prisonbars might keep him out of mischief. Released many times only to fallinto new excesses, Mirabeau found at last in the French Revolution anopportunity for expressing his sincere belief in constitutionalgovernment and an outlet for his almost superhuman energy. From theconvocation of the Estates-General to his death in 1791, he was one ofthe most prominent men in France. His gigantic physique, half-broken bydisease and imprisonment, his shaggy eyebrows, his heavy head, gave himan impressive, though sinister, appearance. And for quickness inperceiving at once a problem and its solution, as well as for gifts ofreverberating oratory, he was unsurpassed. [Sidenote: Sieyes] Of less force but greater tact was the priest, Sieyes (1748-1836), whose lack of devotion to Christianity and the clerical calling wasmatched by a zealous regard for the skeptical and critical philosophyof the day and for the practical arts of politics and diplomacy. It wasa pamphlet of Sieyes that, on the eve of the assembling of the Estates-General, furnished the Third Estate with its platform and program. "What is the Third Estate?" asks Sieyes. "It is everything, " hereplies. "What has it been hitherto in the political order? Nothing!What does it desire? To be something!" [Sidenote: Meeting of the Estates-General (May, 1789)][Sidenote: Constitutional Question Involved in the Organization of theEstates-General] The position of the Third Estate was still officially undefined whenthe Estates-General assembled at Versailles in May, 1789. The kingreceived his advisers with pompous ceremony and a colorless speech, butit was soon obvious that he and the court intended that their businessshould be purely financial and that their organization should be inaccordance with ancient usage; the three estates would thus vote "byorder, " that is, as three distinct bodies, so that the doubledmembership of the Third Estate would have but one vote to theprivileged orders' two. With this view the great majority of the noblesand a large part of the clergy, especially the higher clergy, were infull sympathy. On their side the commoners began to argue that theEstates-General should organize itself as a single body, in which eachmember should have one vote, such voting "by head" marking theestablishment of true representation in France, and that the assemblyshould forthwith concern itself with a general reformation of theentire government. With the commoners' argument a few of the liberalnobles, headed by Lafayette, and a considerable group of the clergy, particularly the curates, agreed; and it was backed up by the undoubtedsentiment of the nation. Bad harvests in 1788 had been followed by anunusually severe winter. The peasantry was in an extremely wretchedplight, and the cities, notably Paris, suffered from a shortage offood. The increase of popular distress, like a black cloud before astorm, gave menacing support to the demands of the commoners. [Sidenote: The King Defied by the Third Estate][Sidenote: The "Oath of the Tennis Court, " 20 June, 1789] Over the constitutional question, fraught as it was with the mostsignificant consequences to politics and society, the parties wrangledfor a month. The king, unwilling to offend any one, shilly-shallied. But the uncompromising attitude of the privileged orders and theindecision of the leaders of the court at length forced the issue. On17 June, 1789, the Third Estate solemnly proclaimed itself a NationalAssembly. Three days later, when the deputies of the Third Estate cameto the hall which had been set apart in the palace of Versailles fortheir use, they found its doors shut and guarded by troops and a noticeto the effect that it was undergoing repairs. Apparently the king wasat last preparing to intervene in the contest himself. Then thecommoners precipitated a veritable revolution. Led by Mirabeau andSieyes, they proceeded to a great public building in the vicinity, which was variously used as a riding-hall or a tennis court. There, amidst intense excitement, with upstretched hands, they took an oath asmembers of the "National Assembly" that they would not separate untilthey had drawn up a constitution for France. The "Oath of the TennisCourt" was the true beginning of the French Revolution. Without royalsanction, in fact against the express commands of the king, the ancientfeudal Estates-General had been transformed, by simple proclamation ofthe nation's representatives, into a National Assembly, charged withthe duty of establishing constitutional government in France. The "Oathof the Tennis Court" was the declaration of the end of absolute divine-right monarchy and of the beginning of a limited monarchy based on thepopular will. What would the king do under these circumstances? He might overwhelmthe rebellious commoners by force of arms. But that would not solve hisfinancial problems, nor could he expect the French nation to endure it. It would likely lead to a ruinous civil war. The only recourse leftopen to him was a game of bluff. He ignored the "Oath of the TennisCourt, " and with majestic mien commanded the estates to sit separatelyand vote "by order. " But the commoners were not to be bluffed. Nowjoined by a large number of clergy and a few nobles, they openly defiedthe royal authority. In the ringing words of Mirabeau, they expressedtheir rebellion: "We are here by the will of the people and we will notleave our places except at the point of the bayonet. " The weak-kneed, well-intentioned Louis XVI promptly acquiesced. Exactly one week afterthe scene in the tennis court, he reversed his earlier decrees anddirected the estates to sit together and vote "by head. " [Sidenote: Transformation of the Estates-General into the NationalConstituent Assembly] By 1 July, 1789, the first stage in the Revolution was completed. Thenobles and clergy were meeting with the commoners. The Estates-Generalhad become the National Constituent Assembly. As yet, however, twoimportant questions remained unanswered. In the first place, how wouldthe Assembly be assured of National freedom from the intrigues andarmed force of the court? In the second place, what direction would thereforms of the Assembly take? [Sidenote: The Court Prepares to Use Force against the Assembly] The answer to the first question was speedily evoked by the courtitself. As early as 1 July, a gradual movement of royal troops from thegarrisons along the eastern frontier toward Paris and Versailles madeit apparent that the king contemplated awing the National Assembly intoa more deferential mood. The Assembly, in dignified tone, requested theremoval of the troops. The king responded by a peremptory refusal andby the dismissal of Necker [Footnote: Necker had been restored to hisoffice as director-general of finances in 1788] the popular finance-minister. Then it was that Paris came to the rescue of the Assembly. [Sidenote: Popular Uprising at Paris in Behalf of the Assembly][Sidenote: The Destruction of the Bastille, 14 July, 1789] The Parisian populace, goaded by real want, felt instinctively that itsown cause and that of the National Assembly were identical. Fired by aneloquent harangue of a brilliant journalist, Camille Desmoulins (1760-1794) by name, they rushed to arms. For three days there was wilddisorder in the city. Shops were looted, royal officers were expelled, business was at a standstill. On the third day--14 July, 1789--the mobsurged out to the east end of Paris, where stood the frowning royalfortress and prison of the Bastille. Although since the accession ofLouis XVI the Bastille no longer harbored political offenders, nevertheless it was still regarded as a symbol of Bourbon despotism, agrim threat against the liberties of Paris. The people would now takeit and would appropriate its arms and ammunition for use in defense ofthe National Assembly. The garrison of the Bastille was small anddisheartened, provisions were short, and the royal governor wasirresolute. Within a few hours the mob was in possession of theBastille, and some of the Swiss mercenaries who constituted itsgarrison had been slaughtered. [Sidenote: Revolution in the Government of Paris: the Commune] The fall of the Bastille was the first serious act of violence in thecourse of the Revolution. It was an unmistakable sign that the peoplewere with the Assembly rather than with the king. It put force behindthe Assembly's decrees. Not only that, but it rendered Parispractically independent of royal control, for, during the period ofdisorder, prominent citizens had taken it upon themselves to organizetheir own government and their own army. The new local government--the"commune, " as it was called--was made up of those electedrepresentatives of the various sections or wards of Paris who hadchosen the city's delegates to the Estates-General. It was itself arevolution in city government: it substituted popularly electedofficials in place of royal agents and representatives of the outworngilds. And the authority of the commune was sustained by a popularlyenrolled militia, styled the National Guard, which soon numbered 48, 000champions of the new cause. [Sidenote: Temporary Acquiescence of the King] The fall of the Bastille was such a clear sign that even Louis XVI didnot fail to perceive its meaning. He instantly withdrew the royaltroops and recalled Necker. He recognized the new government of Parisand confirmed the appointment of the liberal Lafayette to command theNational Guard. He visited Paris in person, praised what he could notprevent, and put on a red-white-and-blue cockade--combining the red andblue of the capital city with the white of the Bourbons--the newnational tricolor of France. Frenchmen still celebrate the fourteenthof July, the anniversary of the fall of the Bastille, as theindependence day of the French nation. [Sidenote: Renewed Intrigues of the Royal Family against the Assembly] For a while it seemed as though reform might now go forward withoutfurther interruption. The freedom of the Assembly had been affirmed andupheld. Paris had settled down once more into comparative repose. Theking had apparently learned his lesson. But the victory of thereformers had been gained too easily. Louis XVI might take solemn oathsand wear strange cockades, but he remained in character essentiallyweak. His very virtues--good intentions, love of wife, loyalty tofriends--were continually abused. The queen was bitterly opposed to thereforming policies of the National Assembly and actively resented anydiminution of royal authority. Her clique of court friends andfavorites disliked the decrease of pensions and amusements to whichthey had long been accustomed. Court and queen made common cause inappealing to the good qualities of Louis XVI. What was the weak king todo under the circumstances? He was to fall completely under thedomination of his entourage. [Sidenote: Demonstrations of the Parisian Women at Versailles, October, 1789] The result was renewed intrigues to employ force against theobstreperous deputies and their allies, the populace of Paris. Thistime it was planned to bring royal troops from the garrisons inFlanders. And on the night of 1 October, 1789, a supper was given bythe officers of the bodyguard at Versailles in honor of the arrivingsoldiers. Toasts were drunk liberally and royalist songs were sung. News of the "orgy, " as it was termed, spread like wildfire in Paris, where hunger and suffering were more prevalent than ever. That city wasstarving while Versailles was feasting. The presence of additionaltroops at Versailles, it was believed, would not only put an end to theindependence of the Assembly but would continue the starvation ofParis. More excited grew the Parisians. On 5 October was presented a strange and uncouth spectacle. A long lineof the poorest women of Paris, including some men dressed as women, riotous with fear and hunger and rage, armed with sticks and clubs, screaming "Bread! bread! bread!" were straggling along the twelve milesof highway from Paris to Versailles. They were going to demand bread ofthe king. Lafayette and his National Guardsmen, who had been unable orunwilling to allay the excitement in Paris, marched at a respectfuldistance behind the women out to Versailles. By the time Lafayette reached the royal palace, the women weresurrounding it, howling and cursing, and demanding bread or blood; onlythe fixed bayonets of the troops from Flanders had prevented them frominvading the building, and even these regular soldiers were weakening. Lafayette at once became the man of the hour. He sent the soldiers backto the barracks and with his own force undertook the difficult task ofguarding the property and lives of the royal family and of feeding andhousing the women for the night. Despite his precautions, it was a wildnight. There was continued tumult in the streets and, at one time, shortly before dawn, a gang of rioters actually broke into the palaceand groped about in search of the queen's apartments. Just in the nickof time the hated Marie Antoinette hurried to safer quarters, althoughseveral of her personal bodyguard were killed in the melee. When the morning of 6 October had come, Lafayette addressed the crowd, promising them that they should be provided for, and, at the criticalmoment, there appeared at his side on the balcony of the palace theroyal family--the king, the little prince, the little princess, and thequeen--all wearing red-white-and-blue cockades. A hush fell upon themob. The respected general leaned over and gallantly kissed the hand ofMarie Antoinette. A great shout of joy went up. Apparently even thequeen had joined the Revolution. The Parisians were happy, andarrangements were made for the return journey. [Sidenote: Forcible Removal of the Court and Assembly from Versaillesto Paris] The procession of 6 October from Versailles to Paris was more curiousand more significant than that of the preceding day in the oppositedirection. There were still the women and the National Guardsmen andLafayette on his white horse and a host of people of the slums, butthis time in the midst of the throng was a great lumbering coach, inwhich rode Louis and his wife and children, for Paris now insisted thatthe court should no longer possess the freedom of Versailles in whichto plot unwatched against the rights of the French people. All alongthe procession reechoed the shout, "We have the baker and the baker'swife and the little cook-boy--now we shall have bread. " And so thecourt of Louis XVI left forever the proud, imposing palace ofVersailles, and came to humbler lodgings [Footnote: In the palace ofthe Tuileries. ] in the city of Paris. Paris had again saved the National Assembly from royal intimidation, and the Assembly promptly acknowledged the debt by following the kingto that city. After October, 1789, not reactionary Versailles butradical Paris was at once the scene and the impulse of the Revolution. The "Fall of the Bastille" and the "March of the Women to Versailles"were the two picturesque events which assured the independence of theNational Assembly from the armed force and intrigue of the court. Meanwhile, the answer to the other question which we propounded above, "What direction would the reforms of the Assembly take?" had beensupplied by the people at large. [Sidenote: Disintegration of the Old Regime throughout France][Sidenote: Peasant Reprisals against the Nobility] Ever since the assembling of the Estates-General, ordinaryadministration of the country had been at a standstill. The people, expecting great changes, refused to pay the customary taxes andimposts, and the king, for fear of the National Assembly and of apopular uprising, hesitated to compel tax collection by force of arms. The local officials did not know whether they were to obey the Assemblyor the king. In fact, the Assembly was for a time so busy withconstitutional questions that it neglected to provide for localgovernment, and the king was always timorous. So, during the summer of1789, the institutions of the "old regime" disappeared throughoutFrance, one after another, because there was no popular desire tomaintain them and no competent authority to enforce them. Theinsurrection in Paris and the fall of the Bastille was the signal inJuly for similar action elsewhere: other cities and towns substitutednew elective officers for the ancient royal or gild agents andorganized National Guards of their own. At the same time the directaction of the people spread to the country districts. In most provincesthe oppressed peasants formed bands which stormed and burned thechateaux of the hated nobles, taking particular pains to destroy feudalor servile title-deeds. Monasteries were often ransacked and pillaged. A few of the unlucky lords were murdered, and many others were driveninto the towns or across the frontier. Amid the universal confusion, the old system of local government completely collapsed. The intendantsand governors quitted their posts. The ancient courts of justice, whether feudal or royal, ceased to act. The summer of 1789 really endedFrench absolutism, and the transfer of the central government fromVersailles to Paris in October merely confirmed an accomplished fact. [Sidenote: The Revolution Social as well as Political] Whatever had been hitherto the reforming policies of the NationalAssembly, the deputies henceforth faced facts rather than theories. Radical social readjustments were now to be effected along with purelygovernmental and administrative changes. The Revolution was to besocial as well as political. THE END OF THE OLD REGIME: THE NATIONAL CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY, 1789-1791 [Sidenote: Achievements of the National Assembly, 1789-1791] By the transformation of the Estates-General into the NationalConstituent Assembly, France had become to all intents and purposes alimited monarchy, in which supreme authority was vested in the nation'selected representatives. From October, 1789, to September, 1791, thisAssembly was in session in Paris, endeavoring to bring order out ofchaos and to fashion a new France out of the old that was dying ofexhaustion and decrepitude. Enormous was the task, but even greaterwere the achievements. Although the work of the Assembly during theperiod was influenced in no slight degree by the Parisian populace, nevertheless it was attended by comparative peace and security. And thework done was by far the most vital and most lasting of the wholerevolutionary era. Leaving out of consideration for the time the frightened royal family, the startled noblemen and clergy, the determined peasantry, and theexcited townsfolk, and not adhering too closely to chronological order, let us center our attention upon the National Assembly and review itsmajor acts during those momentous years, 1789-1791. [Sidenote: 1. Legal Destruction of Feudalism and Serfdom] The first great work of the Assembly was the legal destruction offeudalism and serfdom--a long step in the direction of social equality. We have already noticed how in July while the Assembly was still atVersailles, the royal officers in the country districts had ceased torule and how the peasants had destroyed many _chateaux_ amidscenes of unexpected violence. News of the rioting and disorder came tothe Assembly from every province and filled its members with theliveliest apprehension. A long report, submitted by a specialinvestigating committee on 4 August, 1789, gave such harrowing detailsof the popular uprising that every one was convinced that somethingshould be done at once. [Sidenote: "The August Days"] While the Assembly was debating a declaration which might calm revolt, one of the nobles--a relative of Lafayette--arose in his place andstated that if the peasants had attacked the property and privileges ofthe upper classes, it was because such property and privilegesrepresented unjust inequality, that the fault lay there, and that theremedy was not to repress the peasants but to suppress inequality. Itwas immediately moved and carried that the Assembly should proclaimequality of taxation for all classes and the suppression of feudal andservile dues. Then followed a scene almost unprecedented in history. Noble vied with noble, and clergyman with clergyman, in renouncing thevested rights of the "old regime. " The game laws were repudiated. Themanorial courts were suppressed. Serfdom was abolished. Tithes and allsorts of ecclesiastical privilege were sacrificed. The sale of officeswas discontinued. In fact, all special privileges, whether of classes, of cities, or of provinces, were swept away in one consuming burst ofenthusiasm. The holocaust lasted throughout the night of the fourth ofAugust. Within a week the various independent measures had beenconsolidated into an impressive decree "abolishing the feudal system, "and this decree received in November the royal assent. What manyreforming ministers had vainly labored for years partially toaccomplish was now done, at least in theory, by the National Assemblyin a few days. The so-called "August Days" promised to dissolve theancient society of France. It has been customary to refer these vast social changes to theenthusiasm, magnanimity, and self-sacrifice of the privileged orders. That there was enthusiasm is unquestionable. But it may be doubtedwhether the nobles and clergy were so much magnanimous as terrorized. For the first time, they were genuinely frightened by the peasants, andit is possible that the true measure of their "magnanimity" was theiralarm. Then, too, if one is to sacrifice, he must have something tosacrifice. At most, the nobles had only legal claims to surrender, forthe peasants had already taken forcible possession of nearly everythingwhich the decree accorded them. In fact the decree of the Assemblyconstituted merely a legal and uniform recognition of accomplishedfacts. The nobles may have thought, moreover, that liberal acquiescence in thefirst demands of the peasantry would save themselves from furtherdemands. At any rate, they zealously set to work in the Assembly tomodify what had been done, to secure financial or other indemnity, [Footnote: The general effect of the series of decrees of the Assemblyfrom 5 to 11 August, 1789, was to impose some kind of financialredemption for many of the feudal dues. It was only in July, 1793, almost four years after the "August Days, " that _all_ feudal duesand rights were legally abolished without redemption or compensation. ]and to prevent the enactment of additional social legislation. Outsidethe Assembly few nobles took kindly to the loss of privilege andproperty: the overwhelming majority protested and tried to stir upcivil war, and, when such attempts failed, they left France andenrolled themselves among their country's enemies. It is not necessary for us to know precisely who were responsible forthe "August Days. " The fact remains that the "decree abolishing thefeudal system" represented the most important achievement of the wholeFrench Revolution. Henceforth, those who profited by the decree wereloyal friends of the Revolution, while the losers were its bitteropponents. [Sidenote: 2. The Declaration of the Rights of Man] The second great work of the Assembly was the guarantee of individualrights and liberties. The old society and government of France weredisappearing. On what basis should the new be erected? Great Britainhad its _Magna Carta_ and its Bill of Rights; America had itsDeclaration of Independence. France was now given a "Declaration of theRights of Man and of the Citizen. " This document, which reflected thespirit of Rousseau's philosophy and incorporated some of the Britishand American provisions, became the platform of the French Revolutionand tremendously influenced political thought in the nineteenth andtwentieth centuries. A few of its most striking sentences are asfollows: "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. " The rightsof man are "liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. ""Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a rightto participate personally, or through his representative, in itsformation. It must be the same for all. " "No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the formsprescribed by law. " Religious toleration, freedom of speech, andliberty of the press are affirmed. The people are to control thefinances, and to the people all officials of the state are responsible. Finally, the influence of the propertied classes, which wereoverwhelmingly represented in the Assembly, showed itself in theconcluding section of the Declaration: "Since private property is aninviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof exceptwhere public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previouslyand equitably indemnified. " [Sidenote: 3. Reform of Local Administration] The next great undertaking of the National Assembly was theestablishment of a new and uniform administrative system in France. Theancient and confusing "provinces, " "governments, " "intendancies, ""_pays d'etat_" "_pays d'election_" "parlements, " and"bailliages" were swept away. The country was divided anew into eighty-three departments, approximately uniform in size and population, andnamed after natural features, such as rivers or mountains. Eachdepartment was subdivided into districts, cantons. And communes, --divisions which have endured in France to the present time. The headsof the local government were no longer to be appointed by the crown butelected by the people, and extensive powers were granted to electivelocal councils. Provision was made for a new system of law courtsthroughout the country, and the judges, like the administrativeofficials, were to be elected by popular vote. Projects were likewiseput forward to unify and simplify the great variety and mass of lawswhich prevailed in different parts of France, but this work was notbrought to completion until the time of Napoleon Bonaparte. [Sidenote: 4. Financial Regulation. 5. Secularization of ChurchProperty, the Assignats] Another grave matter which concerned the National Assembly was theregulation of the public finances. It will be recalled that financialconfusion was the royal reason for summoning the Estates-General. Andin the early days of the Assembly, the confusion became chaos: it wasimpossible to enforce the payment of direct taxes; indirect taxes weredestroyed by legislative decree; and bankers could not be induced tomake new loans. Therefore, it was to heroic measures that the Assemblyresorted to save the state from bankruptcy. To provide funds, a heavyblow was struck at one of the chief props of the "old regime"--theCatholic Church. The Church, as we have seen, owned at least a fifth ofthe soil of France, and it was now resolved to seize these rich churchlands, and to utilize them as security for the issue of paper money--the _assignats_. As partial indemnity for the wholesaleconfiscation, the state was to undertake the payment of fixed salariesto the clergy. Thus by a single stroke the financial pressure wasrelieved, the Church was deprived of an important source of itsstrength, and the clergy were made dependent on the new order. Ofcourse, as often happens in similar cases, the issue of paper money wasso increased that in time it exceeded the security and brought freshtroubles to the state, but for the moment the worst dangers were tidedover. [Sidenote: 6. Other Legislation against the Catholic Church] The ecclesiastical policies and acts of the National Assembly wereperhaps the least efficacious and the most fateful achievements of theRevolution. Yet it would be difficult to perceive how they could havebeen less radical than they were. The Church appeared to beindissolubly linked with the fortunes of old absolutist France; theclergy comprised a particularly privileged class; and the leaders andgreat majority of the Assembly were filled with the skeptical, Deistic, and anti-Christian philosophy of the time. In November, 1789, thechurch property was confiscated. In February, 1790, the monasteries andother religious houses were suppressed. In April, absolute religioustoleration was proclaimed. In August, 1790, the "Civil Constitution ofthe Clergy" was promulgated, by which the bishops and priests, reducedin numbers, were made a civil body: they were to be elected by thepeople, paid by the state, and separated from the sovereign control ofthe pope. In December, the Assembly forced the reluctant king to sign adecree compelling all the clergy to take a solemn oath of allegiance tothe "Civil Constitution. " [Sidenote: Catholic Opposition to the Revolution] The pope, who had already protested against the seizure of churchproperty and the expulsion of the monks, now condemned the "CivilConstitution" and forbade Catholics to take the oath of allegiance. Thus, the issue was squarely joined. Such as took the oath wereexcommunicated by the pope, such as refused compliance were deprived oftheir salaries and threatened with imprisonment. Up to this time, thebulk of the lower clergy, poor themselves and in immediate contact withthe suffering of the peasants, had undoubtedly sympathized with thecourse of the Revolution, but henceforth their convictions and theirconsciences came into conflict with devotion to their country. Theyfollowed their conscience and either incited the peasants, over whomthey exercised considerable influence, to oppose further revolution, oremigrated [Footnote: The clergy who would not take the oath were calledthe "non-juring" clergy. Those who left France, together with the nobleemigrants, were called "emigres. "] from France to swell the number ofthose who, dissatisfied with the course of events in their own country, would seek the first opportunity to undo the work of the Assembly. TheCatholic Church, as well as the hereditary nobility, became anunwearied opponent of the French Revolution. [Sidenote: 7. The Constitution of 1791] Amid all these sweeping reforms and changes, the National ConstituentAssembly was making steady progress in drafting a written constitutionwhich would clearly define the agencies of government, and theirrespective powers, the new limited monarchy. This constitution wascompleted in 1791 and signed by the king--he could do nothing else--andat once went into full effect. It was the first written constitution ofany importance that any European country had had, and was preceded onlyslightly in point of time by that of the United States. [Footnote: Thepresent American constitution was drafted in 1787 and went into effectin 1789, the year that the Estates-General assembled. ] The Constitution of 1791, as it was called, provided, like the Americanconstitution, for the "separation of powers, " that is, that the law-making, law-enforcing, and law-interpreting functions of governmentshould be kept quite distinct as the legislative, executive, andjudicial departments, and should each spring, in last analysis, fromthe will of the people. This idea had been elaborated by Montesquieu, and deeply affected the constitution-making of the eighteenth centuryboth in France and in the United States. [Sidenote: Legislative Provisions] The legislative authority was vested in one chamber, styled the"Legislative Assembly, " the members of which were chosen by means of acomplicated system of indirect election. [Footnote: That is to say, thepeople would vote for electors, and the electors for the members of theAssembly. ] The distrust with which the bourgeois framers of theconstitution regarded the lower classes was shown not only in thischeck upon direct election but also in the requirements that theprivilege of voting should be exercised exclusively by "active"citizens, that is, by citizens who paid taxes, and that the right tohold office should be restricted to property-holders. [Sidenote: Weakness of the King under the Constitution] Nominally the executive authority resided in the hereditary king. Inthis respect, most of the French reformers thought they were imitatingthe British government, but as a matter of fact they made the kingshipnot even ornamental. True, they accorded to the king the right topostpone for a time the execution of an act of the legislature--the so-called "suspensive veto"--but they deprived him of all control overlocal government, over the army and navy, and over the clergy. Even hisministers were not to sit in the Assembly. Tremendous had been thedecline of royal power in France during those two years, 1789-1791. [Sidenote: Summary of the Work of the National Assembly] This may conclude our brief summary of the work of the NationalConstituent Assembly. If we review it as a whole, we are impressed bythe immense destruction which it effected. No other body of legislatorshas ever demolished so much in the same brief period. The old form ofgovernment, the old territorial divisions, the old financial system, the old judicial and legal regulations, the old ecclesiasticalarrangements, and, most significant of all, the old condition ofholding land--serfdom and feudalism--all were shattered. Yet all thisdestruction was not a mad whim of the moment. It had been preparingslowly and painfully for many generations. It was foreshadowed by themass of well-considered complaints in the _cahiers_. It wasachieved not only by the decrees of the Assembly, but by the forcefulexpression of the popular will. THE LIMITED MONARCHY IN OPERATION: THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (1791-1792)AND THE OUTBREAK OF FOREIGN WAR [Sidenote: Brief Duration of Limited Monarchy in France, 1791-1792] Great public rejoicing welcomed the formal inauguration of the limitedmonarchy in 1791. Many believed that a new era of Peace and prosperitywas dawning for France. Yet the extravagant hopes which were widelyentertained for the success of the new regime were doomed to speedy andbitter disappointment. The new government encountered all manner ofdifficulties, the country rapidly grew more radical in sentiment andaction, and within a single year the limited monarchy gave way to arepublic. The establishment of the republic was the second great phaseof the Revolution. Why it was possible and even inevitable may begathered from a survey of political conditions in France during 1792, --at once the year of trial for limited monarchy and the year oftransition to the republic. [Sidenote: Sources of Opposition to the Limited Monarchy] By no means did all Frenchmen accept cheerfully and contentedly thework of the National Constituent Assembly. Of the numerous dissenters, some thought it went too far and some thought it did not go far enough. The former may be styled "reactionaries" and the latter "radicals. " [Sidenote: Reactionaries][Sidenote: 1. The Emigres] The reactionaries embraced the bulk of the formerly privileged nobilityand the non-juring clergy. The nobles had left France in large numbersas soon as the first signs of violence appeared--about the time of thefall of the Bastille and the peasant uprisings in the provinces. Manyof the clergy had similarly departed from their homes when theanticlerical measures of the Assembly rendered it no longer possiblefor them to follow the dictates of conscience. These reactionaryexiles, or emigres as they were termed, collected in force along thenorthern and eastern frontier, especially at Coblenz on the Rhine. Theypossessed an influential leader in the king's own brother, the count ofArtois, and they maintained a perpetual agitation, by means ofnewspapers, pamphlets, and intrigues, against the new regime. They wereanxious to regain their privileges and property, and to restoreeverything, as far as possible, to precisely the same position it hadoccupied prior to 1789. [Sidenote: 2. The Court][Sidenote: The Flight to Varennes] Nor were the reactionaries devoid of support within France. It wasbelieved that the royal family, now carefully watched in Paris, sympathized with their efforts. So long as Mirabeau, the ablest leaderin the National Assembly, was alive, he had never ceased urging theking to accept the reforms of the Revolution and to give no countenanceto agitation beyond the frontiers. In case the king should find hisposition in Paris intolerable, he had been advised by Mirabeau towithdraw into western or southern France and gather the loyal nationabout him. But unfortunately, Mirabeau, worn out by dissipation andcares, died prematurely in April, 1791. Only two months later the royalfamily attempted to follow the course against which they had beenwarned. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, in an effort to rid themselvesof the spying vigilance of the Parisians, disguised themselves, fledfrom the capital, and made straight for the eastern frontier, apparently to join the emigres. At Varennes, near the border, the royalfugitives were recognized and turned back to Paris, which henceforthbecame for them rather a prison than a capital. Although Louissubsequently swore a solemn oath to uphold the constitution, hispersonal popularity vanished with his ill-starred flight, and his wife--the hated "Austrian woman"--was suspected with good reason of beingin secret correspondence with the emigres as well as with foreigngovernments. Marie Antoinette was more detested than ever. The king'soldest brother, the count of Provence, was more successful than theking in the flight of June, 1791: he eluded detection and joined thecount of Artois at Coblenz. [Sidenote: 3. Conservative and Catholic Peasants. ] Had the reactionaries been restricted entirely to emigres and the royalfamily, it is hardly possible that they would have been so troublesomeas they were. They were able, however, to secure considerable popularsupport in France. A small group in the Assembly shared their views andproposed the most extravagant measures in order to embarrass the workof that body. Conservative clubs existed among the upper and well-to-doclasses in the larger cities. And in certain districts of westernFrance, especially in Brittany, Poitou (La Vendee), and Anjou, thepeasants developed hostility to the course of the Revolution: theirextraordinary devotion to Catholicism placed them under the influenceof the non-juring clergy, and their class feeling against townspeopleinduced them to believe that the Revolution, carried forward by thebourgeoisie, was essentially in the interests of the bourgeoisie. Riotsoccurred in La Vendee throughout 1791 and 1792 with increasingfrequency until at length the district blazed into open rebellionagainst the radicals. [Sidenote: Radicals][Sidenote: 1. The Bourgeois Leaders][Sidenote: 2. The Proletarians] More dangerous to the political settlement of 1791 than the oppositionof the reactionaries was that of the radicals--those Frenchmen whothought that the Revolution had not gone far enough. The realexplanation of the radical movement lies in the conflict of interestbetween the poor working people of the towns and the middle class, orbourgeoisie. The latter, as has been repeatedly emphasized, possessedthe brains, the money, and the education: it was they who had beenoverwhelmingly represented in the National Assembly. The former weredegraded, poverty-stricken, and ignorant, but they constituted the bulkof the population in the cities, notably in Paris, and they were bothconscious of their sorry condition and desperately determined toimprove it. These so-called "proletarians, " though hardly directlyrepresented in the Assembly, nevertheless fondly expected the greatestbenefits from the work of that body. For a while the bourgeoisie andthe proletariat cooeperated: the former carried reforms through theAssembly, the latter defended by armed violence the freedom of theAssembly; both participated in the capture of the Bastille, in theestablishment of the commune, and in the transfer of the seat ofgovernment from Versailles to Paris. So long as they faced a seriouscommon danger from the court and privileged orders, they worked inharmony. [Sidenote: Conflict of Interests Between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat] But as soon as the Revolution had run its first stage and had succeededin reducing the royal power and in abolishing many special privilegesof the nobles and clergy, a sharp cleavage became evident between theformer allies--between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Thebourgeoisie, to whom was due the enactment of the reforms of theNational Constituent Assembly, profited by those reforms far more thanany other class in the community. Their trade and industry werestimulated by the removal of the ancient royal and feudal restrictions. Their increased wealth enabled them to buy up the estates of theoutlawed emigres and the confiscated lands of the Church. They securedan effective control of all branches of government, local and central. Of course, the peasantry also benefited to no slight extent, but theirbenefits were certainly less impressive than those of the bourgeoisie. Of all classes in France, the urban proletariat seemed to have gainedthe least: to be sure they were guaranteed by paper documents certaintheoretical "rights and liberties, " but what had been done for theirmaterial well-being? They had obtained no property. They hadexperienced no greater ease in earning their daily bread. And in 1791they seemed as far from realizing their hopes of betterment as they hadbeen in 1789, for the bourgeois constitution-makers had provided thatonly taxpayers could vote and only property-owners could hold office. The proletariat, thereby cut off from all direct share in the conductof government, could not fail to be convinced that in the first phaseof the Revolution they had merely exchanged one set of masters foranother, that at the expense of the nobles and clergy they had exaltedthe bourgeoisie, and that they themselves were still downtrodden andoppressed. Radical changes in the constitution and radical sociallegislation in their own behalf became the policies of the proletariat;violence would be used as a means to an end, if other means failed. Not all of the bourgeoisie were thoroughly devoted to the settlement of1791. Most of them doubtless were. But a thoughtful and conspicuousminority allied themselves with the proletariat. Probably in manyinstances it was for the selfish motive of personal ambition that thisor that middle-class individual prated much about his love for "thepeople" and shed tears over their wretchedness and made all manner ofelection promises to them. But, on the other hand, there were sincereand altruistic bourgeois who had been converted to the extremedemocratic doctrines of Rousseau and who were deeply touched by themisery of the lowest classes. It was under the leadership of such menthat the proletariat grew ever more radical until they sought by forceto establish democracy in France. [Sidenote: Center of Radicalism in Paris] The radical movement centered in Paris, where now lived the royalfamily and where the legislature met. With the object of intimidatingthe former and controlling the latter, the agitation made rapid headwayduring 1791 and 1792. It was conducted by means of inflammatorynewspapers, coarse pamphlets, and bitter speeches. It appealed to boththe popular reason and the popular emotions. It was backed up andrendered efficient by the organization of revolutionary "clubs. " [Sidenote: The Clubs][Sidenote: Cordeliers and Jacobins] These clubs were interesting centers of political and social agitation. Their origin was traceable to the "eating clubs" which had been formedat Versailles by various deputies who desired to take their mealstogether, but the idea progressed so far that by 1791 nearly every cafein Paris aspired to be a meeting place for politicians and "patriots. "Although some of the clubs were strictly constitutional, and even, in afew instances, professedly reactionary, nevertheless the greater numberand the most influential were radical. Such were the Cordelier andJacobin clubs. The former, organized as a "society of the friends ofthe rights of man and of the citizen, " was very radical from itsinception and enrolled in its membership the foremost revolutionariesof Paris. The latter, starting out as a "society of the friends of theconstitution, " counted among its early members such men as Mirabeau, Sieyes, and Lafayette, but subsequently under the leadership ofRobespierre, transformed itself into an organization quite as radicalas the Cordeliers. It is an interesting tact that both these radicalclubs derived their popular names from monasteries, in whoseconfiscated buildings they customarily met. [Sidenote: Radical Propaganda] From Paris the radical movement radiated in all directions. Pamphletsand newspapers were spread broadcast. The Jacobin club established aregular correspondence with branch clubs or kindred societies whichsprang up in other French towns. The radicals were everywhere inspiredby the same zeal and aided by a splendid organization. [Sidenote: Radical Leaders] Of the chief radical leaders, it may be convenient at this point tointroduce three--Marat, Danton, and Robespierre. All belonged to thebourgeoisie by birth and training, but by conviction they became themouthpieces of the proletariat. All played important roles insubsequent scenes of the Revolution. [Sidenote: Marat] Marat (_c_. 1742-1793), had he never become interested in politicsand conspicuous in the Revolution, might have been remembered inhistory as a scientist and a man of letters. He had been a physician, and for skill in his profession, as well as for contributions to thescience of physics, he had received an honorary degree from St. AndrewsUniversity in Scotland, and for a time he was in the service of thecount of Artois. The convocation of the Estates-General turned hisattention to public affairs. In repeated and vigorous pamphlets hecombated the idea then prevalent in France that his countrymen shouldadopt a constitution similar to that of Great Britain. During severalyears' sojourn in Great Britain he had observed that that country wasbeing ruled by an oligarchy which, while using the forms of liberty andpretending to represent the country, was in reality using its power forthe promotion of its own narrow class interests. He made up his mindthat real reform must benefit all the people alike and that it could besecured only by direct popular action. This was the simple message thatfilled the pages of the _Ami du peuple_--the _Friend of thePeople_--a newspaper which he edited from 1789 to 1792. With fierceinvective he assailed the court, the clergy, the nobles, even thebourgeois Assembly. Attached to no party and with no detailed policies, he sacrificed almost everything to his single mission. No poverty, misery, or persecution could keep him quiet. Forced even to hide incellars and sewers, where he contracted a loathsome skin disease, hepersevered in his frenzied appeals to the Parisian populace to takematters into their own hands. By 1792 Marat was a man feared and hatedby the authorities but loved and venerated by the masses of thecapital. [Footnote: Marat was assassinated on 13 July, 1793, byCharlotte Corday, a young woman who was fanatically attached to theGirondist faction. ] [Sidenote: Danton] No less radical but far more statesmanlike was Danton (1759-1794), whohas been called "a sort of middle-class Mirabeau. " The son of a farmer, he had studied law, had purchased a position as advocate of the RoyalCouncil, and, before the outbreak of the Revolution, had acquired areputation not only as a brilliant young lawyer, but also as a man ofliberal tastes, fond of books, and happy in his domestic life. LikeMirabeau, he was a person of powerful physique and of stentorian voice, a skilled debater and a convincing orator; unlike Mirabeau, he himselfremained calm and self-possessed while arousing his audiences to thehighest pitch of enthusiasm. Like Mirabeau, too, he was not soprimarily interested in the welfare of his own social class as in thatof the class below him: what the nobleman Mirabeau was to thebourgeoisie, the bourgeois Danton was to the Parisian proletariat. Brought to the fore, through the favor of Mirabeau, in the early daysof the Revolution, Danton at once showed himself a strong advocate ofreal democracy. In 1790, in conjunction with Marat and CamilleDesmoulins, he founded the Cordelier Club, the activities of which hedirected throughout 1791 and 1792 against the royal family and thewhole cause of monarchy. An influential member of the commune of Paris, he was largely instrumental in crystallizing public opinion in favor ofrepublicanism, Danton was rough and courageous, but neither venal norbloodthirsty. [Sidenote: Robespierre] Less practical than Danton and further removed from the proletariatthan Marat, Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794) nevertheless combinedsuch qualities as made him the most prominent exponent of democracy andrepublicanism. Descended from a middle-class family of Irishextraction, Robespierre had been a classmate of Camille Desmoulins inthe law school of the University of Paris, and had practiced law withsome success in his native town of Arras. He was appointed a criminaljudge, but soon resigned that post because he could not endure toinflict the death penalty. In his immediate circle he acquired areputation as a writer, speaker, and something of a dandy. Elected tothe Third Estate in 1789, he took his place with the extreme radicalsin that body--the "thirty voices, " as Mirabeau contemptuously calledthem. Robespierre had read Rousseau from cover to cover and believed inthe philosopher's doctrines with all his heart so that he would havegone to death for them. In the belief that they eventually wouldsucceed and regenerate France and all mankind, he was ready to workwith unwearied patience. The paucity of his followers in the NationalAssembly and the overpowering personality of Mirabeau prevented himfrom exercising much influence in framing the new constitution, and hegradually turned for support to the people of Paris. He was already amember of the Jacobin Club, which, by the withdrawal of its moreconservative members in 1791, came then under his leadership. Thenceforth the Jacobin Club was a most effective instrument forestablishing social democracy (although it was not committed torepublicanism until August, 1792), and Robespierre was its oracle. Robespierre was never a demagogue in the present sense of the word: hewas always emphatically a gentleman and a man of culture, sincere andtruthful. Although he labored strenuously for the "rights" of theproletariat, he never catered to their tastes; to the last day of hislife he retained the knee-breeches and silk stockings of the oldsociety and wore his hair powdered. We are now in a position to understand why the constitutional monarchyfloundered. It had no great leaders to strengthen it and to conduct itthrough the narrow strait. It was bound to strike the rocks of reactionon one side or those of radicalism on the other. Against such fearlessand determined assailants as Robespierre, Danton, and Marat, it washelpless. [Sidenote: Difficulties Confronting the Legislative Assembly, 1791] The new government came into being with the first meeting of theLegislative Assembly on 1 October, 1791. Immediately its troublesbegan. The members of the Legislative Assembly were whollyinexperienced in parliamentary procedure, for an unfortunate self-denying ordinance [Footnote: Proposed by Robespierre. ] of the retiringConstituent Assembly had prohibited any of its members from acceptingelection to the new body. The Legislative Assembly contained deputiesof fundamentally diverse views who quarreled long though eloquentlyamong themselves. Moreover, it speedily came into conflict with theking, who vainly endeavored to use his constitutional right ofsuspensive veto in order to check its activities. Combined with theseproblems was the popular agitation and excitement: a peasant revolt inLa Vendee, the angry threats of emigre nobles and non-juring clergyacross the eastern frontier, the loud tumults of the proletariat ofParis and of other large cities as well. [Sidenote: Foreign Hostility to the French Revolution] The difficulties of the limited monarchy were further complicated by anembarrassing foreign situation. It will be borne in mind that allimportant European states still adhered rigidly to the socialinstitutions of the "old regime" and, with the exception of GreatBritain, to divine-right monarchy. Outside of France there appeared asyet no such thing as "public opinion, " certainly no sign among thelower classes of any opinion favorable to revolution. In Great Britainalone was there a constitutional monarchy, and in the early days of theFrench Revolution, so long as British statesmen could flatterthemselves that their neighbors across the Channel were striving toimitate their political system, these same public men sympathized withthe course of events. But when it became evident that the Revolutionwas going further, that it aimed at a great social leveling, that itwas a movement of the masses in behalf of the lowest classes in thecommunity, then even British criticism assailed it. At the close of1790 Edmund Burke published his _Reflections on the Revolution inFrance_, a bitter arraignment of the newer tendencies and arhetorical panegyric of conservatism. Although Burke's sensational workwas speedily and logically answered by several forceful thinkers, including the brilliant Thomas Paine, nevertheless it long held itsplace as the classical expression of official Britain's horror ofsocial equality and of "mob violence. " The book was likewise receivedwith such approval by the monarchs of continental Europe, whointerpreted it as a telling defense of their position, that Catherineof Russia personally complimented the author and the puppet king ofPoland sent him a flamboyant glorification and a gold medal. Thenceforth the monarchs, as well as the nobles and clergy, of Europesaw in the French Revolution only a menace to their political andsocial privileges: were it communicated to the lower classes, theRevolution might work the same havoc throughout the length and breadthof Europe that it was working in France. The "benevolent despots" hadsincere desires to labor for the welfare of the people; they shudderedat the thought of what the people themselves would do in laboring fortheir own welfare. [Sidenote: The Holy Roman Emperor the Champion of Opposition to theRevolution] Of the monarchs of Europe, several had special reasons for viewing theprogress of the Revolution with misgiving. The Bourbons of Spain and ofthe Two Sicilies were united by blood and family compacts with theruling dynasty of France: any belittling of the latter's power wasbound to affect disastrously the domestic position and foreign policyof the former. Then, too, the French queen, Marie Antoinette, was anAustrian Habsburg. Her family interests were in measure at stake. Inthe Austrian dominions, the visionary and unpractical Joseph II haddied in 1790 and had been succeeded by another brother of MarieAntoinette, the gifted though unemotional Emperor Leopold II. Leopoldskillfully extricated himself from the embarrassments at home andabroad bequeathed him by his predecessor and then turned his attentionto French affairs. He was in receipt of constant and now franticappeals from his sister to aid Louis XVI against the revolutionaries. He knew that the Austrian Netherlands, whose rebellion he hadsuppressed with difficulty, were saturated with the doctrines of theRevolution and that many of their inhabitants would welcome annexationto France. As chief of the Holy Roman Empire, he must keeprevolutionary agitation out of the Germanies and protect the borderprovinces against French aggression. All these factors served to makethe Emperor Leopold the foremost champion of the "old regime" in Europeand incidentally of the royal cause in France. [Sidenote: Declaration of Pilinitz, August, 1791] Now it so happened that the emperor found a curious ally in Prussia. The death of Frederick the Great in 1786 had called to the throne ofthat country a distinctly inferior sort of potentate, Frederick WilliamII (1786-1797), who combined with a nature at once sensual andpleasure-loving a remarkable religious zeal. He neglected the splendidmilitary machine which Frederick William I and Frederick the Great hadconstructed with infinite patience and thoroughness. He lavished greatwealth upon art as well as upon favorites and mistresses. He tired thenation with an excessive Protestant orthodoxy. And in foreign affairshe reversed the far-sighted policy of his predecessor by allyinghimself with Austria and reducing Prussia to a secondary place amongthe German states. In August, 1791, Frederick William II joined withthe Emperor Leopold in issuing the public Declaration of Pilinitz, tothe effect that the two rulers considered the restoration of order andof monarchy in France an object of "common interest to all sovereignsof Europe. " The declaration was hardly more than pompous bluster, forthe armies of the German allies were not as yet ready for war, but itssolemn expression of an intention on the part of foreign despots tointerfere in the internal affairs of France aroused the most bitterfeeling among Frenchmen who were patriotic as well as revolutionary. [Sidenote: French Politics Under the Limited Monarchy Favorable toForeign War] The prospect of war with the blustering monarchs of Austria and Prussiawas quite welcome to several important factions in France. MarieAntoinette and her court clique gradually came to the conclusion thattheir reactionary cause would be abetted by war. If the allies won, absolutism would be restored in France by force of arms. If the Frenchwon, it would redound to the prestige of the royal family and enablethem by constitutional means to recover their authority. Then, too, theconstitutionalists, the bourgeois party which was led by Lafayette andwhich loyally supported the settlement of 1791, worked for war. Military success would consolidate the French people and confirm theconstitution, and Lafayette aspired to win personal glory as theomnipotent commander. Finally, the overwhelming majority of radicalscried for war: to them it seemed as if the liberal monarchy would becompletely discomfited by it and that out of it would emerge a republicin France and the general triumph of democratic principles in Europe. Why not stir up all the European peoples against their monarchs? Thecause of France should be the cause of Europe. France should be themissionary of the new dispensation. [Sidenote: Political Parties in the Legislative Assembly] The Legislative Assembly, on which depended in last instance thesolution of all these vital problems, domestic and foreign, representedseveral diverse shades of political opinion. Of the seven hundredmembers, four hundred admitted no special leadership but votedindependently on every question according to individual preference orfear, while the others were divided between the camp of_Feuillants_ and that of _Jacobins_. The Feuillants were theconstitutionalists, inclined, while in general consistently championingthe settlement of 1791, to strengthen the royal power, --they were theconservatives of the Assembly. The Jacobins, on the other hand, deriving their common name from the famous club in Paris, were theradicals: many of them secretly cherished republican sentiments, andall of them desired a further diminution of the constitutional powersof Louis XVI. The Jacobins, however, were divided into two groups onthe question of how the royal power should be reduced. The largernumber, whose most conspicuous members came from the department of theGironde and were, therefore, collectively designated as Girondists, entertained the idea that the existing government should be clearlyproved futile before proceeding to the next stage in the Revolution:they clamored for foreign war as the most effective means of disgracingthe existing monarchy. The smaller number of Jacobins, drawn largelyfrom Paris, desired to take no chances on the outcome of war butadvocated the radical reformation of monarchical institutions by directand immediate popular action: subsequently this small group was dubbedthe Mountain [Footnote: This name did not come into general use until1793. ] from the high seats its members later occupied in theConvention: they represented the general views of such men as Marat, Danton, and Robespierre. [Sidenote: The Girondists] Of the various parties or groups in the Legislative Assembly, the bestorganized was the Girondist. Its members, recruited chiefly from theprovinces, were young, enthusiastic, and filled with noble, if somewhatunpractical, ideas borrowed from the ancient republics of Greece andRome. They were cultured, eloquent, and patriotic. In Brissot (1754-1793), a Parisian lawyer, they had an admirable leader and organizer. In Vergniaud (1753-1793), they had a polished and convincing orator. InCondorcet (1743-1794), they had a brilliant scholar and philosopher. InDumouriez (1739-1823), they possessed a military genius of the firstorder. And in the refined home of the brilliant Madame Roland (1754-1793), they had a charming center for political discussion. In internal affairs the Legislative Assembly accomplished next tonothing. Everything was subordinated to the question of foreign war. Inthat, Feuillants and Girondists found themselves in strange agreement. Only Marat and Robespierre raised their voices against a policy whosepursuit they dreaded would raise a military dictator. Marat expressedhis alarms in the _Friend of the People:_ "What afflicts thefriends of liberty is that we have more to fear from success than fromdefeat . . . The danger is lest one of our generals be crowned withvictory and lest . .. He lead his victorious army against the capital tosecure the triumph of the Despot. " But the counsels of extreme radicalswere unavailing. [Sidenote: Declaration of War against Austria and Prussia, April, 1792] In the excitement the Girondists obtained control of the government anddemanded of the emperor that the Austrian troops be withdrawn from thefrontier and that the emigres be expelled from his territories. As noaction was taken by the emperor, the Girondist ministers prevailed uponLouis XVI to declare war on 20 April, 1792. Lafayette assumed supremecommand, and the French prepared for the struggle. Although Leopold hadjust died, his policy was followed by his son and successor, theEmperor Francis II. Francis and Frederick William II of Prussiaspeedily collected an army of 80, 000 men at Coblenz with which toinvade France. The campaign of 1792 was the first stage in a vastconflict which was destined to rage throughout Europe for twenty-threeyears. It was the beginning of the contest between the forces ofrevolution and those of reaction. Enthusiasm was with the French. They felt they were fighting for acause--the cause of liberty, equality, and nationalism. Men put on redliberty caps, and such as possessed no firearms equipped themselveswith pikes and hastened to the front. Troops coming up from Marseillessang in Paris a new hymn of freedom which Rouget de Lisle had justcomposed at Strassburg for the French soldiers, --the inspiringMarseillaise that was to become the national anthem of France. Butenthusiasm was about the only asset that the French possessed. Theirarmies were ill-organized and ill-disciplined. Provisions were scarce, arms were inferior, and fortified places in poor repair. Lafayette hadgreater ambition than ability. [Sidenote: Early French Reverses][Sidenote: Equivocal Position of the Royal Family] The war opened, therefore, with a series of French reverses. Anattempted invasion of the Austrian Netherlands ended in dismal failure. On the eastern frontier the allied armies under the duke of Brunswickexperienced little difficulty in opening up a line of march to Paris. Intense grew the excitement in the French capital. The reverses gavecolor to the suspicion that the royal family were betraying militaryplans to the enemy. A big demonstration took place on 20 June: a crowdof market women, artisans, coal heavers, and hod carriers pushedthrough the royal residence, jostling and threatening the king andqueen: no violence was done but the temper of the Parisian proletariatwas quite evident. But Louis and Marie Antoinette simply would notlearn their lesson. Despite repeated and solemn assurances to thecontrary, they were really in constant secret communication with theinvading forces. The king was beseeching aid from foreign rulers inorder to crush his own people; the queen was supplying the generals ofthe allies with the French plans of campaign. Limited monarchy failedin the stress of war. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FIRST FRENCH REPUBLIC: THE NATIONAL CONVENTION, 1792-1795 [Sidenote: Proclamation of the Duke of Brunswick, 25 July, 1792][Sidenote: The French Reply: the Insurrection of 9-10 August, 1792] On 25 July, 1792, the duke of Brunswick (1735-1806), the pig-headedcommander-in-chief of the allied armies, issued a proclamation to theFrench people. He declared it his purpose "to put an end to the anarchyin the interior of France, to check the attacks upon the throne and thealtar, to reestablish the legal power, to restore to the king thesecurity and liberty of which he is now deprived and to place him in aposition to exercise once more the legitimate authority which belongsto him. " The bold duke went on to declare that French soldiers whomight be captured "shall be treated as enemies and punished as rebelsto their king and as disturbers of the public peace, " and that, if theslightest harm befell any member of the royal family, his Austrian andPrussian troops would "inflict an ever-memorable vengeance bydelivering over the city of Paris to military execution and completedestruction, and the rebels guilty of such outrages to the punishmentthat they merit. " This foolish and insolent manifesto sealed the fateof the French monarchy. It was the clearest proof that French royaltyand foreign armies were in formal alliance not only to prevent thefurther development of the Revolution but also to undo what had alreadybeen done. And all patriotically minded Frenchmen, whether hithertothey had sympathized with the course of events or not, now grew furiousat the threats of foreigners to interfere in the internal affairs oftheir country. The French reply to the duke of Brunswick was theinsurrection of 9-10 August, 1792. [Sidenote: Suspension of the King and Fall of Limited Monarchy] On those days the proletariat of Paris revolted against the liberalmonarchy. They supplanted the bourgeois commune with a radicallyrevolutionary commune, in which Danton became the leading figure. Theyinvaded the royal palace, massacred the Swiss Guards, and obliged theking and his family to flee for their lives to the Assembly. On 10August, a remnant of terror-stricken deputies voted to suspend the kingfrom his office and to authorize the immediate election by universalmanhood suffrage of a National Convention that would prepare a newconstitution for France. [Sidenote: Anarchy in France] From the suspension of the king on 10 August to the assembling of theNational Convention on 21 September, France was practically anarchical. The royal family was incarcerated in the gloomy prison of the Temple. The regular governmental agents were paralyzed. Lafayette protestedagainst the insurrection at Paris and surrendered himself to theallies. Still the allies advanced into France. Fear deepened into panic. Supreme control fell into the hands of the revolutionary commune:Danton became virtual dictator. His policy was simple. The one path ofsafety left open to the radicals was to strike terror into the heartsof their domestic and foreign foes. "In my opinion, " said Danton, "theway to stop the enemy is to terrify the royalists. Audacity, moreaudacity, and always greater audacity!" The news of the investment ofVerdun by the allies, published at Paris on 2 September, was the signalfor the beginning of a wholesale massacre of royalists in the Frenchcapital. For five long days unfortunate royalists were taken from theprisons and handed over by a self-constituted judicial body to thetender mercies of a band of hired cutthroats. Slight discrimination wasmade of rank, sex, or age. Men, women, and children, nobles andmagistrates, priests and bishops, --all who were suspected of royalistsympathy were butchered. The number of victims of these Septembermassacres has been variously estimated from 2000 to 10, 000. Meanwhile Danton was infusing new life and new spirit into the Frencharmies. Dumouriez replaced Lafayette in supreme command. And on 20September the allies received their first check at Valmy. [Sidenote: Valmy: the First Military Success of the Revolutionaries][Sidenote: Proclamation of the First French Republic] The very day on which news reached Paris that it was saved and thatBrunswick was in retreat, the National Convention met. Amid the wildestenthusiasm, it unanimously decreed "that royalty is abolished inFrance. " Then it was resolved to date from 22 September, 1792, Year 1of the Republic. A decree of perpetual banishment was enacted againstthe emigres and it was soon determined to bring the king to trialbefore the Convention. [Sidenote: The National Convention 1792-1795] The National Convention remained in session for three years (1792-1795), and its work constituted the second great phase of theRevolution. This work was essentially twofold: (1) It secured a seriesof great victories in the foreign war, thereby rendering permanent theremarkable social reforms of the first period of the Revolution, thatbetween 1789 and 1791; and (2) it constructed a republican form ofgovernment, based on the principle of democracy. [Sidenote: Problems Confronting the National Convention] Perhaps no legislative body in history has been called upon to solvesuch knotty problems as those which confronted the National Conventionat the opening of its sessions. At that time it was necessary (1) todecide what should be done with the deposed and imprisoned king; (2) toorganize the national defense and turn back foreign invasion; (3) tosuppress insurrection within France; (4) to provide a strong governmentfor the country; (5) to complete and consolidate the social reforms ofthe earlier stage of the Revolution; and (6) to frame a newconstitution and to establish permanent republican institutions. Withall these questions the Convention coped with infinite industry andmuch success. And in the few following pages, we shall review them inthe order indicated, although it should be borne in mind that most ofthem were considered by the Convention simultaneously. [Sidenote: Personnel of the National Convention][Sidenote: The Girondists][Sidenote: The Mountainists][Sidenote: The Plain] Before taking up the work of the Convention, a word should be saidabout the personnel of that body. The elections had been in theory byalmost universal suffrage, but in practice indifference or intimidationreduced the actual voters to about a tenth of the total electorate. Theresult was the return of an overwhelming majority of radicals, who, while agreeing on the fundamental republican doctrines, neverthelessdiffered about details. On the right of the Convention sat nearly twohundred Girondists, including Brissot, Vergniaud, Condorcet, and theinteresting Thomas Paine. These men represented largely the well-to-dobourgeoisie who were more radical in thought than in deed, who ardentlydesired a democratic republic, but who at the same time distrustedParis and the proletariat. In the raised seats on the opposite side ofthe Convention sat nearly one hundred members of the Mountain, nowexclusively designated as Jacobins--extreme radicals in thought, word, and deed--disciples of Rousseau--counting among their number Danton, Robespierre, Carnot, and St. Just. Between the two factions ofMountainists and Girondists sat the Plain, as it was called, the realmajority of the house, which had no policies or convictions of its own, but voted usually according to the dictates of expediency. Our tactful, trimming Abbe Sieyes belonged to the Plain. At the very outset thePlain was likely to go with the Girondists, but as time went on and theParisian populace clamored more and more loudly against any one whoopposed the action of their allies, the Mountainists, it gradually sawfit to transfer its affections to the Left. [Sidenote: Trial and Execution of King Louis XVI, 1793] The first serious question which faced the Convention was thedisposition of the king. The discovery of an iron chest containingaccounts of expenditures for bribing members of the NationalConstituent Assembly, coupled with the all but confirmed suspicion ofLouis' double dealings with France and with foreign foes, [Footnote:After the execution of the king, actual letters were discovered whichLouis had dispatched to his fellow monarchs, urging their assistance. Atypical extract is given in Robinson and Beard, _Readings in ModernEuropean History_, Vol. I, pp. 287-288. ] sealed the doom of thatmiserably weak monarch. He was brought to trial before the Conventionin December, 1792, and condemned to death by a vote of 387 to 334. Withthe majority voted the king's own cousin, the duke of Orleans, anenthusiastic radical who had assumed the name of Citizen PhilippeEgalite (Equality). On 21 January, 1793, Louis XVI was beheaded nearthe overthrown statue of his voluptuous predecessor Louis XV in thePlace de la Revolution (now called the Place de la Concorde). Theunruffled dignity with which he met death was the finest act of hisreign. [Sidenote: Military Successes] Meanwhile the tide of Austrian and Prussian invasion had been rollingaway from France. After Valmy, Dumouriez had pursued the retreatingforeigners across the Rhine and had carried the war into the AustrianNetherlands, where a large party regarded the French as deliverers. Dumouriez entered Brussels without serious resistance, and was speedilymaster of the whole country. It seemed as though the French would havean easy task in delivering the peoples of Europe from their old regime. [Sidenote: France the Champion of the Revolution] Emboldened by the ease with which its armies were overrunning theneighboring states, the National Convention proposed to propagateliberty and reform throughout Europe and in December, 1792, issued thefollowing significant decree: "The French nation declares that it willtreat as enemies every people who, refusing liberty and equality orrenouncing them, may wish to maintain, recall, or treat with a princeand the privileged classes; on the other hand, it engages not tosubscribe to any treaty and not to lay down its arms until thesovereignty and independence of the people whose territory the troopsof the republic shall have entered shall be established, and until thepeople shall have adopted the principles of equality and founded a freeand democratic government. " [Sidenote: Foreign Fears] In thus throwing down the gauntlet to all the monarchs of Europe and inputting the issue clearly between democracy and the old regime, theFrench revolutionaries took a dangerous step. Although a large numberof the neighboring peoples undoubtedly sympathized with the aims andachievements of the Revolution, the rulers and privileged classes inmore distant countries, such as Russia, Austria, Prussia, and evenSpain and Great Britain, were still deeply intrenched in the patriotismand unquestioning loyalty of their people. [Sidenote: The "First Coalition" against France] Then, too, the execution of Louis XVI in January, 1793, increased thebitterness of the approaching grave struggle. A royalist reaction inFrance itself precipitated civil war in La Vendee. Dumouriez, theablest general of the day, in disgust deserted to the Austrians. And atthis very time, a formidable coalition of frightened and revengefulmonarchs was formed to overthrow the French Republic. To Austria andPrussia, already in the field, were added Great Britain, Holland, Spain, and Sardinia. [Sidenote: Military Endeavours of the Revolutionaries] Once more France was placed on the defensive. Once more the alliesoccupied Belgium and the Rhine provinces, and took the roads towardParis. The situation in the spring of 1793 appeared as critical as thatin the preceding summer. But as the event proved, the republic was afar more effective government than the liberal monarchy, RevolutionaryFrance now went gladly to war, singing the Marseillaise and displayingthe banners of "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. " Bourgeois citizens, whose social and financial gains in the earlier stage of the Revolutionwould be threatened by the triumph of the foreign forces, now gavemoney and brains to the national defense. Artisans and peasants, whohad won something and hoped to win more from the success of theRevolution, now laid down their lives for the cause. Heroism anddevotion to a great ideal inspired the raw recruits that were rushed tothe front. [Sidenote: Carnot] But it was not enthusiasm alone that saved France. It was the splendidorganization of that enthusiasm by an efficient central government atParis. In Carnot (1753-1823) the National Convention possessed amilitary and administrative genius of the first order. Of honorable andupright character, fearless, patriotic, and practical, Carnot plungedinto the work of organizing the republican armies. His labors wereincessant. He prepared the plans of campaign and the reports that weresubmitted to the Convention. He raised volunteers and drafted militia, drilled them, and hurried them to the frontiers. With the aid of RobertLindet (1749-1825), the able finance minister, he found means offeeding, clothing, and arming the host of soldiers. He personallyvisited the armies and by word and precept infused them with energy anddetermination. For the first time in modern history a nation was trulyin arms. [Sidenote: The New Generals] The work of Carnot was supplemented by the labors of the "deputies onmission, " radical members of the Convention who were detailed to watchthe generalship and movements of the various French armies, endowedwith power to send any suspected or unsuccessful commander to theguillotine and charged with keeping the central government constantlyinformed of military affairs. Gradually, a new group of brilliant youngrepublican generals appeared, among whom the steadfast Moreau (1763-1813), the stern Pichegru (1761-1804), and the gallant Jourdan (1762-1833) stood preeminent. [Sidenote: French Successes][Sidenote: Break-up of the First Coalition, 1795] In this way France met the monster coalition which would have staggereda Louis XIV. The country was cleared of foreign enemies. The war waspressed in the Netherlands, along the Rhine, in Savoy, and across thePyrenees. So successful were the French that Carnot's popular title of"organizer of defense" was justly magnified to that of "organizer ofvictory. " Of course it is impossible in our limited survey to dojustice to these wonderful campaigns of 1794 and 1795. It will sufficeto point out that when the National Convention finally adjourned in1795, the First Coalition was in reality dissolved. The pitiful CharlesIV of Spain humbled himself to contract a close alliance with therepublic which had put his Bourbon cousin to death. By the separatetreaty of Basel (1795), Prussia gave France a free hand on the leftbank of the Rhine and turned her attention to securing compensation atthe expense of Poland, William V, the Orange stadholder of Holland, wasdeposed and his country transformed into the Batavian Republic, alliedwith France. French troops were in full possession of the AustrianNetherlands and all other territories up to the Rhine. The life-longambition of Louis XIV appeared to have been realized by the new Francein two brief years. Only Great Britain, Austria, and Sardinia remainedin arms against the republic. [Sidenote: Suppression of Domestic Insurrection] The foreign successes of the republic seem all the more wonderful whenit is remembered that at the same time serious revolts had to besuppressed within France. Opposition to Carnot's drafting of soldierswas utilized by reactionary agitators to stir up an insurrection of thepeasants in La Vendee in order to restore the monarchy and toreestablish the Roman Catholic Church. Provincial and bourgeois dislikeof the radicalism of the Parisian proletariat caused riots andoutbreaks in such important and widely separated cities as Lyons, Marseilles, and Bordeaux. With the same devotion and thoroughness thathad characterized their foreign policy, but with greater sternness, theofficials of the National Convention stamped out all these riots andinsurrections. By 1795 all France, except only the emigres and secretconspirators, had more or less graciously accepted the republic. The true explanation of these marvelous achievements, whether at homeor abroad, lies in the strong central government which the NationalConvention established and in the policy of terrorism which thatgovernment pursued. [Sidenote: Rule Of The Committee Of Public Safety] In the spring of 1793 the National Convention intrusted the supremeexecutive authority of France to a special committee, composed of nine(later twelve) of its members, who were styled the Committee of PublicSafety. This small body, which included such Jacobin leaders as Carnot, Robespierre, and St. Just, acting secretly, directed the ministers ofstate, appointed the local officials, and undertook the administrationof the whole country. Manifold were the duties it was called upon todischarge. Among other problems, it must conduct the foreign relations, supervise the armies, and secure the active support of the Frenchpeople. Diligently and effectively did it apply itself to its variousactivities. [Sidenote: The "Terror" A Political Expedient] Terrorism has been the word usually employed to describe the internalpolicy of the Committee of Public Safety, and the "Reign of Terror, "the period of the Committee's chief work, from the summer of 1793 tothat of 1794. So sensational and so sanguinary was the period that manywriters have been prone to make it the very center of the Revolutionand to picture "liberty, equality, and fraternity" as submerged in averitable sea of blood. As a matter of fact, however, the Reign ofTerror was but an incident, though obviously an inevitable incident, ina great Revolution. Nor may the French people be justly accused of apeculiarly bloodthirsty disposition. Given the same circumstances, itis doubtful whether similar scenes would not have been enacted atVienna, Berlin, Madrid, or even London. It must be remembered thatgreat principles and far-reaching reforms were endangered by a host offoreign and domestic enemies. It seemed to the republican leaders thatthe occasion demanded complete unanimity in France. A divided nationcould not triumph over united Europe. The only way in which Francecould present a united front to the world was by striking terror intothe hearts of the opponents of the new regime. And terror involvedbloodshed. The chief allies of the Committee of Public Safety in conductingterrorism were the Committee of General Security and the RevolutionaryTribunal. The former was given police power in order to maintain orderthroughout the country. The latter was charged with trying andcondemning any person suspected of disloyalty to the republic. Bothwere responsible to the Committee of Public Safety. A decree of theConvention, called the Law of Suspects, proclaimed as liable toarbitrary arrest every person who was of noble birth, or had heldoffice before the Revolution, or had any relation with an emigre, orcould not produce a signed certificate of citizenship. With such instruments of despotism France became revolutionary bystrokes of the guillotine. [Footnote: The guillotine, which is stillused in France, consists of two upright posts between which a heavyknife rises and falls. The criminal is stretched upon a board and thenpushed between the posts. The knife falls and instantly beheads him. The device was invented by a certain philanthropic Dr. Guillotine, whowished to substitute in capital punishment an instrument sure toproduce instant death in the place of the bungling process of beheadingwith an ax. (Mathews. )] It is estimated that about 2500 persons wereexecuted at Paris during the Reign of Terror. Among others MarieAntoinette, Philippe Egalite, and Madame Roland suffered death. The Terror spread to the provinces. Local tribunals were everywhereestablished to search out and condemn suspected persons. The city ofLyons, which ventured to resist the revolutionary government, waspartially demolished and hundreds of its citizens were put to death. AtNantes, where echoes of the Vendee insurrection were long heard, thebrutal Jacobin deputy Carrier loaded unhappy victims on old hulks whichwere towed out into the Loire and sunk. The total number of those whoperished in the provinces is unknown, but it may have reached tenthousand. When the total loss of life by means of revolutionary tribunals iscalculated, it will certainly be found to bear slight comparison withthe enormous sacrifice of life which any one of the numerous great warsof the nineteenth century has entailed. The chief wonder about theReign of Terror is that its champions and supporters, who had so muchat stake, did not do worse things. [Sidenote: Factions among the Revolutionaries] A more calamitous phase of the Terror than the slaughter of royalistsand reactionaries was the wretched quarreling among various factions ofthe radicals and the destruction. Of one for the benefit of another. Thus, the efforts of the Girondists to stay the execution of the kingand to appeal to the provinces against the violence in Paris, coupledwith the treason of Dumouriez, seemed to the Parisian proletariat tomark the alliance of the Girondists with the reactionaries. Accordingly, the workingmen of Paris, under the leadership of Marat, revolted on 31 May, 1793, and two days later obliged the Convention toexpel twenty-nine Girondist members. Of these, the chief, includingBrissot and Vergniaud, were brought to the guillotine in October, 1793. Next, the leaders of the commune of Paris, who had gone to such extremelengths as to suppress the Christian churches in that city and toproclaim atheism, were dispatched in March, 1794, by a coalition of thefollowers of Danton and Robespierre. Then in April, when Danton atlength wearied of the Terror and counseled moderation, that redoubtablegenius, together with his friend, Camille Desmoulins, was guillotined. Finally, Robespierre himself, after enjoying a brief dictatorship, during which time he vainly endeavored to put in practice the theoriesof Rousseau, was sent, in company with St. Just, to the guillotine bydirection of the National Convention in July, 1794. This meant thebeginning of reaction. [Sidenote: End of the Terror: Thermidorian Reaction, 1794] The death of Robespierre ended the Reign of Terror. The purpose of theTerror, however, was already achieved. The Revolution was preserved inFrance, and France was preserved in Europe. The Thermidorian Reaction, as the end of the Terror is called, left the National Convention freeto resume its task of devising a permanent republican constitution forthe country. A few subsequent attempts were made, now by reactionaries, now by extreme radicals, to interfere with the work, but they weresuppressed with comparative ease. The last uprising of the Parisianpopulace which threatened the Convention was effectually quelled(October, 1795) by a "whiff of grape-shot" discharged at the command ofa young and obscure major of artillery, Napoleon Bonaparte by name. [Sidenote: Reforms of the National Convention, 1792-1795] In the midst of foreign war and internal dissension, even in the midstof the Terror, the National Convention found time to further the socialreforms of the earlier stage of the Revolution. Just as the bourgeoisConstituent Assembly destroyed the inequalities arising from theprivileges of the "old regime, " so the popular Convention sought to putan end to the inequalities arising from wealth. Under its new leaders, the Revolution assumed for a time a distinctly socialistic character. The property of the emigres was confiscated for the benefit of thestate. A maximum price for grain was set by law. Large estates werebroken up and offered for sale to poorer citizens in lots of two orthree acres, to be paid for in small annual installments. All groundrents were abolished without compensation to the owners. "The rich, "said Marat, "have so long sucked out the marrow of the people that theyare now visited with a crushing retribution. " Some of the reforms of the Convention went to absurd lengths. In thepopular passion for equality, every one was to be called "Citizen"rather than "Monsieur. " The official record of the expense of MarieAntoinette's funeral was the simple entry, "Five francs for a coffinfor the widow of Citizen Capet. " Ornate clothing disappeared withtitles of nobility, and the silk stockings and knee breeches(_culottes_), which had distinguished the privileged classes andthe gentlemen, were universally supplanted by the long trousers whichhad hitherto been worn only by the lowest class of workingmen (_sans-culottes_). To do away with the remembrance of historicChristianity, the year was divided anew into twelve months, eachcontaining three weeks of ten days (_decades_), every tenth day(_decadi_) being for rest, and the five or six days left over atthe end of the year, called _sans-culottides_, were nationalholidays; the names of the months were changed, and the revolutionarycalendar made to date from the establishment of the republic, 22September, 1792. Many of the reforms had long been urgently needed and proved to be ofpermanent value. Such was the establishment of a convenient and uniformsystem of weights and measures, based on decimal reckoning, the so-called metric system, which has come to be accepted by almost allcivilized nations save the English-speaking peoples. Such, too, was theelaborate system of state education which the philosopher Condorcet[Footnote: Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794). ] prepared and which, though more pressing questions compelled its postponement, became thebasis on which the modern scheme of free public instruction has beenbuilt up in France. Such, moreover, was the separation of Church andstate, effected in September, 1794, the establishment in the followingyear of liberty of worship, and the restoration of the churches toChristian worship on condition that the clergymen submitted to the lawsof the state. Such, finally, was the project of preparing a singlecomprehensive code of law for the whole country. Although the legalcode was not completed until the dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte, nevertheless the Convention made a beginning and incorporated in it afundamental principle of inheritance that has marked modern France--theprinciple that no person may will his property to one direct heir tothe exclusion of others but that all children must inherit almostequally. Moreover, the practice of imprisoning men for debt wasabolished, negro slavery was ended, and woman's claim on property wasprotected in common with man's. Finally the new republican constitutionwas permeated with ideas of political democracy. [Sidenote: Eventual Bourgeois Control Of The National Convention] After the downfall of Robespierre (Thermidorian Reaction), the NationalConvention ceased to press reforms in behalf of the proletariat andcame more and more under the influence of the moderate well-to-dobourgeoisie. The law against suspects was repealed and the grain lawswere amended. The Revolutionary Tribunal was suppressed and the name ofthe Place de la Revolution was changed to the Place de la Concorde. Thedeath in prison of the young and only son of Louis XVI in 1795 was asevere blow to the hopes of the royalists. By 1795 France seemeddefinitively committed to a republican form of government, which, however, would not be extremely radical but only moderate, being nowfounded on the bourgeoisie rather than on the proletariat. THE DIRECTORY (1795-1799) AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE REPUBLIC INTO AMILITARY DICTATORSHIP [Sidenote: Constitution of the Year III, the Constitution of the FirstFrench Republic][Sidenote: The Directory] The constitution of the first French Republic was drawn up by theNational Convention during the last year of its session and after ithad passed under bourgeois influence. This constitution which went intoeffect in 1795 and is known, therefore, as the Constitution of the YearIII (of the Republic), intrusted the legislative power to two chambers, chosen by indirect election, --a lower house of five hundred members, topropose laws, and a Council of Ancients, of two hundred and fiftymembers, to examine and enact the laws. The bourgeois distrust of thelower classes showed itself again in restricting the electorate totaxpayers who had lived at least a year in one place. The executiveauthority of the republic was vested in a board of five members, styledDirectors, and elected by the legislature, one retiring every year. TheBoard of Directors, or "Directory, " was to supervise the enforcement oflaws and to appoint the ministers of state, or cabinet, who should beresponsible to it. [Sidenote: Brief Duration of the Directory, 1795-1799] Thus, as the National Constituent Assembly had framed the constitutionfor the liberal monarchy, so the National Convention drafted that forthe republic. But in strength and durability the republic was hardlymore fortunate than the limited monarchy. Louis XVI reigned asconstitutional king under the document of 1791 less than a year. TheDirectory governed in accordance with the constitution of the Year IIIless than four years (1795-1799). [Sidenote: Weaknesses in the Directory] The failure of the Directory was due to two chief causes: first, theprevalence of domestic difficulties; and second, the rise of militarypower and the appearance of a victorious, ambitious general. To both ofthese causes reference must be made. The former proved that anotherkind of government was needed to cope with the situation; the lattersuggested what the nature of the new government would be. To consolidate the French people after six years of radicalrevolutionary upheavals required hard and honest labor on the part ofmen of distinct genius. Yet the Directors were, almost withoutexception, men of mediocre talents, [Footnote: Carnot, upright andsincere, and the only member of first-rate ability, was forced out ofthe Directory in 1797. ] who practiced bribery and corruption withunblushing effrontery. They preferred their personal gain to thewelfare of the state. [Sidenote: Political and Social Dissensions] The period of the Directory was a time of plots and intrigues. Theroyalists who were elected in large numbers to the Assemblies wererestrained from subverting the constitution only by illegal force andviolence on the part of the Directors. On the other hand, theextremists in Paris found a warm-hearted leader in a certain Babeuf(1760-1797), who declared that the Revolution had been directedprimarily to the advantage of the bourgeoisie, that the proletarians, despite their toil and suffering and bloodshed, were still just aspoorly off as ever, and that their only salvation lay in a compulsoryequalization of wealth and the abolition of poverty. An insurrection ofthese radicals--the forerunners of modern Socialism--was suppressed andBabeuf was put to death in 1797. [Sidenote: Financial Difficulties] While sincere radicals and convinced reactionaries were uniting incommon opposition to the unhappy Directory, the finances of the statewere again becoming hopelessly involved. "Graft" flourished unbridledin the levying and collecting of the taxes and in all publicexpenditures. To the extravagance of the Directors in internaladministration were added the financial necessities of armiesaggregating a million men. Paris, still in poverty and want, had to befed at the expense of the nation. And the issue of _assignats_ bythe National Constituent Assembly, intended at first only as atemporary expedient, had been continued until by the year 1797 thetotal face value of the _assignats_ amounted to about forty-fivebillion _livres_. So far had the value of paper money depreciated, however, that in March, 1796, three hundred _livres_ in_assignats_ were required to secure one _livre_ in cash. In1797 a partial bankruptcy was declared, interest payments beingsuspended on two-thirds of the public debt, and the _assignats_were demonetized. The republic faced much the same financial crisis ashad confronted the absolute monarchy in 1789. [Sidenote: Continued Success in Foreign War] From but one direction did light stream in upon the Directory--and thatwas the foreign war. When the Directory assumed office, France wasstill at war with Austria, Sardinia, and Great Britain. The generalplan of campaign was to advance one French army across the Rhine, through southern Germany, and thence into the Austrian dominions, andto dispatch another army across the Alps, through northern Italy, andthence on to Vienna. Of the army of the Rhine such veteran generals asPichegru, Jourdan, and Moreau were put in charge. To the command of thearmy operating in Italy, the young and inexperienced Bonaparte wasappointed. [Sidenote: Appearance of Napoleon Bonaparte] Napoleon Bonaparte hitherto had not been particularly conspicuous inpolitics or in war. He was believed to be in full sympathy with theRevolution, although he had taken pains after the downfall ofRobespierre to disavow any attachment to the extreme radicals. He hadacquired some popularity by his skillful expulsion of the British fromToulon in 1793, and his protection of the National Convention againstthe uprising of the Parisian radicals in 1795 gave him credit as afriend of law and order. Finally, his marriage in 1796 with JosephineBeauharnais, the widow of a revolutionary general and an intimatefriend of one of the Directors, bettered his chances of indulging hisfondness for politics and his genius in war. [Sidenote: Bonaparte's First Italian Campaign, 1796-1797][Sidenote: Treaty of Campo Formio, 1797] That very year (1796), while the older and more experienced Frenchgenerals were repeatedly baffled in their efforts to carry the war intothe Germanies, the young commander--but twenty-seven years of age--swept the Austrians from Italy. With lightning rapidity, withinfectious enthusiasm, with brilliant tactics, with great personalbravery, he crossed the Alps, humbled the Sardinians, and within a yearhad disposed of five Austrian armies and had occupied every fort innorthern Italy. Sardinia was compelled to cede Savoy and Nice to theFrench Republic, and, when Bonaparte's army approached Vienna, Austriastooped to make terms with this amazing republican general. By thetreaty of Campo Formio (1797), France secured the Austrian Netherlandsand the Ionian Islands; Austria obtained, as partial compensation forher sacrifices, the ancient Venetian Republic, but agreed not tointerfere in other parts of Italy; and a congress was to assemble atRastatt to rearrange the map of the Holy Roman Empire with a view tocompensating those German princes whose lands on the left bank of theRhine had been appropriated by France. [Sidenote: Great Britain Left Alone in Arms Against the FrenchRepublic] The campaign of 1796-1797, known in history as the First Italiancampaign, was the beginning of a long series of sensational militaryexploits which were to rank Napoleon Bonaparte as the foremost soldierof modern times. Its immediate effect was to complete the dissolutionof the First Coalition by forcing Austria and Sardinia to follow theexample of Spain, Prussia, and Holland and to make a peace highlyfavorable to the French Republic. Great Britain alone continued thestruggle against the Directory. [Sidenote: Bonaparte's Rising Fame] Another effect of the first Italian campaign, almost as immediate andcertainly more portentous, was the sudden personal fame of NapoleonBonaparte. He was the most talked-of man in France. The peopleapplauded him. The government feared but flattered him. Schemers andplotters of every political faith sought his support. Alongside ofdecreasing respect for the existing government was increasing trust inBonaparte's strength and ability. [Sidenote: Bonaparte's Egyptian Campaign Against Great Britain, 1798] It was undoubtedly with a sense of relief that the despised Directorsin 1798 assented to a project proposed by the popular hero to transportto Egypt a French expedition with the object of interruptingcommunications between Great Britain and India. The ensuing Egyptiancampaign of 1798 was spectacular rather than decisive. Bonaparte madestirring speeches to his soldiers. He called the Pyramids to witnessthe valor of the French. He harangued the Mohammedans upon thebeautiful and truthful character of their religion and upon theadvantages which they would derive from free trade with France. Heencouraged the close study of Egyptian antiquities. [Footnote: It wasan army officer on this Egyptian expedition who discovered the famousRosetta Stone, by the aid of which hieroglyphics could be deciphered. ]But his actual victories did not measure up to the excessively coloredreports that he sent home. He was checked in Syria, and a great navalvictory won by the celebrated English admiral, Lord Nelson, near themouth of the Nile, effectually prevented the arrival of reinforcements. [Sidenote: Embarrassments of the Directory during Bonaparte's Absencefrom France] Thereupon, General Bonaparte, luckily eluding the British warships, returned to France. It was believed by Frenchmen that his lastexpedition had been eminently successful: but that in the meantime thework of the Directory had been disastrous, no one doubted. WhileBonaparte was away, affairs in France had gone from bad to worse. Therewere new plots, increased financial and social disorders, and finallythe renewal on a large scale of foreign war. [Sidenote: The Second Coalition and the Renewal of War in Europe] After the treaty of Campo Formio, the Directors had prosecutedzealously the policy of surrounding France with a circle of dependentrepublics. Even before that peace, Holland had been transformed intothe Batavian Republic, and now pretexts of various sorts were utilizedto convert the duchy of Milan, or Lombardy, into the CisalpineRepublic; the oligarchy of Genoa into the Ligurian Republic; the PapalStates into the Roman Republic; the kingdom of the Two Sicilies intothe Parthenopaean Republic; the Swiss Confederation into the HelveticRepublic. In view of the fact that the governments of all these republics weremodeled after that of France and were allied with France, the monarchsof Europe bestirred themselves once more to get rid of the danger thatthreatened them. A Second Coalition was formed by Great Britain, Austria, and Russia, and, thanks to liberal sums of money supplied byWilliam Pitt, the British minister, they were able to put large armiesin the field. [Sidenote: French Reverses] During 1799 the Second Coalition won repeated victories; the Frenchwere driven from Italy; and most of the dependent republics collapsed. It seemed as though Bonaparte's first Italian campaign had been fornaught. Possibly the military hero of France had himself foreseen thisvery situation and had intended to exploit it to his own advantage. [Sidenote: Return of Bonaparte from Egypt: the "Man of the Hour"] At any rate, when Bonaparte had sailed for Egypt, he had left hiscountry apparently prosperous, victorious, and honored. Now, when helanded at Frejus on 9 October, 1799, he found France bankrupt, defeated, and disgraced. It is small wonder that his journey fromFrejus to Paris was a triumphal procession. The majority of Frenchmenwere convinced that he was the man of the hour. [Sidenote: The Coup d'Etat of the Eighteenth Brumaire: Overthrow of theDirectory, 1799] Within a month of his return from Egypt, publicopinion enabled the young conqueror to overthrow the government of theDirectory. Skillfully intriguing with the Abbe Sieyes, who was now oneof the Directors, he surrounded the Assemblies with a cordon of troopsloyal to himself and on 18-19 Brumaire (9-10 November, 1799) secured byshow of force the downfall of the government and the appointment ofhimself to supreme military command. This blow at the state (_coupd'etat_) was soon followed by the promulgation of a newconstitution, by which General Bonaparte became First Consul of theFrench Republic. [Sidenote: Militarism and the Close of the Revolution] The _coup d'etat_ of 18 Brumaire virtually ended the Revolution inFrance. Within the space of ten and a half years from the assembling ofthe Estates-General at Versailles, parliamentary and popular governmentfell beneath the sword. The predictions of Marat and Robespierre wererealized: militarism had supplanted democracy. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION (1789-1799) It may now be possible for us to have some idea as to the real meaningof these ten years of Assemblies, constitutions, insurrections, andwars, which have marked the period of the French Revolution. A present-day visitor in Paris will be struck by the bold letters which stand outon the public buildings and churches: _Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite_--Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. These were the wordswhich the revolutionaries spelled out on their homes, which theythought embodied the true meaning of the Revolution. As to the meaning of these words, there were certainly quitecontradictory views. To the royalists and rigid Catholics--to theprivileged nobility and clergy--to many a surprised peasant--to all thereactionaries, they meant everything that was hateful, blasphemous, sordid, inhuman, and unpatriotic. To the enlightened altruisticbourgeois--to the poverty-stricken workingman of the city--to many adreamer and philanthropist--to all the extreme radicals, they were buta shadowy will-of-the-wisp that glimmered briefly and perhaps indicatedfaintly the gorgeousness of the great day that much later might breakupon them. Between these extremes of reaction and radicalism fell thebulk of the bourgeoisie and of the peasantry--the bulk of the nation--and it is in their sense that we shall try to make clear the meaning ofthe three symbolical words. [Sidenote: "Liberty"] "Liberty" implied certain political ideals. Government was henceforthto be exercised not autocratically by divine right, butconstitutionally by the sovereign will of the governed. The individualcitizen was no longer to be subject in all things to a king, but was tobe guaranteed in possession of personal liberties which no state orsociety might abridge. Such were liberty of conscience, liberty ofworship, liberty of speech, liberty of publication. The liberty ofowning private property was proclaimed by the French Revolution as aninherent right of man. [Sidenote: "Equality"] "Equality" embraced the social activities of the Revolution. It meantthe abolition of privilege, the end of serfdom, the destruction of thefeudal system. It pronounced all men equal before the law. It aspired, though with little success, to afford every man an equal chance withevery other man in the pursuit of life and happiness. [Sidenote: "Fraternity"] "Fraternity" was the symbol of the brotherhood of those who sought tomake the world better and happier and more just. In France it foundexpression in an outburst of patriotism and national sentiment. Nolonger did mercenaries fight at the behest of despots for dynasticaggrandizement; henceforth a nation in arms was prepared to do battleunder the glorious banner of "fraternity" in defense of whatever itbelieved to be for the nation's interests. Political liberty, social equality, patriotism in the nation, --thesethree have been the enduring watchwords of all those who down to ourown day have looked for inspiration to the French Revolution. ADDITIONAL READING GENERAL. Textbook narratives: J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard, _TheDevelopment of Modern Europe, _ Vol. I (1907), ch. Xii, xiii; J. A. R. Marriott, _The Remaking of Modern Europe, 1789-1878_ (1910), ch. I-vi; H. E. Bourne, _The Revolutionary Period in Europe, 1763-1815_ (1914), ch. Vi-xvi; H. M. Stephens, _Revolutionary Europe, 1789-1815_ (1893), ch. Ii-vi; J. H. Rose, _Revolutionary andNapoleonic Era, 1789-1815_ (1895), ch. Ii-vi; C. A. Fyffe, _AHistory of Modern Europe, 1792-1878_ (1896), ch. I-iv; H. T. Dyer, _A History of Modern Europe from the Fall of Constantinople, _ 3ded. Rev. By Arthur Hassall (1901), ch. Lii-lxi; Charles Seignobos, _History of Contemporary Civilization, _ Eng. Trans. By J. A. James(1909), pp. 92-149. See also H. A. L. Fisher, _The RepublicanTradition in Europe_ (1911), ch. I-vii; and Emile Bourgeois, _Manuel historique de politique etrangere, _ 4th ed. , Vol. II(1906), ch. I-v, vii. ONE-VOLUME SURVEYS: Shailer Mathews, _The French Revolution_(reprint 1912), a clear, well-balanced introduction, ending with theyear 1795; Hilaire Belloc, _The French Revolution_ (1911), in the"Home University Library, " interestingly written and inclined to bephilosophical; R. M. Johnston, _The French Revolution_ (1909), emphasizes the spectacular and military rather than the social andeconomic; Louis Madelin, _La Revolution_ (1911), written for thegeneral French reader and probably the very best of its kind, now inprocess of translation into English. STANDARD HISTORIES OF THE REVOLUTION: Alphonse Aulard, _Histoirepolitique de la revolution francaise, 1789-1804, _ 3d ed. (1905), Eng. Trans. By Bernard Miall, 4 vols. (1910), a painstaking study ofthe growth of the spirit of democracy and of the rise of the republicanmovement, by an eminent authority who has devoted many years to asympathetic study of the Revolution; H. M. Stephens, _A History ofthe French Revolution, _ 2 vols. (1886-1891), mainly political, generally reliable, but stops short with the Reign of Terror; H. A. Taine, _The French Revolution, _ Eng. Trans. By John Durand, 3vols. (1878-1885), brilliantly written and bitterly hostile to many ofthe leaders of the Revolution, a work still famous though many of itsfindings have been vehemently assailed by Aulard, the apologist of theRevolution; Jean Jaures (editor), _Histoire socialiste, 1789-1900, _ 12 vols. (1901-1909), a well-known and highly useful historyof France by a group of prominent French Socialists with a penchant forstressing economic matters--Vols. I-IV, by Jaures himself, treat of theyears 1789-1794, and Vol. V, by Gabrielle Deville, of 1794-1799; P. A. (Prince) Kropotkin, _The Great French Revolution, 1789-1793, _ Eng. Trans. By N. F. Dryhurst (1909), emphasizes the role played by theuneducated classes, eulogizes Marat, and suggests the conflict ofinterests between the bourgeoisie and the lower classes; ThomasCarlyle, _The French Revolution, _ originally published in 1837, lively literary gossip and commentary rather than narrative history, amusing though often fuliginous, should be read only by those alreadyfamiliar with the actual events of the Revolution; Albert Sorel, _L'Europe et la revolution francaise, _ 8 vols. (1885-1904), ofwhich Vols. I-V deal with the years 1789-1799 and mainly with theeffects of the Revolution throughout Europe, a monumental work of thehighest merit; Gustave Le Bon, _La revolution francaise et lapsychologie des revolutions_ (1912), trans. By Bernard Miall underthe title of _The Psychology of Revolution_ (1913), a noteworthycontribution to the study of "mob psychology" as exemplified by theFrench Revolution; Ernest Lavisse and Alfred Rambaud (editors), _Histoire generale, _ Vol. VIII, a collection of scholarlymonographs on various phases of the Revolution; _Cambridge ModernHistory, _ Vol. VIII (1904), a similar work in English; Heinrich vonSybel, _Geschichte der Revolutionzeit von 1789, _ 3d ed. , 5 vols. (1865-1879), the best and most famous German work on the subject;Wilhelm Oncken, _Das Zeitalter der Revolution, _ 2 vols. (1884-1886); Adalbert Wahl, _Geschichte des europaeischen Staatensystems imZeitalter der franzoesischen Revolution und der Freiheits-Kriege, 1789-1815_ (1912), useful epitome of foreign relations; Emile Levasseur, _Histoire des classes ouvrieres et de l'industrie en France de 1789 a1870, _ Vol. I (1903), Livre I, _La Revolution, _ valuable forthe history of the working classes; Philippe Sagnac, _La legislationcivile de la revolution francaise, 1789-1804_ (1898), very importantsurvey of permanent social and civil gains; E. F. Henderson, _Symboland Satire in the French Revolution_ (1912), interesting side-lights. SOURCE MATERIALS. Of the vast masses of source material available forspecial study of the French Revolution, the following selections may befound useful and suggestive: F. M. Anderson, _Constitutions and OtherSelect Documents Illustrative of the History of France, 1789-1901, _ 2drev. Ed. (1909); L. G. Wickham Legg, _Select Documents Illustrative ofthe French Revolution, the Constituent Assembly, _ 2 vols. (1905); LeonDuguit and Henry Monnier, _Les constitutions et les principales loispolitiques de la France depuis 1789_ (1898); H. M. Stephens, _ThePrincipal Speeches of the Statesmen and Orators of the FrenchRevolution, 1789-1795, _ 2 vols. (1892); Leon Cahen and Raymond Guyot, _L'oeuvre legislative de la revolution_ (1913); Alphonse Aulard, _Lesgrands orateurs de la revolution--Vergniaud, Danton, Robespierre_(1914); Merrick Whitcomb, _Typical Cahiers of 1789, _ in "Translationsand Reprints" of the University of Pennsylvania (1898). In the_Collection de documents inedits sur l'histoire economique de larevolution francaise, _ now in course of publication under the auspicesof the French Ministry of Public Instruction, have appeared (1906-1915)several volumes of the local _cahiers_ of 1788-1789. See also ArmandBrette, _Recueil des documents relatifs a la convocation des etatsgeneraux de 1789, _ 3 vols. (1894-1904); P. J. B. Buchez and P. C. Roux-Lavergne, _Histoire parlementaire de la revolution francaise, 1789-1815, _ 40 vols. (1834-1838), embracing extracts from the debates, quotations from contemporary newspapers and pamphlets, and the text ofsome of the most important statutes and decrees; _Archivesparlementaires de 1787 a 1860_, 1st series _1787-1799_, 82 vols. , theofficial, but not always trustworthy, reports of the debates in thesuccessive French legislative bodies; _Reimpression de l'ancienMoniteur_, 32 vols. , a reprint, in several different editions, of oneof the most famous Parisian newspapers of the revolutionary period;Alphonse Aulard, _La societe des jacobins_, 6 vols. (1889-1897), acollection of documents concerning the most influential political clubof revolutionary France. Of the numerous memoirs of the time, perhapsthe most valuable are those of Mallet du Pan, Comte de Fersen, Bailly, Ferrieres, and Malouet; see also the _History of My Time_ by the Ducd'Audiffret-Pasquier (1767-1862), Eng. Trans. By C. E. Roche, 3 vols. (1893-1894), especially Part I; and for additional memoirs and othersource-material consult the bibliographies in the _Cambridge ModernHistory_ or in the _Histoire generale_. There are several detailedbibliographies on the French Revolution; and since 1881 the veteranscholar Aulard has edited _La revolution francaise_, devotedexclusively to the subject. For interesting personal impressions of theRevolution by an American eye-witness, see Gouverneur Morris, _Diaryand Letters_, 2 vols. (1888). F. M. And H. D. Fling, _Source Problemson the French Revolution_ (1913), is a useful compilation for intensivecritical study of various phases of the Revolution. SPECIAL WORKS ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. W. M. Sloane, _The French Revolution and Religious Reform_ (1901), aresume of legislation affecting the Church, 1789-1804; AntoninDebidour, _Histoire des rapports de l'eglise et de l'etat en Francede 1789 a 1870_ (1898); Pierre de La Gorce, _Histoire religieusede la revolution francaise_, Vol. I, _1789-1791_ (1909), Vol. II, _1791-1793_ (1912), comprehensive and exhaustive, sympatheticwith the Church but scrupulously fair; Paul Pisani, _L'eglise deParis et la revolution_, 4 vols. (1908-1911), covering the years1789-1802, a work of high rank by a canon of Notre Dame; J. F. E. Robinet, _Le mouvement religieux a Paris pendant la revolution, 1789-1801_, 2 vols. (1896-1898), primarily a collection of documents; TheAbbe Bridier (editor), _A Papal Envoy during the Reign of Terror, being the Memoirs of Mgr. De Salamon the Internuncio at Paris duringthe Revolution, 1790-1801_, Eng. Trans. By Frances Jackson (1911);Ludovic Sciout, _Histoire de la constitution civile du clerge, 1790-1801_, 4 vols. (1872-1881); Alphonse Aulard, _La revolution et lescongregations: expose historique et documents_ (1903); EdmeChampion, _La separation de l'eglise et de l'etat en 1794_ (1903). SPECIAL WORKS ON CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH OPINION OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. Edward Dowden, _The French Revolution and English Literature_ (1897);H. N. Brailsford, _Shelley, Godwin, and their Circle_ (1913); W. P. Hall, _British Radicalism, 1791-1797_ (1912); Edmund Burke, _Reflections on the Revolution in France_, in many editions, a furiousand prejudiced arraignment of the whole movement; John (Viscount)Morley, _Edmund Burke_ (1879), an apology for Burke; John MacCunn, _ThePolitical Philosophy of Burke_ (1913), clear and concise thoughsomewhat less laudatory of Burke; _The Life and Writings of ThomasPaine_, edited by D. E. Wheeler, 10 vols. (1909), the most elaborateedition of the writings of the chief English friend of the Revolution;Paine's _The Rights of Man_ has appeared in many other editions. SECONDARY WORKS ON OTHER SPECIAL TOPICS. On the wars 1792-1795: ArthurChuquet, _Les guerres de la revolution_, 11 vols. (1886-1896), very detailed, coming down only to September, 1793; A. T. Mahan, _TheInfluence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution and Empire, 1793-1812_, Vol. I, 10th ed. (1898); Mrs. Maxwell-Scott, _Life of theMarquise de la Rochejaquelein_ (1912), and Ida A. Taylor, _TheTragedy of an Army: La Vendee in 1793_ (1913), two sympathetic andpopular accounts of the Vendean Revolt. On the Terror: H. A. Wallon, _La Terreur_, 2 vols. (1881), and, by the same author, _Lesrepresentants du peuple en mission_, 5 vols. (1889-1890), and _Letribunal revolutionnaire_, 2 vols. (1900); Louis Mortimer-Ternaux, _Histoire de la Terreur, 1792-1794_, 8 vols. (1862); Edmond Bire, _La legende des girondins_ (1881); Charles de Ricault Hericault, _La revolution de thermidor_, 2d ed. (1878). On the Directory, 1795-1799: Ludovic Sciout, _Le Directoire_, 2 vols. (1895-1896). BIOGRAPHIES. Of Mirabeau, the best biography in English undoubtedlywill be that of F. M. Fling, projected in three volumes, of which Vol. I, _The Youth of Mirabeau_, was published in 1908; the most recent andconvenient French treatment is by Louis Barthou (1913); a standardGerman work is Alfred Stern, _Das Leben Mirabeaus_, 2 vols. (1889); andfor a real insight into Mirabeau's character and policies, referenceshould be made to his _Correspondance avec le comte de la Marck_, 3vols. (1851). Hilaire Belloc has written very readable and suggestiveEnglish biographies of _Danton_ (1899), _Robespierre_ (1901), and_Marie Antoinette_ (1909). Perhaps the best brief appreciation of_Danton_ is that by Louis Madelin (1914); J. F. E. Robinet has writtena valuable _Danton_ (1889), and likewise a _Condorcet_ (1893). Theelaborate _Histoire de Robespierre et du coup d'etat du 9 thermidor_ byErnest Hamel, 3 vols. (1865-1867), is marred by excessive hero-worship. Jules Claretie, _Camille Desmoulins, Lucille Desmoulins: etude sur lesdantonistes_ (1875), a charming biography, has been translated intoEnglish. Among other useful biographies of persons prominent during theRevolution, the following might be consulted with profit: J. H. Clapham, _The Abbe Sieyes: an Essay in the Politics of the FrenchRevolution_ (1912); E. D. Bradby, _The Life of Barnave_, 2 vols. (1915), containing vivid descriptions of the National ConstituentAssembly; Francois Chevremont, _Jean-Paul Marat_, 2 vols. (1880);Charles Vatel, _Vergniaud_, 2 vols. (1873), and, by the same author, _Charlotte de Corday et les girondins: pieces classees et annotees_, 3vols. (1864-1872); Arthur Chuquet, _Dumouriez_ (1914); Pouget de Saint-Andre, _Le general Dumouriez, 1739-1823_ (1914); C. A. Dauban, _Etudesur Madame Roland et son temps_ (1864); Bernard Mallet, _Mallet du Panand the French Revolution_(1902); E. B, Bax, _Babeuf: the Last Episodeof the French Revolution_ (1911). CHAPTER XVI THE ERA OF NAPOLEON [Sidenote: Introductory] From 1799 to 1814 the history of Europe was the history of France, andthe history of France was the biography of Napoleon Bonaparte. Socompletely did this masterful personality dominate the course of eventsthat his name has justly been used to characterize this era. The Era ofNapoleon stands out as one of the most significant periods in moderntimes. Apart from its importance as marking a revolution in the art ofwar, it bore memorable results in two directions: (1) the adaptation ofrevolutionary theories to French practical political necessities, andthe establishment of many of the permanent institutions of present-dayFrance; and (2) the communication of the revolutionary doctrines of theFrench Revolution far and wide throughout Europe, so that henceforththe movement was general rather than local. During the first five years of the era (1799-1804) France remainedformally a republic. It was in these years that General Bonaparte, asFirst Consul, consolidated his country and fashioned the nature of thelasting gains of the Revolution. Thenceforth, from 1804 to 1814, Francewas an empire, established and maintained by military force. Then itwas that the national hero--self-crowned Napoleon I, emperor of theFrench, --by means of war, conquest, annexation, or alliance, spread theideas of his country far and wide throughout Europe. Before we reviewthe main activities of the constructive consulate or of the proselytingempire, we should have some notion of the character of the leadingactor. THE FRENCH REPUBLIC UNDER THE CONSULATE, 1799-1804 [Sidenote: Napoleon Bonaparte] When General Bonaparte executed the _coup d'etat_ of 1799 andseized personal power in France, he was thirty years of age, short, ofmedium build, quiet and determined, with cold gray eyes and ratherawkward manners. His early life had been peculiarly interesting. He wasborn at Ajaccio in Corsica on 15 August, 1769, just after the islandhad been purchased by France from Genoa but before the French had fullysucceeded in quelling a stubborn insurrection of the Corsicans. Belonging to a prominent and numerous Italian family, --at the outsethis name was written Napoleone di Buonaparte, --he was selected alongwith sons of other conspicuous Corsican families to be educated atpublic expense in France. In this way he received a good militaryeducation at Brienne and at Paris. He early displayed a marked fondnessfor the study of mathematics and history as well as for the science ofwar; and, though reserved and taciturn, he was noticeably ambitious anda keen judge of men. During his youth Buonaparte dreamed of becoming the leader inestablishing the independence of Corsica, but the outbreak of theFrench Revolution afforded him a wider field for his enthusiasm andambition. Already an engineer and artilleryman, he threw in his lotwith the Jacobins, sympathized at least outwardly with the course ofthe Revolution, and was rewarded, as we have seen, with an importantplace in the recapture of Toulon (1793) and in the defense of theConvention (1795). It was not, however, until his first Italiancampaign, --when incidentally he altered his name to the French form, Bonaparte, --that he acquired a commanding reputation as the foremostgeneral of the French Republic. [Sidenote: Character of Bonaparte] How Bonaparte utilized his reputation in order to make himself masterof his adopted country has already been related. It was due in largepart to an extraordinary opportunity which French politics at that timeoffered. But it was due, likewise, to certain characteristic qualitiesof the young general. In the first place, he was thoroughly convincedof his own abilities. Ambitious, selfish, and egotistical, he wasalways thinking and planning how he might become world-famous. Fatalistic and even superstitious, he believed that an unseen power wasleading him on to higher and grander honors. He convinced hisassociates that he was "a man of destiny. " Then, in the second place, Bonaparte possessed an effective means of satisfying his ambition, forhe made himself the idol of his soldiers. He would go to sleeprepeating the names of the corps, and even those of some of theindividuals who composed them; he kept these names in a corner of hismemory, and this habit came to his aid when he wanted to recognize asoldier and to give him a cheering word from his general. He spoke tothe subalterns in a tone of good fellowship, which delighted them all, as he reminded them of their "common feats of arms. " Then, in the thirdplace, Bonaparte was a keen observer and a clever critic. Beingsagacious, he knew that by 1799 France at large was weary of weakgovernment and perpetual political strife and that she longed to haveher scars healed by a practical man. Such a man he instinctively felthimself to be. In the fourth place, Bonaparte was a politician to theextreme of being unscrupulous. Knowing what he desired, he was readyand willing to employ any means to attain his ends. No love fortheories or principles, no fear of God or man, no sentimental aversionfrom bloodshed, nothing could deter him from striving to realize hisvaulting but self-centered ambition. Finally, there was in his naturean almost paradoxical vein of poetry and art which made him human andoften served him well. He dreamed of empires and triumphs. He reveledin the thought of courts and polished society. He entertained a sincereadmiration for learning. His highly colored speeches to his soldierswere at once brilliant and inspiriting. His fine instinct of thedramatic gave the right setting to all his public acts. And in thedifficult arts of lying and deception, Bonaparte has never beensurpassed. [Sidenote: The Government Of The Consulate: Constitution Of The YearVIII] Such was the man who effected the _coup d'etat_ of 18 Brumaire(November, 1799). His first work in his new role was to publish aconstitution, which he prepared in conjunction with the Abbe Sieyes andwhich was to supersede the Constitution of the Year III. It concealedthe military despotism under a veil of popular forms. The documentnamed three "consuls, " the first of whom was Bonaparte himself, whowere to appoint a Senate. From lists selected by general election, theSenate was to designate a Tribunate and a Legislative Body. The FirstConsul, in addition to conducting the administration and foreignpolicies and having charge of the army, was to propose, through aCouncil of State, all the laws. The Tribunate was to discuss the lawswithout voting on them. The Legislative Body was then to vote on thelaws without discussing them. And the Senate, acting as a kind ofsupreme court, was to decide all constitutional questions. Thus awritten constitution was provided, and the principle of popularelection was recognized, but in last analysis all the power of thestate was centered in the First Consul, who was Napoleon Bonaparte. The document was forthwith submitted for ratification to a popularvote, called a _plebiscite_. So great was the disgust with theDirectory and so unbounded was the faith of all classes in the militaryhero who offered it, that it was accepted by an overwhelming majorityand was henceforth known in French history as the Constitution of theYear VIII. [Sidenote: Foreign Danger Confronting France] One reason why the French nation so readily acquiesced in an obviousact of usurpation was the grave foreign danger that threatened thecountry. As we have noted in another connection, the armies of theSecond Coalition in the course of 1799 had rapidly undone thesettlement of the treaty of Campo Formio, and, possessing themselves ofItaly and the Rhine valley, were now on the point of carrying the warinto France. The First Consul perceived at a glance that he must faceessentially the same situation as that which confronted France in 1796. [Sidenote: Dissolution of the Second Coalition] The Second Coalition embraced Great Britain, Austria, and Russia. Bonaparte soon succeeded by flattery and diplomacy not only in securingthe withdrawal of Russia but in actuating the half-insane Tsar Paul torevive against Great Britain an Armed Neutrality of the North, whichincluded Russia, Prussia, Sweden, and Denmark. Meanwhile the FirstConsul prepared a second Italian campaign against Austria. Suddenlyleading a French army through the rough and icy passes of the Alps, hedescended into the fertile valley of the Po and at Marengo in June, 1800, inflicted an overwhelming defeat upon the enemy. French successin Italy was supplemented a few months later by a brilliant victory ofthe army under Moreau at Hohenlinden in southern Germany. WhereuponAustria again sued for peace, and the resulting treaty of Luneville(1801) reaffirmed and strengthened the provisions of the peace of CampoFormio. [Sidenote: Truce between France and Great Britain: Treaty of Amiens, 1802] Meanwhile, steps were being taken to terminate the state of war whichhad been existing between France and Great Britain since 1793. AlthoughFrench arms were victorious in Europe, the British squadron of LordNelson (1758-1805) had managed to win and retain the supremacy of thesea. By gaining the battle of the Nile (1 August, 1798) Nelson had cutoff the supplies of the French expedition in Egypt and eventually(1801) obliged it to surrender. Now, by a furious bombardment ofCopenhagen (2 April, 1801), Nelson broke up the Armed Neutrality of theNorth. But despite the naval feats of the British, republican Franceseemed to be unconquerable on the Continent. Under these circumstancesa treaty was signed at Amiens in March, 1802, whereby Great Britainpromised to restore all the colonial conquests made during the war, except Ceylon and Trinidad, and tacitly accepted the Continentalsettlement as defined at Luneville. The treaty of Amiens proved to bebut a temporary truce in the long struggle between France and GreatBritain. [Sidenote: French Reforms under the Consulate] So far, the Consulate had meant the establishment of an advantageouspeace for France. With all foreign foes subdued, with territoriesextended to the Rhine, and with allies in Spain, and in the Batavian, Helvetic, Ligurian, and Cisalpine republics, the First Consul was freeto devote his marvelous organizing and administrative instincts to theinternal affairs of his country. The period of the Consulate (1799-1804) was the period of Bonaparte's greatest and most enduringcontributions to the development of French institutions. [Sidenote: The Revolutionary Heritage] Throughout his career Bonaparte professed himself to be the "son of theRevolution, " the heir to the new doctrine of Liberty, Equality, andFraternity. It was to the Revolution that he owed his position inFrance, and it was to France that he claimed to be assuring the resultsof the Revolution. Yet, in actual practice, it was equality andfraternity, but not liberty, that were preserved by the First Consul. "What the French people want, " he declared, "is equality, not liberty. "In the social order, therefore, Bonaparte rigidly maintained theabolition of privilege, of serfdom and feudalism, and sought toguarantee to all Frenchmen equal justice, equal rights, equalopportunity of advancement. But in the political order he exercised atyranny as complete, if less open, than that of Louis XIV. [Sidenote: Administrative Centralization] The Constitution of the Year VIII (1799) placed in Bonaparte's handsall the legislative and executive functions of the central government, and a series of subsequent acts put the law courts under his control. In 1800 the local government of the whole country was subordinated tohim. The extensive powers vested by the Constituent Assembly inelective bodies of the departments and smaller districts(_arrondissements_) were now to be wielded by prefects and sub-prefects, appointed by the First Consul and responsible to him. Thelocal elective councils continued to exist, but sat only for afortnight in the year and had to deal merely with the assessment oftaxes: they might be consulted by the prefect or sub-prefect but had noserious check upon the executive. The mayor of every small commune washenceforth to be chosen by the prefect, while the police of all citiescontaining more than 100, 000 inhabitants were directed by the centralgovernment and the mayors of towns of more than 5000 population werechosen by Bonaparte. This highly centralized administration of the country afforded thepeople little direct voice in governmental matters but it possesseddistinct advantages in assuring the prompt, uniform, military-likeexecution of the laws and decrees of the central government. In essenceit was a continuation of the system of intendants instituted byCardinal Richelieu. How conservative are the French people, at least inthe institutions of local government, may be inferred from the factthat despite many changes in France during the nineteenth century fromrepublic to empire to monarchy to republic to empire to republic, Bonaparte's system of prefects and sub-prefects has survived to thepresent day. [Sidenote: Bonaparte's Centralizing Tendencies] As in administration, so in all his internal reforms, Bonapartedisplayed the same fondness for centralization, with consequentthoroughness and efficiency, at the expense of idealistic liberty. Hisreforms of every description--financial, ecclesiastical, judicial, educational, --and even his public works, showed the guiding hand of thevictorious general rather than that of the convinced revolutionary. They were the adaptation of the revolutionary heritage to the purposesand policies of one-man power. [Sidenote: Financial Readjustment][Sidenote: The Bank of France] It will be remembered that financial disorders had been the immediatecause of the downfall of the absolute monarchy as well as of theDirectory. From the outset, Bonaparte guarded against any suchrecurrence. By careful collection of taxes he increased the revenue ofthe state. By rigid economy, by the severe punishment of corruptofficials, and by the practice of obliging people whose lands heinvaded to support his armies, he reduced the public expenditures. Thecrowning achievement of his financial readjustments was theestablishment (1800) of the Bank of France, which has been ever sinceone of the soundest financial institutions in the world. [Sidenote: Ecclesiastical Settlement: the Concordat, 1801] Another grave problem which Bonaparte inherited from the Revolution wasthe quarrel between the state and the Roman Catholic Church. He wasdetermined to gain the political support of the large number ofconscientious French Catholics who had been alienated by the harshanti-clerical measures of the revolutionaries. After delicate andprotracted negotiations, a settlement was reached in a concordat (1801)between Pope Pius VII and the French Republic, whereby the pope, forhis part, concurred in the confiscation of the property of the Churchand the suppression of the monasteries, and the First Consul undertookto have the salaries of the clergy paid by the state; the latter was tonominate the bishops and the former was to invest them with theiroffice; the priests were to be appointed by the bishops. In this waythe Catholic Church in France became a branch of the lay governmentmuch more completely than it had been in the time of Louis XIV. Soadvantageous did the arrangement appear that the Concordat of 1801continued to regulate the relations of church and state until 1905. [Sidenote: Judicial Reforms][Sidenote: The Code Napoleon] One of the fondest hopes cherished by enlightened liberals was to clearaway the confusion and discrepancies of the numerous legal systems ofthe old regime and to reduce the laws of the land to a simple anduniform code, so that every person judicial who could read would beable to know what was legal and what was illegal. The constitution of1791 had promised such a work; the National Convention had actuallybegun it; but the preoccupations of the leading revolutionaries, combined with the natural caution and slowness of the lawyers to whomthe task was intrusted, delayed its completion. It was not until thecommanding personality of Bonaparte came into contact with it that realprogress was made. Then surrounding himself with excellent legaladvisers [Footnote: Chief among these legal experts was Cambaceres(1753-1824), the Second Consul. ] whom he literally drove to labor, theFirst Consul brought out a great Civil Code (1804), which was followedby a Code of Civil Procedure, a Code of Criminal Procedure, a PenalCode, and a Commercial Code. These codes were of the utmost importance. The simplicity and elegance of their form commended them not only toFrance, but to the greater part of continental Europe. Moreover, theypreserved the most valuable social conquests of the Revolution, such ascivil equality, religious toleration, equality of inheritance, emancipation of serfs, freedom of land, legal arrest, and trial byjury. It is true that many harsh punishments were retained and that theposition of woman was made distinctly inferior to that of man, but, onthe whole, the French Codes long remained not only the most convenientbut the most enlightened set of laws in the world. Bonaparte wasrightly hailed as a second Justinian. [Sidenote: The New Educational System] A similar motive and the same enthusiasm actuated the First Consul inpressing forward important educational reforms. On the foundation laidseveral years earlier by Condorcet was now reared an imposing system ofpublic instruction. (1) Primary or elementary schools were to bemaintained by every commune under the general supervision of theprefects or sub-prefects. (2) Secondary or grammar schools were toprovide special training in French, Latin, and elementary science, and, whether supported by public or private enterprise, were to be subjectto governmental control. (3) _Lycees_ or high schools were to beopened in every important town and instruction given in the higherbranches of learning by teachers appointed by the state. (4) Specialschools, such as technical schools, civil service schools, and militaryschools, were brought under public regulation. (5) The University ofFrance was established to maintain uniformity throughout the neweducational system. Its chief officials were appointed by the FirstConsul, and no one might open a new school or teach in public unless hewas licensed by the university. (6) The recruiting station for theteaching staff of the public schools was provided in a normal schoolorganized in Paris. All these schools were directed to take as thebases of their teaching the principles of the Catholic Church, loyaltyto the head of the state, and obedience to the statutes of theuniversity. Despite continued efforts of Bonaparte, the new system washandicapped by lack of funds and of experienced lay teachers, so thatat the close of the Napoleonic Era, more than half of the total numberof French children still attended private schools, mostly thoseconducted by the Catholic Church. [Sidenote: Public Works] Bonaparte proved himself a zealous benefactor of public works andimprovements. With very moderate expenditure of French funds, forprisoners of war were obliged to do most of the work, he enormouslyimproved the means of communication and trade within the country, andpromoted the economic welfare of large classes of the inhabitants. Thesplendid highways which modern France possesses are in large part dueto Bonaparte. In 1811 he could enumerate 229 broad military roads whichhe had constructed, the most important of which, thirty in number, radiated from Paris to the extremities of the French territory. Twowonderful Alpine roads brought Paris in touch with Turin, Milan, Rome, and Naples. Numerous substantial bridges were built. The former networkof canals and waterways was perfected. Marshes were drained, dikesstrengthened, and sand dunes hindered from spreading along the oceancoast. The principal seaports, both naval and commercial, were enlargedand fortified, especially the harbors of Cherbourg and Toulon. Along with such obviously useful labor went desirable embellishment oflife. State palaces were restored and enlarged, so that, underBonaparte, St. Cloud, Fontainebleau, and Rambouillet came to rank withthe majesty of Versailles. The city of Paris was beautified. Broadavenues were projected. The Louvre was completed and adorned withprecious works of art which Bonaparte dragged as fruits of victory fromItaly, or Spain, or the Netherlands. During the Consulate, Paris wasjust beginning to lay claim to a position as the pleasure city ofEurope. Its population almost doubled during the Era of Napoleon. [Sidenote: Colonial Enterprises and their Failure] The First Consul also entertained the hope of appearing as the restorerof the French colonial empire. In 1800 he prevailed upon the Spanishgovernment to re-cede to France the extensive territory--calledLouisiana--lying west of the Mississippi River. Soon afterwards hedispatched his brother-in-law, General Leclerc, with an army of 25, 000men, to make good the French claims to the large island of Haiti. Butthe colonial ventures of Napoleon ended in failure. In Haiti, Leclerc'sefforts to reestablish negro slavery encountered the stubbornresistance of the blacks, organized and led by one of their number, Toussaint L'Ouverture, a remarkable military genius. After a determinedand often ferocious struggle Leclerc proposed a compromise, andToussaint, induced by the most solemn guarantees on the part of theFrench, laid down his arms. He was seized and sent to France, where hedied in prison in 1803. The negroes, infuriated by this act oftreachery, renewed the war with a barbarity unequaled in previouscontests. The French, further embarrassed by the appearance of aBritish fleet, were only too glad to relinquish the island in November, 1803. Meanwhile, expectation of war with Great Britain had inducedBonaparte in April, 1803, to sell the entire Louisiana Territory to theUnited States. [Sidenote: Success of the Consulate] If we except these brief and ill-starred colonial exploits, we maypronounce the First Consul's government and achievements eminentlysuccessful. Bonaparte had inspired public confidence by the honesty ofhis administration and by his choice of officials, for he was served bysuch a consummate diplomat as Talleyrand and by such a tireless chiefof police as Fouche. His speedy and victorious termination of the Warof the Second Coalition and his subsequent apparent policy of peace hadredounded to his credit. His sweeping and thorough reforms in internalaffairs had attracted to his support many and varied classes in thecommunity--the business interests, the bourgeoisie, the peasantry, andthe sincere Catholics. [Sidenote: Dwindling Opposition to Bonaparte] Only two groups--and these continually dwindling in size andimportance--stood in the way of Bonaparte's complete mastery of France. One was the remnant of the Jacobins who would not admit that theRevolution was ended. The other was the royalist party which longed toundo all the work of the Revolution. Both these factions were reducedduring the Consulate to secret plots and intrigues. Attempts toassassinate the First Consul served only to increase his popularityamong the masses. Early in 1804 Bonaparte unearthed a conspiracy ofroyalists, whom he punished with summary vengeance. General Pichegru, who was implicated in the conspiracy, was found strangled in prisonsoon after his arrest. Moreau, who was undoubtedly the ablest generalin France next to Bonaparte, was likewise accused of complicity, although he was a stanch Jacobin, and escaped more drastic punishmentonly by becoming an exile in America. Not content with theseadvantages, Bonaparte determined thoroughly to terrorize the royalists:by military force he seized a young Bourbon prince, the due d'Enghien, on German soil, and without a particle of proof against him put him todeath. [Sidenote: Transformation of the Consulate into the Empire] In 1802 a plebiscite had bestowed the Consulate on Bonaparte for life. Now there was little more to do than to make the office hereditary andto change its name. This alteration was proposed in 1804 by thesubservient Senate and promptly ratified by an overwhelming popularvote. On 2 December, 1804, amid imposing ceremonies in the ancientcathedral of Notre Dame, in the presence of Pope Pius VII, who had comeall the way from Rome to grace the event, General Bonaparte placed acrown upon his own head and assumed the title of Napoleon I, emperor ofthe French. THE FRENCH EMPIRE AND ITS TERRITORIAL EXPANSION [Sidenote: The French Empire a Continuation of the First FrenchRepublic] The establishment of the empire was by no means a break in Frenchhistory. The principle of popular sovereignty was still recognized. Thesocial gains of the Revolution were still intact. The magic words"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" still blazed proudly forth on publicbuildings. The tricolor was still the flag of France. [Sidenote: Lapse of Republican Institutions] Of course a few changes were made in externals. The title of "citoyen"was again replaced by that of "monsieur. " The republican calendargradually lapsed. Napoleon's relatives became "grand dignitaries. " Therevolutionary generals who accepted the new regime were promoted to be"marshals of the empire. " The old titles of nobility were restored, andnew ones created. [Sidenote: Monarchical Alteration in Dependent States] The outward changes in France were reflected in the dependentsurrounding states. And in effecting the foreign alterations, Napoleontook care to provide for his numerous family. For his brother Louis, the Batavian Republic was transformed into the kingdom of Holland. Forhis brother Jerome, estates were subsequently carved out of Hanover, Prussia, and other northwest German lands to form the kingdom ofWestphalia. Brother Joseph was seated on the Bourbon throne of the TwoSicilies. The Cisalpine Republic became the kingdom of Italy withNapoleon as king, and Eugene Beauharnais, his stepson, as viceroy. BothPiedmont and Genoa were incorporated into the French Empire. [Sidenote: Censorship of the Press and Activity of the Secret Police][Sidenote: The Eventual Absolutism of Napoleon] The Consulate, as has been explained, was characterized by a policy ofpeace. Sweeping reforms had been accomplished in internal affairs sothat France was consolidated and the vast majority of her citizensbecame devoted supporters of the emperor. What adverse criticismFrenchmen might have directed against the empire was stifled by theactivity of a splendidly organized secret police and by a rigorouscensorship of the press. So complete was Napoleon's control of thestate that the decisive naval defeat of Trafalgar was not mentioned bya single French newspaper until after the fall of the empire. Bydegrees the imperial despotism of the Corsican adventurer became asrigid as the absolute monarchy of the Bourbons. In fact, Napoleon wentso far as to adapt an old catechism which the celebrated Bishop Bossuethad prepared during the reign of Louis XIV and to order its use by allchildren. A few extracts from the catechism will make clear howNapoleon wished to be regarded. "_Question_. What are the duties of Christians toward those whogovern them, and what in particular are our duties towards Napoleon I, our emperor? "_Answer_. Christians owe to the princes who govern them, and wein particular owe to Napoleon I, our emperor, love, respect, obedience, fidelity, military service, and the taxes levied for the preservationand defense of the empire and of his throne. We also owe him ferventprayers for his safety and for the spiritual and temporal prosperity ofthe state. "_Question_. Why are we subject to all these duties toward ouremperor? "_Answer_. First, because God, who has created empires anddistributed them according to His will, has, by loading our emperorwith gifts both in peace and in war, established him as our sovereignand made him the agent of His power and His image upon earth. To honorand serve our emperor is, therefore, to honor and serve God Himself. Secondly, because our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, both by His teachingand His example, has taught us what we owe to our sovereign. Even atHis very birth He obeyed the edict of Caesar Augustus; He paid theestablished tax and while He commanded us to render to God those thingswhich belong to God, He also commanded us to render unto Caesar thosethings which are Caesar's. "_Question_. What must we think of those who are wanting in theirduties towards our emperor? "_Answer_. According to the Apostle Paul, they are resisting theorder established by God Himself, and render themselves worthy ofeternal damnation. " [Sidenote: Military Ambition of Napoleon] With opposition crushed in France and with the loyalty of the Frenchnation secured, Napoleon as emperor could gratify his natural instinctsfor foreign aggrandizement and glory. He had become all-powerful inFrance; he would become all-powerful in Europe. Ambitious andsuccessful in the arts of peace, he would be more ambitious and moresuccessful in the science of war. The empire, therefore, meant warquite as clearly as the Consulate meant peace. To speculate upon whatNapoleon might have accomplished for France had he restrained hisambition and continued to apply his talents entirely to the lesssensational triumphs of peace, is idle, because Napoleon was not thattype of man. He lived for and by selfish ambition. [Sidenote: The Empire Military] The ten years of the empire (1804-1814) were attended by continuouswarfare. Into the intricacies of the campaigns it is neither possiblenor expedient in the compass of this chapter to enter. It is aimed, rather, to present only such features of the long struggle as aresignificant in the general history of Europe, for the wars of Napoleonserved a purpose which their prime mover only incidentally had atheart--the transmission of the revolutionary heritage to Europe. [Sidenote: Renewal of War between France and Great Britain] When the empire was established, war between France and Great Britain, interrupted by the truce of Amiens, had already broken forth afresh. The struggle had begun in first instance as a protest of the Britishmonarchy against the excesses of the French Revolution, especiallyagainst the execution of Louis XVI, and doubtless the bulk of theEnglish nation still fancied that they were fighting against revolutionas personified in Napoleon Bonaparte. But to the statesmen andinfluential classes of Great Britain as well as of France, the conflicthad long assumed a deeper significance. It was an economic andcommercial war. The British not only were mindful of the assistancewhich France had given to American rebels, but also were resolved thatFrance should not regain the colonial empire and commercial positionwhich she had lost in the eighteenth century. The British had struggledto maintain their control of the sea and the monopoly of trade andindustry which attended it. Now, when Napoleon extended the Frenchinfluence over the Netherlands and Holland, along the Rhine, andthroughout Italy, and even succeeded in negotiating an alliance withSpain, Britain was threatened with the loss of valuable commercialprivileges in all those regions, and was further alarmed by theambitious colonial projects of Napoleon. In May, 1803, therefore, GreatBritain declared war. The immediate pretext for the resumption ofhostilities was Napoleon's positive refusal to cease interfering inItaly, in Switzerland, and in Holland. Napoleon welcomed the renewal of war. He understood that until he hadcompletely broken the power of Great Britain all his Continentaldesigns were imperiled and his colonial and commercial projectshopeless. The humiliation of the great rival across the Channel wouldbe the surest guarantee of the prosperity of the French bourgeoisie, and it was in last analysis from that class that his own politicalsupport was chiefly derived. The year 1803-1804 was spent by theemperor in elaborate preparations for an armed invasion of England. Along the Channel coast were gradually collected at enormous cost ahost of transports and frigates, a considerable army, and an abundanceof supplies. To the amazing French armament, Spain was induced tocontribute her resources. [Sidenote: The Third Coalition Against France] Great Britain replied to these preparations by covering the Channelwith a superior fleet, by preying upon French commerce, and by seizingSpanish treasure-ships from America. And William Pitt, the veryembodiment of the Englishman's prejudice against things French, returned to the ministry of his country. Pitt was unwilling to riskBritish armies against the veterans of Napoleon, preferring to spendliberal sums of money in order to instigate the Continental Powers tocombat the French emperor. Pitt was the real bone and sinews of theThird Coalition, which was formed in 1805 by Great Britain, Austria, Russia, and Sweden to overthrow Napoleon. Austria naturally smarted under the provisions of the treaty ofLuneville quite as much as under those of Campo Formio. Francis II wasaroused by French predominance in Italy and now that he himself hadadded the title of "hereditary emperor of Austria" to his shadowydignity as "Holy Roman Emperor" he was irritated by the upstartNapoleon's assumption of an imperial title. In Russia the assassination of the Tsar Paul, the crazy admirer ofBonaparte, had called to the throne in 1801 the active though easilyinfluenced Alexander I. In early life Alexander had acquired apronounced taste for revolutionary philosophy and its liberal ideas, and likewise a more or less theoretical love of humanity. Now, Pittpersuaded him, with the assistance of English gold, that Napoleon wasthe enemy both of true liberty and of humanity. So the tsar joined hisarmy with that of Austria, and in the autumn of 1805 the alliesadvanced through southern Germany toward the Rhine. Pitt had done his best to bring Prussia into the coalition, but thePrussian king, Frederick William III (1797-1840), was timid andirresolute, and, despite the protests of his people, was cajoled byNapoleon's offer of Hanover into a declaration of neutrality. Bavariaand Wuerttemberg, from fear of Austria, became open allies of the Frenchemperor. [Sidenote: Napoleon vs. Austria] Before the troops of the Third Coalition could threaten the easternfrontier of France, Napoleon abandoned his military projects againstGreat Britain, broke up his huge armaments along the Atlantic coast, and, with his usual rapidity of march, hurled his finely trained armyupon the Austrians near the town of Ulm in Wuerttemberg. There, on 20October, 1805, the Austrian commander, with some 50, 000 men, surrendered, and the road to Vienna was open to the French. [Sidenote: Trafalgar (1805) and the Continued Sea Power of GreatBritain] This startling military success was followed on the very next day by anaval defeat quite as sensational and even more decisive. On 21October, the allied French and Spanish fleets, issuing from the harborof Cadiz, encountered the British fleet under Lord Nelson, and in aterrific battle off Cape Trafalgar were completely worsted. Lord Nelsonlost his life in the conflict, but from that day to the close of theNapoleonic Era British supremacy on the high seas was not seriouslychallenged. [Sidenote: Austerlitz, 1805] Wasting no tears or time on the decisive loss of sea-power, Napoleonhastened to follow up his land advantages. Occupying Vienna, he turnednorthward into Moravia where 1805 Francis II and Alexander I hadgathered a large army of Austrians and Russians. On 2 December, 1805, the anniversary of his coronation as emperor, --his "lucky" day, as hetermed it, --Napoleon overwhelmed the allies at Austerlitz in one of thegreatest battles in history. [Sidenote: Defeat of Austria: Treaty of Pressburg, 1805] The immediate result of the campaign of Ulm and Austerlitz was theenforced withdrawal of Austria from the Third Coalition. Late inDecember, 1805, the emperors Francis II and Napoleon signed the treatyof Pressburg, whereby the former ceded Venetia to the kingdom of Italyand recognized Napoleon as its king, and resigned the Tyrol to Bavaria, and outlying provinces in western Germany to Wuerttemberg. Both Bavariaand Wuerttemberg were converted into kingdoms. By the humiliating treatyof Pressburg, Austria thus lost 3, 000, 000 subjects and large revenues;was cut off from Italy, Switzerland, and the Rhine; and was reduced tothe rank of a second-rate power. [Sidenote: Napoleon vs. Prussia][Sidenote: Jena (1806) and the Humiliation of Prussia] For a time it seemed as if the withdrawal of Austria from the ThirdCoalition would be fully compensated for by the adhesion of Prussia. Stung by the refusal of Napoleon to withdraw his troops from southernGermany and by the bootless haggling over the transference of Hanover, and goaded on by his patriotic and high-spirited wife, the beautifulQueen Louise, timid Frederick William III at length ventured in 1806 todeclare war against France. Then, with a ridiculously misplacedconfidence in the old-time reputation of Frederick the Great, withoutwaiting for assistance from the Russians who were coming up, thePrussian army--some 110, 000 strong, under the old-fashioned duke ofBrunswick--advanced against the 150, 000 veterans of Napoleon. Theresulting battle of Jena, on 14 October, 1806, proved the absolutesuperiority of Napoleon's strategy and of the enthusiastic Frenchsoldiers over the older tactics and military organization of thePrussians. Jena was not merely a defeat for the Prussians; it was atonce a rout and a total collapse of that Prussian military prestigewhich in the course of the eighteenth century had been gained by theutmost sacrifice. Napoleon entered Berlin in triumph and tookpossession of the greater part of the kingdom of Prussia. [Sidenote: Napoleon vs. Russia, Friedland][Sidenote: Treaty of Tilsit (1807): Dissolution of the Third Coalition] The Russians still remained to be dealt with. Winter was a bad seasonfor campaigning in East Prussia, and it was not until June, 1807, atFriedland, that Napoleon was able to administer the same kind of adefeat to the Russians that he had administered to the Austrians atAusterlitz and to the Prussians at Jena. The Tsar Alexander at oncesued for peace. At Tilsit, on a raft moored in the middle of the RiverNiemen, Napoleon and Alexander met and arranged the terms of peace forFrance, Russia, and Prussia. The impressionable tsar was dazzled by thestriking personality and the unexpected magnanimity of the emperor ofthe French. Hardly an inch of Russian soil was exacted, only a promiseto cooeperate in excluding British trade from the Continent. Alexanderwas accorded full permission to deal as he would with Finland andTurkey. "What is Europe?" exclaimed the emotional tsar: "Where is it, if it is not you and I?" But Prussia had to pay the price of thealliance between French and Russian emperors. From Prussia was torn theportion of Poland which was erected into the grand-duchy of Warsaw, under Napoleon's obsequious ally, the elector of Saxony. Despoiledaltogether of half of her territories, compelled to reduce her army to42, 000 men, and forced to maintain French troops on her remaining landsuntil a large war indemnity was paid, Prussia was reduced to the rankof a third-rate power. Tilsit destroyed the Third Coalition and madeNapoleon master of the Continent. Only Great Britain and Swedenremained under arms, and against the latter country Napoleon was nowable to employ both Denmark and Russia. [Sidenote: Humiliation of Sweden] Early in 1808 a Russian army crossed the Finnish border without anyprevious declaration of war, and simultaneously a Danish force preparedto invade Sweden from the Norwegian frontier. The ill-starred Swedishking, Gustavus IV (1792-1809), found it was all he could do, even withBritish assistance, to fight off the Danes. The little Finnish army, left altogether unsupported, succumbed after an heroic struggle againstoverwhelming odds, and in 1809 the whole of Finland and the AlandIslands were formally ceded to Russia. Finland, however, did not enterRussia as a conquered province, but, thanks to the bravery of herpeople and not less to the wisdom and generosity of the Tsar Alexander, she long maintained her free constitution and was recognized as a semi-independent grand-duchy with the Russian tsar as grand-duke. ThusSweden lost her ancient duchy of Finland, and she was permitted toretain a small part of Pomerania only at the humiliating price ofmaking peace with Napoleon and excluding British goods from all herports, In the same year, Gustavus IV was compelled to abdicate in favorof his uncle, Charles XIII (1809-1818), an infirm and childless oldman, who was prevailed upon to designate as his successor one ofNapoleon's own marshals, General Bernadotte. Surely, Napoleon mighthope henceforth to dominate Sweden as he then dominated every otherContinental state. Of course, Great Britain, triumphant on the seas, remained unconquered, but the British army, the laughingstock ofEurope, could expect to achieve little where Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Sweden had failed. [Sidenote: Height of Napoleon's Power, 1808] The year that followed Tilsit may be taken as marking the height ofNapoleon's career. The Corsican adventurer was emperor of a France thatextended from the Po to the North Sea, from the Pyrenees and the PapalStates to the Rhine, a France united, patriotic, and in enjoyment ofmany of the fruits of the Revolution. He was king of an Italy thatembraced the fertile valley of the Po and the ancient possessions ofVenice, and that was administered by a viceroy, his stepson and heir-apparent, Eugene Beauharnais. The pope was his friend and ally. Hisbrother Joseph governed the kingdom of Naples. His brother Louis andhis stepdaughter Hortense were king and queen of Holland. His sisterElise was princess of the diminutive state of Lucca. The kings of Spainand Denmark were his admirers and the tsar of Russia now called himfriend and brother. A restored Poland was a recruiting station for hisarmy. Prussia and Austria had become second- or third-rate powers, andFrench influence once more predominated in the Germanies. [Sidenote: Profound Changes in the Germanies] It was in the Germanies, in fact, that Napoleon's achievements wereparticularly striking. Before his magic touch many of the antiquepolitical and social institutions of that country crumbled away. Asearly as 1801 the diminution of the number of German states had begun. The treaty of Luneville had made imperative some action on the part ofthe Diet of the Holy Roman Empire in order to indemnify the rulerswhose lands on the left bank of the Rhine had been incorporated intoFrance, and to grant "compensations" to the south German states. Afterlaborious negotiations, lasting from 1801 to 1803, the Diet authorized[Footnote: By a decree, called the_Reichsdeputationshauptschluss_. ] the wholesale confiscationthroughout southern Germany of ecclesiastical lands and of free cities, with the result that 112 formerly independent states lying east of theRhine were wiped out of existence and nearly one hundred others on thewest bank were added to France. Thus the number of the Germanies wassuddenly reduced from more than three hundred to less than one hundred, and the German states which mainly benefited, along with Prussia, werethe southern states of Bavaria, Wuerttemberg, and Baden, which Napoleondesired to use as an equipoise against both Austria and Prussia. Inthis ambition he was not disappointed, for in the War of the ThirdCoalition (1805) he received important assistance from these threestates, all of which were in turn liberally rewarded for theirservices, the rulers of Bavaria and Wuerttemberg being proclaimed kings. [Sidenote: Extinction of the Holy Roman Empire (1806), and itsReplacement by the Empire of Austria and the Confederation of theRhine] The year 1806 was epochal in German history. On 19 July, theConfederation of the Rhine was formally established with Napoleon asProtector. The kings of Bavaria and Wuerttemberg, the grand-dukes ofBaden, Hesse-Darmstadt, and Berg, the archbishop of Mainz, and nineminor princes virtually seceded from the Holy Roman Empire and acceptedthe protection of Napoleon, whom they pledged themselves to supportwith an army of 63, 000 men. On 1 August, Napoleon declared that he nolonger recognized the Holy Roman Empire, and on 6 August the Habsburgemperor, Francis II, resigned the crown which his ancestors forcenturies had worn. The work of a long line of French kings andstatesmen, --Francis I, Henry IV, Richelieu, Mazarin, Louis XIV, --wasthus consummated by Napoleon Bonaparte. The Holy Roman Empire had atlast come to the inglorious end which it had long deserved. And itslast emperor had to content himself with his newly appropriated titleof Francis I, Hereditary Emperor of Austria. The dignity and might ofthe proud Habsburgs had declined before a mere upstart of the people asnever before a royal Bourbon. And this same year, 1806, witnessed, aswe have seen, not only the humiliation of Austria but the deepestdegradation of Prussia. By 1808 all the Germanies were at the mercy of Napoleon. Prussia wasshorn of half her possessions and forced to obey the behests of herconqueror. The Confederation of the Rhine was enlarged and solidified. A kingdom of Westphalia was carved out of northern and western Germanyat the expense of Prussia, Hanover, Brunswick, and Hesse, and bestowedupon Jerome, brother of Napoleon. The grand-duchy of Berg was governedby the Protector's plebeian brother-in-law, Joachim Murat. And, greatest fact of all, wherever the French emperor's rule extended, there followed the abolition of feudalism and serfdom, the recognitionof equality of all citizens before the law, the principles and preceptsof the Code Napoleon. [Sidenote: Napoleon "the Son of the Revolution"] This was the true apogee of Napoleon's power. From the November day in1799 when the successful general had overthrown the corrupt anddespicable Directory down to 1808, his story is a magnificentsuccession of the triumphs of peace and of war. Whatever be thejudgment of his contemporaries or of posterity upon his motives, therecan be little question that throughout these nine years he appeared toFrance and to Europe what he proclaimed himself--"the son of theRevolution. " He it was who in the lull between the combats of theSecond Coalition and those of the Third had consolidated the work ofthe democratic patriots from Mirabeau to Carnot and had assured toFrance the permanent fruits of the Revolution in the domains ofproperty, law, religion, education, administration, and finance. He itwas who, if narrowing the concept of liberty, had broadened thesignificance of equality by the very lesson of his own rise to powerand had deepened the meaning of fraternity by lavishing affection anddevotion upon that machine of democracy--the national army--the "nationin arms. " And he it was who, true to the revolutionary tradition ofstriking terror into the hearts of the divine-right monarchs of Europe, had with a mighty noise shaken the whole Continent and brought down thepolitical and social institutions of the "old regime" tumbling in ruinsthroughout central and southern Europe. He had made revolutionaryreform too solid and too widespread to admit of its total extinction bythe allied despots of Europe. The dream which a Leopold and a FrederickWilliam had cherished in 1791 of turning back the hands on the clock ofhuman progress and of restoring conditions in France as they had beenprior to 1789, was happily dispelled. But in the meantime the despotswere to have their innings. DESTRUCTION OF THE FRENCH EMPIRE [Sidenote: Weaknesses in the French Empire of Napoleon][Sidenote: 1. Napoleon Himself] From 1808 to 1814--six dreadful years--Napoleon's power was constantlyon the wane. Nor are the reasons for his ultimate failure difficult toperceive. Some of the very elements which had contributed most to theupbuilding of his great empire with its dependent kingdoms and duchieswere in the long run elements of weakness and instability--vital causesof its eventual downfall. In the first place, there was the factor ofindividual genius. Altogether too much depended upon the physical andmental strength of one man. Napoleon was undoubtedly a genius, butstill he was human. He was growing older, more corpulent, less able towithstand exertion and fatigue, fonder of affluence and ease. On theother hand, every fresh success had confirmed his belief in his ownability and had further whetted his appetite for power until hisambition was growing into madness and his egotism was becoming mania. His aversion from taking the advice of others increased so that eventhe subtle intriguers, Talleyrand and Fouche, were less and lessadmitted to his confidence. The emperor would brook the appearance ofno actor on the French stage other than himself, although on that stageduring those crowded years there was too much for a single emperor, albeit a master emperor, to do. [Sidenote: 2. Defects of Militarism] The second serious defect in the Napoleonic system was the fact thatits very foundation was military. What had enabled the NationalConvention in the days of the Revolution's darkest peril to roll backthe tide of foreign invasion was the heroism and devotion of anenthusiastic citizen soldiery, actuated by a solemn consciousness thatin a very literal sense they were fighting for their fields andfiresides, for the rights of men and of Frenchmen. They constitutedcompact and homogeneous armies, inspired by the principles and words ofRouget de Lisle's rousing battle hymn, and they smote the hiredtroopers of the banded despots hip and thigh. It was this kind of anarmy which Napoleon Bonaparte took over and which had earned for himhis first spectacular successes. He certainly tried to preserve itsRevolutionary enthusiasm throughout his career. He talked much of its"mission" and its "destiny, " of liberty, equality, and fraternity, andhe kept alive its traditions of heroism and duty. He even improved itsdiscipline, its material well-being, and its honor. But gradually, almost imperceptibly, the altruistic ideals of the Revolution gave wayin the French army to the more selfish and more Napoleonic ideal ofglamour and glory. And as years passed by and the deadly campaignsrepeated themselves and the number of patriotic volunteers lessened, Napoleon resorted more and more to conscription--forcibly taking awaythousands of young Frenchmen from peaceful and productive pursuits athome and strewing their bones throughout the length and breadth of theContinent. [Sidenote: 3. Reaction of Nationalism] Nor did Napoleon's army remain homogeneous. To the last its kernel wasFrench, but, as the empire expanded and other peoples were brought intoa dependent or allied position, it came to include regiments orcompanies of Poles, Germans, Italians, Dutch, Spaniards, and Danes. Inits newer heterogeneous condition it tended the more to lose itsoriginal character and to assume that of an enormous machine-likeconglomeration of mercenaries who followed the fortunes of a despotmore tyrannical and more dangerous than any of the despots against whomit had at first been pitted. It is true that many of the Frenchmen whocomposed the kernel of the Grand Army still entertained the notion thatthey were fighting for liberty, equality, and fraternity, and thattheir contact with their fellow-soldiers and likewise with theirenemies was a most effective means of communicating the revolutionarydoctrines to Europe, but it is also true that Napoleon's policy ofquartering his troops upon the lands of his enemies or of his allies, and thereby conserving the resources of his own country, operated todevelop the utmost hatred for the French, for the Revolution, and forNapoleon. This hatred produced, particularly in Germany and in Spain, areal patriotic feeling among the masses of the exploited nations, sothat those very peoples to whom the notions of liberty and equality hadfirst come as a blessed promise of deliverance from the oppression oftheir own divine-right rulers now used the same notions to justify themin rising as nations against the despotism of a foreign militaryoppressor. Liberty, equality, and fraternity--the gospel of theRevolution--was the boomerang which Napoleon by means of his armyhurled against the European tyrants and which returned with redoubledforce against him. [Sidenote: 4. "The Continental System"] It was thus the character of the emperor himself and his militaryexigencies that, taken in conjunction with the so-called "ContinentalSystem" and the national revolts, made Napoleon's empire but an episodein the story of modern times. It is now time to explain the ContinentalSystem and then to see how it reacted throughout Europe upon thefeeling of national patriotism to bring about the downfall of theCorsican adventurer. [Sidenote: The Economic War between Great Britain and France] "Continental System" is the term commonly applied to the curiouscharacter which the warfare between Napoleon and Great Britaingradually assumed. By 1806 the interesting situation had developed thatGreat Britain was indisputable mistress of the seas while Napoleon wasno less indisputable master of the Continent. The battles of the Nile, of Copenhagen, and of Trafalgar had been to the British what those ofMarengo, Austerlitz, and Jena had been to the French. On one hand thedestruction of the French fleet, together with the Danish, Dutch, andSpanish squadrons, had effectually prevented Napoleon from carryinginto practice his long-cherished dream of invading England. On theother hand, the British army was not strong enough to cope successfullywith Napoleon on land, and the European Powers which all along had beensubsidized by English gold had been cowed into submission by the Frenchemperor. Apparently neither France nor Great Britain could strike eachother by ordinary military means, and yet neither would sue for peace. William Pitt died in January, 1806, heart-broken by the news ofAusterlitz, the ruin of all his hopes. Charles James Fox, the giftedWhig, who thereupon became British foreign secretary, was foiled in asincere attempt to negotiate peace with Napoleon, and died in Septemberof the same year, despairing of any amicable settlement. The brilliant French victory at Jena in October, 1806, seemed to fillthe British as well as the Prussian cup to overflowing. The very nextmonth Napoleon followed up his successes by inaugurating athoroughgoing campaign against his arch-enemy, Great Britain herself;but the campaign was to be conducted in the field of economics ratherthan in the purview of military science. England, it must beremembered, had become, thanks to the long series of dynastic andcolonial wars that filled the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, thechief commercial nation of the world: she had a larger number ofcitizens who made their living as ship-owners, sailors, and tradersthan any other country in the world. Then, too, as we shall see in asubsequent chapter, it was in the England of the eighteenth centurythat the Industrial Revolution began, --a marvelous improvement inmanufacturing, which fostered the growth of a powerful industrial classand enabled the English to make goods more cheaply and in greaterprofusion and to sell them more readily, at lower prices, both at homeand abroad, than any other people in the world. Industry was fastbecoming the basis of Great Britain's wealth, and the commercialclasses were acquiring new strength and influence. It was, therefore, against "a nation of shopkeepers, " as Napoleon contemptuously dubbedthe English, that he must direct his new campaign. To Napoleon's clear and logical mind, the nature of the problem wasplain. Deprived of a navy and unable to utilize his splendid army, hemust attack Great Britain in what appeared to be her one vulnerablespot--in her commerce and industry. If he could prevent the importationof British goods into the Continent, he would deprive his rivals of thechief markets for their products, ruin British manufacturers, throwthousands of British workingmen out of employment, create such hardtimes in the British Islands that the mass of the people would riseagainst their government and compel it to make peace with him on hisown terms: in a word, he would ruin British commerce and industry andthen secure an advantageous peace. It was a gigantic gamble, forNapoleon must have perceived that the Continental peoples mightthemselves oppose the closure of their ports to the cheaper and bettermanufactured articles of Great Britain and might respond to a commoneconomic impulse and rise in force to compel him to make peace onBritish terms, but the stakes were high and the emperor of the Frenchwas a good gambler. From 1806 to 1812 the struggle between Napoleon andGreat Britain was an economic endurance-test. On the one hand, thequestion was whether the British government could retain the support ofthe British people. On the other hand, the question was whetherNapoleon could rely upon the cooperation of the whole Continent. [Sidenote: The Berlin and Milan Decrees] The Continental System had been foreshadowed under the Directory and inthe early years of the Consulate, but it was not until the BerlinDecree (November, 1806) that the first great attempt was made to defineand enforce it. In this decree, Napoleon proclaimed a state of blockadeagainst the British Isles and closed French and allied ports to shipscoming from Great Britain or her colonies. The Berlin Decree wassubsequently strengthened and extended by decrees at Warsaw (January, 1807), Milan (December, 1807), and Fontainebleau (October, 1810). TheMilan Decree provided that even neutral vessels sailing from anyBritish port or from countries occupied by British troops might beseized by French warships or privateers. The Fontainebleau Decree wentso far as to order the confiscation and public burning of all Britishmanufactured goods found in the Napoleonic States. [Sidenote: The Orders in Council] To these imperial decrees the British government, now largely dominatedby such statesmen as Lord Castlereagh and George Canning, replied withcelebrated Orders in Council (January-November, 1807), which declaredall vessels trading with France or her allies liable to capture andprovided further that in certain instances neutral vessels must touchat a British port. Thus the issue was squarely joined. Napoleon wouldsuffer no importation of British goods whether by combatants or byneutrals. The British would allow none but themselves to trade withFrance and her allies. In both cases the neutrals would be the worstsufferers. The effects of the conflict were destined to be far-reaching. [Sidenote: Difficulties in Maintaining the Continental System] The British by virtue of their sea-power could come nearer to enforcingtheir Orders in Council than could Napoleon to giving full effect tohis imperial decrees. Of course they had their troubles with neutrals. The stubborn effort of Denmark to preserve its independence of actionin politics and trade was frustrated in 1807 when a British expeditionbombarded Copenhagen and seized the remnant of the Danish navy. Fromthat time until 1814 Denmark was naturally a stanch ally of Napoleon. Against the Americans, too, who took advantage of the ContinentalSystem to draw into their own hands a liberal portion of the carryingtrade, the British vigorously applied the Orders in Council, and theconsequent ill-feeling culminated in the War of 1812 between GreatBritain and the United States. But on the whole, the British had lesstrouble with neutrals than did Napoleon. And compared with theprodigious hardships which the System imposed upon the Continentalpeoples and the consequent storms of popular opposition to its author, the contemporaneous distress in England was never acute; and theBritish nation at large never seriously wavered in affording moral andmaterial support to their hard-pressed government. Here was the failure of Napoleon. It proved physically impossible forhim to extend the Continental System widely and thoroughly enough togain his point. In many cases, to stave off opposition, he authorizedexceptions to his own decrees. If he could have prevailed upon everyContinental state to close its ports to British goods simultaneouslyand for several successive years, he would still have been confrontedwith a difficult task to prevent smuggling and the bribery of customsofficials, which reached large proportions even in France and in thesurrounding states that he had under fairly effective control. But tobring all Continental states into line with his economic campaignagainst Great Britain was a colossal task, to the performance of whichhe subordinated all his subsequent policies. [Sidenote: Subordination of Napoleon's Foreign Policies to theEnforcement of the Continental System] We have seen how by the treaty of Tilsit (1807) Napoleon extortedpromises from the tsar of Russia and the king of Prussia to excludeBritish goods from their respective countries. He himself saw to theenforcement of the decrees in the French Empire, in the kingdom ofItaly, in the Confederation of the Rhine, and in the grand-duchy ofWarsaw. Brother Joseph did his will in Naples, Brother Jerome inWestphalia, Sister Elise in Tuscany, and Brother Louis was expected todo his will in Holland. The outcome of the war with Sweden in 1808 wasthe completion of the closure of all Scandinavian ports to the British. Napoleon's determination to have his decrees executed in the PapalStates, as well as his high-handed treatment of matters affecting theCatholic Church in France, brought him into conflict with Pope PiusVII, a gentle but courageous man, who in daring to excommunicate theEuropean taskmaster was summarily deprived of his temporal rule andcarried off a prisoner, first to Grenoble, then to Savona, and finallyto Fontainebleau, where he resided, heaped with disgrace and insults, until 1814. In 1809 Napoleon formally incorporated the Papal Statesinto the French Empire. And when in the next year Louis Bonaparte gaveclear signs of an intention to promote the best interests of his Dutchsubjects, even to his brother's detriment, by admitting British goods, he was peremptorily deposed, and Holland, too, was incorporated intothe ever-enlarging French Empire. Henceforth, the Dutch had to bear theburdens of conscription and of crushing taxation. [Sidenote: Napoleon's Interference in Portugal] Meanwhile Napoleon was devoting special attention to closing Portugaland Spain to British goods, and political conditions in these countriesseemed to favor his designs. For over a hundred years Portugal had beenlinked in close trade relations with England, ever since the MethuenTreaty of 1703, which, in return for the admission of English woolensinto Portugal, had granted differential duties favoring the importationof Portuguese wines into England and had thus provided a good marketfor an important Portuguese product to the exclusion largely of theFrench. Napoleon, early in his public career, had tried, for a timesuccessfully, [Footnote: In 1801, as First Consul, Napoleon hadprevailed upon Spain to attack Portugal in order to secure therepudiation of the Methuen Treaty and the promise of hostility to GreatBritain. This step had proved fatal to Portuguese trade, and in 1804the Portuguese government had purchased from Napoleon a solemnrecognition of neutrality. ] to break these commercial relations betweenGreat Britain and Portugal, but it was not until after Tilsit that heentered seriously upon the work. He then formally demanded theadherence of Portugal to the Continental System and the seizure of allBritish subjects and property within the kingdom. Prince John, theregent of the small country, protested, besought Great Britain for aid, hesitated, and finally refused. Already a Franco-Spanish army was onits way to force compliance with the emperor's demands. [Sidenote: and in Spain] In the court of the Spanish Bourbons was a situation that Napoleoncould readily utilize in order to have his way both in Portugal and inSpain. On the throne of Spain was seated the aging Charles IV (1788-1808), boorish, foolish, easily duped. By his side sat his queen, acoarse sensuous woman "with a tongue like a fishwife's. " Their heir wasPrince Ferdinand, a conceited irresponsible young braggart in his earlytwenties. And their favorite, the true ruler of Spain, if Spain at thistime could be said to have a ruler, was Godoy, a vain flashyadventurer, who was loved by the queen, shielded by the king, andenvied by the heir. Under such a combination it is not strange thatSpain from 1795 to 1808 was but a vassal state to France. Nor is itstrange that Napoleon was able in 1807 to secure the approval of theSpanish king to the partition of Portugal, a liberal share having beenallotted to the precious Godoy. Thus French troops were suffered to pour across Spain, and, in October, 1807, to invade Portugal. On 1 December, Lisbon was occupied and theContinental System proclaimed in force, but on the preceding day thePortuguese royal family escaped and, under convoy of a British fleet, set sail for their distant colony of Brazil. Then it was thatNapoleon's true intentions in regard to Spain as well as to Portugalbecame evident. [Sidenote: Joseph Bonaparte, King of Spain, 1808] French troops continued to cross the Pyrenees and to possess themselvesof the whole Iberian peninsula. In Spain public opinion blamed thefeeble king and the detested favorite for this profanation of thecountry's soil, and in the recriminations that ensued at court PrinceFerdinand warmly espoused the popular side. Riots followed. Charles IV, to save Godoy, abdicated and proclaimed Ferdinand VII (17 March, 1808). On the pretext of mediating between the rival factions in the Bourboncourt, Napoleon lured Charles and Ferdinand and Godoy to Bayonne on theFrench frontier and there by threats and cajolery compelled both kingand prince to resign all claims upon their throne. Charles retired toRome on a pension from Napoleon; Ferdinand was kept for six years understrict military guard at Talleyrand's chateau; the Bourbons had ceasedto reign. Brother Joseph Bonaparte was at once promoted to the throneof Spain, and Brother-in-law Joachim Murat supplanted him as king ofNaples. In July, 1808, under protection of French troops, Joseph Bonaparte wascrowned at Madrid. Forthwith he proceeded to confer upon his newsubjects the favors of the Napoleonic regime: he decreed equalitybefore the law, individual liberties, abolition of feudalism andserfdom, educational reforms, suppression of the Inquisition, diminution of monasteries, confiscation of church property, publicimprovements, and, last but not least, the vigorous enforcement of theContinental System. [Sidenote: Resistance in Spain] The comparative ease with which Napoleon had thus been able to supplantthe Spanish Bourbons was equaled only by the difficulty which he andhis brother now experienced with the Spanish people. Until 1808 theCorsican adventurer had had to deal primarily with divine-rightmonarchs and their old-fashioned mercenary armies; henceforth he wasconfronted with real nations, inspired by the same solid patriotismwhich had inspirited the French and dominated by much the samerevolutionary fervor. The Spanish people despised their late king asweak and traitorous; they hated their new king as a foreigner and anupstart. For Spain they were patriotic to the core: priests and noblesmade common cause with commoners and peasants, and all agreed that theywould not brook foreign interference with their domestic concerns. AllSpain blazed forth in angry insurrection. Revolutionary committees, or_juntas_, were speedily organized in the provinces; troops wereenrolled; and a nationalist reaction was in full swing. By 1 August, 1808, Joseph was obliged to flee from Madrid and the French troops werein retreat toward the Pyrenees, [Sidenote: Interrelation of the Continental System and SpanishNationalism][Sidenote: The Peninsular War, 1808-1813] To add to the discomfiture of the French, George Canning, the Britishforeign minister, promptly promised his country's active assistance toa movement whose real significance he already clearly perceived. Inringing words he laid down the British policy which would obtain untilNapoleon had been overthrown: "We shall proceed upon the principle thatany nation of Europe which starts up to oppose a Power which, whetherprofessing insidious peace or declaring open war, is the common enemyof all nations, becomes instantly our ally. " On 1 August, 1808, true tothis declaration, a British army under the command of Sir ArthurWellesley, subsequently duke of Wellington, landed in Portugal andproceeded to cooperate with Portuguese and Spanish against the French. It was the beginning of the so-called Peninsular War, which, withlittle interruption, was to last until 1813 and to spell the firstdisasters for Napoleon. Within three weeks after their landing the British were in possessionof Portugal. Roused by this unexpected reverse, Napoleon assumedpersonal command of the French forces in the Peninsula. And such washis vigor and resourcefulness that in December, 1808, he reinstatedJoseph in Madrid and drove the main British army out of Spain. Thesuccess of Napoleon, however, was but temporary and illusory. Early in1809 grave developments in another part of Europe called him away fromSpain, and the marshals, whom he left behind, quarreled with oneanother and at the same time experienced to the full the difficultieswhich Napoleon himself would have encountered had he remained. The difficulties which impeded French military operations in theIberian peninsula were well-nigh insurmountable. The nature of thecountry furnished several unusual obstacles. In the first place, thepoverty of the farms and the paucity of settlements created a scarcityof provisions and rendered it difficult for the French armies to resortto their customary practice of living upon the land. Secondly, thesudden alternations of heat and cold, to which the northern part ofSpain is liable, coupled with the insanitary condition of many of thetowns, spread disease among the French soldiery. Finally, thesuccession of fairly high and steep mountain ranges, which cross thePeninsula generally in a direction of northwest to southeast, preventedany campaigning on the large scale to which Napoleonic tactics wereaccustomed, and put a premium upon loose, irregular guerrilla fighting, in which the Spaniards were adepts. In connection with these obstaclesarising from the nature of the country must be remembered the fiercepatriotic determination of the native people and the arms anddisciplined commanders furnished by the British. [Sidenote: Nationalism in Austria][Sidenote: Premature Efforts of Austria][Sidenote: Wagram (1809) and the Failure of Austria] The era of national revolts had dawned, and it was not long beforeAustria learned the lesson from Spain. Ever since 1792 the Austrianruler had borne the brunt of the Continental warfare againstrevolutionary France. And stung by the disasters and humiliations of1805 and 1806, the Emperor Francis intrusted preparations for a war ofrevenge to the Archduke Charles and to Count Stadion, an able statesmanand diplomat. The immediate results were: first, a far-reaching schemeof military reform, which abolished the obsolete methods of theeighteenth century, the chief characteristics of the new order beingthe adoption of the principle of the "nation in arms" and of the warorganization and tactics in use among the French; and secondly, theawakening of a lively and enthusiastic feeling of patriotism among theAustrian people, especially among the Tyrolese, whom the arbitrary actof the French despot had handed over to Bavaria. The opportunity for aneffective stroke appeared to be afforded by the Spanish situation, andthe general result was a desperate attempt, premature as the eventproved, to overthrow Napoleon. On 9 April, 1809, Austria declared war, and the next day Archduke Charles with a splendid army advanced intoBavaria. Napoleon, who temporarily put the Spanish danger out of hismind, struck the archduke with his usual lightning rapidity, and withina week's time had forced him back upon Vienna. Before the middle of Maythe French emperor was once more in the Austrian capital. But theArchduke Charles remained resolute, and on 21-22 May inflicted such areverse on Napoleon at Aspern on the Danube below Vienna, that, hadthere been prompt cooperation on the part of other Austrian commandersand speedy assistance from other states, the Corsican might then havebeen overthrown and Europe saved from a vaster deluge of blood. As itwas, Napoleon was allowed a fateful breathing spell, and on 5-6 July hefought and won the hard battle of Wagram. Wagram was not a rout likeAusterlitz, but it was sufficiently decisive to induce the Austrianemperor to accept an armistice, and, after the failure of a cooeperatingBritish expedition, to conclude the treaty of Vienna or Schoenbrunn (14October, 1809), by the terms of which he had to surrender westernGalicia to the grand-duchy of Warsaw and eastern Galicia to Russia; tocede the Illyrian provinces to the French Empire; and to restore theTyrol, together with a strip of Upper Austria, to Bavaria. This treatycost Austria four and one-half million subjects, a heavy war indemnity, and promises not to maintain an army in excess of 150, 000 men, nor tohave commercial dealings with Great Britain. As a further pledge ofAustria's good behavior, and in order to assure a direct heir to hisgreatness, Napoleon shortly afterwards secured an annulment of hismarriage with Josephine on the ground that it had not been solemnizedin the presence of a parish priest, and early in 1810 he married ayoung Austrian archduchess, Maria Louisa, the daughter of the EmperorFrancis II. Even this venture at first seemed successful, for in thefollowing year a son was born who received the high-soundingappellation of king of Rome. But Austria remained at heart thoroughlyhostile; Maria Louisa later grew faithless; and the young prince, half-Habsburg and half-Bonaparte, was destined to drag out a weary andfutile existence among enemies and spies. [Sidenote: Influence of the French Revolution upon Prussia] Meanwhile, the national reaction against Napoleon grew apace. It was inPrussia that it reached more portentous dimensions than even in Austriaor in Spain. Following so closely upon the invigorating victories ofFrederick the Great, the disaster of Jena and the humiliation of Tilsithad been a doubly bitter cup for the Prussian people. Prussianstatesmen were not lacking who put the blame for their country'sdegradation upon many of the social and political conditions which hadcharacterized the "old regime" in all European monarchies, and, asthese statesmen were called in counsel by the well-intentioned KingFrederick William III (1797-1840), the years from 1807 to 1813 weremarked by a series of internal reforms almost as significant in thehistory of Prussia as were those from 1789 to 1795 in the history ofFrance. [Sidenote: The Regeneration of Prussia] The credit of the Prussian regeneration belongs mainly to the greatminister, the Baron vom Stein (1757-1831), and in the second place tothe Chancellor Hardenberg (1750-1822), both of whom felt the influenceof English ideas and of the French philosophy of the eighteenthcentury. On 9 October, 1807, Stein issued at Memel the famous Edict ofEmancipation, which abolished the institution of serfdom throughoutPrussia. Free trade in land was established, and land was left free topass from hand to hand and class to class. Thus the Prussian peasantsbecame personally free, although they were still bound to make fixedpayments to their lords as rent. Moreover, all occupations andprofessions were thrown open to noble, commoner, and peasant alike. Stein's second important step was to strengthen the cabinet and tointroduce sweeping changes in the conduct of public business, reformstoo complicated and too technical to receive detailed explanation inthis place. His third great measure was the grant (19 November, 1808)of local self-government, on liberal yet practical lines, to allPrussian towns and villages with a population in excess of 800. Steinundoubtedly intended the last law to be a corner-stone in the edificeof national constitutional government which he longed to erect in hiscountry, but in this respect his plans were thwarted and Prussiaremained another two generations without a written constitution. In1811 Hardenberg continued the reform of the condition of the peasantsby making them absolute owners of part of their holdings, the landlordsobtaining the rest as partial compensation for their lost feudal andservile dues. During the same period, the army was likewise reorganizedby Scharnhorst and Gneisenau; compulsory universal service wasintroduced, while the condition imposed by Napoleon that the armyshould not exceed 42, 000 men was practically evaded by replacing eachbody of 42, 000 men by another of the same size as soon as the first wasfairly versed in military affairs. In this way every able-bodied malePrussian was in preparation for an expected War of Liberation. Of course Napoleon had some idea of what was happening in Prussia: heprotested, he threatened, he actually succeeded late in 1808 insecuring the dismissal of Stein. But the redoubtable Prussian reformerspent the next three years in trying to fan the popular flame inAustria and thence betook himself to Russia to poison the ear and mindof the Tsar Alexander against the emperor of the French. In themeantime Napoleon was far too busy with other matters to give thoroughattention to the continued development of the popular reforms inPrussia. There the national spirit burned ever brighter through theexertions of patriotic societies, such as the _Tugendbund_, or"League of Virtue, " through the writings of men like Fichte and Arndt, and, perhaps most permanently of all, through the wonderful educationalreforms, which, associated indissolubly with the name of Wilhelm vonHumboldt (1767-1835), gave to Prussia the basis of her present common-school system and to the world the great University of Berlin (1809). It was no longer true that the French had a monopoly of the blessedprinciples of liberty, equality, and fraternity, for which to fight. Itwas no longer a fact that they were the only nation defending theirhomes, their lands, and their rights. By 1810 the despotism of Napoleonwas more selfish and more directly galling to the Prussian people thanhad been the threatened tyranny of Austrian and Prussian monarchs to anemancipated French nation in the dark days of 1792. Prussia wasbankrupt, shorn of half her provinces, enduring the quartering offoreign soldiers, and suffering the ruin of her crops and the paralysisof her trade. Thanks to the Continental System, which had been none oftheir doing, the Prussian people witnessed the decay of their seaports, the rotting of their ships in their harbors, paid exorbitant prices fortobacco, and denied themselves sugar, coffee, and spices. They weregrumbling and getting into a temper that boded ill to the author oftheir injuries. [Sidenote: Liberalism in Spain][Sidenote: The Spanish Constitution of 1812] Meanwhile the warfare in Spain dragged on. In 1812 Wellington with hisallied British and Spanish troops won the great victory of Salamanca, captured Madrid, and drove Joseph and the French north to Valencia. Inthe same year radical groups of Spaniards, who had learnedrevolutionary doctrines from the French, assembled at Cadiz and drafteda constitution for what they hoped would be their regenerated country. This written constitution, next in age to the American and the French, was more radical than either and long served as a model for liberalconstitutions throughout southern Europe. After a preamble in honor ofthe "old fundamental laws of this monarchy, " the constitution laid downthe very principle of the Revolution: "Sovereignty is vestedessentially in the nation, and accordingly it is to the nationexclusively that the right of making its fundamental laws belongs. " Thelegislative power was intrusted to the Cortes, a single-chamberparliament elected for two years by indirect universal suffrage. Theexecutive power was given to the king to be exercised by his ministers. The king could affix a suspensive veto to the acts of the Cortes. Theconstitution further proclaimed the principles of individual libertyand legal equality and sought to abolish the old regime root andbranch: provision was made for a thorough reorganization of courts, local administration, taxation, the army, and public education. Whilethe framers of the constitution affirmed that "the religion of theSpanish nation is and always will be the Apostolic Church of Rome, theonly true Church, " they persisted in decreeing the suppression of theInquisition and the secularization of ecclesiastical property. Thatsuch a radical constitution would be understood and championedforthwith by the whole Spanish people, only the most confirmed andfanatical optimist could believe, but, on the other hand, it wascertain that the Spaniards as a nation were resolved that theContinental System and the Bonaparte family must go. They mightsacrifice equality but not national liberty. At last the four fateful defects in the Napoleonic Empire, --thecharacter of Napoleon himself, the nature of his army, the ContinentalSystem, and the rise of nationalism, --were painfully in evidence. Thedrama thenceforth led irresistibly through two terrible acts--theRussian campaign and the Battle of the Nations--to the_denouement_ in the emperor's abdication and to a sorry epiloguein Waterloo. [Sidenote: Strained Relations between Napoleon and Tsar Alexander] It was the rupture between Napoleon and the Tsar Alexander thatprecipitated the disasters. A number of events which transpired betweenthe celebrated meeting at Tilsit in 1807 and the memorable year of 1812made a rupture inevitable. Tilsit had purported to divide the worldbetween the two emperors, but Alexander, as junior partner in the firm, soon found that his chief function was to assist Napoleon in bringingall western and central Europe under the domination of the FrenchEmpire while he himself was allowed by no means a free rein in dealingwith his own country's hereditary enemies--Sweden, Poland, and Turkey. To be sure, Alexander had wrested Finland from Sweden (1809), butNapoleon's forcing of Sweden into a war with Great Britain (1810-1812), presumably as an ally of Russia as well as of France, had prevented himfrom extending his territory further in that direction. Then, too, therevival of a Polish state under the name of the grand-duchy of Warsawand under French protection was a thorn in his flesh, which became allthe more painful, more irritating, when it was enlarged after theAustrian War of 1809. Finally, Alexander's warfare against Turkey wasconstantly handicapped by French diplomacy, so that when the treaty ofBucharest was at length concluded (28 May, 1812) it was due to Britishrather than to French assistance that Russia extended her southernboundary to the River Pruth. Alexander was particularly piqued whenNapoleon dethroned one of the tsar's relatives in Oldenburg andarbitrarily annexed that duchy to the French Empire, and he was deeplychagrined when the marriage of his ally with a Habsburg archduchessseemed to cement the bonds between France and Austria. All these political differences might conceivably have been adjusted, had it not been for the economic breach which the Continental Systemever widened. Russia, at that time almost exclusively an agriculturalcountry, had special need of British imports, and the tsar, asympathetic, kind-hearted man, could not endure the suffering andprotests of his people. The result was a gradual suspension of therigors of the Continental System in Russia and the eventual return tonormal trade relations as they had existed prior to Tilsit. This simplefact Napoleon could not and would not recognize. "Russia's partialabandonment of the Continental System was not merely a pretext but thereal ground of the war. Napoleon had no alternative between fightingfor his system and abandoning the only method open to him of carryingon war against England. " [Sidenote: Preparations for War between France and Russia] By the opening of the year 1812 Napoleon was actively preparing for waron a large scale against his recent ally. From the Austrian court, thanks to his wife, he secured assurances of sympathy and the promiseof a guard of 30, 000 men to protect the right wing of his Russianinvasion. From the trembling Prussian king he wrung, by threats, permission to lead his invaders across Prussian soil and the support of20, 000 troopers for the left of his lines. A huge expedition was thengathered together: some 250, 000 French veterans, 150, 000 Germans fromthe Confederation of the Rhine; 80, 000 Italians; 60, 000 Poles; anddetachments of Dutch, Swiss, Danes, and Serbo-Croats; in all, a mightymotley host of more than 600, 000 men. As the year advanced, the Tsar Alexander made counter preparations. Hecame to a formal understanding with Great Britain. Through Britishmediation he made peace with the Turks and thus removed an enemy fromhis flank. And a series of treaties between himself, Great Britain, andMarshal Bernadotte, who was crown-prince of Sweden and tired ofNapoleonic domination, guaranteed him in possession of Finland, assuredhim of a supporting Swedish army, and in return promised Norway ascompensation to Sweden. A well-trained Russian army of 400, 000 men, under the stubborn, taciturn veteran, General Kutusov, was put in thefield. [Sidenote: Napoleon's Russian Campaign, 1812] War seemed imminent by April, 1812. After leisurely completing hispreparations, Napoleon crossed the Niemen on 24 June, and the invasionof Russia had begun. It was the plan of the French emperor either tosmash his enemy in a single great battle and to force an earlyadvantageous treaty, or, advancing slowly, to spend the winter inLithuania, inciting the people to insurrection, and then in thefollowing summer to march on to Moscow and there in the ancient capitalof the tsars to dictate terms of peace. The Russian plan of campaignwas quite different. The tsar knew his people, that they were deeplyreligious and patriotic, that they hated Napoleon bitterly, and thatthey could be trusted not to revolt. He likewise knew well thecharacter of the 800 miles of comparatively barren steppes thatintervened between the Niemen and Moscow, whereon small armies could bebeaten and large ones starved. Against the _Grande Armee_therefore, Alexander directed that no decisive battle be risked, butthat the Russian forces, always retreating, should draw their opponentson as far as possible into the interior of the country, where therigors and privations of a Russian winter could be expected to workgreater havoc among them than could powder and bullets. To his surprise and uneasiness, therefore, Napoleon after crossing theNiemen found the Russians always retreating before his advance. Nodecisive victory could be won against the elusive foe. Nor was thetemper of the Lithuanians such as to encourage him to remain all winteramong them. Pushing on into Russia, he captured the great fortress ofSmolensk but still failed to crush the main Russian army. Then it wasthat he made the momentous decision to press on at once to Moscow. On 7September, General Kutusov turned against him at Borodino and inflictedserious injury upon his army, but a week later he was in possession ofMoscow. The battle of Borodino, together with the perpetual harassingof his outposts by the retreating Russians, had already inflicted verysevere losses upon Napoleon, but he still had an army of about 100, 000to quarter in Moscow. The very night of his triumphal entry, the city was set on fire throughthe carelessness of its own inhabitants, --the bazaar, with its stock ofwine, spirits, and chemicals, becoming the prey of the flames. Barracksand foodstuffs were alike destroyed; the inhabitants fled; what wasleft of the city was pillaged by the French troops as well as by theRussians themselves; and the burning of Moscow became the signal for ageneral rising of the peasants against the foreigners who had broughtsuch evils in their train. The lack of supplies and the impossibilityof wintering in a ruined city, attacked in turn by an enraged peasantryand by detachments of General Kutusov's army, now comfortably ensconceda short distance to the south, compelled Napoleon on 22 October, afteran unsuccessful attempt to blow up the Kremlin, or citadel, to evacuateMoscow and to retrace his steps toward the Niemen. [Sidenote: The Disastrous Retreat from Moscow] The retreat from Moscow is one of the most horrible episodes in allhistory. To the exasperating and deadly attacks of the victoriouslypursuing Russians on the rear were added the severity of the weatherand the barrenness of the country. Steady downpours of rain changed toblinding storms of sleet and snow. Swollen streams, heaps of abandonedbaggage, and huge snow-drifts repeatedly blocked the line of march. Thegaunt and desolate country, which the army had ravaged and pillagedduring the summer's invasion, now grimly mocked the retreating host. Itwas a land truly inhospitable and dreary beyond description. Exhaustionovercame thousands of troopers, who dropped by the wayside and beneaththe snows gave their bodies to enrich the Russian ground. The retreatbecame a rout and all would have been lost had it not been for thealmost superhuman efforts of the valiant rear-guard under Marshal Ney. As it was, a mere remnant of the _Grande Armee_ certainly fewerthan 50, 000 men--recrossed the Niemen on 13 December, and, in pitiableplight, half-starved and with torn uniforms, took refuge in Germany. Fully half a million lives had been sacrificed upon the fields ofRussia to the ambition of one man. Yet in the face of these distressingfacts, this one man had the unblushing effrontery and overweeningegotism to announce to the afflicted French people that "the emperorhas never been in better health!" [Sidenote: Final Coalition against Napoleon] For a moment the Tsar Alexander hesitated. Russia at least was freedfrom the Napoleonic peril. To make peace in this hour of triumph mightbe of great advantage to his country and would involve no further riskson his part. But his own dreamy longing to pose as the chief figure onthe European stage, the deliverer of oppressed nationalities, coupledwith the insistent promptings of Baron vom Stein, who was always at hiselbow, eventually decided him to complete the overthrow of his rival. Late in December he signed a convention with the Prussian commander, General Yorck, whereby the Prussian army was to cooperate with theRussian, British, and Swedish forces, and, in return, Prussia was to berestored to the position it had enjoyed prior to Jena. On 13 January, 1813, Alexander at the head of the Russian troops crossed the Niemenand proclaimed the liberty of the European peoples. King FrederickWilliam III, amidst the enthusiastic rejoicing of his people, soonconfirmed the convention of his general, and in March declared waragainst Napoleon. The War of Liberation had commenced. [Sidenote: The War of Liberation] The events of the year 1813 were as glorious in the history of Germanyas they were disastrous for the fortunes of Napoleon. Prussia led inthe movement to free all the German-speaking people from Frenchdomination. From Prussia the national enthusiasm spread to the otherstates. Mecklenburg, which had been the last addition to theConfederation of the Rhine, was the first to secede from it. Allnorthern and central Germany was speedily in popular revolt, and thePrussian army, swelled by many patriotic enlistments, marched southwardinto Saxony. Austria, divided between fear of Napoleon and jealousy ofthe growing power of Russia, mobilized her army and waited for eventsto shape her conduct. In these trying circumstances Napoleon acted withhis accustomed promptness and vigor. Since his arrival in France latein 1812, he had been frantically engaged in recruiting a new army, which, with the wreck of the _Grande Armee_ and the assistancethat was still forthcoming from Naples and southern Germany, nownumbered 200, 000 men, and with which he was ready to take the offensivein Saxony. On 2 May, 1813, he fell on the allied Russians and Prussiansat Luetzen and defeated them, but was unable to follow up his advantagefor want of cavalry. On 20-21 May, he gained another fruitless victoryat Bautzen. It became increasingly obvious that he was beingoutnumbered and outmaneuvered. [Sidenote: The Coalition Joined by Austria] At this point an armistice was arranged through the friendly mediationof Austria. The government of that country proposed a general Europeanpeace on the basis of the reconstruction of Prussia, the re-partitionof the grand-duchy of Warsaw by Russia, Prussia, and Austria, the re-cession of the Illyrian provinces to Austria, the dissolution of theConfederation of the Rhine, and the freedom of the German ports ofHamburg and Luebeck. But it was a decisive victory, not peace, thatNapoleon most wanted, and the only reason which had induced him toaccept the armistice was to gain time in order that reenforcements fromItaly and France might arrive. The delay, however, was fatal to theFrench emperor, for his reenforcements were greatly outnumbered by thepatriots who were continually flocking to the standards of the allies, and by 12 August, 1813, when a state of war was resumed, Austria, whosepeace proposals had been rudely rejected, had formally joined thecoalition against him. [Sidenote: Leipzig, the "Battle of the Nations, " October 1813] Napoleon was now at Dresden in supreme command of armies aggregatingabout 400, 000 men, opposed by 250, 000 Austrians in Bohemia underSchwarzenberg; 100, 000 Prussians and Russians in Silesia under Bluecher;100, 000 Swedes, Prussians, and Russians near Berlin under the CrownPrince Bernadotte of Sweden; and at least 300, 000 reserves. At Dresden, in August, he won his last great victory, against the Austrian army ofGeneral Schwarzenberg. As his marshals suffered repeated reverses, hewas unable to follow up his own successes and found himself graduallyhemmed in by the allies, until at Leipzig he turned at bay. There, on16-19 October, was fought the great three-day "Battle of the Nations. "Against the 300, 000 troops of the allies, Napoleon could use only170, 000, and of these the Saxon contingent deserted in the heat of thefray. It was by military prowess that the French Empire had beenreared; its doom was sealed by the battle of Leipzig. Napoleonsacrificed on that field another 40, 000 lives, besides 30, 000 prisonersand a large quantity of artillery and supplies. A fortnight later, withthe remnant of his army, he recrossed the Rhine. Germany was freed. [Sidenote: Collapse of Napoleon's Power outside of France] The "Battle of the Nations" following within a year the disasters ofthe retreat from Moscow, marked the collapse of Napoleon's poweroutside of France. His empire and vassal states tumbled like a house ofcards. The Confederation of the Rhine dissolved, and its princeshastened, with a single exception, to throw in their lot with thevictorious allies. King Jerome Bonaparte was chased out of Westphalia. Holland was liberated, and William of Orange returned to his country asking. Denmark submitted and by the treaty of Kiel (January, 1814)engaged to cede Norway to Sweden in return for a monetary payment andSwedish Pomerania. Austria readily recovered the Tyrol and the Illyrianprovinces and occupied Venetia and Switzerland. Even Joachim Muratdeserted his brother-in-law, and, in order to retain Naples, came toterms with Austria. Only Polish Warsaw and the king of Saxony remainedloyal to the Napoleonic alliance: the territories of both were in fullpossession of the allies. [Sidenote: The Campaign of 1814 in France] With the remnant of his defeated army and what young boys and old menhe was able to recruit, Napoleon needlessly prolonged the struggle onFrench soil. At the close of 1813 Austria prevailed upon her more orless willing allies to offer him wonderfully favorable terms: Francemight retain her "natural boundaries"--the Rhine, the Alps, and thePyrenees; and Napoleon might continue to rule over a region which wouldhave gladdened the heart of a Richelieu or of a Louis XIV. But it wasstill victory and not peace upon which the supreme egotist had bet hismind. He still dreamed of overwhelming Prussia and Russia. Early in 1814 three large foreign armies, totaling 400, 000 men, andaccompanied by the emperors of Russia and Austria and the king ofPrussia, invaded northern France and converged on Paris. Bluecher withhis German troops was advancing up the Moselle to Nancy; Schwarzenbergwith the Austrians crossed the Rhine to the south at Basel and NeuBreisach; Bernadotte in the Netherlands was welding Swedes, Dutch, andPrussians into a northern army. Meanwhile, the great defeat whichWellington with his allied army of British, Spaniards, and Portuguese, had inflicted upon the French at Vittoria (21 June, 1813) had for thelast time driven King Joseph from Madrid and in effect cleared thewhole Iberian peninsula of Napoleon's soldiers. The British general hadthen gradually fought his way through the Pyrenees so that in thespring of 1814 a fourth victorious allied army in the neighborhood ofToulouse threatened Napoleon from the south. An Austrian army, whichwas then operating in Venetia and Lombardy, menaced France from yet afifth direction. Against such overwhelming odds, Napoleon displayed throughout thedesperate months of February and March, 1814, the same remarkablegenius, the same indomitable will, as had characterized his earliestcampaigns. If anything, his resourcefulness and his rapidity of attackwere even greater. Inflicting a setback on one invader, he would turnquickly and dash against a second. Such apprehension did his tiger-likeassaults excite among his opponents that as late as February he mighthave retained the French frontiers of 1792 if he had chosen to makepeace. He would play the game to the bitter end. On 1 March, the fourGreat Powers--Great Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia--concludedthe treaty of Chaumont, definitely cementing their alliance for aperiod of twenty years and mutually agreeing not to make terms withouteach other's consent nor to desist from war until their arch-enemy hadbeen overthrown: each contracting party undertook to furnish 150, 000men, and Great Britain further promised a subsidy of five millionpounds. The fate of Napoleon was at last settled. [Sidenote: Surrender of Paris and Abdication of Napoleon] To describe in any detail the brilliant campaign of 1814 lies outsideour province. Suffice it to state that, after the most stubbornfighting, resistance was broken. Paris surrendered to the allies on 31March, and thirteen days later Napoleon signed with the alliedsovereigns the personal treaty of Fontainebleau, by which he abdicatedhis throne and renounced all rights to France for himself and hisfamily, and, in return, was guaranteed full sovereignty of the islandof Elba and an annual pension of two million francs for himself; theItalian duchy of Parma was conferred upon the Empress Maria Louisa, andpensions of two and a half million francs were promised for members ofhis family. Another seven days and Napoleon bade his Old Guard anaffecting farewell and departed for Elba. In his diminutive islandempire, hard by the shore of Tuscany and within sight of his nativeCorsica, Napoleon Bonaparte lived ten months, introducing such vigorinto the administration as the island had never experienced and all thewhile pondering many things. [Sidenote: Restoration of the Bourbons in France][Sidenote: Compromise with the Revolutionary Ideas] Meanwhile, in France order was emerging from chaos. In 1793 Europeansovereigns had banded together to invade France, to restore the divine-right monarchy of the Bourbons and the traditional rights of theprivileged classes, and to stamp out the embryonic principles ofliberty, equality, and fraternity. The most noteworthy significance ofthe Era of Napoleon was the simple fact that now in 1814 the monarchsof Europe, at last in possession of France, had no serious thought ofrestoring social or political conditions just as they had been prior tothe Revolution. Their major quarrel was not with principles but with aman. The Tsar Alexander, to whom more than to any other one person, wasdue the triumph of the allies, was a benevolent prince, well-versed inthe revolutionary philosophy, considerate of popular wishes, andanxious to promote a lasting peace. Talleyrand, the man of the houramong Frenchmen, who himself had played no mean role throughout theRevolution and under Napoleon, combined with a desire to preserve thefrontiers of his country a firm conviction that the bulk of hiscountrymen would not revert to absolute monarchy. Between Talleyrandand Alexander it was arranged, with the approval of the Great Powers, that in the name of "legitimacy" the Bourbons should be restored to thethrone of France, but with the understanding that they should fullyrecognize and confirm the chief social and political reforms of theRevolution. It was likewise arranged by the treaty of Paris (30 May, 1814), also in the name of "legitimacy, " that France should regain thelimits of 1792, should recover practically all the colonies which GreatBritain had seized during the course of the Napoleonic wars, [Footnote:Great Britain kept Tobago and St. Lucia in the West Indies, andMauritius (Ile de France) on the route to India. ] and should pay noindemnity. "Legitimacy" was a brilliant discovery of Talleyrand: itjustified the preservation of France in the face of crushing defeat, and, if it restored the Bourbons, it did so as limited, not asabsolute, monarchs. [Sidenote: Louis XVIII] Louis XVI's "legitimate" heir was his brother, the count of Provence, acynical, prosaic, and very stout old gentleman who had been quietlyresiding in an English country-house, and who now made a solemn, ifsomewhat unimpressive, state entry into Paris. The new king kept whatforms of the old regime he could: he assumed the title of Louis XVIII, "king of France by the grace of God"; he reckoned his reign from thedeath of the dauphin ("Louis XVII") in the year 1795; he replaced therevolutionary tricolor by the white and lilies of his family; out ofthe fullness of his divinely bestowed royal authority he granted acharter to the French people. But Louis XVIII was neither so foolishnor so principled as to insist upon the substance of Bourbon autocracy:the very Constitutional Charter, which he so graciously promulgated, confirmed the Revolutionary liberties of the individual and establisheda fairly liberal form of government for France. It was obvious that thegouty old man had no desire to risk his head or to embark again uponhis travels. [Sidenote: Monarchical Restorations Elsewhere in Europe] The same month that witnessed the unbecoming straddle of this FrenchBourbon between revolution and reaction, beheld the restoration ofanother Bourbon in the person of Ferdinand VII to the throne of Spain, and the return of Pope Pius VII, amid the enthusiastic shouts of theRomans, to the ancient see upon the Tiber. About the same time Piedmontand Savoy were restored to Victor Emmanuel I, king of Sardinia. Europewas rapidly assuming a more normal appearance. To settle theoutstanding territorial questions which the overthrow of Napoleon hadraised, a great congress of rulers and diplomats met at Vienna in theautumn of 1814. [Sidenote: Napoleon at Elba, 1814-1815] Within a few months the unusual calm was rudely broken by the suddenreappearance of Napoleon Bonaparte himself upon the European stage. Itwas hardly to be expected that he for whom the whole Continent had beentoo small would be contented in tiny Elba. He nursed grievances, too. He could get no payment of the revenue secured him by the treaty ofFontainebleau; his letters to his wife and little son were interceptedand unanswered; he was treated as an outcast. He became aware of asituation both in France and at Vienna highly favorable to his ownambition. As he foresaw, the shrinkage of the great empire into therealm of old France filled many patriotic Frenchmen with disgust, afeeling fed every day by stories of the presumption of returningemigres and of the tactless way in which the Bourbon princes treatedveterans of the _Grande Armee_. Napoleon in time felt certain thathe could count once more upon the loyalty of the French nation. That hewould not be obliged to encounter again the combined forces of theEuropean Powers he inferred from his knowledge of the ever-recurringjealousies among them and from the fact that even then Russia andPrussia on one side were quarreling with Austria and Great Britain onthe other over the fate of Saxony and Poland. If some fighting werenecessary, the return of French prisoners from Russia, Germany, GreatBritain, and Spain would supply him with an army far larger than thatwith which he had fought the brilliant campaign of 1814. [Sidenote: The Episode of Napoleon's Return to France: "The HundredDays, " March-June, 1815] On 26 February, 1815, Napoleon slipped away from Elba with some twelvehundred men, and, managing to elude the British guardships, disembarkedat Cannes on 1 March and advanced northward. Troops sent out to arrestthe arch-rebel were no proof against the familiar uniform and cockedhat: they threw their own hats in the air amid ringing shouts of_vive l'empereur_. Everywhere the adventurer received a heartywelcome, which attested at once the unpopularity of the Bourbons andthe singular attractiveness of his own personality. The French people, being but human, put imagination in the place of reason. Without firinga shot in his defense, Napoleon's bodyguard swelled until it became anarmy. Marshal Ney, the "bravest of the brave, " who had taken the oathof allegiance to the Bourbons and had promised Louis XVIII that hewould bring Napoleon to Paris in an iron cage, deserted to him with6000 men, and on 20 March the emperor jauntily entered the capital. Louis XVIII himself, who had assured his parliament that he would diein defense of his throne, was already in precipitate flight toward theBelgian frontier. [Sidenote: Napoleon and France] Napoleon clinched his hold upon the French people by means of an astutemanifesto which he promptly published. "He had come, " he declared, "tosave France from the outrages of the returning nobles; to secure to thepeasant the possession of his land; to uphold the rights won in 1789against a minority which sought to reestablish the privileges of casteand the feudal burdens of the last century; France had made trial ofthe Bourbons; it had done well to do so, but the experiment had failed;the Bourbon monarchy had proved incapable of detaching itself from itsworst supports, the priests and nobles; only the dynasty which owed itsthrone to the Revolution could maintain the social work of theRevolution. . .. He renounced war and conquest . .. He would governhenceforth as a constitutional sovereign and seek to bequeath aconstitutional crown to his son. " [Sidenote: Napoleon and Europe] The emperor was as wrong in his judgment of what Europe would do as hewas right concerning the attitude of France. The statesmen who had beenhaggling about treaty stipulations at Vienna speedily forgot all theirdifferences in the face of common danger. The four Great Powerssolemnly renewed their treaty of alliance, and with alacrity andunanimity all joined in signing a declaration. "In violating theconvention which established him in the island of Elba, Bonaparte hasdestroyed the only legal title to his existence. By reappearing inFrance with projects of disorder and destruction, he has cut himselfoff from the protection of the law, and has shown in the face of allthe world that there can be neither peace nor truce with him. Accordingly the Powers declare that Napoleon Bonaparte is excluded fromcivil and social relations, and as an enemy and disturber of thetranquillity of the world he has incurred public vengeance. .. . " In order to give force to their threats, the allies rushed troopstoward France. Wellington assembled an army of more than 100, 000British, Dutch, and Germans, and planned to cooeperate with 120, 000Prussians under Bluecher near Brussels. The Austrian army underSchwarzenberg neared the Rhine. Russia and Germany were alive withmarching columns. To oppose these forces Napoleon raised an army of200, 000 men, and on 12 June, 1815, quitted Paris for the Belgianfrontier. His plan was to separate his opponents and to overcome themsingly: it would be a repetition of the campaign of 1814, though on alarger scale. [Sidenote: Waterloo] How Napoleon passed the border and forced the outposts of the enemyback to Waterloo; how there, on 18 June, he fought the final greatbattle of his remarkable career; how his troops were mowed down by thefearful fire of his adversaries and how even his famous Old Guardrallied gloriously but ineffectually to their last charge; how thedefeat administered by Wellington was turned at the close of the dayinto a mad rout through the arrival of Bluecher's forces: all thesematters are commonplaces in the most elementary histories of militaryscience. It has long been customary to cite the battle of Waterloo asone of the world's decisive battles. In a sense this is just, but itshould be borne in mind that, in view of the firm united determinationof all Europe, there was no ultimate chance for Napoleon. If he haddefeated Wellington, he would still have had to deal with Bluecher. Ifhe should then defeat the Prussians, he would have to turn suddenlyagainst Schwarzenberg and the Austrians. By that time Wellington wouldhave been sufficiently reenforced to resume the offensive, and the warwould have gone on inevitably to but a single grim conclusion. Theallies could put almost limitless numbers in the field; Napoleon was atthe end of his resources. For the conservation of human life, it wasfortunate that Napoleon was overwhelmed at Waterloo and that the firstbattle of the campaign of 1815 was also its last. Waterloo addedmilitary prestige to the naval preeminence which Great Britain alreadyenjoyed, and finally established the reputation of Wellington as thegreatest general of his age next only to Napoleon himself. It is smallwonder that the English have magnified and glorified Waterloo. [Footnote: An interesting side issue of the Waterloo campaign was thefate of Joachim Murat. The wily king of Naples, distrustful of theallies' guarantees, threw in his lot with his brother-in-law. Hisforces were speedily put to rout by the Austrians and he himself fledto France and later to Corsica, and was ultimately captured and shot. His action enabled still another Bourbon, the despicable Ferdinand I, to recover his throne. ] [Sidenote: Final Overthrow of Napoleon ] On 21 June, Napoleon arrived in Paris, defeated and dejected. That veryday the parliament, on the motion of Lafayette, declared itself inpermanent session and took over all functions of government. Thefollowing day Napoleon abdicated the second time in favor of his son, and the provisional government of France, under the skillful trimmingof the clever Fouche, reopened negotiations with the Bourbons. On 7July the allies reoccupied Paris, bringing the flustered old LouisXVIII "in their baggage-train. " The Bourbons, thus unheroicallyrestored, were destined for fifteen years to maintain in peace theircompromise between revolution and reaction. [Sidenote: Napoleon at St. Helena 1815-1821 ] On 15 July, the day following the anniversary of the fall of theBastille, Napoleon, who had gone to Rochefort on the French coast, withsome vague idea of taking refuge in America, delivered himself over tothe commander of a British warship which was lying in the harbor. Forus who live a century after the stirring events whose narrative hasfilled this chapter, it is easy to perceive that the British governmentmight safely have extended hospitality to their famous captive andmight have granted him an asylum in England. He was finally discreditedin the eyes not only of the European despots but also of the vastmajority of the French people; no matter how much he might burn withthe flame of his old ambition, he could never again be in a position toendanger the safety or prosperity of the United Kingdom. But in 1815Englishmen felt differently, and naturally so. To them Napoleon hadbeen for years a more troublesome and dangerous enemy than a Philip IIor a Louis XIV. By them he was deemed the unregenerate child ofdarkness and of the evil spirit. And "General Bonaparte, " as theBritish authorities persisted in calling him, was not suffered to touchfoot upon the sacred soil of England, but was dispatched on anotherBritish warship to the rocky island of St. Helena in the southAtlantic. On St. Helena Napoleon lived five and a half years. He was allowedconsiderable freedom of movement and the society of a group of closepersonal friends. He spent his time in walking on the lonely island orin quarreling with his suspicious strait-laced English jailer, SirHudson Lowe, or in writing treatises on history and war and dictatingmemoirs to his companions. These memoirs, which were subsequentlypublished by the Marquis de Las Cases, were subtly compounded of truthand falsehood. They represented Napoleon Bonaparte in the light of atrue son and heir of the Revolution, who had been raised by the will ofthe French people to great power in order that he might consolidate theglorious achievements of liberty, equality, and fraternity. Accordingto the emperor himself, he had always been the friend of peace and ofoppressed nationalities, the author of blessings which had floweduninterruptedly upon his people until he had been thwarted by themachinations of the British and the sheer brute force of the Europeandespots. Napoleon shrewdly foresaw the increase of popular discontentwith the repressive measures which the reactionary sovereigns andstatesmen of Europe were bound to inaugurate, and in the resultingupheaval he thought he could see an opportunity for his beloved son tobuild anew an empire of the French. It could hardly have been blindchance that caused him to insert in his will the pious request that he"be buried on the banks of the Seine in the midst of the French peoplewhom he so dearly loved. " On 5 May, 1821, the greatest adventurer ofmodern times died on the island of St. Helena. [Sidenote: The Napoleonic Legend] Already the history of the emperor was becoming the Napoleonic Legend. The more his memory was revered as the noble martyr of St. Helena, themore truth withdrew into the background and fiction stepped into thelimelight. His holocausts of human life were forgotten; only the glory, the unconquerable prowess of his arms, was remembered. French cottageswere adorned with cheap likenesses of the little corporal's features;quaint, endearing nicknames for their hero were on villagers' lips; andaround hearth and campfire were related apocryphal anecdotes of hisexploits at Lodi, at Austerlitz, and at Wagram. From a selfish despotNapoleon was returning to his mightier, if humbler, position as a childof the people. Thus the last years at St. Helena were far fromfruitless: they proved once more that the pen is mightier than thesword, --for one day, not by feats of arms, but by the power of theNapoleonic Legend, another Bonaparte was to be seated upon the throneof France. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ERA OF NAPOLEON [Sidenote: A Continuation of the Revolutionary Era][Sidenote: Liberty under Napoleon] If we turn now from the story of Napoleon's life to an attempt toappraise the significance of the whole era which fittingly bears hisname, we are struck by its manifold achievements in politics andsociety, in commerce, and in war. In general it was a continuation ofthe French the Revolution. The principles of liberty, equality, andfraternity, which, from 1789 to 1799, had been laid down as thefoundation exclusively of French political and social institutions, became, from 1799 to 1815, the building-blocks for all Europeannations. The least understood and used was undoubtedly liberty. To besure, both the Consulate and the empire were concrete and substantialexamples of the replacement of the old theory of divine-right monarchyby the new idea of popular sovereignty, of governments resting, in lastanalysis, upon the consent of the governed. But Napoleon did hardlymore to vitalize individual liberties than did the benevolent despotsof the eighteenth century, or those of his own day. To secure theinterested support of the bourgeoisie and the peasantry, the sacredright of private property was eloquently reaffirmed, and, as a trustyweapon against possible clerical pretensions, the noble rights ofliberty of conscience and liberty of worship were grandiloquentlypreached; but the less serviceable liberties of speech and ofpublication were confined within the narrowest limits of military andimperial toleration. [Sidenote: "Equality" under Napoleon] With equality it was quite different. In all the lands annexed toFrance or included within the radius of Napoleon's direct influence, the forms and rights of feudalism and serfdom were abolished, and thesocial equalities embodied _Code Napoleon_ were guaranteed. Throughout southern Germany, the Netherlands, the Iberian peninsula, and a great part of Italy, as well as in France, the social aspects ofthe old regime underwent a thorough transformation; interior customslines, private roadways, toll-bridges, and internal trade restrictionswere swept away; in the place of large landed estates, with their old-time noble owners and their wretched peasants attached to the soil andsuffering from burdensome tithes and dues and personal services, appeared a numerous class of peasant proprietors, owning and tillingtheir own fields, free to buy, sell, or exchange them, or to move awayto the growing towns. Outside of Napoleon's direct influence, the landreforms of Baron vom Stein in Prussia reflected the same spirit of theage. These social gains in the direction of equality were, in fact, themost permanent achievements of the Napoleonic Era: in spite of laterreaction, it was beyond the reach of possibility to restore theinequalities of the outworn feudal system. [Sidenote: "Fraternity" under Napoleon][Sidenote: The Emphasis on Nationalism] Fraternity, or national patriotism, received a marked impetus duringthe era. Communicated from France by the ardor of the revolutionary andNapoleonic soldiers, it evoked ready response not only in Poland, Holland, Portugal, Spain, England, and Russia, in which countries itwas already existent, but also in the Germanies and in the Italianstates, where centuries of petty strife and jealousy seemed to haveblotted it out forever. The significance of the Napoleonic period inthe history of Germany is incalculable. The diminution of the number ofstates, the abolition of the effete Holy Roman Empire, the regenerationof Prussia, the War of Liberation, the Battle of the Nations, theconsciousness of common interests, and the wave of patriotism whichswept over the whole German folk, presaged before the lapse of manydecades the political unification of the Germanies and the erection ofa powerful national state. Nor were the Italians devoid of a similarnational feeling. The fame of Napoleon, a man of Italian blood, thetemporary establishment of a "kingdom of Italy, " the title of "king ofRome" conferred upon the infant heir to Napoleon's fortunes, the socialreforms and the patriotic awakening throughout the peninsula, --allbetokened a national destiny for the whole Italian people. [Sidenote: Minor Political Happenings] In minor political ways the Napoleonic Era was not withoutsignificance. The Tsar was enabled finally to acquire Finland, Poland, and Turkish land as far as the River Pruth, Minor thus completing thework of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, and rounding out theEuropean frontier of Russia to its present extent. Sweden securedNorway and a new dynasty, which, descended from Marshal Bernadotte, theinteresting son of an obscure French lawyer, has reigned ever since. Inthe case of Portugal, the flight of the royal family to Brazil in 1807had the curious effect of causing them for several years to hold theircourt in their principal colony and to govern the mother-countrythrough regents. [Sidenote: Remarkable Significance of the Era to Great Britain][Sidenote: Colonies][Sidenote: Commerce] Beyond continental Europe the period was of utmost importance. Themaritime and commercial supremacy of Great Britain, which had beenseriously shaken by the War of American Independence, was regained inthe course of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. Of course theUnited States continued independent. But the great victories of LordNelson over the French fleets rendered Great Britain the true mistressof the seas; and she proceeded to utilize her naval superiority toappropriate what remaining French colonies most suited her purpose. Inthis way she possessed herself of Malta (1800), St. Lucia, Tobago(1803), and Mauritius (1810). Then, too, the dependence of Holland uponFrance, involuntary though it was most of the time, afforded her anopportunity to seize such valuable Dutch colonies as Ceylon (1795), Guiana (1803), and South Africa (1806). The sorry subservience of theSpanish Bourbons to Napoleon gave Great Britain a similar chance toprey upon Spanish commerce, to occupy some Spanish colonies, and toopen others to her own trade: at this time the British took possessionof Trinidad (1797) and Honduras (1798) and sent raiding expeditionsagainst Buenos Aires and Montevideo (1806-1807). The subsequentPeninsular War, in which, as we have seen, the British cooeperated withthe Spaniards in maintaining the latter's freedom against Napoleon, putan end to the hostile British incursions into the Spanish colonies, butit worked in another way to Great Britain's advantage. The Spanishcolonies--Mexico, Central America, and the greater part of SouthAmerica--were thrown into grave administrative perplexities by theconflict of authority between the two Bourbon kings, Charles IV andFerdinand VII, and between King Joseph Bonaparte and the revolutionary_juntas_; the colonists gradually got into the habit of managingtheir own affairs and of opening their ports to British trade; and theresult was that by 1814, when Ferdinand was at length firmlyestablished upon the Spanish throne, he was confronted by colonists, the greater number of whom had all along professed allegiance to him, but who now, accustomed to the advantages of free trade and practicalindependence, were resolved to maintain them. The disruption of theSpanish colonial empire was a direct outcome of Napoleon's career, andnext to the colonists themselves the British were the chiefbeneficiaries. In general, the new colonies which Great Britainacquired were intended either, as in the case of Malta, Mauritius, Ceylon, and South Africa, to strengthen her hold upon India, or, as inthe case of the others, to develop her trade with Spanish America. [Sidenote: Industry] This naval predominance of Great Britain and the expansion of hercommerce and colonial empire synchronized with the rapid development ofthe Industrial Revolution within England. It was the ceaselessoperation of spinning frames and power looms, of blast furnaces andsteam engines, in a country on which the French emperor's army hadnever trod, that most truly worked the downfall of Napoleon. [Illustration: THE BONAPARTE FAMILY] ADDITIONAL READING TEXTBOOK NARRATIVES. H. E. Bourne, _The Revolutionary Period inEurope, 1763-1815_ (1914), ch. Xvii-xxvii; J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard, _The Development of Modern Europe_, Vol. I (1907), ch. Xiv, xv; H. M. Stephens, _Revolutionary Europe, 1789-1815_ (1893), ch. Vii-xi; J. H. Rose, _Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era, 1789-1815_(1895), ch. Vii-xi; J. A. R. Marriott, _The Remaking of ModernEurope, 1789-1878_ (1910), ch. Vii-xi; H. T. Dyer, _A History ofModern Europe from the Fall of Constantinople_, 3d ed. Rev. ByArthur Hassall (1901), ch. Lxi-lxvii; C. A. Fyffe, _A History ofModern Europe, 1792-1878_ (1896), ch. V-xii. STANDARD BIOGRAPHIES OF NAPOLEON. Two suggestive outlines, either oneof which may serve as an admirable introduction to more careful study:Herbert Fisher, _Napoleon_ (1912), in the "Home University Library";and R. M. Johnston, _Napoleon, a Short Biography_ (1910). AugustFournier, _Napoleon I_, 3d rev. Ed. , 3 vols. (1914), perhaps the bestbiography, a German work, scholarly, well written, and impartial, trans. Into English from the 2d German edition by A. E. Adams, 2 vols. (1912). J. H. Rose, _The Life of Napoleon I_, new ed. , 2 vols. In i(1907), a highly prized work, mainly political, and thoroughly Britishin tone; and, by the same author, _The Personality of Napoleon_ (1912), a collection of interesting lectures. W. M. Sloane, _The Life ofNapoleon Bonaparte_, rev. And enlarged ed. , 4 vols. (1910), confinedlargely to the personal history of Napoleon, with special reference tohis earlier years, based upon source-material, and profuselyillustrated. J. C. Ropes, _The First Napoleon_ (1900), a military andpolitical outline by an authority on several of the great campaigns ofthe emperor. Pierre Lanfrey, _The History of Napoleon the First_, Eng. Trans. , 2d ed. , 4 vols. (1894), a severe arraignment of the characterand policies of Napoleon by a celebrated French scholar, reaches onlyto the close of the year 1811. Adolphe Thiers, _Histoire du consulat etde l'empire_, 20 vols. , highly laudatory of Napoleon, and should beread as an antidote to Lanfrey; the portion of the work down to 1807has been translated into English by D. F. Campbell, 2 vols. In 1(1845). H. A. Taine, _The Modern Regime_, Eng. Trans. By John Durand, 2vols. (1890-1894), a brilliant and fascinating analysis of Napoleon'sgenius and a critical estimate of the importance of the institutionsestablished by him. Frederic Masson, _Napoleon et sa famille_, 5th ed. , 12 vols. (1897-1915), an encyclopedia of information concerning theemperor's numerous relatives, and, by the same author, _Napoleon aSainte-Helene_ (1912). Three volumes of an elaborate history ofNapoleon appeared in 1912-1914, the work of a well-known Germanspecialist, F. M. Kircheisen, _Napoleon I: sein Leben und seine Zeit_. See also, on the early life of Bonaparte, Oscar Browning, _Napoleon:the First Phase, 1769-1793_ (1905); and, on his final years at St. Helena, Lord Rosebery, _Napoleon: the Last Phase_ (1900). Anilluminating work is that of A. M. Broadley, _Napoleon in Caricature, 1795-1821_, with an introductory essay by J. H. Rose, 2 vols. (1911). ILLUSTRATIVE SOURCE MATERIAL. In addition to the indispensable_Readings in Modern European History_ by J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard(1909), the following selections from the masses of source material areespecially serviceable: D. A. Bingham, _A Selection from the Lettersand Despatches of the First Napoleon_, 3 vols. (1884); _Memoirs of theHistory of France during the Reign of Napoleon, dictated by him at St. Helena to the generals who shared his captivity_, Eng. Trans. , 2d ed. , 4 vols. (1823-1824); the correspondence of Napoleon I, published inFrench under the auspices of Napoleon III, 32 vols. (1858-1870), andNapoleon's military correspondence published under the auspices of theMinistry of War of the Third French Republic; _Narrative of CaptainCoignet_, new French ed. (1909), Eng. Trans. By Mrs. Carey, the storyof the life of a soldier in the ranks. Of the abundant memoirs of theperiod, the best are those of Mme. De Remusat, covering the years 1802-1808, hostile but informing, Eng. Trans. By Mrs. Cashel Hoey and JohnLillie (1891); Fauvalet de Bourrienne, Eng. Trans. By J. S. Memes, 3vols. (1892); Antoine de Marbot, 3 vols. ; C. F. De Meneval, coveringthe years 1802-1815, 3 vols. (1894); A. F. Miot de Melito, Eng. Trans. (1881); L. P. De Segur, 3 vols; and C. M. De Talleyrand-Perigord, Eng. Trans. , 5 vols. (1891-1892). For further bibliographical suggestions, see F. M. Kircheisen, _Bibliography of Napoleon_ (1902). An extendedbibliography is in course of publication by an Italian scholar, AlbertoLumbroso, 5 parts to date (1894-1914). THE ERA OF NAPOLEON. A very brief summary: Charles Seignobos, _Historyof Contemporary Civilization_, trans. By J. A. James (1909), pp. 150-185. Standard general works: _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. IX(1906); _Histoire generale_, Vol. IX; _History of All Nations_, Vol. XVI, _The French Revolution and the Rise of Napoleon_, ch. Viii, ix, and Vol. XVII, _The Napoleonic Empire_, by Theodor Flathe; WilhelmOncken, _Das Zeitalter der Revolution, des Kaiserreiches, und derBefreiungskriege_, 2 vols. (1884-1886); Emile Bourgeois, _Manuelhistorique de politique etrangere, 4th ed. , Vol. II (1909), ch. Viii-xviii. Standard works on special phases of the era: Armand Lefebvre, _Histoire des cabinets de l'Europe pendant le consulat et l'empire1800-1815_, 2d ed. , 5 vols. (1866-1869), an admirable diplomatichistory; Albert Sorel, L'Europe et la revolution francaise, 8 vols. (1885-1904), a standard authoritative work, of which Vols. VI-VIIItreat of the communication of revolutionary ideas to Europe during theEra of Napoleon; L. De Lanzac de Laborie, _Paris sous Napoleon_, 8vols. (1905-1913), invaluable for a detailed study of French life underNapoleon; Emile Levasseur, _Histoire des classes ouvrieres et del'industrie en France de 1789 a 1870_, Vol. I (1903), Livre II, _Leconsulat et l'empire_, for social history; Jean Jaures, _Histoiresocialiste, 1789-1900_, Vol. VI, by Paul Brousse and Henri Turot, _Leconsulat et l'empire, 1799-1815_ (1905), likewise for social history;J. 0. B. De Cleron d'Haussonville, _L'eglise romaine et le premierempire, 1800-1814_, 5 vols. (1868-1869), for ecclesiastical affairs;Alphonse Aulard, _Napoleon I-er et la monopole universitaire_ (1911), for educational matters; Henri Welschinger, _La censure sous le premierempire_ (1882), for restrictions on personal liberty in France: and forFrench plots and attempts against Napoleon, the works of Ernest Daudet, particularly _La police et les chouans sous le consulat et l'empire, 1800-1815_ (1895), _Histoire de l'emigration_, 3 vols. (1886-1890), and_L'exil et la mort du General Moreau_ (1909); and Sir John Hall, _General Pichegru's Treason_ (1916). MILITARY CAMPAIGNS OF NAPOLEON. T. A. Dodge, _Napoleon: a History of the Art of War_, 4 vols. (1904-1907), the work of an American army officer, not always accurate, butthe best general account in English; A. T. Mahan, _The Influence of SeaPower upon the French Revolution and Empire, 1793-1812_, 10th ed. , 2vols. (1898), a justly famous book, especially valuable for theContinental System. Special campaigns: Albert Vandal, _Napoleon etAlexander Ier_, 3d ed. , 3 vols. (1893-1896); R. G. Burton, _Napoleon'sCampaigns in Italy, 1796-1797 and 1800_ (1912), and, by the sameauthor, _From Boulogne to Austerlitz: Napoleon's Campaign of 1805_(1912); the works of F. L. Petre, particularly _Napoleon's Conquest ofPrussia, 1806_ (1907), _Napoleon's Campaign in Poland, 1806-1807_(1906), _Napoleon and the Archduke Charles_ (1908), _Napoleon's LastCampaign in Germany, 1813_ (1912), _Napoleon at Bay_ (1914); HenryHoussaye, _Jena et la campagne de 1806_, with introduction by LouisMadelin (1912); Edouard Driault, _Austerlitz: la fin du Saint-Empire, 1804-1808_ (1912); Charles Oman, _History of the Peninsular War_, amonumental work extending to the year 1812, 5 vols. (1902-1914), and, by the same author, _Wellington's Army, 1809-1814_ (1912); HermannBaumgarten, _Geschichte Spaniens vom Ausbruch der franzoesischenRevolution bis auf unsere Tage_, Vol. I (1865), a scholarly Germantreatment of the Peninsular campaign; R. G. Burton, _Napoleon'sInvasion of Russia_ (1914); F. W. O. Maycock, _The Invasion of France, 1814_ (1915); Oscar Browning, _The Fall of Napoleon_ (1907), useful forthe years 1813-1815; E. F. Henderson, _Blucher and the Uprising ofPrussia against Napoleon, 1806-1815_ (1911), in the "Heroes of theNations" Series; D. P. Barton, _Bernadotte: the First Phase, 1763-1799_(1914); A. F. Becke, _Napoleon and Waterloo_, 2 vols. (1914); J. C. Ropes, _The Campaign of Waterloo_, 2d ed. (1893). THE GERMANIES IN THE ERA OF NAPOLEON. Brief accounts: G. M. Priest, _Germany since 1740_ (1915), ch. Iv-vii; Ferdinand Schevill, _TheMaking of Modern Germany_ (1916), ch. Iii; E. F. Henderson, _A ShortHistory of Germany_, Vol. II (1902), ch. Vi, vii, and, by the sameauthor, the book on Bluecher listed in the preceding paragraph; C. T. Atkinson, _A History of Germany, 1715-1815_ (1908), almost exclusivelya military history; H. A. L. Fisher, _Studies in NapoleonicStatesmanship: Germany_ (1903), instructive and stimulating. The bestand most thorough work in English is J. R. Seeley, _Life and Times ofStein, or Germany and Prussia in the Napoleonic Age_, 2 vols. (1879). Standard German works, all highly patriotic in tone: Ludwig Haeusser, _Deutsche Geschichte vom Tode Friedrichs des Grossen bis zur Gruendungdes deutschen Bundes_, 4th ed. , 4 vols. (1869); K. T. Von Heigel, _Deutsche Geschichte vom Tode Friedrichs des Grossen bis zur Aufloesungdes alten Reiches_, 2 vols. (1899-1911); Hans von Zwiedineck-Suedenhorst, _Deutsche Geschichte von der Aufloesung des alten bis zurErrichtung des neuen Kaiserreiches_, _1806-1871_, 3 vols. (1897-1905), of which Vol. I deals with the years 1806-1815; Heinrich vonTreitschke, _Deutsche Geschichte im neunzehnten Jahrhundert_, 5 vols. (1890-1896), of which Vol. I, in Eng. Trans. (1915), covers the perioddown to 1814; Heinrich Ulmann, _Geschichte der Befreiungskriege, 1813und 1814_, 2 vols. (1914-1915), not so much military as political anddiplomatic; Hans Delbrueck, _Das Leben des Feldmarschalls GrafenNeidhardt von Gneisenau_, 3d rev. Ed. (1913). A reliable French view isthat of Ernest Denis, _L'Allemagne, 1789-1810_ (1896). GREAT BRITAIN IN THE ERA OF NAPOLEON. Sir Herbert Maxwell, _A Centuryof Empire_, Vol. I, _1801-1832_ (1909), political and conservative; G. C. Broderick and J. K. Fotheringham, _Political History of England, 1801-1837_ (1906), accurate but dry, containing valuablebibliographies; J. H. Rose, _William Pitt and the Great War_ (1911), anotable contribution, and, by the same author, though not so excellent, _Pitt and Napoleon: Essays and Letters_ (1912); W. C. Russell, HoratioNelson (1890), a convenient little biography in the "Heroes of theNations" Series; A. T. Mahan, _The Life of Nelson, the Embodiment ofthe Sea Power of Great Britain_, 2 vols. (1897), a standard work; J. S. Corbett, _Campaign of Trafalgar_ (1913), with reference to Pitt morethan to Nelson; A. T. Mahan, _Sea Power in its Relation to the War of1812_, 2 vols. (1905); J. W. Fortescue, _History of the British Army_, Vols. IV-VII (1906-1912), a monumental work on the British militarycampaigns from 1793 to 1810; Sir W. L. Clowes (editor), _The RoyalNavy: a History_, Vol. IV (1899), ch. Xxxiv-xxxvii, for the years 1792-1802, and Vol. V (1900), for 1803-1815; J. W. Fortescue, _BritishStatesmen of the Great War, 1793-1814_ (1911), derogatory of Pitt andmarked by zealous prejudice in favor of other Tory statesmen, especially Castlereagh and Liverpool; Sir Herbert Maxwell, _The Life ofWellington_, 2 vols. (1899); W. O'C. Morris, _Wellington, Soldier andStatesman_ (1904), in "Heroes of the Nations" Series; F. J. MacCunnan, _The Contemporary English View of Napoleon_ (1914), an interestingcompilation.