LORD'S LECTURES

BEACON LIGHTS OF HISTORY, VOLUME VIII

GREAT RULERS. 

BY JOHN LORD, LL. D. , AUTHOR OF "THE OLD ROMAN WORLD, " "MODERN EUROPE, "ETC. , ETC. 

CONTENTS. 

ALFRED THE GREAT. 

THE SAXONS IN ENGLAND. 

The early SaxonsTheir conquest of EnglandDivision of England into petty kingdomsConversion of the SaxonsThe Saxon bishopricsEarly distinguished menIsadore, Caedmon, and Baeda, or BedeBirth and early life of AlfredSuccession to the throne of WessexDanish invasionsHumiliation and defeat of AlfredHis subsequent conquestsFinal settlement of the DanesAlfred fortifies his kingdomReorganizes the army and navyHis naval successesRenewed Danish invasionsThe laws of AlfredTheir severityAlfred's judicial reformsEstablishment of shires and parishesAdministrative reformsFinancial resources of AlfredHis efforts in behalf of educationHis literary laborsFinal defeat of the DanesDeath and character of AlfredHis services to civilizationAuthorities

QUEEN ELIZABETH. 

WOMAN AS A SOVEREIGN. 

The reign of Queen Elizabeth associated with progressHer birth and educationHer trials of the heartHer critical situation during the reign of MaryHer expediencesHer dissemblingState of the kingdom on her accession to the throneRudeness and loyalty of the peopleDifficulties of the QueenThe policy she pursuedHer able ministersLord BurleighArchbishop ParkerFavorites of ElizabethThe establishment of the Church of EnglandIts adaptation to the wants of the nationReligious persecutionDevelopment of national resourcesPacific policy of the governmentAdministration of justiceHatred of warGlory of Elizabeth allied with the prosperity of EnglandGood governmentRoyal economyCharge of tyranny consideredPower of ParliamentMary, Queen of ScotsPalliating circumstances for her executionCharacter of Mary StuartHer plots and intriguesThe execution of EssexOther charges against ElizabethHer coquetryHer defectsHer virtuesHer public servicesHer great fameHer influence contrasted with powerVerdict of Lord BaconElizabethan eraConstellation of men of genius

HENRY OF NAVARRE. 

THE HUGUENOTS. 

The Cause and the HeroThe sixteenth century contrasted with the nineteenthA New Spirit in the worldDifferences of progressReligious, civil, and social upheavalsJohn CalvinReformed doctrines in FrancePersecution of the HuguenotsThey arm in self-defence to secure religious libertyHenry of NavarreJeanne D'AlbretEducation of HenryColignySlaughter of St. BartholomewThe Duke of Guise, Catherine de Medicis, and Charles IX. Effects of the massacreResponsibility for itStand taken by the ProtestantsThey retire to La RochelleBravery and ability of HenryBattle of CoutrasBattle of IvryAbjuration of Henry IVHis motivesThe ceremonyEdict of NantesHenry's service to FranceEffects of the Abjuration of Henry IV. On the HuguenotsCharacter of Henry

GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS. 

THIRTY YEARS' WAR. 

The Thirty Years' War a political necessityAgitation which succeeded the death of LutherBrilliancy of the periodPersecution of the ProtestantsFerdinand IIBohemiaIts insurrectionRenewed persecutionIts successElector Count PalatineRallying of German princes against the EmperorWallensteinHis successful warfareConsternation of GermanyGustavus Adolphus comes to its reliefCharacter of Gustavus AdolphusHis brilliant exploitsBalance of powerDismissal and recall of WallensteinThe contending forcesBattle of LutzenDeath of Gustavus AdolphusPeace of WestphaliaIts political consequencesUltimate effects of the Thirty Years' War

CARDINAL RICHELIEU. 

ABSOLUTISM. 

State of France in the 17th CenturyElevation of RichelieuHe perceives the great necessities of the StateMakes himself necessary to Louis XIII. His aims as Prime MinisterHis executive abilityHis remorseless tyrannyHis warfare on the HuguenotsAims of the HuguenotsLa RochelleFall of the HuguenotsCharacter of the Nobility; their decimationThe Queen-MotherThe Duke of OrleansThe justification of RichelieuThe ParliamentsTheir hostilitiesTheir humiliationThe policy of RichelieuHis services to the CrownHis internal improvementsHis defects of characterNecessity of absolutism amid treasons and anarchiesAbuse of absolutism

OLIVER CROMWELL. 

ENGLISH REVOLUTION. 

The PuritansTheir peculiaritiesLove of Civil LibertyCharles I. And his ministersLaudStraffordTyranny of the KingPersecution of the PuritansPetition of RightReformsThe ParliamentContest between the King and ParliamentWar and RevolutionCharacteristics of the AgeRise of CromwellHis military geniusBattle of NasebyOf PrestonConquest of ScotlandExecution of Charles I. A war measureThe Independents gain ascendencyConquest of IrelandCromwell made Protector of the armyMilitary despotismMotives of CromwellHis great abilities as a rulerHis services to EnglandGreatness of England under CromwellCromwell contrasted with Louis XIV. His intellectual defectsHis deathCromwell as an instrument of ProvidenceOccasional necessity of absolutismUltimate effect of Cromwell's rule

LOUIS XIV. 

THE FRENCH MONARCHY. 

Illustrious men on the accession of Louis XIV. State of FranceAmbition of Louis XIV. His love of military gloryHis characterHis inherited greatnessHis alliance with the ChurchHis unbounded powerHis great ministersColbertAims of ColbertHis great servicesLouvoisHis great executive abilitiesThe first war of Louis XIV. Conquest of FlandersIts iniquityInvasion of HollandEasy victoriesRise of William of NassauPrevents the conquest of HollandPeace of NimeguenLouis in the zenith of powerHis aggrandizementHis palacesHis courtHis mistressesHis friendship with Madame de MaintenonElevation of MaintenonReligious persecutionRevocation of the Edict of NantesCoalition against Louis XIV. Unfortunate warsHumiliationHis deathEffects of his reign in France

LOUIS XV. 

REMOTE CAUSES OF REVOLUTION. 

Long reign of Louis XV. Decline of French military powerLoss of colonial possessionsCardinal FleuryDuke of OrleansDerangement of the financesInjustice of feudal privilegesJohn LawMississippi schemeBursting of the bubbleExcessive taxationWorthlessness of the nobilityTheir effeminacy and hypocrisyCharacter of the KingCorruption of his courtThe JesuitsDeath of the KingThe reign of court mistressesMadame de PompadourExtravagance of the aristocracyImprovements of ParisFall of the JesuitsThe Philosophers and their writings, --Voltaire, RousseauAccumulating miseries and disgraceful government

PETER THE GREAT. 

HIS SERVICES TO RUSSIA. 

State of Russia on the accession of Peter the GreatThe necessity for a great ruler to ariseEarly days of the Czar PeterAccession to the throneLefortOrigin of a navySeizure of AzofMilitary reformPeter sets out on his travelsWorks as a carpenter in HollandMentchikofPeter visits EnglandVisits ViennaCompletion of the apprenticeship of PeterHe abolishes the StreltziVarious other reformsOpposition of the clergyWar with Charles XII. Of SwedenBattle of NarvaSiege of PultowaPeter invades TurkeyHis imprudence and rashnessSaved by the sagacity of his wife CatherineFoundation of St. PetersburgSecond tour of EuropeMisconduct and fate of AlexisCoronation of Catherine I. Character of PeterHis great services to Russia

FREDERIC THE GREAT. 

THE PRUSSIAN POWER. 

Characteristics of the manEducation of Frederic II. His characterBecomes KingSeizure of a part of LiègeSeizure of SilesiaMaria TheresaVisit of VoltaireFriendship between Voltaire and FredericCoalition against FredericSeven Years' WarCarlyle's History of FredericEmpress Elizabeth of RussiaDecisive battles of Rossbach, Luthen, and ZorndorfHeroism and fortitude of FredericResults of the Seven Years' WarPartition of PolandDevelopment of the resources of PrussiaPublic improvementsGeneral services of Frederic to his countryHis characterHis ultimate influence

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

VOLUME VIII. 

Frederic the Great Reproaching his Generals at Köben_After the painting by Arthur Kampf_. 

Embarkation of Anglo-Saxons for the Conquest of England_After the painting by H. Merté_. 

Queen Elizabeth_After the "Ermine" portrait by F. Zucchero_. 

Last Moments of Queen Elizabeth_After the painting by Paul Delaroche_. 

The Morning after the Massacre of St. Bartholomew_After the painting by Ed. Debat-Ponsan_. 

Henry of Navarre and La Belle Fosseuse_After the painting by A. P. E. Morlon_. 

The Imperial Counsellors are Thrown Out of the Windowby the Bohemian Delegates_After the painting by V. Brozik_. 

Cardinal Richelieu_After the painting by Ph. De Champaign, National Gallery, London_. 

Richelieu Watches the Siege Operations from the Damat Rochelle_After the painting by Henri Motte_. 

Oliver Cromwell_After the painting by Pieter van der Picas_. 

Louis XIV. And Mlle. De la Valliere_After the painting by A. P. E. Morlon_. 

Peter the Great_After a Contemporaneous Engraving_. 

Peter the Great Learns the Trade of Ship-Carpentry at Zaardam_After the painting by Felix Cogen_. 

Frederic the Great_After the painting by W. Camphausen_. 

ALFRED THE GREAT. 

A. D. 849-901. 

THE SAXONS IN ENGLAND. 

Alfred is one of the most interesting characters in all history forthose blended virtues and talents which remind us of a David, a MarcusAurelius, or a Saint Louis, --a man whom everybody loved, whose deedswere a boon, whose graces were a radiance, and whose words were abenediction; alike a saint, a poet, a warrior, and a statesman. He ruleda little kingdom, but left a great name, second only to Charlemagne, among the civilizers of his people and nation in the Middle Ages. As aman of military genius he yields to many of the kings of England, to saynothing of the heroes of ancient and modern times. 

When he was born, A. D. 849, the Saxons had occupied Britain, or England, about four hundred years, having conquered it from the old Celticinhabitants soon after the Romans had retired to defend their ownimperial capital from the Goths. Like the Goths, Vandals, Franks, Burgundians, Lombards, and Heruli, the Saxons belonged to the sameTeutonic race, whose remotest origin can be traced to CentralAsia, --kindred, indeed, to the early inhabitants of Italy and Greece, whom we call Indo-European, or Aryan. These Saxons--one of the fiercesttribes of the Teutonic barbarians;--lived, before the invasion ofBritain, in that part of Europe which we now call Schleswig, in theheart of the peninsula which parts the Baltic from the northern seas;also in those parts of Germany which now belong to Hanover andOldenburg. It does not appear from the best authorities that thesetribes--called Engle, Saxon, and Jute--wandered about seeking aprecarious living, but they were settled in villages, in the governmentof which we trace the germs of the subsequent social and politicalinstitutions of England. The social centre was the homestead of the_oetheling_ or _corl_, distinguished from his fellow-villagers by hisgreater wealth and nobler blood, and held by them in hereditaryreverence. From him and his brother-oethelings the leaders of a warlikeexpedition were chosen. He alone was armed with spear and sword, and hislong hair floated in the wind. He was bound to protect his kinsmen fromwrong and injustice. The land which inclosed the village, whetherreserved for pasture, wood, or tillage, was undivided, and every freevillager had the right of turning his cattle and swine upon it, and alsoof sharing in the division of the harvest. The basis of the life wasagricultural. Our Saxon ancestors in Germany did not subsist exclusivelyby hunting or fishing, although these pursuits were not neglected. Theywere as skilful with the plough and mattock as they were in steering aboat or hunting a deer or pursuing a whale. They were coarse in theirpleasures, but religious in their turn of mind; Pagans, indeed, butworshipping the powers of Nature with poetic ardor. They were bornwarriors, and their passion for the sea led to adventurous enterprise. Before the close of the third century their boats, driven by fifty oars, had been seen in the British waters; and after the Romans had left theBritons to defend themselves against the Scots and Picts, the harassedrulers of the land invoked the aid of these Saxon pirates, and, headedby two ealdormen, --Hengist and Horsa, --they landed on the Isle of Thanetin the year 449. 

These two chieftains are the earliest traditionary heroes of the Saxonsin England. Their mercenary work was soon done, and after it was donethey had no idea of retiring to their own villages in Germany. They casttheir greedy eyes on richer pastures and more fruitful fields. Brother-pirates flocked from the Elbe and Rhine to their settlement inThanet. In forty-five years after Hengist and Horsa landed, Cerdic witha more formidable band had taken possession of a large part of thesouthern coast, and pushed his way to Winchester and founded thekingdom of Wessex. But the work of conquest was slow. It took seventyyears for the Saxons to become masters of Kent, Sussex, Hampshire, Essex, and Wessex. 

A stout resistance to the invading Saxons had been made by the nativeBritons, headed by Arthur, --a legendary hero, who is thought to havelived near the close of the fifth century. His deeds and those of theknights of the Round Table form the subject of one of the mostinteresting romances of the Middle Ages, probably written in thebrightest age of chivalry, and by a monk very ignorant of history, sincehe gives many Norman names to his characters. But all the valor of theCeltic hero and his chivalrous followers was of no avail before thefierce and persistent attacks of a hardier race, bent on the possessionof a fairer land than their own. 

We know but little of the details of the various conflicts until Britainwas finally won by these predatory tribes of barbarians. The stubbornresistance of the Britons led to their final retreat or completeextermination, and with their disappearance also perished what remainedof the Roman civilization. The resistance of the Britons was much moreobstinate than that of any of the other provinces of the Empire; but, asthe forces arrayed against them were comparatively small, the work ofconquest was slow. "It took thirty years to win Kent alone, and sixtyto complete the conquest of south Britain, and nearly two hundred tosubdue the whole island. " But when the conquest was made it wascomplete, and England was Saxon, in language, in institutions, and inmanners; while France retained much of the language, habits, andinstitutions of the Romans, and even of the old Gaulish elements ofsociety. England became a German nation on the complete wreck ofeverything Roman, whose peculiar characteristic was the freedom of thosewho tilled the land or gathered around the military standard of theirchieftains. It was the gradual transfer of a whole German nation fromthe Elbe and Rhine to the Thames and the Humber, with their originalvillage institutions, under the rule of their _eorls_, with the simpleaddition of kings, --unknown in their original settlements, but broughtabout by the necessities which military life and conquest produced. 

After the conquest we find seven petty kings, who ruled in differentparts of the island. Jealousies, wars, and marriages soon reduced theirnumber to three, ruling over Wessex, Mercia, and Northumbria. All thepeople of these kingdoms were Pagan, the chief deity of whom was Woden. It was not till the middle of the seventh century that Christianity wasintroduced into Wessex, although Kent and Northumbria received Christianmissionaries half-a-century earlier. The beautiful though well-knowntradition of the incidents which led to the introduction of theChristian religion deserves a passing mention. About the middle of thesixth century some Saxons taken in war, in one of the quarrels of rivalkings, and hence made slaves, were exposed for sale in Rome. Gregory theGreat, then simply deacon, passing by the market-place, observed theirfair faces, white bodies, blue eyes, and golden hair, and inquired ofthe slave-dealer who they were. "They are English, or Angles. " "No, notAngles, " said the pious and poetic deacon; "they are angels, with facesso angelic. From what country did they come?" "From Deira. " "_De Ira!_ay, plucked from God's wrath. What is the name of their king?" "Ella. ""Ay, let alleluia be sung in their land. " It need scarcely be added thatwhen this pious and witty deacon became pope he remembered these Saxonslaves, and sent Augustin (or Austin, --not to be confounded withAugustine of Hippo, who lived nearly two centuries earlier), with fortymonks as missionaries to convert the pagan Saxons. They establishedthemselves in Kent A. D. 597, which became the seat of the first Englishbishopric, through the favor of the king, Aethelbert, whose wifeClotilda, a French princess, had been previously converted. Soon after, Essex followed the example of Kent; and then Northumbria. Wessex was thelast of the Saxon kingdoms to be converted, their inhabitants beingespecially fierce and warlike. 

It is singular that no traces of Christianity seem to have been left inBritain on the completion of the Saxon conquest, although it had beenplanted there as early as the time of Constantine. Helena was aChristian, and Pelagius and Celestine were British monks. But the Saxonconquest eradicated all that was left of Roman influence andinstitutions. 

When Christianity had once acquired a foothold among the Saxons itsprogress was rapid. In no country were monastic institutions more firmlyplanted. Monasteries and churches were erected in the principalsettlements and liberally endowed by the Saxon kings. In Kent were thegreat sees of Canterbury and Rochester; in Essex was London; in EastAnglia was Norwich; in Wessex was Winchester; in Mercia were Lichfield, Leicester, Worcester, and Hereford; in Northumbria were York, Durham, and Ripon. Each cathedral had its schools and convents. Christianitybecame the law of the land, and entered largely into all the Saxoncodes. There was a constant immigration of missionaries into Britain, and the great sees were filled with distinguished ecclesiastics, frequently from the continent, since a strong union was cemented betweenRome and the English churches. Prince and prelate made frequentpilgrimages to the old capital of the world, and were received withdistinguished honors. The monasteries were filled with princes andnobles and ladies of rank. As early as the eighth century monasterieswere enormously multiplied and enriched, for the piety of the Saxonsassumed a monastic type. What civilization existed can be traced chieflyto the Church. 

We read of only three great names among the Saxons who impressed theirgenius on the nation, until the various Saxon kingdoms were united underthe sovereignty of Ecgberht, or Egbert, king of Wessex, about the middleof the ninth century. These were Theodore, Caedmon, and Baeda. The firstwas a monk from Tarsus, whom the Pope dispatched in the year 668 toBritain as Archbishop of Canterbury. To him the work of churchorganization was intrusted. He enlarged the number of the sees, andarranged them on the basis which was maintained for a thousand years. The subordination of priest to bishop and bishop to primate was moreclearly defined by him. He also assembled councils for generallegislation, which perhaps led the way to national parliaments. He notonly organized the episcopate, but the parish system, and even thesystem of tithes has been by some attributed to him. The missionary whohad been merely the chaplain of a nobleman became the priest of themanor or parish. 

The second memorable man was born a cowherd; encouraged to sing hissongs by the abbess Hilda, a "Northumbrian Deborah. " When advanced inlife he entered through her patronage a convent, and sang themarvellous and touching stories of the Hebrew Scriptures, fixing theirtruths on the mind of the nation, and becoming the father ofEnglish poetry. 

The third of these great men was the greatest, Baeda, --or Bede, as thename is usually spelled. He was a priest of the great abbey church ofWeremouth, in Northumbria, and was a master of all the learning thenknown. He was the life of the famous school of Jarrow, and it is saidthat six hundred monks, besides strangers, listened to his teachings. His greatest work was an "Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation, "which extends from the landing of Julius Caesar to the year 731. He wasthe first English historian, and the founder of mediaeval history, andall we know of the one hundred and fifty years after the landing ofAugustin the missionary is drawn from him. He was not only historian, but theologian, --the father of the education of the English nation. 

It was one hundred and fourteen years after the death of the "venerableBede" before Alfred was born, A. D. 849, the youngest son of Aethelwulf, king of Wessex, who united under his rule all the Saxon kingdoms. Themother of Alfred was Osburgha, a German princess of extraordinary forceof character. From her he received, at the age of four, the firstrudiments of education, and learned to sing those Saxon ballads whichhe afterwards recited with so much effect in the Danish camp. At theage of five Alfred was sent to Rome, probably to be educated, where heremained two years, visiting on his return the court of Charles theBald, --the centre of culture in Western Europe. The celebrated Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, --the greatest churchman of the age, --was the mostinfluential minister of the king; at whose table also sat John Erigena, then engaged in a controversy with Gotteschalk, the German monk, aboutthe presence of Christ in the eucharist, --the earliest notabletheological controversy after the Patristic age. Alfred was too young totake an interest in this profound discussion; but he may perhaps havereceived an intellectual impulse from his visit to Rome and Paris, whichaffected his whole subsequent life. 

About this time his father, over sixty years of age, married a Frenchprincess of the name of Judith, only fourteen years of age, --even inthat rude age a great scandal, which nearly resulted in hisdethronement. He lived but two years longer; and his youthful widow, tothe still greater scandal of the realm and Church, married her latehusband's eldest son, Ethelbald, who inherited the crown. It was throughthis woman, and her subsequent husband Baldwin, called _Bras de Fer_, Count of Flanders, that the English kings, since the Conqueror, tracetheir descent from Alfred and Charlemagne; for her son, the secondCount of Flanders, married Elfrida, the daughter of Alfred. From thisunion descended the Conqueror's wife Matilda. Thus the present royalfamily of England can trace a direct descent through William theConqueror, Alfred, and Charlemagne, and is allied by blood, remotelyindeed, with most of the reigning princes of Europe. 

The three elder brothers of Alfred reigned successively over Wessex, --towhom all England owned allegiance. It was during their short reigns thatthe great invasion of the Danes took place, which reduced the wholeisland to desolation and misery. These Danes were of the same stock asthe Saxons, but more enterprising and bold. It seems that they drove theSaxons before them, as the Saxons, three hundred years before, haddriven the Britons. In their destructive ravages they sacked and burnedCroyland, Peterborough, Huntington, Ely, and other wealthy abbeys, --theglory of the kingdom, --together with their valuable libraries. 

It was then that Alfred (already the king's most capable general) beganhis reign, A. D. 871, at the age of twenty-three, on the death of hisbrother Ethelred, --a brave and pious prince, mortally wounded at thebattle of Merton. 

It was Alfred's memorable struggle with the Danes which gave to him hismilitary fame. When he ascended the throne these barbarians had gaineda foothold, and in a few years nearly the whole of England was in theirhands. Wave followed wave in the dreadful invasion; fleet after fleetand army after army was destroyed, and the Saxons were driven nearly todespair; for added to the evils of pillage and destruction werepestilence and famine, the usual attendants of desolating wars. In theyear 878 the heroic leader of the disheartened people was compelled tohide himself, with a few faithful followers, in the forest of Selwood, amid the marshes of Somersetshire. Yet Alfred--a fugitive--succeeded atlast in rescuing his kingdom of Wessex from the dominion of Paganbarbarians, and restoring it to a higher state of prosperity than it hadever attained before. He preserved both Christianity and civilization. For these exalted services he is called "the Great;" and no prince evermore heroically earned the title. 

"It is hard, " says Hughes, who has written an interesting but notexhaustive life of Alfred, "to account for the sudden and completecollapse of the West Saxon power in January, 878, since in the campaignof the preceding year Alfred had been successful both by sea and land. "Yet such seems to have been the fact, whatever may be its explanation. No such panic had ever overcome the Britons, who made a more stubbornresistance. No prince ever suffered a severer humiliation than did theSaxon monarch during the dreary winter of 878; but, according to Asser, it was for his ultimate good. Alfred was deeply and sincerely religious, and like David saw the hand of God in all his misfortunes. In his caseadversity proved the school of greatness. For six months he was hiddenfrom public view, lost sight of entirely by his afflicted subjects, enduring great privations, and gaining a scanty subsistence. There areseveral popular legends about his life in the marshes, too well known tobe described, --one about the cakes and another about his wanderings tothe Danish camp disguised as a minstrel, both probable enough; yet, iftrue, they show an extraordinary depth of misfortunes. 

At last his subjects began to rally. It was known by many that Alfredwas alive. Bodies of armed followers gradually gathered at his retreat. He was strongly intrenched; and occasionally he issued from his retreatto attack straggling bands, or to make reconnoissance of the enemy'sforces. In May, 878, he left his fortified position and met some braveand faithful subjects at Egbert's Stone, twenty miles to the east ofSelwood. The gathering had been carefully planned and secretly made, andwas unknown to the Danes. His first marked success was at Edington, orEthandune, where the Pagan host lay encamped, near Westbury. We have nodefinite knowledge of the number of men engaged in that bloody anddesperate battle, in which the Saxons were greatly outnumbered by theDanes, who were marshalled under a chieftain called Guthrun. But thebattle was decisive, and made Alfred once more master of England southof the Thames. Guthrun, now in Alfred's power, was the ablest warriorthat the Northmen had as yet produced. He was shut up in an inland fort, with no ships on the nearest river, and with no hope of reinforcements. At the end of two weeks he humbly sued for peace, offering to quitWessex for good, and even to embrace the Christian religion. Strange asit may seem, Alfred granted his request, --either, with profoundstatesmanship, not wishing to drive a desperate enemy to extremities, orseeking his conversion. The remains of the discomfited Pagan hostcrossed over into Mercia, and gave no further trouble. Never was aconquest attended with happier results. Guthrun (with thirty of hisprincipal nobles) was baptized into the Christian faith, and receivedthe Saxon name of Athelstan. But East Anglia became a Danish kingdom. The Danes were not expelled from England. Their settlement waspermanent. The treaty of Wedmore confirmed them in their possessions. Alfred by this treaty was acknowledged as undisputed master of Englandsouth of the Thames; of Wessex and Essex, including London, Hertford, and St. Albans; of the whole of Mercia west of Watling Street, --thegreat road from London to Chester; but the Danes retained also one halfof England, which shows how formidable they were, even in defeat. TheDanes and the Saxons, it would seem, commingled, and gradually becameone nation. 

The great Danish invasion of the ninth century was successful, since itgave half of England to the Pagans. It is a sad thing to contemplate. Civilization was doubtless retarded. Whole districts were depopulated, and monasteries and churches were ruthlessly destroyed, with theirlibraries and works of art. This could not have happened without afearful demoralization among the Saxons themselves. They had becomeprosperous, and their wealth was succeeded by vices, especially luxuryand sloth. Their wealth tempted the more needy of the adventurers fromthe North, who succeeded in their aggressions because they were strongerthan the Saxons. So slow was the progress of England in civilization. Assoon as it became centralized under a single monarch, it was subjectedto fresh calamities. It would seem that the history of those ages issimply the history of violence and spoliations. There was the perpetualwaste of human energies. Barbarism seemed to be stronger thancivilization. Nor in this respect was the condition of England unique. The same public misfortunes happened in France, Germany, Italy, andSpain. For five hundred years Europe was the scene of constant strife. Not until the Normans settled in England were the waves of barbaricinvasion arrested. 

The Danish conquest made a profound impression on Alfred, and stimulatedhim to renewed efforts to preserve what still remained of Christiancivilization. His whole subsequent life was spent in actual war with theNorthmen, or in preparations for war. It was remarkable that hesucceeded as well as he did, for after all he was the sovereign ofscarcely half the territory that Egbert had won, and over which hisgrandfather and father had ruled. He preserved Wessex; and in preservingWessex he saved England, which would have been replunged in barbarismbut for his perseverance, energy, and courage. That Danish invasion wasa chastisement not undeserved, for both the clergy and the laity hadbecome corrupt, had been enervated by prosperity. The clergy especiallywere lazy and ignorant; not one in a thousand could write a commonletter of salutation. They had fattened on the contributions of princesand of the credulous people; they saw the destruction of their richestand proudest abbeys, and their lands seized by Pagan barbarians, whosettled down in them as lords of the soil, especially in Northumbria. But Alfred at least arrested their further progress, and threw them onthe defensive. He knew that the recovery of the conquests which theSaxons had made was a work of exceeding difficulty. It was necessary tomake great preparations for future struggles, as peace with the Daneswas only a truce. They aimed at the complete conquest of the island, andthey sought to rouse the hostility of the Welsh. 

Alfred showed a wise precaution against future assaults in constructingfortresses at the most important points within his control. Before hisday the Saxons had but few fortified positions, and this want of fortshad greatly facilitated the Danish conquest. But the Danes, as soon asthey gained a strong position, fortified it, and were never afterwardsejected by force. Probably Alfred took the hint from them. He rebuiltand strengthened the fortresses along the coast, as he had four preciousyears of unmolested work; and for this his small kingdom was doubtlessseverely taxed. He imported skilled workmen, and adopted the newestimprovements. He made use of stone instead of timber, and extended hisworks of construction to palaces, halls, and churches, as well ascastles. So well built were his fortifications, that no strong place wasever afterwards wrested from him. In those times the defence of kingdomswas in castles. They marked the feudal ages equally with monasteries andcathedral churches. Castles protected the realm from invasion andconquest, as much as they did the family of a feudal noble. The wisdomas well as the necessity of fortified cities was seen in a marked mannerwhen the Northmen, in 885, stole up the Thames and Medway and made anunexpected assault on Rochester. They were completely foiled, and wereobliged to retreat to their ships, leaving behind them even the spoilthey had brought from France. This successful resistance was a greatmoral assistance to Alfred, since it opened the eyes of bishops andnobles to the necessity of fortifying their towns, to which they hadhitherto been opposed, being unwilling to incur the expense. So it wasnot long before Alfred had a complete chain of defences on the coast, aswell as around his cities and palaces, able to resist suddenattacks, --which he had most to fear. His great work of fortification wasthat of London, which, though belonging to him by the peace of Wedmore, was neglected, fallen to decay, filled with lawless bands of maraudersand pirates, and defenceless against attack. In 886 he marched againstthis city, which made no serious resistance; rebuilt it, made ithabitable, fortified it, and encouraged people to settle in it, for heforesaw its vast commercial importance. Under the rule of his sonEthelred, it regained the pre-eminence it had enjoyed under the Romansas a commercial centre. 

Having done what he could to protect his dominion from sudden attacks, Alfred then turned his attention to the reorganization of his army andnavy. Strictly speaking he had no regular army, or standing force, whichhe could call his own. When the country was threatened the freemen flewto arms, under their eorls and ealdormen; and on this force the king wasobliged to rely. They sometimes acted without his orders, obeying thecalls of their leaders when danger was most imminent. On the men in theimmediate neighborhood of danger the brunt of the contest fell. Norcould levies be relied upon for any length of time; they dwindled aftera few weeks, in order to attend to their agricultural interests, foragriculture was the only great and permanent pursuit in the feudal ages. Everything was subordinate to labors in the field. The only wealth wasin land, except what was hoarded by the clergy and nobles. 

How well Alfred paid his soldiers it is difficult to determine. His ownprivate means were large, and the Crown lands were very extensive. One-third of his income was spent upon his army. But it is not probablethat a large force was under pay in time of peace; yet he had always onethird of his forces ready to act promptly against an enemy. The burdenof the service was distributed over the whole kingdom. The main featureof his military reform seems to have been in the division of his forcesinto three bodies, only one of which was liable to be called upon forservice at a time, except in great emergencies. In regard to tactics, orchanges in armor and mode of fighting, we know nothing; for war as anart or science did not exist in any Teutonic kingdom; it was lost with, the fall of the Roman Empire. How far Alfred was gifted with militarygenius we are unable to say, beyond courage, fertility of resources, activity of movement, and a marvellous patience. His greatest qualitieswere moral, like those of Washington. It is his reproachless character, and his devotion to duty, and love of his people which impress us fromfirst to last. As has been said of Marcus Aurelius, Alfred was a SaintAnselm on a throne. He had none of those turbulent and restlessqualities which we associate with mediaeval kings. What a contrastbetween him and William the Conqueror!

Alfred also gave his attention to the construction of a navy, as well asto the organization of an army, knowing that it was necessary to resistthe Northmen on the ocean and prevent their landing on the coast. In 875he had fought a naval battle with success, and had taken one of theships of the sea-kings, which furnished him with a model to build hisown ships, --doing the same thing that the Romans did in their earlynaval warfare with the Carthaginians. In 877 he destroyed a Danish fleeton its way to relieve Exeter. But he soon made considerable improvementon the ships of his enemies, making them twice as long as those of theDanes, with a larger number of oars. These were steadier and swifterthan the older vessels. As the West Saxons were not a seafaring people, he employed and munificently rewarded men from other nations moreaccustomed to the sea, --whether Frisians, Franks, Britons, Scots, oreven Danes. The result was, he was never badly beaten at sea, and beforethe end of his reign he had swept the coast clear of pirates. Within twoyears from the treaty of Wedmore his fleet was ready for action. He wasprepared to meet the sea-kings on equal terms, and in 882 he had gainedan important naval battle over a fleet that was meditating an invasion. 

In the year 885 the Danes again invaded England and laid siege toRochester, but fled to their ships on the approach of Alfred. They werepursued by the Saxon king and defeated with great slaughter, sixteenDanish vessels being destroyed and their crews put to the sword. Nor hadGuthrun Athelstan, the ex-viking, been true to his engagements. He hadallowed two additional settlements of Danes on the East Anglian coasts, and had even assisted Alfred's enemies. Their defeat, however, inducedhim to live peaceably in East Anglia until he died in 890. Thesesuccesses of Alfred secured peace with the Danes for eight more years, during which he pursued his various schemes for the improvement of hispeople, and in preparations for future wars. He had put his kingdom in astate of defence, and now turned his attention to legislation, --thesupremest labor of an enlightened monarch. 

The laws of Alfred wear a close resemblance to those which Moses gave tothe Hebrews, and moreover are pervaded with Christian ideas. His aimseems to have been to recognize in his jurisprudence the supremeobedience which is due to the laws of God. In all the laws of theconverted Teutonic nations, from Charlemagne down, we notice theinfluence of the Christian clergy in modifying the severity of the oldPagan codes. Alfred did not aim to be an original legislator, like Mosesor Solon, but selected from the Mosaic code, and also from the laws ofEthelbert, Ina, Offa, and other Saxon princes, those regulations whichhe considered best adapted to the circumstances of the people whom hegoverned. He recognized more completely than any of his predecessors therights of property, and attached great sanctity to oaths. Whoeverviolated his pledge was sentenced to imprisonment. He raised the dignityof ealdormen and bishops to that of the highest rank. He made treasonagainst the royal authority the gravest offence known to the laws, andall were deemed traitors who should presume to draw the sword in theking's house. He made new provisions for personal security, and severelypunished theft and robbery of every kind, especially of the property ofthe Church. He bestowed freedom on slaves after six years of service. Some think he instituted trial by jury. Like Theodosius and Charlemagne, he gave peculiar privileges to the clergy as a counterpoise to thelawlessness of nobles. 

One of the peculiarities of his legislation was compensation forcrime, --seen alike in the Mosaic dispensation and in the old customs ofthe Germanic nations in their native forests. On conviction, the culpritwas compelled to pay a sum of money to the relatives of the injured, andanother sum to the community at large. This compensation variedaccording to the rank of the injured party, --and rank was determined bywealth. The owner of two hydes of land was ranked above a ceorl, orsimple farmer, while the owner of twelve hydes was a royal thane. In thecompensation for crime the gradation was curious: twelve shillings wouldpay for the loss of a foot, ten for a great toe, and twenty for a thumb. If a man robbed his equal, he was compelled to pay threefold; if herobbed the king, he paid ninefold; and if he robbed the church, he wasobliged to return twelvefold: hence the robbery of ecclesiasticalproperty was attended with such severe penalties that it was unusual. Insome cases theft was punished with death. 

The code of Alfred was severe, but in an age of crime and disorderseverity was necessary. He also instituted a vigorous police, anddivided the country into counties, and these again into hundreds orparishes, each of which was made responsible for the maintenance oforder and the detection of crime. He was severe on judges when theypassed sentence irrespective of the rights of jurors. He did notemancipate slaves, but he ameliorated their condition and limited theirterm of compulsory service. Burglary in the king's house was punished bya fine of one hundred and twenty shillings; in an archbishop's, atninety; in a bishop's or ealdorman's, at sixty; in the house of a man oftwelve hydes, at thirty shillings; in a six-hyde man's, at fifteen; in achurl's, at five shillings, --the fine being graded according to the rankof him whose house had been entered. There was a rigorous punishment forworking on Sunday: if a theow, by order of his lord, the lord had to paya penalty of thirty shillings; if without the lord's order, he wascondemned to be flogged. If a freeman worked without his lord's order, he had to pay sixty shillings or forfeit his freedom. If a man was foundburning a tree in a forest, he was obliged to pay a fine of sixtyshillings, in order to protect the forest; or if he cut down a treeunder which thirty swine might stand, he was obliged to pay a fine ofsixty shillings. These penalties seem severe, but they were inflictedfor offences difficult to be detected and frequently committed. We inferfrom these various fines that burglary, robbery, petty larcenies, andbrawls were the most common offences against the laws. 

One of the greatest services which Alfred rendered to the cause ofcivilization in England was in separating judicial from executivefunctions. The old eorls and ealdormen were warriors; and yet to themhad been committed the administration of justice, which they oftenabused, --frequently deciding cases against the verdicts of jurors, andsometimes unjustly dooming innocent men to capital punishment. Alfredhanged an ealdorman or alderman, one Freberne, for sentencing Haspin todeath when the jury was in doubt. He even hanged twenty-four inferiorofficers, on whom judicial duties devolved, for palpable injustice. 

The love of justice and truth was one of the main traits of Alfred'scharacter, and he painfully perceived that the ealdormen of shires, though faithful and valiant warriors, were not learned and impartialenough to administer justice. There was scarcely one of them who couldread the written law, or who had any extensive acquaintance with thecommon law or the usages which had been in force from timeimmemorial, --as far back as in the original villages of Germany. Moreover, the poor and defenceless had need of protection. They alwayshad needed it, for in Pagan and barbarous countries their rights weretoo often disregarded. When brute force bore everything before it, itbecame both the duty and privilege of the king, who represented centralpower, to maintain the rights of the humblest of his people, --to whomhe was a father. To see justice enforced is the most exalted of theprerogatives of sovereigns; and no one appreciated this delegation ofsovereign power from the Universal Father more than Alfred, the mostconscientious and truth-loving of all the kings of the Middle Ages. 

So, to maintain justice, Alfred set aside the ignorant and passionateealdormen, and appointed judges whose sole duty it was to interpret andenforce the laws, and men best fitted to represent the king in the royalcourts. They were sent through the shires to see that justice was done, and to report the decisions of the county courts. Thus came intoexistence the judges of assize, --an office or institution which remainsto this day, amid all the revolutions of English thought and life, andall the changes which politics and dynasties have wrought. 

Nor did Alfred rest with a reform of the law courts. He defined theboundaries of shires, which divisions are very old, and subdivided theminto parishes, which have remained to this day. He gave to each hundredits court, from which appeals were made to a court representing severalhundreds, --about three to each county. Each hundred was subdivided intotythings, or companies of ten neighboring householders, who were held asmutual sureties or frank (free) pledges for each other's orderlyconduct; so that each man was a member of a tything, and was obliged tokeep household rolls of his servants. Thus every liegeman was known tothe law, and was taught his duties and obligations; and every tythingwas responsible for the production of its criminals, and obliged to paya fine if they escaped. Every householder was liable to answer for anystranger who might stop at his house. "This mutual liability orsuretyship was the pivot of all Alfred's administrative reform, andwrought a remarkable change in the kingdom, so that merchants andtravellers could go about without armed guards. The forests were emptiedof outlaws, and confidence and security succeeded distrust andlawlessness. .. . The frank pledge-system, which was worked in countrydistricts, was supplied in towns by the machinery of theguilds, --institutions combining the benefit of modern clubs, insurancesocieties, and trades-unions. As a rule, they were limited to members ofone trade or calling. "

Mr. Pearson, in his history of England, as quoted by Hughes, thus sumsup this great administrative reform for the preservation of life andproperty and order during the Middle Ages:--

"What is essential to remember is, that life and property were notsecured to the Anglo-Saxon by the State, but by the loyal union of hisfellow-citizens; the Saxon guilds are unmatched in the history of theirtimes as evidences of self-reliance, mutual trust, patientself-restraint, and orderly love of law among a young people, "To recapitulate the reforms of Alfred in the administration of justiceand the resettlement of the country, the old divisions of shires werecarefully readjusted, and divided into hundreds and tythings. Thealderman of the shire still remained the chief officer, but the officewas no longer hereditary. The king appointed the alderman, or eorl, whowas president of the shire gemot, or council, and chief judge of thecounty court as well as governor of the shire, but was assisted andprobably controlled in his judicial capacity by justices appointed bythe king, and not attached to the shire, or in any way dependent on thealderman. The vice-domini, or nominees of the alderman, were abolished, and an officer substituted for them called the reeve of the shire, orsheriff, who carried out the decrees of the courts. The hundreds andtythings were represented by their own officers, and had theirhundred-courts and courts-leet, which exercised a trifling criminaljurisdiction, but were chiefly assemblies answering to our grand juriesand parish vestries. All householders were members of them, and everyman thus became responsible for keeping the king's peace. "

In regard to the financial resources of Alfred we know but little. Probably they were great, considering the extent and population of thelittle kingdom over which he ruled, but inconsiderable in comparisonwith the revenues of England at the present day. To build fortresses, construct a navy, and keep in pay a considerable military force, --to saynothing of his own private expenditure and the expense of his court, his public improvements, the endowment of churches, the support ofschools, the relief of the poor, and keeping the highways and bridges inrepair, --required a large income. This was derived from the publicrevenues, crown lands, and private property. The public revenue wasraised chiefly by customs, tolls, and fines. The crown lands were veryextensive, as well as the private property of the sovereign, as he hadlarge estates in every county of his kingdom. 

But whatever his income, he set apart one quarter of it for religiouspurposes, one-sixth for architecture, and one-eighth for the poor, besides a considerable sum for foreigners, whom he liberally patronized. He richly endowed schools and monasteries. He was devoted to the Church, and his relations with the Pope were pleasant and intimate, althoughmore independent than those of many of his successors. 

All the biographers of Alfred speak of his zealous efforts in behalf ofeducation. He established a school for the young nobles of his court, and taught them himself. His teachers were chiefly learned men drawnfrom the continent, especially from the Franks, and were well paid bythe king. He made the scholarly Asser--a Welsh monk, afterwards bishopof Sherborne, from whose biography of Alfred our best information isderived--his counsellor and friend, and from his instructions acquiredmuch knowledge. To Asser he gave the general superintendence ofeducation, not merely for laymen, but for priests. In his own words, hedeclared that his wish was that all free-born youth should persevere inlearning until they could read the English Scriptures. For those whodesired to devote themselves to the Church, he provided the means forthe study of Latin. He gave all his children a good education. His ownthirst for knowledge was remarkable, considering his cares and publicduties. He copied the prayer-book with his own hands, and always carriedit in his bosom, Asser read to him all the books which were thenaccessible. From an humble scholar the king soon became an author. Hetranslated "Consolations of Philosophy" from the Latin of Boethius, aRoman senator of the sixth century, --the most remarkable literary effortof the declining days of the Roman Empire, and highly prized in theMiddle Ages. He also translated the "Chronicle of the World, " byOrosius, a Spanish priest, who lived in the early part of the fifthcentury, --a work suggested by Saint Augustine's "City of God. " The"Ecclesiastical History" of Bede was also translated by Alfred. He issaid to have translated the Proverbs of Solomon and the Fables of Aesop. His greatest literary work, however, was the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, theprincipal authority of the reign of Alfred. No man of his day wrote theSaxon language so purely as did Alfred himself; and he wasdistinguished not only for his knowledge of Latin, but for profoundphilosophical reflections interspersed through his writings, which woulddo honor to a Father of the Church. He was also a poet, inferior only toCaedmon. Nor was his knowledge confined to literature alone; it wasextended to the arts, especially architecture, ship-building, andsilver-workmanship. He built more beautiful edifices than any of hispredecessors. He also had a knowledge of geography beyond hiscontemporaries, and sent a Norwegian ship-master to explore the WhiteSea. He enriched his translation of Orosius by a sketch of the newgeographical discoveries in the North. In fact, there was scarcely anybranch of knowledge then known in which Alfred was not wellinstructed, --being a remarkably learned man for his age, and asenlightened as he was learned. 

But in the midst of his reforms and wise efforts to civilize his people, the war-clouds gathered once more, and he was obliged to put forth allhis energies to defend his realm from the incursions of his old enemies. The death of Charles the Bald in the year 877 left France in a verydisordered state, and the Northmen under Hasting, one of the greatest oftheir vikings, recommenced their ravages. In 893 they crossed theChannel in two hundred and fifty vessels, and invaded England, followedsoon after by Hasting with another large detachment, and stronglyintrenched themselves near Winchester. Alfred at the same time stronglyfortified his own position, about thirty miles distant, and kept soclose a watch over the movements of his enemies that they rarelyventured beyond their own intrenchments. A sort of desultory warfaresucceeded, and continued for a year without any decisive results. Atlast the Danes, getting weary, broke up their camps, and resolved topass into East Anglia. They were met by Alfred at Farnham and forced tofight, which resulted in their defeat and the loss of all the spoilsthey had taken and all the horses they had brought from France. Thediscomfited Danes retreated, by means of their ships, to an island inthe Thames, at its junction with the Colne, where they were invested byAlfred. They would soon have been at the mercy of the Saxon king, had itnot unfortunately happened that the Danes on the east coast, from Essexto Northumbria, joined the invaders, which unlooked-for event compelledAlfred to raise the blockade, and send Ethelred his son to the west, where the Danes were again strongly intrenched at Banfleet, near London. Their camp was successfully stormed, and much booty was taken, togetherwith the wife and sons of Hasting. The Danish fleet was also captured, and some of the vessels were sent to London. But Hasting still held out, in spite of his disaster, and succeeded in intrenching himself with theremnants of his army at Shoebury, ten miles from Banfleet, from whichhe issued on a marauding expedition along the northern banks of theThames, carrying fire and sword wherever he went, thence turnednorthward, making no halt until he reached the banks of the Severn, where he again intrenched himself, but was again beaten. Hasting savedhimself by falling back on a part of East Anglia removed from Alfred'sinfluence, and appeared near Chester. Alfred himself had undertaken thetask of guarding Exeter and the coasts of Devonshire and South Wales, where he wintered, leaving Ethelred to pursue Hasting. 

Thus a year passed in the successful defence of the kingdom, the Daneshaving gained no important advantage. At the end of the second campaignHasting still maintained his ground and fortified himself on the Thames, within twenty miles of London. At the close of the third year, Hasting, being driven from his position on the Thames, established himself inShropshire. "In the spring of 897 Hasting broke up his last camp on theEnglish soil, being foiled at every point, and crossed the sea with theremnant of his followers to the banks of the Seine. " The war was nowvirtually at an end, and the Danes utterly defeated. 

The work for which Alfred was raised up was at last accomplished. He hadstayed the inundations of the Northmen, defended his kingdom of Wessex, and planted the seeds of a higher civilization in England, winning thelove and admiration of his subjects. The greatness of Alfred should notbe measured by the size of his kingdom. It is not the bigness of acountry that gives fame to its illustrious men. The immortal heroes ofPalestine and Greece ruled over territories smaller and of lessimportance than the kingdom of Wessex. It is the greatness of theircharacters that preserves their name and memory. 

Alfred died in the year 901, at the age of fifty-two, worn out withdisease and labors, leaving his kingdom in a prosperous state; and ithad rest under his son Edward for nine years. Then the contest wasrenewed with the Danes, and it was under the reign of Edward that Merciawas once more annexed to Wessex, as well as Northumbria. Edward died in925, and under the reign of his son Aethelstan the Saxon kingdom reachedstill greater prosperity. The completion of the West Saxon realm wasreserved for Edmund, son of Aethelstan, who ascended the throne in 940, being a mere boy. He was ruled by the greatest statesman of that age, the celebrated Dunstan, Abbot of Glastonbury and Archbishop ofCanterbury, --a great statesman and a great Churchman, like Hincmarof Rheims. 

Thus the heroism and patience of Alfred were rewarded by the restorationof the Saxon power, and the absorption of what Mr. Green calls"Danelagh, " after a long and bitter contest, of which Alfred was thegreatest hero. In surveying his conquests we are reminded of the longcontest which Charlemagne had with the Saxons. Next to Charlemagne, Alfred was the greatest prince who reigned in Europe after thedissolution of the Roman Empire, until the Norman Conquest. He foughtnot for the desire of bequeathing a great empire to his descendants, butto rescue his country from ruin, in the midst of overwhelmingcalamities. It was a struggle for national existence, not militaryglory. In the successful defence of his kingdom against the ravages ofPagan invaders he may be likened to William the Silent in preserving thenationality of Holland. No European monarch from the time of Alfred canbe compared to him in the service he rendered to his country. Thememorableness of a war is to be gauged not by the number of thecombatants, but by the sacredness of a cause. It was the devotion ofWashington to a great cause which embalms his memory in the heart of theworld. And no English king has left so hallowed a name as Alfred: it wasbecause he was a benefactor, and infused his energy of purpose into adiscouraged and afflicted people. How far his saint-like virtues wereimitated it is difficult to tell. Religion was the groundwork of hischaracter, --faith in God and devotion to duty. His piety was also moreenlightened than the piety of his age, since it was practical and notascetic. His temper was open, frank, and genial. He loved books andstrangers and travellers. There was nothing cynical about him, in spiteof his perplexities and discouragements. He had a beautifully balancedcharacter and a many-sided nature. He had the power of inspiringconfidence in defeat and danger. His judgment and good sense seemed tofit him for any emergency. He had the same control over himself that hehad over others. His patriotism and singleness of purpose inspireddevotion. He felt his burdens, but did not seek to throw them off. "Hardship and sorrow, " said he, "not a king but would wish to be withoutthese if he could; but I know he cannot. " "So long as I have lived Ihave striven to live worthily. " "I desire to leave to the men that comeafter me a remembrance of me in good works. " These were some of hisprecious utterances, so that the love which he won a thousand years agohas lingered around his name from that day to this. 

It was a strong sense of duty, quickened by a Christian life, which gaveto the character of Alfred its peculiar radiance. He felt hisresponsibilities as a Christian ruler. He was affable, courteous, accessible. His body was frail and delicate, but his energies were neverrelaxed. Pride and haughtiness were unknown in his intercourse withbishops or nobles. He had no striking defects. He was the model of a manand a king; and he left the impress of his genius on all the subsequentinstitutions of his country. "The tree, " says Dr. Pauli, one of hisablest biographers, "which now casts its shadow far and near over theworld, when menaced with destruction in its bud, was carefully guardedby Alfred; but at the period when it was ready to burst forth into aplant, he was forced to leave it to the influence of time. Many greatmen have occupied themselves with the care of this tree, and each in hisown way has advanced its growth. William the Conqueror, with his ironhand, bent the tender branches to his will; Henry the Second ruled theSaxons with true Roman pride, but in _Magna Charta_ the old Germannature became aroused and worked powerfully, even among the barons. Itbecame free under Edward the Third, --that prince so ambitious ofconquest: the old language and the old law, the one somewhat altered, the other much softened, opened the path to a new era. The nation stoodlike an oak in the full strength of its leafy maturity; and to thisstrength the Reformation is indebted for its accomplishment. Elizabeth, the greatest woman who ever sat upon a throne, occupied a centralposition in a golden age of power and literature. Then came the Stuarts, who with their despotic ideas outraged the deeply-rooted Saxonindividuality of the English, and by their fall contributed to the suredevelopment of that freedom which was founded so long before. The sternCromwell and the astute William the Third aided in preparing for the nowadvanced nation that path in which it has ever since moved. TheAnglo-Saxon race has already attained maturity in the New World, and, founded on these pillars, it will triumph in all places and in everyage. Alfred's name will always be placed among those of the greatspirits of this earth; and so long as men regard their past history withreverence they will not venture to bring forward any other in comparisonwith him who saved the West Saxon nation from complete destruction, andin whose heart all the virtues dwelt in such harmonious concord. "

AUTHORITIES. 

Asser's Life of Alfred; the Saxon Chronicle; Alfred's own writings;Bede's Ecclesiastical History; Thorpe's Ancient Laws and Institutes ofEngland; Kemble's Saxons in England; Sir F. Palgrave's History of theEnglish Commonwealth; Sharon Turner's History of the Anglo-Saxons;Green's History of the English People; Dr. Pauli's Life of Alfred;Alfred the Great, by Thomas Hughes. Freeman, Pearson, Hume, Spelman, Knight, and other English historians may be consulted. 

QUEEN ELIZABETH. 

A. D. 1533-1603. 

WOMAN AS A SOVEREIGN. 

I do not present Queen Elizabeth either as a very interesting or as afaultless woman. As a woman she is not a popular favorite. But it is myobject to present her as a queen; to show with what dignity and abilitya woman may fill one of the most difficult and responsible stations ofthe world. It is certain that we associate with her a very prosperousand successful reign; and if she was lacking in those feminine qualitieswhich make woman interesting to man, we are constrained to admire herfor those talents and virtues which shed lustre around a throne. She isunquestionably one of the links in the history of England and of moderncivilization; and her reign is so remarkable, considering thedifficulties with which she had to contend, that she may justly beregarded as one of the benefactors of her age and country. It is apleasant task to point out the greatness, rather than the defects, of soillustrious a woman. 

It is my main object to describe her services to her country, for it isby services that all monarchs are to be judged; and all sovereigns, especially those armed with great power, are exposed to unusualtemptations, which must ever qualify our judgments. Even bad men--likeCaesar, Richelieu, and Napoleon--have obtained favorable verdicts inview of their services. And when sovereigns whose characters have beensullied by weaknesses and defects, yet who have escaped great crimes andscandals and devoted themselves to the good of their country, haveproved themselves to be wise, enlightened, and patriotic, great praisehas been awarded to them. Thus, Henry IV. Of France, and William III. OfEngland have been admired in spite of their defects. 

Queen Elizabeth is the first among the great female sovereigns of theworld with whose reign we associate a decided progress in nationalwealth, power, and prosperity; so that she ranks with the great men whohave administered kingdoms. If I can prove this fact, the sex should beproud of so illustrious a woman, and should be charitable to thosefoibles which sullied the beauty of her character, since they were inpart faults of the age, and developed by the circumstances whichsurrounded her. 

She was born in the year 1533, the rough age of Luther, when Charles V. Was dreaming of establishing a united continental military empire, andwhen the princes of the House of Valois were battling with the ideas ofthe Reformation, --an earnest, revolutionary, and progressive age. Shewas educated as the second daughter of Henry VIII. Naturally would be, having the celebrated Ascham as her tutor in Greek, Latin, French, andItalian. She was precocious as well as studious, and astonished herteachers by her attainments. She was probably the best-educated woman inEngland next to Lady Jane Grey, and she excelled in those departments ofknowledge for which novels have given such distaste in these moreenlightened times. 

Elizabeth was a mere girl when her mother, Anne Boleyn, was executed forinfidelities and levities to which her husband could not be blind, hadhe been less suspicious, --a cruel execution, which nothing short ofhigh-treason could have justified even in that rough age. Though herbirth was declared to be illegitimate by her cruel and unscrupulousfather, yet she was treated as a princess. She was seventeen when herhateful old father died; and during the six years when the governmentwas in the hands of Somerset, Edward VI. Being a minor, Elizabeth wasexposed to no peculiar perils except those of the heart. It is said thatSir Thomas Seymour, brother to the Protector, made a strong impressionon her, and that she would have married him had the Council consented. By nature, Elizabeth was affectionate, though prudent. Her love forSeymour was uncalculating and unselfish, though he was unworthy of it. Indeed, it was her misfortune always to misplace her affections, --whichis so often the case in the marriages of superior women, as if theyloved the image merely which their own minds created, as Dante did whenhe bowed down to Beatrice. When we see intellectual men choosing weakand silly women for wives, and women of exalted character selectingunworthy and wicked husbands, it does seem as if Providence determinesall matrimonial unions independently of our own wills and settledpurposes. How often is wealth wedded to poverty, beauty to ugliness, andamiability to ill-temper! The hard, cold, unsocial, unsympathetic, wooden, scheming, selfish man is the only one who seems to attain hisend, since he can bide his time, --wait for somebody to fancy him. 

Elizabeth had that mixed character which made her life a perpetualconflict between her inclinations and her interests. Her generousimpulses and affectionate nature made her peculiarly susceptible, whileher prudence and her pride kept her from a foolish marriage. She mayhave loved unwisely, but she had sufficient self-control to prevent amésalliance. While she may have resigned herself at times to thefascinations of accomplished men, she yet fathomed the abyss into whichimprudence would bury her forever. 

On the accession of Mary, her elder sister, daughter of Catharine ofAragon, Elizabeth's position was exceedingly critical, exposed as shewas to the intrigues of the Catholics and the jealousy of the Queen. Andwhen we remember that the great question and issue of that age waswhether the Catholic or Protestant religion should have the ascendency, and that this ascendency seemed to hinge upon the private inclinationsof the sovereign who in the furtherance of this great end would scrupleat nothing to accomplish it, and that the greatest crimes committed forits sake would be justified by all the sophistries that religiouspartisanship could furnish, and be upheld by all bigots and statesmen aswell as priests, it is really remarkable that Elizabeth was spared. ForMary was not only urged on to the severest measures by Gardiner andBonner (the bishops of Winchester and London), and by all the influencesof Rome, to which she was devoted body and soul, --yea, by all herconfidential advisers in the State, to save themselves from futurecontingencies, --but she was also jealous of her sister, as Elizabeth wasafterwards jealous of Mary Stuart. And it would have been as easy forMary to execute Elizabeth as it was for Elizabeth to execute the Queenof Scots, or Henry VIII. To behead his wives; and such a crime wouldhave been excused as readily as the execution of Somerset or of the LadyJane Grey, both from political necessity and religious expediency. Elizabeth was indeed subjected to great humiliations, and even compelledto sue for her life. What more piteous than her letter to Mary, beggingonly for an interview: "Wherefore I humbly beseech your Majesty to letme answer before yourself; and, once again kneeling with humbleness ofheart, I earnestly crave to speak to your Highness, which I would not beso bold as to desire if I knew not myself most clear, as I know myselfmost true. " Here is a woman pleading for her life to a sister to whomshe had done no wrong, and whose only crime was in being that sister'sheir. What an illustration of the jealousy of royalty and the bitternessof religious feuds; and what a contrast in this servile speech to thatarrogance which Elizabeth afterward assumed towards her Parliament andgreatest lords! Ah, to what cringing meanness are most people reduced byadversity! In what pride are we apt to indulge in the hour of triumph!How circumstances change the whole appearance of our lives!

Elizabeth, however, in order to save her life, was obliged to dissemble. If her true Protestant opinions had been avowed, I doubt if she couldhave escaped. We do not see in this dissimulation anything very lofty;yet she acted with singular tact and discretion. It is creditable, however, to Mary that she did not execute her sister. She showed herselfmore noble than Elizabeth did later in her treatment of the Queen ofScots. History calls her the "Bloody Mary;" and it must be admitted thatshe was the victim and slave of religious bigotry, and that shesanctioned many bloody executions. And yet it would appear that hernature was, after all, affectionate, which is evinced in the fact thatshe did spare the life of Elizabeth. Here her better impulses gained thevictory over craft and policy and religious intolerance, and rescued hername from the infamy to which such a crime would have doomed her, andwhich her Church would have sanctioned, and in which it would haverejoiced as much as it did in the slaughter of Saint Bartholomew. 

The crocodile tears which Elizabeth is said to have shed when the deathof her sister Mary was announced to her at Hatfield were soon wiped awayin the pomps and enthusiasms which hailed her accession to the throne. This was in 1558, when she was twenty-five, in the fulness of herattractions and powers. Great expectations were formed of her wisdom andgenius. She had passed through severe experiences; she had led a life ofstudy and reflection; she was gifted with talents and graces. "Heraccomplishments, her misfortunes, and her brilliant youth exalted intopassionate homage the principle of loyalty, and led to extravagantpanegyrics. " She was good-looking, if she was not beautiful, since theexpression of her countenance showed benignity, culture, and vivacity. She had piercing dark eyes, a clear complexion, and animated features. She was in perfect health, capable of great fatigue, apt in business, sagacious, industrious, witty, learned, and fond of being surroundedwith illustrious men. She was high-church in her sympathies, yet aProtestant in the breadth of her views and in the fulness of herreforms. Above all, she was patriotic and disinterested in her effortsto develop the resources of her kingdom and to preserve it fromentangling wars. 

The kingdom was far from being prosperous when Elizabeth assumed thereins of government, and it is the enormous stride in civilization whichEngland made during her reign, beset with so many perils, whichconstitutes her chief claim to the admiration of mankind. Let it beborne in mind that she began her rule in perplexities, anxieties, andembarrassments. The crown was encumbered with debts; the nobles wereambitious and factious; the people were poor, dispirited, unimportant, and distracted by the claims of two hostile religions. Only one bishopin the whole realm was found willing to crown her. Scotland wasconvulsed with factions, and was a standing menace, growing out of themarriage of Mary Stuart with a French prince. Barbarous Ireland was ina state of chronic rebellion; France, Spain, and Rome were decidedlyhostile; and all Catholic Europe aimed at the overthrow of England. Philip II. Had adopted the dying injunction of his father to extinguishthe Protestant religion, and the princes of the House of Valois wereleagued with Rome for the attainment of this end. At home, Elizabeth hadto contend with a jealous Parliament, a factious nobility, an emptypurse, and a divided people. The people generally were rude anduneducated; the language was undeveloped; education was chiefly confinedto nobles and priests; the poor were oppressed by feudal laws. No greatwork in English history, poetry, or philosophy had yet appeared. Thecomforts and luxuries of life were scarcely enjoyed even by the rich. Chimneys were just beginning to be used. The people slept on mats ofstraw; they ate without forks on pewter or wooden platters; they drankneither tea nor coffee, but drank what their ancestors did in theforests of Germany, --beer; their houses, thatched with straw, were dark, dingy, and uncomfortable. Commerce was small; manufactures were in theirinfancy; the coin was debased, and money was scarce; trade was in thehands of monopolists; coaches were almost unknown; the roads wereimpassable except for horsemen, and were infested with robbers; only therich could afford wheaten bread; agricultural implements were of themost primitive kind; animal food, for the greater part of the year, waseaten only in a salted state; enterprise of all kinds was restrictedwithin narrow limits; beggars and vagrants were so numerous that themost stringent laws were necessary to protect the people against them;profane swearing was nearly universal; the methods of executing capitalpunishments were revolting; the rudest sports amused the people; theparochial clergy were ignorant and sensual; country squires soughtnothing higher than fox-hunting; it took several days for letters toreach the distant counties; the population numbered only four millions;there was nothing grand and imposing in art but the palaces of noblesand the Gothic monuments of mediaeval Europe. 

Such was "Merrie England" on the accession of Elizabeth to thethrone, --a rude nation of feudal nobles, rural squires, and ignorantpeople, who toiled for a mere pittance on the lands of cold, unsympathetic masters; without books, without schools, withoutprivileges, without rights, except to breathe the common air and indulgein coarse pleasures and religious holidays and village fêtes. 

On the other hand, it must be admitted that the people were loyal, religious, and brave; that they had the fear of God before their eyes, and felt personal responsibility to Him, so that crimes were uncommonexcept among the lowest and most abandoned; that family ties werestrong; that simple hospitalities were everywhere exercised; thathealthy pleasures stimulated no inordinate desires; that the people, ifpoor, had enough to eat and drink; that service was not held to bedegrading; that churches were not deserted; that books, what few therewere, did not enervate or demoralize; that science did not attempt toignore the moral government of God; that laws were a terror toevil-doers; that philanthropists did not seek to reform the world bymechanical inventions, or elevate society by upholding the majesty ofman rather than the majesty of God, --teaching the infallibility ofcongregated masses of ignorance, inexperience, and conceit. Even inthose rude times there were the certitudes of religious faith, ofdomestic endearments, of patriotic devotion, of respect for parents, ofloyalty to rulers, of kindness to the poor and miserable; there were thelatent fires of freedom, the impulses of generous enthusiasm, andresignation to the ills which could not be removed. So that in England, in Elizabeth's time, there was a noble material for Christianity and artand literature to work upon, and to develop a civilization such as hadnot existed previously on this earth, --a civilization destined to spreadthroughout the world in new institutions, inventions, laws, language, and literature, binding hostile races together, and proclaiming thesovereignty of intelligence, --the [Greek: nous kratei] of the old Ionianphilosophers, --with that higher sovereignty which Moses based upon theTen Commandments, and that higher law still which Jesus taught uponthe Mount. 

Yet with all this fine but rude material for future greatness, it wasnevertheless a glaring fact that the condition of England on theaccession of Elizabeth was most discouraging, --a poor and scatteredagricultural nation, without a navy of any size, without a regular army, with factions in every quarter, with struggling and contending religiousparties, with a jealous parliament of unenlightened country squires; yeta nation seriously threatened by the most powerful monarchies of theContinent, who detested the doctrines which were then taking root in theland. Against the cabals of Rome, the navies of Spain, and the armies ofFrance, --alike hostile and dangerous, --England could make but a feebleshow of physical forces, and was protected only by her insular position. The public dangers were so imminent that there was needed not only astrong hand but a stout heart and a wise head at the helm. Excessivecaution was necessary, perpetual vigilance was imperative; a singleimprudent measure might be fatal in such exigencies. And this accountsfor the vacillating policy of Elizabeth, so often condemned byhistorians. It did not proceed from weakness of head, but from realnecessity occasioned by constant embarrassments and changingcircumstances. According to all the canons of expediency, it was thesign of a sagacious ruler to temporize and promise and deceive in thatsad perplexity. Governments, thus far in the history of nations, havebeen carried on upon different principles from those that bind theconduct of individuals, especially when the weak contend against thestrong. This, abstractly, is not to be defended. Governments andindividuals alike are bound by the same laws of immutable morality intheir general relations; but the rules of war are different from therules of peace. Governments are expediencies to suit peculiar crises andexigencies. A man assaulted by robbers would be a fool to fall back onthe passive virtues of non-resistance. 

Elizabeth had to deal both with religious bigots and unscrupulous kings. We may be disgusted with the course she felt it politic to pursue, butit proved successful. A more generous and open course might haveprecipitated an attack when she was unprepared and defenceless. Herdalliances and expediencies and dissimulations delayed the evil day, until she was ready for the death-struggle; and when the tempest ofangry human forces finally broke upon her defenceless head, she wassaved only by a storm of wind and rain which Providence kindly andopportunely sent. Had the "Invincible Armada" been permitted to invadeEngland at the beginning of her reign, there would probably have beenanother Spanish conquest. What chance would the untrained militia of ascattered population, without fortresses or walled cities or militaryleaders of skill, have had against the veteran soldiers who weremarshalled under Philip II. , with all the experiences learned in thewars of Charles V. And in the conquest of Peru and Mexico, aided, too, by the forces of France and the terrors of the Vatican and the money ofthe Flemish manufacturers? It was the dictate of self-preservation whichinduced Elizabeth to prevaricate, and to deceive the powerful monarchswho were in league against her. If ever lying and cheating werejustifiable, they were then; if political jesuitism is ever defensible, it was in the sixteenth century. So that I cannot be hard on theembarrassed Queen for a policy which on the strict principles ofmorality it would be difficult to defend. It was a dark age ofconspiracies, rebellions, and cabals. In dealing with the complicatedrelations of government in that day, there were no recognized principlesbut those of expediency. Even in our own times, expediency rather thanright too often seems to guide nations. It is not just and fair, therefore, to expect from a sovereign, in Queen Elizabeth's time, thatopenness and fairness which are the result only of a higher nationalcivilization. What would be blots on government to-day were not deemedblots in the sixteenth century. Elizabeth must be judged by the standardof her age, not of ours, in her official and public acts. 

We must remember, also, that this great Queen was indorsed, supported, and even instructed by the ablest and wisest and most patrioticstatesmen that were known to her generation. Lord Burleigh, her primeminister, was a marvel of political insight, industry, and fidelity. Ifhe had not the commanding genius of Thomas Cromwell or the ambitiousforesight of Richelieu, he surpassed the statesmen of his day inpatriotic zeal and in disinterested labors, --not to extend theboundaries of the empire, but to develop national resources and make thecountry strong for defence. He was a plodding, wary, cautious, far-seeing, long-headed old statesman, whose opinions it was not safefor Elizabeth to oppose; and although she was arbitrary and opinionatedherself, she generally followed Burleigh's counsels, --unwillingly attimes, but firmly when she perceived the necessity; for she was, withall her pertinacity, open to conviction of reason. I cannot deny thatshe sometimes headed off her prime-minister and deceived him, andotherwise complicated the difficulties that beset her reign; but thiswas only when she felt a strong personal repugnance to the statemeasures which he found it imperative to pursue. After all, Elizabethwas a woman, and the woman was not utterly lost in the Queen. It isgreatly to her credit, however, that she retained the services of thisold statesman for forty years, and that she filled the great offices inthe State and Church with men of experience, genius, and wisdom. Shemade Parker the Archbishop of Canterbury, --a man of remarkablemoderation and breadth of mind, whose reforms were carried on withoutexciting hostilities, and have survived the fanaticisms and hostileattacks of generations. Walsingham, her ambassador at Paris, andafterwards her secretary of state, ferreted out the plots of the Jesuitsand the intrigues of hostile courts, and rendered priceless service byhis acuteness and diligence. Lord Effingham, one of the Howards, defeated the "Invincible Armada. " Sir Thomas Gresham managed herfinances so ably that she was never without money. Coke was herattorney. Sir Nicholas Bacon--the ablest lawyer in the realm, and astanch Protestant--was her lord-keeper; while his illustrious son, theimmortal Francis Bacon, though not adequately rewarded, was alwaysconsulted by the Queen in great legal difficulties. I say nothing ofthose elegant and gallant men who were the ornaments of her court, andin some instances the generals of her armies and admirals of hernavies, --Sackville, Raleigh, Sidney, not to mention Essex andLeicester, all of whom were distinguished for talents and services; menwho had no equals in their respective provinces; so gifted that it isdifficult to determine whether the greatness of her reign was more owingto the talents of the ministers or to the wisdom of the Queen herself. Unless she had been a great woman, I doubt whether she would havediscerned the merits of these men, and employed them in her service andkept them so long in office. 

It was by these great men that Elizabeth was ruled, --so far as she wasruled at all, --not by favorites, like her successors, James and Charles. The favorites at the court of Elizabeth were rarely trusted with greatpowers unless they were men of signal abilities, and regarded as such bythe nation itself. While she lavished favors upon them, --sometimes tothe disgust of the old nobility, --she was never ruled by them, as Jameswas by Buckingham, and Louis XV. By Madame de Pompadour. Elizabeth wasnot above coquetry, it is true; but after toying with Leicester andRaleigh, --never, though, to the serious injury of her reputation as awoman, --she would retire to the cabinet of her ministers and yield tothe sage suggestions of Burleigh and Walsingham. At her council-boardshe was an entirely different woman from what she was among hercourtiers: _there_ she would tolerate no flattery, and was controlledonly by reason and good sense, --as practical as Burleigh himself, andas hard-working and business-like; cold, intellectual, and clear-headed, utterly without enthusiasm. 

Perhaps the greatest service which Elizabeth rendered to the Englishnation and the cause of civilization was her success in establishingProtestantism as the religion of the land, against so many threateningobstacles. In this she was aided and directed by some of the mostenlightened divines that England ever had. The liturgy of Cranmer wasre-established, preferments were conferred on married priests, thelearned and pious were raised to honor, eminent scholars and theologianswere invited to England, the Bible was revised and freely circulated, and an alliance was formed between learning and religion by the greatmen who adorned the universities. Though inclined to ritualism, Elizabeth was broad and even moderate in reform, desiring, according tothe testimony of Bacon, that all extremes of idolatry and superstitionshould be avoided on the one hand, and levity and contempt on the other;that all Church matters should be examined without sophistical nicetiesor subtle speculations. 

The basis of the English Church as thus established by Elizabeth washalf-way between Rome and Geneva, --a compromise, I admit; but allestablished institutions and governments accepted by the people arebased on compromise. How can there be even family government withoutsome compromise, inasmuch as husband and wife cannot always be expectedto think exactly alike?

At any rate, the Church established by Elizabeth was signally adapted tothe wants and genius of the English people, --evangelical, on the whole, in its creed, though not Calvinistic; unobtrusive in its forms, easy inits discipline, and aristocratic in its government; subservient tobishops, but really governed by the enlightened few who really governall churches, Independent, Presbyterian, or Methodist; supported by theState, yet wielding only spiritual authority; giving its influence touphold the crown and the established institutions of the country;conservative, yet earnestly Protestant. In the sixteenth century it wasthe Church of reform, of progress, of advancing and liberalizingthought. Elizabeth herself was a zealous Protestant, protecting thecause whenever it was persecuted, encouraging Huguenots, and notdisdaining the Presbyterians of Scotland. She was not as generous to theProtestants of Holland and Trance as we could have wished, for she wasobliged to husband her resources, and hence she often seemedparsimonious; but she was the acknowledged head of the reform movementin Europe. Her hostility to Rome and Roman influence was inexorable. Shemay not have carried reforms as far as the Puritans desired, and whocan wonder at that? Their spirit was aggressive, revolutionary, bitter, and, pushed to its logical sequences, was hostility to the throneitself, as proved by their whole subsequent history until Cromwell wasdead. And this hostility Burleigh perceived as well as the Queen, which, doubtless led to severities that our age cannot pretend to justify. 

The Queen did dislike and persecute the Puritans, not, I think, so muchbecause they made war on the surplice, liturgy, and divine right ofbishops, as because they were at heart opposed to all absolute authorityboth in State and Church, and when goaded by persecution would hurl evenkings from their thrones. It is to be regretted that Elizabeth was sosevere on those who differed from her; she had no right to insist onuniformity with her conscience in those matters which are above anyhuman authority. The Reformation in its severest logical consequences, in its grandest deductions, affirms the right of private judgment as themighty pillar of its support. All parties, Presbyterian as well asEpiscopalian, sought uniformity; they only differed as to its standard. With the Queen and ministers and prelates it was the laws of the land;with the Puritans, the decrees of provincial and national synods. Hence, if Elizabeth insisted that her subjects should conform to her notionsand the ordinances of Parliament and convocations, she showed a spiritwhich was universal. She was superior even in toleration to allcontemporaneous sovereigns, Catholic or Protestant, man or woman. Contrast her persecutions of Catholics and Puritans with the persecutionby Catherine de Médicis and Charles IX. And Philip II. And FerdinandII. ; or even with that under the Regent Murray of Scotland, whenchurches and abbeys were ruthlessly destroyed. Contrast her Archbishopof Canterbury with the religious dictator of Scotland. She kindled no_auto-da-fé, _ like the Spaniards; she incited no wholesale massacre, like the demented fury of France; she had a loving care of her subjectsthat no religious bigotry could suppress. She did not seek toexterminate Catholics or Puritans, but simply to build up the Church ofEngland as the shield and defence and enlargement of Protestantism intimes of unmitigated religious ferocity, --a Protestantism that hasproved the bulwark of European liberties, as it was the foundation ofall progress in England. In giving an impulse to this great emancipatingmovement, even if she did not push it to its remote logical end, Elizabeth was a benefactor of her country and of mankind, and is notunjustly called a nursing-mother of the Church, --being so regarded byProtestants, not in England merely, but on the Continent of Europe. Whenwas ever a religious revolution effected, or a national churchestablished, with so little bloodshed? When have ever such great changesproved so popular and so beneficial, and, I may add, so permanent? Afterall the revolutions in English thought and life for three hundred years, the Church as established by Elizabeth is still dear to the great bodyof English people, and has survived every agitation. And even manythings which the Puritans sought to sweep away--the music of the choir, organs, and chants, even the holidays of venerated ages--are now revivedby the descendants of the Puritans with ancient ardor; showing howpermanent are such festivals as Christmas and Easter in the heart ofChristendom, and how hopeless it is to eradicate what the Church andChristianity, from their earliest ages, have sanctioned and commended. 

The next great service which Elizabeth rendered to England was adevelopment of its resources, --ever a primal effort with wise statesmen, with such administrators as Sully, Colbert, Richelieu. The policy of herGovernment was not the policy of aggrandizement in war, which has everprovoked jealousies and hatreds in other nations, and led to dangerouscombinations, and sowed the seed of future wars. The policy of Napoleonwas retaliated in the conquests of Prussia in our day; and the policy ofPrussia may yet lead to its future dismemberment, in spite of theimperial realm shaped by Bismarck. "With what measure ye mete, it shallbe measured to you again, "--an eternal law, binding both individuals andnations, from which there is no escape. The government of Elizabeth didnot desire or aim at foreign conquests, --the great error of Europeanstatesmen on the Continent; it sought the establishment of the monarchyat home, and the development of the various industries of the nation, since in these industries are both power and wealth. Commerce wasencouraged, and she girt her island around with those "wooden walls"which have proved England's impregnable defence against every subsequentcombination of tyrants and conquerors. The East India Company wasformed, and the fisheries of Newfoundland established. It was underElizabeth's auspices that Frobisher penetrated to the Polar Sea, thatSir Francis Drake circumnavigated the globe, that Sir Walter Raleighcolonized Virginia, and that Sir Humphrey Gilbert attempted to discover'a northwestern passage to India. Manufactories were set up for serges, so that wool was no longer exported, but the raw material was consumedat home. A colony of Flemish weavers was planted in the heart ofEngland. The prosperity of dyers and cloth-dressers and weavers datesfrom this reign, although some attempts at manufactures were made in thereign of Edward III. A refuge was given to persecuted foreigners, andwork was found for them to do. Pasture-land was converted totillage, --not, as is now the case, to parks for the wealthy classes. Labor was made respectable, and enterprise of all kinds was stimulated. Wealth was sought in industry and economy, rather than in mines of goldand silver; so that wealth was doubled during this reign, and thepopulation increased from four millions to six millions. All the olddebts of the Crown were paid, both principal and interest, and thedebased coin was called in at a great sacrifice to the royal revenue. The arbitrary management of commerce by foreign merchants was broken up, and weights and measures were duly regulated. The Queen did not revokemonopolies, it is true; the principles of political economy were notthen sufficiently understood. But even monopolies, which disgraced theold Roman world, and are a disgrace to any age, were not so gigantic anddemoralizing in those times as in our own, under our free institutions;they were not used to corrupt legislation and bribe judges and preventjustice, but simply to enrich politicians and favorites, and as a rewardfor distinguished services. 

Justice in the courts was impartially administered; there was securityto property and punishment for crime. No great culprits escapedconviction; nor, when convicted, were they allowed to purchase, withtheir stolen wealth, the immunities of freedom. The laws were not amockery, as in republican Borne, where demagogues had the ascendency, and prepared the way for usurpation and tyranny. All the expenses of thegovernment were managed economically, --so much so that the Queen herselfreceived from Parliament, for forty years, only an average grant of£65, 000 a year. She disliked to ask money from the Commons, and theygranted subsidies with extreme reluctance; the result was that betweenthe two the greatest economy was practised, and the people were notover-burdened by taxation. 

Elizabeth hated and detested war as the source of all calamities, andnever embarked upon it except under compulsion. All her wars werevirtually defensive, to maintain the honor, safety, and dignity of thenation. She did not even seek to recover Calais, which the French hadheld for three hundred years; although she took Havre, to gain atemporary foothold for her troops. She did not strive for military_éclat_ or foreign possessions in Europe, feeling that the strength ofEngland, like the ancient Jewish commonwealth, was in the cultivation ofthe peaceful virtues; and yet she made war when it became imperative. She gave free audience to her subjects, paid attention to all petitions, and was indefatigable in business. She made her own glory identical withthe prosperity of the realm; and if she did not rule _by_ the people, she ruled _for_ the people, as enlightened and patriotic monarchs everhave ruled. It is indisputable that the whole nation loved her andhonored her to the last, even when disappointments had saddened her andthe intoxicating delusions of life had been dispelled. She bestowedhonors and benefits with frankness and cordiality. She ever sought tobase her authority on the affections of the people, --the only supporteven of absolute thrones. She was ever ready with a witticism, a smile, and a pleasant word. Though she gave vent to peevishness andirritability when crossed, and even would swear before her ministers andcourtiers in private, yet in public she disguised her resentments, andalways appeared dignified and graceful; so that the people, when theysaw her majestic manners, or heard her loving speeches, or beheld hermounted at the head of armies or shining unrivalled in grand festivals, or listened to her learning on public occasions, --such as when sheextemporized Latin orations at Oxford, --were filled with pride andadmiration, and were ready to expose their lives in her service. 

The characteristic excellence of Elizabeth's reign, as it seems to me, was good government. She had extraordinary executive ability, directedto all matters of public interest. Her government was not marked bygreat and brilliant achievements, but by perpetual vigilance, humanity, economy, and liberal policy. There were no destructive and wastingwars, no passion for military glory, no successions of court follies, noextravagance in palace-building, no egotistical aims and pleasures suchas marked the reign of Louis XIV. , which cut the sinews of nationalstrength, impoverished the nobility, disheartened the people, and sowedthe seeds of future revolution. That modern Nebuchadnezzar spent on onepalace £40, 000, 000; while Elizabeth spent on all her palaces, processions, journeys, carriages, servants, and dresses £65, 000 a year. She was indeed fond of visiting her subjects, and perhaps subjected hernobles to a burdensome hospitality. But the Earl of Leicester could wellafford three hundred and sixty-five hogsheads of beer when heentertained the Queen at Kenilworth, since he was rich enough to fortifyhis castle with ten thousand men; nor was it difficult for the Earl ofDerby to feast the royal party, when his domestic servants numbered twohundred and forty. She may have exacted presents on her birthday; butthe courtiers who gave her laces and ruffs and jewelry receivedmonopolies in return. 

The most common charge against Elizabeth as a sovereign is, that she wasarbitrary and tyrannical; nor can she be wholly exculpated from thischarge. Her reign was despotic, so far as the Constitution would allow;but it was a despotism according to the laws. Under her reign the peoplehad as much liberty as at any preceding period of English history. Shedid not encroach on the Constitution. The Constitution and theprecedents of the past gave her the Star Chamber, and the HighCommission Court, and the disposal of monopolies, and the absolutecommand of the military and naval forces; but these great prerogativesshe did not abuse. In her direst necessities she never went beyond thelaws, and seldom beyond the wishes of the people. 

It is expecting too much of sovereigns to abdicate their own powersexcept upon compulsion; and still more, to increase the political powerof the people. The most illustrious sovereigns have never partedwillingly with their own prerogatives. Did the Antonines, or Theodosius, or Charlemagne, or 'Frederic II. ? The Emperor of Russia may emancipateserfs from a dictate of humanity, but he did not give them politicalpower, for fear that it might be turned against the throne. Thesovereign people of America may give political equality to their oldslaves, and invite them to share in the legislation of great interests:it is in accordance with that theory of abstract rights which Rousseau, the creator of the French Revolution, propounded, --which gospel ofrights was accepted by Jefferson and Franklin, The monarchs of the worldhave their own opinions about the political rights of those whom theydeem ignorant or inexperienced. Instead of proceeding to enlarge thebounds of popular liberties, they prefer to fall back on establishedduties. Elizabeth had this preference; but she did not attempt to takeaway what liberties the people already had. In encouraging theprinciples of the Reformation, she became their protector againstCatholic priests and feudal nobles. 

It is not quite just to stigmatize the government of Elizabeth as adespotism, A despotism is a régime supported by military force, based onan army, with power to tax the people without their consent, --like theold rule of the Caesars, like that of Louis XIV. And Peter the Great, and even of Napoleon. Now, Elizabeth never had a standing army of anysize. When the country was threatened by Spain, she threw herself intothe arms of the militia, --upon the patriotism and generosity of herpeople. Nor could she tax the people without the consent ofParliament, --which by a fiction was supposed to represent the people, while in reality it only represented the wealthy classes. Parliamentpossessed the power to cripple her, and was far less generous to herthan it was to Queen Victoria. She was headed off both by the nobles andby the representatives of the wealthy, powerful, and aristocraticCommons. She had great prerogatives and great private wealth, palaces, parks, and arbitrary courts; but she could not go against the laws ofthe realm without endangering her throne, --which she was wise enoughand strong enough to keep, in spite of all her enemies both at home andabroad. Had she been a man, she might have turned out a tyrant and ausurper: she might have increased the royal prerogatives, likeRichelieu; she might have made wars, like Louis XIV. ; she might haveground down the people, like her successor James. But she understood thelimits of her power, and did not seek to go beyond: thereby provingherself as wise as she was mighty. 

By most historical writers Elizabeth is severely censured for theexecution of Mary Queen of Scots, and I think with justice. I am notmaking a special plea in favor of Elizabeth, --hiding her defects andexaggerating her virtues, --but simply seeking to present her characterand deeds according to the verdict of enlightened ages. It was a crueland repulsive act to take away the life of a relative and a woman and aqueen, under any pretence whatever, unless the sparing of her life wouldendanger the security of the sovereign and the peace of the realm. Marywas the granddaughter of Margaret Tudor, sister of Henry VIII, and wasthe lawful successor of Mary, the eldest daughter of Henry VIII. On theprinciple of legitimacy, she had a title to the throne superior toElizabeth herself, and the succession of princes has ever beendetermined by this. But Mary was a Catholic, to say nothing of herlevities or crimes, and had been excluded by the nation for that veryreason. If there was injustice done to her, it was in not allowing herclaim to succeed Mary. That she felt that Elizabeth was a usurper, andthat the English throne belonged by right to her, I do not doubt. It wasnatural that she should seek to regain her rights. If she should surviveElizabeth, her claims as the rightful successor could not be well setaside. That in view of these facts Elizabeth was jealous of Mary I donot doubt; and that this jealousy was one great cause of her hostilityis probable. 

The execution of Mary Stuart because she was a Catholic, or because sheexcited fear or jealousy, is utterly indefensible. All that the Englishnation had a right to do was to set her succession aside because she wasa Catholic, and would undo the work of the Reformation. She had a rightto her religion; and the nation also had a right to prevent its religionfrom being overturned or jeopardized. I do not believe, however, thatMary's life endangered either the throne or the religion of England, solong as she was merely Queen of Scotland; hence I look upon hercaptivity as cruel, and her death as a crime. She was destroyed as themale children of the Hebrews were destroyed by Pharaoh, as a sultanmurders his nephews, --from fear; from a cold and cruel state policy, against all the higher laws of morality. 

The crime of Elizabeth doubtless has palliations. She was urged by herministers and by the Protestant part of the nation to commit this greatwrong, on the plea of necessity, to secure the throne against a Catholicsuccessor, and the nation from embarrassments, plots, and rebellions. Itis an undoubted fact that Mary, even after her imprisonment in England, was engaged in perpetual intrigues; that she was leagued with Jesuitsand hostile powers, and kept Elizabeth in continual irritation and thenation in constant alarm. And it is probable that had she succeededElizabeth, she would have destroyed all that was dear to the Englishheart, --that glorious Reformation, effected by so many labors andsacrifices. Therefore she was immolated to the spirit of the times, forreasons of expediency and apparent state necessity. That she conspiredagainst the government of Elizabeth, and possibly against her life, wasgenerally supposed; that she was a bitter enemy cannot be questioned. How far Elizabeth can be exculpated on the principle of self-defencecannot well be ascertained. Scotch historians do not generally acceptthe reputed facts of Mary's guilt. But if she sought the life ofElizabeth, and was likely to attain so bloody an end, --as was generallyfeared, --then Elizabeth has great excuses for having sanctioned thedeath of her rival. 

So the beautiful and interesting Mary dies a martyr to her cause, --avictim of royal and national jealousy, paying the penalty for allegedcrimes against the state and throne. Had Elizabeth herself, during thelife of her sister Mary, been guilty of half they proved against theQueen of Scots, she would have been most summarily executed. ButElizabeth was wise and prudent, and waited for her time. Mary Stuart wasimprudent and rash. Her character, in spite of her fascinations andaccomplishments, was full of follies, infidelities, and duplicities. Sheis supposed to have been an adulteress and a murderess. She wasunfortunate in her administration of Scotland. She was ruled by wickedfavorites and foreign influence. She was not patriotic, or lofty, orearnest. She did what she could to root out Protestantism in Scotland, and kept her own realm in constant trouble. She had winning manners andgraceful accomplishments; she was doubtless an intellectual woman; shehad courage, presence of mind, tact, intelligence; she could ride anddance well: but with these accomplishments she had qualities which madeher dangerous and odious. If she had not been executed, she would havebeen execrated. But her sufferings and unfortunate death appeal to theheart of the world, and I would not fight against popular affections andsympathies. Though she committed great crimes and follies, and wassupposed to be dangerous to the religion and liberties of England, shedied a martyr, --as Charles I. Died, and Louis XVI. , --the victim of greatnecessities and great animosities. 

The execution of Essex is another of the popular rather than seriouscharges against Elizabeth. He had been her favorite; he was a generous, gifted, and accomplished man, --therefore, it is argued, he ought to havebeen spared. But he was caught with arms in his hands. He was a traitorto the throne which enriched him and the nation which flattered him. Hewas at the head of foolish rebellion, and therefore he died, --died likeMontmorency in the reign of Henry IV. , like Bassompierre, like Norfolkand Northumberland, because he had committed high-treason and defied thelaws. Why should Elizabeth spare such a culprit? No former friendship, no chivalrous qualities, no array of past services, ever can offset thecrime of treason and rebellion, especially in unsettled times; andElizabeth would have been worse than weak had she spared so great acriminal, both according to the laws and precedents of England and theverdict of enlightened civilization. We may compassionate the fate ofEssex; but he was rash, giddy, and irritated, and we feel that hedeserved his punishment. 

The other charges brought against Elizabeth pertain to her as a womanrather than a sovereign. They say that she was artful, dissembling, parsimonious, jealous, haughty, and masculine. Very likely, --and whatthen? Who claimed that she was perfect, any more than other greatsovereigns whom on the whole we praise? These faults, too, may have beenthe result of her circumstances, rather than native traits of character. Surrounded with spies and enemies, she was obliged to hide her thoughtsand her plans. Irritated by treason and rebellions, she may have givenvent to unseemly anger. Flattered beyond all example, she may have beenvain and ostentatious. Possessed of great powers, she may have beenarbitrary. Crippled by Parliament, she may have nursed her resources. Compelled to give to everything, she may have been parsimonious. Slandered by her enemies, she may have been resentful. Annoyed bywrangling sects, she may have too strenuously paraded her high-churchprinciples. 

But all these things we lose sight of in the undoubted virtues, abilities, and services of this great Queen. Historians have other workthan to pick out spots on the sun. The dark spot, if there is one uponElizabeth's character, was her coquetry in private life. It isimpossible to tell whether or not she exceeded the bounds of womanlyvirtue. She was probably slandered and vilified by treacherous, gossiping ambassadors, who were foes to her person and her kingdom, andwho made as ugly reports of her as possible to their royal masters. I amsorry that these malicious accusations have been raked out of the ashesof the past by modern historians, whose literary fame rests on bringingto light what is _new_ rather than what is _true_. The character of awoman and a queen so admired and honored in her day, should be sacredfrom the stings of sensational writers who poison their darts from thearchives of bitter foreign enemies. 

The gallant men of genius whom Elizabeth admired and honored--as abright and intellectual woman naturally would, especially when deprivedof the felicities of wedded life--never presumed, I have charity tobelieve, beyond an undignified partiality and an admiring friendship. When Essex stood highest in her favor, she was nearly seventy years ofage. There are no undoubted facts which criminate her, --nothing butgossip and the malice of foreign spies. What a contrast her private lifewas to that of her mother Anne Boleyn, or to that of Mary, Queen ofScots, or even to that of the great Catherine of Russia! She had, indeed, great foibles and weaknesses. She was inordinately fond ofdress; she was sensitive to her own good looks; she was jealous ofpretty women; she was vain, and susceptible to flattery; she wasirritable when crossed; she gave way to sallies of petulance and anger;she occasionally used language unbecoming her station and authority; shecould dissimulate and hide her thoughts: but her nature was nothypocritical, or false, or mean. She was just, honest, andstraightforward in her ordinary dealings; she was patriotic, enlightened, and magnanimous; she loved learning and learned men; shehad at heart the best interests of her subjects; she was true to hercause. Surely these great virtues, which it is universally admitted shepossessed, should more than balance her defects and weaknesses. See howtender-hearted she was when required to sign death-warrants, and whatgrief she manifested when Essex proved unworthy of her friendship! Seeher love of children, her readiness of sympathy, her fondness forsociety, --all feminine qualities in a woman who is stigmatized asmasculine, as she perhaps was in her mental structure, in her habits ofcommand, and aptitude for business: a strong-minded woman at the worst, yet such a woman as was needed on a throne, especially in stormy timesand in a rude state of society. 

And when we pass from her private character to her public services, bywhich the great are judged, how exalted her claims to the world'sregard! Where do we find a greater or a better queen? Contrast her withother female sovereigns, --with Isabella, who with all her virtuesfavored the Inquisition; with her sister Mary, who kindled the fires ofSmithfield; with Catherine de Médicis, who sounded the tocsin of St. Bartholomew; with Mary of Scotland, who was a partner in the murder ofher husband; with Anne of Austria, who ruled through Italian favorites;with Christiana of Sweden, who scandalized Europe by her indecenteccentricities; with Anne of Great Britain, ruled by the Duchess ofMarlborough. There are only two great sovereigns with whom she can becompared, --Catherine II. Of Russia, and Maria Theresa of Germany, illustrious, like Elizabeth, for courage and ability. But Catherine wasthe slave of infamous passions, and Maria Theresa was a party to thepartition of Poland. Compared with these even, the English queen appearsimmeasurably superior; they may have wielded more power, but their moralinfluence was less. It is not the greatness of a country which givesgreatness to its exalted characters. Washington ruled our empire in itsinfancy; and Buchanan, with all its majestic resources, --yet who isdearest to the heart of the world? No countries ever produced greaterbenefactors than Palestine and Greece, when their limits were scarcelyequal to one of our States. The fame of Burleigh burns brighter thanthat of the most powerful of modern statesmen. The names of AlexanderHamilton and Daniel Webster may outshine the glories of any statesmenwho shall arise in this great country for a hundred years to come. Elizabeth ruled a little island; but her memory and deeds are asimmortal as the fame of Pericles or Marcus Aurelius. 

And the fame of England's great queen rests on the influence whichradiated from her character, as well as upon the power she wielded withso much wisdom and ability. Influence is greater than power in the lapseof ages. Politicians may wield power for a time; but the greatstatesmen, like Burke and Canning, live in their ideas. Warriors andkings, and ministers of kings, have power; but poets and philosophershave influence, for their ideas go coursing round the world until theyhave changed governments and institutions for better or for worse, --likethose of Paul, of Socrates, of Augustine, of Dante, of Shakspeare, ofBacon, yea, of Rousseau. Some few favored rulers and leaders of men havehad both power and influence, like Moses, Alfred, and Washington; andElizabeth belongs to this class. Her influence was for good, and itpermeated English life and society, like that of Victoria, whose powerwas small. 

As a queen, however, more than a woman, Elizabeth is one of the greatnames of history. I have some respect for the critical verdict ofFrancis Bacon, the greatest man of his age, --if we exceptShakspeare, --and one of the greatest men in the history of all nations. What does he say? He knew her well, perhaps as well as any modernhistorian. He says:--

"She was a princess, that, if Plutarch were now alive to write byparables, it would puzzle him to find her equal among women. She wasendowed with learning most singular and rare; and as for her government, I do affirm that England never had forty-five years of better times, andthis, not through the calmness of the season, but the wisdom of herregimes. When we consider the establishment of religion, and theconstant peace of the country, the good administration of justice, theflourishing state of learning, the increase of wealth, and the generalprosperity, amid differences in religion, the troubles of neighboringnations, the ambition of Spain, and the opposition of Home, I could nothave chosen a more remarkable combination of learning in the prince withfelicity of the people. "

I can add nothing to this comprehensive verdict: it covers the wholeground. So that for virtues and abilities, in spite of all defects, Ichallenge attention to this virgin queen. I love to dwell on hercourage, her fortitude, her prudence, her wisdom, her patriotism, hermagnanimity, her executive ability, and, more, on the exalted servicesshe rendered to her country and to civilization. These invest her namewith a halo of glory which shall blaze through all the ages, even as thegreat men who surrounded her throne have made her name illustrious. 

The Elizabethan era is justly regarded as the brightest in Englishhistory; not for the number of its great men, or the magnificence of itsgreat enterprises, or the triumphs of its great discoveries andinventions, but because there were then born the great ideas whichconstitute the strength and beauty of our proud civilization, andbecause then the grandest questions which pertain to religion, government, literature, and social life were first agitated, with thefreshness and earnestness of a revolutionary age. The men of that periodwere a constellation of original thinkers. We still point withadmiration to the political wisdom of Cecil, to the sagacity ofWalsingham, to the varied accomplishments of Raleigh, to the chivalrousgraces of Sidney, to the bravery of Hawkins and Nottingham, to the boldenterprises of Drake and Frobisher, to the mercantile integrity andfinancial skill of Gresham, to the comprehensive intellect of Parker, tothe scholarship of Ascham, to the eloquence of Jewel, to the profundityof Hooker, to the vast attainments and original genius of Bacon, to therich fancy of Spenser, to the almost inspired insight of Shakspeare, towering above all the poets of ancient and of modern times, as freshto-day as he was three hundred years ago, the greatest miracle ofintellect that perhaps has ever adorned the world. By all theseillustrious men Queen Elizabeth was honored and beloved. All received nosmall share of their renown from her glorious appreciation; all wereproud to revolve around her as a central sun, giving life and growth toevery great enterprise in her day, and shedding a light which shallgladden unborn generations. 

It is something that a woman has earned such a fame, and in a spherewhich has been supposed to belong to man alone. And if men shall hereand there be found to decry her greatness, let no woman be found whoshall seek to dethrone her from her lofty pedestal; for in so doing sheunwittingly becomes a detractor from that womanly greatness in which weshould all rejoice, and which thus far has so seldom been seen inexalted stations. For my part, the more I study history the more Ireverence this great sovereign; and I am proud that such a woman haslived and reigned and died in honor. 

AUTHORITIES. 

Fronde's History of England; Hume's History of England; AgnesStrickland's Queens of England; Mrs. Jameson's Memoirs of QueenElizabeth; E. Lodge's Sketch of Elizabeth; G. P. R. James's Memoir ofElizabeth; Encyclopaedia Britannica, article on England: Hallam'sConstitutional History of England; "Age of Elizabeth, " in Dublin Review, lxxxi. ; British Quarterly Review, v. 412; Aikin's Court of Elizabeth;Bentley's Elizabeth and her Times; "Court of Elizabeth, " in WestminsterReview, xxix. 281; "Character of Elizabeth, " in Dublin UniversityReview, xl. 216; "England of Elizabeth, " in Edinburgh Review, cxlvi. 199; "Favorites of Queen Elizabeth, " in Quarterly Review, xcv. 207;Reign of Elizabeth, in London Quarterly Review, xxii. 158; "Youth ofElizabeth, " in Temple Bar Magazine, lix. 451, and "Elizabeth and MaryStuart, " x. 190; Blackwood's Magazine, ci. 389. 

HENRY OF NAVARRE. 

A. D. 1553-1610. 

THE HUGUENOTS. 

In this lecture I shall confine myself principally to the connection ofHenry IV. With that memorable movement which came near making France aProtestant country. He is identified with the Huguenots, and it is thestruggles of the Huguenots which I wish chiefly to present. I know hewas also a great king, the first of the Bourbon dynasty, whose heroismin war was equalled only by his enlightened zeal in the civilization ofFrance, --a king who more deeply impressed himself upon the affections ofthe nation than any monarch since Saint Louis, and who, had he lived toexecute his schemes, would have raised France to the highest pitch ofglory. Nor do I forget, that, although he fought for a great cause, andreigned with great wisdom and ability, and thus rendered importantservices to his country, he was a man of great defects of character, stained with those peculiar vices which disgraced most of the Bourbonkings, especially Louis XIV. And Louis XV. ; that his court was thescene of female gallantries and intrigues, and that he was more underthe influence of women than was good for the welfare of his country orhis own reputation. But the limits of this lecture will not permit me todwell on his acts as a monarch, or on his statesmanship, his services, or his personal defects of character. I am obliged, from the magnitudeof my subject, and from the necessity of giving it unity and interest, to confine myself to him as a leader of the Huguenots alone. It is notHenry himself that I would consider, so much as the struggles of thebrave men associated with him, more or less intimately, in their attemptto secure religious liberty in the sixteenth century. 

The sixteenth century! What a great era that was In comparison with thepreceding centuries since Christianity was declared! From a religiousand heroic point of view it was immeasurably a greater period than thenineteenth century, which has been marked chiefly for the triumphs ofscience, material progress, and social and political reforms. But inearnestness, in moral grandeur, and in discussions which pertain to thehealth and life of nations, the sixteenth century was greater than ourown. Then began all sorts of inquiries about Nature and about mind, about revelation and Providence, about liberty of worship and freedom ofthought; all of which were discussed with an enthusiasm and patienceand boldness and originality to which our own times furnish no parallel. And united with this fresh and original agitation of great ideas was aheroism in action which no age of the world has equalled. Men riskedtheir fortunes and their lives in defence of those principles which havemade the enjoyment of them in our times the greatest blessing wepossess. It was a new spirit that had arisen in our world to break thefetters which centuries of fraud and superstition and injustice hadforged, --a spirit scornful of old authorities, yet not sceptical, withdisgust of the past and hope for the future, penetrating even thehamlets of the poor, and kindling the enthusiasm of princes and nobles, producing learned men in every country of Europe, whose originalinvestigations should put to the blush the commentators and compilers ofthis age of religious mediocrity and disguised infidelity. Suchintellectual giants in the field of religious inquiry had not appearedsince the Fathers of the Church combated the paganism of the Romanworld, and will not probably appear again until the cycle of changes iscompleted in the domain of theological thought, and men are forced tomeet the enemies of divine revelation marshalled in such overwhelmingarray that there will be a necessity for reformers, called out by aspecial Providence to fight battles, --as I regard Luther and Calvin andKnox. The great difference between the sixteenth and nineteenthcenturies, outside of material aspects, is that the former recognizedthe majesty of God, and the latter the majesty of man. Both centuriesbelieved in progress; but the sixteenth century traced this progress tofirst, and the nineteenth to second, causes. The sixteenth believed thathuman improvement was owing directly to special divine grace, and thenineteenth believes in the necessary development of mankind. The schoolof the sixteenth century was spiritual, that of the nineteenth ismaterial; the former looked to heaven, the latter looks to earth. Thesixteenth regarded this world as a mere preparation for the next, andthe nineteenth looks upon this world as the future scene of indefiniteand completed bliss. The sixteenth century attacked the ancient, thenineteenth attacks the eternal. The sixteenth destroyed, butreconstructed; the nineteenth also destroys, but would substitutenothing instead. The sixteenth reminds us of audacious youth, stillclinging to parental authority; the nineteenth reminds us of cynical andirreverent old age, believing in nothing but the triumphs of science andart, and shaking off the doctrines of the ages as explodedsuperstitions. 

The sixteenth century was marked not only by intensely earnest religiousinquiries, but by great civil and social disorders, --showing atransition period of society from the slaveries and discomforts of thefeudal ages to the liberty and comforts of highly civilized life. Inthe midst of religious enthusiasm we see tumults, insurrections, terrible animosities, and cruel intolerance. War was associated withinhuman atrocities, and the acceptance of the reformed faith wasfollowed by bitter and heartless persecution. The feudal system hadreceived a shock from standing armies and the invention of gunpowder andthe central authority of kings, but it was not demolished. The noblesstill continued to enjoy their social and political distinctions, thepeasantry were ground down by unequal laws, and the nobles were asarrogant and quarrelsome as the people were oppressed by unjustdistinctions. They were still followed by their armed retainers, and hadalmost unlimited jurisdiction in their respective governments. Even thehigher clergy gloried in feudal inequalities, and were selected from thenoble classes. The people were not powerful enough to make combinationsand extort their rights, unless they followed the standards of militarychieftains, arrayed perhaps against the crown and against theparliaments. We see no popular, independent political movements; eventhe people, like all classes above them, were firm and enthusiastic intheir religious convictions. 

The commanding intellect at that time in Europe was John Calvin (aFrenchman, but a citizen of Geneva), whom we have already seen to be aman of marvellous precocity of genius and astonishing logical powers, combined with the most exhaustive erudition on all theological subjects. His admirers claim a distinct and logical connection between histheology and civil liberty itself. I confess I cannot see this. Therewas nothing democratic about Calvin. He ruled indeed at Geneva asSavonarola did in Florence, but he did not have as liberal ideas as theFlorentine reformer about the political liberties of the people. He madehis faith the dearest thing a man could have, to be defended unto deathin the face of the most unrelenting persecution. It was the tenacity todefend the reformed doctrines, of which, next to Luther, Calvin was thegreatest champion, which kindled opposition to civil rulers. And it wasopposition to civil rulers who proved themselves tyrants which led tothe struggle for civil liberty; not democratic ideas of right. These mayhave been the sequence of agitations and wars, but not their animatingcause, --like the ideas of Rousseau on the French revolutionists. Theoriginal Puritans were not democratic; the Presbyterians of Scotlandwere not, even when Cromwell led the armies, but not the people, ofEngland. The Huguenots had no aspirations for civil rights; they onlyaspired for the right of worshipping God according to the dictates ofconscience. There was nothing popular in their notions of governmentwhen Henry IV. Headed the forces of the Huguenots; he only aimed at therecognition of religious rights. The Huguenots never rallied aroundpopular leaders, but rather under the standards of princes and noblesfighting for the right of worshipping God according to the dictation orideas of Calvin. They would preserve their schools, their churches, their consistories, and their synods; they would be unmolested in theirreligious worship. 

Now, at the time when Henry IV. Was born, in the year 1553, when HenryII. Was King of France and Edward VI. Was King of England, the ideas ofthe Reformation, and especially the doctrines of Calvin, had taken adeep and wide hold of the French people. The Calvinists, as they werecalled, were a powerful party; in some parts of France they were in amajority. More than a third of the whole population had enthusiasticallyaccepted the reformed doctrines. They were in a fair way toward triumph;they had great leaders among the highest of the nobility. But they werebitterly hated by the king and the princes of the house of Valois, andespecially by the Duke of Guise and the Cardinal of Lorraine, --the mostpowerful famlies in France, --because they meditated to overturn, not thethrone, but the old established religion. The Pope instigated the mostviolent proceedings; so did the King of Spain. It was resolved tosuppress the hated doctrines. The enemies of the Calvinists resorted tointrigues and assassinations; they began a furious persecution, as theyheld in their hands the chief political power. Injustice succeededinjustice, and outrage followed outrage. During the whole reigns of theValois Princes, treachery, assassinations, and bloody executions markedthe history of France. Royal edicts forbid even the private assembliesof the Huguenots, on pain of death. They were not merely persecuted butcalumniated. There was no crime which was not imputed to them, even thatof sacrificing little children; so that the passions of the people werearoused against them, and they were so maltreated that all security wasat an end. From a condition of hopeful progress, they were forced backand beaten down. Their condition became insupportable. There was noalternative but desperate resistance or martyrdom, for the completesuppression of Protestantism was resolved upon, on the part of thegovernment. The higher clergy, the parliaments, the University of Paris, and the greater part of the old nobility supported the court, and eachsuccessive Prince of the house of Valois adopted more rigorous measuresthan his predecessor. Henry II. Was more severe than Francis I. ; andFrancis II. Was more implacable than Henry II. , who was killed at atournament in 1559. Francis II. , a feeble prince, was completely ruledby his mother, Catherine de Médicis, an incarnated fiend of cruelty andtreachery, though a woman of pleasing manners and gracefulaccomplishments, --like Mary of Scotland, but without her levities. Underher influence persecution assumed a form which was truly diabolical. TheHuguenots, although supported by the King of Navarre, the Prince ofCondé, Coligny (Admiral of France), his brother the Seigneur d' Andelot, the Count of Montgomery, the Duke of Bouillon, the Duke of Soubise, allof whom were nobles of high rank, were in danger of being absolutelycrushed, and were on the brink of despair. What if a third part of thepeople belonged to their ranks, when the whole power of the crown and agreat majority of the nobles were against them; and these supported bythe Pope and clergy, and stimulated to ferocity by the Jesuits, thenbecoming formidable?

At last the Huguenots resolved to organize and arm in their own defence, for there is a time when submission ceases to be a virtue. If ever apeople had cause for resistance it was this persecuted people. They didnot rise up against their persecutors with the hope of overturning thethrone, or producing a change of dynasties, or gaining constitutionalliberty, or becoming a political power hostile to the crown, like thePuritans under Cromwell or Hampden, but simply to preserve what to themwas more precious than life. All that they demanded was a toleration oftheir religion; and as their religion was dearer to them than life, theywere ready to undergo any sacrifices. Their resistance was moreformidable than was anticipated; they got possession of cities andfortresses, and were able to defy the whole power of the crown. It wasfound impossible to suppress a people who fought with so much heroism, and who defied every combination. So truces and treaties were made withthem, by which their religious rights were guaranteed. But thesetreaties were perpetually broken, for treachery is no sin with religiouspersecutors, since "the end justified the means. "

This Huguenotic contest, attended with so much vicissitude, alternatedefeat and victory, and stained by horrid atrocities, was at its heightwhen Henry IV. Was a boy, and had no thought of ever being King ofFrance. His father, Antoine de Bourbon, although King of Navarre and aprince of the blood, being a lineal descendant from Saint Louis, wasreally only a great noble, not so powerful as the Duke of Guise or theDuke of Montmorency; and even he, a leader of the rebellion, was finallywon over to the court party by the seductions brought to bear on him byRoman priests. He was either bribed or intimidated, and disgracefullyabjured the cause for which he at first gallantly fought. He died from awound he received at the siege of Rouen, while commanding one of thearmies of Charles IX. , who succeeded his brother Francis II. , in 1560. 

The mother of the young prince, destined afterwards to be so famous, was one of the most celebrated women of history, --Jeanne D'Albret, nieceof Francis L; a woman who was equally extolled by men of letters andCalvinistic divines. She was as beautiful as she was good; at her castlein Pau, the capital of her hereditary kingdom of Navarre, she diffused amagnificent hospitality, especially to scholars and the lights of thereformed doctrines. Her kingdom was small, and was politicallyunimportant; but she was a sovereign princess nevertheless. Themanagement of the young prince, her son, was most admirable, butunusual. He was delicate and sickly as an infant, and reared withdifficulty; but, though a prince, he was fed on the simplest food, andexposed to hardships like the sons of peasants; he was allowed to runbareheaded and barefooted, exposed to heat and rain, in order tostrengthen his constitution. Amid the hills at the base of the Pyrenees, in the company of peasants' children, he thus acquired simple andnatural manners, and accustomed himself to fatigues and dangers. He waseducated in the reformed doctrines, but was more distinguished as a boyfor his chivalric graces, physical beauty, and manly sports than forseriousness of character or a religious life. He grew up a Protestant, from education rather than conviction. At twelve, in the year 1565, hewas intrusted by his mother, the Queen of Navarre, to the care of hisuncle, the Prince of Condé, and, on his death, to Admiral Coligny, theacknowledged leader of the Protestants. He thus witnessed many bloodybattles before he was old enough to be intrusted with command. Ateighteen he was affianced to Marguerite de Valois, sister of CharlesIX. , in spite of differences of religion. 

It was amid the nuptial festivities of the young King of Navarre, --hismother had died the year before, --when all the prominent leaders of theProtestants were enticed to Paris, that preparations were made for theblackest crime in the annals of civilized nations, --even the treacherousand hideous massacre of St. Bartholomew, perpetrated by Charles IX. , whowas incited to it by his mother, the ever-infamous Catherine de Médicis, and the Duke of Guise. 

The Protestants, under the Prince of Condé and Admiral Coligny, hadfought so bravely and so successfully in defence of their cause that allhope of subduing them in the field was given up. The bloody battles ofMontcontour, of St. Denis, and of Jarnac had proved how stubbornly theHuguenots would fight; while their possession of such strong fortressesas Montauban and La Rochelle, deemed impregnable, showed that they couldnot easily be subdued. Although the Prince of Condé had been slain atthe battle of Jarnac, this great misfortune to the Protestants was morethan balanced by the assassination of the great Duke of Guise, theablest general and leader of the Catholics. So when all hope hadvanished of exterminating the Huguenots in open warfare, a deceitfulpeace was made; and their leaders were decoyed to Paris, in order toaccomplish, in one foul sweep, by wholesale murder, thediabolical design. 

The Huguenot leaders were completely deceived. Old Admiral Coligny, withhis deeper insight, hesitated to put himself into the power of a bigotedand persecuting monarch; but Charles IX. Pledged his word for hissafety, and in an age when chivalry was not extinguished, his promisewas accepted. Who could believe that his word of honor would be broken, or that he, a king, could commit such an outrageous and unprecedentedcrime? But what oath, what promise, what law can bind a man who is aslave of religious bigotry, when his church requires a bloody and acruel act? The end seemed to justify any means. I would not fix thestain of that infamous crime exclusively on the Jesuits, or on the Pope, or on the councillors of the King, or on his mother. I will not say thatit was even exclusively a Church movement: it may have been equally anapparent State necessity. A Protestant prince might mount the throne ofFrance, and with him, perhaps, the ascendency of Protestantism, or atleast its protection. Such a catastrophe, as it seemed to thecouncillors of Charles IX. , must somehow be averted. How could it beaverted otherwise than by the assassination of Henry himself, and hiscousin Condé, and the brave old admiral, as powerful as Guise, ascourageous as Du Gueslin, and as pious as Godfrey? And then, when theseleaders were removed, and all the Protestants in Paris were murdered, who would remain to continue the contest, and what Protestant princecould hope to mount the throne? But whoever was directly responsible forthe crime, and whatever may have been the motives for it, still it wascommitted. The first victim was Coligny himself, and the slaughter ofsixty thousand persons followed in Paris and the provinces. The AdmiralColigny, Marquis of Chatillon, was one of the finest characters in allhistory, --brave, honest, truthful, sincere, with deep religiousconvictions, and great ability as a general. No Englishman in thesixteenth century can be compared with him for influence, heroism, andvirtue combined. It was deemed necessary to remove this illustrious man, not because he was personally obnoxious, but because he was the leaderof the Protestant party. 

It is said that as the fatal hour approached to give the signal for themeditated massacre, Aug. 24, 1572, the King appeared irresolute anddisheartened. Though cruel, perfidious, and weak, he shrank fromcommitting such a gigantic crime, and this too in the face of his royalpromises. But there was one person whom no dangers appalled, and whoseicy soul could be moved by no compassion and no voice of conscience. Atmidnight, Catherine entered the chamber of her irresolute son, in theLouvre, on whose brow horror was already stamped, and whose framequivered with troubled chills. Coloring the crime with the usualsophistries of all religious and political persecution, that the endjustifies the means, and stigmatizing him as a coward, she at lastextorted from his quivering lips the fatal order; and immediately thetocsin of death sounded from the great bell of the church of St. Germainde Auxerrois. At once the slaughter commenced in every corner of Paris, so well were the horrid measures concerted. Screams of despair weremingled with shouts of vengeance; the cries of the murdered were addedto the imprecations of the murderers; the streets flowed with blood, thedead rained from the windows, the Seine became purple. Men, women, andchildren were seen flying in every direction, pursued by soldiers, whowere told that an insurrection of Protestants had broken out. No sex orage or dignity was spared, no retreat afforded a shelter, not even thechurches of the Catholics. Neither Alaric nor Attila ever inflicted suchbarbarities. No besieged city taken by assault ever saw such wantonbutcheries, except possibly Jerusalem when taken by Titus or Godfrey, or Magdeburg when taken by Tilly. And as the bright summer sunilluminated the city on a Sunday morning the massacre had but justbegun; nor for three days and three nights did the slaughter abate. Avulgar butcher appeared before the King and boasted he had slain onehundred and fifty persons with his own hand in a single night. For sevendays was Paris the scene of disgraceful murder and pillage and violence. Men might be seen stabbing little infants, and even children were knownto slaughter their companions. Nor was there any escape from theseatrocities; the very altars which had once protected Christians frompagans were polluted by Catholic executioners. Ladies jested withunfeeling mirth over the dead bodies of murdered Protestants. The veryworst horrors of which the mind could conceive were perpetrated in thename of religion. And then, when no more victims remained, the King andhis court and his clergy proceeded in solemn procession to the cathedralchurch of Notre Dame, amidst hymns of praise, to return thanks to Godfor the deliverance of France from men who had sought only the privilegeof worshipping Him according to their consciences!

Nor did the bloody work stop here; orders were sent by the Government toevery city and town of France to execute the like barbarities. The utterextermination of the Protestants was resolved upon throughout thecountry. The slaughter was begun in treachery and was continued in themost heartless cruelty. When the news of it reached Borne, the HolyFather the Pope caused a medal to be struck in commemoration of theevent, illuminated his capital, ordained general rejoicings, as if forsome signal victory over the Turks; and, assisted by his cardinals andclergy, marched in glad procession to St. Peter's Church, and offered upa solemn Te Deum for this vile and treacherous slaughter of sixtythousand Protestants. 

In former lectures I have passed rapidly and imperfectly over this awfulcrime, not wishing to stimulate passions which should be buried, andthinking it was more the fault of the age than of Catholic bigots; but Inow present it in its naked deformity, to be true to history, and toshow how cruel is religious intolerance, confirmed by the history ofother inhumanities in the Catholic Church, --by the persecution ofDominican monks, by the slaughter of the Albigenses, by inquisitions, gunpowder plots, the cruelties of Alva, and that trail of blood whichhas marked the fairest portions of Europe by the hostilities of theChurch of Borne in its struggles to suppress Protestant opinions. Imention it to recall the fact that Protestantism has never been stainedby such a crime. I mention it to invoke gratitude that such a misguidedzeal has passed away and is never likely to return. Catholic historiansdo not pretend to deny the horrid facts, but ascribe the massacre topolitical animosities rather than religious, --a lame and impotentdefence of their persecuting Church in the sixteenth century. 

But this atrocity had such a demoniacal blackness and perfidy about itthat it filled the whole Protestant world with grief and indignation, especially England, and had only the effect of binding together theHuguenots in a solid phalanx of warriors, resolved on making no peacewith their perfidious enemies until their religious liberties wereguaranteed Though decimated, they were not destroyed; for the provincialgovernors and rural magistrates generally refused to execute the royaldecrees, --their hearts were moved with pity. The slaughter was notuniversal, and Henry himself had escaped, his life being spared oncondition of his becoming a Catholic, which as a matter of form he did. 

Nevertheless, all Protestant eyes were now directed to him as theirleader, since Coligny had perished by daggers, and Condé on the field ofbattle. Henry was still a young man, only twenty years of age, but able, intrepid, and wise. He and his cousin, the younger Condé, were stillheld as hostages, while the Huguenots again rallied and retired to theirstrong fortress of La Rochelle. Their last hopes centred in thisfortress, defended by only fifteen thousand men, under the brave LaNone, while the royal army embraced the flower of the French nobility, commanded by the Dukes of Anjou and Alençon. But these royal dukes werecompelled to raise the siege, 1573, with a loss of forty thousand men. Iregard the successful defence of this fortress, at this crisis, as themost fortunate event in the whole Huguenot contest, since it enabled theHuguenots to make a stand against the whole power of the monarchs. Itdid not give them victory, but gave them a place to rally; and itproclaimed the fact that the contest would not end until the Protestantshad achieved their liberties or were utterly annihilated. 

Soon after this successful and glorious defence of La Rochelle, CharlesIX. Died, at the age of twenty-four, in awful agonies, --the victim ofremorse and partial insanity, in the hours of which the horrors of St. Bartholomew were ever present to his excited imagination, and when hebeheld wild faces of demons and murdered Huguenots rejoicing in historments, and heard strange voices consigning his name to infamy and hisbody to those never-ending physical torments in which both Catholics andProtestants equally believed. His mother however remained cold, inflexible, and unmoved, --for when a woman falls under the grip of theDevil, then no man can equal her in shamelessness and reckless sin. 

Charles IX. Was succeeded, in 1574, by his brother the King of Poland, under the name of Henry III. , who was equally under the control of hismother Catherine. 

Two years afterward the King of Navarre succeeded in making his escape, and joined the Huguenot army at Tours. He was now twenty-three. Heastonished the whole kingdom by his courage and intrepidity, --winningthe hearts of the soldiers, and uniting them by strict militarydiscipline. His friend and counsellor was Rosny, afterwards Duke ofSully, to whose wise counsels his future success may be in a greatmeasure traced. Fortunate is the prince who will listen to frank anddisagreeable advice; and that was one of the virtues of Henry, --amagnanimity which has seldom been equalled by generals. 

The Huguenots were now able to make a stand in the open country, partlyfrom additions to their numbers and partly from the mistakes andfrivolities of Henry III. , who alienated stern Catholics and his bestfriends. It was then that Bouillon, father of the illustrious Turenne, joined the standard of Henry of Navarre. Soon after this, Henry becameheir-apparent of the French throne, by the death of the Duke of Alençon, 1584. Only the King, Henry III. , a man without children, and the last ofthe male line of the house of Valois, stood between Henry of Navarre andthe throne. The possibility that he, a Protestant, might wield thesceptre of Saint Louis, his ancestor, increased the bitterness andanimosity of the Catholics. All the forces which the Government couldraise were now arrayed against him and his party. The Pope, Sixtus V. , in a papal bull, took away his hereditary rights; but fortune favoredhim. The Duke of Guise, who aspired to the throne, was himselfassassinated, as his father had been; and now, by the orders of hisjealous sovereign, his brother, the Cardinal of Guise, nephew of theCardinal of Lorraine, --a man who held three archbishoprics, sixbishoprics, and five abbeys, and these the richest in thekingdom, --shared the same fate. And Providence removed also, soon after, the most guilty and wicked of all the perpetrators of the massacre ofSt. Bartholomew, even Catherine de Médicis, --who would be regarded as afemale monster, an incarnate fiend, a Messalina, or a Fredegunda, hadshe not been beautiful, with pleasing and gracious manners, a greatfondness for society and music and poetry and art, --the mostaccomplished woman of her day, and so attractive as to be compared bythe poets of her court to Aurora and Venus. Her life only shows how muchheartlessness, cruelty, malignity, envy, and selfishness may beconcealed by the mask of beauty and agreeable manners and artisticaccomplishments. 

The bloody battle of Coutras enabled Henry of Navarre to take a standagainst the Catholics; but after the death of Henry III. Byassassination, in 1589, his struggles for the next five years were moreto secure his hereditary rights as King of France than to lead theHuguenots to victory as a religious body. It might have been better forthem had Henry remained the head of their party rather than become Kingof France, since he might not have afterwards deserted them. But therewas really no hope of the Huguenots gaining a political ascendency atany time; they composed but a third part of the nation; their only hopewas to secure their religious liberties. 

The most brilliant part of the military career of Henry IV. Was when hestruggled for his throne, supported of course by the Huguenots, andopposed by the whole Catholic party, the King of Spain, and the Pope ofRome. The Catholics, or the "Leaguers" as they were called, were led bythe Duke of Mayenne. I need not describe the successes of Henry, untilthe battle of Ivry, March 14, 1590, made him really the monarch ofFrance. On that eventful day both armies, having performed theirdevotions, were drawn out for action. Both armies knew that this battlewould be decisive; and when all the arrangements were completed, Henry, completely covered with mail except his hands and head, mounted upon agreat bay charger, galloped up and down the ranks, giving words ofencouragement to his soldiers, and assuring them that he would eitherconquer or die. "If my standard fail you, " said he, "keep my plume insight: you will always see it in the face of glory and honor. " Sosaying, he put on his helmet, adorned with three white plumes, gave theorder of battle, and, sword in hand, led the charge against the enemy. For some time the issue of the conflict was doubtful, for the forceswere about equal; but at length victory inclined to the Protestants, whobroke forth in shouts as Henry, covered with dust and blood, appeared atthe head of the pursuing squadrons. 

 "Now, God be praised, the day is ours! Mayenne hath turned his rein, D'Aumale hath cried for quarter, the Flemish count is slain. Their ranks are breaking like thin clouds before a Biscay gale; The field is heaped with bleeding steeds, and flags, and cloven mail; And then we thought on vengeance, and all along our van 'Remember St. Bartholomew' was passed from man to man. But out spake gentle Henry then: 'No Frenchman is my foe; Down, down with every foreigner, but let your brethren go!' Oh, was there ever such a knight, in friendship or in war, As our sovereign lord, King Henry, the soldier of Navarre?"

The battle of Ivry, in which the forces of the League met with acomplete overthrow, was followed by the siege of Paris, its memorabledefence, and the arrival of the Duke of Parma, which compelled Henry toretire. Though he had gained a great victory, and received greataccessions, he had to struggle four years longer, so determined were theCatholics; and he might have had to fight a still longer time for histhrone had he not taken the extraordinary resolution of abjuring hisreligion and cause. His final success was not doubtful, even as aProtestant king, since his title was undisputed; but he wearied of war. The peace of the kingdom and the security of the throne seemed to him agreater good than the triumph of the Huguenots. In that age great powerwas given to princes; he doubtless could have reigned as a Protestantprince had he persevered for a few years longer, and Protestantism wouldhave been the established religion of France, as it was of England underElizabeth. Henry as a Protestant king would have had no more enemies, ordifficulties, or embarrassments than had the Virgin Queen, who on heraccession found only one bishop willing to crown her. He had all theprestige of a conqueror, and was personally beloved, besides being a manof ability. His prime minister, Sully, was as able a man as Burleigh, and as good a Protestant; and the nation was enthusiastic. The Huguenotshad deeper convictions, and were more logical in their creed, than theEnglish Episcopalians. Leagued with England and Holland and Germany, France could have defied other Catholic powers, --could have been morepowerful politically. Protestantism would have had the ascendencyin Europe. 

But it was not to be. To the mind of the King he had nothing before himbut protracted war, unless he became a Catholic; and as all theHuguenots ever struggled for was religious toleration, he would, asking, grant this toleration, and satisfy all parties. He either had nodeep religious convictions, like Coligny and Dandelot, or he preferredan undisturbed crown to the ascendency of the religion for which he hadso bravely fought. What matter, the tempter said, whether he reigned asa Catholic or Protestant monarch, so long as religious liberty was givento his subjects? Could he have reigned forever, could he have beenassured of the toleration of his successors, this plea might have hadsome force; but it was the dictate of expediency, and no man can predictits ultimate results. He was not a religious man, although he was theleader of the Protestant party. He was far from being even moral in hissocial relations; still less had he the austerity of manners and habitsthat then characterized the Huguenots, for they were Calvinists andPresbyterians. He was gallant, brave, generous, magnanimous, andpatriotic, --the model of a gentleman, the impersonation of chivalry, thecharm of his friends, the idol of his army, the glory of his country;but there his virtues stopped. He was more of a statesman than theleader of a party. He wanted to see France united and happy andprosperous more than he wanted to see the ascendency of the Huguenots. He was now not the King of Navarre, --a small country, scarcely thirtymiles long, --but the King of France, ruling, as he aspired, from thePyrenees to the Rhine. So it is not strange that he was governed by theprinciples of expediency, as most monarchs are. He wished to aggrandizehis monarchy; that aim was dearer to him than the reformed faith. Coligny would have fought to the bitter end to secure the triumph of theProtestant cause; but Henry was not so lofty a man as the Admiral, --hehad not his religious convictions, or stern virtues, or incorruptiblelife. He was a gallant monarch, an able general, a far-reachingstatesman, yet fond of pleasure and of the glories of a court. 

So Henry made up his mind to abjure his faith. On Sunday the 25th ofJuly, 1593, clad not in helmet and cuirass and burnished steel, as atIvry, but in a doublet of white satin, and a velvet coat ornamented withjewels and orders and golden fleurs de lis, and followed by cardinalsand bishops and nobles, he entered the venerable Abbey of St. Denis, where reposed the ashes of all his predecessors, from Dagobert to HenryIII, and was received into the bosom of the Catholic Church. A solemn TeDeum was then chanted by unnumbered priests; and the lofty pillars, themarble altars, the storied effigies, the purple windows, and the vaultedroof of that mediaeval monument re-echoed to the music of those gloriousanthems which were sung ages before the most sainted of the kings ofFrance was buried in the crypt. The partisans of the Catholic faithrejoiced that a heretic had returned to the fold of true believers;while the saddened, disappointed, humiliated members of the reformedreligion felt, and confessed with shame, that their lauded protector hadcommitted the most lamentable act of apostasy since the Emperor Julianabjured Christianity. It is true they palliated his conduct and remainedfaithful to his standard; but they felt he had committed a greatblunder, if it were not a great crime. They knew that their cause waslost, --lost by him who had been their leader. Truly could they say, "Putnot your trust in princes. " To the irreligious, but worldly-wise, Henryhad made a grand stroke of policy; had gained a kingdom well worth aMass, had settled the disorders of forty years, had united bothCatholics and Protestants in fealty to his crown, and was left atleisure to develop the resources of the nation, and lay a foundation forits future greatness. 

I cannot here enumerate Henry IV. 's services to France, after the longcivil war had closed; they were very great, and endeared him to thenation. He proved himself a wise and beneficent ruler; with the aid ofthe transcendent abilities of Sully, whose counsels he respected, hereduced taxation, founded schools and libraries, built hospitals, dugcanals, repaired fortifications, restrained military license, punishedturbulence and crime, introduced useful manufactures, encouragedindustry, patronized learning, and sought to perpetuate peace. He aimedto be the father of his people, and he was the protector of the poor. His memorable saying is still dear to the hearts of Frenchmen: "I hopeso to manage my kingdom that the poorest subject of it may eat meatevery day in the week, and moreover be enabled to put a fowl into thepot every Sunday. " I should like to point out his great acts and hisenlightened policy, especially his effort to create a balance of powerin Europe. The settlement of the finances and the establishment ofvarious industries were his most beneficial acts. The taxes were reducedone half, and at his death he had fifty millions in the treasury, --agreat sum in those days, --having paid off a debt of three hundredmillions in eight years. 

These and other public services showed his humane nature and hisenlightened mind, until, after a glorious reign of twenty-one years, hewas cut off, in the prime of his life and in the midst of hisusefulness, by the assassin's dagger, May, 1610, in the fifty-eighthyear of his age, --the greatest of all the French kings, --leaving fivechildren by his second wife, Marie de Médicis, four of whom became kingsor queens. 

But to consider particularly Henry's connection with the Huguenots. Ifhe deserted their ranks, he did not forget them. He gave them religioustoleration, --all they originally claimed. In 1598 was signed thememorable edict of Nantes, by which the Protestants preserved theirchurches, their schools, their consistories, and their synods; and theyretained as a guarantee several important cities and fortresses, --a sortof _imperium in imperio_. They were made eligible to all offices. Theywere not subjected to any grievous test-act. They enjoyed social andpolitical equality, as well as unrestricted religious liberty, except incertain cities. They gained more than the Puritans did in the reign ofCharles II. They were not excluded from universities, nor degraded intheir social rank, nor annoyed by unjust burial laws. The two religionswere placed equally under the protection of the government. By thisedict the Huguenots gained all that they had struggled for. 

Still, the abjuration of Henry IV. Was a great calamity to them. Theylost their prestige; they were in a minority; they could count no longeron the leadership of princes. They were deprived gradually of thecountenance of powerful nobles and all the potent influences of fashion;and when a reaction against Calvinism took place in the seventeenthcentury, the Huguenots had dwindled to a comparatively humble body ofunimportant people. They lost heart and men of rank to defend them whenthe persecution of Richelieu overtook them in the next reign. They werethen unfit to contend successfully with that centralized monarchy ofwhich Henry IV. Had laid the foundation, and which Richelieu cemented byfraud and force. Louis XIV. , educated by the Jesuits and always undertheir influence, repealed the charter which Henry IV. Had given them. The persecution they suffered under Louis XIV. Was more dreadful thanthat they suffered under Charles IX. , since they had neither arms, nororganization, nor leaders, nor fortresses. Under the persecution of theValois princes they had Condé and the King of Navarre and Coligny forleaders; they were strong enough to fight for their liberties, --they hadenthusiasm and prestige and hope. Under the iron and centralizedgovernment of Louis XIV. They were completely defenceless, like lambsbefore wolves; they had no hopes, they could make no defence; they werean obnoxious, slandered, unimportant, unfashionable people, and theirlight had gone out. They had no religious enthusiasm even; they weresmall farmers and tradesmen and servants, and worshipped God in dingychapels. No great men arose among them, as among the Puritans ofEngland. They were still evangelical in their creed, but not earnest indefending it; so persecution wiped them out--was terribly successful. Eight hundred thousand of them perished in prisons and galleys or onscaffolds, and there was no help. 

Henry IV. , when he gave toleration to the Huguenots, never dreamed thathis successors would undo his work. Had he foreseen that concession tothe unchanged and unchangeable enemies of human freedom would have endedas it did, I believe his noble heart would have revolted from any peaceuntil he could have reigned as a Protestant king. Oh, had he struggled alittle longer for his crown, how different might have been thesubsequent history of France, and even Europe itself! How much greaterwould have been his own fame! Even had he died as the defender ofProtestant liberties, a greater glory than that of Gustavus would havebeen his forever. The immediate results of his abjuration were doubtlessbeneficial to himself, to the Huguenots, and to his country. Expediencygives great rewards; but expediency cannot control future events, --it isshort-sighted, and only for the time successful. Ask you for theultimate results of the abjuration of Henry IV. , I point to thedemolition of La Rochelle, under Richelieu, and the systematichumiliation of the Huguenots; I point to the revocation of the Edict ofNantes, by Louis XIV. , and the bitter and cruel and wholesalepersecution which followed; I point to the atrocities of the dragonnadesand the exile of the Huguenots to England and America and Holland; Ipoint to the extinction of civil and religions liberty in France, --tothe restoration of the Jesuits, --to the prevalence of religiousindifference under the guise of Roman Catholicism, until at last itthrew off the mask and defied all authority, both human and divine, andinvoked all the maddening passions of Revolution itself. 

AUTHORITIES. 

Histoire de Thou; L'Estoile; Mémoires de la Reine Marguerite; Histoirede Henri le Grand, par Madame de Genlis; Mémoires de Sully; D'Aubigné;Matthien; Brantôme's Vie de Charles IX. ; Henri Martin's History ofFrance; Mézerai; Péréfixe; Sismondi. 

GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS. 

1594-1632. 

THE THIRTY YEARS' WAR (1618-1648). 

The Thirty Years' War, of which Gustavus Adolphus was the greatest hero, was the result of those religious agitations which the ideas of Lutherproduced. It was the struggle to secure religious liberty, --a warfarebetween Catholic and Protestant Germany. It differed from the Huguenotcontest in this, --that the Protestants of France took up arms againsttheir king to extort religious privileges; whereas the Protestants ofGermany were marshalled by independent princes against other independentprinces of a different religion, who sought to suppress Protestantism. In this warfare between Catholic and Protestant States, there were greatpolitical entanglements and issues that affected the balance of power inEurope. Hence the Thirty Years' War was political as well as religious. It was not purely a religious war like the crusades, although religiousideas gave rise to it. Nor was it an insurrection of the people againsttheir rulers to secure religious rights, so much as a contest betweenCatholic and Protestant princes to secure the recognition of theirreligious opinions in their respective States. 

The Emperor of Germany in the time of Luther was Charles V. , --the mostpowerful potentate of Europe, and, moreover, a bigoted Catholic. On hisabdication, --one of the most extraordinary events in history, --theGerman dominions were given to his brother Ferdinand; Spain and the LowCountries were bestowed on his son Philip. Ferdinand had already beenelected King of the Romans. There was a close alliance between theseprinces of the House of Austria to suppress Protestantism in Europe. Thenew Austrian emperor was not, indeed, so formidable as his father hadbeen, but was still one of the greatest monarchs of Europe; and sopowerful was the House of Austria that it excited the jealousy of theother European powers. It was to prevent the dangerous ascendency ofAustria that Henry IV. Of France raised a great army with a view ofinvading Germany, but was assassinated before he could carry his schemeinto execution. He had armed France to secure what is called the"balance of power;" and it was with the view of securing this balance ofpower that Cardinal Richelieu, though a prince of the Church, took theside of the Protestants in the Thirty Years' War. This famous contestmay therefore be regarded as a civil war, dividing the German nations;as a religious war, to establish freedom of belief; and as a war toprevent the ascendency of Austria, in which a great part of Europewas involved. 

The beginning of the contest, however, was the result of religiousagitation. The ideas of Luther created universal discussion. Discussionled to animosities. All Germany was in a ferment; and the agitation wasnot confined to those States which accepted the Reformation, but toCatholic States also. The Catholic princes resolved to crush theReformation, first in their own dominions, and afterwards in the otherStates of Germany. Hence, a bloody persecution of the Protestants tookplace in all Catholic States. Their sufferings were unendurable. For awhile they submitted to the cruel lash, but at last they resolved todefend the right of worshipping God according to their consciences. Theyarmed themselves, for death seemed preferable to religious despotism. For more than fifty years after the death of Luther, Germany was thescene of commotions ending in a fiery persecution. At that time Germanywas in advance of the rest of Europe in wealth and intelligence; theProtestants especially were kindled to an enthusiasm, pertaining totheological questions, which we in these times can but feebly realize;and the Germans were doubtless the most earnest and religious people inEurope. In those days there was neither religious indifference norscepticism nor rationalism. The faith of the people was simple, and theywere resolved to maintain it at any cost. But there were religiousparties and asperities, even among the Protestants. The Lutherans wouldnot unite with the Calvinists, and the Calvinists would not accede tothe demands of the Lutherans. 

After a series of struggles with the Catholics, the Lutherans succeeded, by the treaty of Augsburg (1555), in securing toleration; and thistoleration lasted during the reigns of Ferdinand I. And Maximilian II. Indeed, Germany enjoyed tranquillity until the reign of Matthias, in1612. This usurping emperor, who had delivered Germany from the Turks, abolished in his dominions the Protestant religion, so far as edicts andpersecution could deprive the Protestants of their religious liberties. Matthias died in 1619, and was succeeded by Ferdinand II. , a bigotedprince, who had been educated by the Jesuits. This emperor was aninveterate enemy of the Protestants. He forbade their meetings, deprivedthem even of civil privileges, pulled down their churches and schools, erected scaffolds in every village, appointed only Catholic magistrates, and inflicted unsparing cruelties on all who seceded from theCatholic church. 

It was under this Austrian emperor, seventy-three years from the deathof Luther, that the first act of the bloody tragedy which I am todescribe was opened by an insurrection in Bohemia, one of the hereditarypossessions of the House of Austria. 

In this kingdom, isolated from the rest of Germany, separated on everyside from adjoining States by high mountains of volcanic origin, peopledwith the descendants of the ancient Sclavonians, who were characterizedby impulse and impetuosity, the reformed doctrines had taken a powerfulhold of the affections and convictions of the people. The followers ofJohn Huss and Jerome of Prague were something like the Lollards ofEngland, in their spirit and sincerity. But they were persecuted bytheir Catholic rulers with a rigor and cruelty never seen among theLollards; for Ferdinand II. Was the hereditary king of Bohemia as wellas emperor of Germany. 

At last his tyranny and cruelties became unendurable, and in a violentburst of passionate indignation his deputies were thrown out of thewindows of the chamber of the Council of Regency at Prague. This act ofviolence was the signal of a general revolt, not in Bohemia merely, butin Silesia, Moravia, Hungary, and Austria. The celebrated CountMansfeld, a soldier of fortune, with only four thousand troops, dared todefy the whole imperial power; and for a while he was successful. TheBohemians renounced their allegiance to Ferdinand, and chose for theirking Frederick V. , --Elector Palatine of the Rhine, son-in-law of JamesI. Of England, and head of the Protestant party in Germany. He unwiselyabandoned his electoral palace at Heidelberg, to grasp the royal sceptreat Prague. But he was no match for the Austrian emperor, who, summoningfrom every quarter the allies and adherents of imperial power, andmaking peace with other enemies, poured into Bohemia such overwhelmingforces under Maximilian, Duke of Bavaria, that his authority wasestablished more firmly than before. The battle of Prague (1620) decidedthe fate of Bohemia, and the Elector Palatine became a fugitive, and hispossessions were given to the Duke of Bavaria. 

Then followed a persecution which has had no parallel since theslaughter of the Albigenses and the massacre of St. Bartholomew. Theunhappy kingdom of Bohemia was abandoned to inquisitions and executions;all liberties were suppressed, the nobles were decimated, ministers andteachers were burned or beheaded, and Protestants of every rank, age, and condition were prohibited from acting as guardians to children, ormaking wills, or contracting marriages with Catholics, or holding anyoffice of trust and emolument. They were outlawed as felons, anddisfranchised as infidels. The halls of justice were deserted, the Musesaccompanied the learned in their melancholy flight, and all thatremained of Bohemian gallantry and heroism forsook the land. Strange tosay, the land of Huss and Jerome became henceforth the strongest hold ofAustrian despotism and papal superstition. 

This is one of those instances where persecution proved successful. Itis a hackneyed saying that "the blood of martyrs is the seed of theChurch;" and it is true that lofty virtues have been generally developedby self-sacrifice and martyrdom, and that only through great tribulationhave permanent blessings been secured. The Hollanders, by inundatingtheir fields and fighting literally to the "last ditch, " preserved theirliberties and secured ultimate prosperity. The fires of Smithfield didnot destroy the reformed religion in England in the time of Mary, andthe jails and judicial murders of later and better times did not preventthe progress of popular rights, or the extension of Puritanism in thewilds of the American continent. But in the history of society theinstances are unfortunately numerous when bigotry and despotism havekindled their infernal fires and erected their bloody scaffolds, not topurify the Church and nourish the principles of Christian progress, butto destroy what is good as well as what is evil. What availed thestruggles of the Waldenses in the Middle Ages? Who came to the rescue ofSavonarola when he attempted to reform the lives of degenerateFlorentines? What beneficial effects resulted ultimately from theInquisition in Spain? How was the revocation of the edict of Nantesoverruled for the good of the Huguenots of France?

And yet the unfortunate suppression of religious liberty in Bohemia, andthe sufferings of those who came to her rescue, especially themisfortunes of the Elector Palatine, arrayed the Protestant princes ofGermany against the Emperor, and created general indignation throughoutEurope. Austria became more than ever a hated and dreaded power, notmerely to the States of Sweden, Denmark, Holland, and England, but toCatholic France herself, then ruled by that able and ambitious statesmanCardinal Richelieu, before whose tomb in an after age the czar Peterbowed in earnest homage from the recollection and admiration of histranscendent labors in behalf of absolutism. Even Richelieu, a prince ofthe Church and the persecutor of the Huguenots, was alarmed at theencroachments of Austria, and intrigued with Protestant princes toundermine her dangerous ascendency. 

Then opened the second act of the bloody drama of the seventeenthcentury, when the allied Protestant princes of Germany, assisted by theEnglish and the Dutch, rallied under the leadership of Christian, Kingof Denmark, and resolved to recover what they had lost; while BethlenGabor, a Transylvanian prince, at the head of an army of robbers, invaded Hungary and Austria. The Emperor, straitened in his finances, was in no condition to meet this powerful confederacy, although theillustrious Tilly was the commander of his forces. 

But the demon of despotism, who never sleeps, raised up to hisassistance a great military genius. This was Wallenstein, Duke ofFriedland, the richest noble in Bohemia. The person whom he mostresembled, in that age of struggle and contending forces, when despotismsought unscrupulous agents, was Thomas Wentworth, Earl ofStrafford, --the right hand of Charles I. , in his warfare against theliberties of England. Like Stratford, he was an apostate from theprinciples in which he had been educated; like him, he had arisen from acomparatively humble station; like him, his talents were as commandingas his ambition, --devoted first to his own exaltation; and, secondly, tothe cause of absolutism, with which he sympathized with all theintensity that a proud and domineering spirit may be supposed to feelfor the struggles of inexperienced democracy. Like the Englishstatesman, the German general was a Jesuit in the use of tools, jealousof his authority, liberal in his rewards, and fearful in his vengeance. Though greedy of admiration and fond of display, he surrounded himselfwith mystery and gloom. Like Strafford, he was commanding in his person, dignified, reserved, and sullen; with an eye piercing and melancholy, abrow lowering with thought and care, and a lip compressed intodetermination and twisted into a smile of ironical disdain. 

This nobleman had fought with distinction as a colonel at the battle ofPrague, when Bohemian liberties had been prostrated, and had signallydistinguished himself in his infamous crusade against his owncountrymen. He offered, at his own expense, to raise and equip an armyof fifty thousand men in the service of the Emperor; but demanded as acondition, that he should have the appointment of all his officers, andthe privilege of enriching himself and army from the spoils andconfiscations of conquered territories. These terms were extraordinaryand humiliating to an absolute sovereign, yet, at the crisis in whichFerdinand was placed, they were too tempting to be refused. 

Wallenstein fulfilled his promises, and raised in an incredibly shorttime an immense army, composed of outlaws and robbers and adventurersfrom all nations. He advanced rapidly against the allied Protestantforces, levying enormous contributions wherever he appeared; asimperious to friends as to foes, mistrusted and feared by both, yetsupremely indifferent to praise or censure; resting on the power ofbrute force and his ability to enrich his soldiers. Possessing a finemilitary genius, unbounded means, and unscrupulous rapacity, andassisted by such generals as Tilly, Pappenheim, and Piccolomini, seconded by Maximilian, Duke of Bavaria, he soon reduced his enemies todespair. The King of Denmark was unequal to the contest, and sued forpeace. The Elector Frederic again became a fugitive, the Duke ofBrunswick was killed, and the intrepid Mansfeld died. The Electors ofSaxony and Brandenburg, the natural defenders of Protestantism and theleading princes of the league, were awed into an abject neutrality. Theold protectors of Lutheranism were timid and despairing. The monarchs ofEurope trembled. Germany lay prostrate and bleeding. Christendom stoodaghast at the greatness of the calamities which afflicted Germany andthreatened neighboring nations. 

But the Emperor at Vienna was overjoyed, and swelled with arrogance andtriumph. He divided among the members of his imperial house the richbenefices of the Church, and bestowed upon his victorious general therevenues of provinces. He now resolved to pursue the King of Denmarkinto his remotest territories, to dethrone the King of Sweden, to giveaway the crown of Poland, to aid the Spaniards in the recovery of theUnited Provinces, to exterminate the Protestant religion, to subvert theliberties of the German nations, and reign as a terrible incarnation ofimperial tyranny. He would even revive the dreams of Charlemagne andCharles V. , and make Vienna the centre of that power which once emanatedfrom Borne. He would ally himself more strongly with the Pope, andextend the double tyranny of priests and kings over the whole continentof Europe. Fines, imprisonments, tortures, banishments, and executionswere now added to the desolations which one hundred and fifty thousandsoldiers inflicted on villages and cities that had been for generationsincreasing in wealth and prosperity. 

In that dark hour of calamity and fears, Providence raised up a greaterhero than Wallenstein, a noble protector and intrepid deliverer, evenGustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden; and the third act of the politicaltragedy opens with his brilliant career. 

Carlyle has somewhere said: "Is not every genius an impossibility untilhe appear?" This is singularly true of Gustavus Adolphus. It was thelast thing for contemporaries to conjecture that the deliverer ofGermany, and the great hero of the Thirty Years' War, would have arisenin the ice-bound regions of northern Europe. No great character hadarisen in Sweden of exalted fame, neither king nor poet, norphilosopher, nor even singer. The little kingdom, to all appearance, wasrich only in mines of iron and hills of snow. It was not till the middleof the sixteenth century that Sweden was even delivered from basedependence on Denmark. 

But Gustavus before he was thirty-five years of age had made hiscountrymen a nation of soldiers; had freed his kingdom from Danish, Russian, and Polish enemies; had made great improvements in the art ofwar, having introduced a new system of tactics never materially improvedexcept by Frederic II. ; had reduced strategy to a science; had raisedthe importance of the infantry, had increased the strictness of militarydiscipline, had trained up a band of able generals, and inspired hissoldiers with unbounded enthusiasm. 

And he had raised in the camp a new tone of moral feeling. Not evenCromwell equalled him in divesting war of its customary atrocities, andkeeping alive the spirit of religion. The worship of God formed one ofthe most important duties of the Swedish army wherever located. "Twiceevery day the roll of the drum assembled the soldiers to prayer. Theusual vices of soldiers, like profanity and drunkenness and gambling, were uniformly punished. Death was inflicted on any soldier whoassaulted a citizen in his house. Even a certificate was required of thechief citizens of any place where troops were quartered, that theirconduct had been orderly. He never allowed, under any provocation, acity to be taken by assault, --a striking contrast to the imperialgenerals. "

Nor amid the toils and dangers of war was Gustavus unmindful of hisduties as a king. He was one of the most enlightened statesmen that hadappeared since Charlemagne and Alfred. He established schools andcolleges, founded libraries, reformed the codes of law, introduced wisemercantile regulations, rewarded eminent merit, respected the voice ofexperience, and developed the industries of the country. What Richelieuand Colbert did for France, what Burleigh and Cromwell did for England, Gustavus did for Sweden. His prime minister is illustrious for wisdomand ability, the celebrated Oxenstiern, through whose labors and geniusthe country felt no impoverishment from war. He laid the foundation ofthat prosperity which made a little kingdom great. 

But all his excellences as a general, a statesman, and a ruler paledbefore the exalted virtues of his private life. His urbanity, hisgentleness, his modesty, his meekness, his simplicity, and his love wonall hearts, and have never been exceeded except by Alfred the Great. Hewas a Saint Louis on a throne, in marked contrast with the suspicion, duplicity, roughness, and egotism of Oliver Cromwell, --the only othergreat man of the century who equalled Gustavus in the value of publicservices and enlightened mind. It is not often that Christian graces andvirtues are developed amid the tumults of war. David lost nothing of hispious fervor and reliance on God when pursuing the Philistines, norMarcus Aurelius when fighting barbarians on the frozen Danube. Theperils and vicissitudes of war, with the momentous interests involved, made Lincoln shine, amid all his jokes, a firm believer in theoverruling power that Napoleon failed to see. And so of Washington: hewas a better man and firmer Christian from the responsibilities thatwere thrust upon him. Not so with Frederic the Great, and the marshalsof Louis XIV. , with the exception of Turenne: war seemed rather todevelop their worst qualities. It usually makes a man unscrupulous, hard, and arrogant. Military life is anything but interesting in theusual bearing of Prussian officers. In our own Revolutionary war, generals developed pride and avarice and jealousy. War turned Tilly intoa fiend. How cold and sullen and selfish it made Napoleon! How graspingand greedy it made Marlborough! How unscrupulous it made Clive andHastings! How stubborn and proud it made Wellington! How vain andpompous it made Scott! How overbearing it made Belle-Isle and Villars!How reckless and hard it made Ney and Murat! The dangers and miseries ofwar develop sternness, hardness, and indifference to suffering. It isviolence; and violence does not naturally produce the peaceful virtues. It produces courage, indeed, but physical rather than moral, --least ofall, that spiritual courage which makes martyrs and saints. It makesboon companions, not friends. It gives exaggerated ideas ofself-importance. It exalts the outward and material, not the spiritualand the real. The very tread of a military veteran is stately, proud, and conscious, --like that of a procession of cardinals, or ofrailway kings. 

So that when a man inured to camps and battles shines in the modestunconsciousness of a Christian gentleman or meditative sage, we feelunusual reverence for him. We feel that his soul is unpolluted, and thathe is superior to ordinary temptations. 

And nothing in war develops the greatness of the higher qualities ofheart and soul but the sacredness of a great cause. This takes a man outof himself, and binds his soul to God. He learns to feel that he ismerely an instrument of Almighty power. It was the sacredness of a greatcause that shed such a lustre on the character of Washington. Howunimpressible the victories of Charlemagne, disconnected with that workof civilization which he was sent into the world to reconstruct! Howdevoid of interest and grandeur were the battles of Marston Moor andWorcester, without reference to those principles of religious libertywhich warmed the soul of Cromwell! The conflicts of Bunker Hill andPrinceton were insignificant when compared with the mighty array offorces at Blenheim or Austerlitz; but when associated with ideas ofAmerican independence, and the extension of American greatness from theAtlantic to the Pacific, their sublime results are impressed upon themind with ever-increasing power. Even French soldiers have seldom beenvictorious unless inspired by ideas of liberty or patriotism. It is everthe majesty of a cause which makes not only great generals but good men. And it was the greatness of the cause with which Gustavus Adolphus wasidentified that gave to his character such moral beauty, --that samebeauty which exalted William the Silent and William of Orange amid thedisasters of their country, and made them eternally popular. After all, the permanent idols of popular idolatry are not the intellectuallygreat, but the morally beautiful, --and all the more attractive whentheir moral excellence is in strong contrast with the prevailing vicesof contemporaries. It was the moral greatness of Gustavus which hasgiven to him his truest fame. Great was he as a military genius, butgreater still as a benefactor of oppressed peoples. 

Surely it was no common hero who armed himself for the deliverance ofGermany, which prostrate and bleeding held out her arms to be rescuedfrom political degradation, and for the preservation of liberties dearerto good men than life itself. All Protestant Europe responded to thecry; for great interests were now at stake, not in Germany merely, butin the neighboring nations. It was to deliver his Lutheran brethren indanger of extermination, and to raise a barrier against the overwhelmingpower of Austria, that Gustavus Adolphus lent his armies to theProtestant princes of Germany. Other motives may have entered into hismind; his pride had been piqued by the refusal of the Emperor Ferdinandto acknowledge his title as King; his dignity was wounded by thecontemptuous insolence shown to this ambassadors; his fears were excitedthat Austria might seek to deprive him of his throne. The imperialarmies had already conquered Holstein and Jutland, --provinces thatbelonged to Sweden. Unless Austria were humbled, Sweden would be ruined. Gustavus embarked in the war against Austria, as William III. Afterwardsdid against Louis XIV. Wars to preserve the "balance of power" have notgenerally been deemed offensive, when any power has become inordinatelyaggrandized. Pitt opposed Napoleon, to rescue Europe fromuniversal monarchy. 

So Gustavus, deeply persuaded of the duties laid upon him, assembledtogether the deputies of his kingdom, --the representatives of the threeestates, --and explained to them his intentions and motives. "I know, "said he, "the dangers I am about to encounter; I know that it isprobable I shall never return; I feel convinced that my life willterminate on the field of battle. Let no one imagine that I am actuatedby private feelings or fondness for war. My object is to set bounds tothe increasing power of a dangerous empire before all resistance becomesimpossible. Your children will not bless your memory if, instead ofcivil and religious freedom, you bequeath to them the superstitions ofmonks and the double tyranny of popes and emperors. We must prevent thesubjugation of the Continent before we are reduced to depend upon anarrow sea as the only safeguard of our liberties; for it is delusion tosuppose that a mighty empire will not be able to raise fleets, if oncefirmly established on the shores of the ocean. " Then taking his infantdaughter Christiana in his arms, he recommended her to the protection ofthe nation, and bade adieu to the several orders of the State. Amidtheir tears and sobs, he invoked upon them and his enterprise theblessing of Almighty God. Then, hastening his preparations, he embarkedhis forces for the deliverance of Germany. It was on the 24th of June, 1630, just one hundred years after the confession of Augsburg, thatGustavus Adolphus landed on the German soil. 

If ever the ruler of a nation is to be justified for going to war whenhis country is not actually invaded, it was doubtless Gustavus Adolphus. Had he withheld his aid, the probability is that all Germany would havesuccumbed to the Austrian emperor, and have been incorporated with hisempire; and not only Germany, but Denmark and Sweden. The Protestantreligion would have been suppressed in northern Germany, as it was inFrance by Louis XIV. There would have been no Protestant country inEurope, but England, and perhaps Holland. A united German Empire, withthe restoration of the Catholic religion, would have been a mostdangerous power, --much more so than at the present day. Some there are, doubtless, who would condemn Gustavus for the invasion of Germany, andthink he ought to have stayed at home and let his unfortunate neighborstake care of themselves the best way they could. Perhaps the peacesocieties would take this ground, and the apostles of thrift andmaterial prosperity. But I confess, when I see a man like the King ofSweden, with all the temptations of luxury and ease, encountering allsorts of perils and fatigues, --yea, offering up his life in battle inorder to emancipate suffering humanity, --then every generous impulse andevery dictate of enlightened reason urge me to add my praises with thoseof past generations in honor of such exalted heroism. 

According to the authors of those times, signs and prodigies appeared, to warn mankind of the sanguinary struggle which was now to take place. "In the dead of night, on wild heaths, in solitary valleys, the clang ofarms was heard. Armies were seen encountering each other in the heavens, marshalled by aërial leaders, while monstrous births, mock suns, andshowers of fire filled the minds of the superstitious with fear anddread. It would be puerile to believe these statements, yet if thestupendous framework of external nature ever could exhibit sympathy withthe brief calamities of man, it may well be supposed to have beendisplayed when one of the fairest portions of the earth was again to beravaged with fire and sword; and when the melancholy lesson, so oftenexemplified before, was to receive still further confirmation, --that ofall the evils with which Divine wisdom permits this world to be visited, none can be compared to those which the wrath of man is so often eagerto inflict upon his fellows. "

I need not detail the various campaigns of the Swedish hero, hismarchings and counter-marchings, his sieges and battles and victories, until the power of Austria was humbled and northern Germany wasdelivered. The history of all war is the same. There is no varietyexcept to the eye of a military man. Military history is a dreary recordof dangers, sufferings, mistakes, and crimes; occasionally it isrelieved by brilliant feats of courage and genius, which createenthusiastic admiration, but generally it is monotonous. It has butlittle interest except to contemporaries. Who now reads the details ofour last great war? Who has not almost forgotten the names of itsordinary generals? How sickening the description of the Crusades! Themind cannot dwell on the conflagrations, the massacres, the starvations, the desolations, of an invaded country. Few even read a description ofthe famous battles of the world, which decided the fate of nations. Whenbattles and marches are actually taking place, and all is uncertainty, then there is a vivid curiosity to learn immediate results; but whenwars are ended, we forget the intense excitements which we may have feltwhen they were taking place. We gaze with eager interest on a game offootball, but when it is ended we care but little for the victors. It isonly when the remote consequences of great wars are traced byphilosophical historians, revealing the ways of Providence, retribution, and eternal justice, that interest is enkindled. No book to me is moredreary and uninteresting than the campaigns of Frederic II. , thoughpainted by the hand of one of the greatest masters of modern times. Eveninterest in the details of the battles of Napoleon is absorbed in theinterest we feel in the man, --how he was driven hither and thither bythe Providence he ignored, and made to point a moral to an immortaltale. All we care about the histories of wars is the general results, and the principles to be deduced as they bear on the cause ofcivilization. 

It was fortunate for the fame and the cause of Gustavus that at the veryoutset of his career, when he landed in Pomerania, with his small armyof twenty thousand men, the Emperor had been prevailed upon by apressure he could not resist, and the intrigues of all the Germanprinces, to dispense with the services of Wallenstein. Spain, France, Bavaria, --the whole Electoral College, Catholic as well asProtestant, --clamored for the discharge of the most unscrupulous generalof modern times. He was detested and feared by everybody. Humanity shedtears over his exactions and cruelties, while general fears were arousedthat his influence was dangerous to the public peace. Most peoplesupposed that the war was virtually ended, and that he was therefore nolonger needed. 

Loath was Ferdinand to part with the man to whom he was indebted for theestablishment of his throne; and it seems he was also personallyattached to him. Long did he resist expostulations and threats. He feltas poor Ganganelli felt when called upon by the Bourbon courts of Europeto annul the charter of the Jesuits. Wallenstein would probably havebeen retained by Ferdinand, had this been possible; but the Emperor wasforced to yield to overwhelming importunities. So the dismissal of thegeneral was decreed at the diet of Worms, and a messenger of the Emperordelivered to the haughty victor the decree of his sovereign. 

Wallenstein was then at the head of one hundred thousand men. Would heobey the order? Would he retire to private life? Ambitious andunscrupulous as he was, he knew that no one, however powerful, couldresist an authority universally conceded to be supreme and legitimate. It was like the recall of a proconsul by the Roman Emperor and Senate:he could resist for a time, but resistance meant ultimate ruin. He alsoknew that he would be recalled, for he was necessary to the Emperor. Heanticipated the successes of Gustavus. He was not prepared to be atraitor. He would wait his time. 

So he resigned his command without a moment's hesitation, and withapparent cheerfulness. He even loaded the messenger with costly gifts. He appeared happy to be relieved from labor and responsibility, andretired at once to his vast Bohemian estates to pursue his favoritestudies in the science of the stars, to enshroud himself in mystery andgloom, and dazzle his countrymen by the splendor of his life. "His tablewas never furnished with less than one hundred covers; none but a nobleof ancient family was intrusted with the office of superintending hishousehold; an armed guard of fifty men waited in his antechamber; theramparts of his castle were lined with sentinels; six barons and as manyknights constantly attended on his person; sixty pages were trained andsupported in his palace, which was decorated with all the wonders ofart, and almost realized the fictions of Eastern luxury. " In thissplendid retirement Wallenstein brooded on his wrongs, and waited forthe future. 

The dismissal of this able general was a great mistake on the part ofthe Emperor. There were left no generals capable of opposing Gustavus. The supreme command had devolved on Tilly, able but bigoted, and bestknown for his remorseless cruelty when Magdeburg was taken byassault, --the direst tragedy of the war. This city was one of the firstto welcome the invasion of the King of Sweden, and also to adopt theProtestant religion. It was the most prosperous city in northernGermany; one of the richest and most populous. Against this mercantilefortress Tilly directed all his energies, for he detested the spirit ofits people. It was closely invested by the imperial troops, and fellbefore Gustavus could advance to relieve it. It was neglected by theelectors of Saxony and Brandenburg, who were timid and pusillanimous, and it was lulled into false security by its strong position anddefences. Not sufficient preparation for defence had been made by thecitizens, who trusted to its strong walls, and knew that Gustavus wasadvancing to relieve it. But unexpectedly it was assaulted in the mostdaring and desperate manner, and all was lost. On a Sabbath morning, thesudden toll of alarm bells, the roar of artillery, the roll of drumsbeating to quarter, and the piercing cries of women and children, mingled with the shouts and execrations of brutal and victorioussoldiers, announced the fate of Magdeburg. Forty thousand people--men, women, and children--were inhumanly butchered, without necessity, quarter, compassion, or remorse. So cold and hard is war! This was thesaddest massacre in the history of Germany, and one of the greatestcrimes that a successful general ever committed. History has nolanguage, and painting no colors to depict the horrors of that dreadfulscene; and the interval of more than two hundred years has not weakenedthe impression of its horrors. The sack of Magdeburg stands out in theannals of war like the siege of Tyre and the fall of Jerusalem. 

But it roused the Protestants as from a trance. It united them, as themassacre of St. Bartholomew united the Huguenots. They marched under thestandard of Gustavus with the same enthusiasm that the Huguenots showedunder Henry IV. At the battle of Ivry. There was now no limit to thesuccesses of the heroic Swede. The decisive battle of Leipsic, thepassage of the Lech, the defence of Nuremberg, and the great finalvictory at Lutzen raised the military fame of Gustavus to a heightunknown since Hannibal led his armies over the Alps, or Caesarencountered the patrician hosts at the battle of Pharsalia. No victorieswere ever more brilliant than his; and they not only gave him adeathless fame, but broke forever the Austrian fetters. His reputationas a general was fairly earned. He ranks with Condé, Henry IV. , Fredericthe Great, Marlborough, and Wellington; not, perhaps, with Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon, --those phenomena of military genius, the exaltedtrio who shine amid the glories of the battlefield, as Homer, Dante, andShakspeare loom up in fame above other immortal poets. 

In two years from the landing of Gustavus Adolphus on the island ofRuden, near the southern extremity of the Baltic, he expelled atriumphant enemy from Pomerania, traversed the banks of the Oder, overran the Duchy of Mecklenburg, ascended the Elbe, delivered Saxonyfrom the armies of Tilly, crossed the Thuringian forest, enteredFrankfort in triumph, restored the Palatinate to its lawful sovereign, took possession of some of the strongest fortresses on the Rhine, overran Bavaria, occupied its capital, crossed the Danube, and thenreturned to Saxony, to offer up his life on the plains of Lutzen. There, on that memorable battlefield, where the descending sun of victory inlater times shed a delusive gleam on the eagles of Napoleon before hisirremediable ruin, did Gustavus encounter the great antagonist of Germanliberties, whom the necessities of the Emperor had summoned fromretirement. Wallenstein once more commanded the imperial armies, butonly on conditions which made him virtually independent of his master. He was generalissimo, with almost unlimited authority, so long as thewar should last; and the Emperor agreed to remove neither the generalhimself nor his officers, and gave him principalities and spoilsindefinitely. He was the most powerful subject in Europe, and thegreatest general next to Gustavus. I read of no French or Englishgeneral who has been armed with such authority. Cromwell and Napoleontook it; it was not conferred by legitimate and supreme power. HadWallenstein been successful to the end, he might have grasped theimperial sceptre. Had Gustavus lived, he might have been the dictatorof Germany. 

Impatient were both commanders to engage in the contest which each knewwould be decisive. Long did they wait for opportunities. At last, on the16th of November, 1632, the defenders and the foes of German libertiesarrayed themselves for the great final encounter. The Protestants gainedthe day, but Gustavus fell, exclaiming to the murderous soldiers whodemanded his name and quality, "I am the King of Sweden! And I seal thisday, with my blood, the liberties and religion of the German nation. "

The death of Gustavus Adolphus in the hour of victory was a shock whichcame upon the allies like the loss of the dearest friend. The victoryseemed too dearly purchased. The greatest protector which Protestantismever knew had perished, as he himself predicted. Pappenheim, the bravestof the Austrian generals, also perished; and with him, the flower ofWallenstein's army. Schiller thinks that Gustavus died fortunately forhis fame; that had he survived the decisive battle of Lutzen, he notonly could have dictated terms to the Emperor, but might have yielded tothe almost irresistible temptation of giving laws to the countries hehad emancipated. But he did not live to be tried. That rarest of alltrials was reserved alone for our Washington to pass throughtriumphantly, --to set an example to all countries and ages of thesuperiority of moral to intellectual excellence. Gustavus might havetriumphed like Washington, and he might have yielded like Cromwell. Wedo not know. This only we know, --that he was not merely the great heroof the Thirty Years' War, but one of the best men who ever wore a crown;that he conferred on the Protestants and on civilization an immortal andinestimable service, and that he is to be regarded as one of the greatbenefactors of the world. 

The Thirty Years' War loses its dramatic interest after the battle ofLutzen. The final issue was settled, although the war was carried onsixteen years longer. It was not till 1648 that the peace of Westphaliawas signed, which guaranteed the liberties of Germany, and establishedthe balance of power. That famous treaty has also been made thefoundation of all subsequent treaties between the European nations, andcreated an era in modern history. It took place after the death ofRichelieu, when Mazarin ruled France in the name of Louis XIV. , andwhen Charles I. Was in the hands of Cromwell. 

With the death of Gustavus we also partially lose sight of Wallenstein. He never afterwards gained victories commensurate with his reputation. He remained, after the battle of Lutzen, unaccountably inactive inBohemia. But if his military fame was tarnished, his pride and powerremained. His military exactions became unendurable, and it is probablehe was a traitor. So unpopular did he become, and so suspicious was theEmperor, who lost confidence in him, that he was assassinated by theorder of his sovereign. He was too formidable to be removed in any otherway. He probably deserved his fate. Although it was difficult to bringthis great culprit to justice, yet his death is a lesson to traitors. "There are many ways, " said Cicero, "in which a man may die, "--referringto the august usurper of the Roman world. 

I will not dwell on the sixteen remaining years of the Thirty Years'War. It is too horrible a picture to paint. The desolation and miserywhich overwhelmed Germany were most frightful and revolting. The war wascarried on without system or genius. "Expeditions were undertakenapparently with no other view than to desolate hostile provinces, tillin the end provisions and winter quarters formed the principal object ofthe summer campaigns. " "Disease, famine, and want of discipline sweptaway whole armies before they had seen an enemy. " Soldiers deserted theranks, and became roving banditti. Law and justice entirely vanishedfrom the land. Germany, it is asserted by Mitchell, lost probably twelvemillions of people. Before the war, the population was sixteen millions;at the close of the war, it had dwindled to four millions. The city ofAugsburg at one time had eighty thousand inhabitants; at the close ofthe war, it had only eighteen thousand. "No less than thirty thousandvillages and hamlets were destroyed. Peaceful peasants were hunted formere sport, like the beasts of the forest. Citizens were nailed up andfired at like targets. Women were collected into bands, driven likeslaves into camp, and exposed to indignities worse than death. Thefields were allowed to run waste, and forests sprung up and coveredentire districts which before the war had been under full cultivation. "Amid these scenes of misery and ruin, vices were more marked thancalamities. They were carried to the utmost pitch of vulgarity. BothAustrian and Swedish generals were often so much intoxicated, for daystogether, as to be incapable of service. Never was a war attended by somany horrors. Never was crime more general and disgusting. So terriblewere the desolations, that it took Germany one hundred years to recoverfrom her losses. It never recovered the morality and religion whichexisted in the time of Luther. That war retarded civilization in all thecountries where it raged. It was a moral and physical conflagration. 

But there is a God in this world, and the evils were overruled. It iscertain that Protestantism was rescued from extermination on thecontinent of Europe. It is clear also that a barrier was erected againstthe aggressions of Austria. The Catholic and the Protestant religionswere left unmolested in the countries where they prevailed, and allreligious sects were tolerated. Religious toleration, since the ThirtyYears' War, has been the boast and glory of Germany. 

We should feel a sickening melancholy if something for the ultimate goodof the world were not to come from such disasters as filled Germany withgrief and indignation for a whole generation; for the immediate effectsof the Thirty Years' War were more disastrous than those of any war Ihave read of in the history of Europe since the fall of the RomanEmpire. In the civil wars of France and England, cities and villageswere generally spared. Civilization in those countries has scarcely everbeen retarded for more than a generation; but it was put back in Germanyfor a century. Yet the enormous sacrifice of life and property wouldseem to show the high value which Providence places on the great rightsof mankind, in comparison with material prosperity or the lives of men. What is spiritual is permanent; what is material is transient. Theearly history of Christianity is the history of martyrdom. Five millionsof Crusaders perished, that Europe might learn liberality of mind. Ittook one hundred years of contention and two revolutions to securereligious toleration in England. France passed through awful politicalhurricanes, in order that feudal injustice might be removed. In likemanner, twelve millions of people perished in Germany, that despotismmight be rebuked. 

Fain would we believe that what little was gained proved a savor of lifeunto life; that seeds of progress were planted in that unhappy countrywhich after a lapse of one hundred years would germinate and develop ahigher civilization. What a great Protestant power has arisen innorthern Germany to awe and keep in check not Catholicism merely, butsuch a hyperborean giant as Russia in its daring encroachments. But forPrussia, Russia might have extended her conquests to the south as wellas to the west. But for the Thirty Years' War, no such empire as Prussiawould have been probable, or perhaps possible. But for that dreadfulcontest, there might have been to-day only the Catholic religion amongthe descendants of the Teutonic barbarians on the continent of Europe. But for that war, the Austrian Empire might have retained a politicalascendency in Europe until the French Revolution; and such countries asSweden and Denmark might have been absorbed in it, as well as Saxony, Brandenburg, and Hanover. What a terrible thing for Germany would havebeen the unbroken and iron despotism of Austria, extending its Briareanarms into every corner of Europe where the German language is spoken!What a blow such a despotism would have been to science, literature, andphilosophy! Would Catholic Austria, supreme in Germany, have establishedschools, or rewarded literary men? The Jesuits would have flourished andtriumphed from Pomerania to Wallachia; from the Baltic to the Danube. 

It may have taken one hundred years for Germany to rally after suchmiseries and disasters as I have had time only to allude to, and notfully to describe; but see how gloriously that country has at lastarisen above all misfortunes! Why may we not predict a noble future forso brave and honest a people, --the true descendants of those Teutonicconquerers to whom God gave, nearly two thousand years ago, thepossessions and the lands of the ancient races who had not what theGermans had, --a soul; the soul which hopes, and the soul which conquers?The Thirty Years' War proved that liberty is not a dream, nor truth adefeated power. Liberty cannot be extinguished among such peoples, though "oceans may overwhelm it and mountains may press it down. " It isthe boon of one hundred generations, the water of life distilled fromthe tears of unnumbered millions, --the precious legacy of heroes andmartyrs, who in different nations and in different ages, inspired by thecontemplation of its sublime reality, counted not their lives dear untothem, if by the sacrifice of life this priceless blessing could betransmitted to posterity. 

AUTHORITIES. 

Hallenberg's History of Gustavus Adolphus; Fryxell's History of Sweden, translated by Mary Howitt; Dreysen's Life of Gustavus Adolphus; S. R. Gardiner's Thirty Years' War; Schiller's Thirty Years' War; Schiller'sWallenstein, translated by Coleridge; Dr. Foster's Life of Wallenstein;Colonel Mitchell's Life of Gustavus Adolphus; Lord F. Egerton's Life andLetters of Wallenstein; Chapman's History of Gustavus Adolphus;Biographie Universelle; Article in Encyclopaedia Britannica on Sweden;R. C. Trench's Social Aspects of the Thirty Years' War; Heydenreich'sLife of Gustavus Adolphus. 

CARDINAL DE RICHELIEU. 

A. D. 1585-1642. 

ABSOLUTISM. 

Cardinal de Richelieu is an illustration of what can be done for theprosperity and elevation of a country by a man whom we personally abhor, and whose character is stained by glaring defects and vices. If therewas a statesman in French history who was pre-eminently unscrupulous, selfish, tyrannical, and cruel, that statesman was the able and wilypriest who ruled France during the latter years of Louis XIII. And yetit would be difficult to find a ruler who has rendered more signalservices to the state or to the monarch whom he served. He extricatedFrance from the perils of anarchy, and laid the foundation for thegrandeur of the monarchy under Louis XIV. It was his mission to create astrong government, when only a strong government could save the kingdomfrom disintegration; so that absolutism, much as we detest it, seems tohave been one of the needed forces of the seventeenth century. It wasneeded in France, to restrain the rapacity and curtail the overgrownpower of feudal nobles, whose cabals and treasons were fatal to theinterests of law and order. 

The assassination of Henry IV. Was a great calamity. The government fellinto the hands of his widow, Marie de Médicis, a weak and frivolouswoman. Under her regency all kinds of evils accumulated. So manyconflicting interests and animosities existed that there was littleshort of anarchy. There were not popular insurrections and rebellions, for the people were ignorant, and were in bondage to their feudalmasters; but the kingdom was rent by the rivalries and intrigues of thegreat nobles, who, no longer living in their isolated castles but in theprecincts of the court, fought duels in the streets, plundered the royaltreasury, robbed jewellers and coachmakers, paid no debts, and treatedthe people as if they were dogs or cattle. They claimed all thegreat offices of state, and all high commands in the army andnavy; sold justice, tampered with the law, quarrelled with theparliaments, --indeed, were a turbulent, haughty, and powerfularistocracy, who felt that they were above all law and all restraint. They were not only engaged in perpetual intrigues, but even intreasonable correspondence with the enemies of their country. Theydisregarded the honor of the kingdom, and attempted to divide it intoprincipalities for their children. "The Guises wished to establishthemselves in Provence, the Montmorencies in Languedoc, the Longuevillesin Picardy. The Duke of Epernon sought to retain the sovereignty ofGuienne, and the Duke of Vendôme to secure the sovereignty of Brittany. "One wanted to be constable, another admiral, a third to be governor of aprovince, in order to tyrannize and enrich themselves like Romanproconsuls. Every outrage was shamelessly perpetrated by them withimpunity, because they were too powerful to be punished. Theyassassinated their enemies, filled the cities with their armedretainers, and made war even on the government; so that all centralpower was a mockery. The Queen-regent was humiliated and madecontemptible, and was forced, in her turn and in self-defence, tointrigues and cabals, and sought protection by setting the nobles upagainst each other, and thus dividing their forces. Even theparliaments, which were courts of law, were full of antiquatedprejudices, and sought only to secure their own privileges, --at one timesiding with the Queen-regent, and then with the factious nobles. TheHuguenots were the best people of the land; but they were troublesome, since they possessed cities and fortresses, and erected an _imperium inimperio. _ In their synods and assemblies they usurped the attributes ofsecular rulers, and discussed questions of peace and war. They enteredinto formidable conspiracies, and fomented the troubles andembarrassments of the government The abjuration of Henry IV. Had thinnedtheir ranks and deprived them of court influence. No great leadersremained, since they had been seduced by fashion. The Huguenots were adisappointed and embittered party, hard to please, and hard to begoverned; full of fierce resentments, and soured by old recollections. They had obtained religious liberty, but with this they were notcontented. Their spirit was not unlike that of the Jacobins in Englandafter the Stuarts were expelled from the throne. So all things combinedto produce a state of anarchy and discontent. Feudalism had done itswork. It was a good thing on the dissolution of the Roman Empire, whensociety was resolved into its original elements, --when barbarism on theone hand, and superstition on the other, made the Middle Ages funereal, dismal, violent, despairing. But commerce, arts, and literature hadintroduced a new era, --still unformed, a vast chaos of conflictingforces, and yet redeemed by reviving intelligence and restless daring. The one thing which society needed in that transition period was astrong government in the hands of kings, to restore law and developnational resources. 

Now amid all these evils Richelieu grew up. Under the guise of levityand pleasure and good-nature, he studied and comprehended all theseparties and factions, and hated them all. All alike were hostile to thecentral power, which he saw was necessary to the preservation of law andto the development of the resources of the country. 

Moreover, he was ambitious of power himself, which he loved as MichaelAngelo loved art, and Palestrina loved music. Power was hismaster-passion, and consumed all other passions; and he resolved to gainit in any way he could, --unscrupulously, by flatteries, by duplicities, by sycophancies, by tricks, by lies, even by services. That was his end. He cared nothing for means. He was a politician. 

The progress of his elevation is interesting, but hideous. Armand JeanDuplessis was born in 1585, of a noble family of high rank. He wasdesigned for the army, but a bishopric falling to the gift of hisfamily, he was made a priest. He early distinguished himself in hisstudies, for he was precocious and had great abilities. At twenty he wasdoctor of the Sorbonne, and before he was twenty-one he received fromthe Pope, Paul V. , the emblems of spiritual power as a prelate of theChurch. But he was too young to be made a bishop, according to thecanons, --a difficulty, however, which he easily surmounted: he told alie to the Pope, and then begged for an absolution. He then attachedhimself to the worthless favorite of the Queen-regent, Concini, one ofher countrymen; and through him to the Queen herself, Marie de Medicis, who told him her secrets, which he betrayed when it suited hisinterests. When Louis XIII. Attained his majority, Richelieu paid hiscourt to De Luynes, who was then all-powerful with the King, and whosecured him a cardinal's hat; and when this miserable favoritedied, --this falconer, this keeper of birds, yet duke, peer, governor, and minister, --Richelieu wound himself around the King, Louis XIII. , themost impotent of all the Bourbons, made himself necessary, and becameminister of foreign affairs; and his great rule began (1624). 

During all these seventeen years of office-climbing, Richelieu was toall appearance the most amiable man in France; everybody liked him, andeverybody trusted him. He was full of amenities, promises, bows, smiles, and flatteries. He always advocated the popular side with reigningfavorites; courted all the great ladies; was seen in all the fashionablesalons; had no offensive opinions; was polite to everybody; wasnon-committal; fond of games and spectacles; frivolous among fools, learned among scholars; grave among functionaries, devout amongprelates; cunning as a fox, brave as a lion, supple as a dog; all thingsto all men; an Alcibiades, a Jesuit; with no apparent animosities;handsome, witty, brilliant; preacher, courtier, student; as full ofhypocrisy as an egg is of meat; with eyes wide open, and thoughtsdisguised; all eyes and no heart; reserved or communicative as it suitedhis purpose. This was that arch-intriguer who was seeking all the while, not the sceptre of the King, but the power of the King. Should you saythat this non-committal, agreeable, and amiable politician--whoquarrelled with nobody, and revealed nothing to anybody; who had cheatedall parties by turns--was the man to save France, to extricate hiscountry from all the evils to which I have alluded, to build up a greatthrone (even while he who sat upon it was utterly contemptible) and makethat throne the first in Europe, and to establish absolutism as one ofthe needed forces of the seventeenth century?

Yet so it was; and his work was all the more difficult when thecharacter of the King is considered. Louis XIII. Was a different kind ofman from his father Henry IV. And his grandson Louis XIV. He had nostriking characteristics but feebleness and timidity and love of ignoblepleasures. He had no ambitions or powerful passions; was feeble andsickly from a child, --ruled at one time by his mother, and then by afalconer; and apparently taking but little interest in affairs of state. 

But if it was difficult to gain ascendency over such a frivolous andinglorious Sardanapalus, it was easy to retain it when this ascendencywas once acquired. For Richelieu made him comprehend the dangers whichmenaced his life and his throne; that some very able man must beintrusted with supreme delegated power, who would rule for the benefitof him he served, --a servant, and yet a master; like Metternich inAustria, after the wars of Napoleon, --a man whose business and aim wereto exalt absolutism on a throne. Moreover, he so complicated publicaffairs that his services were indispensable. Nobody could fillhis place. 

Also, it must be remembered that the King was isolated, and withoutcounsellors whom he could trust. After the death of De Luynes he had nobosom friend. He was surrounded with perplexities and secret enemies. His mother, who had been regent, defied his authority; his brotherssought to wear his crown; the nobles conspired against his throne; theProtestants threatened another civil war; the parliaments thought onlyof retaining their privileges; the finances were disordered; thetreasures which Henry IV. Had accumulated had been squandered in bribingthe great nobles; foreign enemies had invaded the soil of France; evilsand dangers were accumulating on every side, with such terrific force asto jeopardize the very existence of the monarchy; and one necessitybecame apparent, even to the weak mind of the King, --that he mustdelegate his power to some able man, who, though he might ruleunscrupulously and tyrannically, would yet be faithful to the crown, andestablish the central power for the benefit of his heirs and the welfareof the state. 

Now Richelieu was just the man he needed, just such a man as the timesrequired, --a man raised up to do important work, like Cromwell inEngland, like Bismarck in Prussia, like Cavour in Italy: doubtless agreat hypocrite, yet sincere in the conviction that a strong governmentwas the great necessity of his country; a great scoundrel, yet apatriotic and wise statesman, who loved his country with the ardor of aMirabeau, while nobody loved him. Besides, he loved absolutism, bothbecause he was by nature a tyrant, and because he was a member of theRoman Catholic hierarchy. He called to mind old Rome under the Caesars, and mediaeval Rome under the popes, and what a central authority hadeffected for civilization in times of anarchy, and in times of darknessand superstition; and the King to him was a sort of vicegerent of divinepower, clothed in authority based on divine right, --the idea of kings inthe Middle Ages. The state was his, to be managed as a man manages hisfarm, --as a South Carolinian once managed his slaves. The idea thatpolitical power properly emanates from the people, --the idea of Rousseauand Jefferson, --never once occurred to him; nor even political power inthe hands of aristocrats, fettered by a constitution and amenable to thenation. A constitutional monarchy existed nowhere, except perhaps inEngland. Unrestricted and absolute power in the hands of a king was theonly government he believed in. The king might be feeble, in which casehe could delegate his power to ministers; or he might be imbecile, inwhich case he might be virtually dethroned; but his royal rights weresacred, his authority incontestable, and consecrated by all usage andprecedent. 

Yet while Richelieu would uphold the authority of the crown as supremeand absolute, he would not destroy the prestige of the aristocracy; forhe was a nobleman himself, --he belonged to their class. He believed incaste, in privileges, in monopolies; therefore he would not annul eitherrank or honor. The nobles were welcome to retain their stars and ordersand ribbons and heraldic distinctions, even their parks and palaces andfalcons and hounds. They were a favored class, that feudalism hadintroduced and ages had indorsed; but even they must be subservient tothe crown, from which their honors emanated, and hence to order and law, of which the king was the keeper. They must be subjects of thegovernment, as well as allies and supporters. The government was royal, not aristocratic. The privileges of the nobility were social ratherthan political, although the great offices of state were intrusted tothem as a favor, not as a right, --as simply servants of a royal master, whose interests they were required to defend. Some of them were alliedby blood with the sovereign, and received marks of his special favor;but their authority was derived from him. 

Richelieu was not unpatriotic. He wished to see France powerful, united, and prosperous; but powerful as a monarchy, united under a king, andprosperous for the benefit of the privileged orders, --not for theplebeian people, who toiled for supercilious masters. The people were ofno account politically; were as unimportant as slaves, --to be protectedin life and property, that they might thrive for the benefit of thosewho ruled them. 

So when Richelieu became prime minister, and felt secure in hisseat, --knowing how necessary to the King his services were, --he laidaside his amiable manners as a politician, and determined as a statesmanto carry out remorselessly and rigidly his plans for the exaltation ofthe monarchy. And the moment he spoke at the council-board his geniuspredominated; all saw that a great power had arisen, that he was amaster, and would be obeyed, and would execute his plans with nosentimentalities, but coldly, fixedly, like a man of blood and iron, indifferent to all obstacles. He was a man who could rule, andtherefore, on Carlyle's theory, a man who ought to rule, because hewas strong. 

There is something imposing, I grant, in this executive strength; itdoes not make a man interesting, but it makes him feared. Everyruler, --in fact every man intrusted with executive power, especially instormy times, --should be resolute, unflinching, with a will dominatingover everything, with courage, pluck, backbone, be he king or primeminister, or the superintendent of a railway, or director of a lunaticasylum, or president of a college. No matter whether the sphere be largeor small, the administration of power requires energy, will, promptnessof action, without favor and without fear. And if such a person ruleswell he will be respected; but if he rules unwisely, --if capricious, unjust, cruel, vindictive, --he may be borne for a while, until patienceis exhausted and indignation becomes terrible: a passion of vengeance, like that which overthrew Strafford. Wise tyrants, like Peter andFrederic the Great, will be endured, from their devotion to publicinterests; but unwise tyrants, ruling for self-interest or pleasure, will be hurled from power, or assassinated like Nero or Commodus, as theonly way to get rid of the miseries they inflict. 

Now of the class of wise and enlightened tyrants was Richelieu. Hisgreatness was in his will, sagacity, watchfulness, and devotion topublic affairs. Factions could not oust him, because he was strong; theKing would not part with him, because he was faithful; posterity willnot curse him, because he laid the foundation of the political greatnessof his country. 

I do not praise his system of government. On abstract principles I feelthat it is against the liberties of mankind; nor is it in accordancewith the progress of government in our modern times. All the successivechanges which reforms and revolutions have wrought have been towardsrepresentative and constitutional governments, --as in England and Francein the nineteenth century. Absolutism or Caesarism is only adapted topeople in primitive or anarchical states of society, --as in old Rome, orRome under the popes. It is at the best a necessary tyranny, made so bythe disorders and evils of life. It can be commended only when men areworse than governments; when they are to be coerced like wild beasts, orlunatics, or scoundrels. When there is universal plunder, lying, cheating, and murdering; when laws are a mockery, and when demagoguesreign; when all public interests are scandalously sacrificed for privateemolument, --then absolutism may for a time be necessary; but only for atime, unless we assume that men can never govern themselves. 

In that state of society into which France was plunged during theregency of Marie de Médicis, and at which I have glanced, absolutismwas perhaps a needed force. Then Richelieu, its great modernrepresentative, arose, --a model statesman in the eyes of Peterthe Great. 

But he was not to reign, and trample all other powers beneath his feet, without a memorable struggle. Three great forces were arrayed againsthim. These were the Huguenots, the nobles, and the parliaments, --theProtestant, the feudal, and the legal elements of society in France. Thepeople, --at least the peasantry, --did not rise up against him; they werepowerless and too unenlightened. The priests sustained him, and thecommon people acquiesced in his rigid rule, for he established lawand order. 

He began his labors in behalf of absolutism by suppressing theHuguenots. That was the only political party which was urgent for itsrights. They were an intelligent party of tradesmen and small farmers;they were plebeian, but conscientious and aspiring. They were notcontented alone to worship God according to the charter which Henry IV. Had granted, but they sought political power; and they were sounfortunate as to be guilty of cabals and intrigues inconsistent with acentral power. They were factious, and were not disposed to submit tolegitimate authority. They had declined in numbers and influence; theyhad even degenerated in religious life; but they were still powerfuland dangerous foes. They had retreated to their strong fortress of LaRochelle, resolved, if attacked, to fight once again the whole power ofthe monarchy. They put themselves in a false position; they wanted morethan the Edict of Nantes had guaranteed. 

Unfortunately for them they had no leaders worthy to marshal theirforces. Fashion and the influence of the court had seduced their men ofrank; nor had they the enthusiasm which had secured victory at Ivry. Norcould they contend openly in the field; they were obliged to intrenchthemselves in an impregnable fortress: there they deemed they could defytheir enemy. They even invoked the aid of England, and thus introducedforeign enemies on the soil of France, which was high-treason. They putthemselves in the attitude of rebels against the government; and so longas English ships, with supplies, could go in and out of their harbor, they could not be conquered. Richelieu, clad in mail, a warrior-priest, surveyed with disgust their strong defences and their open harbor. Hisartillery was of no use, nor his lines of circumvallation. So he put hisbrain in motion, and studied Quintus Curtius. He remembered whatAlexander did at the siege of Tyre; he constructed a vast dyke of stoneand timber and iron across the harbor, in some places twelve hundredfeet deep, and thus cut off all egress and ingress. The English underBuckingham departed, unable to render further assistance. The capturethen was only a work of time; genius had hemmed the city in, and faminesoon did the rest. Cats, dogs, and vermin became luxuries. The starvingwomen beseeched the inexorable enemy for permission to retire: theyremembered the mercy that Henry IV. Had shown at the siege of Paris. Butwar in the hands of masters has no favors to grant; conquerors have notears. The Huguenots, as rebels, had no hope but in unconditionalsubmission. They yielded it reluctantly, but not until famine had doneits work. And they never raised their heads again; their spirit wasbroken. They were conquered, and at the mercy of the crown; destined inthe next reign to be cruelly and most wantonly persecuted; hunted asheretics by dragonnades and executioners, at the bidding of Louis XIV. , until four hundred thousand were executed or driven from the kingdom. 

But Richelieu was not such a bigot as Louis XIV. ; he was a statesman, and took enlightened views of the welfare of the country. Therefore hecontented himself with destroying the fortifications of La Rochelle, filling up its ditches, and changing its government. He continued, in amodified form, the religious privileges conceded by the Edict of Nantes;but he kept a strict watch, humiliated the body by withholding civilequalities and offices in the army and navy, treating with disdain theirministers, and taking away their social rank, so that they becameplebeian and unimportant. He pursued the same course that the Englishgovernment adopted in reference to Dissenters in the eighteenth century, when they were excluded from Oxford and Cambridge and churchburial-grounds. So that Protestantism in France, after the fall of LaRochelle, never asserted its dignity, in spite of Bibles, consistories, and schools. Degraded at court, deprived of the great offices of thestate, despised, rejected, and persecuted, it languished and declined. 

Having subdued the Huguenots, Richelieu turned his attention to thenobles, --the most worthless, arrogant, and powerful of all the nobilityof Europe; men who made royalty a mockery and law a name. I have alludedto their intrigues, ambition, and insolence. It was necessary that theyshould be humiliated, decimated, and punished, if central power was tobe respected. So he cut off their towering heads, exiled and imprisonedthem whenever they violated the laws, or threatened the security of thethrone or the peace of the realm. As individuals they hated him, andconspired against his rule. Had they combined, they would have been morepowerful than he; but they were too quarrelsome, envious, andshort-sighted to combine. 

The person who hated Richelieu most fiercely and bitterly was theQueen-mother, --widow of Henry IV. , regent during the minority of LouisXIII. And no wonder, for he had cheated her and betrayed her. She was avery formidable enemy, having a great ascendency over the mind of herson the King; and once, it is said, she had so powerfully wrought uponhim by her envenomed sarcasms, in the palace of the Luxembourg where shelived in royal state, that the King had actually taken the parchment inhis hand to sign the disgrace of his minister. But he was watched by aneye that never slept; Richelieu suddenly appearing, at the criticalmoment, from behind the tapestries where he had concealed himself, fronted and defied his enemy. The King, bewildered, had not nerve enoughto face his own servant, who however made him comprehend the dangerswhich surrounded his throne and person, and compelled him to part withhis mother, --the only woman he ever loved, --and without permitting herto imprint upon his brow her own last farewell. "And the world saw theextraordinary spectacle of this once powerful Queen, the mother of along line of kings, compelled to lead a fugitive life from court tocourt, --repulsed from England by her son-in-law, refused a shelter inHolland, insulted by Spain, neglected by Rome, and finally obliged tocrave an asylum from Rubens the painter, and, driven from one of hishouses, forced to hide herself in Cologne, where, deserted by all herchildren, and so reduced by poverty as to break up the very furniture ofher room for fuel, she perished miserably between four empty walls, on awretched bed, destitute, helpless, heartbroken, and alone. " Such was thepower and such was the vengeance of the cardinal on the highestpersonage in France. Such was the dictation of a priest to a king whopersonally disliked him; such was his ascendency, not by Druidicalweapons, but by genius presenting reasons of state. 

The next most powerful personage in France was the Duke of Orleans, brother of the King, who sought to steal his sceptre. As he was detectedin treasonable correspondence with Spain, he became a culprit, but wasspared after making a humiliating confession and submission. But Condé, the first prince of the blood, was shut up in prison, and the powerfulDuke of Guise was exiled. Richelieu took away from the Duke of Bouillonhis sovereignty of Sedan; forced the proud Epernon to ask pardon on hisknees; drove away from the kingdom the Duke of Vendôme, natural brotherof the King; executed the Duke of Montmorency, whose family traced anunbroken lineage to Pharamond; confined Marshal Bassompierre to theBastile; arrested Marshal Marillac at the head of a conquering army; cutoff the head of Cinq-Mars, grand equerry and favorite of the King; andexecuted on the scaffold the Counts of Chalais and Bouteville. All thesemen were among the proudest and most powerful nobles in Europe; they alllived like princes, and had princely revenues and grand offices, but hadbeen caught with arms in their hands, or in treasonable correspondence. What hope for ordinary culprits when the proudest feudal nobles wereexecuted or exiled, like common malefactors? Neither rank nor servicescould screen them from punishment. The great minister had no mercy andno delay even for the favorites of royalty. Nay, the King himself becamehis puppet, and was forced to part with his friends, his family, hismistresses, and his pleasures. Some of the prime ministers of kings havehad as much power as Richelieu, but no minister, before or since, hasruled the monarch himself with such an iron sway. How weak the King, orhow great the minister!

The third great force which Richelieu crushed was the parliament ofParis. It had the privilege of registering the decrees of the King; andhence was a check, the only check, on royal authority, --unless the Kingcame in person into the assembly, and enforced his decree by what wascalled a "bed of justice. " This body, however, was judicial rather thanlegislative; made up of pedantic and aristocratic lawyers, who could betroublesome. We get some idea of the humiliation of this assembly oflawyers and nobles from the speech of Omer Talon, --the greatest lawyerof the realm, --when called upon to express the sentiments of hisillustrious body to the King, at a "bed of justice": "Happy should webe, most gracious sovereign, if we could obtain any favor worthy of thehonor which we derive from your majesty's presence; but the entry ofyour sacred person into our assembly unfits us for our functions. Andinasmuch as the throne on which you are seated is a light that dazzlesus, bow, if it please you, the heavens which you inhabit, and after theexample of the Eternal Sovereign, whose image you bear, condescend tovisit us with your gracious mercy. "

What a contrast to this servile speech was the conduct of the Englishparliament about this time, in its memorable resistance to Charles I. ;and how different would have been the political destinies of the Englishpeople, if Stratford, just such a man as Richelieu, had succeeded in hisschemes! But in England the parliament was backed by the nation, --atleast by the middle classes. In France the people had then no politicalaspirations; among them a Cromwell could not have arisen, since aCromwell could not have been sustained. 

Thus Richelieu, by will and genius, conquered all his foes in order touphold the throne, and thus elevate the nation; for, as Sir JamesStephen says, "the grandeur of the monarchy and the welfare of Francewith him were but convertible terms. " He made the throne the first inEurope, even while he who sat upon it was personally contemptible. Hegave lustre to the monarchy, while he himself was an unarmed priest. Itwas a splendid fiction to make the King nominally so powerful, whilereally he was so feeble. But royalty was not a fiction under hissuccessor. How respectable did Richelieu make the monarchy! What a deepfoundation did he lay for royalty under Louis XIV. ! What a magnificentinheritance did he bequeath to that monarch! "Nothing was done for fortyyears which he had not foreseen and prepared. His successor, Mazarin, only prospered so far as he followed out his instructions; and the starof Louis XIV. Did not pale so long as the policy which Richelieubequeathed was the rule of his public acts. " The magnificence of Louiswas only the sequel of the energy and genius of Richelieu; Versailleswas really the gift of him who built the Palais Royal. 

The services of Richelieu to France did not end with centralizing poweraround the throne. He enlarged the limits of the kingdom and subdued herforeign enemies. Great rivers and mountains became the nationalboundaries, within which it was easy to preserve conquests. He was notambitious of foreign domination; he simply wished to make the kingdomimpregnable. Had Napoleon pursued this policy, he could never have beenoverthrown, and his dynasty would have been established. It was thepolicy of Elizabeth and of Cromwell. I do not say that Richelieu did notenter upon foreign wars; but it was to restore the "balance of power, "not to add kingdoms to the empire. He rendered assistance to GustavusAdolphus, in spite of the protests of Rome and the disgust of Catholicpowers, in order to prevent the dangerous ascendency of Austria; thussetting an example for William III. , and Pitt himself, in his warfareagainst Napoleon. In these days we should prefer to see the "balance ofpower" maintained by a congress of nations, rather than by vast militarypreparations and standing armies, which eat out the resources ofnations; but in the seventeenth century there was no other way tomaintain this balance than by opposing armies. Nor did Richelieu seek tomaintain the peace of Europe by force alone. Never was there a moreastute and profound diplomatist. His emissaries were in every court, with intrigues very hard to be baffled. He equalled Metternich orTalleyrand in his profound dissimulation, for European diplomacy hasever been based on this. While he built up absolutism in France, he didnot alienate other governments; so that, like Cromwell, he made hisnation respected abroad. His conquest of Roussillon prepared the way forthe famous Treaty of the Pyrenees, under the administration of Mazarin. While vigorous in war, his policy was on the whole pacific, --like thatof all Catholic priests who have held power in France. He loved gloryindeed, but, like Sully and Colbert, he also wished to develop thenational resources; and, as indeed all enlightened statesmen from Mosesdownward have sought to do, he wished to make the country strong fordefence rather than offence. 

He showed great sagacity as well as an enlightened mind. The ablest menwere placed in office. The army and navy were reorganized. Corruptionand peculation on the part of officials were severely punished. Theroyal revenue was increased. Roads, bridges, canals were built andrepaired, and public improvements were made. The fine arts wereencouraged, and even learning was rewarded. It was he who founded theFrench Academy, --although he excluded from it men of original geniuswhose views he did not like. Law and order were certainly restored, andanarchy ceased to reign. The rights of property were established, andthe finances freed from embarrassments. 

So his rigid rule tended to the elevation of France; absolutism provednecessary in his day, and under his circumstances. When arraigned at thebar of posterity, he claims, like Napoleon, to be judged for hisservices, and not for his defects of character. These defects willforever make him odious in spite of his services. I hardly know a morerepulsive benefactor. He was vain, cold, heartless, rigid, and proud. Hehad no amiable weakness. His smile was a dagger, and his friendship wasa snare. He was a hypocrite and a tyrant. He had no pity on a fallenfoe; and even when bending under the infirmities of age, and in the nearprospect of death, his inexorable temper was never for a moment subdued. The execution of Cinq-Mars and De Thou took place when he had one footin his grave. He deceived everybody, sent his spies into the bosom offamilies, and made expediency the law of his public life. 

But it is nothing to the philosophic student of history that he builtthe Palais Royal, or squandered riches with Roman prodigality, orrewarded players, or enriched Marion Delorme, or clad himself in mailbefore La Rochelle, or persecuted his early friends, or robbed themonasteries, or made a spy of Father Joseph, or exiled the Queen-mother, or kept the King in bondage, or sent his enemies to the scaffold: thesethings are all against him, and make him appear in a repulsive light. But if he brought order out of confusion, and gave a blow to feudalism, and destroyed anarchies, and promoted law, and developed the resourcesof his country, making that country formidable and honorable, andconstructed a vast machinery of government by which France was kepttogether for a century, and would have fallen to pieces withoutit, --then there is another way to survey this bad man; and we view himnot only as a great statesman and ruler, but as an instrument ofProvidence, raised up as a terror to evil-doers. We may hate absolutism, but must at the same time remember that there are no settled principlesof government, any more than of political economy. That is the bestgovernment which is best adapted to the exigency of that human societywhich at the time it serves. Republicanism would not do in China, anymore than despotism in New England. Bad men, somehow or other, must becoerced and punished. The more prevalent is depravity, so much the morenecessary is despotic vigor: it will be so to the end of time. It is allnonsense to dream of liberty with a substratum of folly and vice. Unlessevils can be remedied by the public itself, giving power to the lawswhich the people create, then physical force, hard and cold tyranny, must inevitably take the place. No country will long endure anarchy; andthen the hardest characters may prove the greatest benefactors. 

It is on this principle that I am reconciled to the occasional rule ofdespots. And when I see a bad man, like Richelieu, grasping power to beused for the good of a nation, I have faith to believe it to be orderedwisely. When men are good and honest and brave, we shall haveWashingtons; when they are selfish and lawless, God will sendRichelieus and Napoleons, if He has good things in store for the future, even as He sends Neros and Diocletians when a nation is doomed todestruction by incurable rottenness. 

And yet absolutism in itself is not to be defended; it is whatenlightened nations are now striving to abolish. It is needed only undercertain circumstances; if it were to be perpetuated in any nation itwould be Satanic. It is endurable only because it may be destroyed whenit has answered its end; and, like all human institutions, it willbecome corrupted. It was shamefully abused under Louis XIV. And LouisXV. But when corrupted and abused it has, like slavery, all the elementsof certain decay and ruin. The abuse of power will lead to its owndestruction, even as undue haste in the acquisition of riches tendethto poverty. 

AUTHORITIES. 

Petitot's Mémoires sur le Règne de Louis XIII. ; Secret History of theFrench Court, by Cousin; Le Clerc's Vie de Richelieu; Henri Martin'sHistory of France; Mémoires de Richelieu, by Michaud and Poujoulat; Lifeof Richelieu, by Capefigue, and E. E. Crowe, and G. P. R. James; Lardner'sCabinet Cyclopaedia; Histoire du Ministère du Cardinal de Richelieu, byA. Jay; Michelet's Life of Henry IV. And Richelieu; BiographieUniverselle; Sir James Stephen's Lectures on the History of France. 

OLIVER CROMWELL. 

A. D. 1599-1658. 

ENGLISH REVOLUTION. 

The most difficult character in history to treat critically, and theeasiest to treat rhetorically, perhaps, is Oliver Cromwell; after twocenturies and more he is still a puzzle: his name, like that ofNapoleon, is a doubt. Some regard him with unmingled admiration; somedetest him as a usurper; and many look upon him as a hypocrite. Nobodyquestions his ability; and his talents were so great that some bow downto him on that account, out of reverence for strength, like Carlyle. Onthe whole he is a popular idol, not for his strength, but for his cause, since he represents the progressive party in his day in behalf ofliberty, --at least until his protectorate began. Then new issues arose;and while he appeared as a great patriot and enlightened ruler, he yetreigned as an absolute monarch, basing his power on a standing army. 

But whatever may be said of Cromwell as statesman, general, or ruler, his career was remarkable and exceedingly interesting. His character, too, was unique and original; hence we are never weary of discussinghim. In studying his character and career, we also have our mindsdirected to the great ideas of his tumultuous and agitated age, for he, like Napoleon, was the product of revolution. He was the offspring ofmighty ideas, --he did not create them; original thinkers set them inmotion, as Rousseau enunciated the ideas which led to the FrenchRevolution. The great thinkers of the sixteenth and seventeenthcenturies were divines, the men whom the Reformation produced. It wasLuther preaching the right of private judgment, and Calvin pushing outthe doctrine of the majesty of God to its remotest logical sequence, andLatimer appealing to every man's personal responsibility to God, andGustavus Adolphus fighting for religious liberty, and the Huguenotsprotesting against religious persecution, and Thomas Cromwell sweepingaway the abominations of the Papacy, and the Geneva divines who settledin England during the reign of Elizabeth, --it was all these thatproduced Oliver Cromwell. 

He was a Puritan, and hence he was a reformer, not in church mattersmerely, but in all those things which are connected with civilliberty, --for there is as close a connection between Protestantism andliberty as between Catholicism and absolutism. The Puritans intenselyhated everything which reminded them of Rome, even the holidays of theChurch, organs, stained-glass, cathedrals, and the rich dresses of theclergy. They even tried to ignore Christmas and Easter, thoughconsecrated by the early Church. They hated the Middle Ages, looked withdisgust upon the past, and longed to try experiments, not only inreligion, but in politics and social life. The only antiquity which hadauthority to them was the Jewish Commonwealth, because it was atheocracy, and recognized God Almighty as the supreme ruler of theworld. Hence they adhered to the strictness of the Jewish Sabbath, andbaptized their children with Hebrew names. 

Now to such a people, stern, lofty, ascetic, legal, spiritual, --conservative of whatever the Bible reveals, yet progressiveand ardent for reforms, --the rule of the Stuarts was intolerable. It wasintolerable because it seemed to lean towards Catholicism, and becauseit was tyrannical and averse to changes. The King was ruled byfavorites; and these favorites were either bigots in religion, likeArchbishop Laud, or were tyrannical or unscrupulous in their efforts tosustain the King in despotic measures and crush popular agitations, likethe Earl of Strafford, or were men of pleasure and vanity like the Dukeof Buckingham. Charles I. Was detested by the Puritans even more thanhis father James. They looked upon him as more than half a Papist, adespot, utterly insincere, indifferent to the welfare of the country, intent only on exalting himself and his throne at the expense of theinterests of the people, whose aspirations he scorned and whose rightshe trampled upon. In his eyes they had no _rights_, only _duties_; andduties to him as an anointed sovereign, to rule as he liked, withparliaments or without parliaments; yea, to impose taxes arbitrarily, and grant odious monopolies: for the State was his, to be managed as aman would manage a farm; and those who resisted this encroachment on theliberties of the nation were to be fined, imprisoned, executed, aspestilent disturbers of the public peace. He would form dangerousalliances with Catholic powers, marry his children to Catholic princes, appoint Catholics to high office, and compromise the dignity of thenation as a Protestant State. His ministers, his judges, his highofficials were simply his tools, and perpetually insulted the nation bytheir arrogance, their venality, and their shameful disregard of theConstitution. In short, he seemed bent on imposing a tyrannical yoke, hard to be endured, and to punish unlawfully those who resisted it, oreven murmured against it. He would shackle the press, and muzzle themembers of parliament. 

Thus did this King appear to the Puritans, --at this time a large andinfluential party, chiefly Presbyterian, and headed by many men of rankand character, all of whom detested the Roman Catholic religion as thesource of all religious and political evils, and who did not scruple tocall the Papacy by the hardest names, such as the "Scarlet Mother, ""Antichrist, " and the like. They had seceded from the Established Churchin the reign of Elizabeth, and became what was then calledNon-conformists. Had they been treated wisely, had any respect beenshown to their opinions and rights, --for the right of worshipping Godaccording to individual conscience is the central and basal pillar ofProtestantism, --had this undoubted right of private judgment, the greatemancipating idea of that age, been respected, the Puritans would havesought relief in constitutional resistance, for they were conservativeand loyal, as English people ever have been, even in Canada andAustralia. They were not bent on _revolution_; they only desired_reform_. So their representatives in Parliament framed the famous"Petition of Right, " in which were reasserted the principles ofconstitutional liberty. This earnest, loyal, but angry Parliament, beingtroublesome, was dissolved, and Charles undertook for eleven years toreign without one, --against all precedents, --with Stafford and Laud forhis chief advisers and ministers. He reigned by Star Chamber decrees, High-commission courts, issuing proclamations, resorting to forcedloans, tampering with justice, removing judges, imprisoning obnoxiousmen without trial, insulting and humiliating the Puritans, and openlyencouraging a religion of "millineries and upholsteries, " not onlyillegally, but against the wishes and sentiments of the better part ofthe nation, --thus undermining his own throne; for all thrones are basedon the love of the people. 

The financial difficulties of the King--for the most absolute of kingscannot extort _all_ the money they want--compelled him to assembleanother Parliament at an alarming crisis of popular indignation which hedid not see, when popular leaders began to say that even kings must rule_by_ the people and not _without_ the people. 

This new Parliament, with Hampden and Pym for leaders, though fierce andaggressive, would have been contented with constitutional reform, likeMirabeau at one period. But the King, ill-advised, obstinate, blinded, would not accept reform; he would reign like the Bourbons, or not atall. The reforms which the Parliament desired were reasonable and just. It would abolish arbitrary arrests, the Star Chamber decrees, taxeswithout its consent, cruelty to Non-conformists, the ascendency ofpriests, irresponsible ministers, and offensive symbols of Romanism. Ifthese reforms had been granted, --and such a sovereign as Elizabeth wouldhave yielded, however reluctantly, --there would have been no Englishrevolution. Or even if the popular leaders had been more patient, andwaited for their time, and been willing to carry out these reformsconstitutionally, there would have been no revolution. But neither theKing nor Parliament would yield, and the Parliament was dissolved. 

The next Parliament was not only angry, it was defiant and unscrupulous. It resolved on revolution, and determined to put the King himself aside. It began with vigorous measures, and impeached both Laud andStrafford, --doubtless very able men, but not fitted for their times. Itdecreed sweeping changes, usurped the executive authority, appealed toarms, and made war on the government. The King also on his part appealedto the sword, which now alone could settle the difficulties. The contestwas inevitable. The nation clamored for reform; the King would not grantit; the Parliament would not wait to secure it constitutionally. Bothparties were angry and resolute; reason departed from the councils ofthe nation; passion now ruled, and civil war began. It was not, atfirst, a question about the form of government, --whether a king or anelected ruler should bear sway; it was purely a question of reforms inthe existing government, limiting of course the power of the King, --butreforms deemed so vital to the welfare of the nation that the bestpeople were willing to shed their blood to secure them; and if reasonand moderation could have borne sway, that angry strife might have beenaverted. But people will not listen to reason in times of maddeningrevolution; they prefer to fight, and run their chances and incur thepenalty. And when contending parties appeal to the sword, then allordinary rules are set aside, and success belongs to the stronger, andthe victors exact what they please. The rules of all deadly anddesperate warfare seem to recognize this. 

The fortune of war put the King into the hands of the revolutionists;and in fear, more than in vengeance, they executed him, --just what hewould have done to _their_ leaders if _he_ had won. "Stone-dead, " saidFalkland, "hath no fellow. " In a national conflagration we lose sight oflaws, even of written constitutions. Great necessities compelextraordinary measures, not such as are sustained either by reason orprecedents. The great lesson of war, especially of civil war, is, thatcontending parties might better make great concessions than resort toit, for it is certain to demoralize a nation. Heated partisans hatecompromise; yet war itself generally ends in compromise. It isinteresting to see how many constitutions, how many institutions in bothChurch and State, are based on compromise. 

Now, it was amid all the fierce contentions of that revolutionaryage, --an age of intense earnestness, when the grandest truths wereagitated; an age of experiment, of bold discussions, of wildfanaticisms, of bitter hatreds, of unconquerable prejudices, yet ofgreat loftiness and spiritual power, --that the star of Oliver Cromwellarose. He was born in the year 1599, of a good family. He was a countrysquire, a gentleman farmer, though not much given to fox-hunting ordinner hilarities, preferring to read political pamphlets, or to listento long sermons, or to hold discussions on grace, predestination, free-will, and foreknowledge absolute. His favorite doctrine was thesecond coming of Christ and the reign of the saints, the elect, --to whomof course he belonged. He had visions and rhapsodies, and believed inspecial divine illumination. Cromwell was not a Presbyterian, but anIndependent; and the Independents were the most advanced party of hisday, both in politics and religion. The progressive man of that age wasa Calvinist, in all the grandeur and in all the narrowness of thatunfashionable and misunderstood creed. The time had not come for"advanced thinkers" to repudiate a personal God and supernaturalagencies. Then an atheist, or even a deist, and indeed a materialist ofthe school of Democritus and Lucretius, was unknown. John Milton was oneof the representative men of the Puritans of the seventeenthcentury, --men who colonized New England, and planted the germs ofinstitutions which have spread to the Rocky Mountains, Cromwell on his farm, one of the landed gentry, had a Cambridgeeducation, and was early an influential man. His sagacity, hisintelligence, his honesty, and his lofty religious life marked him outas a fit person to represent his county in parliament. He at once becamethe associate of such men as Hampden and Pym. He did not make verygraceful speeches, and he had an ungainly person; but he was eloquent ina rude way, since he had strong convictions and good sense. He wasprobably violent, for he hated the abuses of the times, and he hatedRome and the prelacy. He represented the extreme left; that is, he was aradical, and preferred revolution to tyranny. Yet even he would probablyhave accepted reform if reform had been possible without violence. ButCromwell had no faith in the King or his ministers, and was inclined tosummary measures. He afterwards showed this tendency of character in hismilitary career. He was one of those earnest and practical people whocould not be fooled with. So he became a leader of those who were mostviolent against the Government During the Long Parliament, Cromwell satfor Cambridge; which fact shows that he was then a marked man, far frombeing unimportant. This was the Parliament, assembled in 1640, whichimpeached Strafford and Laud, which abolished the Star Chamber, andinaugurated the civil war, that began when Charles left Whitehall, January, 1642, for York. The Parliament solicited contributions, calledout the militia, and appointed to the command of the forces the Earl ofEssex, a Presbyterian, who established his headquarters at Northampton, while Charles unfurled the royal standard at Nottingham. 

Cromwell was forty-two when he buckled on his sword as a volunteer. Hesubscribed five hundred pounds to the cause of liberty, raised a troopof horse, which gradually swelled into that famous regiment of onethousand men, called "Ironsides, " which was never beaten. Of thisregiment he was made colonel in the spring of 1643. He had distinguishedhimself at Edgehill in the first year of the war, but he drew uponhimself the eyes of the nation at the battle of Marston Moor, July, 1644, --gained by the discipline of his men, --which put the north ofEngland into the hands of Parliament. He was then lieutenant-general, second in command to the Earl of Manchester. The second battle ofNewbury, though a success, gave Cromwell, then one of the mostinfluential members of Parliament, an occasion to complain of theimbecility of the noblemen who controlled the army, and who werePresbyterians. The "self-denying ordinance, " which prohibited members ofParliament from command in the army, was a blow at Presbyterianism andaristocracy, and marked the growing power of the Independents. It wasplanned by Cromwell, although it would have deprived him also of hiscommand; but he was made an exception to the rule, and he knew he wouldbe, since his party could not spare him. 

Then was fought the battle of Naseby, June 14, 1645, in which Cromwellcommanded the right wing of the army, Fairfax (nominally his superiorgeneral) the centre, and Ireton the left; against Prince Rupert andCharles. The battle was won by the bravery of Cromwell, and decided thefortunes of the King, although he was still able to keep the field. Cromwell now became the foremost man in England. For two years heresided chiefly in London, taking an important part in negotiations withthe King, and in the contest between the Independents andPresbyterians, --the former of which represented the army, while thelatter still had the ascendency in Parliament. 

On the 16th of August, 1648, was fought the battle of Preston, in whichCromwell defeated the Scotch army commanded by the Duke of Hamilton, which opened Edinburgh to his victorious troops, and made himcommander-in-chief of the armies of the Commonwealth. The Presbyterians, at least of Scotland, it would seem, preferred now the restoration ofthe King to the ascendency of Cromwell with the army to back him, for itwas the army and not the Parliament which had given him supreme command. 

Then followed the rapid conquest of the Scots, the return of thevictorious general to London, and the suppression of the liberty ofParliament, for it was purged of its Presbyterian leaders. Theascendency of the Independents began; for though in a minority, theywere backed by an army which obeyed implicitly the commands and even thewishes of Cromwell. 

The great tragedy which disgraced the revolution was now acted. Theunfortunate King, whose fate was sealed at the battle of Naseby, aftervarious vicissitudes and defeats, put himself into the hands of theScots and made a league with the Presbyterians. After Edinburgh wastaken, they virtually sold him to the victor, who caused him to bebrought in bitter mockery to Hampton Court, where he was treated withironical respect. In his reverses Charles would have made _any_concessions; and the Presbyterians, who first took up arms against him, would perhaps have accepted them. But it was too late. Cromwell and theIndependents now reigned, --a party that had been driven into violentmeasures, and which had sought the subversion of the monarchy itself. 

Charles is brought to a mock trial by a decimated Parliament, iscondemned and executed, and the old monarchy is supplanted by a militarydespotism. "The roaring conflagration of anarchies" is succeeded by therule of the strongest man. 

Much has been written and said about that execution, or martyrdom, orcrime, as it has been variously viewed by partisans. It simply was thesequence of the revolution, of the appeal of both parties to the sword. It may have been necessary or unnecessary, a blunder or a crime, but itwas the logical result of a bitter war; it was the cruel policy of aconquering power. Those who supported it were able men, who deemed itthe wisest thing to do; who dreaded a reaction, who feared forthemselves, and sought by this means to perpetuate their sway. As one ofthe acts of revolution, it must be judged by the revolution itself. Thepoint is, not whether it was wrong to take the life of the King, if itwere a military necessity, or seemed to be to the great leaders of theday, but whether it was right to take up arms in defence of rights whichmight have been gained by protracted constitutional agitation andresistance. The execution proved a blunder, because it did not take awaythe rights of Charles II. , and created great abhorrence and indignation, not merely in foreign countries, but among a majority of the Englishpeople themselves, --and these, too, who had the prestige of wealth andculture. I do not believe the Presbyterian party, as represented byHampden and Pym, and who like Mirabeau had applied the torch torevolutionary passions, would have consented to this foolish murder. Certainly the Episcopalians would not have executed Charles, even ifthey could have been induced to cripple him. 

But war is a conflagration; nothing can stop its ravages when it hasfairly begun. They who go to war must abide the issue of war; they whotake the sword must be prepared to perish by the sword. Thus far, in thehistory of the world, very few rights have been gained by civil warwhich could not have been gained in the end without it. The great rightswhich the people have secured in England for two hundred years are theresult of an appeal to reason and justice. The second revolution wasbloodless. The Parliament which first arrayed itself against thegovernment of Charles was no mean foe, even if it had not resorted toarms. It held the purse-strings; it had the power to cripple the King, and to worry him into concessions. But if the King was resolved toattack the Parliament itself, and coerce it by a standing army, anddestroy all liberty in England, then the question assumed another shape;the war then became defensive, and was plainly justifiable, and Charlescould but accept the issue, even his own execution, if it seemednecessary to his conquerors. They took up arms in self-defence, and war, of course, brought to light the energies and talents of the greatestgeneral, who as victor would have his reward. Cromwell concluded tosweep away the old monarchy, and reign himself instead; and theexecution of the King was one of his war measures. It was the penaltyCharles paid for making war on his subjects, instead of ruling themaccording to the laws. His fate was hard and sad; we feel morecompassion than indignation. In our times he would have been permittedto run away; but those stern and angry old revolutionists demandedhis blood. 

For this cruel or necessary act Cromwell is responsible more than anyman in England, since he could have prevented it if he pleased. He ruledthe army, which ruled the Parliament. It was not the nation, or therepresentatives of the nation, who decreed the execution of Charles. Itwas the army and the purged Parliament, composed chiefly ofIndependents, who wanted the subversion of the monarchy itself. Technically, Charles was tried by the Parliament, or the judgesappointed by them; really, Cromwell was at the bottom of the affair, asmuch as John Calvin was responsible for the burning of Servetus, letpartisans say what they please. There never has a great crime or blunderbeen committed on this earth which bigoted, or narrow, or zealouspartisans have not attempted to justify. Bigoted Catholics havejustified even the slaughter of St. Bartholomew. Partisans have no lawbut expediency. All Jesuits, political, religious, and social, in theCatholic and Protestant churches alike, seem to think that the endjustifies the means, even in the most beneficent reforms; and whenpushed to the wall by the logic of opponents, will fall back on theexamples of the Old Testament. In defence of lying and cheating theywill quote Abraham at the court of Pharaoh. There is no insult to thehuman understanding more flagrant, than the doctrine that we may do evilthat good may come. And yet the politics and reforms of the sixteenthand seventeenth centuries seem to have been based on that miserable formof jesuitism. Here Machiavelli is as vulnerable as Escobar, and Burleighas well as Oliver Cromwell, who was not more profound in dissimulationthan Queen Elizabeth herself. The best excuse we can render for thepolitical and religious crimes of that age is, that they were inaccordance with its ideas. And who is superior to the ideas of his age?

On the execution of the King, the supreme authority was nominally in thehands of Parliament. Of course all kinds of anarchies prevailed, and allgovernment was unsettled. Charles II. Was proclaimed King by the Scots, while the Duke of Ormond, in Ireland, joined the royal party to seatCharles II. On the throne. In this exigency Cromwell was appointed bythe Parliament Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. 

Then followed the conquest of Ireland, in which Cromwell distinguishedhimself for great military abilities. His vigorous and uncompromisingmeasures, especially his slaughter of the garrison of Drogheda (aretaliatory act), have been severely commented on. But war in the handsof masters is never carried on sentimentally: the test of ability issuccess. The measures were doubtless hard and severe; but Cromwell knewwhat he was about: he wished to bring the war to a speedy close, andintimidation was probably the best course to pursue. Those impracticableIrish never afterwards molested him. In less than a year he was atleisure to oppose Charles II. In Scotland; and on the resignation ofFairfax he was made Captain-General of all the forces in the empire. Thebattle of Dunbar resulted in the total defeat of the Scots; while the"crowning mercy" at Worcester, Sept. 3, 1651, utterly blasted the hopesof Charles, and completely annihilated his forces. 

The civil war, which raged nine years, was now finished, and Cromwellbecame supreme. But even the decimated Parliament was jealous, andraised an issue, --on which Cromwell dissolved it with a file ofsoldiers, and assembled another, neither elective nor representative, composed of his creatures, without experience, chiefly Anabaptists andIndependents; which he soon did away with. He then called a council ofleading men, who made him Lord Protector, December 13, 1653. Even theshadow of constitutional authority now vanishes, and Cromwell rules withabsolute and untrammelled power, like Julius Caesar or NapoleonBonaparte. He rules on the very principles which he condemned in CharlesI. The revolution ends in a military despotism. 

If there was ever a usurpation, this was one. Liberty gave her last sighon the remonstrance of Sir Harry Vane, and a military hero, by means ofhis army, stamps his iron heel on England. He dissolves the very bodyfrom which he received his own authority he refuses to have any check onhis will; he imposes taxes without the consent of the people, --the verything for which he took up arms against Charles I. ; he reigns alone, ondespotic principles, as absolute as Louis XIV. ; he enshrouds himself inroyal state at Hampton Court; he even seeks to bequeath his absolutepower to his son. And if Richard Cromwell had reigned like his fatherOliver, then the cause of liberty would have been lost. 

All this is cold, unvarnished history. We cannot get over or aroundthese facts; they blaze out to the eyes of all readers, and will blazeto the most distant ages. Cromwell began as a reformer, but ended as ausurper. Whatever name he goes by, whatever title he may have assumed, he became, by force of his victories and of his army, the absolute rulerof England, --as Caesar did of Rome, and Napoleon of Paris. We maypalliate or extenuate this fact; we may even excuse it on the groundthat the State had drifted into anarchy; that only he, as the strongerman, could save England; that there was no other course open to him as apatriot; and that it was a most fortunate thing for England that heseized the reins, and became a tyrant to put down anarchies. Butwhatever were the excuses by which Cromwell justified himself, or hisadmirers justify him, let us not deny the facts. It may have beennecessary, under his circumstances, to reign alone, by the aid of hisstanding army. But do not attempt to gloss over the veritable fact thathe did reign without the support of Parliament, and in defiance of allconstitutional authorities. It was not the nation which elevated him tosupreme power, but his soldiers. At no time would any legitimateParliament, or any popular voice, have made him an absolute ruler. Hecould not even have got a plebiscitum, as Louis Napoleon did. He was notliked by the nation at large, --not even by the more enlightened andconservative of the Puritans, such as the Presbyterians; and as for theEpiscopalians, they looked upon him not only as a usurper but as ahypocrite. 

It is difficult to justify such an act as usurpation and militarytyranny by the standard of an immutable morality. If the overturning ofall constitutional authority by a man who professed to be a reformer, yet who reigned illegally as a despot, can be defended, it is only onthe principle of expediency, that the end justifies the means, --the pleaof the Jesuits, and of all the despots who have overturned constitutionsand national liberties. But this is rank and undisguised Caesarism. Thequestion then arises, Was it necessary that a Caesar should reign atHampton Court? Some people think it was; and all admit that after theexecution of the King there was no settled government, nothing butbitter, intolerant factions, each of which wished its own ascendency, and all were alike unscrupulous. Revolution ever creates factions andangry parties, more or less violent. It is claimed by many that a goodgovernment was impossible with these various and contending parties, andthat nothing but anarchy would have existed had not Cromwell seized thereins, and sustained himself by a standing army, and ruled despotically. Again, others think that he was urged by a pressure which even he couldnot resist, --that of the army; that he was controlled by circumstances;that he could do no otherwise unless he resigned England to herfate, --to the anarchy of quarrelling and angry parties, who would notlisten to reason, and who were too inexperienced to govern in suchstormy times. The Episcopalians certainly, and the Presbyteriansprobably, would have restored Charles II. , --and this Cromwell regardedas a great possible calamity. If the King had been restored, all thefruit of the revolution would have been lost; there would have been arenewed reign of frivolities, insincerities, court scandals, venalities, favorites, and disguised Romanism, --yea, an alliance would have beenformed with the old tyrants of Europe. 

Cromwell was no fool, and he had a great insight into the principles onwhich the stability and prosperity of a nation rested. He doubtless feltthat the nation required a strong arm at the helm, and that no one couldsave England in such a storm but himself. I believe he was sincere inthis conviction, --a conviction based on profound knowledge of men andthe circumstances of the age. I believe he was willing to be aspersed, even by his old friends, and heartily cursed by his enemies, if he couldguide the ship of state into a safe harbor. I am inclined to believethat he was patriotic in his intentions; that he wished to save thecountry even, if necessary, by illegal means; that he believed there wasa higher law _for him_, and that an enlightened posterity wouldvindicate his name and memory. He was not deceived as to his abilities, even if he were as to his call. He knew he was the strongest man inEngland, and that only the strongest could rule. He was willing toassume the responsibility, whatever violence he should do to his earlyprinciples, or to the opinions of those with whom he was at firstassociated. If there was anything that marked the character of Cromwell, it was the abiding sense, from first to last, of his personalresponsibility to God Almighty, whose servant and instrument he felthimself to be. I believe he was loyal to his conscience, if not to hiscause. He may have committed grave errors, for he was not infallible. Itmay have been an error that he ruled virtually without a Parliament, since it was better that a good measure should be defeated than that thecause of liberty should be trodden under foot. It was better thatparliaments should wrangle and quarrel than that there should be norepresentation of the nation at all. And it was an undoubted error totransmit his absolute authority to his son, for this was establishing anew dynasty of kings. One of the worst things which Napoleon ever didwas to seat his brothers on the old thrones of Europe. Doubtless, Cromwell wished to perpetuate the policy of his government, but he hadno right to perpetuate a despotism in his own family: that was an insultto the nation and to the cause of constitutional liberty. Here he wasselfish and ambitious, for, great as he was, he was not greater than thenation or his cause. 

But I need not dwell on the blunders of Cromwell, if we call them by noharsher name. It would be harsh to judge him for his mistakes or sinsunder his peculiar circumstances, his hand in the execution of CharlesI. , his Jesuitical principles, his cruelties in Ireland, his dispersionof parliaments, and his usurpation of supreme power. Only let us callthings by their right names; we gain nothing by glossing over defects. The historians of the Bible tell us how Abraham told lies to the King ofEgypt, and David caused Uriah to be slain after he had appropriated hiswife. Yet who were greater and better, upon the whole, than thesefavorites of Heaven?

Cromwell earned his great fame as one of the wisest statesmen and ablestrulers that England ever had. Like all monarchs, he is to be judged bythe services he rendered to civilization. He was not a faultless man, but he proved himself a great benefactor. Whether we like him or not, weare compelled to admit that his administration was able and beneficent, and that he seemed to be actuated by a sincere desire to do all the goodhe could. If he was ambitious, his ambition was directed to theprosperity and glory of his country. If he levied taxes without theconsent of the nation, he spent the money economically, wisely, andunselfishly. He sought no inglorious pomps; he built no expensivepalaces; he gave no foolish fetes; nor did he seek to disguise histyranny by amusing or demoralizing the people, like the old RomanCaesars. He would even have established a constitutional monarchy, hadit been practicable. The plots of royalists tempted him to appointmajor-generals to responsible situations. To protect his life, heresorted to guards. He could not part with his power, but he used it forthe benefit of the nation. If he did not reign by or through the people, he reigned _for_ the people. He established religious liberty, andtolerated all sects but Catholics and Quakers. The Presbyterians werehis enemies, but he never persecuted them. He had a great regard forlaw, and appointed the ablest and best men to high judicial positions. Sir Matthew Hale, whom he made chief-justice, was the greatest lawyer inEngland, an ornament to any country. Cromwell made strenuous efforts tocorrect the abuses of the court of chancery and of criminal law. Heestablished trial by jury for political offences. He tried to procurethe formal re-admission of the Jews to England. He held conferences withGeorge Fox. He snatched Biddle, the Socinian, from the fangs ofpersecutors. He fostered commerce and developed the industrial resourcesof the nation, like Burleigh and Colbert. He created a navy, and becamethe father of the maritime greatness of England. He suppressed alllicense among the soldiers, although his power rested on their loyaltyto him. He honored learning and exalted the universities, placing inthem learned men. He secured the union between England and Scotland, andcalled representatives from Scotland to his parliaments. He adopted agenerous policy with the colonies in North America, and freed them fromrapacious governors. His war policy was not for mere aggrandizement. Hesucceeded Gustavus Adolphus as the protector of Protestantism on theContinent. He sought to make England respected among all the nations;and, as righteousness exalts a nation, he sought to maintain publicmorality. His court was simple and decorous; he gave no countenance tolevities and follies, and his own private life was pure andreligious, --so that there was general admiration of his conduct as wellas of his government. 

Cromwell was certainly very fortunate in his régime. The army and navydid wonders; Blake and Monk gained great victories; Gibraltar wastaken, --one of the richest prizes that England ever gained in war. Thefleets of Spain were destroyed; the trade of the Indies was opened tohis ships. He maintained the "balance of power. " He punished the Africanpirates of the Mediterranean. His glory reached Asia, and extended toAmerica. So great was his renown that the descendants of Abraham, evenon the distant plains of Asia, inquired of one another if he were notthe servant of the King of Kings, whom they were looking for. A learnedRabbi even came from Asia to London for the purpose of investigating hispedigree, thinking to discover in him the "Lion of the tribe of Judah. "If his policy had been followed out by his successors, Louis XIV. Wouldnot have dared to revoke the Edict of Nantes; if he had reigned tenyears longer, there would have been no revival of Romanism. I supposeEngland never had so enlightened a monarch. He was more like Charlemagnethan Richelieu. Contrast him with Louis XIV. , a contemporaneous despot:Cromwell devoted all his energies to develop the resources of hiscountry, while Louis did what he could to waste them; Cromwell's reignwas favorable to the development of individual genius, but Louis wassuch an intolerable egotist that at the close of his reign all the greatlights had disappeared; Cromwell was tolerant, Louis was persecuting;Cromwell laid the foundation of an indefinite expansion, Louis sowed theseeds of discontent and revolution. Both indeed took the sword, --the oneto dethrone the Stuarts, the other to exterminate the Protestants. Cromwell bequeathed to successors the moral force of personal virtue, Louis paved the way for the most disgraceful excesses; Cromwell spenthis leisure hours with his family and with divines, Louis with hisfavorites and mistresses; Cromwell would listen to expostulations, Louiscrushed all who differed from him. The career of the former was aprogressive rise, that of the latter a progressive fall. The ultimateinfluence of Cromwell's policy was to develop the greatness of England;that of Louis, to cut the sinews of national wealth, and poison thosesources of renovation which still remained. The memory of Cromwell isdear to good men in spite of his defects; while that of Louis, in spiteof his graces and urbanities, is a watchword for all that is repulsivein despotism. Hence Cromwell is more and more a favorite withenlightened minds, while Louis is more and more regarded as a man whomade the welfare of the State subordinate to his own glory. In a word, Cromwell feared only God; while Louis feared only hell. The piety of theone was lofty; that of the other was technical, formal, and pharisaical. The chief defect in the character of Cromwell was his expediency, orwhat I call _jesuitism_, --following out good ends by questionable means;the chief defect in the character of Louis was an absorbing egotism, which sacrificed everything for private pleasure or interest. 

The difficulty in judging Cromwell seems to me to be in the imperfectionof our standards of public morality. We are apt to excuse in a rulerwhat we condemn in a private man. If Oliver Cromwell is to be measuredby the standard which accepts expediency as a guide in life, he will beexcused for his worst acts. If he is to be measured by an immutablestandard, he will be picked to pieces. In regard to his private life, aside from cant and dissimulation, there is not much to condemn, andthere is much to praise. He was not a libertine like Henry IV. , nor anegotist like Napoleon. He delighted in the society of the learned andthe pious; he was susceptible to grand sentiments; he was just in hisdealings and fervent in his devotions. He was liberal, humane, simple, unostentatious, and economical. He was indeed ambitious, but hisambition was noble. 

His intellectual defect was his idea of special divine illumination, which made him visionary and rhapsodical and conceited. He was asecond-adventist, and believed that Christ would return, at no distanttime, to establish the reign of the saints upon the earth. But hismorals were as irreproachable as those of Marcus Aurelius. Like MichaelAngelo, he despised frivolities, though it is said he relished roughjokes, like Abraham Lincoln. He was conscientious in the discharge ofwhat he regarded as duties, and seemed to feel his responsibility to Godas the sovereign of the universe. His family revered him as much as thenation respected him. He was not indeed lovable, like Saint Louis; buthe can never lose the admiration of mankind, since the glory of hisadministration was not sullied by those private vices which destroyesteem and ultimately undermine both power and influence. He was one ofthose world-heroes of whom nations will be proud as they advance in thetoleration of human infirmities, --as they draw distinction betweenthose who live for themselves and those who live for their country, --andthe recognition of those principles on which all progress is based. 

Cromwell died prematurely, if not for his fame, at least for hisusefulness. His reign as Protector lasted only five years, yet whatwonders he did in that brief period! He suppressed the anarchies of therevolution, he revived law, he restored learning, he developed theresources of his country; he made it respected at home and abroad, andshed an imperishable glory on his administration, --but "on the thresholdof success he met the inexorable enemy. "

It was a stormy night, August 30, 1658, when the wild winds were roaringand all nature was overclouded with darkness and gloom, that the lastintelligible words of the dying hero were heard by his attendants: "OLord! though I am a miserable sinner, I am still in covenant with Thee. Thou hast made me, though very unworthy, an instrument to do Thy peoplegood; and go on, O Lord, to deliver them and make Thy name gloriousthroughout the world!" These dying words are the key alike to hischaracter and his mission. He believed himself to be an instrument ofthe Almighty Sovereign in whom he believed, and whom, with all hisfaults and errors, he sought to serve, and in whom he trusted. 

And it is in this light, chiefly, that the career of this remarkableman is to be viewed. An instrument of God he plainly was, to avenge thewrongs of an insulted, an indignant, and an honest nation, and toimpress upon the world the necessity of wise and benignant rulers. Hearose to vindicate the majesty of public virtue, to rebuke the egotismof selfish kings, to punish the traitors of important trusts. He aroseto point out the true sources of national prosperity, to head off thetroops of a renovated Romanism, to promote liberty of conscience in allmatters of religious belief. He was raised up as a champion ofProtestantism when kings were returning to Rome, and as an awfulchastiser of those bigoted and quarrelsome Irish who have ever beenhostile to law and order, and uncontrollable by any influence but thatof fear. But, above all, he was raised up to try the experiment ofliberty in the seventeenth century. 

That experiment unfortunately failed. All sects and parties soughtascendency rather than the public good; angry and inexperienced, theyrefused to compromise. Sectarianism was the true hydra that baffled theenergy of the courageous combatant. Parliaments were factious, meddlesome, and inexperienced, and sought to block the wheels ofgovernment rather than promote wholesome legislation. The peoplehankered for their old pleasures, and were impatient of restraint; theirleaders were demagogues or fanatics; they could not be coerced by mildmeasures or appeals to enlightened reason. Hence coercive measures wereimperative; and these could be carried only by a large standingarmy, --ever the terror and menace of liberty; the greatest blot onconstitutional governments, --a necessity, but an evil, since themilitary power should be subordinate to the civil, not the civil to themilitary. The iron hand by which Cromwell was obliged to rule, if heruled at all, at last became odious to all classes, since they had manyrights which were ignored. When they clamored for the blood of ananointed tyrant, they did not bargain for a renewed despotism moreirksome and burdensome than the one they had suppressed. The publicrejoicings, the universal enthusiasm, the brilliant spectacles andfêtes, the flattering receptions and speeches which hailed therestoration of Charles II. , showed unmistakably that the régime ofCromwell, though needed for a time, was unpopular, and was not inaccordance with the national aspirations. If they were to be ruled by atyrant, they preferred to be ruled according to precedents andtraditions and hallowed associations. The English people loved then, asthey love now, as they ever have loved, royalty, the reign of kingsaccording to the principles of legitimacy. They have shown thedisposition to fetter these kings, not to dispense with them. 

So the experiment of Cromwell and his party failed. How mournful itmust have seemed to the original patriots of the revolution, that hard, iron, military rule was all that England had gained by the struggles andthe blood of her best people. Wherefore had treasures been lavished in anine years' contest; wherefore the battles of Marston Moor andWorcester; wherefore the eloquence of Pym and Hampden? All wasted. Thehouse which had been swept and garnished was re-entered by devils worsethan before. 

Thus did this experiment seem; teaching, at least, this useful andimpressive lesson, --that despotism will succeed unwise and violentefforts for reform; that reforms are not to be carried on by bayonets, but by reason; that reformers must be patient, and must be contentedwith constitutional measures; that any violation of the immutable lawsof justice will be visited with unlooked-for retribution. 

But sad as this experiment seemed, can it be pronounced to be wholly afailure? No earnest human experiment is ever thrown away. The greatideas of Cromwell, and of those who originally took up arms with him, entered into new combinations. The spirit remained, if the form waschanged. After a temporary reaction, the love of liberty returned. Thesecond revolution of 1688 was the logical sequence of the first. It wasonly another act in the great drama of national development. The spiritwhich overthrew Charles I. Also overturned the throne of James II. ; butthe wisdom gained by experience sent him into exile, instead ofexecuting him on the scaffold. Two experiments with those treacherousStuarts were necessary before the conviction became fastened on the mindof the English people that constitutional liberty could not exist whilethey remained upon the throne; and the spirit which had burst out into ablazing flame two generations earlier, was now confined withinconstitutional limits. But it was not suppressed; it produced salutaryreforms with every advancing generation. "It produced, " says Macaulay, "the famous Declaration of Right, which guaranteed the liberties of theEnglish upon their present basis; which again led to the freedom of thepress, the abolition of slavery, Catholic emancipation, andrepresentative reform, " Had the experiment not been tried by Cromwelland his party, it might have been tried by worse men, whose gospel ofrights would be found in the "social contract" of a Rousseau, ratherthan in the "catechism" of the Westminster divines. It was fortunatethat revolutionary passions should have raged in the bosoms ofChristians rather than of infidels, --of men who believed in obedience toa personal God, rather than men who teach the holiness of untutoredimpulse, the infallibility of majorities, and the majesty of theunaided intellect of man. And then who can estimate the value ofCromwell's experience on the patriots of our own Revolution? His examplemay even have taught the great Washington how dangerous and inconsistentit would be to accept an earthly crown, while denouncing the tyranny ofkings, and how much more enduring is that fame which is cherished in anation's heart than that which is blared by the trumpet of idolatroussoldiers indifferent to those rights which form the basis of socialcivilization. 

AUTHORITIES. 

Bulstrode's Memoirs; Ludlow's Memoirs; Sir Edward Walker's HistoricalDiscourses; Carlyle's Speeches and Letters of Oliver Cromwell;Macaulay's Essays; Hallam's Constitutional History; Froude's History ofEngland; Guizot's History of Cromwell; Lamartine's Essay on Cromwell;Forster's Statesmen of the British Commonwealth; Clarendon's History ofthe Rebellion; Hume and Lingard's Histories of England; Life ofCromwell, by Russell; Southey's Protectorate of Cromwell; Three EnglishStatesmen, Goldwin Smith; Dr. Wilson's Life of Cromwell; D'Aubigné'sLife of Oliver Cromwell; Articles in North American, North British, Westminster, and British Quarterlies on Cromwell. 

LOUIS XIV. 

A. D. 1638-1715. 

THE FRENCH MONARCHY. 

The verdict of this age in reference to Louis XIV. Is very differentfrom that which his own age pronounced. Two hundred years ago hiscountrymen called him _Le Grand Monarque_, and his glory filled theworld. Since Charlemagne, no monarch had been the object of suchunbounded panegyric as he, until Napoleon appeared. He lived in anatmosphere of perpetual incense, and reigned in dazzling magnificence. 

Although he is not now regarded in the same light as he was in theseventeenth century, and originated no great movement that civilizationvalues, --in fact was anything but a permanent benefactor to his countryor mankind, --yet Louis XIV. Is still one of the Beacon Lights ofhistory, for warning if not for guidance. His reign was an epoch; it wasnot only one of the longest in human annals, but also one of the mostbrilliant, imposing, and interesting. Whatever opinion may exist as tohis inherent intellectual greatness, no candid historian denies thepower of his will, the force of his character, and the immense influencehe exerted. He was illustrious, if he was not great; he was powerful, ifhe made fatal mistakes; he was feared and envied by all nations, evenwhen he stood alone; and it took all Europe combined to strip him of theconquests which his generals made, and to preserve the "balance ofpower" which he had disturbed. With all Europe in arms against him, he, an old and broken-hearted man, contrived to preserve, by his fortitudeand will, the territories he had inherited; and he died peacefully uponhis bed, at the age of seventy-six, still the most absolute king thatever reigned in France. A man so strong, so fortunate until his latteryears; so magnificent in his court, which he made the most brilliant ofmodern times; so lauded by the great geniuses who surrounded his throne, all of whom looked up to him as a central sun of power and glory, --isnot to be flippantly judged, or ruthlessly hurled from that proudpinnacle on which he was seated, amid the acclamations of twogenerations. His successes dazzled the world; his misfortunes excitedits pity, except among those who were sufferers by his needless wars orhis cruel persecutions. His virtues and his defects both stand out inbold relief, and will make him a character to meditate upon as long ashistory shall be written. 

The reign of Louis XIV. Would be remarkable for the great men who shedlustre on his throne, if he had himself been contemptible. Voltairedoubted if any age ever saw such an illustrious group, and he comparesit with the age of Pericles in Greece, with that of Augustus in Rome, and that of the Medici in Italy, --four great epochs in intellectualexcellence, which have never been surpassed in brilliancy and variety oftalent. No such generals had arisen since the palmy days of Romangrandeur as Condé, Turenne, Luxembourg, Vauban, Berwick, and Villars, ifwe except Gustavus Adolphus, and those generals with whom the marshalsof Louis contended, such as William III. , Marlborough, and Eugene. Nomonarch was ever served by abler ministers than Colbert and Louvois; theformer developing the industries and resources of a great country, andthe latter organizing its forces for all the exigencies of vast militarycampaigns. What galaxy of poets more brilliant than that which shedglory on the throne of this great king!--men like Corneille, Boileau, Fontanelle, La Fontaine, Racine, and Molière; no one of them a Dante ora Shakspeare, but all together shining as a constellation. What greatjurists and lawyers were Le Tellier and D'Aguesseau and Molé! What greatprelates and preachers were Bossuet, Fénelon, Bourdaloue, Massillon, Fléchier, Saurin, --unrivalled for eloquence in any age! What originaland profound thinkers were Pascal, Descartes, Helvetius, Malebranche, Nicole, and Quesnel! Until the seventeenth century, what morerespectable historians had arisen than Dupin, Tillemont, Mabillon, andFleury; or critics and scholars than Bayle, Arnauld, De Sacy, andCalmet! La Rochefoucauld uttered maxims which were learned by heart bygiddy courtiers. Great painters and sculptors, such as Le Brun, Poussin, Claude Lorrain, and Girardon, ornamented the palaces which Mansarderected; while Le Nôtre laid out the gardens of those palaces which arestill a wonder. 

It must be borne in mind that Louis XIV. Had an intuitive perception ofgenius and talent, which he was proud to reward and anxious toappropriate. Although his own education had been neglected, he had asevere taste and a disgust of all vulgarity, so that his manners weredecorous and dignified in the midst of demoralizing pleasures. Proud, both from adulation and native disposition, he yet was polite andaffable. He never passed a woman without lifting his hat, and heuniformly rose when a lady entered into his presence. But, with all hispoliteness, he never unbent, even in the society of his most intimatefriends, so jealous was he of his dignity and power. Unscrupulous in hispublic transactions, and immoral in his private relations with women, hehad a great respect for the ordinances of religion, and was punctiliousin the outward observances of the Catholic Church. The age itself wasreligious; and so was he, in a technical and pharisaical piety and pettyritualistic duties. He was a bigot and a persecutor, which fact endearedhim to the Jesuits, by whom, in matters of conscience, he was ruled, sothat he became their tool even while he thought he controlledeverything. He was as jealous of his power as he was of his dignity, andhe learned to govern himself as well as his subjects. He would himselfsubmit to the most rigid formalities in order to exact a rigorousdiscipline and secure unconditional obedience from others. No one everdared openly to thwart his will or oppose his wishes, although he couldbe led through his passions and his vanity: he was imperious in hiscommands, and exacting in the services he demanded from all whosurrounded his person. He had perfect health, a strong physique, greataptitude for business, and great regularity in his habits. It wasdifficult to deceive him, for he understood human nature, and thus wasable to select men of merit and talent for all high offices in Stateand Church. 

In one sense Louis XIV. Seems to have been even patriotic, since heidentified his own glory with that of the nation, having learnedsomething from Richelieu, whose policy he followed. Hence he wassupported by the people, if he was not loved, because he was ambitiousof making France the most powerful nation in Christendom. The love ofglory ever has been one of the characteristics of the French nation, andthis passion the king impersonated, which made him dear to the nation, as Napoleon was before he became intoxicated by power; and hence Louishad the power of rallying his subjects in great misfortunes. Theyforgave extravagance in palace-building, from admiration ofmagnificence. They were proud of a despot who called out the praises ofthe world. They saw in his parks, his gardens, his marble halls, histapestries, his pictures, and his statues a glory which belonged toFrance as well as to him. They marched joyfully in his armies, whatevertheir sacrifices, for he was only leading them to glory, --an emptyillusion, yet one of those words which has ruled the world, since it isan expression of that vanity which has its roots in the deepest recessesof the soul. Glory is the highest aspiration of egotism, and Louis wasan incarnation of egotism, like Napoleon after him. They bothrepresented the master passions of the people to whom they appealed. "Never, " says St. Simon, "has any one governed with a better grace, or, by the manner of bestowing, more enhanced the value of his favors. Neverhas any one sold at so high a price his words, nay his very smiles andglances. " And then, "so imposing and majestic was his air that those whoaddressed him must first accustom themselves to his appearance, not tobe overawed. No one ever knew better, how to maintain a certain mannerwhich made him appear great. " Yet it is said that his stature was small. No one knew better than he how to impress upon his courtiers the ideathat kings are of a different blood from other men. He even knew how toinvest vice and immorality with an air of elegance, and was capable ofgenerous sentiments and actions. He on one occasion sold a gold serviceof plate for four hundred thousand francs, to purchase bread forstarving troops. If haughty, exacting, punctilious, he was not cold. Even his rigid etiquette and dignified reserve were the dictates ofstatecraft, as well as of natural inclination. He seemed to feel that hewas playing a great part, with the eyes of the world upon him; so thathe was an actor as Napoleon was, but a more consistent one, because inhis egotism he never forgot himself, not even among his mistresses. As_grand monarque_, the arbiter of all fortunes, the central sun of allglory, was he always figuring before the eyes of men. He never relaxedhis habits of ceremony and ostentation, nor his vigilance as anadministrator, nor his iron will, nor his thirst for power; so that heruled as he wished until he died, in spite of the reverses of his sadold age, and without losing the respect of his subjects, oppressed asthey were with taxes and humiliated by national disasters. 

Such were some of the traits which made Louis XIV. A great sovereign, ifnot a great man. He was not only supported by the people who weredazzled by his magnificence, and by the great men who adorned his court, but he was aided by fortunate circumstances and great national ideas. Hewas heir of the powers of Richelieu and the treasures of Mazarin. Thosetwo cardinals, who claimed equal rank with independent princes, higherthan that of the old nobility, pursued essentially the same policy, although this policy was the fruit of Richelieu's genius; and thispolicy was the concentration of all authority in the hands of the king. Louis XIII. Was the feeblest of the Bourbons, but he made his throne thefirst in Europe. Richelieu was a great benefactor to the cause of law, order, and industry, despotic as was his policy and hateful hischaracter. When he died, worn out by his herculean labors, the noblestried to regain the privileges and powers they had lost, and a miserablewarfare called the "Fronde" was the result, carried on without genius orsystem. But the Fronde produced some heroes who were destined to befamous in the great wars of Louis XIV. Mazarin, with less ability thanRichelieu, and more selfish, conquered in the end, by following out thepolicy of his predecessor. He developed the resources of the kingdom, besides accumulating an enormous fortune for himself, --about two hundredmillions of francs, --which, when he died, he bequeathed, not to theChurch or his relatives, but to the young King, who thus becamepersonally rich as well as strong. To have entered upon the magnificentinheritance which these two able cardinals bequeathed to the monarchywas most fortunate to Louis, --unrestricted power and enormous wealth. 

But Louis was still more fortunate in reaping the benefits of theprinciple of royalty. We have in the United States but a feebleconception of the power of this principle in Europe in the seventeenthcentury; it was nursed by all the chivalric sentiments of the MiddleAges. The person of a king was sacred; he was regarded as divinelycommissioned. The sacred oil poured on his head by the highest dignitaryof the Church, at his coronation, imparted to him a sacred charm. Allthe influences of the Church, as well as those of Feudalism, set theking apart from all other men, as a consecrated monarch to rule thepeople. This loyalty to the throne had the sanction of the Jewishnation, and of all Oriental nations from the remotest ages. Hence theworld has known no other form of government than that of kings andemperors, except in a few countries and for a brief period. Whatever theking decreed, had the force of irresistible law; no one dared to disobeya royal mandate but a rebel in actual hostilities. Resistance to royalauthority was ruin. This royal power was based on and enforced by theideas of ages. Who can resist universally accepted ideas?

Moreover, in France especially, there was a chivalric charm about theperson of a king; he was not only sacred, of purer blood than otherpeople, but the greatest nobles were proud to attend and wait upon hisperson. Devotion to the person of the prince became the highest duty. Itwas not political slavery, but a religious and sentimental allegiance. So sacred was this allegiance, that only the most detested tyrants werein personal danger of assassination, or those who were objects ofreligious fanaticism. A king could dismiss his most powerful minister, or his most triumphant general at the head of an army, by a stroke ofthe pen, or by a word, without expostulation or resistance. To disobeythe king was tantamount to defiance of Almighty power. A great generalrules by machinery rather than devotion to his person. But devotion tothe king needed no support from armies or guards. A king in theseventeenth century was supposed to be the vicegerent of the Deity. 

Another still more powerful influence gave stability to the throne ofLouis: this was the Catholic Church. Louis was a devout Catholic inspite of his sins, and was true to the interests of the Pope. He wasgoverned, so far as he was governed at all, by Jesuit confessors. Heassociated on the most intimate terms with the great prelates andchurchmen of the day, like Bossuet, Fénelon, La Chaise, and Le Tellier. He was regular at church and admired good sermons; he was punctilious inall the outward observances of his religion. He detested all rebellionfrom the spiritual authority of the popes; he hated both heresy andschism. In his devotion to the Catholic Church he was as narrow andintolerant as a village priest. His sincerity in defence of the Churchwas never questioned, and hence all the influences of the Church wereexerted to uphold his domination. He may have quarrelled with popes onpolitical grounds, and humiliated them as temporal powers, but he stoodby them in the exercise of their spiritual functions. In Louis' reignthe State and Church were firmly knit together. It was deemed necessaryto be a good Catholic in order to be even a citizen, --so that religionbecame fashionable, provided it was after the pattern of that of theKing and court. Even worldly courtiers entered with interest into themost subtile of theological controversies. But the King always took theside devoted to the Pope, and he hated Jansenism almost as much as hehated Protestantism. Hence the Catholic Church ever rallied tohis support. 

So, with all these powerful supports Louis began his long reign ofseventy-six years, --which technically began when he was four years old, on the death of his father Louis XIII. , in 1643, when the kingdom wasgoverned by his mother, Anne of Austria, as regent, and by CardinalMazarin as prime minister. During the minority of the King thehumiliation of the nobles continued. Protestantism was only tolerated, and the country distracted rather than impoverished by the civil war ofthe Fronde, with its intrigues and ever-shifting parties, --a giddy maze, which nobody now cares to unravel; a sort of dance of death, in whichfigured cardinals, princes, nobles, bishops, judges, and generals, --when"Bacchus, Momus, and Moloch" alternately usurped dominion. Thoseeighteen years of strife, folly, absurdity, and changing fortunes, whenMazarin was twice compelled to quit the kingdom he governed; when thequeen-regent was forced also twice to fly from her capital; whenCardinal De Retz disgraced his exalted post as Archbishop of Paris bythe vilest intrigues; when Condé and Conti obscured the lustre of theirmilitary laurels; when alternately the parliaments made war on thecrown, and the seditious nobles ignobly yielded their functions merelyto register royal decrees, --these contests, rivalries, cabals, andfollies, ending however in the more solid foundations of absolute royalauthority, are not to be here discussed, especially as nobody can threadthat political labyrinth; and we begin, therefore, not with thetechnical reign of the great King, but with his actual government, which took place on the death of Mazarin, when he was twenty-two. 

It is said that when that able ruler passed away so reluctantly from hispictures and his government, the ministers asked of the youngKing, --thus far only known for his pleasures, --to whom they should nowbring their portfolios, "To me, " he replied; and from that moment hebecame the State, and his will the law of the land. 

I have already alluded to the talents and capacities of Louis forgoverning, and the great aid he derived from the labors of Richelieu andthe moral sentiments of his age respecting royalty and religion; so Iwill not dwell on personal defects or virtues, but proceed to show theway in which he executed the task devolved upon him, --in other words, present a brief history of his government, for which he was so wellfitted by native talents, fortunate circumstances, and establishedideas. I will only say, that never did a monarch enter upon his careerwith such ample and magnificent opportunities for being a benefactor ofhis people and of civilization. In his hands were placed all the powersof good and evil; and so far as government can make a nation great, Louis had the means and opportunities beyond those of any monarch inmodern times. He had armies and generals and accumulated treasures; andall implicitly served him. His ministers and his generals were equallyable and supple, and he was at peace with all the world. Parliaments, nobles, and Huguenots were alike submissive and reverential. He hadinherited the experience of Sully, of Richelieu, and of Mazarin. Hiskingdom was protected by great natural boundaries, --the North Sea, theocean, the Mediterranean, the Pyrenees, the Alps, and the mountainswhich overlook the Rhine. By nothing was he fettered but by the decreesof everlasting righteousness. To his praise be it said, he inauguratedhis government by selecting Colbert as one of his prime ministers, --theablest man of his kingdom. It was this honest and astute servant ofroyalty who ferreted out the peculations of Fouquet, whom Louis did nothesitate to disgrace and punish. The great powers of Fouquet weregradually bestowed on the merchant's son of Rheims. 

Colbert was a plebeian and a Protestant, --cold, severe, reserved, awkward, abrupt, and ostentatiously humble, but of inflexible integrityand unrivalled sagacity and forethought; more able as a financier andpolitical economist than any man of his century. It was something for ayoung, proud, and pleasure-seeking monarch to see and reward the talentsof such a man; and Colbert had the tact and wisdom to make his youngmaster believe that all the measures which he pursued originated in theroyal brain. His great merit as a minister consisted in developing theindustrial resources of France and providing the King with money. 

Colbert was the father of French commerce, and the creator of the Frenchnavy. He saw that Flanders was enriched by industry, and England andHolland made powerful by a navy, while Spain and Portugal languished anddeclined with all their mines of gold and silver. So he built ships ofwar, and made harbors for them, gave charters to East and West IndiaCompanies, planted colonies in India and America, decreed tariffs toprotect infant manufactures, gave bounties to all kinds of artisans, encouraged manufacturing industry, and declared war on the whole broodof aristocratic peculators that absorbed the revenues of the kingdom. Heestablished a better system of accounts, compelled all officers toreside at their posts, and reduced the percentage of the collection ofthe public money. In thirteen years he increased the navy from thirtyships to two hundred and seventy-three, one hundred of which were shipsof the line. He prepared a new code of maritime law for the governmentof the navy, which called out universal admiration. He dug the canal ofLanguedoc, which united the Mediterranean with the Atlantic Ocean. Heinstituted the Academies of Sciences, of Inscriptions, of BellesLettres, of Painting, of Sculpture, of Architecture; and founded theSchool of Oriental languages, the Observatory, and the School of Law. Hegave pensions to Corneille, Racine, Molière, and other men of genius. Herewarded artists and invited scholars to France; he repaired roads, built bridges, and directed the attention of the middle classes to theaccumulation of capital. "He recognized the connection of works ofindustry with the development of genius. He saw the influence of sciencein the production of riches; of taste on industry; and the fine arts onmanual labor. " For all these enlightened measures the King had thecredit and the glory; and it certainly redounds to his sagacity that heaccepted such wise suggestions, although he mistook them for his own. Soto the eyes of Europe Louis at once loomed up as an enlightened monarch;and it would be difficult to rob him of this glory. He indorsed theeconomical reforms of his great minister, and rewarded merit in alldepartments, which he was not slow to see. The world extolled thisenlightened and fortunate young prince, and saw in him a second Solomon, both for wisdom and magnificence. 

Another great genius ably assisted Louis as soon as he turned hisattention to war, --the usual employment of ambitious kings, --and thiswas Le Tellier, Marquis of Louvois, the great war minister, who laid outthe campaigns and directed the movements of such generals as Condé, Turenne, and Luxembourg. And here again it redounds to the sagacity ofLouis that he should select a man for so great a post whom he neverpersonally loved, and who in his gusts of passion would almost insulthis master. Louvois is acknowledged to have been the ablest war ministerthat France ever had. 

Louis reigned peaceably and prosperously for six years before theambition of being a conqueror and a hero seized him. At twenty-eight heburned to play the part of Alexander. Thenceforth the history of hisreign chiefly pertains to his gigantic wars, --some defensive, but mostlyoffensive, aggressive, and unprovoked. 

In regard to these various wars, which plunged Europe in mourning andrage for nearly fifty years, Louis is generally censured by historians. They were wars of ambition, like those of Alexander and Frederic II. , until Europe combined against him and compelled him to act on thedefensive. The limits of this lecture necessarily prevent me fromdescribing these wars; I can only allude to the most important of them, and then only to show results. 

His first great war was simply outrageous, and was an insult to allEurope, and a violation of all international law. In 1667, with animmense army, he undertook the conquest of Flanders, with no betterexcuse than Frederic II. Had for the invasion of Silesia, --because hewanted an increase of territory. Flanders had done nothing to warrantthis outrage, was unprepared for war, and was a weak state, but rich andpopulous, with fine harbors, and flourishing manufactures. With nearlyfifty thousand men, under Condé, Turenne, and Luxembourg, and othergenerals of note, aided by Louvois, who provided military stores ofevery kind, and all under the eye of the King himself, full of ideas ofglory, the issue of the conflict was not doubtful. In fact, there was noserious defence. It was hopeless from the first. Louis had only to takepossession of cities and fortresses which were at his mercy. Thefrontier towns were mostly without fortifications, so that it took onlyabout two or three days to conquer any city. The campaign was more acourt progress than a series of battles. It was a sort of holiday sportfor courtiers, like a royal hunt. The conquest of all Flanders mighthave been the work of a single campaign, for no city offered a stubbornresistance; but the war was prolonged for another year, that Louis mightmore easily take possession of Franche-Comté, --a poor province, butfertile in soil, well peopled, one hundred and twenty miles in lengthand sixty in breadth. In less than three weeks this province was addedto France. "Louis, " said the Spanish council in derision, "might havesent his _valet de chambre_ to have taken possession of the country inhis name, and saved himself the trouble of going in person. "

This successful raid seems to have contented the King for the time, since Holland made signs of resistance, and a league was forming againsthim, embracing England, Holland, and Sweden. 

The courtiers and flatterers of Louis XIV. Called this unheroic seizure"glory. " And it doubtless added to the dominion of France, inflamed thepeople with military ambition, and caused the pride of birth for thefirst time to yield to military talent and military rank. A marshalbecame a greater personage than a duke, although a marshal was generallytaken from the higher nobility. 

Louis paid no apparent penalty for this crime, any more than prosperouswickedness at first usually receives. "His eyes stood out with fatness. "To idolatrous courtiers "he had more than heart could wish. " But thepenalty was to come: law cannot be violated with impunity. 

The peace of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1668 followed, which made Louis the mostprominent figure in Europe. He was then twenty-nine years of age, in thepride of strength, devoted equally to pleasure and ambition. It was thenthat he was the lover of the Duchesse de La Vallière, who was soon to besupplanted by the imperious Montespan. Louis remained at peace for fouryears, but all the while he was preparing for another war, aimed againstHolland, which had offended him because resolved to resist him. 

Vaster preparations were made for this war than that against Flanders, five years before. The storm broke out in 1672, when this little statesaw itself invaded by one hundred and thirty thousand men, led by theKing in person, accompanied by his principal marshals, his war-ministerLouvois, and Vauban, to whom was intrusted the direction of siegeoperations, --an engineer who changed the system of fortifications. Thiswas the most magnificent army that Europe had ever seen since theCrusades, and much was expected of it. Against Condé, Turenne, Luxembourg, and Vauban, all under the eye of the King, with a powerfultrain of artillery, and immense sums of money to bribe the commanders ofgarrisons, Holland had only to oppose twenty-five thousand soldiers, under a sickly young man of twenty-two, William, Prince of Orange. 

Of course Holland was unable to resist such an overwhelming tide ofenemies, such vast and disproportionate forces. City after city andfortress after fortress was compelled to surrender to the generals ofthe French King. "They were taken almost as soon as they were invested. "All the strongholds on the Rhine and Issel fell. The Prince of Orangecould not even take the field. Louis crossed the Rhine withoutdifficulty, when the waters were low, with only four or five hundredhorsemen to dispute his passage. This famous passage was the subject ofridiculous panegyrics by both painters and poets. It was generallyregarded as a prodigious feat, especially by the people of Paris, as ifit were another passage of the Granicus. 

Then rapidly fell Arnheim, Nimeguen, Utrecht, and other cities. Thewealthy families of Amsterdam prepared to embark in their ships for theEast Indies. Nothing remained to complete the conquest of Holland butthe surrender of Amsterdam, which still held out. Holland was indespair, and sent ambassadors to the camp of Louis, headed by Grotius, to implore his mercy. He received them, after protracted delays, withblended insolence and arrogance, and demanded, as the conditions ofhis mercy, that the States should give up all their fortifiedcities, pay twenty millions of francs, and establish the Catholicreligion, --conditions which would have reduced the Hollanders toabsolute slavery, morally and politically. From an inspiration ofblended patriotism and despair, the Dutch opened their dykes, overflowedthe whole country in possession of the enemy, and thus made Amsterdamimpregnable, --especially as they were still masters of the sea, and hadjust dispersed, in a brilliant naval battle under De Ruyter, thecombined fleets of France and England. 

It was this memorable resistance to vastly superior forces, andreadiness to make any sacrifices, which gave immortal fame to William ofOrange, and imperishable glory also to the little state over which heruled. What a spectacle!--a feeble mercantile state, without powerfulallies, bracing itself up to a life-and-death struggle with themightiest potentate of Europe. I know no parallel to it in the historyof modern times. Our fathers in the Revolutionary war could retreat toforests and mountains; but Holland had neither mountains nor forests. There was no escape from political ruin but by the inundation of fertilefields, the destruction to an unprecedented degree of private property, and the decimation of the male part of the population. Nor did the nobledefenders dream of victory; they only hoped to make a temporary stand. William knew he would be beaten in every battle; his courage was moralrather than physical. He lost no ground by defeat, while Louis lostground by victory, since it required a large part of his army to guardthe prisoners and garrison the fortresses he had taken. 

Some military writers say that Louis should have persevered until he hadtaken Amsterdam. As well might Napoleon have remained in Russia afterthe conflagration of Moscow. In May, Louis entered Holland; in July, allEurope was in confederacy against him, through the negotiations of thePrince of Orange. Louis hastened to quit the army when no moreconquests could be made in a country overflowed with water, leavingTurenne and Luxembourg to finish the war in Franche-Comté. The ablegenerals of the French king were obliged to evacuate Holland. Thatlittle state, by an act of supreme self-sacrifice, saved itself when allseemed lost. I do not read of any military mistakes on the part of thegenerals of Louis. They were baffled by an unforeseen inundation; andwhen they were compelled to evacuate the flooded country, the Dutchquietly closed their dykes and pumped the water out again into theircanals by their windmills, and again restored fertility to their fields;and by the time Louis was prepared for fresh invasions, a combinationexisted against him so formidable that he found it politic to makepeace. The campaigns of Turenne on the Rhine were indeed successful; buthe was killed in an insignificant battle, from a chance cannonball, while the Prince of Condé retired forever from military service afterthe bloody battle of Senif. On the whole, the French were victorious inthe terrible battles which followed the evacuation of Holland, and Louisdictated peace to Europe apparently in the midst of victories atNimeguen, in 1678, after six years of brilliant fighting on both sides. 

At the peace of Nimeguen Louis was in the zenith of his glory, asNapoleon was after the peace of Tilsit. He was justly regarded as themightiest monarch of his age, the greatest king that France had everseen. All Europe stood in awe of him; and with awe was blendedadmiration, for his resources were unimpaired, his generals had greatlydistinguished themselves, and he had added important provinces to hiskingdom, which was also enriched by the internal reforms of Colbert, andmade additionally powerful by commerce and a great navy, which hadgained brilliant victories over the Dutch and Spanish fleets. Duquesneshowed himself to be almost as great a genius in naval warfare as DeRuyter, who was killed off Aosta in 1676. In those happy and prosperousdays the Hotel de Ville conferred upon Louis the title of "Great, " whichposterity never acknowledged. "Titles, " says Voltaire, "are neverregarded by posterity. The simple name of a man who has performed nobleactions impresses on us more respect than all the epithets that can beinvented. "

After the peace of Nimeguen, in 1678, the King reigned in greatersplendor than before. There were no limits to his arrogance and hisextravagance. He was a modern Nebuchadnezzar. He claimed to be thestate. _L'état, c'est moi!_ was his proud exclamation. He would bear nocontradiction and no opposition. The absorbing sentiment of his soulseems to have been that France belonged to him, that it had been givento him as an inheritance, to manage as he pleased for his privategratification. "Self-aggrandizement, " he wrote, "is the noblestoccupation of kings. " Most writers affirm that personal aggrandizementbecame the law of his life, and that he now began to lose sight of thehigher interests and happiness of his people, and to reign not for thembut for himself. He became a man of resentments, of caprices, ofundisguised selfishness; he became pompous and haughty and self-willed. We palliate his self-exaggeration and pride, on account of thedisgraceful flatteries he received on every hand. Never was a man moreextravagantly lauded, even by the learned. But had he been half as greatas his courtiers made him think, he would not have been so intoxicated;Caesar or Charlemagne would not thus have lost his intellectual balance. The strongest argument to prove that he was not inherently great, butmade apparently so by fortunate circumstances, is his self-deception. 

In his arrogance and presumption, like Napoleon after the peace ofTilsit, he now sets aside the rights of other nations, heaps gallinginsults on independent potentates, and assumes the most arrogant tone inall his relations with his neighbors or subjects. He makes conquests inthe midst of peace. He cites the princes of Europe before his councils. He deprives the Elector Palatine and the Elector of Treves of some oftheir most valuable seigniories. He begins to persecute theProtestants. He seizes Luxembourg and the principality which belonged toit. He humbles the republic of Genoa, and compels the Doge to come toVersailles to implore his clemency. He treats with haughty insolence thePope himself, and sends an ambassador to his court on purpose to insulthim. He even insists on giving an Elector to Cologne. 

And the same inflated pride and vanity which led Louis to trample on therights of other nations, led him into unbounded extravagance inpalace-building. Versailles arose, --at a cost, some affirm, of athousand millions of livres, --unrivalled for magnificence since the fallof the Caesars. In this vast palace did he live, more after the fashionof an Oriental than an Occidental monarch, having enriched and furnishedit with the wonders of the world, surrounded with princes, marshals, nobles, judges, bishops, ambassadors, poets, artists, philosophers, andscholars, all of whom rendered to him perpetual incense. Never was sucha grand court seen before on this earth: it was one of the greatfeatures of the seventeenth century. There was nothing censurable incollecting all the most distinguished and illustrious people of Francearound him: they must have formed a superb society, from which the proudmonarch could learn much to his enlightenment. But he made them allobsequious courtiers, exacted from all an idolatrous homage, andsubjected them to wearisome ceremonials. He took away their intellectualindependence; he banished Racine because the poet presumed to write apolitical tract. He made it difficult to get access to his person; hedegraded the highest nobles by menial offices, and insulted the nationby the exaltation of abandoned women, who squandered the revenues of thestate in their pleasures and follies, so that this grand court, alikegay and servile, intellectual and demoralized, became the scene ofperpetual revels, scandals, and intrigues. 

It was at this period that Louis abandoned himself to those adulterouspleasures which have ever disgraced the Bourbons. Yet scarcely a singlewoman by whom he was for a while enslaved retained her influence, but asuccession of mistresses arose, blazed, triumphed, and fell. Mancini, the niece of Mazarin, was forsaken without the decency of the slightestword of consolation. La Vallière, the only woman who probably ever lovedhim with sincerity and devotion, had but a brief reign, and was doomedto lead a dreary life of thirty-six years in penitence and neglect in aCarmelite convent. Madame de Montespan retained her ascendency longerfor she had talents as well as physical beauty; she was the mostprodigal and imperious of all the women that ever triumphed over theweakness of man. She reigned when Louis was in all the pride of manhoodand at the summit of his greatness and fame, --accompanying him in hismilitary expeditions, presiding at his fetes, receiving the incense ofnobles, the channel of court favor, the dispenser of honors but not ofoffices; for amid all the slaveries to which women subjected theproudest man on earth by the force of physical charms, he never gave tothem his sceptre. It was not till Madame de Maintenon supplanted thisbeautiful and brilliant woman in the affections of the King, and untilhe was a victim of superstitious fears, and had met with great reverses, that state secrets were intrusted to a female friend, --for Madame deMaintenon was never a mistress in the sense that Montespan was. 

During this brilliant period of ten years from the peace of Nimeguen, in1678, to the great uprising of the nations to humble him, in 1688, Versailles and other palaces were completed, works of art adorned thecapital, and immortal works of genius made his reign illustrious. 

While Colbert lived, I do not read of any extraordinary blunder on thepart of the Government. Perhaps palace-building may be considered amistake, since it diverted the revenues of the kingdom into monuments ofroyal vanity. But the sums lavished on architects, gardeners, painters, sculptors, and those who worked under them, employed thousands of usefulartisans, created taste, and helped to civilize the people. The peopleprofited by the extravagance of the King and his courtiers; the moneywas spent in France, which was certainly better than if it had beenexpended in foreign wars; it made Paris and Versailles the mostattractive cities of the world; it stimulated all the arts, and did notdemoralize the nation. Would this country be poorer, and the governmentless stable, if five hundred millions were expended at Washington tomake it the most beautiful city of the land, and create an honest prideeven among the representatives of the West, perhaps diverting them frombuilding another capital on the banks of the Mississippi? Would thiscountry be richer if great capitalists locked up their money in Statesecurities, instead of spending their superfluous wealth in reclaimingsterile tracts and converting them into gardens and parks? The verymagnificence of Louis impressed such a people as the French with theidea of his power, and tended to make the government secure, untilsubsequent wars imposed such excessive taxation as to impoverish thepeople and drain the sources of national wealth. We do not read thatColbert made serious remonstrances to the palace-building of the King, although afterwards Louis regarded it as one of the errors of his reign. 

But when Colbert died, in 1685, another spirit seemed to animate thecouncils of the King, and great mistakes were made, --which is the morenoteworthy, since the moral character of the King seemed to improve. Itwas at this time that he fell under the influence of Madame de Maintenonand the Jesuits. They made his court more decorous. Montespan was sentaway. Bossuet and La Chaise gained great ascendency over the royalconscience. Louis began to realize his responsibilities; the love ofglory waned; the welfare of the people was now considered. Whether hewas _ennuied_ with pleasure, or saw things in a different light, or feltthe influence of the narrow-minded but accomplished and virtuous womanwhom he made his wife, or was disturbed by the storm which was gatheringin the political horizon, he became more thoughtful and grave, thoughnot less tyrannical. 

Yet it was then that he made the most fatal mistake of his life, theevil consequences of which pursued him to his death. He revoked theEdict of Nantes, which Henry IV. Had granted, and which had securedreligious toleration. This he did from a perverted conscience, wishingto secure the unanimity and triumph of the Catholic faith; to this hewas incited by the best woman with whom he was ever brought in intimaterelations; in this he was encouraged by all the religious bigots of hiskingdom. He committed a monstrous crime that good might come, --notforeseeing the ultimate consequences, and showing anything but anenlarged statesmanship. This stupid folly alienated his best subjects, and sowed the seeds of revolution in the next reign, and tended toundermine the throne. Richelieu never would have consented to such aninsane measure; for this cruel act not only destroyed veneration athome, but created detestation among all enlightened foreigners. 

It is a hackneyed saying, that "the blood of martyrs is the seed of theChurch. " But it would seem that the persecution of the Protestants wasan exception to this truth, --and a persecution all the more needless andrevolting since the Protestants were not in rebellion against thegovernment, as in the tune of Charles IX. This diabolical persecution, justified however by some of the greatest men in France, had itsintended results. The bigots who incited that crime had studied well theprinciples of successful warfare. As early as 1666 the King was urged tosuppress the Protestant religion, and long before the Edict of Nanteswas revoked the Protestants had been subjected to humiliation andannoyance. If they held places at court, they were required to sellthem; if they were advocates, they were forbidden to plead; if they werephysicians, they were prevented from visiting patients. They weregradually excluded from appointments in the army and navy; littleremained to them except commerce and manufactures. Protestants could nothold Catholics as servants; soldiers were unjustly quartered upon them;their taxes were multiplied, their petitions were unread. But in 1685dragonnades subjected them to still greater cruelties; who tore up theirlinen for camp beds, and emptied their mattresses for litters. The poor, unoffending Protestants filled the prisons, and dyed the scaffolds withtheir blood. They were prohibited under the severest penalties from theexercise of their religion; their ministers were exiled, their childrenwere baptized in the Catholic faith, their property was confiscated, andall attempts to flee the country were punished by the galleys. Twomillions of people were disfranchised; two hundred thousand perished bythe executioners, or in prisons, or in the galleys. All who could flyescaped to other countries; and those who escaped were among the mostuseful citizens, carrying their arts with them to enrich countries atwar with France. Some two hundred thousand contrived to fly, --thusweakening the kingdom, and filling Europe with their execrations. Neverdid a crime have so little justification, and never was a crime followedwith severer retribution. Yet Le Tellier, the chancellor, at the age ofeighty, thanked God that he was permitted the exalted privilege ofaffixing the seal of his office to the act before he died. Madame deMaintenon declared that it would cover Louis with glory. Madame deSévigné said that no royal ordinance had ever been more magnificent. Hardly a protest came from any person of influence in the land, not evenfrom Fénelon. The great Bossuet, at the funeral of Le Tellier, thusbroke out: "Let us publish this miracle of our day, and pour out ourhearts in praise of the piety of Louis, --this new Constantine, this newTheodosius, this new Charlemagne, through whose hands heresy is nomore. " The Pope, though at this time hostile to Louis, celebrated aTe Deum. 

Among those who fled the kingdom to other lands were nine thousandsailors and twelve thousand soldiers, headed by Marshal Schomberg andAdmiral Duquesne, --the best general and the best naval officer thatFrance then had. Other distinguished people transferred their servicesto foreign courts. The learned Claude, who fled to Holland, gave to theworld an eloquent picture of the persecution. Jurieu, by his burningpamphlets, excited the insurrection of Cévennes. Basnage and Rapin, thehistorians, Saurin the great preacher, Papin the eminent scientist, andother eminent men, all exiles, weakened the supports of Louis. Francewas impoverished in every way by this "great miracle" of the reign; "sothat, " says Martin, "the new temple that Louis had pretended to erect tounity fell to ruin as it rose from the ground, and left only an openchasm in place of its foundations. .. . The nothingness of absolutegovernment by one alone was revealed under the very reign of thegreat King. "

The rebound of the revocation overthrew all the barriers within whichLouis had intrenched himself. All the smothered fires of hatred and ofvengeance were kindled anew in Holland and in every Protestant country. William of Orange headed the confederation of hostile states thatdreaded the ascendency and detested the policy of Louis XIV. All Europewas resolved on the humiliation of a man it both feared and hated. Thegreat war which began in 1688, when William of Orange became King ofEngland on the flight of James II. , was not sought by Louis. This warcannot be laid to his military ambition; he provoked it indeed, indirectly, by his arrogance and religious persecutions, but on his partit was as truly defensive as were the wars of Napoleon after theinvasion of Russia. Whatever is truly heroic in the character of Louiswas seen after he was forty-eight. Whatever claims to greatness he mayhave had are only to be sustained by the memorable resistance he madeto united Europe in arms against him, when his great ministers and hisbest generals had died, Turenne died in 1675, Colbert in 1683, Condé in1686, Le Tellier in 1687, and Louvois in 1691. Then it was that hisgreat reverses began, and his glory paled before the sun of the King ofEngland, These reverses may have been the result of incapacity, andthey may have been the result of the combined forces which outnumberedor overmatched his own; certain it is that in the terrible contest towhich he was now doomed, he showed great force of character and greatfortitude, which command our respect. 

I cannot enter on that long war which began with the League of Augsburgin 1686, and continued to the peace of Ryswick in 1697, --nine years ofdesperate fighting, when successes and defeats were nearly balanced, andwhen the resources of all the contending parties were nearly exhausted. France, at the close of the war, was despoiled of all her conquests andall the additions to her territory made since the Peace of Nimeguen, except Strasburg and Alsace. For the first time since the accession ofRichelieu to power, France lost ground. 

The interval between this war and that of the Spanish succession--aninterval of three years--was only marked by the ascendency of Madame deMaintenon, and a renewed persecution, directed not against Protestants, but against those Catholics who cultivated the highest and freestreligious life, and in which Bossuet appears to a great disadvantage bythe side of his rival, the equally illustrious Fénelon. It was alsomarked by the gradual disappearance of the great lights in literature. La Fontaine died in 1695, Racine in 1699. Boileau was as good as dead;Mesdames de la Sablière and de la Fayette, Pellisson and Bussy-Rabutin, La Bruyère and Madame Sévigné, all died about this time. The only greatmen at the close of the century in France who made their genius feltwere Bossuet, who encouraged the narrow intolerance which aimed tosuppress the Jansenists and Quietists, and Fénelon, who protected themalthough he did not join them, --the "Eagle of Meaux" and the "Swan ofCambray, " as they were called, offering in the realm of art "the eternalduality of strength and grace, " like Michael Angelo and Raphael; the oneinspiring the fear and the other the love of God, yet both seeing in theChristian religion the highest hopes of the world. The internal historyof this period centres around those pious mystics of whom Madame Guyonwas the representative, and those inquiring intellectual Jansenists whohad defied the Jesuits, but were finally crushed by an intolerantgovernment. The lamentable dispute between Bossuet and Fénelon also thenoccurred, which led to the disgrace of the latter, --as banishment to hisdiocese was regarded. But in his exile his moral influence was increasedrather than diminished; while the publication of his "Télémaque, " madewithout his consent from a copy that had been abstracted from him, wonhim France and Europe, though it rendered Louis XIV. Foreverirreconcilable. Bossuet did not long survive the banishment of hisrival, and died in 1704, a month before Bourdaloue, and two years beforeBayle. France intellectually, under the despotic intolerance of theKing, was going through an eclipse or hastening to a dissolution, whilethe material state of the country showed signs of approachingbankruptcy. The people were exhausted by war and taxes, and all theinternal improvements which Colbert had stimulated were neglected. "Thefisheries of Normandy were ruined, and the pasture lands of Alsace weretaken from the peasantry. Picardy lost a twelfth part of its population;many large cities were almost abandoned. In Normandy, out of sevenhundred thousand people, there were but fifty thousand who did not sleepon straw. The linen manufactures of Brittany were destroyed by the heavyduties; Touraine lost one-fourth of her population; the silk trade ofTours was ruined; the population of Troyes fell from sixty thousand totwenty thousand; Lyons lost twenty thousand souls since the beginningof the war. "

In spite of these calamities the blinded King prepared for anotherexhausting war, in order to put his grandson on the throne of Spain. This last and most ruinous of all his wars might have been averted if heonly could have cast away his ambition and his pride. Humbled andcrippled, he yet could not part with the prize which fell to his familyby the death of Carlos II. Of Spain. But Europe was determined that theBourbons should not be further aggrandized. 

Thus in 1701 war broke out with even intensified animosities, and lastedtwelve years; directed on the one part by Marlborough, Eugene, andHeinsius, and on the other part by Villars, Vendôme, and Catinat, duringwhich the finances of France were ruined and the people reduced tofrightful misery. It was then that Louis melted up the medallions of hisformer victories, to provide food for his starving soldiers. He offeredimmense concessions, which the allies against him rejected. He wasobliged to continue the contest with exhausted resources and a saddenedsoul. He offered Marlborough four millions to use his influence toprocure a peace; but this general, venal as he was, preferred ambitionto money. The despair which once overwhelmed Holland now overtookFrance. The French marshals encountered a greater general than WilliamIII. , whose greatness was in the heroism of his soul and his diplomatictalents, rather than in his genius on the battlefield. But Marlborough, who led the allies, never lost a battle, nor besieged a fortress he didnot take. His master-stroke was to transfer his operations from Flandersto the Danube. At Blenheim was fought one of the decisive battles of theworld, in which the Teutonic nations were marshalled against the French. The battle of Ramillies completed the deliverance of Flanders; andLouis, completely humiliated, agreed to give up ten Flemish provinces tothe Dutch, and to surrender to the Emperor of Germany all that Francehad gained since the peace of Westphalia in 1648. He also agreed toacknowledge Anne, as Queen of Great Britain, and to banish the Pretenderfrom his dominions; England was to retain Gibraltar, and Spain to cedeto the Emperor of Germany her possessions in Italy and the Netherlands. But France, with all her disasters, was not ruined; the treaty ofUtrecht, 1713, left Louis nearly all his inherited possessions, exceptin America. 

Louis was now seventy-four, --an old man whose delusions were dispelled, and to whom successive misfortunes had brought grief and shame. He wasdeprived by death of his son and grandson, who gave promise of rarevirtues and abilities; only a feeble infant--his great-grandson--was theheir of the monarchy. All his vast enterprises had failed. He suffered, to all appearance, a righteous retribution for his early passion formilitary glory. "He had invaded the rights of Holland; and Holland gavehim no rest until, with the aid of the surrounding monarchies, Francewas driven to the verge of ruin. He had destroyed the cities of thePalatinate; and the Rhine provinces became a wall of fire against hisarmies. He had conspired against liberty in England; and it was fromEngland that he experienced the most fatal opposition. " His wars, fromwhich he had expected glory, ended at last in the curtailment of hisoriginal possessions. His palaces, which had excited the admiration ofEurope, became the monuments of extravagance and folly. Hispersecutions, by which he hoped to secure religious unity, sowed theseeds of discontent, anarchy, and revolution. He left his kingdompolitically weaker than it was when he took it; he entailed nothing butdisasters to his heirs. His very grants and pensions were subversive ofintellectual dignity and independence. At the close of the seventeenthcentury the great lights had disappeared; he survived his fame, hisgenerals, his family, and his friends; the infirmities of age oppressedhis body, and the agonies of religious fears disturbed his soul. We seeno greatness but in his magnificence; we strip him of all claims togenius, and even to enlightened statesmanship, and feel that hisundoubted skill in holding the reins of government must be ascribed tothe weakness and degradation of his subjects, rather than to his ownstrength. But the verdicts of the last and present generation ofhistorians, educated with hatred of irresponsible power, may be againreversed, and Louis XIV. May loom up in another age, if not as the_grand monarque_ whom his contemporaries worshipped, yet as a man ofgreat natural abilities who made fatal mistakes, and who, like Napoleonafter him, alternately elevated and depressed the nation over which hewas called to reign, --not like Napoleon, as a usurper and a fraud, butas an honest, though proud and ambitious, sovereign, who was supposed torule by divine right, of whom the nations of Europe were jealous, wholived in fear and hatred of his power, and who finally conspired, not torob him of his throne and confine him to a rock, but to take from himthe provinces he had seized and the glory in which he shone. 

AUTHORITIES. 

Voltaire's Age of Louis XIV. ; Henri Martin's History of France; MissPardoe's History of the Court of Louis XIV. ; Letters of Madame deMaintenon; Mémoires de Greville; Saint Simon; P. Clément; LeGouvernement de Louis XIV. ; Mémoires de Choisy; Oeuvres de Louis XIV. ;Limièrs's Histoire de Louis XIV. ; Quincy's Histoire Militaire de LouisXIV. ; Lives of Colbert, Turenne, Vauban, Condé, and Louvois; Macaulay'sHistory of England; Lives of Fénelon and Bossuet; Mémoires de Foucault;Mémoires du Due de Bourgogne; Histoire de l'Edit de Nantes; Laire'sHistoire de Louis XIV. ; Mémoires de Madame de la Fayette; Mémoires deSt. Hilaire; Mémoires du Maréchal de Berwick; Mémoires de Vilette;Lettres de Madame de Sévigné; Mémoires de Mademoiselle de Montpensier;Mémoires de Catinat; Life, by James. 

LOUIS XV. 

A. D. 1710-1774. 

REMOTE CAUSES OF REVOLUTION. 

It is impossible to contemplate the inglorious reign of Louis XV. Otherwise than as a more complete development of the egotism whichmarked the life of his immediate predecessor, and a still more fruitfulnursery of those vices and discontents which prepared the way for theFrench Revolution. It is in fact in connection with that great eventthat this reign should be considered. The fabric of despotism hadalready been built by Richelieu, and Louis XIV. Had displayed andgloried in its dazzling magnificence, even while he undermined itsfoundations by his ruinous wars and courtly extravagance. Under LouisXV. We shall see even greater recklessness in profitless expenditures, and more complete abandonment to the pleasures which were purchased bythe burdens and sorrows of his people; we shall see the monarch and hiscourt still more subversive of the prosperity and dignity of the nation, and even indifferent to the signs of that coming storm which, later, overturned the throne of his grandson, Louis XVI. 

And Louis XV. Was not only the author of new calamities, but the heir ofseventy years' misrule. All the evils which resulted from the wars andwasteful extravagance of Louis XIV. Became additional perplexities withwhich he had to contend. But these evils, instead of removing, he onlyaggravated by follies which surpassed all the excesses of the precedingreign. If I were asked to point out the most efficient though indirectauthors of the French Revolution, I would single out those royal tyrantsthemselves who sat upon the throne of Henry IV. During the seventeenthand eighteenth centuries. I shall proceed to state the principal eventsand features which have rendered that reign both noted and ignominious. 

In contemplating the long reign of Louis XV, --whom I present as anecessary link in the political history of the eighteenth century, rather than as one of the Beacon Lights of civilization, --we firstnaturally turn our eyes to the leading external events by which it ismarked in history; and we have to observe, in reference to these, thatthey were generally unpropitious to the greatness and glory of France, Nearly all those which emanated from the government had an unfortunateor disgraceful issue. No success attended the French arms in any quarterof the world, with the exception of the victories of Marshal Saxe atFontenoy (1745); and the French lost the reputation they had previouslyacquired under Henry IV. , Condé, Turenne, and Luxembourg. Disgraceattended the generals who were sent against Frederic II. , in the SevenYears' War, even greater than what had previously resulted from thecontests with the English and the Dutch, and which were brought to aclose by the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1748. But it was not on thefields of Germany that the greatest disasters happened; the French wererifled of their possessions both in America and in India. Louisbourgyielded to the bravery of New England troops, and finally Canada itselfwas lost. All dreams of establishing a new empire on the Mississippi andthe Gulf of St. Lawrence vanished for ever, while Madras and Calcuttafell into the hands of the English, with all the riches of Mahometan andMogul empires. During the regency of the Duke of Orleans, --for Louis XV. Was an infant five years of age when his great-grandfather died in1715, --we notice the disgraceful speculations which followed the schemesof Law, and which resulted in the ruin of thousands, and the stillgreater derangement of the national finances. The most respectable partof the reign of Louis XV. Were those seventeen years when theadministration was hi the hands of Cardinal Fleury, who succeeded theDuke of Bourbon, to whom the reins of government had been intrustedafter the death of the Duke of Orleans, two years before the young Kinghad attained his majority. Though the cardinal was a man of peace, wasirreproachable in morals, patriotic in his intentions, and succeeded inrestoring for a time the credit of the country, still even he onlywarded off difficulties, --like Sir Robert Walpole, --instead of bravelymeeting them before it should be too late. His timid rule was a negativerather than a positive blessing. But with his death ended allprosperity, and the reign of mistresses and infamous favoritesbegan, --the great feature of the times, on which I shall presently speakmore fully, as one of the indirect causes of subsequent revolution. 

In singling out and generalizing the evils and public misfortunes of thereign of Louis XV. , perhaps the derangement of the finances was the mostimportant in its political results. But for this misfortune the King wasnot wholly responsible: a vast national debt was the legacy of LouisXIV. This was the fruit of his miserable attempt at self-aggrandizement;this was the residuum of his glories. Yet as a national debt, accordingto some, is no calamity, but rather a blessing, --a chain of loyalty andlove to bind the people together in harmonious action and mutualinterest, and especially the middle classes, upon whom it chiefly falls, to the support of a glorious throne, --we must not waste time bydwelling on the existence of this debt, --a peculiarity which hasattended the highest triumphs of civilization, an invention of honoredstatesmen and patriotic ministers, and perhaps their benignant boon tofuture generations, --but rather we will look to the way it was sought tobe discharged. 

Louis XIV. Spent in wars fifteen hundred millions of livres, and inpalaces about three hundred millions more; and his various otherexpenses, which could not be well defrayed by taxation, swelled theamount due to his creditors, at his death, to nearly two thousandmillions, --a vast sum for those times. The regent, Duke of Orleans, whosucceeded him, increased this debt still more, especially by hisreckless and infamous prodigalities, under the direction of his primeminister, --his old friend and tutor, --Cardinal Dubois. At last hisembarrassments were so great that the wheels of government were likelyto stop. His friend, the Due de Saint Simon, one of the great patriciansof the court, proposed, as a remedy, national bankruptcy, --affirmingthat it would be a salutary lesson to the rich plebeian capitalists notto lend their money. An ingenious Scotch financier, however, proposed amore palatable scheme, which was, to make use of the credit of thenation for a bank, the capital of which should be guaranteed by sharesin the Mississippi Company. John Law, already a wealthy and prosperousbanker, proposed to increase the paper currency, and supersede the useof gold and silver. His offer was accepted, and his bank became a royalone, its bills going at once into circulation. Now, as the most absurddelusions existed as to the wealth of Louisiana, and the most boundlessfaith was placed in Law's financiering; and as only Law's bills couldpurchase shares in the Company which was to make everybody'sfortune, --gold and silver flowed to his bank. The shares of the Companycontinued to rise in value, and bank-bills were indefinitely issued. Ina little while (1719), six hundred and forty millions of livres in thesebills were in circulation, and soon after nearly half of the nationaldebt was paid off'; in other words, people had been induced to exchangegovernment securities, to the amount of eight hundred millions, for theMississippi stock. They sold consols at Law's bank, and were paid in hisbills, with which they bought shares. The bills of the bank were ofcourse redeemable in gold and silver; but for a time nobody wanted goldand silver, so great was the credit of the bank. Moreover, the bankitself was guaranteed by the shares of the Company, which were worth atone period twelve times their original value. John Law, of course, wasregarded as a national benefactor. His financiering had saved a nation;and who had ever before heard of a nation being saved by stock-jobbing?All sorts of homage and honors were showered upon so great a man. Hishouse was thronged with dukes and peers; he became controller-general ofthe finances, and virtually prime-minister. He was elected a member ofthe French Academy; his fame extended far and wide, for he was abeneficent deity that had made everybody rich and no one poor. Surelythe golden age had come. Paris was crowded with strangers from all partsof the world, who came to see a man whose wisdom surpassed that ofSolomon, and who made silver and gold to be as stones in the streets. Aseverybody had grown rich, twelve hundred new coaches were set up;nothing was seen but new furniture and costly apparel, nothing was feltbut universal exhilaration. So great was the delusion, that the stock ofthe Mississippi Company reached the almost fabulous amount of threethousand six hundred millions, --nearly twice the amount of the nationaldebt. But as Law's bank, where all these transactions were made, revealed none of its transactions, the public were in ignorance of thebills issued and stock created. 

At last, the Prince of Conti, --one of the most powerful of the nobles, and a prince of the blood-royal, who had received enormous amounts inbills as the price of his protection, --annoyed to find that hisever-increasing demands were finally resisted, presented his notes atthe bank, and of course obtained gold and silver; then other nobles didthe same, and then foreign merchants, until the bank was drained. Thencame the panic, then the fall of stocks, then general ruin, thenuniversal despondency and rage. The bubble had burst! Four hundredthousand families, who thought themselves rich, and who had beencomfortable, were hopelessly ruined; but the State had got rid of halfthe national debt, and for a time was clear of embarrassment. Thepeople, however, had been defrauded and deceived by Government, and theyrendered in return their secret curses. The foundations of a throne areonly secured by the affections of a people; if these are destroyed, onegreat element of regal power is lost. 

Under the administration of Cardinal Fleury (1726-1743) the financeswere somewhat improved, since he aimed at economical arrangements, especially in the collection of taxes. He attempted to imitate Sully andColbert, but without their genius and boldness he effected but little. He had an unfortunate quarrel with the Parliament of Paris, and wasobliged to repeal a favorite measure. After his death the country wasvirtually ruled by the King's mistress, Madame de Pompadour, whodisplaced ministers at her pleasure, and who encouraged unboundedextravagance. The public deficit increased continually, until it finallyamounted to nearly two hundred millions in a single year. In spite ofthis increasing derangement of the finances, the court had not thecourage or will to face the difficulties, but resorted to new loans andforced contributions, and every form of iniquitous taxation. If a greatfunctionary announced the necessity of economy or order, he wasforthwith disgraced. Nothing irritated the court more than any proposalto reduce unnecessary expenses. Nor would any other order, either thenobles or the clergy, consent to make sacrifices. 

In such a state of things, a most oppressive system of taxation was thenecessary result. In no country in modern times have the burdens of thepeople been so great. Taxes were imposed to the utmost extent that theywere able to bear, without their consent; and upon the slightestresistance or remonstrance they were imprisoned and treated ascriminals. So great were the taxes on land, that nearly two-thirds ofthe whole gross produce, it has been estimated, went to the State, andthree-quarters of the remainder to the landlord. The peasant thus onlyreceived about one-twelfth of the fruit of his labors; and on thispittance his family was supported. Taxes were both direct and indirect, levied upon every article of consumption, upon everything that wasimported or exported, upon income, upon capital, upon the transmissionof property, upon even the few privileges which were enjoyed. But notone-half that was collected went to the royal treasury; it was wastedby the different collectors and sub-collectors. In addition to theordinary burdens were enormous monopolies, granted to nobles andcourtiers, by which the income of the State was indirectly plundered. The poor man groaned amid his heavy labors and great privations, withoutexciting compassion or securing redress. 

And, in addition to his taxes, the laborer was deprived of all theprivileges of freedom. He was injured, downtrodden, mocked, andinsulted. The laws were unequal, and gave him no security; game of themost destructive kind was permitted to run at large through the fields, and yet the people were not allowed to shoot a hare or a deer upon theirown grounds. Numerous edicts prohibited hoeing and weeding, lest youngpartridges should be destroyed. The people were bound to repair theroads without compensation, to grind their corn at the landlord's mill, bake their bread in his ovens, and carry their grapes to his wine-press. They had not the benefit of schools, or of institutions which wouldenable them to improve their minds. They could not rise above themiserable condition in which they were born, or even make theircomplaints heard. Feudalism, in all its social distinctions, and in allits oppressive burdens, crushed them as with an iron weight, or boundthem as with iron fetters. This weight they could not throw off, thesefetters they could not break. There was no alternative but insubmission, --forced submission to overwhelming taxes, robberies, insults, and injustice, both from landed proprietors and the officers ofthe crown. 

Those, however, who lived upon the unrequited toil of the people livedout of sight of their sorrows, --not in beautiful châteaux, as theirancestors did, by the side of placid rivers and on the skirts ofromantic forests, or amid vineyards and olive-groves, but in the capitalor the court. Here, like Roman senators of old, they squandered themoney which they had obtained by extortion and corruption of every sort. Amid the palaces of Versailles they displayed all the vanities of dress, all the luxuries of their favored life. Here, as lesser stars, theyrevolved around the great central orb of regal splendor, proud to belongto another world than that in which the plebeian millions toiled andsuffered. At Versailles they attempted to ignore their own humanity, toforget their most pressing duties, and to despise the only pursuitswhich could have elevated their minds or warmed their hearts. 

But they were not great feudal nobles, like the Guises and the Epernons, such as combined to awe even regal power under the House of Valois, --menwho could coin money and exercise judicial authority in their owndomain, --but timid and subservient courtiers, as embarrassed in theiraffairs as was the King himself. Nevertheless, many of the ancientprivileges of feudalism were enjoyed by them. They were exempt from manytaxes which oppressed merchants and farmers; they alone were appointedto command in the army and navy; they alone were made prelates anddignitaries in the Church; they were comparatively free from arrest whentheir crimes were against society and God rather than the government;they were distinguished from the plebeian class by dress as well as byprivileges; and they only had access to court and a share in the plunderof the kingdom. Craving greater excitements than that which evenVersailles afforded, they built, in the Faubourg St. Germain, thosemagnificent hotels which are still the dreary but imposing monuments ofaristocratic pride; and here they plunged into every form of excess andfolly for which Paris has always been distinguished. But it was in theirsplendid equipages, and in their boxes at the opera, that they displayedthe most striking contrast to the habits of the plebeian people withwhom they were surrounded. Their embroidered vests, their costly silksand satins, their emerald and diamond buckles, their point-lace ruffles, their rare furs, their jewelled rapiers, and their perfumedhandkerchiefs were peculiar to themselves, --for in those days wealthyshopkeepers, and even the daughters of prosperous notaries, could illafford such luxuries, and were scarcely allowed to shine in them ifthey would. A velvet coat then cost more than one thousand francs; whilethe ruffs and frills, and diamond studs and knee-buckles, and otherappendages to the dress of a gentleman, swelled the amount to scarcelyless than forty thousand francs, or sixteen hundred louis-d'or. If adistinguished advocate was admitted to the presence of royalty, he mustappear in simple black. Gorgeous dresses were reserved only for the_noblesse_, some one hundred and fifty thousand privileged persons; allthe rest were _roturiers_, marked by some emblem of meanness orinferiority, whatever might be their intellectual and moral worth. Neverwere the _noblesse_ more enervated; and yet they always appeared in amock-heroic costume, with swords dangling at their sides, or hats cockedafter a military fashion on their heads. As the strength of Samson ofold was in his locks, so the degenerate nobles of this period guardedwith especial care these masculine ornaments of the person; and so greatwas the contagion for wigs and hair-powder, that twelve hundred shopsexisted in Paris to furnish this aristocratic luxury. The muses of Romein the days of her decline condescended to sing on the arts of cookeryand the sublime occupations of hunting and fishing; so in the heroictimes of Louis XV. The genius of France soared to comprehend themysteries of the toilet. One eminent _savant_, in this department ofphilosophical wisdom, absolutely published a bulky volume on the_principles_ of hair-dressing, and followed it--so highly was itprized--by a no less ponderous supplement. This was the time when the_cuisine_ of nobles was as famous as their toilets, and when recipes fordifferent dishes were only equalled in variety by the epigrams of ribaldpoets. It was a period not merely of degrading follies, but of shamelessexposure of them, --when men boasted of their gallantries, and womenjoked at their own infirmities; and when hypocrisy, if it was ever addedto their other vices, only served to make them more ridiculous andunnatural. The rouge with which they painted their faces, and the powderwhich they sprinkled upon their hair were not used to give them thesemblance of youthful beauty, but rather to impart the purple hues ofperpetual drunkenness, such as Rubens gave to his Bacchanalian deities, united with the blanched whiteness of premature old age. Licentiousnesswithout shame, drunkenness without rebuke, gambling without honor, andfrivolity without wit characterized, alas, a great proportion of that"upper class" who disdained the occupations and sneered at the virtuesof industrial life. 

But these dissipated courtiers had a model constantly before their eyes, whose more excessive follies it were difficult to rival; and this wasthe King himself, whom the whole nation was called upon to obey. IfLouis XIV. Was a Nebuchadnezzar, unapproachable from pride, Louis XV. Was a Sardanapalus in effeminacy and insouciant revelries. The shamelessinfamies of his life were too revolting to bear more than a passingallusion; and I should blush to tear away the historic veil which coversup his vices from the common eye. I shrink from showing to what depthshumanity can sink, even when clothed in imperial purple and seated onthe throne of state. The countless memoirs of that wicked age havehowever, exposed to the indignant eye of posterity the regaldebaucheries of Versailles and the pollutions of the Pare auxCerfs, --that infamous seraglio which cost the State one hundred millionsof livres, at the lowest estimate. And this was but a part of the greatsystem of waste and folly. Five hundred millions of the national debtwere incurred for expenses too ignominious to be even named. The King, however, was not fond of pomp; it was fatiguing for him to bear, and hegenerally shut himself from the sight and intercourse of any butconvivial friends, --no, not friends, for to absolute monarchs thepleasures of friendship are denied; I should have said, the panderers tohis degrading pleasures. Never did the Papal court at Avignon or Rome, even in the worst ages of mediaeval darkness, witness more scandalousenormities than those which disgraced the whole reign of Louis XV. , either in the days of his minority, when the kingdom was governed bythe Duke of Orleans, or in his latter years, when the Duke of Choiseulwas the responsible adviser of the crown. The Palais Royal, the PalaisLuxembourg, the Trianon, and Versailles were alternately scenes ofexcesses which would have disgraced the reigns of the most degenerate ofSaracenic caliphs. So vile was the court, that a celebrated countess oneday said, at a public festival, that "God, after having formed man, tookthe mud which was left, and made the souls of princes and footmen. "

And the King hated business as much as he hated pomp. Unlike hispredecessor, he left everything in the hands of his servants. Nothingwearied him so much as an interview with a minister, or a dispatch froma general. In the society of his mistresses he abnegated his duties as amonarch, and the labors of his life were employed in gratifying theirresentments and humoring their caprices. Their complaints were morepotent than the suggestions of ministers, or the remonstrances ofjudges. In idle frivolities his time was passed, neglectful of the greatinterests which were intrusted to him to guard; and the only attainmentof which he was proud was a knack of making tarts and bon-bons, withwhich he frequently regaled his visitors. 

And yet, in spite of these ignoble tastes and pursuits, the King was byno means deficient in natural abilities. He was much superior to evenLouis XIV. In logical acumen and sprightly wit. He was an agreeablecompanion, and could appreciate every variety of talents. No man in hiscourt perceived more clearly than he the tendency of the writings ofphilosophers which were then fermenting the germs of revolution. "Hissagacity kept him from believing in Voltaire, even when he succeeded indeceiving the King of Prussia. " He was favorable to the Jesuits, thoughhe banished them from the realm; perceiving and feeling that they werehis true friends and the best supports of his absolute throne, --and yethe banished them from his kingdom. He was hostile too, in his heart, tothe very philosophers whom he invited to his table, and knew that theysought to undermine his power. He simply had not the moral energy tocarry out the plans of that despotism to which he was devoted. Sensuality ever robs a man of the advantages and gifts which reasongives, even though they may be bestowed to an extraordinary degree. There is no more impotent slavery than that to which the most giftedintellects have been occasionally doomed. Self-indulgence is sure to sapevery element of moral strength, and to take away from genius itself allpower, except to sharpen the stings of self-reproach. "Louis XV. Was notinsensible to the dangers which menaced his throne, and would havedespoiled the Parliament of the right of remonstrance; would haveimposed on the Jansenists the yoke of Papal supremacy; would have burnedthe books of the philosophers, and have sent their authors to work outtheir system within the gloomy dungeons of the Bastille;" but he had notthe courage, nor the moral strength, nor the power of will. He wasenslaved by his vices, and by those who pandered to them; and he couldnot act either the king or the man. Seeing the dangers, but feeling hisimpotence, he affected levity, and exclaimed to his courtiers _Aprèsnous le déluge_, --a prediction which only uncommon sagacity could haveprompted. Immersed however in unworthy pleasures, he gave himself notmuch concern for the future; and this career of self-abandonmentcontinued to the last, even after satiety and _ennui_ had deprived theappetites of the power to please. His latter days were of coursemelancholy, and his miseries resulted as much from the perception of theevils to come as from the failure of the pleasures of sense. A languor, from which he was with difficulty ever roused, oppressed his life. Deaf, incapable of being amused, prematurely worn out with bodily infirmities, hated and despised by the whole nation, he dragged out his sixty-fourthyear, and died of the small-pox, which he caught in one of his visits tothe Pare aux Cerfs; and his loathsome remains were hastily hurried intoa carriage, and deposited in the vaults of St. Denis. 

As, however, during this long reign of fifty-eight years, women werethe presiding geniuses of the court and the virtual directors of thekingdom, I cannot give a faithful portrait of the times without someallusion, at least, to that woman who was as famous in her day as Madamede Montespan was during the most brilliant period of the reign of LouisXIV. I single out Madame de Pompadour from the crowd of erring andinfirm females who bartered away their souls for the temporary honors ofVersailles. Not that proud peeress whom she displaced, the Duchesse deChâteauroux; not that low-born and infamous character by whom she wassucceeded, Du Barry; not the hundreds of other women who were partnersor victims of guilty pleasures, and who descended unlamented andunhonored to their ignominious graves, are here to be alluded to. ButMadame de Pompadour is a great historical personage, because with herare identified the fall of the Jesuits in France, the triumph ofphilosophers and economists, the disgrace of ministers, and the mostoutrageous prodigality which ever scandalized a nation. Louis XV. Wasalmost wholly directed by this infamous favorite. She named anddisplaced the controllers-general, and she herself received annuallynearly fifteen hundred thousand livres, besides hotels, palaces, andestates. She was allowed to draw bills upon the treasury withoutspecifying the service, and those who incurred her displeasure werealmost sure of being banished from the court and kingdom, and perhapssentenced, by _lettre de cachet_, to the dreary cells of the Bastille. She virtually had the appointment of the prelates of the Church and ofthe generals of the army; and so great was her ascendency that allpersons, whatsoever their rank, found it expedient to pay their homageto her. Even Montesquieu praised her intellect, and Voltaire her beauty, and Maria Theresa wrote flattering letters to her. The prime ministerwas her tool and agent, since royalty itself yielded to her sway; eventhe proud ladies of the royal family condescended to flatter and tohonor her. Sprung only from the middle ranks of society, she yet assumedthe airs of a princess of the blood. 

From her earliest years, long before she was admitted to the court, ithad been the dream of this woman to seduce the King. Her father wasbutcher to the Invalides, and she spent nearly all the money she couldcommand in a costly present to a great duchess, the Princess Conti, inorder to be presented. She played high, and won--not a royal heart, butthe royal fancy. Her dress, manners, and extraordinary beauty increasedthe impression she had once before made at a hunting-party; and afterthe levée she was sent for, and became virtually the minister of therealm. She was unquestionably a woman of great intellect, as well as oftact and beauty, and even manifested a sympathy with some sorts ofintellectual excellence. She was the patroness of artists, philosophers, and poets; but she liked those best who were distinguished for theirinfidel or licentious speculations. She was the friend of thoseeconomists and philosophers who sapped the foundations of the socialsystem. An imperious and insolent hauteur and reckless prodigality wereher most marked peculiarities, --just such as were to be expected in anunprincipled woman raised suddenly to high position. In spite of herpower, she did not escape the malignant stings of envenomed rivals oranonymous satirists. "She was rallied on the baseness of her origin; sheavenged herself by making common cause with those philosophers whooverturned the ancient order. " She was both mistress and politician, buther politics and alliances subverted the throne which gave her all herglory. Her ascendency of course rested on her power of administering tothe tastes and pleasures of the 'King, and she showed genius in thevariety of amusements which she invented. She reigned twenty years, andlost her empire only by death. Madame de Maintenon had maintained herascendency over Louis XIV. By the exercise of those virtues whichextorted his respect, but Madame de Pompadour by the faculty of charmingthe senses. It was by her that Versailles was enriched with the mostprecious and beautiful of its countless wonders. Her own collection ofpictures, cameos, antiques, crystals, porcelains, vases, gems, andarticles of _vertu_ was esteemed the richest and most valuable in thekingdom, and after her death it took six months to dispose of it. Herlibrary was valued at more than a million of francs, and contained someof the rarest manuscripts and most curious books in France. The sums, however, which she spent on literary curiosities or literary men weresmall compared with the expenses of her toilet, of her _fêtes_, herballs, and her palaces. And all these expenses were open as the day inthe eyes of a nation suffering from ruinous taxation, from famine, andthe shame of unsuccessful war!

We are impressed with the blind and suicidal measures which all thoseconnected with the throne instigated or encouraged in this reign, --fromthe King to the most infamous of his mistresses. Whoever pretended togive his aid to the monarchy helped to subvert it by the very measureswhich he proposed. "The Duke of Orleans, when he patronized Law, gave ashock to the whole economical system of the old regime. When this Scotchfinancier said to the powerful aristocracy around him, 'Silver is onlyto you the means of circulation, beyond this it belongs to the country, 'he announced the ruin of the glebe and the fall of feudal prejudices. The bankruptcies which followed the bursting of his bubble weakened thepotent charm of the word 'honor, ' on which was based the stability ofthe throne. " The courtiers, when they blazed in jewels, in embroideredsilks and satins, in sumptuous equipages, and in all the costlyornaments of their times, gave employment and importance to a host ofshopkeepers and handicraftsmen, who grew rich, as those who bought ofthem grew poor. The wealth of bankers, brokers, mercers, jewellers, tailors, and coachmakers dates to these times, --those prosperous andfortunate members of the middle-class who "inhabited the Place Vendômeand the Place des Victoires, as the nobles dwelt in the Rue de Grenelleand the Rue St. Dominique. The nobles ruined themselves by theextravagance into which they were led by the court, and their châteauxand parks fell into the hands of financiers, lawyers, and merchants, who, taking the titles of their new estates, became a parvenuaristocracy which excited the jealousy of the old and divided itsranks. " The inferior, but still prosperous class, the shopkeepers, alsoequally advanced in intelligence and power. In those dark and dingybackrooms, in which for generations their ancestors had been immured, they now discussed their rights, and retailed the scandals which theyheard. They read the sarcasms of the poets and the theories of the newphilosophers. Even the tranquillity which succeeded inglorious war wasfavorable to the rise of the middle classes; and the Revolution was asmuch the product of the discontent engendered by social improvements asof the frenzy produced by hunger and despair. The court favored theimprovements of Paris, especially those designed for public amusements. The gardens of the Tuileries were embellished, the Champs Elyséesplanted with trees, and pictures were exhibited in the grand salon ofthe Louvre. The Theatre Français, the Royal Opera, the Opéra Comique, and various halls for balls and festivals were then erected, --thosefruitful nurseries of future clubs, those poisoned wells of populareducation. Nor were charities forgotten with the building of thePantheon and the extension of the Boulevards. The Hôpital desEnfants-Trouvés allowed mothers, unseen and unheard, to bequeath theirchildren to the State. 

There were two events connected with the reign of Madame de Pompadour--Ido not say of the King, or his queen, or his ministers, forphilosophical history compels us to confine our remarks chiefly to greatcontrolling agencies, whether they be sovereigns or people; to such aman as Peter the Great, when one speaks of a semi-barbarous nation, toideas, when we describe popular revolutions--which had a great influencein unsettling the kingdom, although brought about in no inconsiderablemeasure by this unscrupulous mistress of the King. These were theexpulsion of the Jesuits, and the triumph of the philosophers. 

In regard to the first, I would say, that Madame de Pompadour did notlike the Jesuits; not because they were the enemies of liberalprinciples, not because they were the most consistent advocates andfriends of despotism in all its forms, intellectual, religious, andpolitical, or the writers of casuistic books, or the perverters ofeducational instruction, or boastful missionaries in Japan and China, orcunning intriguers in the courts of princes, or artful confessors of thegreat, or uncompromising despots in the schools, --but because theyinterfered with her ascendency. It is true she despised theirsophistries, ridiculed their pretensions, and detested their government;but her hostility was excited, not because they aspired like her, likethe philosophers, like the popes, like the press in our times, to aparticipation in the government of the world, but because they disputedher claims as one of the powers of the age. The Jesuits were scandalizedthat such a woman should usurp the reins of state, especially when theyperceived that she mocked and defied them; and they therefore refused topay her court, and even conspired to effect her overthrow. But they hadnot sufficiently considered the potency of her wrath, or the desperatemeans of revenge to which she could resort; nor had they consideredthose other influences which had been gradually undermining theirinfluence, --even the sarcasms of the Jansenists, the ridicule of thephilosophers, and the invectives of the parliaments. Only one or twofavoring circumstances were required to kindle the smothered fires ofhatred into a blazing flame, and these were furnished by the attemptedassassination of the King, in his garden at Versailles, by Damiens thefanatic, and the failure of La Valette the Jesuit banker and merchant atMartinique. Then, when the nation was astounded by their politicalconspiracies and their commercial gambling, to say nothing of theperversion of their truth, did their arch-enemy, the King's mistress, use her power over the King's minister, her own creature, the Due deChoiseul, to decree the confiscation of their goods and their banishmentfrom the realm; nay, to induce the Pope himself, in conjunction with theentreaties of all the Bourbon courts of Europe, to take away theircharter and suppress their order. The fall of the Jesuits has beenalready alluded to in another volume, and I will not here enlarge onthat singular event brought about by the malice of a woman whom they hadventured to despise. It is easy to account for her hatred and thegeneral indignation of Europe. It is not difficult to understand thatthe decline of that great body in those virtues which originallyelevated them, should be followed by animosities which would underminetheir power. We can see why their moral influence should pass away, evenwhen they were in possession of dignities and honors and wealth. But itis a most singular fact that the Pope himself, with whose interests theywere allied, --their natural protector, the head of the hierarchy whichthey so constantly defended, --should have been made the main agent intheir temporary humiliation. Yet Clement XIV. --the weak and timidGanganelli--was forced to this suicidal act. Old Hildebrand would havefought like a lion and died like a dog, rather than have stooped to suchautocrats as the Bourbon princes. A judicial and mysterious blindness, however, was sent upon Clement; his strength for the moment wasparalyzed, and he signed the edict which dispersed the best soldiersthat sustained the interests of absolutism in Europe. 

The effect of the suppression of the order in France was both good andill. The event unquestionably led to the propagation of an impiousphilosophy and all sorts of crude opinions and ill-digested theories, both in government and religion, in the schools, the salons, and thepulpits of France. The press, relieved of its most watchful and jealousspies, teemed with pamphlets and books of the most licentious character. The good and evil powers were both unchained and suffered to go freeabout the land, and to do what work they could. There are many who feelthat this combat is necessary for the full development of human strengthand virtue; who maintain that the good is much more powerful than theevil in any age of moral experiences; and who believe that angels oflight will, on our mundane arena, prevail over angels of darkness, --thatone truth is stronger than one thousand lies, and that two can put tenthousand to flight. There are others, again, who think that there is avitality in error as well as a vitality in truth, as proved seemingly bythe prevalence of Pagan falsehoods, Mohammedan empires, and Papalsuperstitions. But to whatever party clearness of judgment belongs, onething is historically certain, --that never was poor human nature morepuzzled by false guides, more tempted by appetites and passions, moreenslaved by the lust of the eye and the pride of life, than during thelatter years of the reign of Louis XV. Never was there a period or acountry in Christendom more frivolous, pleasure-seeking, sceptical, irreligious, vain, conceited, and superficial than during the reign ofMadame de Pompadour. No; never was there a time of so little moralelevation among the great mass, or when so few great enterprises wereprojected for the improvement of society. 

And it was from society thus disordered, inexperienced, and godless thatall restraints were removed from the ancient and venerated guardians ofyouth, of religion, and of literature. Judge what must have been theeffects; judge between these opposing theories, whether it were betterto have the institutions of society guarded by selfish, ambitious, andnarrow-minded priests, or to have the flood-gates of vastlypreponderating evil influences opened upon society already reeling inthe intoxication of the senses, or madly raving from the dethronement ofreason, the abnegation of religious duties, and the extinction of thelight of faith. I would not say that either one or the other of thesehorrible alternatives is necessary or probable in these times, that _we_are compelled to choose between them, or that we ever shall becompelled; but simply, that, in the middle of the eighteenth century, and in France, --that semi-Catholic and semi-infidel nation, --thereexisted on the one hand a most execrable spiritual despotism exercisedby the Jesuits, and on the other a boundless ferment of destructive andrevolutionary principles, operating on a people generally inclined, andin some cases abandoned, to every folly and vice. This despotism, whileit was selfish and unwarrantable, still had in view the guardianship ofmorals and literature, --to restrain men from crimes by working on theirfears; but society, while it sought to free itself from hypocritical andoppressive leaders, also sought to remove all social and moralrestraints, and to plunge into reckless and dangerous experiments. Itwas a war between these two social powers, --between unlawful despotismand unsanctified license. We are to judge, not which was the better, butwhich was the worse. 

One thing, however, is certain, --that Madame de Pompadour, in whom wascentred so much power, threw her influence against the Jesuits, and infavor of those who were not seeking to build up literature and morals ona sure and healthy foundation, but rather secretly and artfully toundermine the whole intellectual and social fabric, under the plea ofliberty and human rights. Everybody admits that the writings of thephilosophers gave a great impulse to the revolutionary storm whichafterwards broke out. Ideas are ever most majestic, whether they aregood or evil. Men pass away, but principles are indestructible and ofperpetual power. As great and fearful agencies in the period we arecontemplating, they are worthy of our notice. 

Although the great lights which adorned the literature of the precedingreign no longer shone, --such geniuses as Molière, Boileau, Racine, Fénelon, Bossuet, Pascal, and others, --still the eighteenth century wasmuch more intellectual and inquiring than is generally supposed. UnderLouis XIV. Intellectual independence had been nearly extinguished. Hisreign was intellectually and spiritually a gloomy calm between twowonderful periods of agitation. All acquiesced in his cold, heartless, rigid rule, being content to worship him as a deity, or absorbed in theexcitements of his wars, or in the sorrows and burdens which those warsbrought in their train. But under Louis XV. The people began to meditateon the causes of their miseries, and to indulge in those speculationswhich stimulated their discontents or appealed to their intellectualpride. Not from La Rochelle, not from the cells of Port Royal, not fromremonstrating parliaments did the voices of rebellion come: the geniusof Revolution is not so poor as to be obliged to make use of the sameclass of instruments, or repeat the same experiments, in changing thegreat aspects of human society. Nor will she allow, if possible, thosewho guard the fortresses which she wishes to batter down to besuspicious of her combatants. Her warriors are ever disguised andmasked, or else concealed within some form of a protecting deity, suchas the fabled horse which the doomed Trojans received within theirwalls. The court of France did not recognize in those plausiblephilosophers, whose writings had such a charm for cultivated intellect, the miners and sappers of the monarchy. Only one class of royalistsunderstood them, and these were the Jesuits whom the court had exiled. Not even Frederic the Great, when he patronized Voltaire, was aware whatan insidious foe was domiciled in his palace, with all his sycophancyof rank, with all his courtly flattering. In like manner, when the grandseigneurs and noble dames of that aristocratic age wept over the sorrowsof the "New Héloïse, " or craved that imaginary state of untutoredinnocence which Rousseau so morbidly described, or admired thosebrilliant generalizations of laws which Montesquieu had penned, orlaughed at the envenomed ironies of Voltaire, or quoted the atheisticdoctrines of D'Alembert and Diderot, or enthusiastically discussed theeconomical theories of Dr. Quesnay and old Marquis Mirabeau, --that sternfather of him who, both in his intellectual power and moral deformity, was alike the exponent and the product of the French Revolution, --whenthe blinded court extolled and diffused the writings of these newapostles of human rights, they little dreamed that they would be stillmore admired among the people, and bring forth the Brissots, theCondoreets, the Marats, the Dantons, the Robespierres, of the nextgeneration. I would not say that their influence was wholly bad, for intheir attacks on the religion and institutions of their country theysubverted monstrous usurpations. But whatever was their ultimateinfluence, they were doubtless among the most efficient agents inoverturning the throne; they were, in reality, the secret enemies ofthose by whom they were patronized and honored. "They cannot, indeed, claim the merit of being the first in France who opened the eyes of thenation; for Fénelon had taught even to Louis XIV. , in his immortal'Télémaque, ' the duties of a king; Racine, in his 'Germanicus, ' hadshown the accursed nature of irresponsible despotism; Molière, in his'Tartuffe, ' had exposed the vices of priestly hypocrisy; Pascal, in his'Provincial Letters, ' had revealed the wretched sophistries of theJesuits; Bayle even, in his 'Critical Dictionary, ' had furnishedmaterials for future sceptics. "

But the hostilities of all these men were united in Voltaire, who innearly two hundred volumes, and with a fecundity of genius perfectlyamazing and unparalleled, in poetry, in history, in criticism, --yetwithout striking originality or profound speculations, --astonished anddelighted his generation. This great and popular writer clothed hisattacks on ecclesiastical power, and upon Christianity itself, in themost artistic and attractive language, --clear, simple, logical, withoutpedantry or ostentation, --and enlivened it with brilliant sarcasms, appealing to popular prejudices, and never soaring beyond popularappreciation. Never did a man have such popularity; never did a famouswriter leave so little to posterity which posterity can value. 

While Voltaire was indirectly undermining the religious convictions ofmankind, the Encyclopedists more directly attacked the sources ofreligious belief, and openly denied what Voltaire had doubted. Butneither Diderot nor D'Alembert made such shameless assaults as theapostles of a still more atheistic school, --such men as Helvetius andthe Baron d'Holbach, who advocated undisguised selfishness, andattributed all virtuous impulses to animal sensation. More dangerousstill than these ribald blasphemers were those sentimental and morbidexpounders of humanity of whom Rousseau was the type, --a man of moregenius perhaps than any I have named, but the most egotistical of thatwhole generation of dreamers and sensualists who prepared the way forrevolution. He was the father of those agitating ideas which spread overEurope and reached America. He gave utterance in his eloquent writingsto those mighty watch-words, "Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality, " thatequally animated Mirabeau, Robespierre, and Jefferson. But the writingsof the philosophers will again be alluded to in the next lecture, asamong the efficient causes of the French Revolution. 

When we contemplate those financial embarrassments which arose from halfa century of almost universal war, and those awful burdens which bent tothe dust, in suffering and shame, the whole people of a great country;when we consider the absurd and wicked distinctions which separated manfrom man, and the settled hostility of the clergy to all means ofintellectual and social improvement; when we remember the unparalleledvices of a licentious court, the ignominious negligence of thegovernment to the happiness and wants of those whom it was its duty toprotect, and the shameless insults which an infamous woman was allowedto heap upon the nation; and then when we bear in mind all the elementsof disgust, of discontent, of innovation, and of reckless and impiousdefiance, --can we wonder that a revolution was inevitable, if society isdestined to be progressive, and man ever to be allowed to breakhis fetters?

On that Revolution I cannot enter. I leave the subject as the windsbegan to howl and the rains began to fall and the floods began to rise, and all together to beat upon that house which was built upon the sand. 

AUTHORITIES. 

Lacretelle's Histoire de France; Anquetil; Henri Martin's History ofFrance; Dulaure's Histoire de Paris; Lord Brougham's Lives of Rousseauand Voltaire; Memoires de Madame de Pompadour; Mémoires de Madame DuBarry; Revue des Deux Mondes, 1847; Château de Lucienne; L'Ami desHommes, par M. Le Marquis de Mirabeau; Maximes Générales duGouvernement, par Le Docteur Quesnay; Histoire Philosophique du Règne deLouis XV. , par le Comte de Tocqueville; Mémoires Secrets; PiècesInédites sous le Règne de Louis XV. ; Anecdotes de la Cour de Francependant la Faveur de Madame Pompadour; Louis XV. Et la Société du XVIII. Siècle, par M. Capefigue; Alison's introductory chapter to the Historyof Europe; Louis XV. Et son Siècle, par Voltaire; Saint Simon; Mémoiresde Duclos; Mémoires du Duc de Richelieu. 

PETER THE GREAT. 

A. D. 1672-1725. 

HIS SERVICES TO RUSSIA. 

If I were called upon to name the man who, since Charlemagne, hasrendered the greatest services to his country, I should select Peter theGreat. I do not say that he is one of the most interesting charactersthat has shone in the noble constellations of illustrious benefactorswhom Europe has produced. Far otherwise: his career is not sointeresting to us as that of Hildebrand, or Elizabeth, or Cromwell, orRichelieu, or Gustavus Adolphus, or William III. , or Louis XIV. , orFrederic II. , or others I might mention. I have simply to show anenlightened barbarian toiling for civilization, a sort of Herculescleansing Augean stables and killing Nemean lions; a man whose laborswere prodigious; a very extraordinary man, stained by crimes andcruelties, yet laboring, with a sort of inspired enthusiasm, to raisehis country from an abyss of ignorance and brutality. It would bedifficult to find a more hard-hearted despot, and yet a more patrioticsovereign. To me he looms up, even more than Richelieu, as an instrumentof Divine Providence. His character appears in a double light, --asbenefactor and as tyrant, in order to carry out ends which he deemeduseful to his country, and which, we are constrained to admit, didwonderfully contribute to its elevation and political importance. 

Peter the Great entered upon his inheritance as absolute sovereign ofRussia, when it was an inland and even isolated state, hemmed in andgirt around by hostile powers, without access to seas; a vast countryindeed, but without a regular standing army on which he could rely, oreven a navy, however small. This country was semi-barbarous, moreAsiatic than European, occupied by mongrel tribes, living amid snow andmorasses and forests, without education, or knowledge of European arts. He left this country, after a turbulent reign, with seaports on theBaltic and the Black seas, with a large and powerfully disciplined army, partially redeemed from barbarism, no longer isolated or unimportant, but a political power which the nations had cause to fear, and which, from the policy he bequeathed, has been increasing in resources from histime to ours. To-day Russia stands out as a first-class power, with thelargest army in the world; a menace to Germany, a rival of Great Britainin the extension of conquests to the East, threatening to seize Turkeyand control the Black Sea, and even to take possession of Orientalempires which extend to the Pacific Ocean. 

Nobody doubts or questions that the rise of Russia to its present proudand threatening position is chiefly owing to the genius and policy ofPeter the Great. Peter was a descendant of a patriarch of the GreekChurch in Russia, whose name was Romanoff, and who was hisgreat-grandfather. His grandfather married a near relative of the Czar, and succeeded him by election. His father, Alexis, was an able man, andmade war on the Turks. 

Peter was a child when his father died, and his half-brother Theodorebecame the Czar. But Theodore reigned only a short time, and Petersucceeded him at the age of ten (1682), the government remaining in thehands of his half-sister, Sophia, a woman of great ability andintelligence, but intriguing and unscrupulous. She was aided by PrinceGalitzin, the ablest statesman of Russia, who held the great office ofchancellor. This prince, it would seem, with the aid of the general ofthe Streltzi (the ancient imperial guards) and the cabals of Sophia, conspired against the life of Peter, then seventeen years of age, inasmuch as he began to manifest extraordinary abilities and a will ofhis own. But the young Hercules strangled the serpent, --sent Galitzin toSiberia, confined his sister Sophia in a convent for the rest of herdays, and assumed the reins of government himself, although a mereyouth, in conjunction with his brother John. That which characterizedhim was a remarkable precocity, greater than that of anybody of whom Ihave read. At eighteen he was a man, with a fine physical developmentand great beauty of form, and entered upon absolute and undisputed poweras Czar of Muscovy. 

In the years of the regency, when the government was in the hands of hishalf-sister, he did not give promise of those remarkable abilities andthat life of self-control which afterwards marked his career. 

In his earlier youth he had been surrounded with seductive pleasures, asLouis XIV. Had been, by the queen-regent, with a view to _control_ him, not oppose him; and he yielded to these pleasures, and is said to havebeen a very dissipated young man, with his education neglected. But heno sooner got rid of his sister and her adviser, Galitzin, than heseemed to comprehend at once for what he was raised up. The vastresponsibilities of his position pressed upon his mind. To civilize hiscountry, to make it politically powerful, to raise it in the scale ofnations, to labor for its good rather than for his own private pleasure, seems to have animated his existence. And this aim he pursued from firstto last, like a giant of destiny, without any regard to losses, orhumiliations, or defeats, or obstacles. 

Chance, or destiny, or Providence, threw in his path the very personwhom he needed as a teacher and a Mentor, --a young gentleman fromGeneva, whom historians love to call an adventurer, but who occupied thepost of private secretary to the Danish minister. Aristocratic pedantscall everybody an adventurer who makes his fortune by his genius and hisaccomplishments. They called Thomas Becket an adventurer in the time ofHenry II. , and Thomas Cromwell in the reign of Henry VIII. The youngsecretary to the Danish minister seems to have been a man of remarkableability, insight, and powers of fascination, based on his intelligenceand on knowledge acquired in the first instance in a mercantilehouse, --as was the success of Thomas Cromwell and Alexander Hamilton. 

It was from this young man, whose name was Lefort, whom Peter casuallymet at dinner at the house of the Danish envoy, that he was madeacquainted with the superior discipline of the troops of France andGermany, and the mercantile greatness of Holland and England, --the twothings which he was most anxious to understand; since, as he believed, on the discipline of an army and the efficiency of a navy the politicalgreatness of his country must rest. A disciplined army would rendersecure the throne of absolutism, and an efficient navy would open andprotect his ports for the encouragement of commerce, --one of the greatsources of national wealth. Without commerce and free intercourse withother countries no nation could get money; and without money even anabsolute monarch could not reign as he would. 

So these two young men took counsel together; and the conviction wassettled in the minds of each that there could be no military disciplineand no efficient military power so long as the Streltzi--thoseantiquated and turbulent old guards--could depose and set up monarchs. They settled it, and with the enthusiasm of young men, that before theycould get rid of these dangerous troops, --only fit for Oriental orbarbaric fighting, --they must create a regiment after their own liking, large enough to form the nucleus of a real European army, and yet notlarge enough to excite jealousy, --for Sophia was then still regent, andthe youthful Peter was supposed to be merely amusing himself. The Swiss"adventurer"--one of the most enlightened men of his age, and full ofgenius--became colonel of this regiment; and Peter, not thinking heknew anything about true military tactics, and wishing to learn, --andnot too proud to learn, being born with disdain of conventionalities andprecedents, --entered the regiment as drummer, in sight of his ownsubjects, who perhaps looked upon the act as a royal freak, --even asNero practised fiddling, and Commodus archery, before the Roman people. From drummer he rose to the rank of corporal, and from corporal tosergeant, and so on through all the grades. 

That is the way Peter began, --as all great men begin, at the foot of theladder; for great as it was to be born a prince, it was greater to learnhow to be a general. In this fantastic conduct we see three things: aremarkable sagacity in detecting the genius of Lefort, a masterly powerover his own will, and a willingness to learn anything from anybody ableand willing to teach him, --even as a rich and bright young lady, now andthen, when about to assume the superintendence of a great household, condescends to study some of the details of a kitchen, those domesticarts on which depend something of that happiness which is the end andaim of married life. Many a promising domestic hearth is wrecked--suchis the weakness of human nature--by the ignorance or disdain of humbleacquirements, or what seem humble to fortunate women, and yet which arereally steps to a proud ascendency. 

We trace the ambition of Peter for commercial and maritime greatnessalso to a very humble beginning. Whether it was a youthful sport, subsequently directed into a great enterprise, or the plodding intentionto create a navy and open seaports under his own superintendence, itwould be difficult to settle. We may call this beginning a decree ofProvidence, an inspiration of genius, or a passion for sailing a boat;the end was the same, as it came about, --the entrance of Russia into thefamily of European States. 

It would seem that one day, by chance, Peter's attention was directed toa little boat laid up on the banks of a canal which ran through hispleasure-grounds. It had been built by a Dutch carpenter for theamusement of his father. This boat had a keel, --a new thing to him, --andattracted his curiosity, Lefort explained to him that it was constructedto sail against the wind. So the carpenter was summoned, with orders torig the boat and sail it on the Moskva, the river which runs throughMoscow. Peter was delighted; and he soon learned to manage it himself. Then a yacht was built, manned by two men, and it was the delight ofPeter to take the helm himself. Shortly five other vessels were built tonavigate Lake Peipus; and the ambition of Peter was not satisfied untila still larger vessel was procured at Archangel, in which he sailed on acruise upon the Frozen Ocean. His taste for navigation became a passion;and once again he embarked on the Frozen Ocean in a ship, determined togo through all the gradations of a sailor's life. As he began as drummerin Lefort's regiment, so he first served as a common drudge who sweptthe cabin in a Dutch vessel; then he rose to the rank of a servant whokept up the fire and lighted the pipe of the Dutch skipper; then he wasadvanced to the duty of unfurling and furling the sails, --and so on, until he had mastered the details of a sailor's life. 

Why did he condescend to these mean details? The ambition was planted inhim to build a navy under his own superintendence. Wherefore a navy, when he had no seaports? But he meant to have seaports. He especiallyneeded a fleet on the Volga to keep the Turks and Tartars in awe, andanother in the Gulf of Finland to protect his territories from theSwedes. We shall see how subsequently, and in due time, he conquered theBaltic from the Swedes and the Euxine from the Turks. He did not seem tohave an ambition for indefinite territorial aggrandizement, but simplyto extend his empire to these seas for the purpose of having a freeegress and ingress to it by water. He could not Europeanize his empirewithout seaports, for unless Russia had these, she would remain abarbarous country, a vast Wallachia or Moldavia. The expediency and thenecessity of these ports were most obvious. But how was he to get them?Only by war, aggressive war. He would seize what he wanted, since hecould attain his end in no other way. 

Now, I do not propose to whitewash this enlightened but unscrupulousrobber. On no recognized principles of morality can he be defended, anymore than can Louis XIV. For the invasion of Flanders, or Frederic II. For the seizure of Silesia. He first resolved to seize Azof, the mainport on the little sea of that name which opens out into the Black Sea, and which belonged to the Turks. It was undoubted robbery; but itspossession would be an immense advantage to Russia. Of course, thatseizure could not be justified either by the laws of God or the laws ofnations. "Thou shalt not steal" is an eternally binding law for nationsand for individuals. Peter knew that he had no right to this importantcity; but at the same time he knew that its possession would benefitRussia. So we are compelled to view this monarch as a robber, takingwhat was not his, as Ahab seized Naboth's vineyard; but taking it forthe benefit of his country, which Ahab did not. He knew it was apolitical crime, but a crime to advance the civilization of his empire. The only great idea of his life was the welfare of his country, by anymeans. For his country he would sacrifice his character and publicmorality. Some might call this an exalted patriotism, --I call itunmitigated Jesuitism; which seems to have been the creed ofpoliticians, and even of statesmen, for the last three hundred years. All that Peter thought of was _the end_; he cared nothing for the_means_. I wonder why Carlyle or Froude has not bolstered up anddefended this great hyperborean giant for doing evil that good may come. Casuistry is in their line; the defence of scoundrels seems to betheir vocation. 

Well, then, bear in mind that Peter, feeling that he must have Azof forthe good of Russia, irrespective of right or wrong, went straightforward to his end. Of course he knew he must have a fight with Turkeyto gain this prize, and he prepared for such a fight. Turkey was notthen what it is now, --ripe fruit to be gobbled up by Russia when therest of Europe permits it; but Turkey then was a great power. At thatvery time two hundred thousand Turks were besieging Vienna, which wouldhave fallen but for John Sobieski. But obstacles were nothing to Peter;they were simply things to be surmounted, at any sacrifice of time ormoney or men. So with the ships he had built he sailed down the RiverDon and attacked Azof. He was foiled, not beaten. He never seemed toknow when he was beaten, and he never seemed to care. That hard, ironman marched to his object like a destiny. What he had to do was to takeAzof against an army of Turks. So, having failed in the first campaign, through the treachery of one Jacobs who had been employed in theartillery, he tried it again the next year and succeeded, his army beingcommanded by General Gordon, a Scotchman, while he himself served onlyas ensign or lieutenant. This port was the key of Palus Maeotis, andopened to him the Black Sea, on which he resolved to establish a navy. He had now an army modelled after the European fashion, according to thesuggestions of Lefort, whose regiment became the model of otherregiments. Five thousand men were trained and commanded by GeneralGordon. Lefort raised another corps of twelve thousand, from theStreltzi chiefly. These were the forces, in conjunction with the navy, with which he reduced Azof. He now returns to Moscow, and receives thecongratulations of the boyars, or nobles, --that class who owned thelanded property of Russia and cultivated it by serfs. He made heavycontributions on these nobles, and also on the clergy, --for it takesmoney to carry on a war, and money he must have somehow. 

These forced contributions and the changes which were made in the armywere not beheld with complacency. The old guard, the Streltzi, wereparticularly disgusted. The various innovations were very unpopular, especially those made in reference to the dress of the new soldiers. Theresult of all these innovations and discontents was a conspiracy to takehis life; which, however, was seasonably detected and severely punished. 

An extraordinary purpose now seized the mind of the Czar, which was totravel in the various countries of Europe, and learn something moreespecially about ship-building, on which his heart was set. He alsowished to study laws, institutions, sciences, and arts; and in order tostudy them effectually, he resolved to travel incognito. Hitherto he hadnot been represented in the European courts; so he appointed an embassyof extraordinary magnificence to proceed in the first instance toHolland, then the foremost mercantile state of Europe. The retinueconsisted of four secretaries, at the head of whom was Lefort, twelvenobles, fifty guards, and other persons, --altogether to the number oftwo hundred. As they travelled through Prussia they were received withgreat distinction, and the whole journey seems to have been aBacchanalian progress. There were nothing _lout, fêtes_ and banquets tohis honor, and the Russians proved to have great capacity for drinking. At Königsberg he left his semi-barbaric embassy to their revels, andproceeded rapidly and privately to Holland, hired a small room--kitchenand garret--for lodgings, and established himself as journeymancarpenter, with a resolute determination to learn the trade of aship-carpenter. He dressed like a common carpenter, and lived like one, with great simplicity. When he was not at work in the dock-yard with hisbroad axe, he amused himself by sailing a yacht, dressed like a Dutchskipper, with a red jacket and white trousers. He was a markedpersonage, even had it not been known that he was the Czar, --a tall, robust, active man of twenty-five, with a fierce look and curling brownlocks, free from all restraint, seeing but little of the ambassadors whohad followed him, and passing his time with ship-builders and merchants, and adhering rigidly to all the regulations of the dock-yards. He spentnine months in this way at hard labor, and at the end of that timehad mastered the art of ship-building in all its details, hadacquired the Dutch language, and had seen what was worth seeing ofAmsterdam, --showing an unbounded curiosity and indefatigable zeal, frequenting the markets and the shops, attending lectures in anatomy andsurgery, learning even how to draw teeth; visiting museums andmanufactories, holding intercourse with learned men, and makingconsiderable proficiency in civil engineering and the science offortification. Nothing escaped his eager inquiries. "Wat is dat?" washis perpetual exclamation. "He devoured every morsel of knowledge withunexampled voracity. " Never was seen a man on this earth with a moredevouring appetite for knowledge of every kind; storing up in his mindeverything he saw, with a view of introducing improvements into Russia. To see this barbaric emperor thus going to school, and working with hisown hands, insensible to heat and cold and weariness, with the singleaim of benefiting his countrymen when he should return, is to me one ofthe most wonderful sights of history. 

His chosen companion in these labors and visits and pleasures was alsoone of the most remarkable men of his age. His name wasMentchikof, --originally a seller of pies in the streets of Moscow, whoattracted, by his beauty and brightness, the attention of GeneralLefort, and was made a page in his household, and was as such made knownto the Czar, who took a fancy to him, and soon detected his greattalents; so that he rose as rapidly as Joseph did in the court ofPharaoh, and became general, governor, prince, regent, with almostautocratic power. The whole subsequent reign of Peter, and of hissuccessor, became identified with Prince Mentchikof, who was primeminister and grand vizier, and who forwarded all the schemes of hismaster with consummate ability. 

After leaving Holland, Peter accepted an invitation of William III. Tovisit England, and thither he went with his embassy in royal ships, yetstill affecting to travel as a private gentleman. He would accept nohonors, no public receptions, no state banquets. He came to England, notto receive honors, but to add to his knowledge, and he wished to remainunfettered in his sight-seeing. In England, the same insatiablecuriosity marked him as in Holland. He visits the dock-yards, and goes tothe theatre and the opera, and holds interviews with Quakers and attendstheir meetings, as well as the churches of the Establishment. Thecountry-houses of nobles, with their parks and gardens and hedges, filled him with admiration. He was also greatly struck with GreenwichHospital, which looked to him like a royal palace (as it wasoriginally), and he greatly wondered that the old seedy and frowsypensioners should be lodged so magnificently. The courts of Westminstersurprised him. "Why, " said he, in reference to the legal gentlemen inwigs and gowns, "I have but two lawyers in my dominions, and one of themI mean to hang as soon as I return. " But while he visited everything, generally in a quiet way, avoiding display and publicity, he was mostinterested in mechanical inventions and the dock-yards and mock navalcombats. It would seem that his private life was simple, although he isaccused of eating voraciously, and of drinking great quantities ofbrandy and sack. If this be true, he certainly reformed his habits, andlearned to govern himself, for he was very temperate in his latter days. Men who are very active and perform herculean labors, do not generallybelong to the class of gluttons or drunkards. I have read of but fewgreat generals, like Caesar, or Charlemagne, or William III. , orGustavus Adolphus, or Marlborough, or Cromwell, or Turenne, orWellington, or Napoleon, who were not temperate in their habits. 

After leaving England, the Czar repaired to Vienna, _via_ Holland, sending to Russia five hundred persons whom he took in hisemploy, --navy captains, pilots, surgeons, gunners, boat-builders, blacksmiths, and various other mechanics, --having an eye to theindustrial development of his country; which was certainly better thandriving out of his kingdom four hundred thousand honest people, as LouisXIV. Did because they were Protestants. But Peter did not tarry long inVienna, whose military establishments he came to study, being compelledto return hastily to Moscow to suppress a rebellion. He returned a muchwiser man; I doubt if any person ever was more improved than he by histravels. What an example to tourists in these times! All travelling(except explorations) is a dissipation and waste of time unlessself-improvement is the main object. Pleasure-seeking is the greatestvanity on this earth, for he who _seeks_ pleasure never finds it; but itcomes when it is a minor consideration. 

The apprenticeship of Peter is now completed, and he enters moreseriously upon those great labors which have given him an immortality. Iam compelled to be brief in stating them. 

The first thing he did, on his return, was finally to crush theStreltzi, who fomented treasons and were hostile to reform. He hadwisely left General Gordon at Moscow with six thousand soldiers, disciplined after the European fashion. In abolishing the turbulent andprejudicial Streltzi, he is accused of great cruelties. He summarilyexecuted or imprisoned some four thousand of them caught in acts oftreason and rebellion, and drafted the rest into distant regiments. Hemay have been unnecessarily cruel, as critics have accused OliverCromwell of being in his treatment of the Irish. But, cruel or not, hegot rid of troops he could not trust, and organized soldiers whom hecould, --for he must have tools to work with if he would do his work. Ineither praise nor condemn his mode of working; I seek to show how heperformed his task. 

After disbanding rebellious soldiers, he sought to make his army moreefficient by changing the dress of the entire army. He did away with thelong coat reaching to the heels, something like that which ladies wearin rainy days; and the drawers not unlike petticoats; and the long, bushy beards. He found more difficulty in making this reform than intaking Azof, although aided by Mentchikof, his favorite, fellow-traveller, and prime minister. He was not content with cuttingoff the beards of the soldiers and shortening their coats, --he wished tomake private citizens do the same; but the uproar and discontent were sogreat that he was obliged to compromise the matter, and allow thecitizens to wear their beards and robes on condition of a heavy tax, graded on ability to pay it. The only class he exempted from the taxwere the clergy and the serfs. 

Among other reforms he changed the calendar, making the year to beginwith January, and abolished the old laws with reference to marriage, bywhich young people had no power of choice; but he decreed that nomarriage should take place unless an intimacy had existed between theparties for at least six months. He instituted balls and assemblies, tosoften the manners of the people. He encouraged the theatre, protectedscience, invited eminent men to settle in Russia, improved the courts ofjustice, established posts and post-offices, boards of trade, a vigorouspolice, hospitals, and alms-houses. He imported Saxony sheep, erectedlinen, woollen, and paper mills, dug canals, suppressed gambling, andfostered industry and art. He aimed to do for Russia what Richelieu andColbert did for France. 

The greatest opposition to his reforms came from the clergy, with thePatriarch at their head, --a personage of great dignity and power, rulingan _imperium in imperio_. Peter had no hostility to the Greek religion, nor to the clergy. Like Charlemagne, he was himself descended from anecclesiastical family. But finding the clergy hostile to civil andsocial reforms, he sought to change the organization of the Churchitself. He did not interfere with doctrines, nor discipline, nor rites, nor forms of worship; but he unseated the Patriarch, and appointedinstead a consistory, the members of which were nominated by himself. Like Henry VIII. , he virtually made himself the head of theChurch, --that is, the supreme direction of ecclesiastical affairs wasgiven to those whom he controlled, and not to the Patriarch, whose powerhad been supreme in religious matters, --more than Papal, almostDruidical. In former reigns the Patriarch had the power of life anddeath in his own tribunals; and when he rode to church on Palm Sunday, in his emblazoned robes, the Czar walked uncovered at his side, and heldthe bridle of his mule. It is a mark of the extraordinary power of Peterthat he was enabled to abolish this great dignity without a revolutionor bloodshed; and he not only abolished the patriarchal dignity, but heseized the revenues of the Patriarch, taxed the clergy, and partiallysuppressed monasteries, decreeing that no one should enter them underfifty years of age; yea, he even decreed universal toleration ofreligion, except to the Jesuits, whom he hated, as did William III. AndFrederic II. He caused the Bible to be translated into the Slavoniclanguage, and freely circulated it. And he prosecuted these reformswhile he was meditating, or was engaged in, great military enterprises. 

I approach now the great external event of Peter's life, his war withCharles XII. , brought about in part by his eagerness to get a seaport onthe Baltic, and in part by the mad ambition of the Swedish king, determined to play the part of Alexander. The aggressive party in thiswar, however, was Peter. He was resolved to take part of the Swedishterritories for mercantile and maritime purposes; so he invaded Swedenwith sixty thousand men. Charles, whose military genius was notappreciated by the Czar, had only eight thousand troops to oppose theinvasion; but they were veterans, and fought on the defensive, and hadright on their side. This latter is a greater thing in war than isgenerally supposed; for although war is in our own times a mechanism ina great measure, still moral considerations underlie even physicalforces, and give a sort of courage which is hard to resist. The resultof this invasion was the battle of Narva, when Peter was disgracefullybeaten, as he ought to have been. But he bore his defeat complacently. He is reported as saying that he knew the Swedes would have theadvantage at first, but that they would teach him how to beat them atlast. I doubt this. I do not believe a general ever went into battlewith a vastly overwhelming force when he did not expect victory. But thegreat victory won by Charles (a mere stripling king, scarcely nineteen)turned his head. Never was there a more intoxicated hero. He turned hisvictorious army upon Poland, dethroned the king, invaded Saxony, andprepared to invade Russia with an army of eighty thousand troops. Hiscool adversary, who since his defeat at Narva had been prosecuting hisreforms and reorganizing his army and building a navy, was more of awily statesman than a successful general. He retreated before Charles, avoided battles, tempted him in the pursuit to dreary and sparselyinhabited districts, decoyed him into provinces remote from his base ofsupplies; so that at the approach of winter Charles found himself in acold and desolate country (as Napoleon was afterwards tempted to _his_ruin), with his army dwindled down to twenty-five thousand men, whilePeter had one hundred thousand, with ample provisions and militarystores. The generals of Charles now implore him to return to Sweden, atleast to seek winter quarters in the Ukraine; but the monarch, infatuated, lays siege to Pultowa, and gives battle to Peter, and is notonly defeated, but his forces are almost annihilated, so that he findsthe greatest difficulty in escaping into Turkey with a handful offollowers. That battle settled the fortunes of both Charles and Peter. The one was hopelessly ruined; the other was left free to take as muchterritory from Sweden as he wished, to open his seaports on the Baltic, and to dig canals from river to river. 

But another enemy still remained, Turkey; who sought to recover herterritory on the Black Sea, and who had already declared war. Flushedwith conquest, Peter in his turn became rash. He advanced to theTurkish territory with forty thousand men, and was led into the sametrap which proved the ruin of Charles XII. He suddenly finds himself ina hostile country, beyond the Pruth, between an army of Turks and anarmy of Tartars, with a deep and rapid river in his rear. Two hundredthousand men attack his forty thousand. He cannot advance, he cannotretreat; he is threatened with annihilation. He is driven to despair. Neither he nor his generals can see any escape, for in three days he haslost twenty thousand men, --one half his army. In all probability he andhis remaining men will be captured, and he conducted as a prisoner toConstantinople, and perhaps be shown to the mocking and jeering peoplein a cage, as Bajazet was. In this crisis he shuts himself up in histent, and refuses to see anybody. 

He is saved by a woman, and a great woman, even Catherine his wife, whooriginally was a poor peasant girl in Livonia, and who after variousadventures became the wife of a young Swedish officer killed at thebattle of Marienburg, and then the mistress of Prince Mentchikof, andthen of Peter himself, who at length married her, --"an incident, " saysVoltaire, "which fortune and merit never before produced in the annalsof the world, " She suggested negotiation, when Peter was in the veryjaws of destruction, and which nobody had thought of. She collectstogether her jewels and all the valuables she can find, and sends themto the Turkish general as a present, and favorable terms are secured. But Peter loses Azof, and is shut out from the Black Sea, and iscompelled to withdraw from the vicinity of the Danube. The Baltic ishowever still open to him; and in the mean time he has transferred hiscapital to a new city, which he built on the Gulf of Finland. 

It was during his Swedish war, about the year 1702, when he had driventhe Swedes from Ladoga and the Neva, that he fixed his eyes upon amiserable morass, a delta, half under water, formed by the dividingbranches of the Neva, as the future seat of his vast empire. It was apoor site for a capital city, inaccessible by water half the year, without stones, without wood, without any building materials, with abarren soil, and liable to be submerged in a storm. Some would say itwas an immense mistake to select such a place for the capital of anempire stretching even to the Pacific ocean. But it was the only placehe could get which opened a water communication with Western Europe. Hecould not Europeanize his empire without some such location for his newcapital. So St. Petersburg arose above the marshes of the Neva as if bymagic, built in a year, on piles, although it cost him the lives of onehundred thousand men. "We never could look on this capital, " saysMotley, "with its imposing though monotonous architecture, its colossalsquares, its vast colonnades, its endless vistas, its spires andminarets sheathed in barbaric gold and flashing in the sun, and rememberthe magical rapidity with which it was built, without recalling Milton'sdescription of Pandemonium:--

 "'As bees In spring time, when the sun with Taurus rides, Pour forth their populous youth about the hive In clusters: they among fresh dews and flowers Fly to and fro, or on the smoothed plank, The suburb of their straw-built citadel, Now rubbed with balm, expatiate, and confer Their state affairs: so thick the aery crowd Swarm'd and were straighten'd; till, the signal given, Behold a wonder!'

"The transfer of the seat of government, by the removal of the senatefrom Moscow, was effected a few years afterwards. Since that time, therepudiated Oriental capital of the ancient Czars, with her golden tiaraand Eastern robe, has sat, like Hagar in the wilderness, deserted andlonely in all her barbarian beauty. Yet even now, in many a backwardlook and longing sigh, she reads plainly enough that she is notforgotten by her sovereign, that she is still at heart preferred, andthat she will eventually triumph over her usurping and artificial rival. "

So writes a great historian; but to me it seems that the longing eyes ofthe Emperor of Russia are not turned to the old barbaric capital, butto a still more ancient capital, --that which Constantine, withfar-seeing vision, selected as the central city of the decaying empireof the Romans, easily defended, resting on both Europe and Asia, withaccess to the Mediterranean and Black seas; the most magnificent sitefor the capital of a great empire on the face of the globe, which isneeded by Russia if she is to preserve her maritime power, and whichnothing but the jealousy of the Western nations has prevented her fromtwice seizing within a single generation. We say, "Westward, the star ofempire takes its way. " But an empire larger in its territories than allEurope, and constantly augmenting its resources, although still Cossack, still undeveloped, has its eye on Eastern, not Western extension, untilChina herself, with her four thousand years of civilization and her fourhundred millions of people, may become a spoil to be divided between theEmperor of Russia and the Empress of India; not as banded and unitedrobbers divide their spoil, but the one encroaching from the West andNorth, and the other from the West and South. 

Peter, after having realized the great objects to which he earlyaspired, after having founded a navy and reorganized his army, and addedprovinces to his empire, and partially civilized it, and given to it anew capital, now meditated a second tour of Europe, this time to beaccompanied by his wife. Thirteen years had elapsed since he worked as aship-carpenter in the dock-yards of Holland. He was now forty-three yearsold, still manly, vigorous, and inquiring. In 1715, just as Louis hadcompleted his brilliant and yet unfortunate career, Peter firstrevisited the scene of his early labors, where he was enthusiasticallyreceived, and was afterwards entertained with great distinction atParis. He continued his studies in art, in science, and laws, saweverything, and was particularly impressed with the tomb of Richelieu. "Great man!" apostrophizes the Czar, "I would give half of my kingdom tolearn from thee how to govern the other half. " Such remarks indicatethat he knew something of history, and comprehended the mission of thegreat cardinal, --which was to establish absolutism as one of the neededforces of the seventeenth century; for it was Richelieu, hateful as ishis character, who built up the French monarchy. 

From Paris, Peter proceeded to Berlin, where he was received with equalattentions. He inspired universal respect, although his aspect wasfierce, his habits rough, and his manners uncouth. The one thing whichmarked him as a great man was his force of character. He was undazzledand unseduced; plain, simple, temperate, self-possessed, andstraightforward. He had not worked for himself, but for his country, andeverybody knew it. His wife Catherine, also a great woman, did not makeso good an impression as he did, being fat, vulgar, and covered withjewels and orders and crosses. I suppose both of them were what we nowshould call "plain people. " Station, power, and wealth seem to have verylittle effect on the manners and habits of those who have arisen byextraordinary talents to an exalted position. Nor does this positiondevelop pride as much as is generally supposed. Pride is born in a man, and will appear if he is ever so lowly; as also vanity, the more amiablequality, which expends itself in hospitalities and ostentations. Theproud Gladstone dresses like a Methodist minister, and does not seem tocare what kind of a hat he wears. The vain Beaconsfield loved honors andstars and flatteries and aristocratic insignia: if he had been rich hewould have been prodigal, and given great banquets. Peter made nodisplay, and saved his money for useful purposes. It would seem thatmost of the Russian monarchs have retained simplicity in theirprivate lives. 

The closing years of Peter were saddened by a great tragedy, as werethose of David. Both these monarchs had the misfortune to haverebellious and unworthy sons, who were heirs to the throne. Alexis wasas great a trial to Peter as Absalom was to David. He was hostile toreforms, was in league with his father's enemies, and was hopelesslystupid and profligate. He was not vain, ambitious, and beautiful, likethe son of David; but coarse, in bondage to priests, fond of thesociety of the weak and dissipated, and utterly unfitted to rule anempire. Had he succeeded Peter, the life-work of Peter would have beenwasted. His reign would have been as disastrous to Russia as that ofMary Queen of Scots would have been to England, had she succeededElizabeth. The patience of the father was at last exhausted. He hadremonstrated and threatened to no purpose. The young man would notreform his habits, or abstain from dangerous intrigues. He got beastlydrunk with convivial friends, and robbed and cheated his father wheneverhe got a chance. 

What was Peter to do with such a rebellious, undutiful, profligate, silly youth as Alexis, --a sot, a bigot, and a liar? Should he leave tohim the work of carrying out his policy and aims? It would be weaknessand madness. It seemed to him that he had nothing to do but disinherithim. In so doing, he would render no injustice. Alexis had no claim tothe throne, like the eldest son of Victoria. The throne belonged toPeter. He had no fetters on him like a feudal sovereign; he could electwhom he pleased to inherit his vast empire. It was not his son he lovedbest, but his country. He had the right to appoint any successor hepleased, and he would naturally select one who would carry out his plansand rule ably. So he disinherited his eldest son Alexis, and did it invirtue of the power which he imagined he had received, like an oldJewish patriarch, from God Almighty. There was no law of Russiadesignating the eldest son as the Czar's successor. No one canreasonably blame Peter for disinheriting this worthless son, whom he hadceased to love, --whom he even despised. 

Having disinherited him, out of regard to public interests more thanpersonal dislike, the question arises, what shall he do with him? Shallhe shut him in a state-prison, or confine him to a convent, or make waywith him? One of these terrible alternatives he must take. Whatstruggles of his soul to decide which were best! We pity a man compelledto make such a choice. Any choice was bad, and full of perils andcalumnies. Whatever way he turned was full of obstacles. If he shouldshut him up, the priests and humiliated boyars and other intriguingrascals might make him emperor after Peter's death, and thus create acounter reformation, and upset the work of Peter's life. If he shouldmake way with Alexis, the curses of his enemies and the execrations ofEurope and posterity would follow him as an unnatural father. David, with his tender nature and deep affection, would have spared Absalom ifall the hosts of Israel had fallen and his throne were overturned. ButPeter was not so weak as David; he was stern and severe. He decided tobring his son to trial for conspiracy and rebellion. The court foundhim guilty. The ministers, generals, and senators of the empirepronounced sentence of death upon him. Would the father have used hisprerogative and pardoned him? That we can never know. Some think thatPeter did not intend to execute the sentence. At any rate, he wasmercifully delivered from his dilemma. Alexis, frightened and apparentlycontrite, was seized with a fit of apoplexy, and died imploring hisfather's pardon. 

This tragedy is regarded as the great stain on the reign of Peter. Itshocked the civilized world. I do not wish to exculpate Peter fromcruelty or hardheartedness; I would neither justify him nor condemn him. In this matter, I think, he is to be judged by the supreme tribunal ofHeaven. I do not know enough to acquit or condemn him. All I know is, that his treatment of his son was both a misfortune and a stain on hismemory. The people to decide this point are those rich fathers who haverebellious, prodigal, reckless, and worthless sons, hopelesslydissipated, and rendered imbecile by self-indulgence and wastefulrevels; or those people who discuss the expediency and apparent statenecessity for the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, when the welfare ofa great kingdom was set against the ties of blood. 

After the death of Alexis, a few more years are given to the Czar tofollow out his improvements, centralize his throne, and extend histerritories both on the Baltic and in the East. The death of CharlesXII. Enabled him to take what Swedish provinces he needed to protect hismercantile interests, and to snatch from Persia the southern coast ofthe Caspian, --the original kingdom of Cyrus. "It is not land I want, "said he, "but water. " This is the key to all his conquests. He wanted anoutlet to the sea, on both sides his empire. He did not aim atterritorial enlargement so much as at facilities to enrich and civilizehis empire. 

Having done his work, --the work, I think, for which he was raisedup, --he sets about the succession to his throne. Amid unprecedented pomphe celebrates the coronation of his faithful and devoted wife, to whomhe also has been faithful. It is she only who understands and can carryout his imperial policy. He himself at Moscow, 1724, amid unusualsolemnities, placed the imperial crown upon her brow, and proudly andyet humbly walked before her in the gorgeous procession as a captain ofher guard. Before all the great dignitaries of his empire he gives thefollowing reasons for his course:--

"The Empress Catherine, our dearest consort, was an important help to usin all our dangers, not in war alone, but in other expeditions in whichshe voluntarily accompanied us; serving us with her able counsel, notwithstanding the natural weakness of her sex, more particularly atthe battle of Pruth, when our army was reduced to twenty-two thousandmen, while the Turks were two hundred thousand strong. It was in thisdesperate condition, above all others, that she signalized her zeal by acourage superior to her sex. For which reasons, and in virtue of thatpower which God has given us, we thus honor our spouse with theimperial crown. "

Peter died in the following year, after a reign of more than fortyyears, bequeathing a centralized empire to his successors, a large anddisciplined army, a respectable navy, and many improvements inagriculture, manufactures, commerce, and the arts, --yea, schools anduniversities for the education of the higher classes. 

Whatever may have been the faults of Peter, history cannot accuse him ofingratitude, or insincerity, or weak affections, --nothing of which isseen in his treatment of the honest Dutchman, in whose yard he worked asa common laborer; of Lefort, whom he made admiral of his fleet; or ofMentchikof, whom he elevated to the second place in his empire. Peterwas not a great warrior, but he created armies. He had traits in commonwith barbarians, but he bequeathed a new civilization, and dispelled thenight of hereditary darkness. He owed nothing to art; he looms up as aprodigy of Nature. He cared nothing for public opinion; he left themoral influence of a great example. He began with no particular aimexcept to join his country to the sea; he bequeathed a policy ofindefinite expansion. He did not leave free institutions, for hiscountry was not prepared for them; but he animated thirty millions withan intense and religious loyalty. He did not emancipate serfs; but hebequeathed a power which enabled his successors to loosen fetters withsafety. He degraded nobles; but his nobles would have prevented if theycould the emancipation of the people. He may have wasted his energies incondescending to mean details, and insisting on doing everything withhis own hands, from drummer to general, and cabin-boy to admiral, winning battles with his own sword, and singing in the choir as head ofthe Church; but in so doing he made the mistake of Charlemagne, whom hestrikingly resembles in his iron will, his herculean energies, and hisenlightened mind. He could not convert his subjects from cattle intomen, even had he wished, for civilization is a long and tedious process;but he made them the subjects of a great empire, destined to spread fromsea to sea. Certainly he was in advance of his people; he broke awayfrom the ideas which enslaved them. He may have been despotic, andinexorable, and hard-hearted; but that was just such a man as hiscountry needed for a ruler. Mr. Motley likens him to "a huge engine, placed upon the earth to effect a certain task, working its mighty armsnight and day with ceaseless and untiring energy, crashing through allobstacles, and annihilating everything in its path with the unfeelingprecision of gigantic mechanism. " I should say he was an instrument ofAlmighty power to bring good out of evil, and prepare the way for acivilization the higher elements of which he did not understand, andwith which he would not probably have sympathized. 

Who shall say, as we survey his mighty labors, and the indomitableenergy and genius which inspired them, that he does not deserve thetitle which civilization has accorded to him, --yea, a higher title thanthat of Great, even that of Father of his country?

AUTHORITIES. 

Journal de Pierre le Grand; History of Peter the Great, by AlexanderGordon; John Bell's Travels in Russia; Henry Bruce's Memoirs of Peter;Motley's Life of Peter I. ; Voltaire's History of the Russian Empireunder Peter the Great; Voltaire's Life of Charles XII. ; BiographicUniverselle; Encyclopaedia Britannica, --article "Russia;" Barrow'sMemoir of the Life of Peter the Great; Schuyler's History of Peterthe Great. 

FREDERIC THE GREAT. 

A. D. 1712-1786. 

THE PRUSSIAN POWER. 

The history of Frederic the Great is simply that of a man who committedan outrageous crime, the consequences of which pursued him in themaledictions and hostilities of Europe, and who fought bravely andheroically to rescue himself and country from the ruin which impendedover him as a consequence of this crime. His heroism, his fertility ofresources, his unflagging energy, and his amazing genius in overcomingdifficulties won for him the admiration of that class who idolizestrength and success; so that he stands out in history as a strugglinggladiator who baffled all his foes, --not a dying gladiator on the arenaof a pagan amphitheatre, but more like a Judas Maccabaeus, when huntedby the Syrian hosts, rising victorious, and laying the foundation of apowerful monarchy; indeed, his fame spread, irrespective of his causeand character, from one end of Christendom to the other, --not such afame as endeared Gustavus Adolphus to the heart of nations for heroicefforts to save the Protestant religion, --but such a fame as thesuccessful generals of ancient Rome won by adding territories to awarlike State, regardless of all the principles of right and wrong. Sucha career is suggestive of grand moral lessons; and it is to teach theselessons that I describe a character for whom I confess I feel but littlesympathy, yet whom I am compelled to respect for his heroic qualitiesand great abilities. 

Frederic of Prussia was born in 1712, and had an unhappy childhood andyouth from the caprices of a royal but disagreeable father, best knownfor his tall regiment of guards; a severe, austere, prejudiced, formal, narrow, and hypochondriacal old Pharisee, whose sole redeemingexcellence was an avowed belief in God Almighty and in the orthodoxdoctrines of the Protestant Church. 

In 1740, this rigid, exacting, unsympathetic king died; and his sonFrederic, who had been subjected to the severest discipline, restraints, annoyances, and humiliations, ascended the throne, and became the thirdKing of Prussia, at the age of twenty-eight. His kingdom was a smallone, being then about one quarter of its present size. 

And here we pause for a moment to give a glance at the age in which helived, --an age of great reactions, when the stirring themes and issuesof the seventeenth century were substituted for mockeries, levities, and infidelities; when no fierce protests were made except those ofVoltaire against the Jesuits; when an abandoned woman ruled France, asthe mistress of an enervated monarch; when Spain and Italy were sunk inlethargic forgetfulness, Austria was priest-ridden, and England wasgoverned by a ring of selfish lauded proprietors; when there was nomarked enterprise but the slave-trade; when no department of literatureor science was adorned by original genius; and when England had nobroader statesman than Walpole, no abler churchman than Warburton, nogreater poet than Pope. There was a general indifference to loftyspeculation. A materialistic philosophy was in fashion, --not openlyatheistic, but arrogant and pretentious, whose only power was in sarcasmand mockery, like the satires of Lucian, extinguishing faith, godlessand yet boastful, --an Epicureanism such as Socrates attacked and Paulrebuked. It found its greatest exponent in Voltaire, the oracle and idolof intellectual Europe. In short, it was an age when general cynicismand reckless abandonment to pleasure marked the upper-classes; an agewhich produced Chesterfield, as godless a man as Voltaire himself. 

In this period of religious infidelity, moral torpor, fashionablemediocrity, unthinking pleasure-seeking, and royal orgies; when thepeople were spurned, insuited and burdened, --Frederic ascends anabsolute throne. He is a young and fashionable philosopher. He professesto believe in nothing that ages of inquiry and study are supposed tohave settled; he even ridicules the religious principles of his father. He ardently adopts everything which claims to be a novelty, but is notlearned enough to know that what he supposes to be new has been explodedover and over again. He is liberal and tolerant, but does not see thelogical sequence of the very opinions he indorses. He is also what iscalled an accomplished man, since he can play on an instrument, andamuse a dinner-party by jokes and stories. He builds a magnificenttheatre, and collects statues, pictures, snuff-boxes, and old china. Hewelcomes to his court, not stern thinkers, but sneering and amusingphilosophers. He employs in his service both Catholics and Protestantsalike, since he holds in contempt the religion of both. He is free fromanimosities and friendships, and neither punishes those who are hisenemies nor rewards those who are his friends. He apes reform, butshackles the press; he appoints able men in his service, but only thosewho will be his unscrupulous tools. He has a fine physique, andtherefore is unceasingly active. He flies from one part of his kingdomto another, not to examine morals or education or the state of thepeople, but to inspect fortresses and to collect camps. 

To such a man the development of the resources of his kingdom, thereform of abuses, and educational projects are of secondary importance;he gives his primary attention to raising and equipping armies, havingin view the extension of his kingdom by aggressive and unjustifiablewars. He cares little for domestic joys or the society of women, and isincapable of sincere friendship. He has no true admiration forintellectual excellence, although he patronizes literary lions. He isincapable of any sacrifice except for his troops, who worship him, sincetheir interests are identical with his own. In the camp or in the fieldhe spends his time, amusing himself occasionally with the society ofphilosophers as cynical as himself. He has dreams and visions ofmilitary glory, which to him is the highest and greatest on this earth, Charles XII. Being his model of a hero. 

With such views he enters upon a memorable career. His first importantpublic act as king is the seizure of part of the territory of the Bishopof Liege, which he claims as belonging to Prussia. The old bishop isindignant and amazed, but is obliged to submit to a robbery whichdisgusts Christendom, but is not of sufficient consequence to set itin a blaze. 

The next thing he does, of historical importance, is to seize Silesia, aprovince which belongs to Austria, and contains about twenty thousandsquare miles, --a fertile and beautiful province, nearly as large as hisown kingdom; it is the highest table-land of Germany, girt around withmountains, hard to attack and easy to defend. So rapid and secret arehis movements, that this unsuspecting and undefended country is overrunby his veteran soldiers as easily as Louis XIV. Overran Flanders andHolland, and with no better excuse than the French king had. Thisoutrage was an open insult to Europe, as well as a great wrong to MariaTheresa, --supposed by him to be a feeble woman who could not resent theinjury. But in this woman he found the great enemy of his life, --alioness deprived of her whelps, whose wailing was so piteous and sosavage that she aroused Europe from lethargy, and made coalitions whichshook it to its centre. At first she simply rallied her own troops, andfought single-handed to recover her lost and most valued province. ButFrederic, with marvellous celerity and ability, got possession of theSilesian fortresses; the bloody battle of Mollwitz (1741) secured hisprey, and he returned in triumph to his capital, to abide the issueof events. 

It is not easy to determine whether this atrocious crime, whichastonished Europe, was the result of his early passion for militaryglory, or the inauguration of a policy of aggression and aggrandizement. But it was the signal of an explosion of European politics which endedin one of the most bloody wars of modern times. "It was, " says Carlyle, "the little stone broken loose from the mountain, hitting others, bigand little, which again hit others with their leaping and rolling, tillthe whole mountain-side was in motion under law of gravity. "

Maria Theresa appeals to her Hungarian nobles, with her infant in herarms, at a diet of the nation, and sends her envoys to every friendlycourt. She offers her unscrupulous enemy the Duchy of Limberg and twohundred thousand pounds to relinquish his grasp on Silesia. It is likethe offer of Darius to Alexander, and is spurned by the Prussian robber. It is not Limberg he wants, nor money, but Silesia, which he resolves tokeep because he wants it, and at any hazard, even were he to jeopardizehis own hereditary dominions. The peace of Breslau gives him a temporaryleisure, and he takes the waters of Aachen, and discusses philosophy. Heis uneasy, but jubilant, for he has nearly doubled the territory andpopulation of Prussia. His subjects proclaim him a hero, with immensepaeans. Doubtless, too, he now desires peace, --just as Louis XIV. Didafter he had conquered Holland, and as Napoleon did when he had seatedhis brothers on the old thrones of Europe. 

But there can be no lasting peace after such outrageous wickedness. Theangered kings and princes of Europe are to become the instruments ofeternal justice. They listen to the eloquent cries of the AustrianEmpress, and prepare for war, to punish the audacious robber whodisturbs the peace of the world and insults all other nationalities. Butthey are not yet ready for effective war; the storm does not at oncebreak out. 

The Austrians however will not wait, and the second Silesian war ensues, in which Saxony joins Austria. Again is Frederic successful, over thecombined forces of these two powers, and he retains his stolen province. He is now regarded as a world-hero, for he has fought bravely againstvastly superior forces, and is received in Berlin with unboundedenthusiasm. He renews his studies in philosophy, courts literarycelebrities, reorganizes his army, and collects forces for a renewedencounter, which he foresees. 

He has ten years of repose and preparation, during which he is laudedand nattered, yet retaining simplicity of habits, sleeping but fivehours a day, finding time for state dinners, flute-playing, and operas, of all which he is fond; for he was doubtless a man of culture, social, well read if not profound, witty, inquiring, and without any strikingdefects save tyranny, ambition, parsimony, dissimulation, and lying. 

It was during those ten years of rest and military preparation thatVoltaire made his memorable visit--his third and last--to Potsdam andBerlin, thirty-two months of alternate triumph and humiliation. Noliterary man ever had so successful and brilliant a career as thisfortunate and lauded Frenchman, --the oracle of all salons, the arbiterof literary fashions, a dictator in the realm of letters, with amazingfecundity of genius directed into all fields of labor; poet, historian, dramatist, and philosopher; writing books enough to load a cart, and allof them admired and extolled, all of them scattered over Europe, read byall nations; a marvellous worker, of unbounded wit and unexampledpopularity, whose greatest literary merit was in the transcendentexcellence of his style, for which chiefly he is immortal; a greatartist, rather than an original and profound genius whose ideas form thebasis of civilizations. The King of Prussia formed an ardent friendshipfor this king of letters, based on admiration rather than respect;invited him to his court, extolled and honored him, and lavished on himall that he could bestow, outside of political distinction. But noworldly friendship could stand such a test as both were subjected to, since they at last comprehended each other's character and designs. Voltaire perceived the tyranny, the ambition, the heartlessness, theegotism, and the exactions of his royal patron, and despised him whilehe flattered him; and Frederic on his part saw the hollowness, themeanness, the suspicion, the irritability, the pride, the insincerity, the tricks, the ingratitude, the baseness, the lies of hisdistinguished guest, --and their friendship ended in utter vanity. Whatfriendship can last without mutual respect? The friendship of Fredericand Voltaire was hopelessly broken, in spite of the remembrance ofmutual admiration and happy hours. It was patched up and mended like abroken vase, but it could not be restored. How sad, how mournful, howhumiliating is a broken friendship or an alienated love! It is thefalling away of the foundations of the soul, the disappearance foreverof what is most to be prized on earth, --its celestial certitudes. Abeloved friend may die, but we are consoled in view of the fact that thefriendship may be continued in heaven: the friend is not lost to us. Butwhen a friendship or a love is broken, there is no continuance of itthrough eternity. It is the gloomiest thing to think of in thiswhole world. 

But Frederic was too busy and pre-occupied a man to mourn long for adeparted joy. He was absorbed in preparations for war. The sword ofDamocles was suspended over his head, and he knew it better than anyother man in Europe; he knew it from his spies and emissaries. Though hehad enjoyed ten years' peace, he knew that peace was only a truce; thatthe nations were arming in behalf of the injured empress; that so greata crime as the seizure of Silesia must be visited with a penalty; thatthere was no escape for him except in a tremendous life-and-deathstruggle, which was to be the trial of his life; that defeat was morethan probable, since the forces in preparation against him wereoverwhelming. The curses of the civilized world still pursued him, andin his retreat at Sans-Souci he had no rest; and hence he becameirritable and suspicious. The clouds of the political atmosphere werefilled with thunderbolts, ready to fall upon him and crush him at anymoment; indeed, nothing could arrest the long-gathering storm. 

It broke out with unprecedented fury in the spring of 1756. Austria, Russia, Sweden, Saxony, and France were combined to ruin him, --the mostpowerful coalition of the European powers seen since the Thirty Years'War. His only ally was England, --an ally not so much to succor him as tohumble France, and hence her aid was timid and incompetent. 

Thus began the famous Seven Years' War, during which France lost hercolonial possessions, and was signally humiliated at home, --a war whichdeveloped the genius of the elder Pitt, and placed England in the proudposition of mistress of the ocean; a war marked by the largest array offorces which Europe had seen since the times of Charles V. , in which sixhundred thousand men were marshalled under different leaders andnations, to crush a man who had insulted Europe and defied the law ofnations and the laws of God. The coalition represented one hundredmillions of people with inexhaustible resources. 

Now, it was the memorable resistance of Frederic II. To this vast arrayof forces, and his successful retention of the province he had seized, which gave him his chief claim as a hero; and it was his patience, hisfortitude, his energy, his fertility of resources, and the enthusiasmwith which he inspired his troops even after the most discouraging anddemoralizing defeats, that won for him that universal admiration as aman which he lived to secure in spite of all his defects and crimes. Weadmire the resources and dexterity of an outlawed bandit, but we shouldremember he is a bandit still; and we confound all the laws which holdsociety together, when we cover up the iniquity of a great crime by thesuccesses which have apparently baffled justice. Frederic II. , bystealing Silesia, and thus provoking a great war of untold andindescribable miseries, is entitled to anything but admiration, whatevermay have been his military genius; and I am amazed that so great a manas Carlyle, with all his hatred of shams, and his clear perceptions ofjustice and truth, should have whitewashed such a robber. I cannotconceive how the severest critic of the age should have spent the bestyears of his life in apologies for so bad a man, if his own philosophyhad not become radically unsound, based on the abominable doctrine thatthe end justifies the means, and that an outward success is the test ofright. Far different was Carlyle's treatment of Cromwell. Frederic hadno such cause as Cromwell; it was simply his own or his country'saggrandizement by any means, or by any sword he could lay hold of. Thechief merit of Carlyle's history is his impartiality and accuracy indescribing the details of the contest: the cause of the contest he doesnot sufficiently reprobate; and all his sympathies seem to be with theunscrupulous robber who fights heroically, rather than with indignantEurope outraged by his crimes. But we cannot separate crime from itsconsequences; and all the reverses, the sorrows, the perils, thehardships, the humiliations, the immense losses, the dreadful calamitiesthrough which Prussia had to pass, which wrung even the heart ofFrederic with anguish, were only a merited retribution. The Seven Years'War was a king-hunt, in which all the forces of the surroundingmonarchies gathered around the doomed man, making his circle smaller andsmaller, and which would certainly have ended in his utter ruin, had henot been rescued by events as unexpected as they were unparalleled. Hadsome great and powerful foe been converted suddenly into a friend at acritical moment, Napoleon, another unscrupulous robber, might not havebeen defeated at Waterloo, or died on a rock in the ocean. ButProvidence, it would seem, who rules the fate of war, had someinscrutable reason for the rescue of Prussia under Frederic, and thehumiliation of France under Napoleon. 

The brunt of the war fell of course upon Austria, so that, as the twonations were equally German, it had many of the melancholy aspects of acivil war. But Austria was Catholic and Prussia was Protestant; and hadAustria succeeded, Germany possibly to-day would have been united underan irresistible Catholic imperialism, and there would have been noGerman empire whose capital is Berlin. The Austrians, in this contest, fought bravely and ably, under Prince Carl and Marshal Daun, who were nomean competitors with the King of Prussia for military laurels. But theAustrians fought on the offensive, and the Prussians on the defensive. The former were obliged to manoeuvre on the circumference, the latter inthe centre of the circle. The Austrians, in order to recover Silesia, were compelled to cross high mountains whose passes were guarded byPrussian soldiers. The war began in offensive operations, and ended indefensive. 

The most terrible enemy that Frederic had, next to Austria, was Russia, ruled then by Elizabeth, who had the deepest sympathy with MariaTheresa; but when she died, affairs took a new turn. Frederic was thenon the very verge of ruin, --was, as they say, about to be"bagged, "--when the new Emperor of Russia conceived a great personaladmiration for his genius and heroism; the Russian enmity was convertedto friendship, and the Czar became an ally instead of a foe. 

The aid which the Saxons gave to Maria Theresa availed but little. Thepopulation, chiefly and traditionally Protestant, probably sympathizedwith Prussia more than with Austria, although the Elector himself wasCatholic, --that inglorious monarch who resembled in his gallantriesLouis XV. , and in his dilettante tastes Leo X. He is chiefly known forthe number of his concubines and his Dresden gallery of pictures. 

The aid which the French gave was really imposing, so far as numbersmake efficient armies. But the French were not the warlike people in thereign of Louis XV. That they were under Henry IV. , or NapoleonBonaparte. They fought, without the stimulus of national enthusiasm, without a cause, as part of a great machine. They never have beensuccessful in war without the inspiration of a beloved cause. This warhad no especial attraction or motive for them. What was it to Frenchmen, so absorbed with themselves, whether a Hohenzollern or a Hapsburgreigned in Germany? Hence, the great armies which the government ofFrance sent to the aid of Maria Theresa were without spirit, and werenot even marshalled by able generals. In fact, the French seemed moreintent on crippling England than in crushing Frederic. The war hadimmense complications. Though France and England were drawn into it, yetboth France and England fought more against each other than for theparties who had summoned them to their rescue. 

England was Frederic's ally, but her aid was not great directly. She didnot furnish him with many troops; she sent subsidies instead, whichenabled him to continue the contest. But these were not as great as heexpected, or had reason to expect. With all the money he received fromWalpole or Pitt he was reduced to the most desperate straits. 

One thing was remarkable in that long war of seven years, which strainedevery nerve and taxed every energy of Prussia: it was carried on byFrederic in hard cash. He did not run in debt; he' always had enough onhand in coin to pay for all expenses. But then his subjects were mostseverely taxed, and the soldiers were poorly paid. If the same economyhe used in that war of seven years had been exercised by our Governmentin its late war, we should not have had any national debt at all at theclose of the war, although we probably should have suspendedspecie payments. 

It would not be easy or interesting to attempt to compress the detailsof a long war of seven years in a single lecture. The records of warhave great uniformity, --devastation, taxes, suffering, loss of life andof property (except by the speculators and government agents), theflight of literature, general demoralization, the lowering of the toneof moral feeling, the ascendency of unscrupulous men, the exaltation ofmilitary talents, general grief at the loss of friends, fiendishexultation over victories alternated with depressing despondency in viewof defeats, the impoverishment of a nation on the whole, and thesickening conviction, which fastens on the mind after the firstexcitement is over, of a great waste of life and property for whichthere is no return, and which sometimes a whole generation cannotrestore. Nothing is so dearly purchased as the laurels of thebattlefield; nothing is so great a delusion and folly as military gloryto the eye of a Christian or philosopher. It is purchased by the tearsand blood of millions, and is rebuked by all that is grand in humanprogress. Only degraded and demoralized peoples can ever rejoice in war;and when it is not undertaken for a great necessity, it fills the worldwith bitter imprecations. It is cruel and hard and unjust in its nature, and utterly antagonistic to civilization. Its greater evils are indeedoverruled; Satan is ever rebuked and baffled by a benevolent Providence. But war is always a curse and a calamity in its immediate results, --andin its ultimate results also, unless waged in defence of someimmortal cause. 

It must be confessed, war is terribly exciting. The eyes of thecivilized world were concentrated on Frederic II. During this memorableperiod; and most people anticipated his overthrow. They read everywhereof his marchings and counter-marchings, his sieges and battles, hishair-breadth escapes, and his renewed exertions, from the occupation ofSaxony to the battle of Torgau. In this war he was sometimes beaten, asat Kolin; but he gained three memorable victories, --one over the French, at Rossbach; the second, over the Austrians, at Luthen; and the third, over the Russians, at Zorndorf, the most bloody of all his battles. Andhe gained these victories by outflanking, his attack being the form of awedge, --learned by the example of Epaminondas, --a device which led tonew tactics, and proclaimed Frederic a master of the art of war. But inthese battles he simply showed himself to be a great general. It was notuntil his reverses came that he showed himself a great man, or earnedthe sympathy which Europe felt for a humiliated monarch, putting forthherculean energies to save his crown and kingdom. His easy and greatvictories in the first year of the war simply saved him fromannihilation; they were not great enough to secure peace. Although thusfar he was a conqueror, he had no peace, no rest, and but little hope. His enemies were so numerous and powerful that they could send largereinforcements: he could draw but few. In time it was apparent that hewould be destroyed, whatever his skill and bravery. Had not the EmpressElizabeth died, he would have been conquered and prostrated. After hisdefeat at Hochkirch, he was obliged to dispute his ground inch by inch, compelled to hide his grief from his soldiers, financially straitenedand utterly forlorn; but for a timely subsidy from England he would havebeen desperate. The fatal battle of Kunnersdorf, in his fourth campaign, when he lost twenty thousand men, almost drove him to despair; and evilfortune continued to pursue him in his fifth campaign, in which he lostsome of his strongest fortresses, and Silesia was opened to his enemies. At one time he had only six days' provisions: the world marvelled how heheld out. Then England deserted him. He made incredible exertions toavert his doom: everlasting marches, incessant perils; no comforts orluxuries as a king, only sorrows, privations, sufferings; enduring morelabors than his soldiers; with restless anxieties and blasted hopes. Inhis despair and humiliation it is said he recognized God Almighty. Inhis chastisements and misfortunes, --apparently on the very brink ofdestruction, and with the piercing cries of misery which reached hisears from every corner of his dominions, --he must, at least, haverecognized a Retribution. Still his indomitable will remained. His prideand his self-reliance never deserted him; he would have died rather thanhave yielded up Silesia until wrested from him. At last the battle ofTorgau, fought in the night, and the death of the Empress of Russia, removed the overhanging clouds, and he was enabled to contend withAustria unassisted by France and Russia. But if Maria Theresa could notrecover Silesia, aided by the great monarchies of Europe, what could shedo without their aid? So peace came at last, when all parties werewearied and exhausted; and Frederic retained his stolen province at thesacrifice of one hundred and eighty thousand men, and the decline of onetenth of the whole population of his kingdom and its completeimpoverishment, from which it did not recover for nearly one hundredyears. Prussia, though a powerful military state, became and remainedone of the poorest countries of Europe; and I can remember when it wasrare to see there, except in the houses of the rich, either a silverfork or a silver spoon; to say nothing of the cheap and frugal fare ofthe great mass of the people, and their comfortless kind of life, withhardly any physical luxuries except tobacco and beer. It is surprisinghow, in a poor country, Frederic could have sustained such an exhaustivewar without incurring a national debt. Perhaps it was not as easy inthose times for kings and states to run into debt as it is now. One ofthe great refinements of advancing civilization is that we are permittedto bequeath our burdens to future generations. Time only will showwhether this is the wisest course. It is certainly not a wise thing forindividuals to do. He who enters on the possession of a heavilymortgaged estate is an embarrassed, perhaps impoverished, man. Frederic, at least, did not leave debts for posterity to pay; he preferred to payas he went along, whatever were the difficulties. 

The real gainer by the war, if gainer there was, was England, since shewas enabled to establish a maritime supremacy, and develop hermanufacturing and mercantile resources, --much needed in her futurestruggles to resist Napoleon. She also gained colonial possessions, afoothold in India, and the possession of Canada. This war entangledEurope, and led to great battles, not in Germany merely, but around theworld. It was during this war, when France and England were antagonisticforces, that the military genius of Washington was first developed inAmerica. The victories of Clive and Hastings soon after followedin India. 

The greatest loser in this war was France: she lost provinces andmilitary prestige. The war brought to light the decrepitude of theBourbon rule. The marshals of France, with superior forces, weredisgracefully defeated. The war plunged France in debt, only to be paidby a "roaring conflagration of anarchies. " The logical sequence of thewar was in those discontents and taxes which prepared the way for theFrench Revolution, --a catastrophe or a new birth, as mendifferently view it. 

The effect of the war on Austria was a loss of prestige, the beginningof the dismemberment of the empire, and the revelation of internalweakness. Though Maria Theresa gained general sympathy, and won greatglory by her vigorous government and the heroism of her troops, she wasa great loser. Besides the loss of men and money, Austria ceased to bethe great threatening power of Europe. From this war England, until theclose of the career of Napoleon, was really the most powerful state inEurope, and became the proudest. 

As for Prussia, --the principal transgressor and actor, --it is moredifficult to see the actual results. The immediate effects of the warwere national impoverishment, an immense loss of life, and a fearfuldemoralization. The limits of the kingdom were enlarged, and itsmilitary and political power was established. It became one of theleading states of Continental Europe, surpassed only by Austria, Russia, and France. It led to great standing armies and a desire ofaggrandizement. It made the army the centre of all power and the basisof social prestige. It made Frederic II. The great military hero of thatage, and perpetuated his policy in Prussia. Bismarck is the sequel andsequence of Frederic. It was by aggressive and unscrupulous wars thatthe Romans were aggrandized, and it was also by the habits and tasteswhich successful war created that Rome was ultimately undermined. TheRoman empire did not last like the Chinese empire, although at oneperiod it had more glory and prestige. So war both strengthens andimpoverishes nations. But I believe that the violation of eternalprinciples of right ultimately brings a fearful penalty. It may be longdelayed, but it will finally come, as in the sequel of the wicked warsof Louis XIV. And Napoleon Bonaparte. Victor Hugo, in his "History of aGreat Crime, " on the principle of everlasting justice, forewarned"Napoleon the Little" of his future reverses, while nations andkingdoms, in view of his marvellous successes, hailed him as a friend ofcivilization; and Hugo lived to see the fulfilment of his prophecy. Moreover, it may be urged that the Prussian people, --ground down by anabsolute military despotism, the mere tools of an ambitious king, --werenot responsible for the atrocious conquests of Frederic II. The misruleof monarchs does not bring permanent degradation on a nation, unless itshares the crimes of its monarch, --as in the case of the Romans, whenthe leading idea of the people was military conquest, from the verycommencement of their state. The Prussians in the time of Frederic werea sincere, patriotic, and religious people. They were simply enslaved, and suffered the poverty and misery which were entailed by war. 

After Frederic had escaped the perils of the Seven Years' War, it issurprising he should so soon have become a party to another atrociouscrime, --the division and dismemberment of Poland. But here both Russiaand Austria were also participants. 

 "Sarmatia fell, unwept, without a crime. "

And I am still more amazed that Carlyle should cover up this crime withhis sophistries. No man in ordinary life would be justified in seizinghis neighbor's property because he was weak and his property wasmismanaged. We might as well justify Russia in attempting to seizeTurkey, although such a crime may be overruled in the future good ofEurope. But Carlyle is an Englishman; and the English seized andconquered India because they wanted it, not because they had a right toit. The same laws which bind individuals also binds kings and nations. Free nations from the obligations which bind individuals, and the worldwould be an anarchy. Grant that Poland was not fit for self-government, this does not justify its political annihilation. The heart of the worldexclaimed against that crime at the time, and the injuries of thatunfortunate state are not yet forgotten. Carlyle says the "partition ofPoland was an operation of Almighty Providence and the eternal laws ofNature, "--a key to his whole philosophy, which means, if it meansanything, that as great fishes swallow up the small ones, and wildbeasts prey upon each other, and eagles and vultures devour other birds, it is all right for powerful nations to absorb the weak ones, as theRomans did. Might does not make right by the eternal decrees of GodAlmighty, written in the Bible and on the consciences of mankind. Politicians, whose primal law is expediency, may justify such acts aspublic robbery, for they are political Jesuits, --always were, alwayswill be; and even calm statesmen, looking on the overruling of events, may palliate; but to enlightened Christians there is only one law, "Dounto others as ye would that they should do unto you. " Nor can Christiancivilization reach an exalted plane until it is in harmony with theeternal laws of God. Mr. Carlyle glibly speaks of Almighty Providencefavoring robbery; here he utters a falsehood, and I do not hesitate tosay it, great as is his authority. God says, "Thou shalt not steal; Thoushalt not covet anything which is thy neighbor's, . .. For he is ajealous God, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children, to thethird and fourth generation. " We must set aside the whole authority ofdivine revelation, to justify any crime openly or secretly committed. The prosperity of nations, in the long run, is based on righteousness;not on injustice, cruelty, and selfishness. 

It cannot be denied that Frederic well managed his stolen property. Hewas a man of ability, of enlightened views, of indefatigable industry, and of an iron will. I would as soon deny that Cromwell did not wellgovern the kingdom which he had seized, on the plea of revolutionarynecessity and the welfare of England, for he also was able and wise. Butwhat was the fruit of Cromwell's well-intended usurpation?--a hideousreaction, the return of the Stuarts, the dissipation of his visionarydreams. And if the states which Frederic seized, and the empire he hadfounded in blood and carnage had been as well prepared for liberty asEngland was, the consequences of his ambition might have been fardifferent. 

But Frederic did not so much aim at the development of nationalresources, --the aim of all immortal statesmen, --as at the growth andestablishment of a military power. He filled his kingdom and provinceswith fortresses and camps and standing armies. He cemented a militarymonarchy. As a wise executive ruler, the King of Prussia enforced lawand order, was economical in his expenditures, and kept up a rigiddiscipline; even rewarded merit, and was friendly to learning. And heshowed many interesting personal qualities, --for I do not wish to makehim out a monster, only as a great man who did wicked things, and thingswhich even cemented for the time the power of Prussia. He was frugaland unostentatious. Like Charlemagne, he associated with learned men. Heloved music and literature; and he showed an amazing fortitude andpatience in adversity, which called out universal admiration. He had agreat insight into shams, was rarely imposed upon, and was scrupulousand honest in his dealings as an individual. He was also a fascinatingman when he unbent; was affable, intelligent, accessible, and unstilted. He was an admirable talker, and a tolerable author. He alwayssympathized with intellectual excellence. He surrounded himself withgreat men in all departments. He had good taste and a severe dignity, and despised vulgar people; had no craving for fast horses, and held nointercourse with hostlers and gamblers, even if these gamblers had therespectable name of brokers. He punished all public thieves; so that hisadministration at least was dignified and respectable, and secured therespect of Europe and the admiration of men of ability. The greatwarrior was also a great statesman, and never made himself ridiculous, never degraded his position and powers, and could admire and detect aman of genius, even when hidden from the world. He was a Tiberius, butnot a Nero fiddling over national calamities, and surrounding himselfwith stage-players, buffoons, and idiots. 

But here his virtues ended. He was cold, selfish, dissembling, hard-hearted, ungrateful, ambitious, unscrupulous, without faith ineither God or man; so sceptical in religion that he was almost anatheist. He was a disobedient son, a heartless husband, a capriciousfriend, and a selfish self-idolater. While he was the friend of literarymen, he patronized those who were infidel in their creed. He was not areligious persecutor, because he regarded all religions as equally falseand equally useful. He was social among convivial and learned friends, but cared little for women or female society. His latter years, thoughdignified and quiet, an idol in all military circles, with an immensefame, and surrounded with every pleasure and luxury at Sans-Souci, werestill sad and gloomy, like those of most great men whose leadingprinciple of life was vanity and egotism, --like those of Solomon, Charles V. , and Louis XIV. He heard the distant rumblings, if he did notlive to see the lurid fires, of the French Revolution. He had beendeceived in Voltaire, but he could not mistake the logical sequence ofthe ideas of Rousseau, --those blasting ideas which would sweep away allfeudal institutions and all irresponsible tyrannies. When Mirabeauvisited him he was a quaking, suspicious, irritable, capricious, unhappyold man, though adored by his soldiers to the last, --for those were theonly people he ever loved, those who were willing to die for him, thosewho built up his throne: and when he died, I suppose he was sincerelylamented by his army and his generals and his nobility, for with himbegan the greatness of Prussia as a military power. So far as a lifedevoted to the military and political aggrandizement of a country makesa man a patriot, Frederic the Great will receive the plaudits of thosemen who worship success, and who forget the enormity of unscrupulouscrimes in the outward glory which immediately resulted, --yea, possiblyof contemplative statesmen who see in the rise of a new power aninstrument of the Almighty for some inscrutable end. To me his characterand deeds have no fascination, any more than the fortunate career ofsome one of our modern millionnaires would have to one who took nointerest in finance. It was doubtless grateful to the dying King ofPrussia to hear the plaudits of his idolaters, as he stood on the hithershores of eternity; but his view of the spectators as they lined thoseshores must have been soon lost sight of, and their cheering andtriumphant voices unheard and disregarded, as the bark, in which hesailed alone, put forth on the unknown ocean, to meet the Eternal Judgeof the living and the dead. 

We leave now the man who won so great a fame, to consider briefly hisinfluence. In two respects, it seems to me, it has been decided andimpressive. In the first place, he gave an impulse to rationalisticinquiries in Germany; and many there are who think this was a goodthing. He made it fashionable to be cynical and doubtful. Being ashamedof his own language, and preferring the French, he encouraged thecurrent and popular French literature, which in his day, under theguidance of Voltaire, was materialistic and deistical. He embraced aphilosophy which looked to secondary rather than primal causes, whichscouted any revelations that could not be explained by reason, orreconciled with scientific theories, --that false philosophy whichintoxicated Franklin and Jefferson as well as Hume and Gibbon, and whichfinally culminated in Diderot and D'Alembert; the philosophy whichbecame fashionable in German universities, and whose nearest approachwas that of the exploded Epicureanism of the Ancients. Under thepatronage of the infidel court, the universities of Germany becamefilled with rationalistic professors, and the pulpits with dead andformal divines; so that the glorious old Lutheranism of Prussia becamethe coldest and most lifeless of all the forms which Protestantism everassumed. Doubtless, great critics and scholars arose under the stimulusof that unbounded religious speculation which the King encouraged; butthey employed their learning in pulling down rather than supporting thepillars of the ancient orthodoxy. And so rapidly did rationalism spreadin Northern Germany, that it changed its great lights into _illuminati_, who spurned what was revealed unless it was in accordance with theirspeculations and sweeping criticism. I need not dwell on thisundisguised and blazing fact, on the rationalism which became thefashion in Germany, and which spread so disastrously over othercountries, penetrating even into the inmost sanctuaries of theologicalinstruction. All this may be progress; but to my mind it tended toextinguish the light of faith, and fill the seats of learning withcynics and unbelieving critics. It was bad enough to destroy the bodiesof men in a heartless war; it was worse to nourish those principleswhich poisoned the soul, and spread doubt and disguised infidelitiesamong the learned classes. 

But the influence of Frederic was seen in a more marked manner in theinauguration of a national policy directed chiefly to militaryaggrandizement. If there ever was a purely military monarchy, it isPrussia; and this kingdom has been to Europe what Sparta was to Greece. All the successors of Frederic have followed out his policy withsingular tenacity. All their habits and associations have been military. The army has been the centre of their pride, ambition, and hope. Theyhave made their country one vast military camp. They have exempted noclasses from military services; they have honored and exalted the armymore than any other interest. The principal people of the land aregenerals. The resources of the kingdom are expended in standing armies;and these are a perpetual menace. A network of military machinerycontrols all other pursuits and interests. The peasant is a militaryslave. The student of the university can be summoned to a military camp. Precedence in rank is given to military men over merchant princes, overlearned professors, over distinguished jurists. The genius of the nationhas been directed to the perfection of military discipline and militaryweapons. The government is always prepared for war, and has been rarelyaverse to it. It has ever been ready to seize a province or pick aquarrel. The late war with France was as much the fault of Prussia as ofthe government of Napoleon. The great idea of Prussia is militaryaggrandizement; it is no longer a small kingdom, but a great empire, more powerful than either Austria or France. It believes in newannexations, until all Germany shall be united under a Prussian Kaiser. What Rome became, Prussia aspires to be. The spirit, the animus, ofPrussia is military power. Travel in that kingdom, --everywhere aresoldiers, military schools, camps, arsenals, fortresses, reviews. Andthis military spirit, evident during the last hundred years, has madethe military classes arrogant, austere, mechanical, contemptuous. Thisspirit pervades the nation. It despises other nations as much as Francedid in the last century, or England after the wars of Napoleon. 

But the great peculiarity of this military spirit is seen in the largestanding armies, which dry up the resources of the nation and make war aperpetual necessity, at least a perpetual fear. It may be urged thatthese armies are necessary to the protection of the state, --that if theywere disbanded, then France, or some other power, would arise and avengetheir injuries, and cripple a state so potent to do evil. It may be so;but still the evils generated by these armies must be fatal to liberty, and antagonistic to those peaceful energies which produce the highestcivilization. They are fatal to the peaceful virtues. The great Schillerhas said:--

 "There exists An higher than the warrior's excellence. Great deeds of violence, adventures wild, And wonders of the moment, --these are not they Which generate the high, the blissful, And the enduring majesty. "

I do not disdain the virtues which are developed by war; but greatvirtues are seldom developed by war, unless the war is stimulated bylove of liberty or the conservation of immortal privileges worth morethan the fortunes or the lives of men. A nation incapable of beingroused in great necessities soon becomes insignificant and degenerate, like Greece when it was incorporated with the Roman empire; but I haveno admiration of a nation perpetually arming and perpetually seekingpolitical aggrandizement, when the great ends of civilization are lostsight of. And this is what Frederic sought, and his successors whocherished his ideas. The legacy he bequeathed to the world was notemancipating ideas, but the policy of military aggrandizement. And yet, has civilization no higher aim than the imitation of the ancient Romans?Can nations progressively become strong by ignoring the spirit ofChristianity? Is a nation only to thrive by adopting the sentimentspeculiar to robbers and bandits? I know that Prussia has not neglectededucation, or science, or industrial energy; but these have been madesubservient to military aims. The highest civilization is that whichbest develops the virtues of the heart and the energies of the mind: onthese the strength of man is based. It may be necessary for Prussia, inthe complicated relations of governments, and in view of possibledangers, to sustain vast standing armies; but the larger these are, themore do they provoke other nations to do the same, and to eat out thevitals of national wealth. That nation is the greatest which seeks toreduce, rather than augment, forces which prey upon its resources andwhich are a perpetual menace. And hence the vast standing armies whichconquerors seek to maintain are not an aid to civilization, but on theother hand tend to destroy it; unless by civilization and nationalprosperity are meant an ever-expanding policy of militaryaggrandizement, by which weaker and unoffending states may be graduallyabsorbed by irresistible despotism, like that of the Romans, whose finaland logical development proves fatal to all other nationalities andliberties, --yea, to literature and art and science and industry, theextinction of which is the moral death of an empire, however grand andhowever boastful, only to be succeeded by new creations, through thefires of successive wars and hateful anarchies. 

In one point, and one alone, I see the Providence which permitted themilitary aggrandizement to which Frederic and his successors aimed; andthat is, in furnishing a barrier to the future conquests of a morebarbarous people, --I mean the Russians; even as the conquests ofCharlemagne presented a barrier to the future irruptions of barbaroustribes on his northern frontier. Russia--that rude, demoralized, Slavonic empire--cannot conquer Europe until it has first destroyed thepolitical and military power of Germany. United and patriotic, Germanycan keep at present the Russians at bay, and direct the stream ofinvasion to the East rather than the south; so that Europe will notbecome either Cossack or French, as Napoleon predicted. In this lightthe military genius and power of Germany, which Frederic did so much todevelop, may be designed for the protection of European civilization andthe Protestant religion. 

But I will not speculate on the aims of Providence, or the evil to beoverruled for good. With my limited vision, I can only present facts andtheir immediate consequences. I can only deduce the moral truths whichare logically to be drawn from a career of wicked ambition. These truthsare a part of that moral, wisdom which experience confirms, and whichalone should be the guiding lesson to all statesmen and all empires. Letus pursue the right, and leave the consequences to Him who rules thefate of war, and guides the nations to the promised period when menshall beat their swords into ploughshares, and universal peace shallherald the reign of the Saviour of the world. 

AUTHORITIES. 

The great work of Carlyle on the Life of Frederic, which exhausts thesubject; Macaulay's Essay on the Life and Times of Frederic the Great;Carlyle's Essay on Frederic; Lord Brougham on Frederic; Coxe's Historyof the House of Austria; Mirabeau's Histoire Secrète de la Cour deBerlin; Oeuvres de Frédéric le Grand; Ranke's Neuc Bücher PreussischerGeschichte; Pöllnitz's Memoirs and Letters; Walpole's Reminiscences;Letters of Voltaire; Voltaire's Idée du Roi de Prusse; Life of BaronTrenck; Gillies View of the Reign of Frederic II. ; Thiebault's Mémoiresde Frédéric le Grand; Biographic Universelle; Thronbesteigung; Holden.