»_«

» »

* ..,»

%'»

»_»

^: ^

rv tv

THE LIBRARIES

GIVEN BY

J, Enrique Zanetti

A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

VOLUME I 1500-1815

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

NEW YORK ■ BOSTON ■ CHICAGO ■ DALLAS ATLANTA • SAN FRANCISCO

MACMILLAN & CO., Limited

LONDON • BOMBAY • CALCUTTA MELBOURNE

THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd.

TORONTO

A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL

HISTORY OF MODLRN

EUROPE

BY

CARLTON J. H. HAYES

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

VOLUME I

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

1916

yf// rights raerued

J. Enrique Zanetti Jun 3 194r0

^40

Copyright, 1916, By the MACMILLAN COMPANY.

Set up and electrotyped. Published July, 1916.

J. S. Cashing Co. — Borwifk & Smith Co. Norwood, Mas.s., U.S.A.

PREFACE

This book represents an attempt on the part of the author to satisfy a very real need of a textbook which will reach far enough back to afford secure foundations for a college course in modern European history.

The book is a long one, and purposely so. Not only does it undertake to deal with a period at once the most complicated and the most inherently interesting of any in the whole recorded history of mankind, but it aims to impart sufficiently detailed information about the various topics discussed to make the col- lege student feel that he is advanced a grade beyond the student in secondary school. There is too often a tendency to under- estimate the intellectual capabiHties of the collegian and to feed him so simple and scanty a mental pabulum that he be- comes as a child and thinks as a child. Of course the author appreciates the fact that most college instructors of history piece out the elementary textbooks by means of assignments of collateral reading in large standard treatises. All too frequently, however, such assignments, excellent in themselves, leave woeful gaps which a slender elementary manual is inadequate to fill. And the student becomes too painfully aware, for his own edu- cational good, of a chasmal separation between his textbook and his collateral reading. The present manual is designed to supply a narrative of such proportions that the need of additional reading will be somewhat lessened, and at the same time it is provided with critical bibliographies and so arranged as to en- able the judicious instructor more easily to make substitutions here and there from other works or to pass over this or that section entirely. Perhaps these considerations will commend to others the judgment of the author in writing a long book.

Nowadays prefaces to textbooks of modern history almost in- variably proclaim their writers' intention to stress recent happen- ings or at least those events of the past which have had a direct bearing upon the present. An examination of the following

vi PREFACE

pages will show that in the case of this book there is no dis- crepancy between such an intention on the part of the present writer and its achievement. Beginning with the sixteenth cen- tury, the story of the civilization of modern Europe is carried down the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries with constant crescendo. Of the total space devoted to the four hundred years under review, the last century fills half. And the greatest care has been taken to bring the story down to date and to indicate as clearly and calmly as possible the under- lying causes of the vast contemporaneous European war, which has already put a new complexion on our old historical knowl- edge and made everything that went before seem part and parcel of an old regime.

As to why the author has preferred to begin the story of modern Europe with the sixteenth century, rather than with the thirteenth or with the French Revolution, the reader is specially referred to the Introduction. It has seemed to the author that particularly from the Commercial Revolution of the sixteenth century dates the remarkable and steady evolution of that powerful middle class — the bourgeoisie — which has done more than all other classes put together to condition the prog- ress of the several countries of modern Europe and to create the life and thought of the present generation throughout the world. The rise of the bourgeoisie is the great central theme of modern history ; it is the great central theme of this book.

Not so very long ago distinguished historians were insisting that the state, as the highest expression of man's social instincts and as the immediate concern of all human beings, is the only lit subject of historical study, and that history, therefore, must be simply "past politics"; under their influence most text- books became compendiums of data about kings and constitu- tions, about rebellions and battles. More recently historians of repute, as well as eminent economists, have given their attention and patronage to painstaking investigations of how, apart from state action, man in the past has toiled or traveled or done the other ordinary things of everyday life ; and the influence of such scholars has served to provide us with a considerable num- ber of convenient manuals on special phases of social history. Yet more recently several writers of textbooks have endeavored

PREFACE vii

to combine the two tendencies and to present in a single volume both political and social facts, but it must be confessed that sometimes these writers have been content to tell the old political tale in orthodox manner and then to appenci a chapter or two of social miscellany, whose connection with the body of their book is seldom apparent to the student.

The present volume represents an effort really to combine political and social history in one synthesis : the author, quite convinced of the importance of the view that political activities constitute the most perfect expression of man's social instincts and touch mankind most universally, has not neglected to treat of monarchs and parliaments, of democracy and nationalism ; at the same time he has cordially accepted the opinion that political activities are determined largely by economic and social needs and ambitions ; and accordingly he has undertaken not only to incorporate at fairly regular intervals such chapters as those on the Commercial Revolution, Society in the Eighteenth Century, the Industrial Revolution, and Social Factors, 1870- 1914, but also to show in every part of the narrative the economic aspects of the chief political facts.

Despite the length of this book, critics will undoubtedly note omissions. Confronting the writer of every textbook of history is the eternal problem of selection — the choice of what is most pointedly significant from the sum total of man's thoughts, words, and deeds. It is a matter of personal judgment, and per- sonal judgments are notoriously variant. Certainly there will be critics who will complain of the present author's failure to follow up his suggestions concerning sixteenth -century art and culture with a fuller account of the development of philosophy and literature from the seventeenth to the twentieth century ; and the only rejoinders that the harassed author can make are the rather lame ones that a book, to be a book, must conform to the mechanical laws of space and dimension, and that a serious attempt on the part of the present writer to make a s}ti- thesis of social and political facts precludes no effort on the part of other and abler writers to synthesize all these facts with the phenomena which are conventionally assigned to the realm of "cultural" or "intellectual" history. In this, and in all other respects, the author trusts that his particular solution of the

viii PREFACE

vexatious problem of selection will prove as generally accept- able as any.

In the all-important matter of accuracy, the author cannot hope to have escaped all the pitfalls that in a peculiarly broad and crowded field everywhere trip the feet of even the most wary and persistent searchers after truth. He has naturally been forced to rely for the truth of his statements chiefly upon numerous secondary works, of which some acknowledgment is made in the following Note, and upon the kindly criticisms of a number of his colleagues ; in some instances, notably in parts of the chapters on the Protestant Revolt, the French Revolution, and developments since 1848 in Great Britain, France, and Germany, he has been able to draw on his own special studies of primary source material, and in certain of these instances he has ventured to dissent from opinions that have been copied unquestion- ingly from one work to another.

No period of history can be more interesting or illuminating than the period with which this book is concerned, especially now, when a war of tremendous magnitude and meaning is attracting the attention of the whole civilized world and arousing a desire in the minds of all intelligent persons to know something of the past that has produced it. The great basic causes of the present war the author has sought, not in the ambitions of a single power nor in an isolated outrage, but in the history of four hundred years. He has tried to write a book that would be suggestive and informing, not only to the ordinary college student, but to the more mature and thoughtful student of public affairs in the university of the world.

CARLTON J. H. HAYES. Afton, New York, May, 1916.

NOTE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author begs to acknowledge his general indebtedness to a veritable host of historical writers, of whose original researches or secondary compilations he has constantly and almost un- blushingly made use in the preparation of this book. At the close of the Introduction will be found a hst of the major works deahng with the whole period under review, or with the greater part of it, which have been drawn upon most heavily. And there is hardly a book cited in any of the special bibhographies following the several chapters that has not supplied some single fact or suggestion to the accompanying narrative.

For many of the general ideas set forth in this work as well as for painstaking assistance in reading manuscript and correcting errors of detail, the author confesses his debt to various colleagues in Columbia University and elsewhere. In particular. Professor R. L. Schuyler has helpfully read the chapters on EngHsh his- tory ; Professor James T. Shotwell, the chapter on the Com- mercial Revolution; Professor D. S. Muzzey, the chapters on the French Revolution, Napoleon, and Metternich ; Professor William R. Shepherd, the chapters on "National Imperiahsm" ; and Professor Edward B. Krehbiel of Leland Stanford. Junior University, the chapter on recent international relations. Pro- fessor E. F. Humphrey of Trinity College (Connecticut) has given profitable criticism on the greater part of the text ; and Pro- fessor Charles A. Beard of Columbia University, Professor Sidney B. Fay of Smith College, and Mr. Edward L. Durfee of Yale University, have read the whole work and suggested several valuable emendations. Three instructors in history at Colum- bia have been of marked service — Dr. Austin P. Evans, Mr. D. R. Fox, and Mr. Parker T. Moon. The last named devoted the chief part of two summers to the task of preparing notes for several chapters of the book and he has attended the author on the long dreary road of proof reading.

CONTENTS VOLUME I

PART I

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE

PAGE

Chapter I. The Countries of Europe at the Beginning of the

Sixteenth Century 3

The New National Monarchies 3

The Old Holy Roman Empire 10

The City-States 14

Northern and Eastern Europe in the year 1500 ..... 20

Chapter II. The Commercial Revolution 27

Agriculture in the Sixteenth Century ....... 28

Towns on the Eve of the Commercial Revolution ..... 36

Trade Prior to the Commercial Revolution ...... 43

The Age of Exploration 49

Establishment of Colonial Empires ....... 55

Effects of the Commercial Revolution ....... 62

Chapter III. European Politics in the Sixteenth Century . . 74

The Emperor Charles V . . .74

Philip II and the Predominance of Spain ...... 87

Chapter IV. The Protestant Revolt and the Catholic ReforxMA-

TION 112

The Catholic Church at the Opening of the Sixteenth Century . . 112

The Protestant Revolt 124

Lutheranism ^ 130

Calvinism ............ 139

Anglicanism ............ 148

The Catholic Reformation ......... 156

Summary of the Religious Revolution in the Sixteenth Century . . 164

Chapter V. The Culture of the Sixteenth Century . . . 175

The Invention of Printing ......... 177

Humanism ............ 180

Art in the Sixteenth Century ......... 185

National Literatures in the Sixteenth Century ..... 193

Beginnings of Modern Natural Science ....... 196

xii CONTENTS

PART II

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY

PACK

Chapter VI. The Growth of Absolutism in France and the

Struggle between Bourbons and Habsburgs, 1589-1661 . 209

Growth of Absolutism in France : Henry IV, Richelieu, and Mazarin . 209

Struggle between Bourbons and Habsburgs : The Thirty Years' War . 218

Chapter VII. The Growth of Absolutism in France and the

^ Struggle between Bourbons and Habsburgs, 1661-1743 . 235

The Age of Louis XIV. .......... 235

Extension of French Frontiers ........ 242

The War of the Spanish Succession ....... 249

Chapter VIII. The Triumph of Parliamentary Government in

England 261

Conflicting Political Tendencies in England : Absolutism versus Parlia-

mentarianism ........... 261

The Puritan Revolution .......... 274

■ The Restoration : the Reign of Charles II 281

^~\.^ The " Glorious Revolution " and the Final Establishment of Parlia- mentary Government in Great Britain 286

Chapter IX. The World Conflict of France and Great Britain 299

French and English Colonies in the Seventeenth Century . . . 299

Preliminary Encounters, 1689-1748 ....... 306

The Triumph of Great Britain : The Seven Years' War, 1756-1763 . 312

Chapter X. The Revolution withixN the British Empire . . 322

The British Colonial System in the Eighteenth Century . . . 322

The War of American Independence, 1775-1783 ..... 332

The Reformation of the British Empire ....... 337

^~- Chapter XI. The Germanies in the Eighteenth Century . . 342

^v \ The Holy Roman Empire in Decline ....... 342

^ The Habsburg Dominions ......... 344

The Rise of Prussia. The Hohenzollerns ...... 347

The Minor German States 352

The Struggle between Hohenzollerns and Habsburgs .... 354

Chapter XII. The Rise of Russia, and the Decline of Turkey,

Sweden, and Poland 366

Russia in the Seventeenth Century 366

Peter the Great 369

Sweden and the Career of Charles XII ....... 374

Catherine the Great : the Defeat of Turkey and the Dismemberment

of Poland 379

CONTENTS xiii

PART III

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY"

PAGE

395 395 399 403 406 414

Chapter XIII. European Society in the Eighteenth Century Agriculture in the Eigliteenth Century ......

Commerce and Industry in the Eighteenth Century

The Privileged Classes .........

Religious and Ecclesiastical Conditions in the Eighteenth Century Scientific and Intellectual Developments in the Eighteenth Century

Chapter XIV. European Governments in the Eighteenth Century 430

The British Monarchy . 430

The Enlightened Despots 440

The French Monarchy . 449

Chapter XV. The French Revolution 464

Introductory 464

The End of Absolutism in France, 1789 468

The End of the Old Regime : the National Constituent Assembly,

1789-1791 .... 479

The Limited Monarchy in Operation : the Legislative Assemby (1791—

1792) and the Outbreak of Foreign War ...... 486

Establishment of the First French Republic : the National Convention,

1792-1795 500

The Directory (1795-1799) and the Transformation of the Republic

into a Military Dictatorship ........ 512

Significance of the French Revolution . 517

Chapter XVI. The Era of Napoleon 523

The French Republic under the Consulate, 1799-1804 . . .523

The French Empire and its Territorial Expansion .... 534

Destruction of the French Empire ........ 544

Significance of the Era of Napoleon 573

Index (Volume I) 583

VOLUME II

Chapter XVII. The Era of Metternich, 1815-1830 .... 1

Revolution or Reaction ? ......... 1

The Congress of Vienna and the Reconstruction of Europe ... 5

The Bourbon Restoration in France 14

The Bourbon Restoration in Spain ........ 20

Reaction in Portugal 26

Tory Reaction in Great Britain ........ 28

XIV

CONTENTS

PAGE

Trial and Abandonment of Liberal Administration in Russia . . 37

Maintenance of Autocracy in Central Europe ..... 41

Failure of Metternich's Policies and Partial Triumph of Liberalism,

1822-1830 46

PART IV

DEMOCRACY AND NATIONALISM

Chapter XVIII. The Industrial Revolution 67

The Mechanical Inventions 69

Economic Effects of the Industrial Revolution ..... 75

Capitalism and the Factory System ....... 77

Immediate Effects of the Industrial Revolution upon Politics . . 88

Chapter XIX. Democratic Reform and Revolution, 1830-1849 . 100

Democracy and the Industrial Revolution ...... 100

Political and Social Reforms in Great Britain 102

The Democratic Revolution of 1848 in France ..... 116 The Revolutionary Movements of 1848-1849 in Italy, Germany, and

Austria-Hungary .......... 123

Chapter XX. The Growth of Nationalism, 1848-1871 . . . 149 Louis Napoleon Bonaparte and the Erection of the Second French

Empire ............ 150

The Political Unification of Italy ........ 163

The Decline of the Second French Empire, 1860-1870 . . .175

The Political Unification of Germany ....... 180

Chapter XXI. Social Factors in Recent European History, 1871-

1914 211

"The Era of the Benevolent Bourgeoisie," 1871-1914 . . . .212

Christianity and Politics .......... 223

The New Science 230

Christianity and Science 240

The Social Problem and the Decline of Laisser-Faire .... 252

Karl Marx and Modern Socialism ........ 253

Anarchism and Syndicalism ......... 265

Chapter XXII. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ire- land, 1867-1914 277

Political Reforms 278

The Government of the United Kingdom ..... 290

British Political Parties 297

British Social Legislation 307

The Irish Question 319

CONTENTS

XV

and

the Repression

Chapter XXIII. Latin Europe, 1870-1914 1. The Third French Republic

The Making of the Repubhc

The Bourgeois Character of the Republic

of Clerical and Military Opposition The Political Groups in France The Kingdom of Italy Spain ......

Portugal .....

The Kingdom of Belgium . Chapter XXIV. Teutonic Eikope, 1871-1914 1. The German Empire .....

The Constitution and Government of Germany The German Empire under Bismarck, 1871-189U The German Empire under William II, 1890-1914 . The Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary ......

The Swiss Confederation .........

The Kingdom of the Netherlands (Holland)

The Scandinavian States : Denmark, Sweden, and Norway Chapter XXV. The Russian E.mpire, 1855-1914 ....

The Reign of Alexander II (1855-1881) : Reforms, Reaction, and the Rise of Terrorism ..........

The Maintenance of Autocracy and the Prosecution of " Russification " under Alexander III and Nicholas II, 1881-1905 ....

The Industrial Revolution in Russia and the Revival of Opposition to the Autocracy ...........

The Revolutionary Movement of 1905 and the Russian Duma, 1905-

1914

Chapter XXVI. The Dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire,

1683-1914

. The Ottoman Empire and its Decline, 1683-1815 ..... The Great Powers and the Dismemberment of Turkey in Europe, 1815-

1886

The Autonomy of Crete and Loss of the Turkish Possessions in Africa The Progress of the Balkan Nations and the Attempt to Rejuvenate

Turkey, 1832-1912

The Balkan Wars, 1912-1915

PAGE

331 331 331

345 361 367 378 385 389 397 397 397 404 415 426 435 439 442 452

452

460

473

478

490 490

498 509

515 528

PART V

NATIONAL IMPERIALISM

Chapter XXVII. The New Imperialism and the Spread of Euro- pean Civilization in Asia

The Old Colonial Movement and the New Imperialism

547 547

xvi CONTENTS

PAGE

The Partial Dismemberment and the Political Regeneration of the

Chinese Empire .......... 560

The Awakening of Japan 577

Russian Expansion in Asia ......... 586

Survey of the Rival Empires in the Far East 592

Chapter XXVIII. The Spread of European Civilization in Amer- ica AND IN Africa 600

The Europeanization of America 600

The Partition of Africa 614

Chapter XXIX. The British Empire 640

Self-governing Colonies 641

The Crown Colonies .......... 657

The Empire of India 662

Conclusion ............ 672

Chapter XXX. International Relations (1871-1914) and the Out- break OF the War of the Nations . The Concert of Europe ......

The Hegemony of Germany, 1871-1890

The Balance of Power, 1890-1914 ....

The Outbreak of the War of the Nations, 1914-1915

679 679 691 697

710

Appendix. Rulers of the Chief European States since the Open- ing of the Sixteenth Century 727

Index (Volumes I and II) 737

MAPS

VOLUME I

1. Europe, 1500 a.d.

2. Medieval Trade Routes and the Age of Discovery

3. The Netherlands, 1609 ....

4. Religious Divisions in Europe, 1600

5. The Germanies, 1648

6. Extension of French Frontiers, 1648-1697

7. England and Wales, 1643. The Civil War

8. European Colonies in North America, 168S

9. India in the Eighteenth Century

10. The Thirteen Colonies, 1774 .

11. Rise of Prussia to 1786 .

12. Russian Expansion to 1796

13. Partition of Poland, 1772- 1795

14. Europe, 1775 ....

15. Revolutionary France, i 789-1 795

16. The Italian States, 1806 .

17. The Germanies, 1807-1809.

18. Europe under Napoleon, 1810 .

PRECEDING PAGE

3

49

97

165

229

249

273 301

317 331 351 369 ?>^7 441

479 543 543 559

VOLUME II

Europe, 1815

The Italian States, 1856

The Germanies, 181 5-1866 .....

Europe, 1871

Central Europe, 1914 — Social and Economic England and Wales in the Nineteenth Century

165 181 211 215 277

xvm

MAPS

PRECEDING PAGE

25. Ireland in the Nineteenth Century ....

26. The ''Nations" of Europe in the Nineteenth Century

27. Germany, 1871-1914

28. Austria-Hungary. 1914

29. The Russian Empire, 1914

30. The Ottoman Empire, 1683-1800

31. The Balkan States, 1856-1912 32 The Ottoman Empire and the Balkan States, 1914

33. Asia, 1914

34. South America, 1914 .

35. Africa, 1914 ....

36. The British Empire, 1914 .

37. Colonial Dominions of the Great Po\vers of Europe, i

38. The Mediterranean Countries, 1914 ....

914

321

33' 397 427 467 491 507

535 561 607 62s 641 701 717

INTRODUCTION

The story of modern times is but a small fraction of the long epic of human history. If, as seems highly probable, the con- servative estimates of recent scientists that mankind has in- habited the earth more than fifty thousand years,^ are accurate, then the bare five hundred years which these volumes pass in review constitute, in time, less than a hundredth part of man's past. Certainly, thousands of years before our day there were empires and kingdoms and city-states, showing considerable advancement in those intellectual pursuits which we call civili- zation or culture, — that is, in religion, learning, literature, po- litical organization, and business ; and such basic institutions as the family, the state, and society, go back even further, past our earliest records, until their origins are shrouded in deepest mystery.

Despite its brevity, modern history is of supreme impor- tance. Within its comparatively brief limits are set greater changes in human life and action than are to be found in the records of any earlier millennium. While the present is condi- tioned in part by the deeds and thoughts of our distant forbears who lived thousands of years ago, it has been influenced in a very special way by historical events of the last five hundred years. Let us see how this is true.

Suppose we ask ourselves in what important respects the year 1900 differed from the year 1400. In other words, what are the great distinguishing achievements of modern times? At least six may be noted :

(i) Exploration and knowledge of the whole globe. To our ancestors from time out of mind the civilized world was but the lands adjacent to the Mediterranean and, at most, vague stretches of Persia, India, and China. Not much over four hundred

1 Professor James Geikie, of the University of Edinburgh, suggests in his Antiquity of Man in Europe (1914), the possible existence of human beings on the earth more than 500,000 years ago !

xix

XX INTRODUCTION

years ago was America discovered and the globe circumnavigated for the first time, and very recently has the use of steamship, telegraph, and railway served to bind together the uttermost parts of the world, thereby making it relatively smaller, less mysterious, and in culture more unified.

(2) Higher standards of individual efficiency and comfort. The physical welfare of the individual has been promoted to a greater degree, or at all events preached more eloquently, within the last few generations than ever before. This has doubtless been due to changes in the commonplace everyday life of all the people. It must be remembered that in the fifteenth century man did the ordinary things of life in much the same manner as did early Romans or Greeks or Egj'ptians, and that our present remark- able ways of living, of working, and of traveling are the direct outcome of the Commercial Revolution of the sixteenth century and of the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth.

(3) Intensification of political organization, with attendant pub- lic guarantees of personal liberties. The ideas of nationalism and of democracy are essentially modern in their expression. The notion that people who speak the same language and have a common culture should be organized as an independent state with uniform laws and customs was hardly held prior to the fifteenth century. The national states of England, France, and Spain did not appear unmistakably with their national bound- aries, national consciousness, national literature, until the open- ing of the sixteenth century; and it was long afterwards that in Italy and Germany the national idea supplanted the older notions of world empire or of city-state or of feudalism. The national state has proved everywhere a far more powerful pohti- cal organization than any other : its functions have steadily increased, now at the expense of feudalism, now at the expense of the church ; and such increase has been as constant under industrial democracy of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as under the benevolent despotism of the seventeenth and eight- eenth centuries. But in measure as government has enlarged its scope, the governed have worked out and apphed protective principles of personal liberties. The Puritan Revolution, the French Revolution, the American Revolution, the uprisings of oppressed populations throughout the nineteenth century, would

INTRODUCTION xxi

be quite inexplicable in other than modern times. In fact the whole political history of the last four centuries is in essence a series of compromises between the conflicting results of the modern exaltation of the state and the modern exaltation of the individual.

(4) Replacement of the idea of the necessity of imiformity in a definite faith and religion by toleration of many faiths or even of no faith. A great state rehgion, professed publicly, and financially supported by all the citizens, has been a distinguishing mark of every earlier age. Whatever else may be thought of the Protes- tant movement of the sixteenth century, of the rise of deism and skepticism in the seventeenth and eighteenth, and of the exist- ence of scientific rationalism in the nineteenth and twentieth, there can be little doubt that each of them has contributed its share to the prevalence of the idea that religion is essentially a private, not a public, affair and that friendly rivalry in good works is preferable to uniformity in faith.

(5) Difusion of learning. The invention of printing towards the close of the fifteenth century gradually revolutionized the pursuit of knowledge and created a real democracy of Jetters. What learning might have lost in depth through its marvelous broadening has perhaps been compensated for by the applica- tion of the keenest minds in the seventeenth and eighteenth cen- turies to experimental science a,nd in our own day to applied science.

(6) Spirit of progress and decline of conservatism. For better or for worse the modern man is intellectually more self-reliant than his ancestors, more prone to try new inventions and to profit by new discoveries, more conscious and therefore more critical of conditions about him, more con\dnced that he lives in a better world than did his fathers, and that his children who come after him should have a better chance than he has had. This is the modern spirit. It is the product of all the other elements of the history of five hundred years — the larger geo- graphical horizon, the greater physical comfort, the revolu- tionized political institutions, the broader sympathies, the newer ideals of education. Springing thus from events of the past few centuries, the modern spirit nevertheless looks ever forward, not backward. A debtor to the past, it will be doubly creditor to

xxii INTRODUCTION

the future. It will determine the t>'pe of individual and social betterment through coming centuries. Such an idea is implied in the phrase, ''the continuity of history" — the ever-flowing stream of happenings that brings down to us the heritage of past ages and that carries on our richer legacies to generations yet unborn.

From such a conception of the continuity of history, the real significance of our study can be derived. It becomes perfectly clear that if we understand the present we shall be better pre- pared to face the problems and difficulties of the future. But to understand the present thoroughly, it becomes necessary not only to learn what are its great features and tendencies, but hke- wise how they have been evolved. Now, as we have already remarked, six most important characteristics of the present day have been developed within the last four or five centuries. To follow the history of this period, therefore, will tend to famiharize us both with present-day conditions and with future needs. This is the genuine justification for the study of the history of modern times.

Modern history may conveniently be defined as that part of history which deals with the origin and evolution of the great distinguishing characteristics of the present. No precise dates can be assigned to modern history as contrasted with what has commonly been called ancient or medieval. In a sense, any division of the historical stream into parts or periods is funda- mentally fallacious : for example, inasmuch as the present genera- tion owes to the Greeks of the fourth century before Christ many of its artistic models and philosophical ideas and very few of its political theories, the former might plausibly be embraced in the field of modern history, the latter excluded therefrom. But the problem before us is not so difficult as may seem on first thought. To all intents and purposes the development of the six characteristics that have been noted has taken place within five hundred years. The sixteenth century witnessed the true beginnings of the change in the extensive world dis- coveries, in the establishment of a recognized European state system, in the rise of Protestantism, and in the quickening of intellectual activity. It is the foundation of modern Europe.

INTRODUCTION xxiii

The sixteenth century will therefore be the general subject of Part I of this volume. After reviewing the geography of Europe about the year 1500, we shall take up in turn the four factors of the century which have had a lasting influence upon us: (i) socially and economically — The Commercial Revolu- tion ; (2) politically — European Politics in the Sixteenth Cen- tury ; (3) religiously and ecclesiastically — The Protestant Re- volt ; (4) intellectually — The Culture of the Sixteenth Century.

ADDITIONAL READING

The Study of History. On historical method : C. \ . Langlois and Charles Seignobos, Introduction to the Study of History, trans, by G. G. Berry (1912); J. M. Vincent, Historical Research: an Outline of Theory and Practice (191 1); H. B. George, Historical Evidence (1909); F. M. Fling, Outline of Historical Method (1899). Different view's of history: J. H. Robinson, The New History (191 2), a collection of stimulating essays; J. T. Shotwell, suggestive article History in nth edition of Encyclopcedia Britannica; T. B. Macaulay, essay on History; Thomas Carlyle, Heroes and Hero Worship; Karl Lamprecht, What is History ? trans, by E. A. Andrews (1905). Also see Henry Johnson, The Teaching of History (191 5) ; Eduard Fueter, Geschichte der neiieren Historiographie (191 1); Ernst Bernheim, Lehrbuch der historischen Methode und der Geschichtsphilosophie, 6th ed. (1914); G. P. Gooch, History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century (19 13).

Textbooks and Manuals of Modern History. J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard, The Development of Modern Europe, 2 vols. (1907), a political and social narrative from the time of Louis XIV, and by the same authors, Readings in Modern European History, 2 vols. (1908-1909), an indispensable sourcebook, with critical bibliographies; Ferdinand Schevill, A Political History of Modern Europe from the Reformation to the Present Day (1907) ; T. H. Dyer, A History of Modern Europe from the Fall of Constantinople, 3d ed. revised and continued to the end of the nineteenth century by Arthur Hassall, 6 vols. (1901), somewhat antiquated but still valuable for its vast store of political facts ; Victor Duruy, History of Modern Times from the Fall of Constantinople to the French Revolution, trans, by E. A. Grosvenor (1894), verbose and somewhat uncritical, but usable for French history. More up-to-date series of .historical manuals are now appearing or are projected by Henry Holt and Company under the editorship of Professor C. H. Haskins, by The Century Company under Professor G. L. Burr, by Ginn and Company under Professor J. H. Robinson, and by Houghton MifiPiin Company under Professor J. T. Shotwell : such of these volumes as have appeared are noted in the appropriate chapter bibliog- raphies following. The ]\Iacmillan Company has published Periods of

xxiv INTRODUCTION

European History, 8 vols. (1893-1901), under the editorship of Arthur Hassall, of which the last five volumes treat of political Europe from 1494 to 1899; and a more elementary pohtical series, Six Ages of European History, 6 vols. (1910), under the editorship of A. H. Johnson, of which the last three volumes cover the years from 1453 to 1878. Much addi- tional information is obtainable from such popular series as Story of the Nations (1886 sqq.). Heroes of the Nations (1890 sqq.), and Home Uni- versity Library, though the volumes in such series are of very unequal merit. Convenient chronological summaries are : G. P. and G. H. Put- nam, Tabular Views of Universal History (1914) ; Carl Ploetz, Manual of Universal History, trans, and enlarged by W. H. Tillinghast, new edition (1915); Haydn's Dictionary of Dates, 25th ed. (1911); C. E. Little, Cyclopcedia of Classified Dates (1900) ; Cambridge Modern History, Vol. XIII (191 1). The best atlas — a vitally necessary adjunct of historical study — is either that of W. R. Shepherd, Historical Atlas (191 1), or that of Ramsay Muir, Hammond's New Historical Atlas for Students, 2d ed. (1915) ; a smaller historical atlas is that of E. W. Dow (1907), and longer ones are Cambridge Modern History, Vol. XIV (191 2) and, in German, Putzger, Historischer Schidatlas. Elaborate treatises on his- torical geography : Elisee Reclus, The Universal Geography, trans, and ed. by E. G. Ravenstein, 19 vols. ; Nouveau Dictionnaire de Geographic Universelle, by Vivien de Saint-Martin and Louis Rousselet, 10 vols. See also H. B. George, The Relations of Geography and History (1910) and Ellen C. Semple, The Influence of Geographic Environment (191 1).

Standard Secondary "Works and Sets on Modern History. The Cam- bridge Modern History, 12 vols, and 2 supplementary vols. (1902-1912), planned by Lord Acton, edited by A. W. Ward, G. W. Prothero, and Stanley Leathes, written by EngHsh scholars, covering the period from 1450 to 1910, generally sound but rather narrowly political. Better balanced is the monumental work of a group of French scholars, Histoire generate du IV^ siecle a nos jours, edited by Ernest Lavisse and Alfred Rambaud, 12 vols. (1894-1901), of which the last nine treat of the years from 1492 to 1900. For social history a series, Histoire universelle du travail, 12 vols., is projected under the editorship of Georges Renard. The Encyclopcedia Britannica, nth ed. (1910-1911), is the work mainly of distinguished scholars and a storehouse of historical information, political, social, and intellectual. Also available in English is History of All Nations, 24 vols. (1902), the first nineteen based on translation of Theodor Flathe, Allgc- meine Weltgcschichtc, — Vols. X-XXIV dealing with modern history, — Vol. XX, on Europe, Asia, and Africa since 187 1, by C. M. Andrews, and Vols. XXI-XXIII, on American history, by John Fiske ; likewise H. F. Helmolt (editor), Weltgeschichtc, trans, into EngHsh, 8 vols. (1902-1907). Sets and series in German : Wilhelm Oncken (editor), Allgemcinc Gcschichtc in Einzeldarstelhingen, 50 vols. (1879-1893) ; Geschichte der europdischen Staaten, an enormous collection, appearing more or less constantly from 1829 to the present and edited successively by such famous scholars as A. H. L. Heercn, F. A. Ukert, Wilhelm von Giesebrcchl, and Karl Lam-

INTRODUCTION xxv

precht ; G. von Below and F. IMcinecke (editors), Handbuch der viiitel- alterlichen iind ncuercn Geschichlc, a series begun in 1903 and planned, when completed, to comprise 40 vols.; Paul Hinneberg (editor). Die Kultur der Gegcnwart, ihre E)itwicklung und Hire Zicle, a remarkable series begun in 1906 and intended to explain in many volumes the civilization of the twentieth century in all its aspects ; Erich Brandenburg (editor), Bibliothek der Geschichtswissejischaft, a series recently projected, the first volume appearing in 191 2 ; J. von Pflugk-Harttung, W eltgcschichte : die Entwicklung der Menschheit in Steal und Gcsellschajt, in Kultur und Geistesleben, 6 vols, illust. (1908-1911) ; Theodor Lindner, W eltgcschichte seit der V olkcrwan- derung, 8 vols. (1908-1914). \'aluable contributions to general modern history occur in such monumental national histories as Karl Lamprecht, Deutsche Gesckichte, 12 vols, in 16 (1891-1909), and, more particularly, Ernest Lavisse (editor), Histoire de France depuis Ics origines jnsqu'd la Revolution, 9 double vols. (1900-1911).

Biographical Dictionaries. General: Encyclopcedia Britannica, iithed., 29 vols. (1910-1911); New International Encyclopcedia, 2d ed., 24 vols. (1914-1916) ; Catholic Encyclopcedia, 15 vols. (1907-1912). Great Britain : Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee (editors). Dictionary of National Biography, 72 vols. (1885-1913). France: Hoefer (editor), Nouvelle biographic generate, 46 vols. (1855-1866) ; Dictionnairc de biographie Jranqaise, pro- jected (1913) under editorship of Louis Didier, Albert Isnard, and Gabriel Ledos. Germany: Liliencron and Wegele (editors), Allgenieine dcutsche Biographie, 54 vols. (1875 sqq.). Austria-Hungary: Wurzbach (editor), Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich, 60 vols. (1856-1891). There is also a well-known French work — L. G. Michaud, Biographie universelle ancienne et moderne, 45 vols. (1880).

Bibliography. Many of the works cited above and most of the works mentioned in the following chapter bibliographies contain convenient bibliographies on special topics. The best general guide to collections of source material and to the organization of historical study and research, though already somewhat out-of-date, is C. V. Langlois, Manuel de bibli- ographic historique, 2 vols. (1901-1904). See also C. M. Andrews, J. M. Gambrill, and Lida Tall, A Bibliography of History for Schools and Libraries (1910) ; and C. K. Adams, A Manual of Historical Literature, 3d ed. (1889). Specifically, for Great Britain: W. P. Courtney, A Register of National Bibliography, 3 vols. (1905-1912) ; S. R. Gardiner and J. B. MuUinger, Introduction to the Study of English History, 4th ed. (1903) ; H. G. Cannon, A Guide to the Study and Reading of English History (1910) ; Bibliography of Modern English History, now (1916) in preparation under the auspices of English scholars and of the American Historical Association. For German bibliography: Dahlmann-Waitz, Quellenkiinde der dcutschen Geschichte, 8th ed. (191 2) ; J ahresberichte der Geschichtswissenschaft, a valuable annual publication issued under the auspices of the Historical Association of Berlin. For French bibliography: Gabriel Monod, Bibli- ographie de Vhistoire de France (1888), new ed. projected (1910) in 4 vols.; Manuels de bibliographic historique (1907-19 16) : Part II, 1494-1610, by

xxvi INTRODUCTION

Henri Hauser, Part III, idio-iyis, by Emile Bourgeois and Louis Andre ; Repertoire metliodique de I'Jiistoire moderne et contemporaine de la France, an annual publication edited by Briere and Caron. For American bibliog- raphy: Edward Channing, A. B. Hart, and F. J. Turner, Guide to the Study of American History (1912). Among important historical periodicals, containing bibliographical notes and book reviews, are, History Teacher's Magazine, The American Historical Review, The English Historical Re- view, Die historische Zeitschrift, Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine, La revue historique, and La revue des questions historiques. For periodical literature see Poole's Index (1802-1906) and Readers' Guide (1900 sqq.). The most famous lists of pubUshed books are : The American Catalogue (1876 sqq.) ; the English Catalogue (1835 sqq.) ; C. G. Kayser, Biicher- Lexikon (iTSo sqq.) ; WiYhdm Heinsius,, Biicher'-Lexikon (i 700-1 892) ; Otto Lorenz, Catalogue general de la librarie Jranqaise (1840 sqq.) ; and, for general comment, American Library Association, Index to General Litera- ture (1893 sqq.).

PART I FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE

CHAPTER I

THE COUNTRIES OF EUROPE AT THE OPENING OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

I. THE NEW NATIONAL MONARCHIES

Before we can safely proceed with the story of European development during the past four hundred years, it is necessary to know what were the chief countries that existed , . at the beginning of our period and what were the Monar- distinctive political institutions of each. ^^'^^ " ^°

A glance at the map of Europe in 1500 will show numerous unfamiliar divisions and names, especially in the central and eastern portions. ; Only in the extreme west, along the Atlantic seaboard, will the eye detect geographical boundaries which resemble those of the present day. There, England, France, Spain, and Portugal have already taken formj In each one of these countries is a real nation, with a single monarch, and with a distinctive literary language. These four states are the national states of the sixteenth century. They attract our immediate attention.

England

In the year 1500 the English monarchy embraced little more than what on the map is now called "England." It is true that to the west the principality of Wales had The English been incorporated two hundred years earlier, but the Monarchy clannish mountaineers and hardy lowlanders of the northern part of the island of Great Britain still preserved the independ- ence of the kingdom of Scotland, while Irish princes and chief- tains rendered English occupation of their island extremely precarious beyond the so-called Pale of Dublin which an Eng- lish king had conquered in the twelfth century. Across the

3

4 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

English Channel, on the Continent, the English monarchy re- tained after 1453, the date of the conclusion of the Hundred Years' War, only the town of Calais out of the many rich French provinces which ever since the time of William the Conqueror (1066-1087) had been a bone of contention between French and EngHsh rulers.

While the English monarchy was assuming its geographical form, peculiar national institutions were taking root in the country, and the English language, as a combination of earlier Anglo-Saxon and Norman-French, was being evolved. / The Hundred Years' War with France, or rather its outcome, served to exalt the sense of English nationality and English patriotism, and to enable the king to devote his whole attention to the con- solidation of his power in the British islands/j For several years after the conclusion of peace on the Continent, England was harassed by bloody and confused struggles, known as the Wars of the Roses, between rival claimants to the throne, but at length, in 1485, Henry VII, the first of the Tudor dynasty, secured the crown and ushered in a new era of English history.

Henry VII (1485-1509) sought to create what has been termed a "strong monarchy." Traditionally the power of the king had been restricted by a Parliament, composed of a RoyarPower House of Lords and a House of Commons, and as the in England former was then far more influential than the latter, Henry VII supreme political control had rested practically with the king and the members of the upper house — great land-holding nobles and the princes of the church. The Wars of the Roses had two effects which redounded to the advantage of the king : (i) the struggle, being really a contest of two factions of nobles, destroyed many noble families and enabled the crown to seize their estates, thereby lessening the influence of an ancient class; (2) the struggle, being long and disorderly, cre- ated in the middle class or "common people" a longing for peace and the conviction that order and security could be main- tained only by repression of the nobility and the strengthening of monarchy. Henry took advantage of these circumstances to fix upon his country an absolutism, or one-man power in gov- ernment, which was to endure throughout the sixteenth century, during the reigns of the four other members of the Tudor family,

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 5

and, in fact, until a popular revolution in the seventeenth century.

Henry VII repressed disorder with a heavy hand and secured the establishment of an extraordinary court, afterwards called the "Court of Star Chamber," to hear cases, especially those affecting the nobles, which the ordinary courts had not been able to settle. Then, too, he was very economical : the public revenue was increased by means of more careful attention to the cultivation of the crown lands and the collection of feudal dues, fines, benevolences/ import and export duties, and past parHamentary grants, while, by means of frugality and a foreign policy of peace, the expenditure was appreciably decreased. Henry VII was thereby freed in large measure from dependence on Parhament for grants of money, and the power of Parliament naturally declined. In fact, Parhament met only live times during his whole reign and only once during the last twelve years, and in all its actions was quite subservient to the royal desires.

Henry VII refrained in general from foreign war, but sought by other means to promote the international welfare of his coun- try. He negotiated several treaties by which English traders might buy and sell goods in other countries. RgiaJf^ns One of the most famous of these commercial treaties of England was the Intercursus Magnus concluded in 1496 with n'enry vii the duke of Burgundy, admitting English goods into the Netherlands. He likewise encouraged EngKsh companies of merchants to engage in foreign trade and commissioned the explorations of the Cabots in the New World. Henry increased the prestige of his house by politic marital alliances. He arranged a marriage between the heir to his throne, Arthur, and Catherine, eldest daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, the Spanish sovereigns. Arthur died a few months after his wedding, but it was arranged that Catherine should remain in England as the bride of the king's second son, who subsequently became

^ "Benevolences" were sums of money extorted from the people in the guise of gifts. A celebrated minister of Henry VII collected a very large number of "be- nevolences" for his master. If a man lived economically, it was reasoned he was saving money and could afford a "present" for the king. If, on the contrary, he lived sumptuously, he was evidently wealthy and could likewise afford a "gift."

6 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Henry VIII. The king's daughter Margaret was married to King James IV of Scotland, thereby paving the way much later for the union of the crowns of England and Scotland.

England in the year 1500 was a real national monarchy, and the power of the king appeared to be distinctly in the ascend- ant. Parliament was fast becoming a purely formal and per- functory body.

France

By the year 1500 the French monarchy was largely consolidated territorially and politically. It had been a slow and painful The French process, for long ago in 987, when Hugh Capet came Monarchy |-q i\^q throne, the France of his day was hardly more than the neighborhood of Paris, and it had taken five full centuries to unite the petty feudal divisions of the country into the great centralized state which we call France. The Hundred Years' War had finally freed the western duchies and counties from English control. Just before the opening of the sixteenth century the wily and tactful Louis XI (1461-1483) had rounded out French territories : on the east he had occupied the pow- erful duchy of Burgundy ; on the west and on the southeast he had possessed himself of most of the great inheritance of the Angevin branch of his own family, including Anjou, and Pro- vence east of the Rhone ; and on the south the French frontier had been carried to the Pyrenees. Finally, Louis's son, Charles VIII |. (1483-1498), by marrying the heiress of Brittany, had absorbed that western duchy into France.

Meanwhile, centralized political institutions had been taking slow but tenacious root in the country. Of course, many local institutions and customs survived in the various Growth of states which had been gradually added to France, Royal but the king was now recognized from Flanders to

in°Fr^ance Spain and from the Rhone to the Ocean as the source of law, justice, and order. There was a uniform royal coinage and a standing army under the king's command. The monarchs had struggled valiantly against the disruptive tend- encies of feudalism ; they had been aided by the commoners or middle class ; and the proof of their success was their compara- tive freedom from political checks. The Estates-General, to

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 7

which French commoners had been admitted in 1302, resembled in certain externals the English Parliament, — for example, in comprising representatives of the clergy, nobles, and commons, — but it had never had final say in levying taxes or in authoriz- ing expenditures or in trying royal officers. And unlike Eng- land, there was in France no hve tradition of popular participa- tion in government and no written guarantee of personal liberty.

Consolidated at home in territory and in government, French- men began about the year 1500 to be attracted to questions of external policy. By attempting to enforce an in- Foreign herited claim to the crown of Naples, Charles VIII Relations in 1494 started that career of foreign war and ag- French grandizement which was to mark the history of Kings France throughout following centuries. His efforts ^ °"* ^^°° in Italy were far from successful, but his heir, Louis XII (1498- 151 5), continued to lay claim to Naples and to the duchy of Milan as well. In 1504 Louis was obliged to resign Naples to King Ferdinand of Aragon, in whose family it remained for two centuries, but about Milan continued a conflict, with vary- ing fortunes, ultimately merging into the general struggle between Francis I (15 15-1547) and the Emperor Charles V.

France in the year 1500 was a real national monarchy, with the beginnings of a national literature and with a national patriotism centering in the king. It was becoming self-conscious. Like England, France was on the road to one-man power, but unlike England, the way had been marked by no liberal or constitutional mile-posts.

Spain and Portugal

South of the Pyrenees were the Spanish and Portuguese monarchies, which, in a long process of unification, not only had to contend against the same disuniting tendencies Develop- as appeared in France and England, but also had to ment of the solve the problem of the existence side by side of and'por- two great rival religions — Christianity and Moham- tuguese medanism. Mohammedan invaders from Africa had secured political control of nearly the whole peninsula as early as the eighth century, but in course of time there appeared in

8 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

the northern and western mountains several diminutive Chris- tian states, of which the following may be mentioned : Barcelona, in the northeast, along the Mediterranean ; Aragon, occupying the south-central portion of the Pyrenees and extending south- ward toward the Ebro River; Navarre, at the west of the Pyrenees, reaching northward into what is now France and southward into what is now Spain; Castile, west of Navarre, circling about the town of Burgos; Leon, in the northwestern corner of the peninsula ; and Portugal, south of Leon, lying along the Atlantic coast. Little by little these Christian states extended their southern frontiers at the expense of the Moham- medan power and showed some disposition to combine. In the twelfth century Barcelona was united with the kingdom of Aragon, and a hundred years later Castile and Leon were finally joined. Thus, by the close of the thirteenth century, there were three important states in the peninsula — Aragon on the east, Castile in the center, and Portugal on the west — and two less important states — Christian Navarre in the extreme north, and Mohammedan Granada in the extreme south.

While Portugal acquired its full territorial extension in the peninsula by the year 1263, the unity of modern Spain was delayed until after the marriage of Ferdinand (1479-15 16) and Isabella (1474-1504), sovereigns respectively of Aragon and Castile. Granada, the last foothold of the Mohammedans, fell in 1492, and in 151 2 Ferdinand acquired that part of the ancient kingdom of Navarre which lay upon the southern slope of the Pyrenees. The peninsula was henceforth divided be- tween the two modern states of Spain and Portugal.

Portugal, the older and smaller of the two states, had become a conspicuous member of the family of nations by the year 1500, thanks to a line of able kings and to the remarkable a Real ^ series of foreign discoveries that cluster about the National name of Prince Henry the Navigator. Portugal in'i'soo^ ^ possessed a distinctive language of Latm origin and already cherished a literature of no mean proportions. In harmony with the spirit of the age the monarchy was tend- ing toward absolutism, and the parliament, called the Cortes, which had played an important part in earlier times, ceased to meet regularly after 1521. The Portuguese royal family were

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 9

closely related to the Castilian line, and there were people in both kingdoms who hoped that one day the whole peninsula would be united under one sovereign.

From several standpoints the Spanish monarchy was less unified in 1500 than England, France, or Portugal. The union of Castile and Aragon was, for over two centuries, hardly more than personal. Each retained its own Spanish customs, parliaments (Cortes), and separate ad- kingdom mmistration. Each possessed a distmctive language, although Castilian gradually became the literary "Spanish," while Catalan, the speech of Aragon, was reduced to the position of an inferior. Despite the continuance of excessive pride in local traditions and institutions, the cause of Spanish nationality received great impetus during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella. It was under them that territorial unity had been obtained. It was they who turned the attention of Spaniards to foreign and colonial enterprises. The year that marked the fall of Granada and the final extinction of Mohammedan power in Spain was likewise signalized by the first voyage of Christopher Columbus, which prefigured the establishment of a greater Spain beyond • the seas. On the continent of Europe, Spain speedily acquired a commanding position in international affairs, as the result largely of Ferdinand's ability. The royal house of Aragon had long held claims to the Neapolitan and Sicilian kingdoms and for two hundred years had freely mixed in the politics of Italy. Now, in 1504, Ferdinand definitely secured recognition from France of his rights in Naples, Sicily, and Sardinia. Spain was becoming the rival of Venice for the leadership of the Mediterranean.

While interfering very little with the forms of representative government in their respective kingdoms, Ferdinand and Isabella worked ever, in fact, toward uniformity and ab- increase solutism. They sought to ingratiate themselves of Royal with the middle class, to strip the nobility of its spain under political influence, and to enlist the church in their Ferdinand

1 , , , and Isabella

ser\qce. The Cortes were more or less regularly convened, but their functions were almost imperceptibly trans- ferred to royal commissions and officers of state. Privileges granted to towns in earlier times were now gradually revoked.

lo HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

The king, by becoming the head of the ancient mihtary orders which had borne prominent part in the struggle against the Mohammedans, easily gained control of considerable treasure and of an effective fighting force. The sovereigns prevailed upon the pope to transfer control of the Inquisition, the m.edieval ecclesiastical tribunal for the trial of heretics, to the crown, so that the harsh penalties which were to be inflicted for many years upon dissenters from orthodox Christianity were due not only to religious bigotry but likewise to the desire for political uniformity.

In population and in domestic resources Spain was not so important as France, but the exploits of Ferdinand and Isabella, the great wealth which temporarily flowed to her from the colonies, the prestige which long attended her diplomacy and her armies, were to exalt the Spanish monarchy throughout the sixteenth century to a position quite out of keeping with her true importance.

2. THE OLD HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE

The national monarchies of western Europe — England, France, Spain, and Portugal — ■ were political novelties in the year 1500: the idea of uniting the people of similar lan- The Idea guage and customs under a strongly centralized state " Empire " had been slowly developing but had not reached Different fruition much before that date. On the other hand, from that in central Europe survived in weakness an entirely of a " Na- different kind of state, called an empire. The theory

tional , . • ^ V .

Monarchy " of an empire was a very ancient one — it meant a state which should embrace all peoples of whatso- ever race or language, bound together in obedience to a common prince. Such, for example, had been the ideal of the old Roman Empire, under whose Coesars practically the whole civilized world had once been joined, so that the inhabitant of Egypt or Armenia united with the citizen of Britain or Spain in allegiance to the emperor. That empire retained its hold on portions of eastern Europe until its final conquest by the Ottoman Turks in 1453, but a thousand years earher it had lost control of the West because of external violence and internal weakness. So

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE ii

great, however, was the strength of the idea of an "empire," even in the West, that Charlemagne about the year 800 tem-f| porarily united what are now France, Germany, Italy, tha.l Netherhmds, and Belgium into what he persisted in styling the "Roman Empire." Nearly two centuries later, Otto_the^reaty^ a famous prince in Germany, gave other form to the idea, in they "Holy Roman Empire" of which he became emperor. Thisl form endured from:;962 to 1806.

In theory, the Holy Roman Empire claimed supremacy over all Christian rulers and peoples of central and western Europe, and after the extinction of the eastern empire in 1453 it could insist that it was the sole secular heir to the The Holy ancient Roman tradition. But the greatness of the E^'ph-e- theoretical claim of the Holy Roman Empire was its Mighty matched only by the insignificance of its practical xhe^y*'^ acceptance. The feudal nobles of western Europe and its had never recognized it, and the national monarchs, po^gj jn though they might occasionally sport with its honors Practice and titles, never admitted any real dependence upon it of England, France, Portugal, or Spain. In central Europe, it had to struggle against the anarchical tendencies of feudalism, against the rise of powerful and jealous city-states, and against a rival organization, the Catholic Church, which in its temporal affairs was at least as clearly an heir to the Roman tradition as was the Holy Roman Empire. From the eleventh to the thir- teenth century the conflict raged, with results important for all concerned, — results which were thoroughly obvious in the year 1500.

In the first place, the Holy Roman Empire was practically y restricted to German-speaking peoples. The papacy and the Italian cities had been freed from imperial control, and both the Netherlands — that is, Holland and Roman ^ Belgium — and the Swiss cantons were only nomi- Empire nally connected. Over the Slavic people to the east R^gVic^ed — Russians, Poles, etc. — or the Scandinavians to by 1500 the north, the empire had secured comparatively oermanies small influence. By the year 1500 the words Em- ■

pire and Germany had become virtually interchangeable termsjj "

Secondly, there was throughout central Europe no conspicuous

12 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

desire for strong centralized national states, such as prevailed in western Europe. Separatism was the rule. In Italy and in the Internal ■ Netherlands the city-states were the political units. Weakness Within the Holy Roman Empire was a vast hodge- ^^^^ podge of city-states, and feudal survivals — arch-

Roman duchies, such as Austria ; margravates, such as

Empire Brandenburg; duchies, like Saxony, Bavaria, and

Wiirttemberg ; counties like the Palatinate, and a host of free cities, baronies, and domains, some of them smaller than an American township. In all there were over three hundred states which collectively were called "the Germanics" and which were united only by the slender imperial thread. The idea of empire had not only been narrowed to one nation ; it also, in its failure to overcome feudaHsm, had prevented the growth of a real na- tional monarchy.

What was the nature of this sHght tie that nominally held the Germanics together? There was the form of a central government with an emperor to execute laws and a menrof ^i*^t to make them. The emperor was not neces- the Holy sarily hereditary but was chosen by seven " electors," EnTh-e ^^^ Were the chief princes of the realm. These seven were the archbishops of Mainz (Mayence), of Cologne, and of Trier (Treves), the king of Bohemia, the duke of Saxony, the margrave of Brandenburg, and the count palatine of the Rhine. Not infrequently the electors used their position to extort concessions from the emperor-elect which helped to destroy German unity and to promote the selfish interests of the princes. The imperial Diet was composed of the seven electors, the lesser princes (including the higher ecclesiastical dignitaries, such as bishops and abbots), and representatives of the free cities, grouped in three separate houses. The emperor was not supposed to perform any im- perial act without the authorization of the Diet, and petty jealousies between its members or houses often prevented action in the Diet. The individual states, moreover, reserved to themselves the management of most affairs which in west- ern Europe had been surrendered to the central national gov- ernment. The Diet, and therefore the emperor, was without a treasury or an army, unless the indivddual states sawjit to

FOUNDATIONS OF jMODERN EUROPE 13

act favorably upon its advice and furnish the requested quotas. The Diet resembled far more a congress of diplomats than a legislative body.

It will be readily perceived that under these circumstances the emperor as such could have little influence. Yet the fear of impending Slavic or Turkish attacks upon the eastern frontier, or other fears, frequently operated to JJ^® ^

1 1 • r • \ 1 1 m • J.1 Habsburgs :

secure the election 01 some prmcc who had surriciently weak as

strong power of his own to stay the attack or remove ?™^|5°''^

the fear. In this way,\Rudolph of Habsburg, arch- as Rulers

duke of Austria, had been chosen emperor in 1273, °^ Particu-

and in his family, with few interruptions, continued within the

the imperial title, not only to i^oo but to the final ^°'y

- ■,- . r 1 ' ' f- Roman

extmction of the empire m 1806. Several of these Empire Habsburg emperors were influential, but it must always be remembered that they owed their power not to the empire but to their own hereditary states.

Originally lords of a small district in Switzerland, the Habs- burgs had gradually increased their holdings until at length Rudolf, the maker of his family's real fortunes, had possessed himself in 1268 of the valuable archduchy of Austria with its capital, Vienna, and five years later had been chosen Holy Roman Emperor. The family subsequently became related l\ by marriage to reigning famihes in Hungary and in Italy as 1 1 well as in Bohemia and other states of the empire. In 1477 the Emperor Maximilian I (1493-15 19) married Mary of Bur- gundy, daughter of Charles the Bold and heiress of the wealthy provinces of the Netherlands ; and in 1496 his son Philip was united to Joanna, the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella and heiress of the crowns of Castile and Aragon. The fortunes of the Habsburgs were decidedly auspicious.

Of course, signs were not wanting of some national Hfe in the Germanics. Most of the people spoke a common ,, . language ; a form of national unity existed m the Attempts Diet ; and many patriots raised their voice in behalf ^° " ^f- of a stronger and more centralized government. In Holy 149 s a Diet met at the city of Worms to discuss Roman

. , . . r r A f Empire

With Emperor Maximihan projects of reform. After protracted debates, it was agreed that private warfare, a sur-

14 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

vival of feudal days, should be abolished ; a perpetual peace should be declared ; and an imperial court should be estab- hshed to settle all disputes between states within the empire. These efforts at reform, hke many before and after, were largely unfruitful, and, despite occasional protests, practical disunion \ Iprevailed in the Germanics of the sixteenth century, albeit H \ junder the high-sounding title of "Holy Roman Empire."

3. THE CITY-STATES

Before the dawn of the Christian era the Greeks and Romans had eiitertained a general idea of political organization which " Citv- would seem strange to most of us at the present time,

states " They beheved that every city with its outlying *" ^^°° country should constitute an independent state, with its own particular law-making and governing bodies, army, coinage, and foreign relations. To them, the idea of an empire was intolerable and the concept of a national state, such as we commonly have to-day, unthinkable.

Now it so happened, as we shall see in the following chapter, that the commerce of the middle ages stimulated the growth of important trading towns in Italy, in Germany, and in the Netherlands. These towns, in one way or another, managed to secure a large measure of self-government, so that by the \\year 1500 they had become somewhat similar to the city-states Ijof antiquity. In Germany, though they still maintained their local self-government, they were loosely attached to the Holy Roman Empire and were overshadowed in political influence by other states. In the case of Italy and of the Netherlands, however, it is impossible to understand the politics of those countries in the sixteenth century without paying some atten- tion to city-states, which played leading roles in both.

In the Italy of the year 1500 there was not even the. sem- blance of national pohtical unity. Despite the ardent longings of many Italian patriots,^ and the rise of a common language,

' Of such patriots was Machiavclli (sec below, p. 194). ]\Iachia\elli wrote in The Prince: "Our country, left almost without life, still waits to know who it is that is to heal her bruises, to put an end to the devastation and plunder of Lom- bardy and to the exactions and imposts of Naples and Tuscany, and to stanch

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 15

which, under such masters as Dante and Petrarch, had be- come a great mecHum for htcrary expression, the people of the peninsula had not built up a national monarchy like those of western Europe nor had they even pre- Italy in served the form of allegiance to the Holy Roman neither a Empire. This was due to several significant events National of earher times. In the first place, the attempt of noT^lv ^ the medieval German emperors to gain control of tached to Italy not only had signally failed but had left be- Roman ^ [hind two contending factions throughout the whole Empire country, — one, the Ghibellines, supporting the doc- trine of maintaining the traditional connection with the Ger- manics ; the other, the Guelphs, rejecting that doctrine. In the second place, the pope, who exercised extensive pohtical as well as rehgious power, felt that his ecclesiastical influence would be seriously impaired by the creation of political unity in the country ; a strong lay monarch with a soHd Italy behind him would in time reduce the sovereign pontiff to a subservient position and diminish the prestige which the head of the church enjoyed in foreign lands ; therefore the J)ppes participated actively_in the game .oUtalian pohtics, always endeavoring to prevent aiiy one state from becoming too powerful. Thirdly, the comparatively early commercial prominence of the Italian towns had stimulated trade rivalries which tended to make each proud of its independence and wealth ; and as the cities grew and prospered to an unwonted degree, it became increasingly difficult to join them together. Finally, the riches of the Italians, and the local jealousies and strife, to say nothing of the papal policy, marked the country as natural prey for foreign interference and conquest; and in this way the pen- insula became a battleground for Spaniards, Frenchmen, and Germans.

Before re\'iewing the chief city-states of northern Italy, it will be well to say a word about two other political divisions of the country. The southern third of the peninsula comprised

those wounds of hers which long neglect has changed into running sores. We see how she prays God to send some one to rescue her from these barbarous cruelties and oppressions. We see too how ready and eager she is to follow any standard, were there only some one to raise it."

11

i6 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

I the ancient kingdom of Naples, which had grown up about the

city of that name, and which, together with the large island of

Sicily, was called the kingdom of the Two SiciHes.

Southern 'pj^jg state, having been first formed by Scandinavian

Italy in • i , i i i • ,

1500: the adventurers m the eleventh century, had successively Kingdom of passed Under papal suzerainty, under the domination Sicilies of the German emperors, and at length in 1266 under

French coiitrol. A revolt in Sicily in the year 1282, commonly called the Sicilian Vespers j had severed the relation between the island and the mainland, the former passing to the royal family of Aragon, and the latter troublously remain- ing in French hands until 1442. The reunion of the Two Sicilies at that date under the crown of Aragon served to keep alive the quarrel between the French and the Spanish ; and it was not until 1504 that the king of France definitely re- nounced his Neapolitan claims in favor of Ferdinand of Aragon. Socially and politically Naples was the most backward state in Italy.

About the city of Rome had grown up in the course of cen- turies the Papal States, or as they were ofhcially styled, the

Patrimony of St. Peter. It had early fallen to the Italy '^^ lot of the bishop, as the most important person in 1500: the the city, to exercise political power over Rome, when st^a^tes barbarian invasions no longer permitted the exercise

of authority by Roman emperors ; and control over neighboring districts, as well as over the city, had been expressly recognized and conferred upon the bishop by Charlemagne in the eighth century. This bishop of Rome was, of course, the pope ; and the pope slowly extended his territories through central Italy from the Tiber to the Adriatic, long using them merely as a bulwark to his religious and ecclesiastical preroga- tives. By the year 1500, however, the popes were becoming prone to regard themselves as ItaHan princes who might \normally employ their states as so many pawns in the game pf peninsular politics. The policy of the notorious Alexander VI (1492-1503) centered in his desire to estabHsh his son, Cesare Borgia," as an Italian ruler; and Julius II (1503-15 13) was famed more for statecraft and military prowess than for religious fervor.

^

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 17

North and west of the Papal States were the various city- states which were so thoroughly distinctive of Italian politics at the opening of the sixteenth century. Although these towns had probably reached a higher plane sta^tes'oV both of material prosperity and of intellectual culture Northern than was to be found at that time in any other part ^^J^ ^"^ of Europe, nevertheless they were deeply jealous of each other and carried on an interminable series of petty wars, the brunt of which was borne by professional hired soldiers and freebooters styled condottieri. Among the Italian city- states, the most famous in the year 1500 were Milan, Venice, V Genoa, and Florence.

Of these cities, Milan was still in theory a ducal fief of the I*.. Holy Roman Empire" but had long been in fact the prize of despotic rulers who were descended from two famous families — the Visconti and the Sforza — and who s^^ates- * ^' combined the patronage of art with the fine political Milan subtleties of Italian tyrants. The Visconti ruled by°Despots Milan from the thirteenth century to the middle of the fifteenth, when a Sforza, a leader of condottieri, estab- lished the supremacy of his own family. In 1499, however, King Louis XII of France, claiming the duchy as heir to the Visconti, seized Milan and held it until he was expelled in 151 2 by the Holy League, composed of the pope, Venice, Spain, and England^and_a^forza was temporarily reinstated.

As Milan was the type of ItaHan city ruled by a despot or tyrant, so Venicewas a type of the cornmercial, oligarchical city-states. Venice was by Tar the most powerful „ .

^ — "^ — -; "^ . Venice, a

state in the peninsula. Located on the islands and Type of the

lagoons at the head of the Adriatic, she had profited Commer-

greatly by the crusades to build up a maritime empire Aristocratic

and an enviable trade on the eastern Mediterranean ^*.^'^^° ^

• 1 1 1 • 1 City-States

and had extended her sway over rich lands m the northeastern part of Italy. In the year 1500, Venice boasted j , 3000 ships, 300,000 sailors, a numerous and veteran army,*' famous factories of plate glass, silk stuffs, and gold and silver objects, and a singularly strong government. Nominally Venice was a republic, but actually an ojigarchy. Political power was intrusted jointly to several agencies : (i) a grand council con-

i8 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

trolled by the commercial magnates ; (2) a centralized committee of ten; (3) an elected doge, or duke; and (4), after 1454, three state inquisitors, henceforth the city's real masters. The inquisitors could pronounce sentence of death, dispose of the public funds, and enact statutes ; they maintained a regular spy system ; and trial, judgment, and execution were secret. The mouth of the lion of St. Mark received anonymous de- nunciations, and the waves which passed under the Bridge of Sighs carried away the corpses. To this regime Venice owed an internal peace which contrasted with the endless civil wars of the other Italian cities. Till the final destruction of the state in 1798 Venice knew no political revolution. In foreign affairs, also, Venice possessed considerable influence ; she was the hrst European state to send regular envoys, or ambassadors, to other courts. It seemed in 1500 as if she were particularly wealthy and great, but already had been sowed the seed of her subse- quent decline and humiliation. The advance of the Ottoman Turks threatened her position in eastern Europe, although she

hstill held the Morea in Greece, Crete, Cyprus, and many Ionian ^ 1 and iEgean islands. The discovery of America and of a new route to India was destined to shake the very basis of her commercial supremacy. And her unscrupulous policy toward her Italian rivals lost her friends to the west. So great was the enmity against Venice that the formidable League of Cambrai,

\\ entered into by the emperor, the pope, France, and Spain in

II 1508, wrung many concessions from her.

Second only to Venice in commercial importance, Genoa, in

marked contrast with her rival, passed through all manner of

political vicissitudes until in 1499 she fell prey to the

invasion of King Louis XII of France. Thereafter

y. Genoa remained some years subject to the French, but in 1528

I the resolution of an able citizen, Andrea Doria, freed the state «|[rom foreign invaders and restored to Genoa her repubhcan institutions.

The famed city-state of Florence may be taken as the best

. type of the democratic community, controlled by a political 'leader. The city, as famous for its free institutions as for its art, in the first half of the fifteenth century had come under the tutelage of a family of traders and bankers, the wealthy

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 19

(^edici, avho preserved the republican forms, and for a while, under Lorenzo de' Medici (1449-1492), surnamed the Mag- nificent, made Florence the center of Itahan culture and civilization. Soon after the death of Lorenzo, -pype ""' ^ a democratic reaction took place under an enthusi- the Cui- astic and puritanical monk, Savonarola, who wel- oemo^"*^ corned the advent of the French king, Charles VIII, cratic in 1494, and aided materially in the expulsion of cuy^state the Medici. Savonarola soon fell a victim to the plots of his Florentine enemies and to the vengeance of the pope, whom Charles VIII had offended, and was put to death in 1498. The democracy managed to survive until 151 2 when the Medici returned. The city-state of Florence subsequently became the grand-duchy of Tuscany.

Before we take leave of the Italian states of the year 1500, mention should be made of the insignificant duchy of_Savoy, tucked away in the fastnesses of the north- obscure western Alps, whose duke, after varying fortunes. Duchy of was to become, in the nineteenth century, king of jgJo^ ^^ a united Italy.

The city-state was the dominant form of political organiza- tion not only in Italy but also in the Netherlands. The Nether- lands, or the Low Countries, were seventeen prov- inces occupying the fiat lowlands along the North city-States Sea, — the Holland, Belgium, and northern France in the of our own day. Most of the inhabitants, Flemings ^^^^^ and Dutch, spoke a language akin to German, but in the south the Walloons used a French dialect. At first the provinces had been mere feudal states at the mercy of various warring noblemen, but gradually in the course of the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries, important towns had arisen so wealthy and populous that they were able to wrest charters from the lords. Thus arose a number of municipalities — 1 i practically self-governing repubhcs — semi-independent vassals ] i of feudal nobles ; and in many cases the early ohgarchic systems of municipal government speedily gave way to more democratic institutions. Remarkable in industry and prosperity were*., Ghent, Bruges, Antwerp, Brussels, Liege, Utrecht, Delft, Rot-j)X.v/ terdam, and many another.

20 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Beginmnjg_in 1384 and continuing throughout the fifteenth century, (the dukes of Burgundy,' who as vassals of the French king had long held the duchy of that name in eastern oAhe°° France, succeeded by marriage, purchase, treachery, City-states or force in bringing one by one the seventeen provinces Nether- ^^ ^^^ Netherlands under their rule. This extension lands to the of dominion on the part of the dukes of Burgundy Burgmidy implied the establishment of a strong monarchical authority, which was supported by the nobility and v.clergy and opposed by the cities. In 1465 a common parlia- ipnent, called the States General, was constituted at Brussels, 'Icontaining deputies from each of the seventeen provinces ; and eight years later a grand council was organized with supreme judicial and financial functions. Charles the Bold, who died in 1477, was prevented from constructing a great central kingdom between France and the Germanics only by the shrewdness of his implacable foe, King Louis XI of France. As we have seen, in another connection, Louis seized the duchy of Burgundy on the death of Charles the Bold, thereby extending the eastern frontier of France, but the duke's iur- heritance in the Netherlands passed to his daughter Mary. In 1477 Mary's marriage with Maximilian of Austria be- gan the long domination of the Netherlands by the house jl of Habsburg.

I -- 'throughout these political changes, the towns of the Nether- lands maintained many of their former privileges, and their prosperity steadily increased. The country became the richest \r V in Europe, and the splendor of the ducal court surpassed that of any contemporary sovereign. A permanent memorial of it remains in the celebrated Order of the Golden Fleece, which was instituted by the duke of Burgundy in the fifteenth century and was so named from the English wool, the raw material , used in the Flemish looms and the ve£y joundation of the y\ country's fortunes.

4. NORTHERN AND EASTERN EUROPE IN THE YEAR 1500

We have now reviewed the states that were to be the main factors in the historical events of the sixteenth century — the

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 21

national monarchies of England, France, Portugal, and Northern Spain ; the Holy Roman Empire of the Germanics ; Eastern and the city-states of Italy and the Netherlands. It Europe of

1 11 1 • T . 1 Small

may be well, however, to point out that m northern importance and eastern Europe other states had already come 1,^ *^®

, . , , .. . Sixteenth

into existence, which subsequently were to artect in Century, no small degree the history of modern times, such as ^^ °^ ,

1 o 1- . 1 • 1 1 , r^T Great Im-

the bcandmavian kingdoms, the tsardom of Muscovy, portance ithe feudal kingdoms of Poland and Hungary, and Subse- Ithe empire of the Ottoman Turks.

In the early homes of those Northmen who had long before ravaged the coasts of England and France and southern Italy and had colonized Iceland and Greenland, were North, situated in 1500 three kingdoms, Denmark, Nor- western way, and Sweden, corresponding generally^ to the ^"'^s^candi- present-day states" of those names. The three navian countries had many racial and social characteristics ^°"°*"^^ in common, and they had been politically joined under the king of Denmark by the Union of Calmar in 1397. This linion never evoked any popularity arhong the Swedes, and after a series of revolts and disorders extending over fifty years, Gus-rt tavus Vasa (15 23-1 560) established the independence of Sweden./ Norway remained under Danish kings until 18 14.

East of the Scandinavian peninsula and of the German-speak- ing population of central Europe, spread out like a great fan, are a variety of peoples who possess many common characteristics, including a group of closely related siavsin languages, which are called Slavic. These Slavs in Central the year 1500 included (i) the Russians, (2) the Euro^r^'" Poles and Lithuanians, (3) the Czechs, or natives of Bohemia, within the confines of the Holy Roman Empire, and (4) various nations in southeastern Europe, such as the Serbs and Bulgars.

The Russians in 1500 did not possess such a huge autocratic state as they do to-day. They were distributed among several principalities, the chief and center of which was the Russia in grand-duchy of Muscovy, with Moscow as its capital, ^soo Muscovy's reigning family was of Scandinavian extraction but what civilization and Christianity the principalities possessed

22 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

had been brought by Greek missionaries from Constantinople. For two centuries, from the middle of the thirteenth to the I \ middle of the fifteenth, the Russians paid tribute to Mongol ^ I jkHans who had set up an Asiatic despotism north of the Black Sea. The beginnings of Russian greatness are traceable to \^ Ivan_IIIj the Great (1462-1505),^ who freed his people from Mongol domination, united the numerous principalities, con- quered the important cities of Novgorod and Pskov, and ex- tended his sway as far as the Arctic Ocean and the Ural Moun- tains. Russia, however, could hardly then be called a modern state, for the political and social life still smacked of Asia rather than of Europe, and the Russian Christianity, having been derived from Constantinople, differed from the Christianity of western Europe. Russia was not to appear as a conspicuous European state until the eighteenth century.

Southwest of the tsardom of Muscovy and east of the Holy Roman Empire was the kingdom of Poland, to which Lithuanians Poland as well as Poles owed allegiance. Despite wide terri-

in 1500 tories and a succession of able rulers, Poland was a weak monarchy. Lack of natural boundaries made national defense difficult. Civil war between the two peoples who com- posed the state and foreign war with the neighboring Germans worked havoc and distress. _An obstructive parliament of great lords rendered effective administration impossible. The nobles possessed the property and controlled politics ; in their hands the king gradually became a puppet. Poland seemed committed to feudal society and feudal government at the very time when the countries of western Europe were ridding themselves of such checks upon the free growth of centralized national states. Somewhat similar to Poland in its feudal propensities was the

^ The Mongols were a people of central Asia, whose famous leader, Jcnghiz Khan (i 162-1227), established an empire which stretched from the China Sea to the banks of the Dnieper. It was these Mongols who drove the Ottoman Turks from their original Asiatic home and thus precipitated the Turkish invasion of Europe. After the death of Jenghiz Klian the Mongol Empire was broken into a variety of "khanates," all of which in course of time dwindled away. In the sixteenth century the Mongols north of the Black Sea succumbed to the Turks as well as to the Russians.

- Ivan IV (i 533-1584), called "The Terrible," a successor of Ivan III, assumed the title of "Tsar" in 1547.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 23

kingdom of Hungary, which an invasion of Asiatic tribesmen ^ in the tenth century had driven hke a wedge between the Slavs of the Balkan peninsula and those of the north — Hungary Poles and Russians. At first, the efforts of such kings *° ^5°° as St. Stephen (997-1038) proinised the development of a great state, but the weakness of the sovereigns in the thirteenth cen- tury, the infiltration of western feudalism, and the endless civil discords brought to the front a powerful and predatory class of barons who ultimately overshadowed the throne. The brilliant reign of Matthias Hunyadi (1458-1490) was but an exception to the general rule. Not only were the kings obliged to struggle against the nobles for their very existence — the crown was elective in Hungary — but no rulers had to contend with more or greater enemies on their frontiers. To the north there was perpetual conflict with the Habsburgs of German Austria and with the forces of the Holy Roman Empire ; to the east there were spasmodic quarrels with the Vlachs, the natives of modern Rumania ; to the south there was continual fighting, at first with the Greeks and the Slavs — Serbs and Bulgars, and later, most terrible of all, with the Ottoman Turks.

To the Eastern Roman Empire, with Constantinople as its capital, and with the Greeks as its dominant population, and to the medieval kingdoms of the Bulgars and Serbs, had succeeded by the year 1500 the empire of the Otto- ottomaa man Turks. The Ottoman Turks were a tribe of 7"rks Asiatic Mohammedans who took their name from a certain Othman (died 1326), under whom they had established themselves in Asia Minor, across the Bosphorus from Con- stantinople. Thence they rapidly extended their dominion over Syria, and over Greece and the Balkan peninsula, except the Httle mountain state of Montenegro, and in 1453 they cap- tured Constantinople. The lands conquered by the arms of the Turks were divided into large estates for the miHtary leaders, or else assigned to the maintenance of mosques and schools, or converted into common and pasturage lands ; the conquered Christians were reduced to the payment of tribute and a life of serfdom. For two centuries the Turks were to remain a source of grave apprehension to Europe.

^ Hungarians, or Magyars — different names for the same people.

24 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

ADDITIONAL READINGS

The National Monarchies about 1500. A. F. Pollard, Factors in Eiiro- pean History (1907), ch. i on " Nationality " and ch. iii on " The New Monarchy " ; Cambridge Modern History, Vol. I, ch. xiv, xii, xi ; Histoire generate, Vol. IV, ch. xiii, iv, v ; History of AllNations, Vol. X, ch. xii-xvi ; A. H. Johnson, Europe in the Sixteenth Century (1897), ch. i, ii ; Mary A. Hollings, Renaissance and Reformation (1910), ch. i-v. On England: A. L. Cross, History of England and Greater Britain (1914), ch. xviii ; J. F. Bright, History of England, Vol. II, a standard work ; James Gairdner, Henry VII (1889), a reliable short biography; Gladys Temperley, Henry VII (1914), fairly reliable and quite readable; H. A. L. Fisher, Political History of England 1485-154'/ (1906), ch. i-iv, brilliant and scholarly ; A. D. Innes, History of England and the British Empire (19 14), Vol. II, ch. i, ii ; William Cunningham, The Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern Times, 5th ed., 3 vols. (1910-1912), Vol. I, Book V valuable for social conditions under Henry VII ; William (Bishop) Stubbs, Lectures on Mcdiceval and Modern History, ch. xv, xvi ; F. W. Maitland, The Constitutional History of England (1908), Period II. On Scotland: P. H. Brown, History of Scotland, 3 vols. (1899-1909), Vol. I from earliest times to the middle of the sixteenth century ; Andrew Lang, A History of Scotland, 2d ed., 4 vols. (1901-1907), Vol. I. On France: A. J. Grant, The French Monarchy, I48j~iy8g, 2 vols. (1900), Vol. I, ch. i, ii, brief and general ; G. B. Adams, The Growth of the French Nation (1896), ch. viii-x, a suggestive sketch ; G. W. Kitchin, A History of France, 4th ed., 3 vols. ( 1 894-1 899), Vol. I and Vol. II (in part), dry and narrowly political; Lavisse (editor), Histoire de France, Vol. V, Part I (1903), an exhaustive and scholarly study. On Spain and Portugal : E. P. Cheyney, European Background of American History (1904), pp. 60-103; U. R. Burke, A History of Spain from the Earliest Times to the Death of Ferdinand the Catholic, 2d ed., 2 vols. (1900), edited by M. A. S. Hlime, Vol. II best account of the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella ; W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, 3 vols. (1836), antiquated but ex- tremely readable; Mrs. Julia Cartwright, Isabella the Catholic (1914), in "Heroes of the Nations" Series; H. M. Stephens, Portugal (1891) in " Story of the Nations " Series ; F. W. Schirrmacher, Geschichte von Spanien, 7 vols. (1902), an elaborate German work, of which Vol. VII covers the years 1492-1516.

The Holy Roman Empire. Cambridge Modern History, Vol. I (1902), ch. ix, a political sketch; James (Viscount) Bryce, The Holy Roman Em- pire, new ed. revised (191 1) ; WUliam Coxe, History of the House of Austria, Bohn edition, 4 vols. (1893-1894), a century-old work but still useful for Habsburg history; Sidney Whitman, Austria (1899), and, by the same author. The Realm of the Habsburgs (1893) ; Kurt Kascr, Deutsche Ge- schichte zur Zeit Maximilians I, 1486-15 ig (191 2), an excellent study ap- pearing in " Bibliothek dcutscher Geschichte," edited by Von Zwicdineck-

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 25

Siidenhorst ; Franz Krones, Handbuch der Gcschichtc Ocstcrreichs von der dltestcn Zcit, 5 vols, (i 876-1 S79), of which Vol. II, Book XI treats of political events in Austria from 1493 to 1526 and Vol. Ill, Book XII of constitu- tional development 1 100-1526; Leopold von Rankc, History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations, 1494-1514, a rev. trans, in the Bohn Library (191 5) of the earliest important work of this distinguished historian, published originally in 1824.

Italy and the City-States. Cambridge Modern History, Vol. I (1902), ch. iv-viii; Hisloirc generalc, Vol. IV, ch. i, ii ; Mrs. H. M. Vernon, Ualy from I4g4 to ijgo (1909), a clear account in the " Cambridge Historical Series"; J. A. Symonds, Age of the Despots (1883), pleasant but inclined to the picturesque ; Pompeo Molmenti, Venice, its Individual Growth from the Earliest Beginnings to the Fall of the Republic, trans, by H. F. Brown, 6 vols. (1906-1908), an exhaustive narrative of the details of Vene- tian history ; Edward Armstrong, Lorenzo de' Medici (1897), in the " Heroes of the Nations " Series, valuable for Florentine history about 1500; Col. G. F. Young, The Medici, 2 vols. (1909), an extended history of this famous Florentine family from 1400 to 1743 ; Ferdinand Gregorovius, History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, trans, from 4th German ed. by Annie Hamilton, 8 vols, in 13, a non-Catholic account of the papal monarchy in Italy, of which Vol. VII, Part II and Vol. VIII, Part I treat of Rome about 1500. For the city-states of the Netherlands see Cambridge Modern His- tory, \'ol. I (1902), ch. xiii; the monumental History of the People of the Netherlands, by the distinguished Dutch historian P. J. Blok, trans, by O. A. Bierstadt, 5 vols. (189S-1912), especially Vols. I and II; and Belgian Democracy : its Early History, trans, by J. \'. Saunders (191 5) from the authoritative work of the famous Belgian historian Henri Pirenne (1910). For the German city-states see references under Holy Roman Empire above.

Northern and Eastern Europe about 1500. General : Cambridge Modern History, Vol. I (1902), ch. x, iii; Hisloirc generale. Vol. IV, ch . xviii-xxi ; R. N. Bain, Slavonic Europe: a Political History of Poland and Russia from 1447 to lygd (1908), ch. i-iv; T. Schiemann, Russland, Polen, und Livland bis ins i/^ Jahrhundert, 2 vols. (18S6-1887). Norway: H. H. Boyesen, The History of Norway (1886), a brief popular account in " Story of the Nations" Series. Muscovy: \^ O. Kliuchevsky, A History of Russia, trans, with some abridgments by C. J. Hogarth, 3 vols, to close of seventeenth century (1911-1913), latest and, despite faulty translation, most authoritative work on early Russian history now available in English ; Alfred Rambaud, Histoire de la Russie depuis les origines jusqu^a nos jours, 6th ed. completed to 1913 by Emile Haumant (1914), a brilliant work, of which the portion down to 1877 has been trans, by Leonora B. Lang, 2 vols. (1879) ; W. R. A. MorfiU, Russia, in " Story of the Nations " Series, and Poland, a companion volume in the same series. See also Jeremiah Curtin, The Mongols: a History (1908). For the Magyars: C. M. Knatchbull- Hugessen, The Political Evolution of the Hungarian Nation, 2 vols. (1908),

26 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

especially Vol. I, ch. i-iii; A. Vambery, The Story of Hungary (1886) in " Story of the Nations " Series ; Count Julius Andrassy, The Development of Hungarian Constitutional Liberty, trans, by C. Arthur and Ilona Ginever (1908), the views of a contemporary Magyar statesman on the constitu- tional development of his country throughout the middle ages and down to 1619, difficult to read. For the Ottoman Turks and the Balkan peoples: Stanley Lane-Poole, Turkey (1889), in " Story of the Nations " Series, best brief introduction ; A. H. Lybyer, The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Magnificent (1913) ; Prince and Princess Lazarovich-Hrebelianovich, The Servian People, their Past Glory and their Destiny, 2 vols. (1910), particularly Vol. II, ch. xi, xii ; far more pretentious works are Joseph von Hammer, Geschichtc des osmanischen Reiches, 2d ed., 4 vols. (1834-1835), and Nicolae Jorga, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches nach den Quellcn dargestcllt, 5 vols. (1908-1913), especially Vol. II, 1451- 1538, and H. A. Gibbons, The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire (1916), covering the earlier years, from 1300 to 1403.

CHAPTER II

THE COMMERCIAL REVOLUTION

Five hundred years ago a European could search in vain the map of "the world" for America, or Austraha, or the Pacific Ocean. Experienced mariners, and even learned introduc- geographers, were quite unaware that beyond the ^°^y Western Sea lay two great continents peopled by red men ; of Africa they knew only the northern coast ; and in respect of Asia a thousand absurd tales passed current. The unexplored waste of waters that constituted the Atlantic Ocean was, to many ignorant Europeans of the fifteenth century, a terrible region frequented by fierce and fantastic monsters. To the average European the countries surveyed in the preceding chapter, together with their Mohammedan neighbors across the Mediterranean, still comprised the entire known world.

Shortly before the close of the fifteenth century, daring captains began to direct long voyages on the high seas and to discover the existence of new lands ; and from that time to the present, Europeans have been busily exploring and conquering — veritably "Europeanizing" — the whole globe. Although religion as well as commerce played an important role in pro- moting the process, the movement was attended from the very outset by so startling a transformation in the routes, methods, and commodities of trade that usually it has been styled the Commercial Revolution. By the close of the sixteenth century it had proceeded far enough to indicate that its results would rank among the most fateful events of all history.

It was in the commonplace affairs of everyday life that the Commercial Revolution was destined to produce its most far- reaching results. To appreciate, therefore, its true nature and significance, we must first turn aside to ascertain how our European ancestors actually lived about the year 1500, and

27

28 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

what work they did to earn their Hving. Then, after recount- ing the story of foreign exploration and colonization, we shall be in a position to reappraise the domestic situation in town and on the farm.

AGRICULTURE IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

Agriculture has always been the ultimate basis of society, but in the sixteenth century it was of greater relative importance _.^ than it is now. People then reckoned their wealth,

Oiftcrcnccs

between not by the cjuantity of stocks and bonds they held, Sixteenth- j^^j- j^y ^\-^q extent of land they owned. Farming

century -hi • r i • • r i

Farming was Still the occupation 01 the vast majority oi the ^?T^!i^* population of every European state, for the towns were as yet small in size and few in number. The "masses" lived in the country, not, as to-day, in the city.

A twentieth-century observer would be struck by other peculiarities of sixteenth-century agriculture. He would find a curious organization of rural society, strange theories of land- ownership, and most unfamiliar methods of tillage. He would discover, moreover, that practically each farm was self-sufficing, producing only what its own occupants could consume, and that consequently there was comparatively little external trade in farm produce. From these facts he would readily under- stand that the rural communities in the year 1500, numerous yet isolated, were invulnerable strongholds of conservatism and ignorance.

In certain respects a remarkable uniformity prevailed in rural districts throughout all Europe. Whether one visited j^Q Germany, Hungary, France, or England, one was

Rural sure to find the agricultural population sharply

NobUity divided into two social classes — nobility and peas- and antry. There might be varying gradations of these

Peasantry (^jg^gggg [^ different regions, but certain general dis- tinctions everywhere prevailed.

The nobility ' comprised men who gained a living from the

^ As a part of the nobility must he included at the opening of the sixteenth century many of the hif,dier clerj^y of the Catholic Church — archbishops, bishops, and abbots — who owned large landed estates quite like their lay brethren.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 29

soil without manual labor. They held the land on feudal ten- ure, that is to say, they had a right to be supported by the peasants living on their estates, and, in return, they The owed to some higher or wealthier nobleman or to the Nobility king certain duties, such as fighting for him,^ attending his court at specified times, and paying him various irregular taxes (the feudal dues). The estate of each nobleman might embrace a single farm, or ^' manor" as it was called, inclosing a petty hamlet, or village ; or it might include dozens of such manors ; or, if the landlord were a particularly mighty magnate or powerful prelate, it might stretch over whole counties.

Each nobleman had his manor-house or, if he were rich enough, his castle, lording it over the humble thatch-roofed cottages of the villagers. In his stables were spirited horses and a car- riage adorned with his family crest ; he had servants and lackeys, a footman to open his carriage door, a game-warden to keep poachers from shooting his deer, and men-at-arms to quell disturbances, to aid him against quarrelsome neighbors, or to follow him to the wars. While he lived, he might occupy the best pew in the village church ; when he died, he would be laid to rest %vithin the church where only noblemen were buried.

In earUer times, when feudal society was young, the nobility had performed a very real service as the defenders of the peasants against foreign enemies and likewise against marauders Reason and bandits of whom the land had been full. Then for the fighting had been the profession of the nobility. nenc™of And to enable them to possess the expensive accoutre- the No- ments of fighting — horses, armor, swords, and lances ^ ^ — the kings and the peasants had assured them liberal incomes.

Now, however, at the opening of the sixteenth century, the palmy days of feudalism were past and gone. Later genera- tions of noblemen, although they continued by right of in- heritance to enjoy the financial income and the social prestige which their forbears had earned, no longer served king, country, or common people in the traditional manner. At least in the national monarchies it was the king who now had undertaken the defense of the land and the preservation of peace ; and the

^ This obligation rested only upon lay noblemen, not upon ecclesiastics.

30 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

nobleman, deprived of his old occupation, had little else to do than to hunt, or quarrel with other noblemen, or engage in political intrigues. More and more the nobility, especially in France, were attracted to a life of amusement and luxury in the royal court. The nobility already had outlived its usefulness, yet it retained its old-time privileges.

In striking contrast to the nobility — the small minority of land-owning aristocrats — were the peasantry — the mass The of the people. They were the human beings who had

Peasantry ^q ^qQ fgj- their bread in the sweat of their brows and who were deemed of ignoble birth, as social inferiors, and as stupid and rude. Actual farm work was "servile labor," and between the man whose hands were stained by servile labor and the person of "gentle birth" a wide gulf was fixed.

During the early middle ages most of the peasants through- out Europe were "serfs." For various reasons, which we shall „ ,, explain presently, serfdom had tended gradually to

Serfdom . / -^ ^ . ;

and the die out m western Europe, but at the openmg of the Manorial sixteenth century most of the agricultural laborers in eastern and central Europe, and even a consider- able number in France, were still serfs, living and working on nobles' manors in accordance with ancient customs which can be described collectively as the "manorial system."

The serf occupied a position in rural society which it is difficult for us to understand. Fie was not a slave, such as was usual in the Southern States of the American Union before the Civil War ; he was neither a hired man nor a rent-paying tenant- farmer, such as is common enough in all agricultural communi- ties nowadays. The serf was not a slave, because he was free !, to work for himself at least part of the time ; he could not be isold to another master ; and he could not be deprived of the right to cultivate land for his own benefit. He was not a hired man, for he received no wages. And he was not a tenant- farmer, inasmuch as he was "attached to the soil," that is, he was bound to stay and work on his land, unless he succeeded in running away or in purchasing complete freedom, in which case he would cease to be a serf and would become a freeman.

To the lord of the manor the serf was under many and varied obligations, the most essential of which may be grouped con-

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 31

veniently as follows: (i) The serf had to work without pay two or three days in each week on the strips of land and the fields whose produce belonged exclusively to the

, , XII II Obligations

nobleman. In the harvest season extra days, known of the as "boon-days," were stipulated on which the serf Serf to the must leave his own work in order to harvest for the lord. He also might be called upon in emergencies to draw a cord of wood from the forest to the great manor-house, or to work upon the highway {corvee). (2) The serf had to pay occasional dues, customarily "in kind." Thus at certain feast-days he was expected to bring a dozen fat fowls or a bushel of grain to the pantry of the manor-house. (3) Ovens, wine-presses, grist- mills, and bridges were usually owned solely by the noble- man, and each time the peasant used them he was obliged to give one of his loaves of bread, a share of his wine, a bushel of his grain, or a toll-fee, as a kind of rent, or "banality" as it was euphoniously styled. (4) If the serf died without heirs, his hold- ings were transferred outright to the lord, and if he left heirs, the nobleman had the rights of "heriot," that is, to appropriate the best animal owned by the deceased peasant, and of "relief," that is, to oblige the designated heir to make a definite additional pa>Tnent that was equivalent to a kind of inheritance tax.

As has been intimated, the manorial system was already on a steady decline, especially in western Europe, at the opening of the sixteenth century. A goodly number of peasants who Free- had once been serfs were now free-tenants, lessees, or Tenants hired laborers. Of course rent of farm-land in our present sense — each owner of the land letting out his property to a tenant and, in return, exacting as large a monetary payment as possible — was then unknown. But there was a growing class of peasants who were spoken of as free-tenants to dis- tinguish them from serf-tenants. These free-tenants, while paying regular dues, as did the others, were not compelled to work two or three days every week in the lord's fields, except occasionally in busy seasons such as harvest ; they were free to leave the estate and to marry ofT their daughters or to sell their oxen without the consent of the lord ; and they came to regard their customary payments to the lord not so much as his due for their protection as actual rent for their land.

~¥

32 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

While more prosperous peasants were becoming free-tenants, many of their poorer neighl^ors found it so difficult to gain a Hired Hving as serfs that they were willing to surrender all

Laborers claim to their own little strips of land on the manor and to devote their whole time to working for fixed wages on the fields which were cultivated for the nobleman himself, the so- called lord's demesne. Thus a body of hired laborers grew up claiming no land beyond that on which their miserable huts stood and possibly their small garden-plots.

Besides hired laborers and free-tenants, a third group of peasants appeared in places where the noble proprietor did not care to superintend the cultivation of his own land. In this case he parceled it out among particular peasants, furnishing each with livestock and a plow and ex- pecting in return a fixed proportion of the crops, which in France usually amounted to one-half. Peasants who made such a bargain were called in France metayers, and in England "stock- and-land lessees." The arrangement was not different essen- tially from the familiar present-day practice of working a farm "on shares."

In France and in England the serfs had mostly become hired laborers, tenants, or metayers by the sixteenth century. The steady ^^^ obligations of serfdom had proved too galhng for

Decline of the serf and too unprofitable for the lord. It was Serfdom Yiwich. easier and cheaper for the latter to hire men to work just when he needed them, than to bother with serfs, who could not be discharged readily for slackness, and who naturally worked for themselves far more zealously than for him. For this reason many landlords were glad to allow their serfs to make payments in money or in grain in lieu of the per- formance of customary labor. In England, moreover, many lords, finding it profitable to inclose ^ their land in order to uti- lize it as pasturage for sheep, voluntarily freed their serfs. The I result was that serfdom virtually had disappeared in England jbefore the sixteenth century. In France as early as the four- teenth century the bulk of the serfs had purchased their liberty,

^ There were no fences on the old manors. Inclosing a plot of ground meant fencing or hedging it in.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 33

although in a few districts serfdom remained in its 'pristine vigor until the French Revolution.

In other countries agricultural conditions were more back- ward and serfdom longer survived. Prussian and Austrian landowners retained their serfs until the nineteenth century ; the emancipation of Russian serfs on a large scale was not in- augurated until 186 1. There are still survivals of serfdom in parts of eastern Europe.

Emancipation from serfdom by no means released the peasants from all the disabihties under which they labored as serfs. True, the freeman no longer had week-work to do, survival provided he could pay for his time, and in theory of Servile at least he could marry as he chose and move freely after^^^'°°^ from place to place. But he might still be called Decline upon for an occasional day's labor, he still was ex- ° ^^ °™ pected to work on the roads, and he still had to pay annoying fees for oven, mill, and wine-press. Then, too, his own crops might be eaten with impunity by doves from the noble dove- cote or trampled underfoot by a merry hunting-party from the manor-house. The peasant himself ventured not to hunt : he was precluded even from shooting the deer that devoured his garden. Certain other customs prevailed in various locali- ties, conceived originally no doubt in a spirit of good-natured familiarity between noble and peasants, but now grown irritat- ing if none the less humorous. It is said, for instance, that in some places newly married couples were compelled to vault the wall of the churchyard, and that on certain nights the peasants were obliged to beat the castle ditch in order to rest the lord's family from the dismal croaking of the frogs.

In another important respect the manorial system survived long after serfdom had begun to decline. This was the method of doing farm work. A universal and insistent tradi- tion had fixed agricultural method on the medieval ^^ « xjn-ee- manor and tended to preserve it unaltered well into field Sys- , modern times. The tradition was that of the " three- Agriculture held system" of agriculture. The land of the manor, I'l which might vary in amount from a few hundred to five thousand acres, was not divided up into farms of irregular shape and size, as it would be now. The waste-land, which could be used

34 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

only for pasture, and the woodland on the outskirts of the clear- ing, were treated as "commons," that is to say, each villager, as well as the lord of the manor, might freely gather fire-wood, or he might turn his swine loose to feed on the acorns in the forest and his cattle to graze over the entire pasture. The cultivable or arable land was divided into several — usually three — great grain fields. Ridges or "balks" of unplowed turf divided each field into long parallel strips, which were I' usually forty rods or a furlong (furrow-long) in length, and from one to four rods wide. Each peasant had exclusive right to one or more of these strips in each of the three great fields, making, say, thirty acres in all;^ the lord too had individual right to a number of strips in the great fields.

This so-called three-field system of agriculture Vv^as distinctly disadvantageous in many ways. Much time was wasted in Disad- goii^g back and forth between the scattered plots of

vantages land. The individual peasant, moreover, was bound field Sys- ^Y custom to Cultivate his land precisely as his an- tem of cestors had done, without attempting to introduce

gncu ure ji-Qprovements. He grew the same crops as his

1\ neighbors — usually wheat in one field ; beans, barley, or rye I in the second ; and nothing in the third. Little was known about preserving the fertility of the soil by artificial manuring or by rotation of crops ; and, although every year one-third of the land was left "fallow" (uncultivated) in order to restore its fertility, the yield per acre was hardly a fourth as large as now. Farm implements were of the crudest kind ; scythes and sickles did the work of mowing machines ; plows were made of wood, occasionally shod with iron ; and threshing was done with flails. After the grain had been harvested, cattle were turned out indiscriminately on the stubble, on the supposi- tion that the fields were common property. It was useless to attempt to breed fine cattle when all were herded together. The breed deteriorated, and both cattle and sheep were under- sized and poor. A full-grown ox was hardly larger than a good- sized calf of the present time. Moreover, there were no potatoes

^ In some localities it was usual to redistribute these strips every year. In that way the greater part of the manor was theoretically "common " land, and no peasant had a right of private ownership to any one strip.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 35

or turnips, and few farmers grew clover or other grasses for 7 winter fodder. It was impossible, therefore, to keep many cattle through the winter ; most of the animals were killed off in the autumn and salted down for the long winter months when it was impossible to secure fresh meat.

Crude farm-methods and the heavy dues exacted by the lord ^ of the manor must have left the poor man little for him- self. Compared with the comfort of the farmer to- peasant day, the poverty of sixteenth-century peasants must Life on have been inexpressibly distressful. How keenly the ^ ^^°^ cold pierced the dark huts of the poorest, is hard for us to imagine. The winter diet of salt meat, the lack of vegetables, the chronic fJth and squalor, and the sorry ignorance of all laws of health opened the way to disease and contagion. And if the crops failed, famine was added to plague.

On the other hand we must not forget that the tenement- houses of our great cities have been crowded in the nineteenth century with people more miserable than ever was serf of the middle ages. The serf, at any rate, had the open air instead of a factory in which to work. When times were good, he had grain and meat in plenty, and possibly wine or cider, and he hardly envied the tapestried chambers, the bejeweled clothes, and the spiced foods of the nobility, for he looked upon them as belonging to a different world.

In one place nobleman and peasant met on a common foot- ing — in the village church. There, on Sundays and feast- days, they came together as Christians to hear Mass ; and afterwards, perhaps, holiday games and dancing on the green, benignantly patronized by the lord's family, helped the common folk to forget their labors. The village priest,^ himself often of humble birth, though the most learned man on the manor, was at once the friend and benefactor of the poor and the spirit-

^ In addition to the dues paid to the lay lord, the peasants were under obliga- tion to make a regular contribution to the church, which was called the "tithe" and amounted to a share, less than a tenth, of the annual crops.

2 Usually very different from the higher clergy, who had large landed estates of their own, the parish priests had but modest incomes from the tithes of their parishioners and frequently eked out a living by toiling on allotted patches of ground. The monks too were ordinarily poor, although the monastery might be wealthy, and they likewise often tilled the fields.

36 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

ual director of the lord. Occasionally a visit of the bishop to administer confirmation to the children, afforded an opportunity for gayety and universal festivity.

At other times there was little to disturb the monotony of

village life and little to remind it of the outside world, except

when a gossiping peddler chanced along, or when the

Isolation squire rode away to court or to war. Intercourse

and Con- with Other villages was unnecessary, unless there were

servatism i i i • i -n i rr^ i

no blacksmith or miller on the spot. Ihe roads were poor and in wet weather impassable. Travel was largely on horseback, and what few commodities were carried from place to place were transported by pack-horses. Only a few old soldiers, and possibly a priest, had traveled very much ; they were the only geographies and the only books of travel which the village possessed, for few peasants could read or write.

Self -sufficient and secluded from the outer world, the rural village went on treasuring its traditions, keeping its old customs, century after century. The country instinctively distrusted all novelties ; it always preferred old ways to new ; it was heartily conservative. Country-folk did not discover America. It was the enterprise of the cities, with their growing industries and commerce, which brought about the Commercial Revolu- tion; and to the development of commerce, industry, and the towns, we now must turn our attention.

TOWNS ON THE EVE OF THE COMMERCIAL REVOLUTION

Except for the wealthy Italian city-states and a few other cities which traced their history back to Roman times, most Trade and European towns, it must be remembered, dated only the Towns from the later middle ages. At first there was little excuse for their existence except to sell to farmers salt, tish, iron, and a few plows. But with the increase of commerce, Y which, as we shall see, especially marked the thirteenth, four- y Uteenth, and fifteenth centuries, more merchants traveled through the country, ways of spending money multiplied, and the little agricultural villages learned to look on the town as the place to buy not only luxuries but such tools, clothing, and shoes as could be manufactured more conveniently by skillful town

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 37

artisans than by clumsy rustics. The towns, moreover, became exchanges where surpkis farm products could be marketed, where wine could be bartered for wool, or wheat for flax. And as the towns grew in size, the prosperous citizens proved to be the best customers for foreign luxuries, and foreign trade grew apace. Town, trade, and industry thus worked together : trade stimulated industry, industry assisted trade, and the town profited by both. By the sixteenth century the towns had grm\;njout of their infancy and were maintaining a great measure of political and economic freedom.

Urlgnially many a town had belonged to some nobleman's extensive manor and its inhabitants had been under much the same servile obligations to the lord as were the strictly Freedom rural serfs. But w^ith the lapse of time and the of the growth of the towns, the townsmen or burghers had "^"^^ begun a struggle for freedom from their feudal lords. They did not want to pay servile dues to a baron, but preferred to substitute a fixed annual payment for individual obhgations; they besought the right to manage their market ; they wished to have cases at law tried in a court of their own rather than in the feudal court over which the nobleman presided ; and they demanded the right to pay all taxes in a lump sum for the town, themselves assessing and collecting the share of each citizen. These concessions they eventually had won, Town and each city had its cHafter7 in which its privileges Charters were enumerated and recognized by the authority of the noble- man, or of the king, to whom the city owed allegiance. In England these charters had been acquired generally by mer- chant gilds, upon payment of a substantial sum to the nobleman ; in France frequently the townsmen had formed associations, called communes, and had rebelled successfully against their feudal lords ; in Germany the cities had leagued together for mutual protection and for the acquisition of common privileges. Other towns, formerly founded by bishops, abbots, or counts, had received charters at the very outset.

A peculiar outgrowth of the need for protection against oppressive feudal lords, as well as against thieves. Merchant swindlers, and dishonest workmen, had been the ^^^^^ t}^ically urban organization known as the merchant gild or the

38 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

merchants' company. In the year 1500 the merchant gilds were everywhere on the dechne, but they still preserved many of their earlier and more glorious traditions. At the time of their greatest importance they had embraced merchants, butchers, bakers, and candlestick-makers : in fact, all who bought or sold in the town were included in the gild. And the merchant gild had then possessed the widest functions.

Its social and rehgious functions, inherited from much earlier Earlier bodies, Consisted in paying some special honor to

Functions a patron saint, in giving aid to members in sick- Merchant ^^^^ ^^ misfortune, attending funerals, and also in GUd: the more enjoyable meetings when the freely flow-

ing bowl enlivened the transaction of gild business.

As a protective organization, the gild had been particularly

effective. Backed by the combined forces of all the gildsmen,

it was able to assert itself against the lord who claimed

Protective . , . ^ , . . ,

manorial rights over the town, and to insist that a

\ I runaway serf who had lived in the town for a year and a day Ijshould not be dragged back to perform his servile labor on the manor, but should be recognized as akfreeinanT, The protection of the gild was accorded also to townsmen on their travels. In those days all strangers were regarded as suspicious persons, and not infrequently when a merchant of the gild traveled to another town he would be set upon and robbed or cast into prison. In such cases it was necessary for the gild to ransom the imprisoned "brother" and, if possible, to punish the persons who had done the injury, so that thereafter the liberties of the gild members would be respected. That the business of the gild might be increased, it was often desirable to enter into special arrangements with neighboring cities whereby the rights, lives, and properties of gildsmen were guaranteed ; and the gild as a whole was responsible for the debts of any of its members.

The most important duty of the gild had been the regulation of the home market. Burdensome restrictions were laid upon the stranger wjio attempted to utilize the advantages of the market without sharing the expense of main- tenance. No goods were allowed to be carried away from the city if the townsmen wished to buy ; and a tax, called in France

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 39

the oclroi, was levied on goods brought into the town.' Moreover, a conviction prevailed that the gild was morally bound to en- force honest straightforward methods of business ; and the "wardens" appointed by the gild to supervise the market endeavorecTTo prevent, as dishonest practices, "forestalling" (buying outside of the regular market), "engrossing" (cornering the market),^ and "regrating" (retailing at higher than market price). The dishonest green-grocer was not allowed to use a peck-measure with false bottom, for weighing and measuring were done by officials. Cheats were fined heavily and, if they persisted in their evil ways, they might be expelled from the gild.

These merchant gilds, with their social, protective, and regula- tive functions, had first begun to be important in the eleventh century. In England, where their growth was most rapid, 82 out of the total of 102 towns had merchant gilds by the end of the thirteenth century.^ On the Continent many towns, es- pecially in Germany, had quite different arrangements, and where merchant gilds existed, they were often exclusive and selfish groups of merchants in a single branch of business.

With the expansion of trade and industry in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the rule of the old merchant gilds, instead of keeping pace with the times, became op- Decline of pressive, limited, or merely nominal. Where the Merchant merchant gilds became oppressive oligarchical as- sociations, as they did in Germany and elsewhere on the Conti- nent, they lost their power by the revolt of the more democratic "craft gilds." In_England specialized control of industry and trade by craft_^ldsjourneymen's gilds, and dealers' associations gradually took the place of" the general supervision of the older rnercHanf gilJ. 'After suffering the loss of its vital functions, the merchant gild by the sixteenth century either quietly suc- cumbed or lived on with power in a limited branch of trade, or continued as an honorary organization w4th occasional feasts, or, and this was especially true in England, it became prac-

^ The octroi is still collected in Paris.

2 The idea that "combinations in restraint of trade" are wrong quite possibly goes back to this abhorrence of engrossing.

^ Several important places, such as London, Colchester, and Norwich, belonged to the small minority without merchant gilds.

40 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

tically identical with the town corporation, from which origi- nally it had been distinct.

Alongside of the merchant gilds, which had been associated with the growth of commerce and the rise of towns, were other J ^ . . gilds connected with the growth of industry, which the Craft retained their importance long after 1500. These ^^^^^ were the craft gilds.' Springing into prominence in

the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the craft gild some- times, as in Germany, voiced a popular revolt against corrupt .and oHgarchical merchant gilds, and sometimes — most fre- \quently so in England — worked quite harmoniously with the fnerchant gild, to which its own members belonged. In common with the merchant gild, the craft gild had religious and social aspects, and like the merchant gild it insisted on righteous deal- ings ; but unlike the merchant gild it was composed of men in a single industry, and it controlled in detail the manufacture as well as the marketing of commodities. There were bakers' gilds, brewers' gilds, smiths' gilds, saddlers' gilds, shoemakers' gilds, weavers' gilds, tailors' gilds, tanners' gilds, even gilds of masters of arts who constituted the teaching staff of colleges and universities.

When to-day we speak of a boy "serving his apprenticeship" in a trade, we seldom reflect that the expression is derived from a practice of the medieval craft gilds, a practice which survived after the gilds were extinct. Apprenticeship was designed to make sure that recruits to the trade were properly trained. The apprentice was usually selected as a boy by a master- workman and indentured — that is, bound to work several years without wages, while living at the master's house. After the expiration of this period of apprenticeship, during which he had learned his trade thoroughly, the youth became a 1 1" journeyman," and worked for wages, until he should finally iireceive admission to the gild as a master, with the right to set up his own little shop, with apprentices and journeymen of his own, and to sell his wares directly to those who used them.

This restriction of membership was not the only way in which the trade was supervised. The gild had rules specifying

' The craft gild was also called a comi)any, or a mistcry, or nu'iicr (French), or Zunjt (German).

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 41

the quality of materials to he used and often, likewise, the methods of manufacture; it might prohibit night- work, and it usually fixed a "fair price" at which goods were to be sold. By means of such provisions, enforced by wardens or inspectors, the gild not only perpetuated the "good old way" of doing things, but guaranteed to the purchaser a thoroughly good article at a fair price.

By the opening of the sixteenth century the craft gilds, though not so weakened as the merchant gilds, were suffering from various internal diseases which sapped their vitality, partial They tended to become exclusive and to direct their Decay of power and affluence in hereditary grooves. They ^^^^ ^^'^^ steadily raised their entrance fees and qualifications. Struggles between gilds in allied trades, such as spinning, weaving, fulling, and dyeing, often resulted in the reduction of several gilds to a dependent position. The regulation of the processes of manu- facture, once designed to keep up the standard of skill, came in time to be a powerful hindrance to technical improvements ; and in the method as well as in the amount of his work, the enterprising master found himself handicapped. Even the old conscientiousness often gave way to greed, until in many places inferior workmanship received the approval of the gild.

Many craft gilds exhibited in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries a tendency to split somewhat along the present lines of capital and labor. On the one hand the old gild organization would be usurped and controlled by the wealthi-er mastern workmen, called "livery men," because they wore rich uniforms,!' or a class of dealers would arise and organize a "mer- chants' company" to conduct a wholesale business in the products of a particular industry. Thus the rich drapers sold all the cloth, but did not help to make it. On the other hand it became increasingly dithcult for journeymen and apprentices to rise to the station of masters ; oftentimes they remained wage-earners for life. In order to better their condition they formed new associations, which in England were called journeymen's or yeomen's companies. These new organizations were sympto- matic of injustice but otherwise unimportant. The craft gilds, with all their imperfections, were to continue in power awhile longer, slowly giving away as new trades arose outside of their

42 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

control, gradually succumbing in competition with capitalists who refused to be bound by gild rules and who were to evolve a new ''domestic system," ^ and slowly suffering diminution of prestige through royal interference.

In the year 1500 the European towns displayed little uni- formity in government or in the amount of liberty they possessed. Life in the Somc wcrc petty republics subject only in a very vague Towns ^yg^y ^Q a^j^ extraneous potentate ; some merely paid

annual tribute to a lord ; some were administered by officers of a king or feudal magnate ; others were controlled by oligarchical commercial associations. But of the general appearance and life of sixteenth-century towns, it is possible to secure a more uniform notion.

It must be borne in mind that the towns were comparatively small, for the great bulk of people still lived in the country. A town of 5000 inhabitants was then accounted large ; and even the largest places, like Nuremberg, Strassburg, London, Paris, and Bruges, would have been only small cities in our eyes. The approach to an ordinary city of the time lay through sub- urbs, farms, and garden-plots, for the townsman still supple- mented industry with small-scale agriculture. Usually the town itself was inclosed by strong walls, and admission was to be gained only by passing through the gates, where one might be accosted by soldiers and forced to pay toll. Inside the walls were clustered houses of every description. Rising from the midst of tumble-down dwellings might stand a magnificent cathedral, town-hall, or gild building. Here and there a prosper- ous merchant would have his luxurious home, built in what we now call the Gothic style, with pointed windows and gables, and, to save space in a walled town, with the second story pro- jecting out over the street.

The streets were usually in deplorable condition. There might be one or two broad highways, but the rest were mere alleys, devious, dark, and dirty. Often their narrowness made them impassable for wagons. In places the pedestrian waded gallantly through mud and garbage; pigs grunted ponderously as he pushed them aside ; chickens ran under his feet ; and

' See Vol. II, ch. .xviii.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 43

occasionally a dead dog obstructed the way. There were no sidewalks, and only the main thoroughfares were paved. Dirt and tilth and refuse were ordinarily disposed of only when a heaven-sent rain washed them down the open gutters constructed along the middle, or on each side, of a street. Not only was there no general sewerage for the town, but there was likewise no public water supply. In many of the garden plots at the rear of the low-roofed dwellings were dug wells which provided water for the family ; and the visitor, before he left the town, would be likely to meet with water-sellers calling out their ware. To guard against the danger of fires, each municipality en- couraged its citizens to build their houses of stone and to keep a tub full of water before every building; and in each district a special official was equipped with a proper hook and cord for pulling down houses on lire. At night respectable town-life was practically at a standstill : the gates were shut ; the curfew sounded ; no street-lamps dispelled the darkness, except pos- sibly an occasional lantern which an altruistic or festive towns- man might hang in his front-window ; and no efficient poHce- force existed — merely a handful of townsmen were drafted from time to time as "watchmen" to preserve order, and the "night watch" was famed rather for its ability to sleep or to roister than to protect life or purse. Under these circumstances the citizen who would escape an assault by ruffians or thieves remained prudently indoors at night and retired early to bed. Picturesque and quaint the sixteenth-century town may have been ; but it was also an uncomfortable and an unhealthful place in which to live.

TRADE PRIOR TO THE COMMERCIAL REVOLUTION

Just as agriculture is the ultimate basis of human society, so town-life has always been an index of culture and civilization. And the fortunes of town-life have ever depended upon the vicissitudes of trade and commerce. So the reviving commerce of the later middle ages between Europe and the East meant the growth of cities and betokened an advance in civihzation.

Trade between Europe and Asia, which had been a feature of the antique world of Greeks and Romans, had been very

^

44 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

nearly destroyed by the barbarian invasions of the fifth cen- tury and by subsequent conflicts between Mohammedans and Christians, so that during several centuries the old

Revival of , ' , i , i r t

Trade trade-routes were traveled only by a few Jews and

with the Syrians. In the tenth century, however, a group of . towns in southern Italy — Brindisi, Bari, Taranto, and

IJAmalfi — began to send ships to the eastern Mediterranean and were soon imitated by Venice and later by Genoa and Pisa.

This revival of intercourse between the East and the West was well under way before the first Crusade, but the Crusades. (1095 1270) hastened the process. Venice, Genoa, and Pisa, on account of their convenient location, were called upon to furnish the crusaders with transportation and provisions, and their shrewd Italian citizens made certain that such ser\ices were well rewarded. Italian ships, plying to and from the Holy Land, grad- ually enriched their owners. Many Italian cities profited, but Venice secured the major share. It was during the Crusades that Venice gained numerous coastal districts and islands in the ^gean besides immunities and privileges in Constantinople, and thereby laid the foundation of her maritime empire.

The Crusades not only enabled Italian merchants to bring Eastern commodities to the West; they increased the demand for such commodities. Crusaders — pilgrims and adventurers — returned from the Holy Land with astonishing tales of the luxury and opulence of the East. Not infrequently they had acquired a taste for Eastern silks or spices during their stay in Asia Minor or Palestine; or they brought curious jewels^ stripped from fallen infidels to awaken the envy of the stay-at- homes. Wealth was rapidly increasing in Europe at this time, and the many well-to-do people who were eager to affect mag- nificence provided a ready market for the wares imported by Italian merchants.

It is desirable to note just what were these wares and why

they were demanded so insistently. First were spices, far more

important then than now. The diet of those times

Commodi- ^ . , , •,! , • ^ e

ties of was Simple and monotonous without our variety 01

Eastern vegetables and sauces and sweets, and the meat, if

fresh, was likely to be tough in fiber and strong in

flavor. Spices were the very thing to add zest to such a diet,

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 45

and without them the epicure of the sixteenth century would have been truly miserable. Ale and wine, as well as meats, were spiced, and pepper was eaten separately as a delicacy>^ No wonder that, although the rich alone could 1)U\- it, the Vene- tians were able annually to dispose of 420,000 pounds of pepper, which they purchased from the sultan of Eg}pt, to whom it was brought, after a hazardous journey, from the pepper vines of Ceylon, Sumatra, or western India. From the same regions came cimiampn-Bark ; ginger was a product of Arabia, India, and China ; and nutmegs, cloves, and allspice^ grew only in the far-off Spicelslands of the Malay Archipelago.

Precious stones were then, as always, in demand for personal adornment as^well as for the decoration of shrines and eccle- siastical vestments ; and in the middle ages they were thought by many to possess magical qualities which rendered them doubly valuable.^ The supply of diamonds, rubies, pearls, and other precious stones was then almost exclusively from Persia, India, and Ceylon.

Other miscellaneous products of the East were in great demand for various purposes : camphor and cubebs from Sumatra and Borneo ; musk from China ; cane-sugar from Arabia and Persia ; indigo, sandal-wood, and aloes-wood from India; and alum from Asia Minor.

The East was not only a treasure-house of spices, jewels, valuable goods, and medicaments, but a factory of marvelously delicate goods and wares which the West could not rival — glass, porcelain, silks, satins, rugs, tapestries, and metal-work. iTie tradition of Asiatic supremacy in these manufactures has been preserved to our own day in such familiar names as damask linen, china-ware, japanned ware, Persian rugs, and cashmere shawls.

1 Medieval literature is full of this idea. Thus we read in the book of travel which has borne the name of Sir John Maundeville :

" And if you Tvish to know the virtues of the diamond, I shall tell you, as they that are beyond the seas say and affirm, from whom all science and philosophy comes. He who carries the diamond upon him, it gives him hardiness and manhood, and it keeps the limbs of his body whole. It gives him \actory over his enemies, in court and in war, if his cause be just ; and it keeps him that bears it in good wit ; and it keeps him from strife and riot, from sorrows and enchantments, and from fantasies and illusions of wicked spirits. . . . [It] heals him that is lunatic, and those whom the fiend torments or pursues."

46 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

In exchange for the manifold products of the East, Europe had only rough woolen cloth, arsenic, antimony, quicksilver, tin, copper, lead, and coral to give; and a balance, therefore, always existed for the European merchant to pay in gold and silver, with the result that gold and silver coins grew scarce in the West. It is hard to say what would have happened had not a new supply of the precious metals been discovered in America. But we are anticipating our story.

Nature has rendered intercourse between Europe and Asia exceedingly difficult by reason of a vast stretch of almost im- Orientai passable waste, extending from the bleak plains on Trade- either side of the Ural hills down across the steppes

Routes ^£ Turkestan and the desert of Arabia to the great

sandy Sahara. Through the few gaps in this desert barrier V^ have led from early times the avenues of trade. In the fifteenth century three main trade-routes — a central, a southern, and a northern — precariously linked the two continents.

(i) The central trade-route utilized the valley of the Tigris River. Goods from China, from the Spice Islands, and from India were brought by odd native craft from point to point along the coast to Ormuz, an important city at the mouth of the Persian Guff, thence to the mouth of the Tigris, and up the valley to Bagdad. From Bagdad caravans journeyed either to Aleppo and Antioch on the northeastern corner of the Mediter- ranean, or across the desert to Damascus and the ports on the Syrian coast. Occasionally caravans detoured southward to Cairo and Alexandria in Egypt. Whether at Antioch, JafTa, \x0r Alexandria, the caravans met the masters of Venetian ships \lready to carry the cargo to Europe.

(2) The southern route was by the Red Sea. Arabs sailed their ships from India and the Far East across the Indian Ocean and into the Red Sea, whence they transferred their cargoes to caravans which completed the trip to Cairo and Alexandria. By taking advantage of monsoons, — the favorable winds which blew steadily in certain seasons, — the skipper of a merchant vessel could make the voyage from India to Egypt in somewhat less than three months. It was often possible to shorten the time by landing the cargoes at Ormuz and thence dispatching them by caravan across the desert of Arabia to Mecca, and so

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 47

to the Red Sea, but caravan travel was sometimes slower and always more hazardous than sailing.

(3) The so-called "northern route" was rather a system of routes leading in general from the "back doors" of India and China to the Black Sea. Caravans from India and China met at Samarkand and Bokhara, two famous cities on the west- em slope of the Tian-Shan Mountains. West of Bokhara the route branched out. Some caravans went north of the Caspian, through Russia to Novgorod and the Baltic. Other caravans passed through Astrakhan, at the mouth of the Volga River, and terminated in ports on the Sea of Azov. Still others skirted the shore of the Caspian Sea, passing through Tabriz and Armenia to Trebizond on the Black Sea.

The transportation of goods from the Black Sea and eastern Mediterranean was largely in the hands of the Italian cities,^ especially Venice, Genoa, Pisa, and Florence, although Marseilles and Barcelona had a small share. From Italy trade-routes led through the passes of the Alps to all parts of Europe. German merchants from Nuremberg, Augsburg, Ulm, Regensburg, and Constance purchased Eastern commodities in the markets of Venice, and sent them back to the Germanics, to England, and to the Scandinavian countries. After the lapse of many months, and even years, since the time when spices had been packed first in the distant Moluccas, they would be exposed finally for sale at the European fairs or markets to which thousands of country- folk resorted. There a nobleman's steward could lay in a year's supply of condiments, or a peddler could fill his pack with silks and ornaments to delight the eyes of the ladies in many a lonesome castle.

Within Europe commerce gradually extended its scope in spite of the almost insuperable difficulties. The roads were still so miserable that wares had to be carried on Difficulties pack-horses instead of in wagons. Frequently the of European merchant had to risk spoiling his bales of silk in ford- ing a stream, for bridges were few and usually in urgent need of

^ In general, the journey from the Far East to the ports on the Black Sea and the eastern Mediterranean was performed by Arabs, although some of the more enterprising Italians pushed on from the European settlements, or fondacki, in ports like Cairo and Trebizond, and established fondachi in the inland cities of Asia Minor, Persia, and Russia.

48 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

repair. Travel not only was frought with hardship ; it was expensive. Feudal^ lords exacted heavy tolls from travelers on road, bridge, or river. Between Mainz and Cologne, on the _v Rhine, toll was levied in thirteen different places. The con- struction of shorter and better highways was blocked often by nobles who feared to lose their toll-rights on the old roads. So heavy was the burden of tolls on commerce that transporta- tion from Nantes to Orleans, a short distance up the River Loire, doubled the price of goods. Besides the tolls, one had to pay for local market privileges ; towns exacted taxes on im- ports ; and the merchant in a strange city or village often found himself seriously handicapped by regulations against "for- eigners," and by unfamiliar weights, measures, and coinage.

Most dreaded of all, however, and most injurious to trade were the robbers who infested the roads. Needy knights did not scruple to turn highwaymen. Cautious travelers carried arms and journeyed in bands, but even they were not wholly safe from the dashing "gentlemen of the road." On the seas there was still greater danger from pirates. Fleets of merchantmen, despite the fact that they were accompanied usually by a vessel of war, often were assailed by corsairs, de- feated, robbed, and sold as prizes to the Mohammedans. The black flag of piracy flew over whole fleets in the Baltic and in the Mediterranean. The amateur pirate, if less formidable, was no less common, for many a vessel carrying brass cannon, ostensibly for protection, found it convenient to use them to attack foreign craft and more frequently "took" a cargo than purchased one.

These dangers and difficulties of commercial intercourse were due chiefly to the lack of any strong power to punish pirates „ . or highwaymen, to maintain roads, or to check the

Venice . .

exactions of toll-collectors. Each city attempted to protect its own commerce. A great city-state like Venice was well able to send out her galleys against Mediterranean pirates, to wage war against the rival city of Genoa, to make treaties with Oriental potentates, and to build up a maritime empire. Smaller towns were helpless. But what, as in the case of the German towns, they could not do alone, was partially achieved by combination.

FOUNDATIONS OF ^lODERN EUROPE 49

The HansL- or ihd Hanscatit l.catiiuel as the lonfrd, ■ration of Cologne, Brunswick, Hamburg, Liibeck, Dantzig, Konigsberg, and " other German cities was called, waged war ^^^ against the Baltic pirates, maintained its trade- Hanseatic routes, and negotiated with monarchs and munici- ^^^"^ })alities in order to obtain exceptional privileges. From their Baltic stations, — Novgorod, Stockholm, Konigsberg, etc., — the Hanseatic merchants brought amber, wax, fish, furs, timber,. / and tar to sell in the markets of Bruges, London, and Venice;^ they returned with wheat, wine, salt, metals, cloth, and beer for their Scandinavian and Russian customers. The German trading post at Venice received metals, furs, leather goods, and woolen cloth from the North, and sent back spices, silks, and other commodities of the East, together with glassware, fine textiles, weapons, and paper of Venetian manufacture. Baltic and Venetian trade-routes crossed in the Nether- lands, and during the fourteenth century Bruges ^^J^^ ''

became the trade-metropolis of western Europe, Nether- lands : Bruges

where met the raw wool from England and Spain,

\the manufactured woolen cloth of Flanders, clarets from France, sherry and port wines from the Iberian peninsula, pitch from Sweden, tallow from Norway, grain from France and Germany, and English tin, not to mention Eastern luxuries, Venetian manufactures, and the cunning carved-work of south- German artificers.

THE AGE OF EXPLORATION

In the unprecedented commercial prosperity which marked

the fifteenth century, two European peoples — the Portuguese

and the Spanish — had little part. For purposes oi

general Continental trade they were not so conven- Spaniards

iently situated as the peoples of Germany and the ^^^^

Netherlands ; and the Venetians and other ItaHans for

had shut them off from direct trade with Asia. Yet New Trade-

Routes Spanish and Portuguese had developed much the

same taste for Oriental spices and wares as had the inhabitants

of central Europe, and they begrudged the exorbitant prices

which they were compelled to pay to Italian merchants.

50 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Moreover, their centuries-long crusades against Mohammedans in the Iberian peninsula and in northern Africa had bred in them a stern and zealous Christianity which urged them on to undertake missionary enterprises in distant pagan lands. This missionary spirit reenforced the desire they already entertained of finding new trade-routes to Asia untrammeled by rival and selfish Italians. In view of these circumstances it is not sur- prising that Spaniards and Portuguese sought eagerly in the fifteenth century to find new trade-routes to "the Indies."

In their search for new trade-routes to the lands of silk and spice, these peoples of southwestern Europe were not as much GeoKTaph- ^^ ^^^ dark as sometimes we are inclined to believe, icai Knowi- Geographical knowledge, almost non-existent in the ^ ^^ earlier middle ages, had been enriched by the

Franciscan friars who had traversed central Asia to the court of the Mongol emperor as early as 1245, and by such merchants and travelers as Marco Polo, who had been attached to the court of Kublai Khan and who subsequently had described that potentate's realms and the wealth of . ( "Cipangu" (Japan), These travels afforded at once informa- ■ I 'tion about Asia and enormous incentive to later explorers.

Popular notions that the waters of the tropics boiled, that demons and monsters awaited explorers to the westward, and that the earth was a great flat disk, did not pass current among

well-informed geographers. Especially since the leyival o,f

Ptolemy's works in the fifteenth century, learned jmen asserted tTiat the earth was spherical in shape, and they even calculated its circumference, erring only by two or three thousand miles. It was maintained repeatedly that the Indies formed the west- p?f~ern boundary of the Atlantic Ocean, and that consequently they might be reached by sailing due west, as well as by travel- ing eastward ; but at the same time it was believed that shorter routes might be found northeast of Europe, or southward around Africa.

Along with this general knowledge of the situation of con- tinents, the sailors of the fifteenth century had learned a good „ . . deal about navigation. The compass had been used

Navigation 1 t i- • • 1 1 • i

first by Italian navigators m the thirteenth century, and mounted on the compass card in the fourteenth. Latitude

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 51

was determined with the aid of the kstrolalu-, a device for measur- i/ ing the elevation of the pole star above the horizon. With maps and accurate sailing directions {porlolani), seamen could lose sight of land and still feel confident of their whereabouts. Yet it undoubtedly took courage for the explorers of the fifteenth century to steer their frail sailing vessels either down the un- explored African coast or across the uncharted Atlantic Ocean.

In the series of world-discoveries which brought about the Commercial Revolution and which are often taken as the be- ginning of "modern history," there is no name more ^j^g illustrious than that of a Portuguese prince of the Portuguese blood, — Prince Henry, the Navigator (1394-1460), ^porers^ who, with the support of two successive Portuguese kings, made the first systematic attempts to convert the theories of geog- raphers into proved fact. A variety of motives were his : the stern zeal of the crusader against the infidel ; the ardent proselyt- '^ ing spirit which already had sent Franciscan monks into the heart of Asia ; the hope of reestablishing intercourse with ,., "Prester John's" fabled Christian empire of the East; the love of exploration ; and a desire to gain for Portugal a share of the Eastern trade.

To his naval training-station at Sagres and the neighboring port of Lagos, Prince Henry attracted the most skillful Italian navigators and the most learned geographers of the day. The expeditions which he sent out year after year rediscovered and colonized the Madeira and Azores Islands, and crept further \ and further down' "the unknown coast of the Dark Continent. When in the year 1445, a quarter of a century after the initial efforts of Prince Henry, Denis Diaz reached Cape Verde, he thought that the turning point was at hand ; but four more weary decades were to elapse before Bartholomew Diaz, in 1488, attained the southernmost point of the African coast. What he then called the Cape of Storms, King John II of Portugal in a more optimistic vein rechristened the Cape of Good Hope. Y Following in the wake of Diaz, Vasco da Gama rounded the Cape in 1497, ^^^ then, continuing on his own way, he sailed up the east coast to Malindi, where he found a pilot able to guide his course eastward through the Indian Ocean to India. At Cahcut Vasco da Gama landed in May, 1498, and there he

52 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

erected a marble pillar as a monument of his discovery of a new route to the Indies.

While the Portuguese were discovering this new and all-water route to the Indies, the more ancient Mediterranean and over- Occupation land routes, which had been of inestimable value to of Old lY^Q Italians, were in process of occupation by the

Routes by Ottoman Turks. ^ These Turks, as we have seen, the Turks were a nomadic and warlike nation of the Mo- hammedan faith who "added to the Moslem contempt for the Christian, the warrior's contempt for the mere mer- chant." Realizing that advantageous trade relations with such a people were next to impossible, the Italian merchants viewed with consternation the advance of the Turkish armies, as Asia Minor, Thrace, Macedonia, Greece, and the islands of the yEgean were rapidly overrun. Constantinople, the heart of the Eastern Empire, repeatedly repelled the Moslems, but in 1453 Emperor Constantine XI was defeated by Sultan Mo- hammed II, and the crescent replaced the Greek cross above the Church of Saint Sophia. Eight years later Trebizond, the terminal of the trade-route from Tabriz, was taken. In vain Venice attempted to defend her possessions in the Black Sea and in the /Egean ; by the year 1500 most of her empire in the Levant was lost. The Turks, now in complete control of the northern route, proceeded to impose crushing burdens on the trade of the defeated Venetians. Florentines and other Italians who fared less hardly continued to frequent the Black Sea, but the entire trade suffered from Turkish exactions and from dis- turbing wars between the Turks and another Asiatic people — the Mongols.

For some time the central and southern routes, terminating respectively in Syria and Egypt, exhibited increased activity,

^ Professor A. H. Lybyer has recently and ably contended that, contrary to a view which has often prevailed, the occupation of the medieval trade-routes by the Ottoman Turks was not the cause of the Portuguese and Spanish explora- -tions which ushered in the Commercial Revolution. He has pointed out that prior to 1500 the prices of spices were not generally raised throughout western Europe, and that apparently before that dale the Turks had not seri- ously increased the difficulties of Oriental trade. In confirmation of this opinion, it should be remembered that the Portuguese had begun their epochal explorations long before 1500 and that Christopher Columbus had already re- turned from " the Indies."

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 53

and by rich protits in Alexandria the Venerians were able to retrieve their losses in the Black Sea. But it was only a matter of time before the Turks, conquering Damascus in 15 16 Loss to the and Cairo in 151 7, extended their burdensome restric- Italians tions and taxes over those regions likewise. Eastern luxuries, transported by caravan and caravel over thousands of miles, had been expensive and rare enough before; now the added peril of travel and the exactions of the Turks bade fair to deprive the ItaHans of the greater part of their Oriental trade. It was at this very moment that the Portuguese opened up independ- ent routes to the East, lowered 'TEie pl-ices of Asiatic com-\\ modlties, and grasped the ^scepter^of maritime and commercial \| power which _^as gradually ^Irpjm^~from the hands ot "the* Venetians^ The misfortune of Venice was the real opportunity' of Portugal.

Meanwhile Spain had entered the field, and was meeting with cruel disappointment. A decade before Vasco da Gama's famous voyage, an Italian navigator, Christopher „ ,

r^ ^ ^ 11 , i • fr i o • i ColumbuS

Columbus, had presented himseli at the Spanish court with a scheme for sailing westward to the Indies. The Portuguese king, by whom Columbus formerly had been em- ployed, already had refused to support the project, but after several vexatious rebuffs Columbus finally secured the aid of Ferdinand and Isabella, the Spanish monarchs who were at the time jubilant over their capture of Granada from the Mo- hammedans (January, 1492). In August, 1492, he sailed from Palos with 100 men in three small ships, the largest of which weighed only a hundred tons. After a tiresome voyage he landed (12 October, 1492) on "San Salvador," one of the Ba- hama Islands. In that bold voyage across the trackless Atlantic lay the greatness of Columbus. He was not attempting to prove a theory that the earth was spherical — that was ac- cepted generally by the well informed. Nor was he in search of a new continent. The realization that he had discovered not Asia, but a new world, would have been his bitterest dis- appointment. He was seeking merely another route to the spices and treasures of the East ; and he bore with him a royal letter of introduction to the great Klian of Cathav~(ChinaL /v In his quest he failed, even though he returned in 1493, in 1498,

54 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

and finally in 1502 and explored successively the Caribbean SeaT'ttie coast ofVenezuela, and Central America in a vain search for the island "Cipangu" and the realms of the "Great Khan." He found only "lands of vanity and delusion as the miserable graves of Castilian gentlemen," and he died ignorant of the magnitude of his real achievement.

Had Columbus perished in mid-ocean, it is doubtful whether America would have remained long undiscovered. In 1497

John Cabot, an Itahan in the service of Henry VII "^ of England, reached Cape Breton' Island* off the Canadian coast. Inijoo Cabral with a Portuguese expedition bound for IndTawas so far driven out of his course by equatorial . * cu^ents that he came upon Brazil, which he claimed for the king of Portugal. Yet America was named for neither Columbus, Cabot, nor Cabral, but for another Itahan, the Florentine Amerigo Vespucci, who, returning from voyages to Brazil (1499-1500), wrote a little book on what he called "the new world." It was thought that he had discovered this new world, and so it was called after him, — America.

Very slowly the truth about America was borne in upon the people of Europe. They persisted in calhng the newly dis- covered lands the "Indies," and even after Balboa had cumnaviga- discovered (1513) that another ocean lay beyond the tion of Isthmus of Panama, it was thought that a few days'

the Earth --' ,,,. , ,. . •' .

sail would brmg one to the outiymg possessions 01 the Great Khan. Not until Magellan, leaving Spain in 15 19, Yypassed through the straits that still bear his name and crossed >^the Pacific was this vain hope relinquished. Magellan was killed by the natives of the Philippine Islands, but one of his ships reached Lisbon in 1522 with the tale of the marvelous voyage.

Even after the circumnavigation of the world explorers looked for channels leading through or around the Americas. Such were the attempts of Verrazano (1524), Cartier (1534), Fro- bisher (1576-1578), Davis (1585-1587), and Henry Hudson in 1609.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 55

ESTABLISHMENT OF COLONIAL EMPIRES

When Vasco da Gama returned to Lisbon in 1499 with a cargo worth sixty times the cost of his expedition, the Portuguese knew that the wealth of the Indies was theirs. Cabral in 1500, and Albuquerque in 1503, followed the route of Da Gama, and thereafter Portuguese fleets rounded the Capej year by year to gain control of Ormuz, Diu (India), Goa (India),! Ceylon, Malacca, Sumatra, Java, Celebes, New Guinea, the Spice Islands, and Nanking (1520), returning with rich cargoes of "spicery." After the Turkish conquest of Egypt in 151 7 the bulk of commerce was carried on by way of the Cape of Good Hope, for it was cheaper to transport goods by sea than to pay tribute to the Turks in addition to caravan cartage. Lisbon rapidly gained prominence as a market for Eastern wares.

The Portuguese triumph was short-lived. Dominion overil half the world — for Portugal claimed all Africa, southern |1 ^ Asia, and Brazil as hers by right of discovery — had been ac- quired by the wise poHcy of the Portuguese royal house, but Portugal had neither products of her own to ship to Asia, nor the might to defend her exclusive right to the carrying trade with the Indies. The annexation of Portugal to Spain (1580) by PhiHp II precipitated disaster. The port of Lisbon was closed to the French, English, and Dutch, with whom Philip was at war, and much of the colonial empire of Portugal was conquered speedily by the Dutch.

On the first voyage of Columbus Spain based her claim to share the world with Portugal. In order that there might be perfect harmony between the rival explorers of the g unknown seas. Pope Alexander VI issued on 4 May, 1493, the famous bull ' attempting to divide the uncivilized 11 ^ parts of the world between Spain and Portugal by the "papal ^* line of demarcation," drawn from pole to pole, 100 leagues west of the Azores. A year later the line was shifted to about 360 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands. Portugal had the eastern half of modern Brazil, Africa, and all other heathen lands in that hemisphere ; the rest comprised the share of Spain.

^ A bull was a solemn letter or edict issued by the pope.

56 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

For a time the Spanish adventurers were disappointed tre- mendously to find neither spices nor silks and but little gold in the "Indies," and Columbus was derisively dubbed the "Admiral of the Mosquitos." In spite of failures the search for wealth was prosecuted with vigor. During the next half cen- tury Haiti, called Hispaniola ("Spanish Isle"), served as a starting point for the occupation of Puerto Rico, Cuba (1508), and other islands. An aged adventurer, Ponce de Leon, in search of a fountain of youth, explored Florida in 15 13, and ^subsequent expeditions pushed on to the Mississippi, across the (jplain of Texas, and even to California.

Montezuma, ruler of the ancient Aztec ' confederacy of Mexico, was overthrown in 1510 loy the reckless Hernando Cortez with a small band of soldiers. Here at last the Spaniards -Xfound treasures of gold and silver, and more abundant yet were tlic stores of precious metal found by Pizarro in/'Feru^ (1531). Those were the days when a few score of brave men could capture kingdoms and carry away untold wealth.

In the next chapter we shall see how the Spanish monarchy, backed by the power of American riches, dazzled the eyes of Europe in the sixteenth century. Not content to see his standard waving over almost half of Europe, and all America (except Brazil), Philip II of Spain by conquering Portugal in 1580 added to his possessions the Portuguese empire in the Orient. The gold mines of America^,4:he spices of Asia, and the busiest s.'>^market of Europe — Antwerp' — all paid tribute to his Catholic Majest}-, PhiHp II of Spain.

By an unwise administration of this vast empire, Spain, in the course of time, killed the goose that laid the golden egg. The native Indians, enslaved and lashed to their work in Peru- vian and Mexican silver mines, rapidly lost even their primitive civilization and died in alarming numbers. This in itself would not have weakened the monarchy greatly, but it appeared more serious when we remember that the high-handed and harassing regulations imposed by short-sighted or selfish officials had checked the growth of a healthy agricultural and industrial

* The Aztec Indians of Mexico, like various other tril)es in Central America and in Peru, had reached in many respects a high degree of civilization before the arrival of Europeans.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 57

population in the colonies, and that the bulk of the silver was going to support the pride of grandees and to swell the fortunes of German speculators, rather than to fill the royal coffers. The taxes levied on trade with the colonies were so exorbitant that the commerce with America fell largely into the hands of English and Dutch smugglers. Under wise government the monopoly of the African trade-route might have proved ex- tremely valuable, but Philip II, absorbed in other matters, allowed this, too, to slip from his fingers.

While the Spanish monarchy was thus reaping little benefit from its world-wide colonial possessions, it was neglecting to encourage prosperity at home. Trade and manufacture had expanded enormously in the sixteenth century in the hands of the Jews and Moors. Woolen manufactures supported nearly a third of the population. The silk manufacture had become important. It is recorded that salt-works of the region about Santa Maria often sent out fifty shiploads at a time.

These signs of growth soon gave way to signs of decay and depopulation. Chief among the causes of ruin were the taxes, increased enormously during the sixteenth century. Property taxes, said to have increased 30 per cent, ruined farmers, and the "alcabala," or tax on commodities bought and sold, was increased until merchants went out of business, and many an industrial establishment closed its doors rather than pay the taxes. Industry and commerce, already diseased, were almost completely killed by the expulsion of the Jews (1492) and of the Moors (1609), who had been respectively the bankers and the manufacturers of Spain. Spanish gold now went to the English and Dutch smugglers who supplied the peninsula with manufactures, and German bankers became the financiers of the realm.

The crowning misfortune was the loss of the Netherlands, the richest pro\dnces of the whole empire. Some of the wealthiest cities of Europe were situated in the Netherlands. Bruges had once been a great city, and in 1566 was still able tonSuy' nearly $2,000,000 worth of wool to feed its looms ; but as a commercial and fmancial center, j the Flemish city of Antwerp had taken first place. In 1566 it was said that 300 ships and as many wagons arrived daily with rich cargoes to be bought and sold

58 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

by the thousand commercial houses of Antwerp. Antwerp was the heart through which the money of Europe flowed. Through the bankers of Antwerp a French king might borrow money of a Turkish pasha. Yet Antwerp was only the greatest among the many cities of the Netherlands.

Charles V, king of Spain during the first half of the sixteenth century, had found in the Netherlands his richest source of in- come, and had wisely done all in his power to preserve their prosperity. As we shall see in Chapter III, the governors ap- pointed by King Philip II in the second half of the sixteenth century lost the love of the people by the harsh measures against the Protestants, and ruined commerce and industry by imposing taxes of 5 and lo per cent on every sale of land or goods. In 1566 the Netherlands rose in revolt, and after many bloody battles, the northern or Dutch provinces succeeded in breaking away from Spanish rule.

Spain had not only lost the little Dutch provinces ; Flanders was ruined : its fields lay waste, its weavers had emigrated to England, its commerce to Amsterdam. Commercial supremacy never returned to Antwerp after the ''Spanish Fury" of 1576. Moreover, during the war Dutch sailors had captured most of the former possessions of Portugal, and English sea-power, beginning in mere piratical attacks on Spanish treasure-fleets, had become firmly established. The finest part of North America was claimed by the English and French. Of her world empire, Spain retained only Central and South America (except Brazil), Mexico, California, Florida, most of the West Indies, and in the East the Philippine Islands and part of Borneo.

The Dutch, driven to sea by the limited resources of their narrow strip of coastland, had begun their maritime career Dutch Sea as fishermen "exchanging tons of herring for tons of Power gold." In the siHeentH century they had built up

a considerable carrying trade, bringing cloth, tar, timber, and grain to Spain and France, and distributing to the Baltic coun- tries the wines and liquors and other products of southwestern Europe, in addition to wares from the Portuguese East Indies.

The Dutch traders had purchased their Eastern wares largely from Portuguese merchants in the port of Lisbon. Two cir- cumstances— the union of Spain with Portugal in 1580 and

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 59

the revolt of the Netherlands from Spain — combined to give the Dutch their great opportunity. In 1594 the port of Lisbon was closed to Dutch merchants. The following year the Dutch made their first voyage to India, and, long jealous of the Portu- guese colonial possessions, they began systematically to make the trade with the Spice Islands their own. By 1602, 65 Dutch ships had been to India. In the thirteen years — 1602 to 1615 — they captured 545 Portuguese and Spanish ships, seized ports on the coasts of Africa and India, and estabhshed them- selves in the Spice Islands. In addition to most of the old Portuguese empire, — ports in Africa and India, Malacca, Oceanica, and Brazil,^ — the Dutch had acquired a foothold in North America by the discoveries of Henry Hudson in 1609 and by settlement in 1621. Their colonists along the Hudson River called the new territory New Netherland and the town on Manhattan island New Amsterdam, but when Charles II of England seized the land in 1664, he renamed it New York.

Thus the Dutch had succeeded to the colonial empire of the Portuguese. With their increased power they were able en- tirely to usurp the Baltic trade from the hands of the Hanseatic (German) merchants, who had incurred hea\y losses by the injury to their interests in Antwerp during the sixteenth cen- tury. Throughout the seventeenth century the Dutch almost monopolized the carrying-trade from Asia and between south- western Europe and the Baltic. The prosperity of the Dutch was the envy of all Europe.

It took the whole sixteenth century for the English and French to get thoroughly into the colonial contest. During that period the activities of the English were confined „ . .

, . ,. .ii • ri Beginnings

to exploration and piracy, with the exception of the of English ill-starred attempts of Gilbert and Raleigh to col- onize Newfoundland and North Carolina. The voy- ages of John and Sebastian Cabot in 1497-1498 were later to -^ be the basis of British claims to North America. The search

^ Brazil was more or less under Dutch control from 1624 until 1654, when, through an uprising of Portuguese colonists, the country was fully recovered by Portugal. Holland recognized the Portuguese ownership of Brazil by treaty of 1662, and thenceforth the Dutch retained in South America only a portion of Guiana (Surinam).

and French Explorations

6o HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

for a northwest passage drove Frobisher (15 76-1 5 78), Davis \ I11585-1587), Hudson (1610-1611), and Baffin (1616) to explore ^ llhe northern extremity of North America, to leave the record 'of their exploits in names of bays, islands, and straits, and to establish England's claim to northern Canada ; while the search for a northeast passage enticed Willoughby and Chancellor (1553) around Lapland, and Jenkinson (i 557-1 558) to the ice- bound port of Archangel in northern Russia. Elizabethan England had neither silver mines nor spice islands, but the de- ficiency was never felt while British privateers sailed the seas. Hawkins, the great slaver, Drake, the second circumnavigator of the globe, Davis, and Cavendish were but four of the bold captains who towed home many a stately Spanish galleon laden with silver plate and with gold. As for spices, the English .East India Company, chartered in 1600, was soon to build up 1 1 an empire in the East in competition with the Dutch and with H the French, but that story belongs to a later chapter.

France was less active. The rivalry of Francis I ^ with Charles V of Spain had extended even to the New World. Ver- razano (1524) sailed the coast from Carolina to Labrador, and Cartier „Cii^4ri535) pushed up the Saint Lawrence to MontreaI7 looking for a northwest passage, and demonstrating that France had no respect for the Spanish claim to all America. After 1535, however, nothing of permanence was done until the end of the century, and the founding of French colonies in India and along the Saint Lawrence and Mississippi rivers belongs rather to the history of the seventeenth century.

One of the most amazing spectacles in history is the expansion of Europe since the sixteenth century. Not resting content Motives with discovering the rest of the world, the European for _ nations with sublime confidence pressed on to divide

the new continents among them, to conquer. Chris- tianize, and civilize the natives, and to send out millions of new emigrants to establish beyond the seas a New England, a New France, a New Spain, and a New Netherland. The Spaniards in Spain to-day are far outnumbered by the Spanish-speaking people in Argentina, Chili, Peru, Central America, and the Philippine Islands.

^ See below, pp. 77 ff.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 6i

It was not merely greed for gold and thirst for glory which inspired the colonizing movement. To the merchant's eager search for precious metals and costly spices, and to the adventurer's fierce delight in braving unknown dan- gers where white man never had ventured, the Portuguese and Spanish explorers added the inspiration of an ennobling missionary ideal. In the conquest of the New World priests and chapels were as important as soldiers and fortresses ; and its settlements were named in honor of Saint Francis (San Francisco), Saint Augustine (St. Augustine), the Holy Saviour (San Salvador), the Holy Cross (Santa Cruz), or the Holy Faith (Santa Fe). Fearless priests penetrated the interior of America, preaching and baptizing as they went. Unfortunately some of the Spanish adventurers who came to make fortunes in the mines of America, and a great number of the non-Spanish foreigners who owned mines in the Spanish colonies, set gain before religion, and imposed crushing burdens on the natives who toiled as slaves in their mines. Cruelty and forced labor decimated the natives, but in the course of time this abuse was remedied, thanks largely to the Spanish bishop, Bartolome de las Casas, and instead of forming a miserable remnant of an almost extinct race, as they do in the United States, the Indians freely intermarried with the Spaniards, whom they always outnumbered. As a result, Latin America is peopled by nations which are predominantly Indian in blood, ^ Spanish or Portu- guese - in language, and Roman CathoHc in religion.

The same religious zeal which had actuated Spanish mis- sionary-explorers was manifested at a later date by the French Jesuit Fathers who penetrated North America in order to preach the Christian faith to the Indians. Quite different were the religious motives which in the seventeenth century inspired Protestant colonists in the New World. They came not as evangehsts, but as religious outcasts fleeing from persecution, or as restless souls worsted at politics or unable to gain a Hv- ing at home. This meant the dispossession and ultimate ex- tinction rather than the conversion of the Indians.

*******

^ Except in the southern part of South America. ^ In Brazil.

\

62 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

The stirring story of the colonial struggles which occupied the

seventeenth and eighteenth centuries will be taken up in another

chapter; at this point, therefore, we turn from the

of the expanding nations on the Atlantic seaboard to note

Hanseatic ^]-|g mournful plight of the older commercial powers

League j. <-■ x

— the German and Itahan city-states. As for the former, the Hanseatic League, despoiled of its Baltic commerce by enterprising Dutch and English merchants, its cities restless and rebellious, gradually broke up. In 1601 an Englishman metaphorically observed: "Most of their [the league's] teeth have fallen out, the rest sit but loosely in their head," — and in fact all were soon lost except Liibeck, Bremen, and Hamburg. Less rapid, but no less striking, was the decay of Venice and the other Italian cities. The first cargoes brought by the Decay of Portuguese from India caused the price of pepper ^ Venice g^j^^^ spices to fall to a degree whicli spelled ruin for

the Venetians. The Turks continued to harry Italian traders in the Levant, and the Turkish sea-power grew to menacing proportions, until in 1571 Venice had to appeal to Spain for help. To the terror of the Turk was added the torment of the Barbary pirates, who from the northern coast of Africa frequently descended upon Italian seaports. The commerce of Venice was ruined. The brilhance of Venice in art and literature lasted through another century (the seventeenth), supported on the ruins of Venetian opulence; but the splendor of Venice was extinguished finally in the turbulent sea of political intrigue into which the rest of Italy had already sunk.

EFFECTS OF THE COMMERCIAL REVOLUTION

In a way, all of the colonizing movements, which we have been at pains to trace, might be regarded as the first and great- est result of the Commercial Revolution — that is, if by the Commercial Revolution one understands simply the discovery of new trade-routes ; but, as it is difficult to separate explorations from colonization, we have used the term "Commercial Revolu- ition" to include both. By the Commercial Revolution we mean that expansive movement by which European commerce es- caped from the narrow confines of the Mediterranean and

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 63

encompassed the whole world. We shall proceed now to con- sider that movement in its secondary aspects or effects.

One of the tirst in importance of these effects was the advent of a new politico-economic doctrine — mercantilism — the re- sult of the transference of commercial supremacy from Italian and German city-states to national states.

With the declining Italian and German commercial cities, the era of municipal commerce passed away forever. In the peoples of the Atlantic seaboard, who now became Nationalism masters of the seas, national consciousness already in Com- was strongly developed, and centralized governments ^^'^'^^ were perfected ; these nations carried the national spirit into commerce. Portugal and Spain owed their colonial empires to the enterprise of their royal families ; Holland gained a trade route as an incident of her struggle for national independence ; England and France, which were to become the great com- mercial rivals of the eighteenth century, were the two strongest national monarchies.

The new nations founded their power not on the fearlessness of their chevaliers, but on the extent of their financial resources. Wealth was needed to arm and to pay the soldiers, Mercan- wealth to build warships, wealth to bribe diplomats. ^^^^ And since this wealth must come from the people by taxes, it was essential to have a people prosperous enough to pay taxes. The wealth of the nation must be the primary consideration of the legislators. In endeavoring to cultivate and preserve the wealth of their subjects, European monarchs proceeded upon the assumption that if a nation exported costly manufactures to its own colonies and imported cheap raw materials from them, the;'^' money paid into the home country for manufactures would more than counterbalance the money paid out for raw materials, and this "favorable balance of trade" would bring gold to the nation. This economic theory and the system based upon it are called mercantihsm. In order to establish such a balance^A of trade, the government might either forbid or heavily tax jl the importation of manufactures from abroad, might prohibit ij ^ the export of raw materials, might subsidize the export of manu- factures, and might attempt by minute regulations to foster industry at home as well as to discourage competition in the

64 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

colonies. Thus, intending to retain the profits of commerce for Englishmen, Cromwell and later rulers required that certain goods must be carried on English ships.

By far the most popular method of developing a lucrative colonial trade — • especially towards the end of the sixteenth Chartered and throughout the seventeenth century — was by Companies ii-^eans of'^hartered commercial companies. England (in 1600), Holland (in 1602), France (in 1664), Sweden, Den- mark, Scotland, and Prussia each chartered its own "East India Company." The English possessions on the Atlantic coast of America were shared by the London and Plymouth Companies (1606). English companies for trade with Russia, Turkey, Morocco, Guiana, Bermuda, the Canaries, and Hudson Bay were organized and reorganized with bewildering activity. In France the crop of commercial companies was no less abundant.

To each of these companies was assigned the exclusive right to trade with and to govern the inhabitants of a particular colony, with the privilege and duty of defending the same. Sometimes the companies were required to pay money into the royal treasury, or on the other hand, if the enterprise were a difficult one, a company might be supported by royal sub- sidies. The Dutch West India Company (162 1) was authorized \to build forts, maintain troops, and make war on land and sea ; the government endowed the company with one million florins, sixteen ships, four yachts, and exemption from all tolls and^ license dues on its vessels. The English East India Company first organized in 1600, conducted the conquest and govern! ment of India for more than two centuries, before its adminisU trative power was taken away in 1858.

The great commercial companies were a new departure in business method. In the middle ages business had been carried Financial on mostly by individuals or by partnerships, the part- Methods j-^gj-g being, as a rule, members of the same family. After the expansion of commerce, trading with another country necessitated building forts and equipping fleets for protection against savages, pirates, or other nations. Since this could not be accomplished with the limited resources of a few individuals, it was necessary to form large companies in which many investors

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 65

shared expense and risk. Some had been created for European trade, but the important growth of such companies was for distant trade. Their lirst form was the ''regulated ^^ic company." ^ach member would contribute to the "Regulated jg^eneral fund for such expenses as buikhng forts, and °°^P*"y certain rules would be made for the governance of all. Subject to these rules, each merchantytraded as he pleased, and there was no [)()(>]ing of profits. The regulated company, the first form of the commercial company, was encouraged by the king. He could charter such a company, grant it a monopoly over a certain district, and trust it to develop the trade as no individual could, and there was no evasion of taxes as by independent merchants.

After a decade or so, many of the regulated companies found that their members often pursued individual advantage to the detriment of the company's interests, and it was j^^ j^j^^. thought that, taken altogether, profits would be stock greater and the risk less, if all should contribute to a °™P^°y common treasur_\-, intrusting to the most able members the_ cijrection of the business for the benefit of all. Then each would receive a dividend or part of the profits proportional to his share in the general treasury or "joint stock." The idea that while the company as a whole was permanent each individual could buy' or sell "shares" in the joint stock, helped to make such "joint- stock" companies very popular after the opening of the seven- teenth century. The English East India Company, organized as a regulated company in 1600, was reorganized piecemeal for half a century until it acquired the form of a joint-stock enter- prise; most of the other chartered colonial companies followed the same plan. In these early stock-companies we find the germ of the most characteristic of present-day business institu- tions — the corporation. In the seventeenth century this form of business organization, then in its rudimentary stages, as yet had not been applied to industry, nor had sad experience yet revealed the lengths to which corrupt corporation directors might go.

The development of the joint-stock company was attended by increased activity in banking. In the early middle ages the lencUng of money for interest had been forbidden by the

^'

66 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

-V Catholic Church ; in this as in other branches of business it was immoral to receive profit without giving work. The Jews, however, with no such scruples, had found money- lending very profitable, even though royal debtors occasionally refused to pay. As business developed in Italy, hpwever, Christians lost their repugnance to interest-taking, and Italian (Lombard) and later French and German money-lenders and money-changers became famous, j Since the coins minted by feudal lords and kings were hard to pass except in limited dis- tricts, and since the danger of counterfeit or light-weight coins was far greater than now, the "money-changers" who would buy and sell the coins of different countries did a thriving business at Antwerp in the early sixteenth century. Later, Amsterdam, Tohdon7 Hamburg, and Frankfort took over the business of Antwerp and developed the institutions of finance to a higher degree.^ The money-lenders became bankers, paying interest on deposits and receiving higher interest on loans. Shares of the stock of commercial com- panies were bought and sold in exchanges, and as early as 1542 there were complaints about speculating on the rise and fall of stocks.

Within a comparatively short time the medieval merchants' gilds had given way to great stock-companies, and Jewish money-lenders to millionaire bankers and banking houses with many of our instruments of exchange, such as the bill of exchange. Such was the revolution in business that attended, and that was partly caused, partly helped, by the changes in foreign trade, which we call the Commercial Revolution.

Not only was foreign trade changed from the south and east of Europe to the west, from the city-states to nations, from New Com- land-routcs to ocean-routes ; but the vessels which modities sailed the Atlantic were larger, stronger, and more numerous, and they sailed with amazing confidence and safety, as compared with the fragile caravels and galleys of a few cen- turies before. The cargoes they carried had changed too. The

^ The gold of the New World and the larger scope of commercial enterprises had increased the scale of operations, as may be seen by comparing the fortunes of three great banking families: 1300 — the Peruzzi's, $800,000; 1440 — the Medici's, $7,500,000; 1546 — the Fuggers', $40,000,000.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 67

comparative cheapness of water-transportation had made it possible profitably to carry grain and meat, as well as costly luxuries of small bulk such as spices and silks. Manufactures were an important item. Moreover, new commodities came into commerce, such_as tea and coffee. The Americas sent to \ Europe the potato, "Indian" corn, tobacco, cocoa, cane-sugar (hitherto scarce), molasses, rice, rum, fish, whale-oil and whale- bone, (lye-w(M)(ls and timber and furs; Europe sent back manu- facture's, luxuries, and slaves.

Slaws had been articles of commerce since time immemorial; at the end of the fifteenth century there were said to have been 3000 in Venice; and the Portuguese had enslaved some Africans before 1500. But the need for cheap labor in the mines and on the sugar and tobacco plantations of the New World gave the slave-trade a new and tremendous impetus. The Spaniards began early to enslave the natives of America, although the practice was opposed by the noble en- deavors of the Dominican friar and bishop, Bartolome de las Casas. But the native population was not sufficient, — or, as in the English colonies, the Indians were exterminated rather than enslaved, — and in the sixteenth century it was deemed necessary to import negroes from Africa. The trade in African negroes was fathered by the English captain Hawkins, and 7>{ fostered alike by^English and Dutch. It proved highly lucra- tive, and it was long before the trade yielded to the better judg- ment of civilized nations, and still longer before the institution of slavery could be eradicated.

The expansion of trade was the strongest possible stimulus to agriculture and industry. New industries — such as the silk and cotton manufacture — grew up outside of _„ ,

— — —• — , ° , ^ . Effects on

the antiquated gild system. The old industries, es- industry pecially the English woolen incfustry, grew to new ^^i*|y^"' i^pottance^and often came under the control of the newer and more powerful merchants who conducted a wholesale business in a single commodity, such as cloth. CapitaHsts had ^ their agents buy wool, dole it out to spinners and weavers who\\ y' were paid so much for a given amount of work, and then sell ' ' the finished product. This was called the'|^dom^stic_jystemil/ because the work was done at home, or "capitaHstic," because

68 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

raw material and finished product were owned not by the man who worked them, but by a "capitahst" or rich merchant. How these changing conditions were dealt with by mercantilist states- men, we shall see in later chapters.

The effect on agriculture had been less direct but no less real. The land had to be tilled with greater care to produce grain sufficient to support populous cities and to ship to foreign ports. Countries were now more inclined to specialize — France in wine, England in wool — and so certain branches of production grew more important. The introduction of new crops produced no more remarkable results than in Ireland where the potato, transplanted from America, became a staple in the Irish diet : ''Irish potatoes" in common parlance attest the completeness of domestication.

In the preceding pages we have attempted to study particular effects of the Commercial Revolution (in the broad sense includ- ing the expansion of commerce as well as the change Significance ^^ trade-routes), such as the decline of Venice and of of Commer- the' Hanse, the formation of colonial empires, the t/on ^^° " ^^^^ ^^ commercial companies, the expansion of bank- ing, the introduction of new articles of commerce, and the development of agriculture and industry. In each particular the change was noticeable and important.

But the Commercial Revolution possesses a more general significance.

(i) It was the Commercial Revolution that started Europe on her career of world conquest. The petty, quarrelsome feudal "^ states of the smallest of five continents have become

peanization the Powers of to-day, dividing up Africa, Asia, and of the America, founding empires greater and more last-

ing than that of Alexander. The colonists of Europe imparted their language to South America and made of North America a second Europe with a common cultural heritage. The explorers, missionaries, and merchants of Europe have penetrated all lands, bringing in their train European manners, dress, and institutions. They are still at work Europeanizing the world.

(2) The expansion of commerce meant the increase of wealth, knowledge, and comfort. All the continents heaped their

V

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 69

treasures in the lap of Europe. Knowledge of the New World,

with its many peoples, products, and peculiarities,

tended to dispel the silly notions of medieval igno- ^j weatfh*

ranee ; and the goods of every land were brought for Knowledge,

the Comfort of the European — American timber for comfort

his house, Persian rugs for his floors, Indian ebony

for his table, Irish linen to cover it, Peruvian silver for his fork,

Chinese tea, sweetened with sugar from Cuba.

(3) This new comfort, knowledge, and wealth went not merely to nobles and prelates ; it was noticeable most of all in a new class, the "bourgeoisie." In the towns of The Rise Europe lived bankers, merchants, and shop-keepers, of the — intelligent, able, and wealthy enough to live Hke ^°"''g^°'^'« kings or princes. These bourgeois or townspeople {bourg = town) were to grow in intelligence, in wealth, and in political influence ; they were destined to precipitate revolutions in industry and politics, thereby establishing their individual rule over factories, and their collective rule over legislatures.

ADDITIONAL READING

General. A. F. Pollard, Factors in Modern History (1907), ch. ii, vi, X, three illuminating essays; E. P. Cheyney, An Introduction to the Indus- trial and Social History of England (1901), ch. ii-vi, a good outline; F. W. Tickner, A Social and Industrial History of England (191 5), an interesting and valuable elementary manual, ch. i-vii, x-xii, xvi, xvii, xix-xxi, xxiv- xxvii; W. J. Ashley, The Economic Organization of England (1914), ch. i- v; G. T. Warner, Landmarks in English Industrial History, nth ed. (1912), ch. vii-xiii ; E. B. Traill and J. S. Mann (editors), Social England (1909), Vols. II, III; H. de B. Gibbins, Industry in England, 6th ed. (1910), com- pact general survey ; William Cunningham, The Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern Times, sth ed., 3 vols. (1910-1912), a standard work; H. D. Bax, German Society at the Close of the Middle Ages (1894), brief but clear, especially ch. i, v, vii on towns and country-life in the Germanics. Very detailed works: Maxime Kovalevsky, Die okonomische Entwicklung Europas bis zum Beginn der kapitalistischen Wirtschaftsform, trans, into German from Russian, 7 vols. (1901-1914), especially vols. Ill, IV, VI ; Emile Levasseur, Histoire des classes ouvrieres et de Vindustrie en France avant lySg, Vol. II (1901), Book V; Georges d'Avenel, Histoire economique de la propriete, dcs salaires, etc., 1200-1800, 6 vols. (1894-1912).

Agriculture in the Sixteenth Century. R. E. Prothero, English Farm- ing Past and Present (1912), ch. iv ; E. C. K. Gonner, Common Land and

70 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Inclosure (1912), valuable for England; R. H. Tawney, The Agrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century (1912) ; E. F. Gay, Essays on English Agrarian History in the Sixteenth Century (1913) ; H. T. Stephenson, The Elizabethan People (1910) ; W. Hasbach, A History of the English Agricultural Labourer, trans, by Ruth Kenyon (1908), an excellent work, particularly Part I on the development of the class of free laborers from that of the medieval serfs. Valuable for feudal survivals in France is the brief Feudal Regime by Charles Seignobos, trans, by Dow. Useful for social conditions in Russia: James Mavor, An Economic History of Russia, 2 vols. (1914), Vol. I, Book I, ch. iii. See also Eva M. Tappan, When Knights were Bold (191 1) for a very entertaining chapter for young people, on agriculture in the sixteenth century ; Augustus Jessopp, The Coming of the Friars (1913), ch. ii, for a sympathetic treatment of " Village Life Six Hundred Years Ago " ; and W. J. Ashley, Surveys, Historical and Economic, for a series of scholarly essays dealing with recent controversies in regard to medieval land-tenure.

Towns and Commerce about 1500. Clive Day, History of Commerce (1907), best brief account ; W. C. Webster, A General History of Commerce (1903), another excellent outline ; E. P. Cheyney, European Background of American History (1904) in " American Nation " Series, clear account of the medieval trade routes, pp. 3-40, of the early activities of chartered companies, pp. 123-167, and of the connection of the Protestant Revolution with colonialism, pp. 168-239 ; W. S. Lindsay, History of Merchant Shipping and Ancient Commerce, 4 vols. (1874-1876), very detailed. The best ac- count of sixteenth-century industry is in Vol. II of W. J. Ashley, English Economic History and Theory, with elaborate critical bibliographies. For town-life and the gilds: Mrs. J. R. Green, Town Life in England in the Fifteenth Century, 2 vols. (1894) ; Charles Gross, The Gild Merchant, 2 vols. (1890) ; Lujo Brentano, On the History and Development of Gilds (1870) ; George Unwin, The Gilds and Companies of London (1908), particularly the interesting chapter on " The Place of the Gild in the History of Western Europe." A brief view of English town-life in the later middle ages: E. Lipson, An Introduction to the Economic History of England, Vol. I (1915), ch. v-ix. On town-life in the Netherlands: Henri Pirenne, Belgian Democracy: its Early History, trans, by J. V. Saunders (1915). On town- life in the Germanics: Helen Zimmern, The Hansa Towns (1889) in " Story of the Nations " Series ; Karl von Hegel, Stddte und Gilden der germanischen Volker im Mittelalter, 2 vols. (1891), the standard treatise in German. On French gilds: Martin St. Leon, Histoire des corporations des metiers (1897). See also, for advanced study of trade-routes, Wilhelm Heyd, Geschichte des Levantehandels im Mittelalter, 2 vols. (1879), with a French trans. (1885- 1886), and Aloys Schulte, Geschichte des mittelallerlichenHandels und Verkehrs zwischcn Westdeutschland und Italien, 2 vols. (1900).

General Treatments of Exploration and Colonization. Cambridge Modern History, Vol. I ([902), ch. i, ii ; A. G. Keller, Colonization: a Study of the Founding of New Societies (1908), a textbook, omitting reference to English

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 71

and French colonization ; H. C. Morris, History of Colonization, 2 vols. (190S), a useful general text; M. B. Synge, A Book of Discovery: the History of the World's Exploration, from the Earliest Times to the Finding of the South Pole (191 2) ; Histoire generate, Vol. IV, ch. xxii, xxiii, and Vol. V, ch. xxii ; S. Ruge, Geschichte des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen (1881), in the ambitious Oncken Series; Paul Leroy-Beaulieu, La colonisa- tion chcz Ics pcuplcs modcrncs, 6th ed., 2 vols. (1908), the best general work in French ; Charles de Lannoy and Hermann van der Linden, Histoire dc Vexpansion coloniale des pcuplcs curopeens, an important undertaking of two Belgian professors, of which two volumes have appeared — Vol. I, Portugal ct Espagne (1907), and Vol. II, Neerlande et Danemark, if et 18^ Steele (191 1); Alfred Zimmermann, Die europdischen Kolonien, the main German treatise, in 5 vols. (1896-1903), dealing with Spain and Por- tugal (\'ol. I), Great Britain (Vols. II, III), France (Vol. IV), and Holland (Vol. \'). Much illustrative source-material is available in the publications of the Hakluyt Society, Old Series, 100 vols. (1847-1898), and New Scries, 35 vols. (1899-1914), selections having been separately pubhshed by E. J. Payne (1S93-1900) and by C. R. Beazley (1907). An account of the medieval travels of jNIarco Polo is published conveniently in the " Every- man " Series, and the best edition of the medieval travel-tales which have passed under the name of Sir John INIaundeville is that of The Macmillan Company (1900). For exploration prior to Columbus and Da Gama, see C. R. Beazley, The Dawn of Modern Geography, 3 vols, (i 897-1906).

With special reference to America: J. S. Bassett, A Short History of the United States (1914), ch. i, ii, a good outline; Edward Channing, A History of the United States, Vol. I (1905), an excellent and more detailed narrative; Livingston Farrand, Basis of American History (1904), Vol. II of the " American Nation " Series, especially valuable on the American aborigines; E. J. Payne, History of the New World called America, 2 vols. (1892-1899) ; John Fiske, Colonization of the New World, Vol. XXI of History of All Nations, ch. i-vi ; R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America, 2 vols. (1884) ; Bernard IMoses, The Establishment of Spanish Rule in America (1898), and, by the same author, The Spanish Dependencies in South America, 2 vols. (1914). With special reference to Asiatic India: Mountstuart Elphinstone, History of India: the Hindu and Mohametan Periods, 9th ed. (1905), an old but still valuable work on the background of Indian history ; Sir W. W. Hunter, A Brief History of the Indian Peoples, rev. ed. (1903), and, by the same author, A History of British India to the opening of the eighteenth century, 2 vols. (1899-1900), especially Vol. I; Pringle Kennedy, A History of the Great Moghuls, 2 vols. (1905-1911). With special reference to African exploration and colonization in the six- teenth century: Sir Harry Johnston, History of the Colonization of Africa by Alien Races (1899), a very useful and authoritative manual; Robert Brown, The Story of Africa, 4 vols. (1894-1895), a detailed study; G. M. Theal, South Africa (1894), a clear summary in the " Story of the Nations " Series; J. S. Keltie, The Partition of Africa (1895). See also Sir Harry

72 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Johnston, The Negro in the Neiv World (igio), important for the slave- trade and interesting, though in tone somewhat anti-EngHsh and pro- Spanish ; J. K. Ingram, A History of Slavery and Serfdom (1895), a brief sketch ; and W. E. Burghardt Du Bois, The Negro (1915), a handy volume in the " Home University Library."

Exploration and Colonization Country by Country. Portugal : C. R. Beazley, Prince Henry the Navigator in " Heroes of the Nations " Series (1897) ; J. P. Oliveira Martins, The Golden Age of Prince Henry the Naviga- tor, trans, with notes and additions by J. J. Abraham and W. E. Reynolds (1914) ; K. G. Jayne, Vasco da Gama and his Successors, 1460-1580 (1910) ; H. M. Stephens, Portugal (iSgi), a brief sketch in the " Story of the Na- tions " Series; F. C. Danvers, The Portuguese in India, 2 vols. (1894), a thorough and scholarly work; H. M. Stephens, Albuquerque and the Por- tuguese Settlements in India (1892), in "Rulers of India" Scries; Angel Marvaud, Le Portugal et ses colonies (191 2) ; G. M. Theal, History and Ethnography of Africa South of the Zambesi, Vol. I, The Portuguese in South Africa from 1505 to lyoo (1907), a standard work by the Keeper of the Archives of Cape Colony. Spain : John Fiske, Discovery of America, 2 vols. (1892), most delightful narrative; Wilhelm Roscher, The Spanish Colonial System, a brief but highly suggestive extract from an old German work trans, by E. G. Bourne (1904) ; E. G. Bourne, Spain in America, 1450-1580 (1904), Vol. Ill of " American Nation " Series, excellent in content and form; W. R. Shepherd, Latin America (1914) in "Home University Li- brary," pp. 9-68, clear and suggestive ; Sir Arthur Helps, The Spanish Conquest in America, new ed., 4 vols. (1900-1904). A scholarly study of Columbus's career is J. B. Thacher, Christopher Columbus, 3 vols. (1903- 1904), incorporating many of the sources; Washington Irving, Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, originally published in 1828-183 1, but still very readable and generally sound ; Filson Young, Christopher Colum- bus and the New World of his Discovery, 2 vols. (1906), a popular account, splendidly illustrated ; Henry Harrisse, Christople Colomb, son origine, sa vie, ses voyages, 2 vols. (1884), a standard work by an authority on the age of exploration ; Henri Vignaud, Histoire critique de la grande entre- prise de Christophe Colomb, 2 vols. (191 1), destructive of many commonly accepted ideas regarding Columbus; F. H. H. Guillemard, The Life of Ferdinand Magellan (1890) ; F. A. MacNutt, Fernando Cortes and the Con- quest of Mexico, 1485-1547 (1909), in the " Heroes of the Nations " Series, and, by the same author, both Letters of Cortes, 2 vols. (1908), and Bartholo- mew de las Casas (1909) ; Sir Clements Markham, The Incas of Peru (1910)- On the transference of colonial power from Spain to the Dutch and English, see Cambridge Modern History, Vol. IV (1906), ch. xxv, by H. E. Egerton. England: H. E. Egerton, A Short History of British Colonial Policy, 2d ed. (1909), a bald summary, provided, however, with good bibliographies; W. H. Woodward, A Short History of the Expansion of the British Empire, 1500-IQII, 3d ed. (1912), a useful epitome; C. R. Beazley, John and Sebastian Cabot: the Discovery of North America (1898) ; J. A. Williamson,

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 73

Maritime Enterprise, 148^-1558 (1913) ; E. J. Paj'nc (editor), Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen to America, 2 vols. (iSg^-igoo) ; L. G. Tyler, England in America, 1580-1652 (1904), Vol. IV of " American Nation " Series; George Edmundson, Anglo-Dutch Rivalry, 1600-16 jj (191 1). France: R. G. Thwaites, France in America, I4gy-iy6j (1905), Vol. VII of " American Nation " Series.

Economic Results of the Commercial Revolution. William Cunning- ham, An Essay on Western Civilization in its Economic Aspects, Vol. II, Mcdiceval and Modern Times (1910), pp. 162-224, and, by the same author, ch. XV of Vol. I (1902) of the Cambridge Modern History; E. P. Chcyney, Social Changes in England in the Sixteenth Century (191 2) ; George Unwin, Industrial Organization in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (1904) ; G. Cawston and A. H. Keane, Early Chartered Companies (1896) ; W. R. Scott, The Constitution and Finance of English, Scottish, and Irish Joint- Stock Companies to 1^20, Vol. I (191 2) ; C. T. Carr (editor), Select Charters of Trading Companies (1913) ; Beckles Willson, The Great Company (1899), an account of the Hudson Bay Company ; Henry Weber, La Compagnie franqaise des Indes, 1604-1675 (1904) ; Rccucil dcs voyages de la Compagnie des Indes orientates des Holhindois, 10 vols. (1730), the monumental source for the activities of the chief Dutch trading-company.

CHAPTER III

EUROPEAN POLITICS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY THE EMPEROR CHARLES V

As we look back upon the confused sixteenth century, we are struck at once by two commanding figures, — the Emperor Charles V ^ and his son Philip II, — about whom we may group most of the political events of the period. The father occupies the center of the stage during the first half of the century ; the son, during the second half.

At Ghent in the Netherlands, Charles was born in 1500 of illustrious parentage. His father was Philip of Habsburg, son Extensive '^^ ^^^ Emperor Maximilian and Mary, duchess of Dominions Burgundy. His mother was the Infanta Joanna, ° ^^^^ daughter and heiress of Ferdinand of Aragon and Naples and Isabella of Castile and the Indies. The death of his father and the incapacity of his mother — she had become insane

— left Charles at the tender age of six years an orphan under the guardianship of his grandfathers Maximilian and Ferdinand. The death of the latter in 15 16 transferred the whole Spanish inheritance to Charles, and three years later, by the death of the former, he came into possession of the hereditary dominions of the Habsburgs. Thus under a youth of nineteen years were grouped wider lands and greater populations than any Christian sovereign had ever ruled. Vienna, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Brus- sels, Milan, Naples, Madrid, Cadiz, — even the City of Mexico,

— owed him allegiance. His titles alone would fill several pages.

Maximilian had intended not only that all these lands should pass into the hands of the Habsburg family, but also that his

^ Charles I of Spain. 74

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 75

grandson should succeed him as head of the Holy Roman Em- pire. This ambition, however, was hard of fullillment, because the French king, Francis I (15 15-1547), feared the encircling of his own country by a united German-Spanish-Italian state, and set himself to preserve what he called the "Balance of Power" — preventing the undue growth of one political power at the expense of others. It was only by means of appeal to national and family sentiment and the most wholesale bribery that Charles managed to secure a majority of the electors' votes against his French rival ^ and thereby to acquire the coveted imperial title. He was crowned at Aix-la-Chapelle in his twenty- first year.

Never have greater difficulties confronted a sovereign than those which Charles V was obliged to face throughout his reign ; never did monarch lead a more strenuous life. He character was the central figure in a very critical period of his- °^ Charles tory : his own character as well as the painstaking education he had received in the Netherlands conferred upon him a lively appreciation of his position and a dogged pertinacity in discharg- ing its obligations. Both in administering his extensive do- minions and in dealing with foreign foes, Charles was a zealous, hard-working, and calculating prince, and the lack of success which attended many of his projects was due not to want of ability in the ruler but to the multiplicity of interests among the ruled. The emperor must do too many things to allow of his doing any one thing well.

Suppose we turn over in our minds some of the chief prob- lems of Charles V, for they will serve to explain much of the political history of the sixteenth century. In the first DjfBcuities place, the emperor was confronted with extraordinary Confronting difficulties in governing his territories. Each one of "^^ the seventeen provinces of the Netherlands — the country which he always considered peculiarly his own - — was a distinct politi- cal unit, for there existed only the rudiments of a central adminis- tration and a common representative system, while the county of Burgundy had a separate poHtical organization. The crown of Castile brought with it the recently conquered kingdom of Granada, together with the new colonies in America and scat-

^ Henry VIII of England was also a candidate.

76 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

tered posts in northern Africa. The crown of Aragon comprised the four distinct states of Aragon, Valencia, Catalonia, and Navarre/ and, in addition, the kingdoms of Naples, Sicily, and Sardinia, each with its own customs and government. At least eight independent cortes or parhaments existed in this Spanish-Italian group, adding greatly to the intricacy of ad- ministration. Much the same was true of that other Habsburg group of states, — Austria, Styria, Carniola, Carinthia, the Tyrol, etc., — but Charles soon freed himself from immediate responsi- bility for their government by intrusting them (1521) to his younger brother, Ferdinand, who by his own marriage and elec- tions added the kingdoms of Bohemia- and Hungary (1526) to the Habsburg dominions. The Empire afforded additional problems : it made serious demands upon the time, money, and energies of its ruler ; in return, it gave little but glamour. In all these regions Charles had to do with financial, judicial, and ecclesiastical matters. He had to reconcile conflicting interests and appeal for popularity to many varied races. More than once during his reign he even had to repress rebellion. In Germany, from his very first Diet in 1521, he was face to face with rising Protestantism which seemed to him to blaspheme his altar and to assail his throne.

The emperor's overwhelming administrative difficulties were complicated at every turn by the intricacies of foreign politics. In the first place, Charles was obhged to wage war with France throughout the greater part of his reign ; he had inherited a long- standing quarrel with the French kings, to which the rivalry of Francis I for the empire gave a personal aspect. In the second place, and almost as formidable, was the advance of the Turks up the Danube and the increase of Mohammedan naval power in the Mediterranean. Against Protestant Germany a Catholic mon- arch might hope to rely on papal assistance, and English support might conceivably be enlisted against France. But the popes, who usually disliked the emperor's Italian policy, were not of great aid to him elsewhere ; and the English sovereigns had do- mestic reasons for developing hostility to Charles. A brief sketch of the foreign affairs of Charles may make the situation clear.

^ The part south of the Pyrenees. See above, p. 8.

2 Including the Bohemian crown lands of Moravia and Silesia.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 77

Six years older than Charles, Francis I had succeeded to the French throne in 1515, irresi)onsible, frivolous, and vain of mili- tary reputation. The general political situation of the time, — the gradual inclosure of the French mon- of p^i-ancl archy by a string of Habsburg territories, — to say and the nothing of the remarkable contrast between the char- for^his"^ arcter of Francis and that of the persevering Charles, Wars with made a great conflict inevitable, and definite pretexts chafies'v"'^ were not lacking for an early outbreak of hostilities, (i) Francis revived the claims of the French crown to Naples, although Louis XII had renounced them in 1504. (2) Francis, bent on regaining Milan, which his predecessor had lost in 151 2, invaded the duchy and, after winning the brilliant victory of Marignano in the first year of his reign, occupied the city of Milan. Charles subsequently insisted, however, that the duchy was a fief of the Holy Roman Empire and that he was sworn by oath to recover it. (3) Francis asserted the claims of a kinsman to the little kingdom of Navarre, the greater part of which, it will be remembered, had recently ^ been forcibly annexed to Spain. (4) Francis desired to extend his sway over the rich French-speak- ing pro\dnces of the Netherlands, while Charles was determined not only to prevent further aggressions but to recover the duchy of Burgundy of which his grandmother had been deprived by Louis XI. (5) The outcome of the contest for the imperial crown in 15 19 virtually completed the breach between the two rivals. War broke out in 1522, and with few interruptions it was destined to outlast the lives of both Francis and Charles.

Italy was the main theater of the combat. In the first stage, the imperial forces, with the aid of a papal army, speedily drove the French garrison out of Milan. The Sforza family was duly invested with the duchy as a fief of -^^^^ ^^ the Empire, and the pope was compensated by the Charles v addition of Parma and Piacenza to the Patrimony of prancis i Saint Peter. The victorious Imperialists then pressed across the Alps and besieged Marseilles. Francis, who had been detained by domestic troubles in France,^ now succeeded in

^ In 1512. See above, p. 8.

- These troubles related to the disposition of the important landed estates of the Bourbon family. The duke of Bourbon, who was constable of France, felt himself injured by the king and accordingly deserted to the emperor.

78 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

raising the siege and pursued the retreating enemy to Milan. Instead of following up his advantage by promptly attacking the main army of the Imperialists, the French king dispatched a part of his force to Naples, and with the other turned aside to blockade the city of Pavia. This blunder enabled the Imperial- ists to reform their ranks and to march towards Pavia in order to join the besieged. Here on 24 February, 1525, — the em- peror's twenty-fifth birthday, — the army of Charles won an overwhelming victory. Eight thousand French soldiers fell on the field that day, and Francis, who had been in the thick of the fight, was compelled to surrender. "Nothing in the world is left me save my honor and my life," wrote the king to his mother. Everything seemed auspicious for the cause of Charles. Francis, after a brief captivity in Spain, was released on condition that he would surrender all claims to Burgundy, the Netherlands, and Italy, and would marry the emperor's sister.

Francis swore upon the Gospels and upon his knightly word that he would fuhill these conditions, but in his own and con- temporary opinion the compulsion exercised upon him absolved him from his oath. No sooner was he back in France than he declared the treaty null and void and proceeded to form alliances with all the Italian powers that had become alarmed by the sudden strengthening of the emperor's position in the peninsula, — the pope, Venice, Florence, and even the Sforza who owed everything to Charles. Upon the resumption of hostilities the league displayed the same want of agreement and energy which characterized every coalition of Italian city-states ; and soon the Imperialists were able to possess themselves of much of The Sack ^^^ country. In 1527 occurred a famous episode — of Rome, the sack of Rome. It was not displeasing to the em- ^^^'^ peror that the pope should be punished for giving aid

to France, although Charles cannot be held altogether respon- sible for what befell. His army in Italy, composed largely of Spaniards and Germans, being short of food and money, and without orders, mutinied and marched upon the Eternal City, which was soon at their mercy. About four thousand people perished in the capture. The pillage lasted nine months, and the brigands were halted only by a frightful pestilence which

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 79

decimated their numbers. Convents were forced, altars stripped, tombs profaned, the hbrary of the Vatican sacked, and works of art torn down as monuments of idolatry. Pope Clement VII (i 523-1 534), a nephew of the other Medici pope, Leo X, had taken refuge in the impregnable castle of St. Angelo and was now obliged to make peace with the emperor.

The sack of Rome aroused bitter feelings throughout Catholic Europe, and Henry VIII of England, at that time still loyal to the pope, ostentatiously sent aid to Francis. But al- pea^e of though the emperor made little headway against Cambrai, Francis, the French king, on account of strategic ^^^^ blunders and the disunion of the league, was unable to maintain a sure foothold in Italy. The peace of Cambrai (1529) provided that Francis should abandon Naples, Milan, and the Nether- lands, but the cession of Burgundy was no longer insisted upon. Francis proceeded to celebrate his marriage with the emperor's sister.

Eight years of warfare had left Charles V and the Habsburg family unquestionable masters of Italy. Naples was under Charles's direct government. For Milan he received „ , , the homage of Sforza. The Medici pope, whose family predomi- he had restored in Florence, was now his ally. Charles ^^"'^^ ^°^

... Italy

visited Italy for the first time in 1529 to view his terri- tories, and at Bologna (1530) received from the pope's hands the ancient iron crown of Lombard Italy and the imperial crown of Rome. It was the last papal coronation of a ruler of the Holy Roman Empire.

The peace of Cambrai proved but a truce, and war between Charles and Francis repeatedly blazed forth. Francis made strange alliances in order to create all possible trouble for the emperor, — Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, the Ottoman Turks, even the rebelhous Protestant princes within the empire. There were spasmodic campaigns between 1536 and 1538 and between 1542 and 1544, and after the death of Francis and the abdication of Charles, the former's son, Henry II (1547-15 59), continued the conflict, newly begun in 1552, until the conclusion of the treaty of Cateau-Cambresis in 1559, by which the Habsburgs retained their hold upon Italy, while France, by the occupation of the important bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, extended

8o HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

her northeastern frontier, at the expense of the empire, toward the Rhine River. ^

Indirectly, the long wars occasioned by the personal rivalry of Charles and Francis had other results than Habsburg pre- dominance in Italy and French expansion towards the of the Rhine. They preserved a "balance of power" and

Wars prevented the incorporation of the French monarchy

between,

Charles V into an obsolescent empire. They rendered easier the and j-jgg Qf |-]^g Ottoman power in eastern Europe ; and

Francis I

French alliance with the Turks gave French trade and enterprise a decided lead in the Levant. They also per- mitted the comparatively free growth of Protestantism in Germany.

More sinister to Charles V than his wars with the French was the advance of the Ottoman Turks. Under their greatest sultan, jijg Suleiman II, the Magnificent (i 520-1 566), a contem-

Turkish poraiy of Charles, the Turks were rapidly extending

their sway. The Black Sea was practically a Turkish lake ; and the whole Euphrates valley, with Bagdad, had fallen into the sultan's power, now established on the Persian Gulf and in control of all of the ancient trade-routes to the East. The northern coasts of Africa from Egypt to Algeria acknowl- edged the supremacy of Suleiman, whose sea power in the Medi- terranean had become a factor to be reckoned with in European politics, threatening not only the islands but the great Christian countries of Italy and Spain. The Venetians were driven from the Morea and from the ^F^gean Islands ; only Cyprus, Crete, and Malta survived in the Mediterranean as outposts of Christendom. Suleiman devoted many years to the extension of his power in Europe, sometimes in alliance with the French king, some- Suieiman times upon his own initiative, — and with almost un- the Mag- broken success. In 1521 he declared war against the ^ "'^^ king of Hungary on the pretext that he had received no Hungarian congratulations on his accession to the throne. He besieged and captured Belgrade, and in 1526 on the field of Mohacs his forces met and overwhelmed the Hungarians, whose

^ It was during this war that in 1558 the I'^rcnch captured Calais from the Eng- lish, and thus put an end to Englisii territorial holdings on the Continent. The English Queen Mary was the wife of Philip II of Spain.

FOUNDATIOXS OF MODERN EUROPE 8i

king was killed with the flower of the Hungarian chivalry. The battle of ]\Iohacs marked the extinction of an indci)endcnt and united Hungarian state ; Ferdinand of Habsburg, brother of Charles V, claimed the kingdom ; Suleiman was in actual pos- session of fully a third of it. The sultan's army carried the war into Austria and in 1529 bombarded and invested Vienna, but so valiant was the resistance offered that after three weeks the siege was abandoned. Twelve years later the greater part of Hungary, including the city of Budapest, became a Turkish province, and in many places churches were turned into mosques. In 1547 Charles V and Ferdinand were compelled to recognize the Turkish conquests in Hungary, and the latter agreed to pay the sultan an annual tribute of 30,000 ducats. Suleiman not only thwarted every attempt of his rivals to recover their terri- tories, but remained throughout his life a constant menace to the security of the hereditary dominions of the Habsburgs.

At the very time when Charles V was encountering these grave troubles in administering his scattered hereditary posses- sions and in waging war now with the French and now with the Mohammedans, he hkewise was saddled and'the with problems pecuHar to the government of his em- Holy pire. Had he been able to devote all his talent and Em™ke energy to the domestic affairs of the Holy Roman Empire, he might have contributed potently to the estabhsh- ment of a compact German state. It should be borne in mind that when Charles V was elected emperor in 15 19 the Holy Roman Empire was virtually restricted to German-speaking peoples, and that the national unifications of England, France, and Spain, already far advanced, pointed the path to a similar poHtical evolution for Germany. Why should not a modern German national state have- been created coextensive _, .. ...^

^ Possibility

With the medieval empire, a state which would have of Trans- included not only the twentieth-century German Em- forming the

•^ ■' 1 • 1 _ Empire into

pire, but Austria, Holland, and Belgium, and which", a National stretching from the Baltic to the Adriatic and from ^^^^^\

° . Monarchy

the Enghsh Channel to the Vistula, would have domi- nated the continent of Europe throughout the whole modern era ? There were certainly grave difficulties in the way, but grave difiiculties had also been encountered in consoHdating France or

82 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Spain, and the difference was rather of degree than of kind. In every other case a strong monarch had overcome feudal princes and ambitious nobles, had deprived cities of many of their liberties, had trampled upon, or tampered with, the privileges of representative assembhes, and had enforced in- ternal order and security. In every such case the monarch had commanded the support of important popular elements and had directed his major efforts to the realization of national aims.

National patriotism was not altogether lacking among Ger- mans of the sixteenth century. They were conscious of a com- mon language which was already becoming a vehicle of literary expression. They were conscious of a common tradition and of a common nationality. They recognized, in many cases, the absurdly antiquated character of their pohtical institutions and ardently longed for reforms. In fact, the trouble with the Ger- mans was not so much the lack of thought about political reform as the actual conflicts between various groups concerning the method and goal of reform. Germans despised the Holy Roman Empire, much as Frenchmen abhorred the memory of feudal society; but Germans were not as unanimous as Frenchmen in advocating the establishment of a strong national monarchy. In Germany were princes, free cities, and knights, — all national- istic after a fashion, but all quarreling with each other and with their nominal sovereign.

The emperors themselves were the only sincere and consistent champions of centralized monarchical power, but the emperors

were probably less patriotic than any one else in the Charles V Holy Roman Empire. Charles V would never aban- st^rengthen- ^^^ ^^^ pretensions to world power in order to become ing Mo- a strong monarch over a single nation. Early in his Powe/ reign he declared that "no monarchy was comparable

though not to the Roman Empire. This the whole world had once National obeyed, and Christ Himself had paid it honor and Basis obedience. Unfortunately it was now only a shadow

of what it had been, but he hoped, with the help of those powerful countries and alhances which God had granted him, to raise it to its ancient glory." Charles V labored for an increase of personal power not only in Germany but also in the

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 83

Netherlands, in Spain, and in Italy ; and with the vast imperial ambition of Charles the ideal of creating a national monarchy on a strictly German basis was in sharp conflict. Charles V could not, certainly would not, pose simply as a German king — a national leader.

Under these circumstances the powerful German princes, in defying the emperor's authority and in promoting disruptive tendencies in the Holy Roman Empire, were enabled to lay the blame at the feet of their unpatriotic sovereign among the and thereby arouse in their behalf a good deal of Ger- German man national sentiment. In choosing Charles V to be their emperor, the princely electors in 15 19 had demanded that German or Latin should be the official language of the Holy Roman Empire, that imperial offices should be open only to Germans, that the various princes should not be subject to any foreign poUtical jurisdiction, that no foreign troops should serve in imperial wars without the approval of the Diet, and that Charles should confirm the sovereign rights of all the princes and appoint from their number a Council of Regency {Reichs- regiment) to share in his government.

In accordance with an agreement reached by a Diet held at Worms in 152 1, the Council of Regency was created. Most of its twenty-three members w^ere named by, and repre- sented the interests of, the German princes. Here council might be the starting-point toward a closer pohtical of Regency, union of the German-speaking people, if only a certain amount of financial independence could be secured to the Council. The proposal on this score was a most promising one ; it was to support the new imperial administration, not, as formerly, by levying more or less voluntary contributions on the various states, but by estabhshing a kind of customs-union (Zollverein) and imposing on foreign importations a tarift" for revenue. This time, however, the German burghers raised angry protests ; the merchants and traders of the Hanseatic towns insisted j^g Failure that the proposed financial burden would fall on them to Unify and destroy their business; and their protests were ^""^^^^ potent enough to bring to nought the princes' plan. Thus the government was forced again to resort to the levy of special financial contributions, — an expedient which usually put the

84 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

emperor and the Council of Regency at the mercy of the most selfish and least patriotic of the German princes.

More truly patriotic as a class than German princes or Ger- man burghers were the German knights — those gentlemen of the hill-top and of the road, who, usually poor in

Nationalism r ^ •

among the pocket though stout oi heart, looked down from their German high-perched castles with badly disguised contempt upon the vulgar tradesmen of the town or beheld with anger and jealousy the encroachments of neighboring princes, lay and ecclesiastical, more wealthy and powerful than themselves. Especially against the princes the knights contended, sometimes under the forms of law, more often by force and violence and all the barbarous accompaniments of private warfare and per- sonal feud. Some of the knights were well educated and some had literary and scholarly abilities ; hardly any one of them was a friend of pubHc order. Yet practically all the knights were intensely proud of their German nationality. It was the knights, who, under the leadership of such fiery patriots as Ulrich von Hutten and Franz von Sickingen, had forcefully contributed in 1 5 19 to the imperial election of Charles V, a German Habsburg, in preference to non-German candidates such as Francis I of France or Henry VIII of England. For a brief period Charles V leaned heavily upon the German knights for support in his struggle with princes and burghers ; and at one time it looked as if the knights in union with the emperor would succeed in curbing the power of the princes and in laying the foundations of a strongly centralized national German monarchy.

But at the critical moment Protestantism arose in Germany, marking a cleavage between the knightly leaders and the em- peror. To knights like Ulrich von Hutten and Franz Lutheran- ^^^ Sickingen the final break in 1520 between Martin ism Favored Luther and the pope seemed to assure a separation of Knights Germany from Italy and the erection of a peculiar and Op- form of German Christianity about which a truly na- ChMiesV tional state could be buildcd. As a class the knights ap- plauded Luther and rejoiced at the rapid spread of his teachings throughout Germany. On the other hand, Charles V remained a Roman Catholic. Not only was he loyally attached to the rehgion of his fathers through personal training and belief,

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 85

but he felt that the maintenance of what poUtical authority he possessed was dependent largely on the maintenance of the unix'ersal authority of the ancient Church, and practically he needed papal assistance for his many foreign projects. The same reasons that led many German princes to accept the Lutheran doctrines as a means of lessening imperial control caused Charles V to reject them. At the same Diet at Worms (1521), at which the Council of Regency had been created, Charles V prevailed upon the Germans present to condemn and outlaw Luther ; and this action alienated the knights from the emperor.

Franz von Sickingen, a Rhenish knight and the ablest of his class, speedily took advantage of the emperor's absence from Germany in 1522 to precipitate a Knights' War. In supreme command of a motley army of fellow-knights, Knights' Franz made an energetic attack upon the rich landed ^"' ^5^^" estates of the CathoHc prince-bishop of Trier. At this point, the German princes, lay as well as ecclesiastical, forgetting their rehgious predilections and mindful only of their common hatred of the knights, rushed to the defense of the bishop of Trier and drove off Sickingen, who, in April, 1523, died fight- ing before his own castle of Ebernburg. Ulrich von Hutten fled to S\vitzerland and perished miserably shortly afterwards. The knights' cause collapsed, and princes and burghers remained triumphant.^ It was the end of serious efforts in the sixteenth century to create a national German state.

The Council of Regency lasted until 1531, though its inability to preserve domestic peace discredited it, and in its later years it enjoyed Httle authority. Left to themselves, many Failure of of the princes espoused Protestantism. In vain German Charles V combated the new rehgious movement. in^thT ^™ In vain he proscribed it in several Diets after that Sixteenth of W^orms. In vain he assailed its upholders in sev- ^^^^^^ eral mihtary campaigns, such as those against the Schmalkaldic League, which will be treated more fully in another connection. But the long absences of Charles V from Germany and his absorption in a multitude of cares and worries, to say nothing

' The Knights' War was soon followed by the Peasants' Revolt, a social rather than a political movement. For an account of the Peasants' Revolt see pp. 133 ff.

86 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

of the spasmodic aid which Francis, the CathoHc king of France, gave to the Protestants in Germany, contributed indirectly to the spread of Lutheranism. In the last year of Charles's rule (1555) the profession of the Lutheran faith on the part of German princes was placed by the peace of Augsburg ^ on an equal foot- ing with that of the CathoHc rehgion. Protestantism among the German princes proved a disintegrating, rather than a unify- ing, factor of national hfe. The rise of Protestantism was the last straw which broke German nationalism.

With England the relations of Charles V were interesting but not so important as those already noted with the Germans, the Charles V Turks, and the French. At first in practical alUance and Eng- with the impetuous self-willed Henry VIII ( 1 509-1 547) , ^" whose wife — Catherine of Aragon — was the em-

peror's aunt, Charles subsequently broke off friendly relations when the EngHsh sovereign asked the pope to declare his mar- riage null and void. Charles prevailed upon the pope to deny Henry's request, and the schism wliich Henry then created between the Catholic Church in England and the Roman See increased the emperor's bitterness. Towards the close of Henry's reign relations improved again, but it was not until the acces- sion of Charles's cousin, Mary (i 553-1 558), to the English throne that really cordial friendship was restored. To this Queen Mary, Charles V married his son and successor Philip.

At length exhausted by his manifold labors, Charles V re- solved to divide his dominions between his brother Ferdinand Abdication and his SOU Phihp and to retire from government. In of Charles V the Hall of the Golden Fleece at Brussels on 25 Octo- ber, 1555, he formally abdicated the sovereignty of his beloved Netherlands. Turning to the representatives, he said : " Gentle- men, you must not be astonished if, old and feeble as I am in all my members, and also from the love I bear you, I shed some tears." At least in the Netherlands the love was reciprocal. In 1556 he resigned the Spanish and Italian crowns,^ and spent his last years in preparation for a future world. He died in 1558. Personally, Charles V had a prominent lower jaw and a thin,

^ See below, p. 136.

^ He made over to his brother all his imperial authority, though he nominally retained the crown of the Holy Roman Empire until 1558.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 87

pale face, relieved by a wide forehead and bright, flashing eyes. He was well formed and dignified in appearance. In character he was slow and at times both irresolute and obstinate, but he had a high sense of duty, honest intentions, good soldierly quali- ties, and a large amount of cold common sense. Though not highly educated, he was well read and genuinely appreciative of music and painting.

PHILIP II AND THE . PREDOMINANCE OF SPAIN

For a century and a half after the retirement of Charles V in 1556, we hear of two branches of the Habsburg family — the Spanish Habsburgs and the Austrian Habsburgs, de- .

scended respectively from PhiHp II and Ferdinand, the Habs- By the terms of the division, Ferdinand, the brother ^"^s in-

/ „i , .11 r M • • nentance

of Charles, received the compact family possessions in

the East — Austria and its dependencies, Bohemia, that portion

of Hungary not occupied by the Turks, and the title of Holy

Roman Emperor, — while the remainder went to Charles's son,

Phihp II, — Spain, the Netherlands, Franche Comte (the eastern

part of Burgundy), the Two Sicihes, Milan, and the American

colonies.

Over the history of Ferdinand and his immediate successors, we need not tarry, because, aside from efforts to preserve reh- gious peace and the family's political predominance within the empire and to recover Hungary from the Turks, it is hardly essential. But in western Europe Phihp II for a variety of reasons became a figure of w^orld-wide importance : we must examine his career.

Few characters in history have ehcited more widely contra- dictory estimates than Philip II. Represented by many Prot- estant writers as a villain, despot, and bigot, he has character been extolled by patriotic Spaniards as Phihp the and Policies Great, champion of religion and right. These con- ° ^ flicting opinions are derived from different views which may be taken of the value and inherent worth of Phihp 's pohcies and methods, but what those policies and methods were there can be no doubt. In the first place, Phihp II prized Spain as his native country and his main possession — in marked contrast to his

88 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

father, for he himself had been born in Spain and had resided there during almost all of his life — and he was determined to make Spain the greatest country in the world. In the second place, Philip II was sincerely and piously attached to Catholi- cism ; he abhorred Protestantism as a blasphemous rending of the seamless garment of the Church ; and he set his heart upon the universal triumph of his faith. If, by any chance, a question should arise between the advantage of Spain and the best in- terests of the Church, the former must be sacrificed relentlessly to the latter. Such was the sovereign's stern ideal. No seem- ing failure of his pohcies could shake his belief in their funda- mental excellence. That whatever he did was done for the greater glory of God, that success or failure depended upon the inscrutable will of the Almighty and not upon himself, were his guiding convictions, which he transmitted to his Spanish suc- cessors. Not only was Philip a man of principles and ideals, but he was possessed of a boundless capacity for work and an in- domitable will. He preferred tact and diplomacy to war and prowess of arms, though he was quite wilKng to order his troops to battle if the object, in his opinion, was right. He was per- sonally less accustomed to the sword than to the pen, and no clerk ever toiled more industriously at his papers than did this king. From early morning until far into the night he bent over minutes and reports and other business of kingcraft. Naturally cautious and reserved, he was dignified arid princely in public. In his private life, he was orderly and extremely affectionate to his family and servants. Loyalty was Philip's best attribute.

There was a less happy side to the character of Philip II. His free use of the Inquisition in order to extirpate heresy through- out his dominions has rendered him in modern eyes an embodi- ment of bigotry and intolerance, but it must be remembered that he lived in an essentially intolerant age, when rehgious perse- cution was stock in trade of Protestants no less than of Catho- lics. It is likewise true that he constantly employed craft and deceit and was ready to make use of assassination for political purposes, but this too was in accordance with the temper of the times : lawyers then taught, following the precepts of the famous historian and political philosopher, ]Machia\'cIli, that Christian morality is a guide for private conduct rather than for pubHc

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 89

business, and that "the Prince" may act above the laws in order to promote the public good, and even such famous Protes- tant leaders as CoHgny and William the Silent entered into murder plots. But when all due allowances have been made^ the stu- dent cannot help feeUng that the purpose of PhiUp II would have been served better by the employment of means other than persecution and murder.

The reign of PhiUp II covered approximately the second half of the sixteenth century (i 556-1 598). In his efforts to make Spain the greatest power in the world and to restore the unity problems of Christendom, he was doomed to failure. The chief Confronting reason for the failure is simple — the number and ^^ variety of the problems and projects Mith which Philip II was concerned. It was a case of the king putting a finger in too many pies — he was cruelly burned. Could Philip II have de- voted all his energies to one thing at a time, he might conceiv- ably have had greater success, but as it was, he must divide his attention between supervising the complex administration of his already wide dominions and annexing in addition the mon- archy and empire of Portugal, between promoting a vigorous commercial and colonial policy and suppressing a stubborn re- volt in the Netherlands, between championing Catholicism in both England and France and protecting Christendom against the victorious Mohammedans. It was this multiphcity of inter- ests that paralyzed the might of the Spanish monarch, yet each one of his foreign activities was epochal in the history of the country affected. We shall therefore briefly review Philip's acti\dties in order.

As we have seen, Philip II inherited a number of states which had separate poHtical institutions and customs. He believed in national unification, at least of Spain. National uni- ^^^^ ^^^^j. fication impHed uniformity, and uniformity impHed PMip 11 : greater power of the crown. So Phihp sought to fur- ther the work of his great-grandparents, Ferdinand and Isabella, — absolutism and uniformity became his watchwords in internal administration. PoHtically Phihp made no pretense of consult- ing the Cortes on legislation, and, although he convoked them to vote new taxes, he estabhshed the rule that the old taxes were to be considered as granted in perpetuity and as constitut-

90 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

ing the ordinary revenue of the crown. He treated the nobles as ornamental rather than useful, retiring them from royal offices in favor of lawyers and other subservient members of the middle class. All business was conducted by correspondence and with a final reference to the king, and the natural result was endless delay.

Financially and economically the period was unfortunate for Spain. The burden of the host of foreign enterprises fell with Spain under crushing Weight upon the Spanish kingdom and partic- Phiiipii: ularly upon Castile. Aragon, which was poor and cononuc jealous of its own rights, would give little. The in- come from the Netherlands, at first large, was stopped by the revolt. The Italian states barely paid expenses. The revenue from the American mines, which has been greatly exaggerated, enriched the pockets of individuals rather than the treasury of the state. In Spain itself, the greater part of the land was owned by the ecclesiastical corporations and the nobles, who were exempt from taxation but were intermittently fleeced. More- over, the lo per cent tax on all sales — the alcabala ^ — gradually paralyzed all native industrial enterprise. And the persecution of wealthy and industrious Jews and Moors diminished the re- sources of the kingdom. Spain, at the close of the century, was on the verge of bankruptcy.

In religious matters Philip II aimed at uniform adherence to the doctrines of the Roman Cathohc Church. He felt, like so Spain under ^n^i^Y of his contemporaries, that disparity of beHef Philip II: among subjects would imperil a state. Both from Religious political motives and from rehgious zeal Philip was a CathoKc. He therefore advised the pope, watched with interest the proceedings of the great Council of Trent which was engaged with the reformation of the Church,^ and labored for the triumph of his religion not only in his own dominions and in France, but also in Poland, in England, and even in Scandinavia. In Spain he strengthened the Inquisition and used it as a tool of royal despotism.

Territorially Philip II desired to complete political unity in the peninsula by combining the crown of Portugal with those of Castile and Aragon. He himself was closely related to the

1 See above, p. 57. ^ See below, pp. 158 ff.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 91

Portuguese royal family, and in 1580 he laid formal claim to that kingdom. The duke of Braganza, whose claim was better than Philip's, was bought oil by immense grants and the country was overrun by Spanish troops. Philip union of ^ endeavored to placate the Portuguese bv full recogni- ^p^'° *"<*

P , . . . , . 1 , . . , Portugal

tion of their constitutional rights and in particular

by favoring the lesser nobility or country gentry. Although the monarchies and vast colonial possessions of Spain and Portugal were thus joined for sixty years under a common king, the ar- rangement ne\-er commanded any affection in Portugal, with the result that at the first opportunity, in 1640, Portuguese independ- ence was restored under the leadership of the Braganza family. The most serious domestic difficulty which Philip had to face was the revolt of the rich and populous Netherlands, which we shall discuss presently. But with other revolts the „ , ,..

/ „ Rebellions

king had to contend. In his ertorts to stamp out against heresy and peculiar customs among the descendants P^'^p.^^ of the Moors who still lived in the southern part of Spain, PhiHp aroused armed opposition. The Moriscos, as they were called, struggled desperately from 1568 to 1570 to reestab- lish the independence of Granada. This rebellion was suppressed with great cruelty, and the surviving Moriscos were forced to find new homes in less favored parts of Spain until their final expulsion from the country in 1609. A revolt of Aragon in 1591 was put down by a Castihan army ; the constitutional rights of Aragon were diminished and the kingdom was reduced to a greater measure of submission.

The causes that led to the revolt of the Netherlands may be stated as fourfold, (i) Financial. The burdensome taxes which Charles V had laid upon the country were increased

Revolt

by PhiUp II and often apphed to defray the expenses ^^ ^^^ of other parts of the Spanish possessions. Further- Nether- more, the restrictions which Philip imposed upon c^us^s Dutch commerce in the interest of that of Spain threatened to interfere seriously with the wonted economic prosperity of the Netherlands. (2) PoKtical. PhiHp II sought to centralize authority in the Netherlands and despotically de- prived the cities and nobles of many of their traditional privi- leges. Philip never visited the country in person after 1559, and

92 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

he intrusted his arbitrary government to regents and to Span- iards rather than to native leaders. The scions of the old and proud noble families of the Netherlands naturally resented being supplanted in lucrative and honorable public offices by persons whom they could regard only as upstarts. (3) Religious. De- spite the rapid and universal spread of Calvinistic Protestantism throughout the northern provinces, Philip was resolved to force CathoUcism upon all of his subjects. He increased the number of bishoprics, decreed acts of uniformity, and in a vigorous way utiUzed the Inquisition to carry his pohcy into effect. (4) Per- sonal. The Dutch and Flemish loved Charles V because he had been born and reared among them and always considered their country as his native land. Phihp II was born and brought up in Spain. He spoke a language foreign to the Netherlands, and by their inhabitants he was thought of as an aHen.

At first the opposition in the Netherlands was directed chiefly

against the Inquisition and the presence of Spanish garrisons in

the towns. The regent, Margaret of Parma, Philip's

of Parma half-sistcr, endeavored to banish pubHc discontent by

and the g^ fg^ concessions. The Spanish troops were withdrawn

" Beggars , , . . .

and certam unpopular ofiicials were dismissed. But influential noblemen and burghers banded themselves together early in 1566 and presented to the regent Margaret a petition, in which, while protesting their loyalty, they expressed fear of a general revolt and begged that a special embassy be sent to Philip to urge upon him the necessity of abolishing the Inquisi- tion and of redressing their other grievances. The regent, at first disquieted by the petitioners, was reassured by one of her advisers, who exclaimed, "What, Madam, is your Highness afraid of these beggars {ces gueux)?'^ Henceforth the chief opponents of Philip's policies in the Netherlands humorously labeled themselves "Beggars" and assumed the emblems of common begging, the wallet and the bowl. The fashion spread quickly, and the "Beggars' " insignia were everywhere to be seen, worn as trinkets, especially in the large towns. In accordance with the "Beggars'" petition, an embassy was dispatched to Spain to lay the grievances before Philip II.

PhiHp II at first promised to abolish the Inquisition in the Netherlands, but soon repented of his promise. For meanwhile

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 93

mobs of fanatical Protestants, far more radical than the re- spectable "Beggars," were rushing to arms, breaking into Catholic churches, wrecking the altars, smashing the images to pieces, profaning monasteries, and showing ^"a^jn^the in their retaliation as much violence as their enemies Nether- had shown cruelty in i)crsecution. In August, 1566, ^^^A^_\ this sacrilegious iconoclasm reached its climax in the irreparable ruin of the magnificent cathedral at Antwerp. Philip replied to these acts, wdiich he interpreted as disloyalty, by send- ing (1567) his most famous general, the duke of Alva, into the Netherlands with a large army and with instructions to cow the people into submission. Alva proved himself quite capable of understanding and executing his master's wishes : one of his first acts was the creation of a "Council of Troubles," an arbi- trary tribunal which tried cases of treason and which operated so notoriously as to merit its popular appellation of the "Coun- cil of Blood." During the duke's stay of six years, it has been estimated that eight thousand persons were executed, including the counts of Egmont and Horn, thirty thousand were despoiled of their property, and one hundred thousand quitted the coun- try. Alva, moreover, levied an enormous tax of one-tenth upon the price of merchandise sold. As the tax was collected on several distinct processes, it absorbed at least seven-tenths of the value of certain goods — of cloth, for instance. The tax, together with the lawless confusion throughout the country, meant the destruction of Flemish manufactures and trade. It was, therefore, quite natural that the burgesses of the southern Netherlands, CathoHc though most of them were, should unite with the nobles and w^ith the Protestants of the North in opposing Spanish tyranny. The whole country was now called to arms. One of the principal noblemen of the Netherlands was a Ger- man, William of Nassau, prince of Orange.^ He had been governing the provinces of Holland and Zeeland the snent, when Alva arrived, but as he was already at the Pn^^eof

Orange

point of accepting Protestantism he had prudently

retired into Germany, leaving his estates to be confiscated by

MVilliam (1533-1584), now commonly called "the Silent." There appears to be no contemporaneous justification of the adjective as applied to him, but the misnomer, once adopted by later writers, has insistently clung to him.

94 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

the Spanish governor. Certain trifling successes of the insurgents now called William back to head the popular movement. For many years he bore the brunt of the war and proved himself not only a resourceful general, but an able diplomat and a whole- souled patriot. He eventually gained the admiration and love of the whole Dutch people.

The first armed forces of Wilham of Orange were easily routed by Alva, but in 1569 a far more menacing situation was presented. The " Sea In that year Wilham began to charter corsairs and Beggars " privateers to prey upon Spanish shipping. These "Sea Beggars," as they were called, were mostly wild and law- less desperadoes who stopped at nothing in their hatred of Catho- hcs and Spaniards : they early laid the foundations of Dutch maritime power and at the same time proved a constant torment to Alva. They made frequent incursions into the numerous waterways of the Netherlands and perpetually fanned the embers of revolt on land. Gradually Wilham collected new armies, which more and more successfully defied Alva.

The harsh tactics of Alva had failed to restore the Netherlands

to PhiHp's control, and in 1573 Alva was replaced in the regency

by the more poHtic Requesens, who continued the

" Spanish Struggle as best he could but with even less success

^"''^" fi?^ than Alva. Soon after Requesens's death in i S76, the

the Pflcifi- v^ »

cation of Spanish army in the Netherlands, left without pay or Ghent, food, mutinied and inflicted such horrible indignities

upon several cities, notably Antwerp, that the savage attack is called the "Spanish Fury." Deputies of all the seven- teen provinces at once concluded an agreement, termed the Pacification of Ghent (1576), by which they mutually guaran- teed resistance to the Spanish until the king should abolish the Inquisition and restore their oldtime liberties.

Then Philip II tried a poHcy of concession, but the jiew gover- nor, the dashing Don John of Austria, fresh from a great naval victory over the Turks, soon discovered that it was too late to reconcile the Protestantfe. William the Silent was wary of the Spanish offers, and Don John died in 1578 without having achieved very much.

But Philip II was not without some success in the Nether- lands. He was fortunate in having a particularly determined

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 95

and tactful governor in the country from 1578 to 1592 in the person of Alexander Farnese, duke of Parma. Skillfully min- gling war and diplomacy, Farnese succeeded in sowing parnese discord between the northern and southern provinces : Duke of the former were Dutch, Calvinist, and commercial ; ^'^"^ the latter were Flemish and Walloon, Catholic, and industrial. The ten southern provinces might eventually have more to fear from the North than from continued union with Spain ; their representatives, therefore, signed a defensive league at Arras in 1579 for the protection of the Catholic re- ^^ Irras^ ^ ligion and with the avowed purpose of effecting a and the reconciliation with Philip II. In the same year the Utrecht northern provinces agreed to the Union of Utrecht, (1579): binding themselves together "as if they were one manent province" to maintain their rights and liberties "with Division of life-blood and goods" against Spanish tyranny and to i^nds^ ^^ grant complete freedom of worship and of religious opinion throughout the confederation. In this way the Pacifi- cation of Ghent was nullified and the Netherlands were split into two parts, each going its own way, each developing its own his- tory. The southern portion was to remain in Habsburg hands for over two centuries, being successively termed "Spanish Nether- lands" and "Austrian Netherlands" — roughly speaking, it is what to-day we call Belgium. The northern portion was to become free and independent, and, as the "United Provinces" or simply "Holland," to take its place among the nations of the world. For a considerable period of time Holland was destined to be more prosperous than Belgium. The latter suffered more grievously than the former from the actual hostilities ; and the Dutch, by closing the River Scheldt and dominating the adjacent seas, dealt a mortal blow at the industrial and commercial su- premacy of Antwerp and transferred the chief trade and business of all the Netherlands to their own city of Amsterdam.

For many years the struggle dragged on. At times it seemed probable that Farnese and the Spaniards would overcome the North by force as they had obtained the South by diplomacy. But a variety of reasons explain the ultimate success of the Dutch. The nature of the country rendered ordinary cam- paigning very difficult — the network of canals constituted

96 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

natural lines of defense and the cutting of the dikes might easily imperil an invading army. Again, the seafaring pro- pensities of the Dutch stimulated them to fit out an for the increasing number of privateers which constantly

Success of preyed upon Spanish commerce : it was not long be-

the Dutch K ^ , . ^ ^^ ^ . i i . . -,

fore this traffic grew miportant and legitimate, so that in the following century Amsterdam became one of the greatest cities of the world, and Holland assumed a prominent place among commercial and colonial nations. Thirdly, the employment of for- eign mercenaries in the army of defense enabled the native popu- lation to devote the more time to peaceful pursuits, and, despite the persistence of war, the Dutch provinces increased steadily in wealth and prosperity. Fourthly, the cautious Fabian policy of William the Silent prevented the Dutch from staking heavily upon battles in the open field. Fifthly, the Dutch received a good deal of assistance from Protestants of Germany, England, and France. Finally, Philip II pursued too many great projects at once to be able to bring a single one to a satisfactory conclusion : his war with Queen Elizabeth of England and his interference in the affairs of France inextricably complicated his plans in the Netherlands. In 1 581 Philip II published a ban against William of Orange, proclaiming him a traitor and an outlaw and offering a reward

to any one who would take him dead or alive. William D°Xration replied by his famous "Apology" to the charges of Dutch agamst him ; but his practical answer to the king ence^^isSi ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ °^ Abjuration, by which at his persuasion

the representatives of the northern provinces, assem- bled at The Hague, solemnly proclaimed their separation from the crown of Spain, broke the royal seal of Philip II, and declared the king deprived of all authority over them. We should call this Act of 1 58 1 the Dutch declaration of independence. It was an augury of the definitive result of the war.

Although William the Silent was assassinated by an agent of Spain (1584), and Antwerp was captured from the Protestants

in I s8s, the ability and genius of Farncse did not avail

Recognition , r n t 1 • 1 tt • 1 t-.

of Dutch to make further headway against the U mtcd Provinces ;

independ- j^^^ Philip II, stubbom to the end, positively refused to

recognize Dutch independence. In 160Q Philip III of

Spain consented to a twelve years' truce with the States-General

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 97

of The Hague. In the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) the Dutch and Spaniards again became embroiled, and the freedom of the re- pul)Hc was not recognized officially by Spain till the general peace of Westphalia in 1648.^

The seven provinces, which had waged such long war with Spain, constituted, by mutual agreement, a confederacy, each preserving a distinct local government and administration, but all subject to a general parliament — the States-General — and to a stadtholder, or governor-general, an office which subse- quently became hereditary in the Orange family. Between the States-General and the stadtholder, a constitutional conffict was carried on throughout the greater part of the seventeenth century — the former, supported by well-to-do burghers, favor- ing a greater measure of poUtical democracy, the latter, upheld by aristocratically minded nobles, laboring for the development of monarchical institutions under the Orange family.

Not only his efforts in the Netherlands but many other proj- ects of Philip II were frustrated by remarkable parallel develop- ments in the two national monarchies of England and „

^ _, , , . iT • 1 Natural

France. Both these countries were naturally jealous opposition and fearful of an undue expansion of Spain, which °^ England

and France

might upset the balance of power. Both states, from to the their geographical locations, would normally be inimi- pf V"^^."^ cal to PhiHp II : England would desire, from her island position, to destroy the monopoly which Spain claimed of the carrying trade of the seas ; France, still encircled by Habsburg possessions in Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands, would adhere to her traditional policy of allying herself with every foe of the Spanish king. Then, too, the papal authority had been rejected in England and seriously questioned in France : Philip's crusad- ing zeal made him the champion of the Church in those coun- tries. For ecclesiastical as well as for economic and political purposes it seemed necessary to the Spanish king that he should bring France and England under his direct influence. On their side, patriotic French and English resented such foreign interest in their domestic affairs, and the eventual failure of Philip regis- tered a wonderful growth of national feeling among the peoples who victoriously contended against him. The beginnings of the

^ See below, p. 229.

98 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

real modern greatness of France and England date from their struggle with Philip II.

At the outset of his reign, Philip seemed quite successful in his foreign relations. As we have seen, he was in alliance with Philip II England through his marriage with Queen Mary and Mary Tudor (1553-1558) : shc had temporarily restored the " °^ English Church to communion with the Holy See, and

was conducting her foreign policy in harmony with Philip's — because of her husband she lost to the French the town of Calais, the last English possession on the Continent (i 558). Likewise, as has been said, Philip II concluded with France in 1559 the advan- tageous treaty of Cateau-Cambresis. But during the ensuing thirty years the tables were completely turned. Both England and France ended by securing respite from Spanish interference.

Mary Tudor died unhappy and childless in 1558, and the suc- cession of her sister Queen Ehzabeth, daughter of Flenry VIII Philip II ^^'^ Anne Boleyn, altered the relations between the and Eliza- English and Spanish courts. Elizabeth (1558-1603) ^ was possessed of an imperious, haughty, energetic

character ; she had remarkable intelligence and an absorbing patriotism. She inspired confidence in her advisers and respect among her people, so that she was commonly called "Good Queen Bess" despite the fact that her habits of deceit and double-dealing gave color to the French king's remark that she was the greatest liar in Christendom. This was the woman with whom Philip II had to deal ; he tried many tactics in order to gain his ends, — all of them hopelessly unsuccessful.

Philip first proposed matrimony, but Elizabeth was very care- ful not to give herself, or England, such a master. Then when the queen declared herself a Protestant and showed no inclina- tion to assist Philip in any of his enterprises, the Spanish king proceeded to plot against her throne. He subsidized Roman Catholic priests, especially Jesuits, who violated the laws of the land. He stirred up sedition and even went so far as to plan EHzabeth's assassination. Many conspiracies against the Eng- lish queen centered in the person of the ill-starred Mary Stuart,^ queen of Scotland, who was next in line of succession to the English throne and withal a Catholic,

^ Mary Stuart (1542-1587).

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 99

Descended from the Stuart kings of Scotland and from Henry VII of England, related to the powerful family of Guise in France, ]Mary had been brought up at the French Mary court and married to the short-lived French king, Stuart Francis II. Upon the death of the latter she returned in 1561 to Scotland, a young woman of but eighteen years, only to find that the government had fallen victim to the prevalent factional fights among the Scotch nobles and that in the preceding year the parliament had solemnly adopted a Calvinistic form of Protestantism. By means of tact and mildness, however, Mary won the respect of the nobles and the admiration of the people, until a series of marital troubles and blunders — her marriage with a worthless cousin, Henry Darnley, and then her scandalous marriage with Darnley's profligate murderer, the earl of Bothwell — alienated her people from her and drove her into exile. She abdicated the throne of Scotland in favor of her infant son, James VI, who was reared a Protestant and sub- sequently became King James I of England, and she then (1568) threw herself upon the mercy of Elizabeth. She thought she would find in England a haven of refuge ; instead she found there a prison.

For the score of years during which she remained Elizabeth's prisoner, Mary Stuart was the object of many plots and con- spiracies against the existing governments of both Scotland and England. In every such scheme were to be found the machi- nations and money of the Spanish king. In fact, as time went on, it seemed to a growing section of the English people as though the cause of Elizabeth was bound up with Protestantism and with national independence and prosperity just as certainly as the success of Mary would lead to the triumph of Catholicism, the political supremacy of Spain, and the commercial ruin of Eng- land. It was under these circumstances that Mary's fate was sealed. Because of a political situation over which she had shght control, the ex-queen of Scotland was beheaded by Eliza- beth's orders in 1587.

Philip II had now tried and failed in every expedient but one, — the employment of sheer force. Even this he attempted in order to avenge the death of Mary Stuart and to bring England, poHtically, rehgiously, and commercially, into harmony with his

lOO HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Spanish policies. The story of the preparation and the fate of the Invincible Armada is almost too well known to require rep- The etition. It was in 1588 that there issued from the

Armada mouth of the Tagus River the most formidable fleet which up to that time Christendom had ever beheld — 130 ships, 8000 seamen, 19,000 soldiers, the flower of the Spanish chivalry. In the Netherlands it was to be joined by Alexander Farnese with 33,000 veteran troops. But in one important re- spect Philip had underestimated his enemy : he had counted upon a divided country. Now the attack upon England was primarily national, rather than religious, and Catholics vied with Protestants in offering aid to the queen : it was a united rather than a divided nation which Philip faced. The English fleet, composed of comparatively small and easily maneuvered vessels, worked great havoc upon the ponderous and slow- moving Spanish galleons, and the wreck of the Armada was completed by a furious gale which tossed ship after ship upon the rocks of northern Scotland. Less than a third of the original expedition ever returned to Spain.

Philip II had thus failed in his herculean effort against Eng- land. He continued in small ways to annoy and to irritate Elizabeth. He tried — without result — to incite the Catholics of Ireland against the queen. He exhausted his arsenals and his treasures in despairing attempts to equip a second and even a third Armada. But he was doomed to bitterest disappointment, for two years before his death an English fleet sacked his own great port of Cadiz. The war with England ruined the navy and the commerce of Spain. The defeat of the Armada was England's first title to commercial supremacy.

It was long maintained that the underlying causes of the con- flict between England and Spain in the second half of the six- teenth century and its chief interest was religious — Benefi^'^ that it was part of an epic struggle between Protes- of the tantism and Catholicism. There may be a measure of

Engiand°'^ truth in such an idea, but most recent writers believe that the chief motives for the conflict, as well as its important results, were essentially economic. From the begin- ning of Elizabeth's reign, English sailors and freebooters, such as Hawkins and Drake, took the offensive against Spanish trade

FOUNDATIONS OF ^lODERN EUROPE loi

and commerce ; and many ships, laden with silver and goods from the New World and bound for Cadiz, were seized and towed into English harbors. The queen herself frequently received a share of the booty and therefore tended to encourage the practice. For nearly thirty years Philip put up with the capture of his treasure ships, the raiding of his colonies, and the open assist- ance rendered to his rebellious subjects. Only when he reached the conclusion that his power would never be secure in the Netherlands or in America did he dispatch the Armada. Its failure finally freed Holland and marked the collapse of the Spanish monopoly upon the high seas and in the New World.

Before we can appreciate the mo'tives and results of the in- terference of Philip II in French affairs, a few words must be said about what had happened in France since Fran- Affairs in cis I (1515-1547) and his son, Henry II (1547-1559), France exalted the royal power in their country and not only preserved French independence of the surrounding empire of Charles V but also increased French prestige by means of a strong pohcy in Italy and by the extension of frontiers toward the Rhine. Henry II had married a member of the famous Florentine family of the ]\Iedici — Catherine de' Medici — a large and ugly woman, but ambitious, resourceful, and capable, who, by means of trickery and deceit, took an active part in French politics from the death of her husband, throughout the reigns of her feeble sons, Francis II (1559-1560), Charles IX (1560-1574), and Henry III (15 74-1 589). Catherine found her position and that of her royal children continually threatened by (i) the Protes- tants (Huguenots), (2) the great nobles, and (3) Philip II of Spain.

French Protestantism had grown steadily during the first half of the sixteenth century until it was estimated that from a twentieth to a thirtieth of the nation had fallen away Dangers from the Cathohc Church. The influence of the ad- to Royal vocates of the new faith was, however, much greater prance: than their number, because the Huguenots, as they Protestant- were called, were recruited mainly from the prosperous, intelligent middle class, — the bourgeoisie, — who had been in- trusted by preceding French kings with many important offices. The Huguenots represented, therefore, a powerful social class

I02 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

and likewise one that was opposed to the undue increase of royal power. They demanded, not only religious toleration for themselves, but also regular meetings of the Estates-General and control of the nation's representatives over financial matters. The kings, on their part, felt that pohtical solidarity and their own personal rule were dependent upon the maintenance of religious uniformity in the nation and the consequent defeat of the pretensions of the Huguenots. Francis I and Henry II had persecuted the Protestants with bitterness. From 1562 to 1593 a series of so-called religious wars embroiled the whole country.

French politics were further complicated during the second half of the sixteenth century by the recrudescence of the power of the nobles. The so-called religious wars were quite to^Royai ^^ much political as religious — they resulted from Power in efforts of this or that faction of noblemen to dictate the Nobles ^^ ^ weak king. Two noble families particularly vied with each other for power, — the Bourbons and the Guises, — and the unqualified triumph of either would be certain to bring calamity to the sons of Catherine de' Medici. The Bourbons bore the proud title of princes of the blood because The they were direct descendants of a French king. Their

Bourbons descent, to be sure, was from Saint Louis, king in the thirteenth century, and they were now, therefore, only distant cousins of the reigning kings, but as the latter died off, one after another, leaving no direct successors, the Bourbons by the French law of strict male succession became heirs to the royal family. The head of the Bourbons, a" certain Anthony, had married the queen of Navarre and had become thereby king of Navarre, although the greater part of that country — the region south of the Pyrenees — had been annexed to Spain in 151 2. Anthony's brother Louis, prince of Conde, had a reputation for bravery, loyalty, and ability. Both Conde and the king of Navarre were Protestants.

The Guise family was descended from a duke of Lorraine who had attached himself to the court of Francis I. It was The Guise really a foreign family, inasmuch as Lorraine was then Family q^ dependency of the Holy Roman Empire, but the

patriotic exploits of the head of the family in defending Metz against the Emperor Charles V and in capturing Calais from the

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 103

English endeared the Guises to a goodly part of the French nation. The duke of Guise remained a stanch Catholic, and his brother, called the Cardinal of Lorraine, was head of as many as twelve bishoprics, which gave him an enormous revenue and made him the most conspicuous churchman in France. During the reign of Henry II (i 547-1 559) the Guises were especially influential. They fought vahantly in foreign wars. They spurred on the king to a great persecution of the Huguenots. They increased their own landed estates. And they married one of their relatives — Mary, queen of Scots — to the heir to the throne. But after the brief reign of Mary's husband, Francis II (i 559-1 560), the Guise family encountered not only the active opposition of their chief noble rivals, the Bourbons, with their Huguenot alhes, but hkewise the jealousy and crafty intrigues of Catherine de' Medici.

Catherine feared both the ambition of the powerful Guise family and the disruptive tendencies of Protestantism. The result was a long series of confused civil wars between Religious the ardent followers, respectively Catholic and Protes- Wars in tant, of the Guise and Bourbon families, in which the '^^"^^ queen-mother gave support first to one side and then to the other. There were no fewer than eight of these sanguinary conflicts, each one ending with the grant of slight concessions to the Huguenots and the maintenance of the weak kings upon the throne. The massacre of Saint Bartholomew's Day (1572) was a horrible incident of Catherine's policy of "trimming." Fearing the undue influence over the king of Admiral de CoHgny, an upright and able Huguenot leader, the queen-mother, with the aid of the Guises, prevailed upon the weak-minded Charles IX to authorize the wholesale assassination of Protestants. The signal was given by the ringing of a Parisian church-bell at two o'clock in the morning of 24 August, 1572, and the slaughter went on throughout the day in the capital and for several weeks in the provinces. Coligny was murdered ; even women and children were not spared. It is estimated that in all at least three thousand — perhaps ten thousand — lost their lives.

The massacre of Saint Bartholomew's Day did not destroy French Protestantism or render the Huguenot leaders more

I04 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

timid in asserting their claims. On the other hand, it brought into clear hght a noteworthy division within the ranks of their The "Poli- Catholic opponents in France — on one side, the rigor- tiques " Q^g followers of the Guise family, who complained only that the massacre had not been suihciently comprehensive, and, on the other side, a group of moderate Catholics, usually styled the " Politiques,'' who, while continuing to adhere to the Roman Church, and, when called upon, bearing arms on the side of the king, were strongly opposed to the employment of force or vio- lence or persecution in matters of religion. The Politiques were particularly patriotic, and they blamed the religious wars and the intolerant policy of the Guises for the seeming weakness of the French monarchy. They thought the massacre of Saint Bartholomew's Day a blunder as well as a crime.

The emergence of the Politiques did not immediately make for peace; rather, it substituted a three-sided for a two-sided conflict.

After many years, filled with disorder, it became apparent that the children of Catherine de' Medici would have no direct male heirs and that the crown would therefore legally and\he devolvc upon the son of Anthony of Bourbon — War of the Henry of Bourbon, king of Navarre and a Protestant. Hemies Such an outcome was naturally distasteful to the Guises and abhorrent to Philip II of Spain. In 1585 a definite league was formed between Henry, duke of Guise, and the Spanish king, whereby the latter undertook by military force to aid the former's family in seizing the throne : French politics in that event would be controlled by Spain, and Philip would secure valuable assistance in crushing the Netherlands and conquering England.^ The immediate outcome of the agreement was the war of the three Henries — Henry III, son of Catherine de' Medici and king of France ; Henry of Bourbon, king of Navarre and heir to the French throne ; and Henry, duke of Guise, with the foreign support of Philip II of Spain. Henry of Guise represented the extreme Catholic party ; Henry of Navarre, the Protestant faction ; and Henry of France, the CathoHc moderates — the Politiques — who wanted peace and

^ At that very time, Mary, Queen of Scots, cousin of Henry, dul<,e of Guise, was held a prisoner in England by Queen Elizabeth. See above, p. 99.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 105

were willing to grant a measure of toleration. The last two were upholders of French independence against the encroachments of Spain.

The king was speedily gotten into the power of the Guises, but little headway was made by the extreme Cathohcs against Henry of Navarre, who now received domestic aid from the Politiques and foreign assistance from Queen Elizabeth of Eng- land and who benefited by the continued misfortunes of Philip II. At no time was the Spanish king able to devote his whole atten- tion and energy to the French war. At length in 158S Henry III caused Henry of Guise to be assassinated. The king never had a real chance to prove whether he could become a national leader in expelling the foreigners and putting an end to civil war, for he himself was assassinated in 1589. With his d}'ing breath he designated the king of Navarre as his successor.

Henry of Navarre, the first of the Bourbon family upon the throne of France, took the title of Henry IV (1589-1610).^ For four years after his accession, Henry IV was obliged to Henry of continue the civil war, but his abjuration of Protes- Navarre tantism and his acceptance of Cathohcism in 1593 removed the chief source of opposition to him within France, and the rebellion speedily collapsed. With the Spanish king, however, the struggle dragged on until the treaty of Vervins, which in the last year of Philip's life practically confirmed the peace of Cateau- Cambresis.

Thus Philip II had failed to conquer or to dismember France. He had been unable to harmonize French policies with those of his own in the Netherlands or in England. Despite his endeavors, the French crown was now^ on the head Spain and of one of his enemies, who, if something of a renegade ^^® °^

_, , . ° °, , France

Protestant himself, had nevertheless granted qualified toleration to heretics. Nor were these failures of Philip's politi- cal and religious policies mere negative results to France. The unsuccessful interference of the Spanish king contributed to the assurance of French independence, patriotism, and solidarity. France, not Spain, was to be the centgr of European pohtics during the succeeding century.

^ It is a curious fact that Henry of Navarre, like Henry of Guise and Henry of France, died by the hand of an assassin.

io6 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

In concluding this chapter, a large section of which has been Philip II devoted to an account of the manifold failures of Philip and the II, a word should be added about one exploit that brought glory to the Spanish monarch. It was he who administered the first effective check to the advancing Ottoman Turks.

After the death of Suleiman the Magnificent (1566), the Turks continued to strengthen their hold upon Hungary and to fit out piratical expeditions in the Mediterranean. The latter repeatedly ravaged portions of Sicily, southern Italy, and even the Balearic Islands, and in 1570 an Ottoman fleet captured Cyprus from the Venetians. Malta and Crete remained as the only Christian outposts in the Mediterranean. In this extremity, a league was formed to save Italy. Its inspirer and preacher was Pope Pius V, but Genoa and Venice furnished the bulk of the fleet, while Philip II supplied the necessary additional ships and the commander-in-chief in the person of his half-brother, Don John of Austria. The expedition, which comprised 208 vessels, met the Ottoman fleet of 273 ships in the Gulf of Lepanto, off the coast of Greece, on 7 October, 1571, and inflicted upon it a crushing defeat. The Turkish warships were almost all sunk or driven ashore ; it is estimated that 8000 Turks lost their lives. When news of the victory reached Rome, Pope Pius intoned the famous verse, "There was a man sent from God whose name was John."

The battle of Lepanto was of great political importance. It

gave the naval power of the Mohammedans a blow from which it

never recovered and ended their aggressive warfare in

Lepanto

the Mediterranean. It was, in reality, the last Crusade : Philip II was in his most becoming role as champion of church and pope; hardly a noble family in Spain or Italy was not represented in the battle ; volunteers came from all parts of the world ; the celebrated Spanish writer Cervantes lost an arm at Lepanto. Western Europe was henceforth to be comparatively free from the Ottoman peril.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE

107

THE HABSBURG FAMILY IN THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES

Frederick III (Habsburg),

Holy Roman Emperor

(1440-1493)

Maximiliak I (Habsburg)

Holy Roman Emperor

(1493-IS19)

. Mary, dau. of Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy

Ferdinand

the Catholic,

King of Aragon

and Sicily

(1479-IS16)

m. Isabella, I Queen of Castile (1474-1506)

Philip- d. 1506

-Joanna, Catherine m. Henry VIII

J- I5SS of Aragon

Charles (Habsburg),

I of Spain. V of the Empire,

Holy Roman Emperor

(1519-1558)

m. Anne, dau. of Ladislas, King of Bohemia and Hungary

Margaret

m. (i) Alessandro

de' Medici,

(2) Famese,

Duke of Parma

Don John of

Austria, d. 1578

Ferdinand I — (Habsburg), Holy Roman Emperor

(1558-1564)

I I I I

Phelip II, Marj' — m. — Maximilian II, Charles,

King gf King of Hungarj' Duke of

Spain, and Bohemia, Austria,

Sicily, etc. Holy Roman Styria, etc.

(1555-1598) Emperor

(1564-1576)

(Tudor),

King of

England

(1509-1547)

I

Mary

(Tudor),

Queen of

England

(1553-1558),

m. Philip II,

King of Spain

Alexander Farnese, Philip III, Anne Rudolph, Matthias,

Duke of Parma (1545-1592)

King of m. Philip II Holy Holy Roman Spain of Spain Roman Emperor

(1598-1621) Emperor (1612-1619)

I (1576-1612)

,— Margaret m. (4) Philip III of Spain

Ferdinand II, Holy Roman

Emperor (1619-1637)

Philip IV (Habsburg), King of Spain (1621-1665)

1 Anne m. Louis XIII (Bourbon), King of France (1610-1643)

CH.4RLES II, Maria Theresa m. Louis XIV (Bourbon), King of Spain I King of France

(1665-1700), Y (1643-1715)

the last of the whence descended

Spanish Habsburgs the Bourbon sovereigns of Spain 1700-19 —

Ferdinand III, Holy Roman

Emperor (1637-1657) I Leopold I, Holy Roman

Emperor (165S-1705)

I

whence descended the Habsburg sov- ereigns of Austria 1705-19—

[o8

HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

■Jo a

■g — ^-^ ^^ UP

-■q 3

H O U

O

gx

E3-2 o

< 3 O «J

3 2

G«

^^	o'S'So"
s^l .s	^sa-s-^
Char' (Guis Cardi of Lorra	- "
-'S"?,
	^'l^l^
^ -a	— £-q--o =
y Si a^ f/^ <iJ^o —	rw52|
-rf 3-S 3^ „	— ji a
3 o
*--.	^ oo
-2 s"	^.O-o'S
•Ss-^	— SS'?'"
-o.S o
^£U
■n c!	••=4
^ c! O
u'-J w

Iz;	Q
o	IZ	>
pq	<	Z
P^
t3	1^"
o	1— 1
m	< Pi
^	c/:
CD
h— 1 O	O

t= e s

i^o o

-ffi3

^ o

C >

w	HH	o
m	J
H	1— 1	3
	P4
		> o	^^
		ij	M-
		a
		o	"^ 1
		M	.S ws
			o ;:?
		T3	c3 ^n
		-a
			c/l fl
		u	n =^
		13	5^

	jS>
	S^
t
3T3	-^-~ K^
C/5_t3
35
a^-^^^-g^
a
i^Tl
	X . '5
II (Val nee (IS ine de' 1	w^ bug r
.^ c3 >-«	W M
>* i-J oj	o ^
"§^■5
	M - '° n

Ly

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 109

THE HOUSE OF TUDOR: SOVEREIGxNS OF ENGLAND (1485-1603)

Henry VII

(1485-1509)

I 1 \ I

Arthur, Henry VIII Margaret Mary m. (i) Louis XII, of France,

d. 1502 (1509-1547) m. James IV, d. iSLS

I of Scotland (2) Charles Brandon,

I 1 1 I Duke of Suffolk

Mary Eliz.\beth Edward VI James V, of Scotland

(155.5-1558), (1558-1603) (1547-1553) I

m. Philip II Mary, Queen of Scots

of Spain |

James VI of Scotland,

and I of England

(1603-1625)

ADDITIONAL READING

General, with Special Reference to the Habsburg Territories. A. H.

Johnson, Europe in the Sixteenth Century, I4g4-i§g8 (1897), ch. iii-ix, a political summary ; Mary A. HoUings, Renaissance and Reformation, 1453-1660 (1910), ch. vi, ix, X, a brief outline; E. M. Hulme, Renaissance and Reformation, 2d ed. (191 5), ch. x, xiv, xxiv-xxviii, a brief and frag- mentary account ; T. H. Dyer, A History of Modern Europe, 3d ed., rev. by Arthur Hassall (1901), ch. ix, xi-xxvii, old but containing a multitude of political facts; Cambridge Modern History, Vol. II (1904), ch. ii, iii, vii, viii, and Vol. Ill (1905), ch. xv, v ; History of All Nations, Vol. XI and Vol. XII, ch. i-iii, by the German scholar on the period, JNIartin Philippson ; Histoire generate. Vol. IV, ch. iii, ix, \'ol. V, ch. ii-v, xv. Of the Emperor Charles V the old standard English biography by William Robertson, still readable, has now been largely superseded by that of Edward Armstrong, 2 vols. (1902) ; two important German works on Charles V are Baumgarten, Geschichte Karls V, 3 vols. (1885-18^2), and Konrad Habler, Geschichte Spanicns untcr den Habsburgen, Vol. I (1907). Of Philip II the best brief biography in English is Martin Hume's (1902), which should be consulted, if possible, in connection with Charles Bratli, Philippe II, Roi d'Espagne : Etude snr sa vie et son caractere, new ed. (1912), an attempt to counteract traditional Protestant bias against the Spanish monarch. Also see M. A. S. Hume, Spain, its Greatness and Decay, i4-g-iYS8 (1898), ch. i-vi, for a general account of the reigns of Philip H and Philip III ; and Paul Herre, Papsttum und Papstwahl im Zeitalter Philipps II (1907) for a sympathetic treatment of Philip's relations with the papacy. For a proper understand- ing of sixteenth-century politics the student should read that all-important book, Machiavelli's Prince, the most convenient English edition of which is in " Everyman's Library." For political events in the Germanies in the sixteenth century : E. F. Henderson, A Short History of Germany, 2 vols. in I (1902); Sidney ^\^litman, Austria (1899); Gustav Wolf, Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Gegenrcformation (1899), an elaborate study; Franz Krones, Handbuch der Geschichte Oesterreichs von der dltesten Zeit, Vol. Ill (1877), Book XIII.

no HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

France in the Sixteenth Century. A. J. Grant, The French Monarchy, 1483-178Q (1900), Vol. I, ch. iii-v; G. W. Kitchin, A History oj France, 4th ed. (1894-1899), Vol. II, Book II, ch. iv-v, and Book III; Cambridge Modern History, Vol. Ill (1905), ch. i; Ernest Lavisse (editor), Hisloirc de France, Vol. v'(i903), Books III, IV, VII, VIII, and Vol. VI (1904), Books I-III, the most thorough and best treatment; Edward Armstrong, The French Wars of Religion (1892) ; J. W. Thompson, The Wars of Religion in France: the Huguenots, Catherine de Medici and Philip II of Spain, 1559-1576 (1909), contaming several suggestions on the economic condi- tions of the time ; A. W. Whitehead, Caspar d de Coligny, Admiral of France (1904) ; C. C. Jackson, The Last of the Valois, 2 vols. (1888), and, by the same author, The First of the Bourbons, 2 vols. (1890) ; Lucien Romier, Les origines politiqucs des Guerrcs de Religion, Vol. I, Henri II et V Italic, 1547-1555 (1913), scholarly and authoritative, stressing economic rather than political aspects; Louis Batiffol, The Century of the Renaissance in France, Eng. trans, by Elsie F. Buckley (1916), covering the years 1483- 1610, largely pohtical.

England in the Sixteenth Century. Brief accounts : A. L. Cross, His- tory of England and Greater Britain (1914), ch. xix-xxvi ; E. P. Cheyney, A Short History of England (1904), ch. xii, xiii ; Cambridge Modern History, Vol. Ill (1905), ch. viii-xi ; J. F. Bright, History of England, 5 vols. (1884- 1904), Vol. II, Personal Monarchy, 1485-1688 (in part) ; A. D. Innes, His- tory of England and the British Empire, 4 vols. (1914), Vol. II, ch. iii-viii ; J. R. Seeley, Growth of British Policy, 2 vols. (1895), a brilliant work, of which Vol. I, Part I, affords an able account of the policy of Elizabeth. More detailed studies : J. S. Brewer, The Reign of Henry VIII from his Accession to the Death of Wolsey, 2 vols. (1884) ; H. A. L. Fisher, Political History of England, 1485-1547 (1906), ch. vi-xviii ; A. F. PoUard, History of England from the Accession of Edward VI to the Death of Elizabeth (1910) ; J. A. Froude, History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Defeat of the Spanish Armada, 12 vols. (1870-1872), a masterpiece of prose-style but strongly biased in favor of Henry VIII and against anything connected with the Roman Church; E. P. Cheyney, A History of England from the Defeat of the Armada to the Death of Elizabeth, Vol. I (1914), scholarly and well-written. Also see Andrew Lang, A History of Scotland, 2d ed. (1901-1907), Vols. I and II; and P. H. Brown, History of Scotland (1899- 1900), Vols. I and II. Important biographies: A. F. PoUard, Henry VIII (1905), 'the result of much research and distinctly favorable to Henry; E. L. Taunton, Thomas Wolsey, Legate and Reformer (1902), the careful estimate of a Catholic scholar ; Mandell Creighton, Cardinal Wolsey (1888), a good clear account, rather favorable to the cardinal ; J. M. Stone, Mary the First, Queen of England (1901), a sympathetic biography of Mary Tudor ; Mandell Creighton, Queen Elizabeth (1909), the best biography of the Virgin Queen ; E. S. Beesly, Queen Elizabeth (1892), another good biography. For Mary, Queen of Scots, see the histories of Scotland mentioned above and also Andrew Lang, The Mystery of Mary Stuart (1901) ; P. H. Brown,

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE iii

Scotland in the Time of Qiiccii Mary (1904); and R. S. Rail, Mary Queen of Scots, 2d ed. (1899), containing important source-material concerning Mary. Walter Walsh, The Jesuits in Great Britain (1903), emphasizes their pohtical opposition to Elizabeth. Martin Hume, Two English Queens and Philip (1908), valuable for the English relations of Philip II. For English maritime development see David Hannay, A Short History of the English Navy (1898) ; J. S. Corbett, Drake and the Tudor Navy, 2 vols. (1898), and, by the same author, The Successors of Drake (1900) ; J. A. Froude, English Scamoi in the Si.vlernth Century (1895).

The Netherlands in the Sixteenth Century. A good brief account is that of George Edmundson in the Cambridge Modern History, Vol. Ill (1905), ch. vi, vii, and Vol. II (1904), ch. xix. For the Dutch Netherlands the great standard work is now P. J. Blok, History of the People of the Netherlands, trans, in large part by O. A. Bierstadt, and for the Belgian Netherlands a corresponding function is performed in French by Henri Pirenne. J. L. Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic, t, vols, (many editions), is brilliantly written and still famous, but it is based on an inadequate study of the sources and is marred throughout by bitter prejudice against the Spaniards and in favor of the Protestant Dutch : it is now completely super- seded by the works of Blok and Pirenne. Admirable accounts of William the Silent are the two-volume biography by Ruth Putnam and the volume by the same author in the " Heroes of the Nations " Series (191 1) ; the most detailed study is the German work of Felix Rachfahl.

The Turks in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge Modern History, Vol. Ill (1905), ch. iv ; A. H. Lybyer, The Government of the Ottoman Em- pire in the Time of Suleiman the Magnificent (1913) ; Stanley Lane-Poole, Turkey (1889) in the "Story of the Nations" Series; Nicolae Jorga, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches; Leopold von Ranke, Die Osmanen mid die spanische Monarchic im sechzehnten und siebzehnten Jahrhundert; Joseph von Hammer, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, 2d ed., 4 vols. (1834- 183s), Vol. II, a famous German work, which has been translated into French.

CHAPTER IV

THE PROTESTANT REVOLT AND THE CATHOLIC REFOR- MATION

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AT THE OPENING OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

Four hundred years ago, practically all people who lived in central or western Europe called themselves "Christians" and _j._ in common recognized allegiance to an ecclesiastical

between body which was called the "Catholic Church." Religious 'pj^g CathoHc Church in i^oo differed from any

Bodies m . . . , .

1500 and present-day rehgious society in the following re-

Thosein spects : (i) Every child was born into the Church 1900 ^ 1 . , . 1

as now he is born into the state ; every person was

expected to conform, at least outwardly, to the doctrines and practices of the Church ; in other words the CathoKc Church claimed a universal membership. (2) The Church was not supported by voluntary contributions as now, but by com- pulsory taxes ; every person was compelled to assist in defray- ing the expenses of the official religion. (3) The state undertook to enforce obedience on the part of its subjects to the Church ; a person attacking the authority of the Catholic Church would be liable to punishment by the state, and this held true in Eng- land and Germany as well as in Spain or Italy.

Then, within fifty years, between 1520 and 1570, a large number of Catholic Christians, particularly in Germany, Scan- Rise of dinavia, Scotland, and England, and a smaller num- Protestant- ber in the Low Countries and in France, broke off '^™ communion with the ancient Church and became known as Protestants. Before the year 1500 there were no Protestants ; since the sixteenth century, the dominant Chris- tianity of western and central Europe has been divided into

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 113

two parts — Catholic and Protestant. It is important that we should know something of the origin and significance of this division, because the Christian rehgion and the Christian Church had long played very great roles in the evolution of European civilization and because ecclesiastical and religious questions have continued, since the division, to deserve general attention.

Let us understand clearly what was meant in the year 1500 by the expression "Catholic Christianity." It embraced a belief in certain religious precepts which it was be- " cathoUc " lieved Jesus of Nazareth had taught at the beginning Christianity of the Christian era, the inculcation of certain moral teachings which were likewise derived from Jesus, and a definite organiza- tion — the Church — founded, it was assumed, by Jesus in order to teach and practice, till the end of time. His religious and moral doctrines. By means of the Church, man would know best how to order his life in this world and how to pre- pare his soul for everlasting happiness in the world to come.

The Catholic Church was, therefore, a vast human society, beheved to be of divine foundation and sanction, and with a mission greater and more lofty than that of any other ^j^g organization. Church and state had each its own Catholic sphere, but the Church had insisted for centuries that it was greater and more necessary than the state. The members of the Church were the sum-total of Christian be- Hevers who had been baptized — practically the population of western and central Europe — and its officers constituted a regular governing hierarchy.

At the head of the hierarchy was the bishop of Rome, styled the pope or sovereign pontiff, who from the first had probably enjoyed a leading position in the Church as the sue- Head of cessor of St. Peter, prince of the apostles, and whose *^® church claims to be the divinely appointed chief bishop had been gener- ally recognized throughout western Europe as early as the third century — perhaps earlier. The bishop of Rome was elected for life by a group of clergymen, called cardinals, who originally had been in direct charge of the parish churches in the city of Rome, but who later were frequently selected by the pope from various countries because they were distinguished churchmen.

114 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

The pope chose the cardinals ; the cardinals elected the pope. Part of the cardinals resided in Rome, and in conjunction with a host of clerks, translators, lawyers, and special officials, con- stituted the Curia, or papal court, for the conduct of general church business.

For the local administration of church affairs, the Catholic world was divided under the pope into several territorial sub- divisions, (i) The patriarchates were under patri- Adminis- archs who had their sees ^ in such ancient Christian trationof centers as Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch,

the Church , ^ . , / n rr^i • ^^ •

and Constantmople. (2) Ihe provmces were divi- sions of the patriarchates and usually centered in the most important cities, such as Milan, Florence, Cologne, Vienna, Paris, Seville, Lisbon, Canterbury, York ; and the head of each was styled a metropolitan or archbishop. (3) The diocese — the most essential unit of local administration — was a sub- division of the province, commonly a city or a town, with a certain amount of surrounding country, under the immediate supervision of a bishop. (4) Smaller divisions, particularly parishes, were to be found in every diocese, embracing a village or a section of a city, and each parish had its church building and its priest. Thus the Catholic Church possessed a veritable army of officials from pope and cardinals down through patri- archs, archbishops, and bishops, to the parish priests and their " Secular " assistants, the deacons. This hierarchy, because it Clergy labored in the world {saculo), was called the "secular

clergy."

Another variety of clergy — the "regulars" — supplemented the work of the seculars. The regulars were monks,^ that is, "Regular" Christians who lived by a special rule (regula), who Clergy renounced the world, took vows of chastity, poverty,

and obedience, and strove to imitate the life of Christ as liter- ally as possible. The regular clergy were organized under their own abbots, priors, provincials, or generals, being usually

' "See," so called from the Latin sedes, referring to their seat or chair of office. Similarly our word "cathedral" is derived from the Latin cathedra, the official chair which the bishop occupies in his own church.

^ The word "monk" is api^lied, of course, only to men; women who followed similar rules are commonly styled nuns.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 115

exempt from secular jurisdiction, except that of the pope. The regulars were the great missionaries of the Church, and many charitable and educational institutions were in their hands. Among the various orders of monks which had grown up in the course of time, the following should be enumerated : (i) The monks who lived in fixed abodes, tilled the soil, copied manuscripts, and conducted local schools. Most of the monks of this kind followed a rule, or society by-laws, which had been prepared by the celebrated St. Benedict about the year 525 : they were called therefore Benedictines. (2) The monks who organized crusades, often bore arms themselves, and tended the holy places connected with incidents in the hfe of Christ : such orders were the Knights Templars, the Knights Hospitalers of St. John and of Malta, and the Teutonic Knights who sub- sequently undertook the conversion of the Slavs. (3) The monks who were called the begging friars or mendicants because they had no fixed abode but wandered from place to place, preaching to the common people and dependent for their own Hving upon alms. These orders came into prominence in the thirteenth century and included, among others, the Franciscan, whose lovable founder Saint Francis of Assisi had urged humihty and love of the poor as its distinguishing characteristics, and the Dominican, or Order of the Preachers, devoted by the precept of its practical founder. Saint Dominic, to missionary zeal. All the mendicant orders, as well as the Benedictine monasteries, became famous in the history of education, and the majority of the distinguished scholars of the middle ages were monks. It was not uncommon, moreover, for regulars to enter the secular hierarchy and thus become parish priests or bishops, or even popes.

The clergy — bishops, priests, and deacons — constituted, in popular belief, the divinely ordained administration of the Catholic Church. The legislative authority in the church Church similarly was vested in the pope and in the Councils general councils, neither of which, however, could set aside a law of God, as affirmed in the gospels, or establish a doctrine at variance with the tradition of the early Christian writers. The general councils were assemblies of prelates of the Catholic world, and there had been considerable discussion as to the

ii6 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

relative authority of their decrees and the decisions and direc- tions of the pope.^ General church councils held in eastern Europe from the fourth to the ninth centuries had issued im- portant decrees or canons defining Christian dogmas and es- tablishing ecclesiastical discipline, which had been subsequently ratified and promulgated by the pope as by other bishops and by the emperors ; and several councils had been held in western Europe from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries under the direct supervision of the bishop of Rome, all the canons of which had been enacted in accordance with his wishes. But early in the fifteenth century a movement was inaugurated by certain Catholic bishops and scholars in favor of making the councils superior to the pope and a regular source of supreme " Conciiiar legislation for the Church. In this way, the councils Movement" gf Constance (1414-1418) and Basel (1431 ff.) had endeavored to introduce representative, if not democratic, government into the Church. The popes, however, objected to this conciiiar movement and managed to have it condemned by the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1442). By the year 1512 the papal theory had triumphed and Catholics generally recognized again that the government of the Church was es- sentially monarchical. The laws of the Catholic Church were known as canons, and, of several codes of canon law which had been prepared, that of a monk named Gratian, compiled in the twelfth century, was the most widely used.

We are now in a position to summarize the claims and preroga- tives of the bishop of Rome or pope, (i) He was the- supreme The Pope lawgiver. He could issue decrees of his own, which and his might not be set aside by any other person. No ^^^'^^ council might enact canons without his approval.

From any law, other than divine, he might dispense persons. (2) He was the supreme judge in Christendom. He claimed that appeals might be taken from decisions in foreign courts to his own Curia, as court of last resort. He himself frequently acted ,as arbitrator, as, for example, in the famous dispute between Spain and Portugal concerning the boundaries of their newly discovered possessions. (3) He was the supreme ad-

* Papal documents have been called by various names, such as decretals, bulls, or encyclicals.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 117

ministrator. He claimed the right to supervise the general business of the whole Church. No archbishop might perform the functions of his office until he received his insignia — the pallium — ■ from the pope. No bishop might be canonically installed until his election had been confirmed by the pope. The pope claimed the right to transfer a bishop from one diocese to another and to settle all disputed elections. He exercised immediate control over the regular clergy — the monks and nuns. He sent ambassadors, styled legates, to represent him at the various royal courts and to see that his instructions were obeyed. (4) He insisted upon certain temporal rights, as dis- tinct from his directly religious prerogatives. He crowned the Holy Roman Emperor. He might depose an emperor or king and release a ruler's subjects from their oath of allegiance. He might declare null and void, and forbid the people to obey, a law of any state, if he thought it was injurious to the interests of the Church. He was temporal ruler of the city of Rome and the surrounding papal states, and over those territories he exercised a power similar to that of any duke or king. (5) He claimed financial powers. In order to defray the enormous expenses of his government, he charged fees for certain services at Rome, assessed the dioceses throughout the Catholic world, and levied a small tax — Peter's Pence — upon all Christian householders.

So far we have concerned ourselves with the organization of the Catholic Church — its membership, its officers, the clergy, secular and regular, all culminating in the pope, the Purpose of bishop of Rome. But why did this great institution *^^ Church exist? Why was it loved, venerated, and well served? The purpose of the Church, according to its own teaching, was to follow the instructions of its Di\dne Master, Jesus Christ, in saving souls. Only the Church might interpret those instruc- tions ; the Church alone might apply the means of salvation ; outside the Church no one could be saved. ^ The salvation of

^ Catholic theologians have recognized, however, the possibility of salvation of persons outside the visible Church. Thus, the catechism of Pope Pius X says : "Whoever, without any fault of his own, and in good faith, being outside the Church, happens to have been baptized or to have at least an implicit desire for baptism, and, furthermore, has been sincere in seeking to find the truth, and has

ii8 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

souls for eternity was thus the supreme business of the Church.

This salvation of souls involved a theology and a sacramental system, which we shall proceed to explain. Theology was the study of God. It sought to explain how and why man was created, what were his actual and desirable relations with God, what would be the fate of man in a future life. The most famous theologians of the Catholic Church, for example, St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), studied carefully the teachings of Christ, the Bible, the early Christian writings, and the decrees of popes and councils, and drew therefrom elaborate explanations of Christian theology — the dogmas and faith of the Catholic Church.

The very center of Catholic theology was the sacramental system, for that was the means, and essentially the only means, ^j^g of saving souls. It was, therefore, for the purpose of

Sacramental the sacramental system that the Church and its ystem hierarchy existed. The sacraments were believed to have been instituted by Christ Himself, and were defined as "outward signs instituted by Christ to give grace." The number generally accepted was seven : baptism, confirmation, holy eucharist, penance, extreme unction, holy orders, and matrimony. By means of the sacraments the Church accom- panied the faithful throughout life. Baptism, the pouring of water, cleansed the child from original sin and from all previous actual sins, and made him a Christian, a child of God, and an heir of heaven. The priest was the ordinary minister of baptism, but in case of necessity any one who had the use of reason might baptize. Confirmation, conferred usually by a bishop upon young persons by the laying on of hands and the anointing with oil, gave them the Holy Ghost to render them strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ. Penance, one of the most important sacraments, was intended to forgive sins committed after baptism. To receive the sacrament of penance worthily it was necessary for the penitent (i) to examine his conscience, (2) to have sorrow for his sins, (3) to make a firm

done his best to do the will of God, such an one, although separated from the body of the Church, would still belong to her soul, and therefore be in the way of salvation."

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 119

resolution never more to offend God, (4) to confess his mortal sins orally to a priest, (5) to receive absolution from the priest, (6) to accept the particular penance — visitation of churches, saying of certain prayers, or almsgiving — which the priest might enjoin. The holy eucharist was the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the consecration of bread and wine by priest or bishop, its miraculous transformation (transubstantiation) at his word into the very Body and Blood of Christ, and its reception by the faithful. It was around the eucharist that the elaborate ritual and ceremonies of the Mass developed, that fine vestments and candles and incense and flowers were used, and that mag- nificent cathedrals were erected. Extreme unction was the anointing at the hands of a priest of the Christian who was in immediate danger of death, and it was supposed to give health and strength to the soul and sometimes to the body. By means of holy orders, — the special imposition of hands on the part of a bishop, — priests, bishops, and other ministers of the Church were ordained and received the power and grace to perform their sacred duties. Matrimony was the sacrament, held to be indissoluble by human power, by which man and woman were united in lawful Christian marriage.

Of the seven sacraments it will be noticed that two — ■ bap- tism and penance — dealt with the forgiveness of sins, and that two — holy orders and matrimony — were received only by certain persons. Three — baptism, confirmation, and holy orders — could be received by a Christian only once. Two — confirmation and holy orders — required the ministry of a bishop ; and all others, except baptism and possibly matri- mony, required the ministry of at least a priest. The priest- hood was, therefore, the absolutely indispensable agent of the Church in the administration of the sacramental system. It was the priesthood that absolved penitents from their sins, wrought the great daily miracle of transubstantiation, and offered to God the holy sacrifice of the Mass.

It must not be supposed that either the theology or the or- ganization of the Catholic Church, as they existed in the year 1500, had been precisely the same throughout the Christian era. While educated Cathohcs insisted that Christ was indirectly the source of all faith and all practice, they were quite willing to

I20 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

admit that external changes and adaptations of institutions to

varying conditions had taken place. Moreover, it must not be

supposed that the proud eminence to which the

Various

Objections Catholic Church had attained by 1500 in central to the ^j^([ western Europe had been won easily or at

that time was readily maintained. Throughout the whole course of Christian history there had been repeated objections to new definitions of dogma — many positively re- fused to accept the teaching of the Church as divine or infallible — and there had been Hkewise a good deal of opposition to the temporal claims of the Church, resulting in increasing friction between the clergy and the lay rulers. Thus it often transpired that the kings who vied with one another in recognizing the spiritual and religious headship of the pope and in burning heretics who denied doctrines of the Catholic Church, were the very kings who quarreled with the pope concerning the latter's civil jurisdiction and directed harsh laws against its exercise.

As strong national monarchies rose in western Europe, this friction became more acute. On one side the royal power was

determined to exalt the state and to bring into sub- Conflict ° jection to it not only the nobles and common people between but the clcrgy as well ; the national state must man- and^state ^S'^ absolutely every temporal affair. On the other

side, the clergy stoutly defended the special powers that they had long enjoyed in various states and which they believed to be rightly theirs. There were four chief sources of conflict between the temporal and spiritual jurisdictions, (i) Ap- pointments of bishops, abbots, and other high church officers. Inasmuch as these were usually foremost citizens of their native kingdom, holding large estates and actually participating in the conduct of government, the kings frequently claimed the right to dictate their election. On the other hand the popes insisted upon their rights in the matter and often "reserved" to themselves the appointment to certain valuable bishoprics. (2) Taxation of land and other property of the clergy. The clergy insisted that by right they were exempt from taxation and that in practice they had not been taxed since the first public recognition of Christianity in the fourth century. The

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 121

kings pointed out that the wealth of the clergy and the needs of the state had increased along parallel lines, that the clergy were citizens of the state and should pay a just share for its maintenance. (3) Ecclesiastical courts. For several centuries the Church had maintained its own courts for trying clerical offenders and for hearing certain cases, which nowadays are heard in state courts — probating of wills, the marriage rela- tions, blasphemy, etc. From these local church courts, the pope insisted that appeals might be taken to the Roman Curia. On their side, the kings were resolved to substitute royal justice for that of both feudal and ecclesiastical courts : they diminished, therefore, the privileges of the local church courts and forbade the taking of appeals to Rome. (4) How far might the pope, as universally acknowledged head of the Church, interfere in the internal affairs of particular states ? While the pope claimed to be the sole judge of his own rights and powers, several kings forbade the publication of papal documents within their states or the reception of papal legates unless the royal assent had been vouchsafed.

Gradually the national monarchs secured at least a partial control over episcopal appointments, and in both England and France papal jurisdiction was seriously restricted in other ways. In England the power of the ecclesiastical Restrictions courts had been reduced ( 1 164) ; no property might be p? *^, bestowed upon the Church without royal permission (1279) ; the pope might not make provision in England for his personal appointees to ofhce (1351) ; and appeals to Rome had been forbidden (1392).' In France the clergy had been taxed early in the fourteenth century, and the papacy, which had condemned such action, had been humiliated by a forced tem- porary removal from Rome to Avignon, where it was controlled by French rulers for nearly seventy years (1309-13 7 7) ; and in 1438 the French king, Charles VII, in a document, styled the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, solemnly proclaimed the "liber- ties of the Galilean Church," that a general council was superior to the pope, that the pope might not interfere in episcopal elec- tions, that he might not levy taxes on French dioceses. The Pragmatic Sanction was condemned by the pope, but for three-

^ All these anti-papal enactments were very poorly enforced.

122 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

quarters of a century after its issuance there were strained relations between the Church in France and the sovereign pontiff.

Similar conflicts between spiritual and temporal jurisdictions were common to all Christian states, but the national strength Political ^^'^ ^^^^ patriotism of the western monarchies caused Differences them to proceed further than any other state in from^Re- restricting the papal privileges. Despite the con- ligious flict over temporal affairs, which at times was ex-

1 erences (>gg(jij^g}y bitter, the kings and rulers of England and France never appear to have seriously questioned the religious authority of the Church or the spiritual supremacy of the pope. Religiously, the Catholic Church seemed in 1500 to hold absolute sway over all central and western Europe.

Yet this very religious authority of the Catholic Church had

been again and again brought into question and repeatedly

rejected. Originally, a united Christianity had con-

Religious •', ». i ^ r ■ 1

Opposition qucred western Asia, northern Africa, and eastern to CathoU- Europe; by 1500 nearly all these wide regions were lost to Catholic Christianity as that phrase was under- stood in western Europe. The loss was due to (i) the devel- opment of a great Christian schism, and (2) the rise of a new religion — Mohammedanism.

Eastern Europe had been lost through an ever-widening breach in Christian practice from the fifth to the eleventh cen- tury. The Eastern Church used the Greek language between^™ in its Hturgy ; that of the West used the Latin lan- the East guage. The former remained more dependent upon ^gg| ® the state ; the latter grew less dependent. Minor differences of doctrine appeared. And the Eastern Christians thought the pope was usurping unwarrantable pre- rogatives, while the Western Christians accused the Oriental patriarchs of departing from their earlier loyalty to the pope and destroying the unity of Christendom. Several attempts had been made to reunite the Catholic Church of the West and the Orthodox Church of the East, but with slight success. In 1500, the Christians of Greece, the Balkan peninsula, and Russia were thought to be outside the Catholic Church and were de- fined, therefore, by the pope as schismatics.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 123

Far more numerous and dangerous to Catholic Christianity than the schismatic Easterners were the Mohammedans. Mo- hammed himseh" had Hved in Arabia in the early part Moham- of the seventh century and had taught that he was the medamsm inspired prophet of the one true God. In a celebrated book, — the Koran, — which was compiled from the sayings of the prophet, are to be found the precepts and commandments of the Mohammedan religion. Mohammedanism spread rapidly : within a hundred years of its founder's death it had conquered western Asia and northern Africa and had gained a temporary foothold in Spain; thenceforth it stretched eastward across Persia and Turkestan into India and southward into central Africa; and in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, as we have seen, it possessed itself of Constantinople, the Balkans, Greece, and part of Hungary, and threatened Christendom in the Germanics and iii the Mediterranean.

Even in western Europe, the Catholic Church had had to en- counter spasmodic opposition from " heretics," as those persons were called who, although baptized as Christians, re- Western fused to accept all the dogmas of Catholic Christianity. Heresies Such were the Arian Christians, who in early times had been condemned for rejecting the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, and who had eventually been won back to Catholicism only with the greatest efforts. Then in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the Albigensian heretics in southern France had assailed the sacra- mental system and the organization of the Church and had been suppressed only by armed force. In the fourteenth century, John WycKffe appeared in England and John Hus in Bohemia, both preaching that the indi\'idual Christian needs no priestly media- tion between himself and God and that the very sacraments of the Church, however desirable, are not essentially necessary to salvation. The Lollards, as Wycliffe's English followers were called, were speedily extirpated by fire and sword, through the stern orthodoxy of an English king, but the Hussites long defied the pope and sur\dvals of their heresy were to be found in 1500.

In addition to these heretics and the Jews,^ many so-called

^ For detailed accounts of the Jews during the middle ages as well as in modern times, see the Jeisnsh Encyclopcedia, ed. by Isidore Singer, 12 vols. (1901-1906).

124 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

skeptics no doubt existed. These were people who outwardly conformed to Catholicism but inwardly doubted and even scoffed at the very foundations of Christianity. They were essentially irreligious, but they seem to have suffered less from persecution than the heretics. Many of the Italian humanists, concerning whom we shall later say a word,^ were in the fifteenth century more or less avowed skeptics.

THE PROTESTANT REVOLT

We have seen in the preceding pages that prior to 1500 there had been many conflicts between kings and popes concerning A Religious their respective temporal rights and likewise there and Political had been serious doubts in the minds of various

ovemen people as to the authority and teachings of the Catholic Church. But these two facts — political and re- ligious — had never been united in a general revolt against the Church until the sixteenth century. Then it was that Christians of Germany, Scandinavia, Scotland, and England, even of the Low Countries and France, successfully revolted against the papal monarchy and set up establishments of their own, usually under the protection of their lay rulers, which became known as the Protestant churches. The movement is called, therefore, the Protestant Revolt. It was begun and practically completed between 1520 and 1570.

In explaining this remarkable and sudden break with the religious and ecclesiastical development of a thousand years, _ . it is well to bear in mind that its causes were at once

Political ,. . , . , ,. , T^ !• • n

Causes of political, economic, and religious. Politically, it Protestant ^^^g merely an accentuation of the conflict which had

Revolt , T • . . . , , ,

long been increasing m virulence between the spirit- ual and temporal authorities. It cannot be stated too em- phatically that the Catholic Church during many centuries prior to the sixteenth had been not only a religious body, like a present-day church, but also a vast political power which readily found sources of friction with other political institutions. The Catholic Church, as we have seen, had its own elaborate organization in every country of western and central Europe ;

^ Sec below, pp. 182 ff.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 125

and its officials — pope, bishops, priests, and monks — denied allegiance to the secular government ; the Church owned many valuable lands and estates, which normally were exempt from taxation and virtually outside the jurisdiction of the lay gov- ernment ; the Church had its own independent and compulsory income, and its own courts to try its own officers and certain kinds of cases for every one. Such political jurisdiction of the Church had been quite needful and satisfactory in feudal times — from the hfth to the twelfth century, let us say — when the secular governments were weak and the Church found itself the chief unifying force in Christendom, the veritable heir to the universal dominion of the ancient Roman Empire.

But gradually the temporal rulers themselves repressed feudal- ism. Political ambition increased in laymen, and local pride was exalted into patriotism. By the year 1200 was begun the growth of that notable idea of national monarchy, the general outline of which we sketched in the opening chapter. We there indicated that at the commencement of the sixteenth cen- tury, England, France, Spain, and Portugal had become strong states, with well-organized lay governments under powerful kings, with patriotic populations, and with well-developed, distinctive languages and literatures. The one thing that seemed to be needed to complete this national sovereignty was to bring the Church entirely under royal control. The auto- cratic sovereigns desired to enlist the wealth and influence of the Church in their behalf ; they coveted her lands, her taxes, and her courts. Although Italy, the Netherlands, and the Germanics were not yet developed as strong united monarchies, many of their patriotic leaders longed for such a development, worked for it, and believed that the principal obstacle to it was the great Christian Church with the pope at its head. Viewed from the political standpoint, the Protestant Revolt was caused by the rise of national feeling, which found itself in natural conffict with the older cosmopolitan or catholic idea of the Church. It was nationalism versus Catholicism. ^

. T-> 1 Economic

Economically, the causes of the Protestant Revolt causes of were twofold. In the first place, the Catholic Church Protestant

. Revolt

had grown so wealthy that many people, particu- larly kings and princes, coveted her possessions. In the second

126 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

place, financial abuses in ecclesiastical administration bore heavily upon the common people and created serious scandal. Let us say a word about each one of these difficulties.

At the opening of the sixteenth century, many bishops and abbots in wealth and power were not unlike great lay lords : they held vast fair dominions — in the Germanics a third of the whole country, in France a fifth, etc. — and they were attended by armies of retainers. Most of them were sons of noblemen who had had them consecrated bishops so as to in- sure them fine positions. Even the monks, who now often lived in rich monasteries as though they had never taken vows of poverty, were sometimes of noble birth and quite worldly in their lives. The large estates and vast revenues of Catholic ecclesiastics were thus at first the lure and then the prey of their royal and princely neighbors. The latter grew quite willing to utilize any favorable opportunity which might enable them to confiscate church property and add it to their own possessions. Later such confiscation was euphemistically styled "seculariza- tion."

On the other hand, many plain people, such as peasants and artisans, begrudged the numerous and burdensome ecclesiastical taxes, and an increasing number felt that they were not getting the worth of their money. There was universal complaint, particularly in the Germanics, that the people were exploited by the Roman Curia. Each ecclesiastic, be he bishop, abbot, or priest, had right to a benefice, that is, to the revenue of a parcel of land attached to his post. When he took posses- sion of a benefice, he paid the pope a special assessment, called the "annate," amounting to a year's income — which of course came from the peasants living on the land. The pope likewise "reserved" to himself the right of naming the holders of certain benefices : these he gave preferably to Italians who drew the revenues but remained in their own country; the people thus supported foreign prelates in luxury and sometimes paid a second time in order to maintain resident ecclesiastics. The archbishops paid enormous sums to the pope for their badges of office {pallia). Fat fees for dispensations or for court trials found their way across the Alps. And the bulk of the burden ultimately rested upon the backs of the people. At

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 127

least in the Germanies the idea became very prevalent that the pope and Curia were really robbing honest German Chris- tians for the benefit of scandalously immoral Italians.

There were certainly grave financial abuses in church govern- ment in the fifteenth century and in the early part of the six- teenth. A project of German reform, drawn up in 1438, had declared : ''It is a shame which cries to heaven, this oppression of tithes, dues, penalties, excommunication, and tolls of the peasant, on whose labor all men depend for their existence." An "apocalyptic pamphlet of 1508 shows on its cover the Church upside down, with the peasant performing the services, while the priest guides the plow outside and a monk drives the horses." It was, in fact, in the Germanies that all the social classes — princes, burghers, knights, and peasants — had special economic grievances against the Church, and in many places were ready to combine in rejecting papal claims.

This emphasis upon the political and particularly upon the economic causes need not belittle the strictly religious factor in the movement. The success of the revolt was due to the fact that many kings, nobles, and commoners, for financial and poHtical advantages to themselves, became the valuable allies of real religious reformers. It required dogmatic differ- ences as well as social grievances to destroy the dominion of the Church.

Nearly all thoughtful men in the sixteenth century recognized the existence of abuses in the Catholic Church. The scandals connected with the papal court at Rome were no- Abuses in torious at the opening of the century. Several of the CathoUc the popes lived grossly immoral Hves. Simony (the sale of church offices for money) and nepotism (favoritism shown by a pope to his relatives) were not rare. The most lucrative ecclesiastical positions throughout Europe were fre- quently conferi-ed upon Itahans who seldom discharged their duties. One person might be made bishop of several foreign dioceses and yet continue to reside in Rome. Leo X, who was pope when the Protestant Revolt began, and son of Lorenzo de' Medici, surnamed the Magnificent, had been ordained to the priesthood at the age of seven, named cardinal when he was thirteen, and speedily loaded with a multitude of rich

128 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

benefices and preferments ; this same pope, by his munificence and extravagance, was forced to resort to the most questionable means for raising money : he created many new offices and shamelessly sold them ; he increased the revenue from in- dulgences, jubilees, and regular taxation ; he pawned palace furniture, table plate, pontifical jewels, even statues of the apostles ; several banking firms and many individual creditors were ruined by his death.

What immorality and worldliness prevailed at Rome was re- flected in the lives of many lesser churchmen. To one of the pop^s of the fifteenth century, a distinguished cardinal Immorality represented the disorders of the clergy, especially in of Clergy- ^j-^g Germanics. "These disorders," he said, "excite the hatred of the people against all ecclesiastical order ; if it is not corrected, it is to be feared that the laity, following the example of the Hussites, will attack the clergy as they now openly menace us with doing." If the clergy of Germany were not reformed promptly, he predicted that after the Bohemian heresy was crushed another would speedily arise far more dan- gerous. "For they will say," he continued, "that the clergy is incorrigible and is willing to apply no remedy to its disorders. They will attack us when they no longer have any hope of our correction. Men's minds are waiting for what shall be done ; it seems as if shortly something tragic will be brought forth. The venom which they have against us is becoming evident ; soon they will believe they are making a sacrifice agreeable to God by maltreating or despoiling the ecclesiastics as people odious to God and man and immersed to the utmost in evil. The little reverence still remaining for the sacred order will be destroyed. Responsibility for all these disorders will be charged upon the Roman Curia, which will be regarded as the cause of all these evils because it has neglected to apply the necessary remedy." To many other thoughtful persons, a moral reforma- tion in the head and members of the Church seemed vitally necessary.

Complaints against the evil lives of the clergy as well as against their ignorance and credulity were echoed by most of the great scholars and humanists of the time. The patriotic knight and vagabond scholar, Ulrich von Hutten (1488-1523),

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 129

contributed to a clever series of satirical ''Letters of Obscure Men," which were read widely, and which poked fun at the lack of learning among the monks and the ease with uirich von which the papal court emptied German pockets. Huttenand Then, too, the great Erasmus (1466-1536) employed '"^^"^^ all his wit and sarcasm, in his celebrated "Praise of Folly," against the theologians and monks, complaining that the foolish people thought that religion consisted simply in pilgrimages, the invocation of saints, and the veneration of relics. Erasmus would have suppressed the monasteries, put an end to the domination of the clergy, and swept away scandalous abuses. He wanted Christianity to regain its early spiritual force, and largely for that purpose he published in 15 16 the Greek text of the New Testament with a new Latin translation and with notes which mercilessly flayed hair-splitting theologians.

Thus throughout the fifteenth century and the early part of the sixteenth, much was heard from scholars, princes, and people, of the need for "reformation" of the Church. That did not signify a change of the old regulations but rather their restoration and enforcement. For a long time it was not a question of abolishing the authority of the pope, or altering ecclesiastical organization, or changing creeds. It was merely a question of reforming the lives of the clergy and of suppressing the means by which Italians drew money from other nations.

In the sixteenth century, however, a group of religious leaders, such as Luther, Cranmer, Zwingli, Calvin, and Knox, went much further than Erasmus and the majority of the human- „ ,. .

xvcIiRious

ists had gone: they applied the word "reformation" causes of not only to a reform in morals but to an open break Protestant which they made with the government and doctrines of the Catholic Church. The new theology, which these re- formers championed, was derived mainly from the teachings of such heretics as Wycliffe and Hus and was supposed to depend directly upon the Bible rather than upon the Church. The religious causes of the Protestant Revolt accordingly may be summed up as : first, the existence of abuses within the Catholic Church ; second, the attacks of distinguished men upon the immorality and worldliness of the Catholic clergy ; and third, the substitution by certain religious leaders of new doctrines

I30 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

and practices, which were presumed to have been authorized by the Bible, but which were at variance with those of the medieval Church.

For the great variety of reasons, which we have now indicated,

— political, economic, and religious, — the peoples of northern

Germany, Scandinavia, the Dutch Netherlands, most

Extent of of Switzerland, Scotland, England, and a part of

the Protes- France and of Hungary, separated themselves, be-

tant Revolt , fc> J ' i '

tween the years 1520 and 1570, from the great re- ligious and pohtical body which had been known historically for over a thousand years as the Catholic Christian Church. The name ''Protestant" was first applied exclusively to the followers of Martin Luther among the German princes who in 1529 protested against an attempt of the Diet of Speyer to prevent the introduction of religious novelties, but subsequently the word passed into common parlance among historians and the general reading public as betokening all Christians who rejected the papal supremacy and who were not in communion with the Orthodox Church of eastern Europe.

Of this Protestant Christianity three main forms appeared in the sixteenth century — Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Ang'Hcan- ism. Concerning the origin and development of each one of these major forms, a brief sketch must be given.

LUTHERANISM

Lutheranism takes its name from its great apostle, Martin Luther. Luther was born in Eisleben in Germany in 1483 of a Martin poor family whose ancestors had been peasants.

Luther Martin early showed himself bold, headstrong, will-

ing to pit his own opinions against those of the world, but yet possessing ability, tact, and a love of sound knowledge. Edu- cated at the university of Erfurt, where he became acquainted with the humanistic movement, young Martin entered one of the mendicant orders — the Augustinian — in 1505 and went to live in a monastery. In 1508 Luther was sent with some other monks to Wittenberg to assist a university which had been opened there recently by the elector of Saxony, and a few years later was appointed professor of theology in the institution.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 131

While lecturing and preaching at Wittenberg, where he was very popular, Luther developed from the writings of St. Paul and St. Augustine an important doctrinal conviction « justifi- which differed widely from the faith of the CathoHc cation by Church. It concerned the means of eternal salva- ^* tion. The Church taught, as we have seen, that she possessed the sole means, and that every Christian must perform certain "good works" in order to secure salvation. Luther, on the other hand, became con\inced that man was incapable, in the sight of God, of any good works whatsoever, and could be saved only by faith in God's promises. In other words, this monk placed his doctrine of " justilication by faith" in opposition to the generally accepted behef in "justification by faith and works."

So far, Luther certainly had no thought of revolting against the authority of the Church. In fact, when he visited Rome in 1 51 1, it was as a pious pilgrim rather than as a carp- Tetzei's ing critic. But a significant event in the year 151 7 " Sale " of served to make clear a wide discrepancy between ^ ugences what he was teaching and what the Church taught. That year a certain papal agent, Tetzel by name, was disposing of indulgences in the great archbishopric of Mainz. An indulgence, according to Catholic theology, was a remission of the temporal punishment in purgatory due to sin, and could be granted only by authority of the Church ; the grant of indulgences depended upon the contrition and confession of the applicant, and often at that time upon money-payments. Against what he beHeved was a corruption of Christian doctrine and a swindling of the poorer people, Luther protested in a series of ninety-five Theses which he posted on the church door in Wittenberg (31 October, 15 17).

The Theses had been written in Latin for the educated class but they were now speedily translated into German and spread like wildfire among all classes throughout the coun- The Ninety- try. Luther's underlying principle of "salvation five Theses through simple faith" was in sharp contrast with the theory of "good works," on which the indulgences rested. "The Chris- tian who has true repentance," wrote Luther, "has already received pardon from God altogether apart from an indulgence, and does not need one ; Christ demands this true repentance from every one." Luther's attitude provoked spirited dis-

132 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

cussion throughout the Germanies, and the more discussion, the more interest and excitement. The pope, who had dis- missed the subject at first as a mere squabble among the monks, was moved at length to summon Luther to Rome to answer for the Theses, but the elector of Saxony intervened and prevailed upon the pope not to press the matter.

The next important step in the development of Luther's religious ideas was a debate on the general question of papal Disputation supremacy, held at Leipzig in 15 19, between himself at Leipzig, and an eminent CathoHc apologist, Johann Eck. ^^'^ Eck skillfully forced Luther to admit that certain

views of his, especially those concerning man's direct relation with God, without the mediation of the Church, were the same as those which John Hus had held a century earlier and which had been condemned both by the pope and by the great general council of Constance. Luther thereby virtually admitted that a general council as well as a pope might err. For him, the divine authority of the Roman Catholic Church ceased to be.

Separation from the traditional Church was the only course now open to Luther and this was consummated in the year 1520. In a series of three bold pamphlets, he vigorously of^Luther ^^^ definitely attacked the position of the Church, from the In the first — An Address to the Nobility of the Ger- Church*^ waw Nation — • Luther stated that there was nothing inherently sacred about the Christian priesthood and that the clergy should be deprived immediately of their special privileges ; he urged the German princes to free their country from foreign control and shrewdly called their attention to the wealth and power of the Church which they might justly ap- propriate to themselves. In the second — On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church of God — he assailed the papacy and the whole sacramental system. The third — On the Freedom of a Christian Man — contained the essence of Luther's new theology that salvation was not a painful progress toward a goal by means of sacraments and right conduct but a condition "in which man found himself so soon as he despaired absolutely of his own efforts and threw himself on God's assurances"; the author claimed that man's utter personal dependence on God's grace rendered the system of the Church superfluous.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 133

In the midst of these attacks upon the Church, the pope ex- communicated Luther, and in the following year (1521) in- fluenced the Diet of the Holy Roman Empire, assembled at Worms, to pronounce him an outlaw. But the rebel calmly burnt the papal bull and from the imperial ban he was protected by the elector of Saxony. He at once devoted himself to making a new German translation of the Bible, which became very popular and is still prized as a monument in the history of German hterature.^

Within the next few years the Lutheran teachings carried everything before them throughout the northern and central Germanics. Nor are the reasons for Luther's success gpread of in defying pope and emperor and for the rapid ac- Lutheran- ceptance-of his new theology hard to understand. '^" The movement was essentially popular and national. It ap- pealed to the pious-minded who desired a simplification of Christian dogma and a comprehensible method of salvation. It also appealed to the worldly minded who longed to seize ecclesiastical lands and revenues. Above all, it appealed to the patriots who were tired of foreign despotism and of abuses which they traced directly to the Roman Curia. Then, too, the Emperor Charles V, who remained a loyal Catholic, was too immersed in the difhculties of foreign war and in the manifold administrative problems of his huge dominions to be able to devote much time to the extirpation of heresy in the Germanics. Finally, the character of Luther contributed to effective leadership — he was tireless in flooding the country with pamphlets, letters, and inflammatory diatribes, tactful in keeping his party together, and always bold and courageous. Princes, burghers, artisans, and peasants joined hands in espousing the new cause.

But the peasants espoused it in a manner altogether too logical and too violent to suit Luther or the desires of the princes. The German peasants had grievances against the old order compared with which those of the knights and towns-folk were imaginary. For at least a century several causes had contributed to make their lot worse and worse. While their taxes and other burdens

^ The first edition of the Bible in German had been printed as early as 1466. At least eighteen editions in German (including four Low German versions) had appeared before Luther issued his German New Testament in 1522.

134 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

were increasing, the ability of the emperor to protect them was decreasing; they were plundered by every class in the com- munity, especially by the higher clergy. Thus, under and the the influence of social and economic conditions, various

German uprisings of the peasants had taken place during the latter part of the fifteenth century. These insurrec- tions became almost regular in the southwestern Germanics, and were called Bimdschuhe, a shoe fastened upon the end of a pole serving as a standard of revolt. When Luther urged the princes to assail the ecclesiastics, to seize church lands, and to put an end to financial abuses, the peasants naturally Hstened to his words with open ears and proceeded with glad hearts to apply his advice themselves.

The new Lutheran theology may have been too refined for the peasants, but they imagined they understood its purport. And spurred on by fanatics, whom the religious ferment of the times produced in large numbers,^ the peasants again took arms against feudal oppression. That the peasants' demands were essentially moderate and involved no more than is granted everywhere to-day as a matter of course, may be inferred from their declaration of principles, the Twelve Articles, among which were : abolition of serfdom, free right of fishing and hunting, payment in wages for services rendered, and abolition of arbitrary punishment. So long as the peasants directed their efforts against the Catholic ecclesiastics, Luther expressed sympathy with them, but when the revolt, which broke out in 1524, became general all over central and southern Germany and was directed not only against the CathoHc clergy but also against the lay lords, — many of whom were now Lutheran, — the rehgious leader foresaw a grave danger to his new rcUgion in a spHt between peasants and nobles. Luther ended by

^ Many of these radical religious leaders were more consistent and thorough- going than Luther in maintaining the right of each Christian to interpret the Scriptures for himself. Since they generally refused to recognize infant baptism as valid and insisted that baptism should be administered only to adults, they were subsequently often referred to as "Anabaptists." Many of the "Anabap- tists " condemned oaths and capital punishment ; some advocated communism of worldly goods, in several instances c\-en the community of women. Nicholas Storch (d. 1525), a weaver, and Thomas Miinzer (d. 1525), a Lutheran preacher, spread these doctrines widely among the peasants. Luther vehemently denounced the " Anabaptists."

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 135

taking strong sides with the nobles — he had most to expect from them. He was shocked by the excesses of the revolt, he said. Insisting upon toleration for his own revolt, he con- demned the peasants to most horrible fates in this world and in the world hereafter.^ He furiously begged the princes to put down the insurrection. "Whoever can, should smite, strangle, or stab, secretly or pubUcly ! "

The Peasants' Revolt was crushed in 1525 with utmost cruelty. Probably fifty thousand lost their lives in the vain effort. The general result was that the power of the territorial ^j^^ lords became greater than ever, although in a few Peasants' cases, particularly in the Tyrol and in Baden, the ^^° condition of the peasants was slightly improved. Elsewhere, however, this was not the case ; and the German peasants were assigned for over two centuries to a lot worse than that of almost any people in Europe. Another result was the decHne of Luther's influence among the peasantry in southern and central Germany. They turned rapidly from one who, they beHeved, had betrayed them. On the other hand, many Catholic princes, who had been wavering in their rehgious support, now had before their eyes what they thought was an object lesson of the results of Luther's appeal to revolution, and so they cast their lot decisively with the ancient Church. The Peasants' Revolt registered a distinct check to the further spread of Lutheranism.

The Diet of the Holy Roman Empire which assembled at Speyer in 1526 saw the German princes divided into a Lutheran and a Roman Catholic party, but left the legal status of the -q^^^^ ^f new faith still in doubt, contenting itself with the vague speyer, declaration that " each prince should so conduct him- ^^^ '^^^^ self as he could answer for his behavior to God and to the

^ Although Luther was particularly bitter against the " Anabaptist " exhorters, upon whom he fastened responsibility for the Peasants' Revolt, and although many of them met death thereby, the " Anabaptists " were by no means exter- minated. Largely through the activity of a certain Melchior Hofmann, a widely traveled furrier, " Anabaptist " doctrines were disseminated in northern Germany and the Netherlands. From 1533 to 1535 they reigned supreme, attended by much bloodshed and plenty of personal license, in the important city of Miinster in western Germany. Subsequently, Carlstadt (1480-1541), an early associate of Luther, though his later antagonist, set forth Anabaptist views with greater modera- tion ; and in course of time the sect became more or less tinged with Calvinistic theology.

136 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

emperor." But at the next Diet, held at the same place in 1529, the emperor directed that the edict against heretics should be The Word enforced and that the old ecclesiastical revenues " Protes- should not be appropriated for the new worship, tant rj.-^^ Lutheran princes drafted a legal protest, in

which they declared that they meant to abide by the law of 1526. From this protest came the name Protestant.

The next year, Luther's great friend, Melancthon, presented to the Diet of Augsburg an account of the beliefs of the German Confession reformers, which later became known as the Confes- of Augs- sion of Augsburg and constitutes to the present day urg, 1530 ^]^g distinctive creed of the Lutheran Church. The emperor was still unconvinced, however, of the truth or value of the reformed doctrine, and declared his intention of ending the heresy by force of arms.

In this predicament, the Lutheran princes formed a league at Schmalkald for mutual protection (1531) ; and from 1546 to 1555 a desultory civil war was waged. The Protes- Peace of tants received some assistance from the French king, Augsburg, who, for poHtical reasons, was bent on humiliating the emperor. The end of the religious conflict ap- peared to have been reached by the peace of Augsburg (1555), which contained the following provisions : (i) Each prince was to be free to dictate the religion of his subjects' ; (2) All church property appropriated by the Protestants before 1552 was to remain in their hands ; (3) No form of Protestantism except Lutheranism was to be tolerated ; (4) Lutheran subjects of ec- clesiastical states were not to be obliged to renounce their faith ; (5) By an "ecclesiastical reservation" any ecclesiastical prince on becoming a Protestant was to give up his see.

Thus, between 1520 and 1555, Martin Luther^ had preached his new theology at variance with the Catholic, and had found Lutheran- general acceptance for it throughout the northern ism in the half of the Germanies ; its creed had been settled erm m ^^^ defined in 1530, and its official toleration had been recognized in 1555. The toleration was limited, however, to princes, and for many years Lutheran rulers showed them-

^ Cuius regio eitis rcligio. ^ He had died in 1546, aged 62.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 137

selves quite as intolerant within their own dominions as did the Catholics.

The triumph of Lutheranism in the Scandinavian countries has been traced largely to political and economic causes. When Martin Luther broke with the CathoHc Church, Lutheran- Christian II (1513-1523) was reigning as elected ism in king over Denmark and Norway and had recently conquered Sweden by force of arms. The king encountered political difficulties with the Church although he maintained Catholic worship and doctrine and apparently recognized the spiritual supremacy of the pope. But Christian II had trouble with most of his subjects, especially the Swedes, who were con- scious of separate nationality and desirous of political inde- pendence ; and the king eventually lost his throne in a general uprising. The definite separation of Sweden from Denmark and Norway followed immediately. The Swedes chose the celebrated Gustavus Vasa (15 23-1 560) as their king, while the Danish and Norwegian crowns passed to the uncle of Christian II, who assumed the title .of Frederick I (1523-1533).

In Denmark, King Frederick was very desirous of increasing the royal power, and the subservient ecclesiastical organization which Martin Luther was advocating seemed to him _

, . rill • Denmark

for his purposes mfimtely preferable to the ancient self-willed Church. But Frederick realized that the Catholic Church was deeply rooted in the alTections of his people and that changes would have to be effected slowly and cautiously. He therefore collected around him Lutheran teachers from Germany and made his court the center of the propaganda of the new doctrine, and so well was the work of the new teachers done that the king was able in 1527 to put the two religions on an equal footing before the law. Upon Frederick's death in 1533, the Catholics made a determined effort to prevent the accession of his son. Christian III, who was not only an avowed Lutheran but was known to stand for absolutist principles in government.

The popular protest against royal despotism failed in Den- mark and the triumph of Christian III in 1536 sealed the fate of Catholicism in that country and in Norway. It was promptly enacted that the Catholic bishops should forfeit their temporal

138 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

and spiritual authority and all their property should be trans- ferred to the crown "for the good of the commonwealth." After discussions with Luther the new religion was definitely or- ganized and declared the state religion in 1537. It might be added that Catholicism died with difficulty in Denmark, — many peasants as well as high churchmen resented the changes, and Helgesen, the foremost Scandinavian scholar and humanist of the time, protested vigorously against the new order. But the crown was growing powerful, and the crown prevailed. The enormous increase of royal revenue, consequent upon the con- fiscation of the property of the Church, enabled the king to make Denmark the leading Scandinavian country throughout the second half of the sixteenth century and the first quarter of the seventeenth. In time national patriotism came to be intertwined with Lutheranism.

In Sweden the success of the new religion was due to the crown quite as much as in Denmark and Norway. Gustavus „ , Vasa had obtained the Swedish throne through the

Sweden . t mi

efforts of a nationalist party, but there was still a hostile faction, headed by the chief churchman, the archbishop of Upsala, who favored the maintenance of the union with Denmark. In order to deprive the unionists of their leader, Gustavus begged the pope to remove the rebelHous archbishop and to appoint one in sympathy with the nationalist cause. This the pope peremptorily refused to do, and the breach with Rome began. Gustavus succeeded in suppressing the insurrec- tion, and then persevered in introducing Protestantism. The introduction was very gradual, especially among the peasantry, and its eventual success was largely the result of the work of one strong man assisted by a subservient parliament.

At first Gustavus maintained Catholic worship and doctrines, contenting himself with the suppression of the monasteries, the seizure of two-thirds of the church tithes, and the circulation of a popular Swedish translation of the New Testament. In 1527 all ecclesiastical property was transferred to the crown and two Catholic bishops were cruelly put to death. Mean- while Lutheran teachers were encouraged to take up their residence in Sweden and in 1531 the first Protestant archbishop of Upsala was chosen. Thenceforth, the progress of Lutheran-

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 139

ism was more rapid, although a Catholic reaction was threatened several times in the second half of the sixteenth century. The Confession of Augsburg was adopted as the creed of the Swedish Church in 1593, and in 1604 Catholics were deprived of offices and estates and banished from the realm.

CALVINISM

The second general type of Protestantism which appeared in the sixteenth century was the immediate forerunner of the modern Presbyterian, Congregational, and Reformed Churches and at one time or another considerably affected the theology of the Episcopalians and Baptists and even of Lutherans. Taken as a group, it is usually called Calvinism. Of its rise and spread, some idea may be gained from brief accounts of the lives of two of its great apostles — CaKin and Knox. But first it will be necessary to say a few words concerning an older reformer, Zwingli by name, who prepared the way for Calvin's work in the Swiss cantons.

Switzerland comprised in the sixteenth century some thirteen cantons, all of wliich were technically under the suzerainty of the Holy Roman Empire, but constituted in practice . so many independent repubHcs, bound together only by a number of protective treaties. To the town of Einsiedeln in the canton of Schwyz came Huldreich Zwingli in the year 1 5 16 as a Catholic priest. Slightly younger than Luther, he was well born, had received an excellent university education in Vienna and in Basel, and had now been in holy orders about ten years. He had shown for some time more interest in human- ism than in the old-fashioned theology, but hardly any one would have suspected him of heresy, for it was well known that he was a regular pensioner of the pope.

Zwingli's opposition to the Roman Church seems to have been based at first largely on pohtical grounds. He preached elo- quently against the practice of hiring out Swiss troops to foreign rulers and abused the Church for its share in this shameless traffic in soldiers. Then he was led on to attack all manner of abuses in ecclesiastical organization, but it was not until he was installed in 15 18 as preacher in the great cathedral at

I40 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Zurich that he clearly denied papal supremacy and proceeded to proclaim the Scriptures as the sole guide of faith and morals. He preached against fasting, the veneration of saints, and the celibacy of the clergy. Some of his hearers began to put his teachings into practice : church edifices were profaned, statues demolished, windows smashed, and relics burned. Zwingli himself took a wife.

In 1523 a papal appeal to Zurich to abandon Zwingli was answered by the canton's formal declaration of independence Zwingiian from the CathoHc Church. Henceforth the revolt Revolt in spread rapidly throughout Switzerland, except in the wi zer an ^^^ forest cantons, the very heart of the country, where the ancient religion was still deeply intrenched. Serious efforts were made to join the followers of ZwingU with those of Luther, and thus to present a united front to the common enemy, but there seemed to be irreconcilable differences between Lutheranism and the views of Zwingli. The latter, which were succinctly expressed in sixty-seven Theses pubHshed at Zurich in 1523, insisted more firmly than the former on the supreme author- ity of Scripture, and broke more thoroughly and radically with the traditions of the Catholic Church. Zwingli aimed at a reforma- tion of government and discipHne as well as of theology, and entertained a notion of an ideal state in which the democracy would order human activities, whether pohtical or religious. Zwingli differed essentially from Luther in never distrusting "the people." Perhaps the most distinctive mark of the Swiss reformer's theology was his idea that the Lord's Supper is not a miracle but simply a symbol and a memorial.

In 1 53 1 Zwingli urged the Protestant Swiss to convert the live forest cantons to the new religion by force of arms. In answer to his entreaties, civil war ensued, but the Catholic mountaineers won a great victory that very year and the re- former himself was killed A truce was then arranged, the provisions of which foreshadowed the rehgious settlement in the Germanics — each canton was to be free to determine its own reHgion. Switzerland has remained to this day part CathoKc and part Protestant.

By the sudden death of Zwingh, Swiss Protestantism was left without a leader, but not for long, because the more celebrated

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 141

Calvin took up his residence in Geneva in 1536. From that time until his death in 1564 Calvin was the center of a move- ment which, starting from these small Zwinglian be- ^ , .

. 1-1 1 Calvin

ginnings among the Swiss mountams, speedily spread over more countries and affected more people than did Luther- anism. In Calvinism, Catholicism was to find her most im- placable foe.

John Cah-in, who, next to Martin Luther, was the most conspicuous Protestant leader of the sixteenth century, was a Frenchman. Born of middle-class parentage at Noyon in the province of Picardy in 1509, he was intended from an early age for an ecclesiastical career. A pension from the Catholic Church enabled him to study at Paris, where he displayed an aptitude for theology and literature. When he was nineteen years of age, however, his father advised him to abandon the idea of entering the priesthood in favor of becoming a lawyer — so young Cahdn spent several years studying law.

It was in 1529 that Calvin is said to have experienced a sudden "conversion." Although as yet there had been no organized revolt in France against the Catholic Church, that caivinin country, like many others, was teeming with religious France critics. Thousands of Frenchmen were in sympathy with any attempt to improve the Church by education, by purer morals, or by better preaching. Lutheranism was winning a few con- verts, and various evangelical sects were appearing in divers places. The chief problem was whether reform should be sought within the traditional Church or by rebellion against it. Calvin beheved that his conversion was a divine call to forsake Roman Catholicism and to become the apostle of a purer life. His heart, he said, was "so subdued and reduced to dociHty that in comparison wdth his zeal for true piety he regarded all other studies with indifference, though not entirely abandoning them. Though himself a beginner, many flocked to him to learn the pure doctrine, and he began to seek some hiding-place and means of withdrawal from people."

His search for a hiding-place was quickened by the announced determination of the French king, Francis I, to put an end to religious dissent among his subjects. Calvin abruptly left France and found an asylum in the Swiss town of Basel, where he be-

142 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

came acquainted at first hand with the type of reformed reli- gion which Zwingh had propagated and where he proceeded to "The write a full account of the Protestant position as

Institutes" contrasted with the CathoHc. This exposition, — The Institutes of the Christian Religion, — which was published in 1536, was dedicated to King Francis I and was intended to influence him in favor of Protestantism.

Although the book failed of its immediate purpose, it speedily won a deservedly great reputation. It was a statement of Calvin's views, borrowed in part from Zwingh, and in part from Luther and other reformers. It was orderly and concise, and it did for Protestant theology what the medieval writers had done for CathoHc theology. It contained the germ of all that subsequently developed as Calvinism.

It seemed for some time as if the Institutes might provide a common reUgious rule and guide for all Christians who rebelled Calvin and against Rome. But Calvin, in mind and nature, was Luther quite different from Luther. The latter was im-

petuous, excitable, but very human; the former was ascetic,- calm, and inhumanly logical. Then, too, Luther was quite wilhng to leave everything in the church which was not pro- hibited by Scripture ; Calvin insisted that nothing should remain in the church which was not expressly authorized by Scripture. The Institutes had a tremendous influence upon Protestantism but did not unite the followers of Calvin and Luther. Calvin's book seems all the more wonderful, when it is recalled that it was written when the author was but twenty- six years of age.

In 1536 Calvin went to Geneva, which was then in the throes of a revolution at once poHtical and religious, for the townsfolk Calvin at were freeing themselves from the feudal suzerainty of Geneva ^j^g duke of Savoy and banishing the CathoHc Church, whose cause the duke championed. Calvin aided in the work and was rewarded by an appointment as chief pastor and preacher in the city. This position he continued to hold, except for a brief period when he was exiled, until his death in 1564. It proved to be a commanding position not only in ordering the affairs of the town, but also in giving form to an important branch of Protestant Christianity.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 143

The government of Geneva under Calvin's regime was a curious theocracy of which Calvin himself was both religious leader and political "boss." The minister of the reformed faith became God's mouthpiece upon earth and inculcated an unbending puritanism in daily life. "No more festivals, no more jovial reunions, no more theaters or society ; the rigid monotony of an austere rule weighed upon life. A poet was decapitated because of his verses ; Cahdn wished adultery to be punished by death hke heresy, and he had Michael Servetus [a celebrated Spanish reformer] burned for not entertaining the same opinions as himself upon the mystery of the Trinity."

Under Calvin's theocratic despotism, Geneva became famous throughout Europe as the center of elaborate Protestant propa- ganda. Calvin, who set the example of stern simpHcity and relentless actixdty, was sometimes styled the Protestant pope. He not only preached every day, wrote numerous theological treatises, and issued a French translation of the Bible, but he estabhshed important Protestant schools — including the Uni- versity of Geneva — which attracted students from distant lands, and he conducted a correspondence with his disciples and would-be reformers in all points of Europe. His letters alone would fill thirty folio volumes.

Such activities account for the almost bewildering diffusion of Calvinism. French, Dutch, Germans, Scotch, and English flocked to Geneva to hear Calvin or to attend his Diffusion schools, and when they returned to their own coun- °* Calvinism tries they were likely to be so many glowing sparks ready to start mighty conflagrations.

CaKdnism was known by various names in the different coun- tries which it entered. On the continent of Europe it was called the Reformed Faith, and in France its followers were styled Huguenots ; in Scotland it became Presbyterianism ; and in England, Puritanism. Its essential characteristics, how- ever, remained the same wherever it was carried.

We have already noticed how Switzerland, except for the five forest cantons, had been converted to Protestantism by the preaching of ZwingH. Calvin was ZwingH's real Calvinism theological successor, and the majority of the Swiss, in Switzer- especially those in the urban cantons of Zurich and ^°* Bern as well as of Geneva, cheerfully accepted Calvinism.

144 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Calvinism also made converts in France. The doctrines and writings of Luther had there encountered small success. Many French reformers believed that greater good would in France : eventually be achieved within the CathoKc Church theHugue- than without. There appeared to be fewer abuses among the French clergy than among the ecclesiastics of northern Europe, for they possessed less wealth and power. The French sovereign felt less prompted to lay his hand upon the dominions of the clergy, because a special agreement with the pope in 1516 bestowed upon the king the nomination of bishops and the disposition of benefices. For these reasons the bulk of the French people resisted Protestantism of every form and remained loyally Catholic.

What progress the new rehgion made in France was due to Calvin rather than to Luther. Calvin, as we have seen, was a Frenchman himself, and his teachings and logic appealed to a small but influential body of his fellow-countrymen. A con- siderable portion of the lower nobility, a few merchants and business men, and many magistrates conformed to Calvinism openly ; the majority of great lawyers and men of learning adhered to it in public or in secret. Probably from a twentieth to a thirtieth of the total population embraced Calvinism. The movement was essentially confined to the middle-class or bourgeoisie, and almost from the outset it acquired a pohtical as well as a religious significance. It represented among the lesser nobiHty an awakening of the aristocratic spirit and among the middle-class a reaction against the growing power of the king. The financial and moneyed interests of the country were largely attracted to French Calvinism. The Huguenots, as the French Calvinists were called, were particularly strong in the law courts and in the Estates-General or parHament, and these had been the main checks upon royal despotism.

The Huguenots were involved in sanguinary civil and re- ligious wars which raged in France throughout the greater part Edict of of the sixteenth century and which have already been Nantes treated in their appropriate political aspect.^ The

outcome was the settlement accorded by King Henry IV in the famous Edict of Nantes (1598), which contained the follow-

' See above, pp. loi IT.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 145

ing provisions: (i) Private worship and liberty of conscience were allowed to the Calvinists throughout France ; (2) Public Protestant worship might be held in 200 enumerated towns and over 3000 castles ; (3) A financial grant was made to Protes- tant schools, and the publication of Calvinist books was legalized ; (4) Huguenots received full civil rights, with admission to all public offices ; (5) Huguenots were granted for eight years the political control of two hundred towns, the garrisons of which were to be maintained by the crown ; and (6) Huguenots were accorded certain judicial privileges and the right of holding religious and pohtical assembUes. For nearly a hundred years France practiced a reUgious toleration which was al- most unique among European nations, and it was Calvinists who benefited.

The Netherlands were too near the Germanics not to be affected by the Lutheran revolt against the CathoHc Church. And the northern or Dutch provinces became quite Calvinism thoroughly saturated with Lutheranism and also with in the the doctrines of various radical sects that from time ^ eran s to time were expelled from the German states. The Emperor Charles V tried to stamp out heresy by harsh action of the Inquisition, but succeeded only in changing its name and nature. Lutheranism disappeared from the Netherlands ; but in its place came Calvinism,^ descending from Geneva through Alsace and thence down the Rhine, or entering from Great Britain by means of the close commercial relations existing between those countries. While the southern Netherlands eventually were recovered for Catholicism, the protracted political and economic conflict which the northern Netherlands waged against the Catholic king of Spain contributed to a final fixing of Calvinism as the national religion of patriotic Dutchmen. Calvinism in Holland was known as the Dutch Reformed religion.

We have already noted that southern Germany had rejected aristocratic Lutheranism, partially at least because of Luther's

^ Many Anabaptist refugees from Germany had already sought refuge in the Netherlands : they naturally found the teachings of Zwingli and Calvin more radi- cal, and therefore more appropriate to themselves, than the teachings of Luther. This fact also serves to explain the acceptance of Calvinism in regions of southern Germany where Lutheranism, since the Peasants' Revolt, had failed to take root.

L

146 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

bitter words to the peasants. Catholicism, however, was not destined to have complete sway in those regions, for democratic Calvinism Calvinism permeated Wiirttemberg, Baden, and the in Southern Rhenish provinces, and the Reformed doctrines ermany gained numerous converts among the middle-class. The growth of Calvinism in Germany was seriously handi- capped by the religious settlement of Augsburg in 1555 which ofhcially tolerated only Catholicism and Lutheranism. It was not until after the close of the direful Thirty Years' War in the seventeenth century that German Calvinists received formal recognition.

Scotland, like every other European country in the early part of the sixteenth century, had been a place of protest against ^ , J moral and financial abuses in the Catholic Church,

Scotland . . , . . '

but the beginnings of ecclesiastical rebellion are to be traced rather to political causes. The kingdom had long been a prey to the bitter rivalry of great noble families, and the premature death of James V (1542), which left the throne to his ill-fated infant daughter, Mary Stuart, gave free rein to a feudal reaction against the crown. In general, the Catholic clergy sided with the royal cause, while the religious reformers egged on the nobles to champion Protestantism in order to deal an effective blow against the union of the altar and the throne. Thus Cardinal Beaton, head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, ordered numerous executions on the score of pro- tecting religion and the authority of the queen-regent ; on the other hand several noblemen, professing the new theology, assassinated the cardinal and hung his body on the battlements of the castle of St. Andrews (1546). Such was the general situation in Scotland when John Knox appeared upon the scene.

Bom of peasant parents about 1515, John Knox ' had become a Catholic priest, albeit in sympathy with many of the revolu- tionary ideas which were entering Scotland from the Continent and from England. In 1546 he openly rejected the authority of the Church and proceeded to preach "the Gospel" and a stern puritanical morality. "Others snipped the branches," he said, "he struck at the root." But

1 John Kno.K (c. 1515-1572).

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 147

the Catholic court was able to banish Knox from Scotland. After romantic imprisonment in France, Knox spent a few years in England, preaching an extreme puritanism, holding a chaplaincy under Edward VI (i 547-1 553), and exerting his influence to insure an indelibly Protestant character to the AngHcan Church. Then upon the accession to the English throne of the Catholic Mary Tudor, Knox betook himself to Geneva where he made the acquaintance of Calvin and found himself in essential agreement with the teachings of the French reformer.

After a stay of some five years on the Continent, Knox re- turned finally to Scotland and became the organizer and director of the "Lords of the Congregation," a league of the Calvinism chief Protestant noblemen for purposes of religious "^ Scotland propaganda and political power. In 1560 he drew up the creed and discipline of the Presbyterian Church after the model of Calvin's church at Geneva ; and in the same year with the support of the "Lords of the Congregation" and the troops of Queen Elizabeth of England, Knox effected a political and religious revolution in Scotland. The queen-regent was im- prisoned and the subservient parliament aboHshed the papal supremacy and enacted the death penalty against any one who should even attend CathoHc worship. John Knox had carried everything before him.

Mary Stuart, during her brief stay in Scotland (1561-1567), tried in vain to stem the tide. The jealous barons would brook no increase of royal authority. The austere Knox hounded the girl-queen in public sermons and fairly flayed her character. The queen's downfall and subsequent long imprisonment in England finally decided the ecclesiastical future of Scotland. Except in a few fastnesses in the northern highlands, where Catholicism survived among the clansmen, the whole country was committed to Calvinism.

Calvinism was not without influence in England. Introduced towards the close of the reign of Henry VIII, it gave rise to a number of small sects which troubled the king's Calvinism Anglican Church almost as much as did the Roman '" England Catholics. Under Edward VI (i 547-1 553), it considerably in- fluenced the theology of the Anghcan Church itself, but the

148 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

moderate policies of Elizabeth (15 58-1 603) tended to fix an inseparable gulf between Anglicans and Calvinists. Thence- forth, Calvinism lived in England, in the forms of Presbyterian- ism, Independency,^ and Puritanism, as the religion largely of the commercial middle class. It was treated with contempt, and even persecuted, by Anglicans, especially by the monarchs of the Stuart family. After a complete but temporary triumph under Cromwell, in the seventeenth century, it was at length legally tolerated in England after the settlement of 1689. It was from England that New England received the Calvinistic religion which dominated colonial forefathers of many present- day Americans.

ANGLICANISM

Anglicanism is the name frequently applied to that form of Protestantism which stamped the state church in England in the sixteenth century and which is now represented by the Episcopal Church in the United States as well as by the estab- lished Church of England. The Methodist churches are com- paratively late off-shoots of Anglicanism.

The separation of England from the papacy was a more gradual and halting process than were the contemporary revolutions on the Continent; and the new Anglicanism was correspondingly more conservative than Lutheranism or Calvinism.

At the opening of the sixteenth century, the word ''Catholic" meant the same in England as in every other country of western English *^^ central Europe — belief in the seven sacraments, Catholicism the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the veneration of saints ; acceptance of papal supremacy and support of monasticism and of other institutions and practices of the medieval Church. During several centuries it had been cus- tomary in legal documents to refer to the Catholic Church in England as the Ecclesla Anglkana, or Anglican Church, just as the popes in their letters repeatedly referred to the "Galilean Church," the "Spanish Church," the "Neapolitan Church," or the "Hungarian Church. " But such phraseology did not imply a

' Among the "Independents" were the Baptists, a sect related not so immedi- ately to Calvinism as to the radical Anabaptists of Germany. See above, pp. 134 f., 145, footnotes.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 149

separation of any one national church from the common Cathohc communion, and for nearly a thousand years — ever since there had been an Ecdesia Anglicana — the English had recognized the bishop of Rome as the center of Cathohc unity. In the course of the sixteenth century, however, the great majority of Englishmen changed their conception of the Ecdesia Anglicana, so that to them it continued to exist as the Church of England, but henceforth on a strictly national basis, in com- Church of munion neither with the pope nor with the Orthodox England Church of the East nor with the Lutherans or Calvinists, aban- doning several doctrines that had been universally held in earUer times and substituting in their place beliefs and customs which were distinctively Protestant. This new conception of the Anghcan Church — resulting from the revolution in the sixteenth century — is what we mean by Anglicanism as a form of Protestantism. It took shape in the eventful years between 1520 and 1570.

In order to understand how this religious and ecclesiastical revolution was effected in England, we must appreciate the various elements distrustful of the Cathohc Church _ ,. .

Rehgious

in that country about the year 1525. In the first Opposition

place, the Lutheran teachings were infiltrating into ^ ^^^

the country. As early as 1521 a small group at cathoUc

Cambridge had become interested in the new Ger- Church m

^ England

man theology, and thence the sect spread to Ox- ford, London, and other intellectual centers. It found its early converts chiefly among the lower clergy and the merchants of the large towns, but for several years it was not numerous.

In the second place, there was the same feeling in England as we have already noted throughout all Europe that the clergy needed reform in morals and in manners. This view was shared not only by the comparatively insignificant group of heretical Lutherans, but likewise by a large proportion of the leading men who accounted themselves orthodox members of the Catholic Church. The well-educated humanists were especially eloquent in preaching reform. The writings of Erasmus had great vogue in England. John Colet (i467?-i5i9), a famous dean of St. Paul's cathedral in London, was a keen reformer who disapproved of auricular confession and of the celibacy of the clergy. Sir

I50 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Thomas More (1478-153 5), one of the greatest minds of the century, thought the monks were lazy and indolent, and the whole body of churchmen in need of an intellectual betterment. But neither Colet nor More had any intention of breaking away from the Roman Church. To them, and to many like them, reform could be secured best within the traditional ecclesiastical body.

A third source of distrust of the Church was a purely political feeling against the papacy. As we have already seen, the „ ,.,. , English king and Enghsh parliament on several

Political f. . ^ ^ ^ • i ,

Opposition carher occasions had sought to restrict the temporal ^ ^^^ and political jurisdiction of the pope in England,

Catholic but eacli restriction had been imposed for political F^"rV° reasons and even then had represented the will of the monarch rather than that of the nation. In fact, the most striking Hmitations of the pope's pohtical juris- diction in the kingdom had been enacted during the early stages of the Hundred Years' War, when the papacy was under French influence, and had served, therefore, indirectly as political weapons against the French king. Before that war was over, the operation of the statutes had been relaxed, and for a century or more prior to 1525 httle was heard of even a political feehng against the bishop of Rome.

Nevertheless an evolution in English government was in progress at that very time, which was bound sooner or later to create friction with the Holy See. On one hand, a sense of nationalism and of patriotism had been steadily growing in England, and it was at variance with the older cosmopolitan idea of Catholicism. On the other hand, a great increase of royal power had appeared in the fifteenth century, notably after the accession of the Tudor family in 1485. Henry VII (1485-1509) had subordinated to the crown both the nobihty and the parliament, and the patriotic support of the middle class he had secured. And when his son, Henry VIII (1509- 1547), came to the throne, the only serious obstacle which appeared to be left in the way of royal absolutism was the privi- leged independence of the Catholic Church.

Yet a number of years passed before Henry VIII laid violent hands upon the Church. In the meanwhile, he proved himself

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 151

a devoted Roman Catholic. He scented the new Lutheran heresy and sought speedily to exterminate it. He even wrote in 1521 with his own royal pen a bitter arraignment of the new theology, and sent his book, which he Loyalty of called The Defence of tJie Seven Sacraments, with a Henry viii

. to the

delightful dedicatory epistle to the pope. For his Roman prompt piety and filial orthodoxy, he received from Sf^^"'/'^ the bishop of Rome the proud title of Fidei Defensor, or Defender of the Faith, a title which he jealously bore until his death, and which his successors, the sovereigns of Great Britain, with like humor have continued to bear ever since. He seemed not even to question the pope's political claims. He alhed himself on several occasions with Leo X in the great game of European politics. His chief minister and adviser in England for many years was Thomas Wolsey, the most con- spicuous ecclesiastic in his kingdom and a cardinal of the Roman Church.

Under these circumstances it is difhcult to see how the An- glican Church would have immediately broken away from CathoHc unity had it not been for the peculiar marital troubles of Henry VHL The king had been married Marriage eighteen years to Catherine of Aragon, and had been h^^^^^vth presented by her with six children (of whom only one daughter, the Princess Mary, had survived), when one day he informed her that they had been living all those years in mortal sin and that their union was not true marriage. The queen could hardly be expected to agree with such a definition, and there ensued a legal suit between the royal pair.

To Henry VIII the matter was really quite simple. Henry was tired of Catherine and wanted to get rid of her ; he believed the queen could bear him no more children and yet he ardently desired a male heir ; rumor reported that the susceptible king had recently been smitten by the brilliant black eyes of a certain Anne Bole^-n, a maid-in-waiting at the court. The purpose of Henry was obvious ; so was the means, he thought. For it had occurrf^d to him that Catherine was his elder brother's widow, and, therefore, had no right, by church law, to marry him. To be sure, a papal dispensation had been obtained from Pope Julius II authorizing the marriage, but why not now ob-

152 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

tain a revocation of that dispensation from the reigning Pope Clement VII? Thus the marriage with Catherine could be declared null and void, and Henry would be a bachelor, thirty- six years of age, free to wed some princess, or haply Anne Boleyn.

There was no doubt that Clement VII would like to do a favor for his great English champion, but two difficulties at once Difficult presented themselves. It would be a most dangerous Position of precedent for the pope to reverse the decision of one of t e ope j^-g predecessors. Worse still, the Emperor Charles V, the nephew of Queen Catherine, took up cudgels in his aunt's be- half and threatened Clement with dire penalties if he nuUified the marriage. The pope complained truthfully that he was between the anvil and the hammer. There was little for him to do except to temporize and to delay decision as long as possible.

The protracted delay was very irritating to the impulsive English king, who was now really in love with Anne Boleyn. Gradually Henry's former effusive loyalty to the Roman See gave way to a settled conviction of the tyranny of the papal power, and there rushed to his mind' the recollection of efforts of earlier English rulers to restrict that power. A few salutary enactments against the Church might compel a favorable de- cision from the pope.

Henry VIII seriously opened his campaign against the Roman Church in 1531, when he frightened the EngHsh clergy into paying a fine of over half a million dollars for violating an ob- solete statute that had forbidden reception of papal legates without royal sanction, and in the same year he forced the clergy to recognize himself as supreme head of the Church "as far as that is permitted by the law of Christ." His subservient Parliament then empowered him to stop the payment of annates and to appoint the bishops without recourse to the papacy. Without waiting longer for the papal decision, he had Cranmer, one of his own creatures, whom he had just named archbishop of Canterbury, declare his marriage with Catherine null and void and his union with Anne Boleyn canonical and legal. Pope Clement VII thereupon handed down his long-delayed decision favorable to Queen Catherine, and excommunicated Henry VIII for adultery.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 153

The formal breach between England and Rome occurred in 1534. Parliament passed a series of laws, one of which declared the king to be the "only supreme o^E^ngiand head in earth of the Church of England," and others from the cut off all communication with the pope and in- catholic flicted the penalty of treason upon any one who Church: should deny the king's ecclesiastical supremacy. Supremacy

One step in the transition of the Church of England had now been taken. For centuries its members had recognized the pope as their ecclesiastical head ; henceforth they were to own the ecclesiastical headship of their king. From the former Catholic standpoint, this might be schism but it was not neces- sarily heresy. Yet Henry VIII encountered considerable opposi- tion from the higher clergy, from the monks, and from many intellectual leaders, as well as from large numbers of the lower classes. A popular uprising — the Pilgrimage of Grace — was sternly suppressed, and such men as the brilhant Sir Thomas More and John Fisher, the aged and saintly bishop of Rochester, were beheaded because they retained their former belief in papal supremacy. Tudor despotism triumphed.

The breach with Rome naturally encouraged the Lutherans and other heretics to think that England was on the point of becoming Protestant, but nothing was further from The " Six the king's mind. The assailant of Luther remained Articles " at least partially consistent. And the Six Articles (1539) re- affirmed the chief points in Catholic doctrine and practice and visited dissenters with horrible punishment. While separating England from the papacy, Henry was firmly resolved to main- tain every other tenet of the Catholic faith as he had received it. His middle-of-the-road policy was enforced with much bloodshed. On one side, the Catholic who denied the royal supremacy was beheaded ; on the other, the Protestant who denied transubstantiation was burned ! It has been estimated that during the reign of Henry VIII the number of capital condemnations for politico-reHgious offenses ran into the thou- sands — an inquisition that in terror and bloodshed is com- parable to that of Spain.

It was likewise during the reign of Henry VIII that one of the most important of all earlier Christian institutions — monas-

154 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

ticism — came to an end in England. There were certainly grave abuses and scandals in some of the monasteries which dotted Suppression ^^^ Country, and a good deal of popular sentiment of the had been aroused against the institution. Then,

Monastenes ^^^^ ^-^^ monks had generally opposed the royal pretensions to rehgious control and remained loyal to the pope. But the deciding factor in the suppression of the monasteries was undoubtedly economic. Henry, always in need of funds on account of his extravagances, appropriated part of the confiscated property for the benefit of the crown, and the rest he astutely distributed as gigantic bribes to the upper classes of the laity. The nobles who accepted the ecclesiastical wealth were thereby committed to the new anti-papal rehgious settlement in England.

The Church of England, separated from the papacy under Henry VIII, became Protestant under Edward VI (i 547-1 553). The young king's guardian tolerated all manner of izing^the'^ reforming propaganda, and Calvinists as well as Church of Lutherans preached their doctrines freely. Official Edward VI articles of rehgion, which were drawn up for the Anglican Church, showed unmistakably Protestant influence. The Latin service books of the Catholic Church were translated into English, under Cranmer's auspices, and the edition of the Book of Common Prayer, published in 1552, made clear that the Eucharist was no longer to be regarded as a propitiatory sacrifice: the names "Holy Communion" and "Lord's Supper" were substituted for "Mass," while the word "altar" was replaced by "table." The old places of Catholic worship were changed to suit a new order : altars and images were taken down, the former service books destroyed, and stained-glass windows broken. Several peasant uprisings sig- nified that the nation was not completely united upon a policy of rehgious change, but the reformers had their way, and Protes- tantism advanced.

A temporary setback to the progress of the new Anglicanism was afforded by the reign of Mary Tudor (i 553-1 558), the daughter of Catherine of Aragon, and a devout Roman Cathohc. She reinstated the bishops who had refused to take the oath of royal supremacy and punished those who had taken it. She prevailed upon Parliament to repeal the ecclesiastical legislation

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 155

of both her father's and her brother's reigns and to reconcile Eng- land once more with the bishop of Rome. A papal legate, in the person of Cardinal Reginald Pole, sailed up the Temporary Thames with his cross gleaming from the prow of his Roman barge, and in full Parliament administered the ab- Revival solution which freed the kingdom from the guilt under Mary incurred by its schism and heresy. As an additional support to her policy of restoring the Catholic Church in Eng- land, Queen Mary married her cousin, Philip II of Spain, the great champion of Catholicism upon the Continent.

But events proved that despite outward appearances even the reign of IMary registered an advance of Protestantism. The new doctrines were zealously propagated by an ever-growing number of itinerant exhorters. The Spanish alliance was disas- trous to English fortunes abroad and distasteful to all patriotic Englishmen at home. And finally, the violent means which the queen took to stamp out heresy gave her the unenviable surname of "Bloody" and reacted in the end in behalf of the views for which the victims sacrificed their lives. During her reign nearly three hundred reformers perished, many of them, including Archbishop Cranmer, by fire. The work of the queen was in vain. No heir was born to Philip and Mary, and the crown, therefore, passed to EHzabeth, the daughter of Anne Boleyn, a Protestant not so much from conviction as from circumstance.

It was in the reign of EHzabeth (1558-1603) that the Church of England assumed definitely the doctrines and practices which we now connect with the word "Anglicanism." By Definite act of Parliament, the English Church was again Fashioning separated from the papacy, and placed under royal °sm"ttie^^"' authority, Elizabeth assuming the title of "supreme Reign of governor." The worship of the state church was to be in conformity with a slightly altered version of Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer. A uniform doctrine was likewise imposed by Parliament in the form of the Thirty-nine Articles, which set a distinctively Protestant mark upon the Anghcan Church in its appeal to the Scriptures as the sole rule of faith, its insistence on justification by faith alone, its repudiation of the sacrifice of the Mass, and its definition of the Church. All

156 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

the bishops who had been appointed under Mary, with one exception, refused to accept the changes, and were therefore deposed and imprisoned, but new bishops, Ehzabeth's own appointees, were consecrated and the "succession of bishops" thereby maintained. Outwardly, the Church of England ap- peared to retain a corporate continuity throughout the sixteenth century ; inwardly, a great revolution had changed it from Catholic to Protestant.

Harsh laws sought to oblige all Englishmen to conform to Elizabeth's religious settlement. Liberty of public worship was denied to any dissenter from Anglicanism. To be a "papist " or "hear Mass" — ^ which were construed as the same thing — ■ was punishable by death as high treason. A special eccle- siastical court — the Court of High Commission — was es b- lished under royal authority to search out heresy and to enforce uniformity ; it served throughout Elizabeth's reign as a kind of Protestant Inquisition.

While the large majority of the English nation gradually conformed to the official Anglican Church, a considerable num- ber refused their allegiance. On one hand were the Dissent Roman Catholics, who still maintained the doctrine from An- Qf papal supremacy and were usually derisively styled

glicanism ,, • m 1 i ^ ^ 1 • ^ i

papists, and on the other hand were various Cal- vinistic sects, such as Presbyterians or Independents or Quakers, who went by the name of "Dissenters" or "Non-conformists." In the course of time, the number of Roman Catholics tended to diminish, largely because, for political reasons which have been indicated in the preceding chapter. Protestantism in Eng- land became almost synonymous with English patriotism. But despite drastic laws and dreadful persecutions, Roman Catholicism survived in England among a conspicuous group of people. On the other hand, the Calvinists tended somewhat to increase their numbers so that in the seventeenth century they were able to precipitate a great poHtical and ecclesiastical conflict with Anglicanism.

THE CATHOLIC REFORMATION

We have now traced the origins of the Protestant Revolt against the Catholic Church, and have seen how, between

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 157

1520 and 1570, three major varieties of new theology — • Luther- anism, Calvinism, and Anglicanism -- appeared on the scene and divided among themselves the nations of northern Europe. The story of how, during that critical half-century, the other civilized nations retained their loyalty to the Catholic Church virtually as it had existed throughout the middle ages, re- mains to be told. The preservation of the papal monarchy and CathoKc doctrine in southern Europe was due alike to religious and to political circumstances.

It must not be supposed that pious critics of ecclesiastical abuses were confined to countries which subsequently became Protestant. There were many sincere Catholics in Italy, Austria, France, and Spain who complained compUants of the scandals and worldliness that afflicted the against Church at the opening of the sixteenth century : the^Church they demanded sweeping reforms in discipline and a return of the clergy to a simple apostolic life. They believed, however, that whatever change was desirable could best be achieved by means of a reformation \vithin the Catholic Church, — ■ that is, without disturbing the unity of its organization or den>dng the validity of its dogmas, — while the critics of north- ern Europe, as we have seen, preferred to put their reforms into practice by means of a revolution — an out-and-out break with century-old traditions of Catholic Christianity. Even in northern Europe some of the foremost scholars of that period desired an intellectual reformation within Catholicism rather than a dogmatic rebelHon against it : with Luther's defiance of papal authority, the great Erasmus had small sympathy, and Sir Thomas More, the eminent English humanist, sacrificed his life for his belief in the divine sanction of the papal power.

Thus, while the religious energy of northern Europe went into Protestantism of various kinds, that of southern Europe fashioned a reformation of the Catholic system. And this Catholic reformation, on its religious side, was brought to a successful issue by means of the improved conditions in the papal court, the labors of a great church council, and the activity of new monastic orders. A few words must be said about each one of these religious elements in the Catholic reformation.

158 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Mention has been made of the corruption that prevailed in papal affairs in the fifteenth century, and of the Italian and Reforming family interests which obscured to the Medici pope, Popes Leo X (1513-1521), the importance of the Lutheran

movement in Germany. And Leo's nephew, who became Clement VII (1523-1534), continued to act too much as an Italian prince and too little as the moral and religious leader of Catholicism in the contest which under him was joined with Zwinglians and Anglicans as well as with Lutherans. But under Paul III (i 534-1 549), a new policy was inaugurated, by which men were appointed to high church offices for their virtue and learning rather than for family relationship or financial gain. This policy was maintained by a series of upright and far-sighted popes during the second half of the sixteenth cen- tury, so that by the year 1600 a remarkable reformation had been gradually wrought in the papacy, among the cardinals, down through the prelates, even to the parish priests and monks.

The reforming zeal of individual popes was stimulated and

reenforced by the work of the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

The idea of effecting a ''reformation in head and

The Council ^ }j ^ t ^ •! r j^i

of Trent members by means of a general council of the Catholic Church had been invoked several times during the century that preceded the Protestant Revolt, but, before Luther, little had been accomplished in that way.

With the widening of the breach between Protestantism and the medieval Church, what had formerly been desirable now became imperative. It seemed to pious Catholics that every effort should be made to reconcile differences and to restore the unity of the Church. The errors of the manifold new theologies which now appeared might be refuted by a clear statement of CathoHc doctrine, and a reformation of discipline and morals would deprive the innovators of one of their most telling weapons against the Church.

It was no easy task, in that troublous time, to hold an oecumeni- cal council. There was mutual distrust between Catholics and Protestants. There was uncertainty as to the relative powers and prerogatives of council and pope. There were bitter na- tional rivalries, especially between Italians and Germans. There

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 159

was actual warfare between the two chief CathoHc famihes — the Habsburgs of Germany and Spain and the royal house of France.

Yet despite these difficulties, which long postponed its con- vocation and repeatedly interrupted its labors, the Council of Trent ^ consummated a great reform in the Church and con- tributed materially to the preservation of the Catholic faith. The Protestants, whom the pope invited to participate, ab- sented themselves ; yet such was the number and renown of the CathoHc bishops who responded to the summons that the Council of Trent easily ranked with the eighteen oecumenical councils which had preceded it.- The work of the council was twofold — dogmatic and reformatory.

Dogmatically, the fathers at Trent offered no compromise to the Protestants. They confirmed with inexorable frankness the main points in Catholic theology which had been worked out in the thirteenth century by Thomas c°n^s *^ Aquinas and which before the appearance of Protes- of the tantism had been received everywhere in central and Qfj^l^^ western Europe. They declared that the tradition of the Church as well as the Bible was to be taken as the basis of the Christian reHgion, and that the interpretation of the Holy Scripture belonged only to the Church. The Protestant teachings about grace and justification by faith were condemned, and the seven sacraments were pronounced indispensable. The miraculous and sacrificial character of the Lord's Supper (Mass) was reaffirmed. Belief in the invocation of saints, in the venera- tion of images and of relics, in purgatory and indulgences was expHcitly stated, but precautions were taken to clear some of the doctrines of the pernicious practices which at times had been connected with them. The spiritual authority of the Roman See was confirmed over all Catholicism : the pope was recognized as supreme interpreter of the canons and incon- testable chief of bishops.

^ Trent was selected largely by reason of its geographical location, being situated on the boundary between the German-speaking and Italian-speaking peoples.

- Its decrees were signed at its close (1563) by 4 cardinal legates, 2 cardinals, 3 patriarchs, 25 archbishops, 167 bishops, 7 abbots, 7 generals of orders, and 19 proxies for 33 absent prelates.

i6o HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

A volume of disciplinary statutes constituted the second achievement of the Tridentine Council. The sale of church offices was condemned. Bishops and other prelates Canons^ "'^^ wcre to reside in their respective dioceses, abandon of the worldly pursuits, and give themselves entirely to

of°Trent spiritual labors. Seminaries were to be established for the proper education and training of priests. While Latin was retained as the official and liturgical language, frequent sermons were to be preached in the vernacular. In- dulgences were not to be issued for money, and no charge should be made for conferring the sacraments.

The seed sown by the council bore abundant fruit during several succeeding pontificates. The central government was Index and Completely reorganized. A defoiite catechism was Inquisition prepared at Rome and every layman instructed in the tenets and obligations of his religion. Revisions were made in the service books of the Church, and a new standard edition of the Latin Bible, the Vulgate, was issued. A list, called the Index, was prepared of dangerous and heretical books, which good Catholics were prohibited from reading. By these methods, discipline was in fact confirmed, morals purified, and the scandal of the immense riches and the worldly life of the clergy restrained. From an unusually strict law of faith and conduct, lapses were to be punishable by the ancient ecclesiastical court of the In- quisition, which now zealously redoubled its activity, especially in Italy and in Spain.

A very important factor in the Catholic revival — not only in preserving all southern Europe to the Church but also in preventing a complete triumph of Protestantism in the North — was the formation of several new religious orders, which sought to purify the life of the people and to bulwark the posi- tion of the Church. The most celebrated of these orders, both for its labors in the sixteenth century and for its subsequent history, is the Society of Jesus, whose members are known commonly as Jesuits. The society was founded by Ignatius Loyola^ in 1534 and its constitution was formally approved by the pope six years later.

In his earlier years, Ignatius followed the profession of arms,

^ Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556).

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE i6i

and as a patriotic Spaniard fought valiantly in the armies of Emperor Charles V against the French. But while he was in a hospital, suffering from a wound, he chanced to Ignatius read a Life of Christ and biographies of several Loyola saints, which, he tells us, worked a great change withiri him. From being a soldier of an earthly king, he would now become a knight of Christ and of the Church. Instead of fighting for the glory of Spain and of himself, he would henceforth strive for the greater glory of God. Thus in the very year in which the German monk, Martin Luther, became the leading and avowed adversary of the Catholic Church, this Spanish soldier was starting on that remarkable career which was to make him Catholicism's chief champion.

After a few years' trial of his new life and several rather footless efforts to serve the Church, Ignatius determined, at the age of thirty-three, to perfect his scanty education. It was while he was studying Latin, philosophy, and theology at the University of Paris that he made the acquaintance of the group of scholarly and saintly men who became the first members of the Society of Jesus. Intended at first primarily for missionary labors among the Mohammedans, the order was speedily turned to other and greater ends.

The organization of the Jesuits showed the military instincts of their founder. To the three usual vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, was added a fourth vow of special allegiance ^^ ^

' 1 r n ^^^ Jesuits

to the pope. The members were to be carefully trained during a long novitiate and were to be under the personal direction of a general, resident in Rome. Authority and obe- dience were stressed by the society. Then, too, St. Ignatius Loyola understood that the Church was now confronted with conditions of war rather than of peace : accordingly he directed that his brothers should not content themselves with prayer and works of peace, with charity and local benevolence, but should adapt themselves to new circumstances and should strive in a multiplicity of ways to restore all things in the Cathohc Church.

Thus it happened that the Jesuits, from the very year of their estabhshment, rushed to the front in the religious conflict of the sixteenth century. In the first place, they sought to enhghten

i62 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

and educate the young. As schoolmasters they had no equals in Europe for many years. No less a scholar and scientist than Lord Francis Bacon said of the Jesuit teaching that "nothing better has been put in practice." Again, by their wide learning and culture, no less than by the unimpeachable purity of their lives, they won back a considerable respect for the Catholic clergy. As preachers, too, they earned a high esteem by the clearness and simplicity of their sermons and instruction.

It was in the mission field, however, that the Jesuits achieved the most considerable results. They were mainly responsible for the recovery of Poland after that country had almost be- come Lutheran. They similarly conserved the Catholic faith in Bavaria and in the southern Netherlands. They insured a respectable Catholic party in Bohemia and in Hungary. They aided considerably in maintaining Catholicism in Ireland. At the hourly risk of their lives, they ministered to their fellow- CathoHcs in England under Elizabeth and the Stuarts. And what the Catholic Church lost in numbers through the defection of the greater part of northern Europe was compensated for by Jesuit missions among the teeming millions in India and China, among the Huron and Iroquois tribes of North America, and among the aborigines of Brazil and Paraguay. No means of influence, no source of power, was neglected that would win men to religion and to the authority of the bishop of Rome. Politics and agriculture were utilized as well as literature and science. The Jesuits were confessors of kings in Europe and apostles of the faith in Asia and America.

It has been pointed out already that the rapid diffusion of Protestantism was due to economic and political causes as well

as to those narrowly religious. It may be said with and ^'^^ equal truth that political and economic causes co- Economic operated with the religious developments that we in^the^^ have just noted in maintaining the supremacy of

Catholic the Catholic Church in at least half the countries tion°'^"^ over which she had exercised her sway in 1500. For

one thing, it is doubtful whether financial abuses had flourished as long or as vigorously in southern as in north- ern Europe. For another, the pohtical conditions in the states of southern Europe help to explain the interesting situation.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 163

In Italy was the pope's residence and See. He had be- stowed many favors on important Itahan families. He had often exploited foreign countries in behalf of Italian patronage. He had taken advantage of the political disunity of the peninsula to divide his local enemies and thereby to assure the victory of his own cause. Two popes of the six- teenth century belonged to the powerful Florentine family of the Medici — Florence remained loyal. The hearty support of the Emperor Charles V preserved the orthodoxy of Naples, and that of Philip II stamped out heresy in the kingdom of the Two Sicihes.

In France, the concordat of 15 16 between pope and king had peacefully secured for the French monarch appointment of bishops and control of benefices within his country, — powers which the German princes and the English sovereigns secured by revolutionary change. Moreover, French Protestantism, by its political activities in behalf of effective checks upon the royal power, drove the king into Catholic arms : the cause of absolutism in France became the cause of CathoHcism, and the latter was bound up with French patriot- ism to quite the same extent as English patriotism became Unked with the fortunes of Anglicanism.

In Spain and Portugal, the monarchs obtained concessions from the pope like those accorded the French sovereigns. They gained control of the Catholic Church within their Spain and countries and found it a most valuable ally in for- Portugal warding their absolutist tendencies. Moreover, the centuries- long struggle with Mohammedanism had endeared Catholic Christianity alike to Spaniards and to Portuguese and rendered it an integral part of their national life. Spain and Portugal now remained fiercely Cathohc.

Somewhat similar was the case of Austria. Terrifying fear of the advancing Turk, joined with the political exigencies of the Habsburg rulers, threw that duchy with most oi its dependencies into the hands of the pope. If the bishop of Rome, by favoring the Habsburgs, had lost England, he had at least saved Austria. Poland

Ireland and Poland — those two extreme outposts ^"^ Ireland of the Roman Catholic Church in Europe — found their religion

• 1 64 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

to be the most effectual safeguard of their nationahty, the most valuable weapon against aggression or assimilation by powerful neighbors.

SUMMARY OF THE RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

By the year 1570 the profound religious and ecclesiastical changes which we have been sketching had been made. For seventy-five years more a series of wars was to be waged in which the reUgious element was distinctly to enter. In fact these wars have often been called the ReHgious Wars — the ones connected with the career of PhiHp II of Spain as well as the subsequent dismal ci\dl war in the Germanics — but in each one the poHtical and economic factors predominated. Nor did the series of wars materially affect the strength or extent of the rehgions imphcated. It was prior to 1570 that the Protestant Revolt had been effected and the CathoHc Reforma- tion achieved.

In the year 1500, the Roman CathoUc Church embraced central

and western Europe; in the year 1600 nearly half of its former

subjects — those throughout northern Europe — no

Geographi- , •' . , . ^ , . . , . ,

cai Extent longer recogmzed its authority or practiced its be- of the ]ieis. There were left to the Roman Catholic Church

at the close of the sixteenth century the Itahan states, Spain, Portugal, most of France, the southern Nether- lands, the forest cantons of Switzerland, the southern Ger- manics, Austria, Poland, Ireland, large followings in Bohemia and Hungary, and a stragghng unimportant following in other countries.

Those who rejected the Roman Catholic Church in central and western Europe were collectively called Protestants, but they were divided into three major groups. Lutheranism was now the religion of the northern Germanies and the Scandina\'ian states of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Calvinism, under a bewildering variety of names, was the recognized faith of the majority of the cantons of Switzerland, of the northern Nether- lands, and Scotland, and of important followings in Germany, Hungary, France, and England. Anglicanism was the estab- hshed rehgion of England.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 165

The Protestants retained a large part of Catholic theology, so that all portions of western Christianity continued to have much in common. They still believed in the Trin- Doctrines ity, in the divinity of Jesus Christ, in the sacredness Held in of the Jewish scriptures and of the New Testament, i,y catho- in the fall of man and his redemption through the lies and sacrifice of the Cross, and in a future life of rewards and punishments. The Christian moralities and virtues con- tinued to be inculcated by Protestants as well as by Catholics.

On the other hand, the Protestants held in common certain doctrines which separated all of them from Roman Cathohcism. These were the distinguishing marks of Protestantism : Doctrines (i) denial of the claims of the bishop of Rome and Held by consequent rejection of the papal government and ^ants Apart jurisdiction ; (2) rejection of such doctrines as were from supposed to have developed during the middle ages, — for example, purgatory, indulgences, invocation of saints, and veneration of rehcs, — together with important modifica- tions in the sacramental system ; (3) insistence upon the right of the individual to interpret the Bible, and recognition of the individual's ability to save himself without the interposition of ecclesiastics — hence to the Protestant, authority resided in individual interpretation of the Bible, while to the Catholic, it rested in a living institution or Church.

Now the Protestant idea of authority made it possible and essentially inevitable that its supporters should not agree on many things among themselves. There would be al- Divisions most as many ways of interpreting the Scriptures as among there were interested individuals. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the last Almanac some one hundred and sixty- four varieties or denominations of Protestants are listed in the United States alone.. These divisions, however, are not so complex as at first might appear, because nearly all of them have come directly from the three main forms of Protestantism which appeared in the sixteenth century. Just how Lutheran- ism, Calvinism, and Anglicanism differed from each other may be gathered from a short summary.

(i) The Calvinists taught justification by election — that God determines, or predestines, who is to be saved and who is

1 66 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

to be lost. The Lutherans were inclined to reject such doctrine, and to assure salvation to the mere believer. The Anglicans appeared to accept the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith, although the Thirty-nine Articles might be likewise interpreted in harmony with the Calvinistic position.

(2) The Calvinists recognized only two sacraments — baptism and the Lord's Supper. Lutherans and Anglicans retained, in addition to the two sacraments, the rite of confirmation, and Anglicans also the rite of ordination. The ofiicial statement of Anglicanism that there are "two major sacraments" has made it possible for some Anglicans — the so-called High Church party — to hold the Catholic doctrine of seven sacraments.

(3) Various substitutes were made for the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, the idea that in the Lord's Supper the bread and wine by the word of the priest are actually changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. The Lutherans maintained what they called consubstantiation, that Christ was with and in the bread and wine, as fire is in a hot iron, to borrow the metaphor of Luther himself. The Calvinists, on the other hand, saw in the Eucharist, not the efficacious sacrifice of Christ, but a simple commemoration of the Last Supper ; to them the bread and wine were mere symbols of the Body and Blood. As to the Anglicans, their position was ambiguous, for their official confession of faith declared at once that the Supper is the com- munion of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but that the communicant receives Jesus Christ only spiritually : the present- day "Low Church" Anglicans incline to a Calvinistic interpreta- tion, those of the "High Church" to the Cathohc explanation.

(4) There were pronounced differences in ecclesiastical gov- ernment. All the^Protestants considerably modified the Catholic system of a divinely appointed clergy of bishops, priests, and deacons, under the supreme spiritual jurisdiction of the pope. The Anglicans rejected the papacy, although they retained the orders of bishop, priest, and deacon, and insisted that their hierarchy was the direct continuation of the medieval Church in England, and therefore that their organization was on the same footing as the Orthodox Church of eastern Europe. The Lutherans rejected the divinely ordained character of episcopacy, but retained bishops as convenient administrative officers. The

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 167

Galvinists did away with bishops altogether and kept only one order of clergjTnen — the presbyters. Such Calvinistic churches as were governed by assembhes or synods of presbyters were called Presbyterian; those which subordinated the "minister" to the control of the people in each separate congregation were styled Independent, or Separatist, or Congregational.'

(5) In the ceremonies of pubHc worship the Protestant churches differed. Anghcanism kept a good deal of the Catholic ritual although in the form of translation from Latin to English, together with several CathoKc ceremonies, in some places even employing candles and incense. The Calvinists, on the other hand, worshiped with extreme simplicity : reading of the Bible, singing of hymns, extemporaneous prayer, and preaching con- stituted the usual service in church buildings that were without superfluous ornaments. Between Anghcan formalism and Cal- vinistic austerity, the Lutherans presented a compromise : they devised no uniform liturgy, but showed some inclination to utilize forms and ceremonies.

Of the true significance of the great reHgious and ecclesiastical changes of the sixteenth century many estimates in the past have been made, varying with the point of \dew, or bias, of each author. Several results, however, now Significance stand out clearly and are accepted generally by Protestant all scholars, regardless of reHgious afhHations. These Revolt results may be expressed as follows :

In the first place, the Catholic Church of the middle ages was disrupted and the medieval ideal of a universal theocracy under the bishop of Rome was rudely shocked.

In the second place, the Christian religion was largely national- ized. Protestantism was the religious aspect of nationalism; it naturally came into being as a protest against the cosmopoli- tan character of Catholicism ; it received its support from nations; and it assumed everywhere a national form. The German states, the Scandinavian countries, Scotland, England, each had its established state religion. What remained to the Catholic Church, as we have seen, was essentially for national reasons and henceforth rested mainly on a national basis.

^ This latter typt of church government was maintained also by the quasi- Calvinistic denomination of the Baptists.

1 68 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Thirdly, the whole movement tended to narrow the Catholic Church dogmatically. The exigencies of answering the Protes- tants called forth explicit definitions of belief. The Catholic Church was henceforth on the defensive, and among her mem- bers fewer differences of opinion were tolerated than formerly.

Fourthly, a great impetus to individual morality, as well as to theological study, was afforded by the reformation. Not only were many men's minds turned temporarily from other intellec- tual interests to religious controversy, but the individual faith- ful Catholic or Protestant was encouraged to vie with his neigh- bor in actually proving that his particular religion inculcated a higher moral standard than any other. It rendered the six- teenth and seventeenth centuries more earnest and serious and also more bigoted than the fifteenth.

Finally, the Protestant Revolution led immediately to im- portant pohtical and social changes. The power of secular rulers was immeasurably increased. By confiscation of church lands and control of the clergy, the Tudor sovereigns in Eng- land, the kings in Scandinavia, and the German princes were personally enriched and freed from fear of being hampered in absolutist tendencies by an independent ecclesiastical organiza- tion. Even in Catholic countries, the monarchs were able to wring such concessions from the pope as resulted in shackling the Church to the crown.

The wealth of the nobles was swelled, especially in Protestant countries, by seizure of the property of the Church either directly or by means of bribes tendered for aristocratic support of the royal confiscations. But despite such an access of wealth, the monarchs took pains to see that the nobility acquired no new political influence.

In order to prevent the nobles from recovering political power, the absolutist monarchs enlisted the services of the faithful middle class, which speedily attained an enviable position in the principal European states. It is safe to say that the Protes- tant Revolution was one of many elements assisting in the de- velopment of this middle class.

For the peasantry — still the bulk of European population — the religious and ecclesiastical changes seem to have been pecul- iarly unfortunate. What they gained through a diminution of

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 169

ecclesiastical dues and taxes was more than lost through the growth of royal despotism and the exactions of hard-hearted lay proprietors. The peasants had changed the names of their oppressors and found themselves in a worse condition than before. There is little doubt that, at least so far as the Ger- manics and the Scandinavian countries are concerned, the lot of the peasants was less favorable immediately after, than im- mediately before, the rise of Protestantism.

ADDITIONAL READING

General. Good brief accounts of the whole religious revolution of the sixteenth century : Frederic Seebohm, The Era of the Protestant Revolu- tion,ntvf ed. (1904); J. H. Robinson, Reformation, in " Encyclopaedia Bri- tannica," nth ed. (1911); A. H. Johnson, Eur opdn the Sixteenth Century (1897), ch. iii-v and pp. 272 ff. ; E. IVI. Hukne, Renaissance and Reforma- tion, 2d ed. (1915), ch. x-xviii, xxi-xxiii; Victor Duruy, History of Modern Times, trans, and rev. by E. A. Grosvenor (1894), ch. xiii, xiv. More detailed accounts are given in the Cambridge Modern History, Vol. II (1904), and in the Histoire generate, \'ol. IV, ch. x-xvii, and Vol. V, ch. i. All the standard general histories of the Christian Church contain accounts of the rise of Protestantism, naturally varying among themselves accord- ing to the rehgious convictions of their authors. Among the best Protestant histories may be cited : T. M. Lindsay, .4 History of the Reformation, 2 vols. (1906-1910) ; Wilhelm Moeller, History of the Christian Church, trans, and condensed by J. H. Freese, 3 vols. (1893-1900) ; Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vols. VI and VII ; A. H. Newman, A Manual of Church History, Vol. II (1903), Period V; G. P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church (1887), Period VIII, ch. i-xii. From the Catholic stand- point the best ecclesiastical histories are : John Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History, trans, from 9th German edition (1903), Vol. II and Vol. Ill, Epoch I ; and the histories in German by Joseph (Cardinal) Hergen- rother [ed. by J. P. Kirsch, 2 vols. (1902-1904)], by Alois Knopfler (5th ed., 1910) [based on the famous Conciliengeschichte of K. J. (Bishop) von Hefele], and by F. X. von Funk (5th ed., 1911) ; see, also, Alfred Baudrit- lart, The Catholic Church, the Renaissance and Protestantism, Eng. trans, by INIrs. Philip Gibbs (1908). Many pertinent articles are to be found in the scholarly Catholic Encyclopcedia, 15 vols. (1907-1912), in the famous Realencyklopddie fiir protestantische Theologie und Kirche, 3d ed., 24 vols. (1896-1913), and in the (Non-Catholic) Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. by James Hastings and now (191 6) in course of pubHcation. For the popes of the period, see Ludwig Pastor, The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages, the monumental work of a distinguished CathoUc historian, the twelfth volume of which (coming down to 1549) was published in Enghsh translation in 191 2 ; and the older but still useful (Protestant) History of the

I70 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Papacy from the Great Schism to the Sack of Rome by Mandell Creighton, new ed. in 6 vols. (1899-1901), and History of the Popes by Leopold von Ranke, 3 vols, in the Bohn Library (1885). Heinrich Denziger, Enchiridion Sytnbolorum, Definitionum, et Declarationimi de rebus fidei et morum, nth ed. (191 1), is a convenient collection of official pronouncements in Latin on the Catholic Faith. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (1878), contains the chief Greek, Latin, and Protestant creeds in the original and usually also in English translation. Also useful is B. J. Kidd (editor), Documents Illustrative of the Continental Reformation (191 1). For addi- tional details of the relation of the Reformation to sixteenth-century politics, consult the bibliography appended to Chapter III, above.

The Catholic Church in the Early Sixteenth Century. In the Cambridge Modern History, Vol. I (1902), a severe indictment of the Church is pre- sented (ch. xix) by H. C. Lea, and a defense is offered (ch. xviii) by William Barry. The former opinions are developed startlingly by H. C. Lea in V^ol. I, ch. i, of his History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages. An old- fashioned, though still interesting, Protestant view is that of William Roscoe, Life and Pontificate of Leo A', 4 vols, (first pub. 1805-1806, many subsequent editions). For an excellent description of the organization of the Catholic Church, see Andre Mater, Ueglise catholique, sa constitution, son administration (1906). The best edition of the canon law is that of Friedberg, 2 vols. (1881). On the social work of the Church: E. L. Cutts, Parish Priests and their People in the Middle Ages in England (i8g8), and G. A. Prevost, Ueglise et les campagnes au moyen age (1892). The most re- cent and comprehensive study of the Catholic Church on the eve of the Protestant Revolt is that of Pierre Imbart de la Tour, Les origines de la Reforme, Vol. I, La France moderne (1905), and Vol. II, Ueglise catholique, la crise et la renaissance (1909). For the Orthodox Church of the East see Louis Duchesne, The Churches Separated from Rome, trans, by A. H. Mathew (igo8).

Mohammedanism. Sir William Muir, Life of Mohammed, new and rev. ed. by T. H. Weir (191 2); Ameer AH, Life and Teachings of Mo- hammed (1891), and, by the same author, warmly sympathetic, Islam (1914) ; D. S. Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam (1905), in the " Heroes of the Nations " Series, and, by the same author. The Early Development of Mohammedanism (1914) ; Arthur Oilman, Story of the Saracens (1902), in the " Story of the Nations " Series. Edward Gibbon has two famous chapters (1, li) on Mohammed and the Arabian conquests in his masterpiece, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The Koran, the sacred book of Mohammedans, has been translated into English by E. H. Palmer, 2 vols. (1880) : entertaining extracts are given in Stanley Lane-Poole, Speeches and Table Talk of the Prophet Mohammad.

Luther and Lutheranism. Of innumerable biographies of Luther the best from sympathetic Protestant pens are: Julius Kostlin, Life of Luther, trans, and abridged from the German (1900) ; T. M. Lindsay, Luther and the German Reformation (1900) ; A. C. McGiffert, Martin Luther, the Man

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 171

and his Work (igii); Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther (191 1) ; Charles Beard, Martin Luther and the Reformation in Ger- many until the Close of the Diet of Worms (1889). A remarkable arraign- ment of Luther is the work of the eminent Catholic historian, F. H. S. Denifle, Luther und Luthertum in der ersten Entwickelung, 3 vols. (1904- igog), trans, into French by J. Pasquier (1911-1912). The most available Catholic study of Luther's personality and career is the scholarly work of Hartmann Grisar, Luther, 3 vols. (1911-1913), trans, from German into English by E. M. Lamond, 4 vols. (1913-1915). First Principles of the Reformation, ed. by Henry Wace and C. A. Buchheim (1885), contains an English translation of Luther's " Theses," and of his three pamphlets of 1520. The best edition of Luther's complete works is the Weimar edition ; English translations of portions of his Table Talk, by William Hazlitt, have appeared in the Bohn Library ; and Luther's Correspotidence and Other Contemporary Letters is now (19 16) in course of translation and pub- lication by Preserved Smith. J. W. Richard, Philip Melanchthon (1898) is a brief biography of one of the most famous friends and associates of Luther. For the Protestant Revolt in Germany: E. F. Henderson, A Short History of Germany (1902), Vol. I, ch. x-xvi, a brief sketch of the political and social background ; Johannes Janssen, History of the German People, a monumental treatise on German social history just before and during the revolt, scholarly and very favorable to the Catholic Church, trans, into English by M. A. Mitchell and A. M. Christie, 16 vols. (1896- 1910) ; Gottlob Egelhaaf, Deutsche Geschichte im sechzehnten Jahrhundert bis zum Augsburger Religionsfrieden, 2 vols. (1889-1892), a Protestant rejoinder to some of the Catholic Janssen's deductions; Karl Lamprecht, Deutsche Geschichte, Vol. V, Part I (1896), suggestive philosophizing; Leopold von Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany, Eng. trans., 3 vols., a careful study, coming down in the original German to 1555, but stopping short in the English form with the year 1 534 ; Friedrich von Bezold, Geschichte der deutschen Reformation, 2 vols. (1886-1890), in the bulky Oncken Series, voluminous and moderately Protestant in tone ; J. J. I. von Dollinger, Die Reformation, Hire innere Entwicklung und ihre Wirkungcn, 3 vols. (1853-1854), pointing out the opposition of many educated people of the sixteenth century to Luther ; A. E. Berger, Die Kidturaufgaben der Reformation, 2d ed. (1908), a study of the cultural aspects of the Lutheran movement, Protestant in tendency and opposed in certain instances to the generalizations of Janssen and Dollinger ; J. S. Schapiro, Social Reform and the Reformation (1909), a brief but very sugges- tive treatment of some of the economic factors of the German Reforma- tion; H. C. Vedder, The Reformation in Germany (1914), likewise stressing economic factors, and sympathetic toward the Anabaptists. For additional facts concerning the estabhshment of Lutheranism in Scandinavia, see R. N. Bain, Scandinavia, a Political History of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden from 1513 to igoo (1905), and John Wordsworth (Bishop of Salis- bury), The National Church of Sweden (191 1).

172 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Zwingli, Calvin, and Calvinism. The best biography of Zwingli in English is that of S. JNI. Jackson (1901), who likewise has edited the Selected Works of Zwingli; a more exhaustive biography in German is Rudolf Stahelin, Huldreich Zwingli: sein Leben und Wirken, 2 vols. (1895-1897). Biographies of Calvin : H. Y. Reyburn, John Calvin : his Life, Letters, and Work (1914) ; Williston Walker, John Calvin, the Organizer of Re- formed Protestantism (1906) ; Emile Doumergue, Jean Calvin : les hommes et les choses de son temps, 4 vols. (1899-1910) ; L. Penning, Life and Times of Calvin, trans, from Dutch by B. S. Berrington (191 2) ; William Barry, Calvin, in the " Catholic Encyclopaedia." Many of Calvin's writings have been published in English translation by the " Presbyterian Board of Publication " in Philadelphia, 22 vols, in 52 (1844-1856), and his In- stitutes of the Christian Religion has several times been published in English. H. M. Baird, Theodore Beza (1899) is a popular biography of one of the best-known friends and associates of Calvin. For Calvinism in Switzer- land: W. D. McCracken, The Rise of the Swiss Republic, 2d ed. (1901) ; F. W. Kampschulte, Johann Calvin, seine Kirche und sein Staat in Genf, 2 vols. (1869-1899). For Calvinism in France: H. M. Baird, History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France, 2 vols. (1S79), and by the same author, a warm partisan of Calvinism, The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre, 2 vols. (1886) ; the brothers Haag, France protestante, 2d ed., 10 vols. (1877- 1895), an exhaustive history of Protestantism in France ; E. Lavisse (editor), Histoire de France, Vol. V, Livre IX, by Henry Lemonnier (1904), most recent and best. For Calvinism in Scotland : P. H. Brown, John Knox, a Biography, 2 vols. (1895) ; Andrew Lang, John Knox and the Reformation (1905) ; John Herkless and R. K. Hannay, The Archbishops of St. Andrews, 4 vols. (1907-1913); D. H. Fleming, The Reformation in Scotland: its Causes, Characteristics, and Consequences (1910) ; John Macpherson, History of the Church in Scotland (1901), ch. iii-v.

The Protestant Revolution in England. The eve of the revolution : Frederic Seebohm, The Oxford Reformers, 3d ed. (1887), a sympathetic treatment of Colet, Erasmus, and More ; F. A. (Cardinal) Gasquet, The Eve of the Reformation in England (1899), and, by the same author, an eminent CathoHc scholar, England under the Old Religion (191 2). General histories of the English Reformation : H. O. Wakeman, An Introduction to the History of the Church of England, 8th ed. (1914), ch. x-xiv, the best brief " High Church " survey; J. R. Green, Short History of the English People, new iUust. ed. by C. H. Firth (1913), ch. vi, vii, a popular " Low Church " view ; W. R. W. Stephens and William Hunt (editors), A History of the Church of England, Vols. IV (1902) and V (1904) by James Gairdner and W. H. Frere respectively ; James Gairdner, Lollardy and the Reforma- tion in England, 4 vols. (1908-1913), the last word of an eminent authority on the period, who was convinced of the revolutionary character of the English Reformation ; John Lingard, History of England to 1688, Vols. IV-VI, the standard Roman Catholic work ; R. W. Dixon, History of the Church of England from the Abolition of the Roman Jurisdiction, 6 vols.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 173

(1878-1902), a thorough treatnicnL from the High Anglican position ; H. W. Clark, History of English Nonconformity, Vol. I (191 1), Book I, valuable for the history of the radical Protestants ; Henry Gee and W. J. Hardy. Documents Illustrative of English Church History (1896), an ad- mirable collection of ofhcial pronouncements. Valuable special works and monographs: C. B. Lumsden, The Dawn of Modern England, being a History of the Reformation- in England, ijOQ~ij2j (19 10), pronouncedly Roman Catholic in tone; Martin Hume, The Wives of Henry VIII (1905) ; F. A. (Cardinal) Gasquet, Henry VIII and the English Monasteries, 3d ed., 2 vols. (18S8), popular ed. in i vol. (1902) ; R. B. Merriman, Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell, 2 vols. (1902), a standard work; Dom Bede Camm, Lives of the English Martyrs (1904), with special reference to Roman Cathohcs under Henry \'III ; A. F. Pollard,^ Life of Cranmer (1904), scholarly and sympathetic, and, by the same author, England under Pro- tector Somerset (1900), distinctly apologetic; Frances Rose-Troup, The Western Rebellion of ij4Q (1913), a study of an unsuccessful popular up- rising against religious innovations; M. J. Stone, Mary I, Queen of Eng- land (1901), an apology for Mary Tudor; John Foxe (1516-1587), Acts a)id Monuments of the Church, popularly known as the Book of Martyrs, the chief contemporary account of the Marian persecutions, uncritical and naturally strongly biased ; R. G. Usher, The Reconstruction of the English Church, 2 vols. (1910), a popular account of the changes under Elizabeth and James I ; H. N. Birt, The Elizabethan Religious Settlement (1Q07), from the Roman Catholic standpoint; G. E. Phillips, The Extinc- tion of the Ancient Hierarchy, an Account of the Death in Prison of the Eleven Bishops Honored at Rome amongst the Martyrs of the Elizabethan Persecu- tion (1905), also Roman Catholic ; A. O. Meyer, England und die katholische Kirche unter Elisabeth und den Stuarts, Vol. I (191 1), Eng. trans, by J. R. McKee (1915), based in part on use of source-material in the Vatican Library; Martin Hume, Treason a)td Plot (1901), deals with the struggles of the Roman Catholics for supremacy in the reign of Elizabeth ; E. L. Taunton, The History of the Jesuits in England, ij8o-i//'j (1901) ; Richard Simpson, Life of Campion (1867), an account of a devoted Jesuit who suffered martyrdom under Elizabeth ; Champlin Burrage, The Early English Dis- senters in the Light of Recent Research, 1^50-1641, 2 vols. (1912).

The Reformation within the Catholic Church. Brief narratives : William Barry, The Papacy and Modern Times (191 1), in "Home University Li- brary," ch. i-iii; A. W. Ward, The Counter Reformation (1889) in " Epochs of Church History" Series; Cambridge Modern History, Vol. HI (1905), ch. xiii by Ugo (Count) Balzani on " Rome under Sixtus V." Longer accounts : G. V. Jourdan, The Movement towards Catholic Reform in the Early Sixteenth Century, 1496-1^36 (1914) ; K. W. Maurenbrecher, Ge- schichte der katholischen Reformation, Vol. I (1880), excellent down to 1534

1 See also other works of A. F. Pollard listed in bibliography appended to Chapter III, p. no, above.

174 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

but never completed ; J. A. Symonds, Renaissance in Italy, Vols. VI and VII, The Catholic Reaction, replete with inaccuracy, bias, and prejudice. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent have been translated by J. Waterworth, new ed. (1896), and the Catechism of the Council of Trent, by J. Donovan (1829). Nicholas Hilling, Procedure at the Roman Curia, 2d ed. (1909), contains a concise account of the " congregations " and other reformed agencies of administration introduced into church gov- ernment in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The famous Auto- biography of St. Ignatius Loyola has been trans, and ed. by J. F. X. O'Conor (1900), and the text of his Spiritual Exercises, trans, from Spanish into English, has been published by Joseph Rickaby (1915). See Stewart Rose (Lady Buchan), St. Ignatius Loyola and the Early Jesuits, ed. by W. H. Eyre (1891) ; Francis Thompson, Life of Saint Ignatius (1910) ; T. A. Hughes, Loyola and the Educational System of the Jesuits (1892). Monumental national histories of the Jesuits are now (1916) appearing under the auspices of the Order: for Germany, by Bernhard Duhr, Vol. I (1907), Vol. II (191,3) ; for Italy, by Pietro Tacchi Venturi, Vol. I (1910) ; for France, by Henri Fouqueray, Vol. I (1910), Vol. II (1913) ; for Paraguay, by Pablo Pastells, Vol. I (1912); for North America, by Thomas Hughes, 3 vols. (1907-1910) ; for Spain, by Antonio Astrain, Vols. I-IV (1902- 1913). Concerning the Index, see G. H. Putnam, The Censorship of the Church of Rome and its Influence upon the Production and Distribution of Literature, 2 vols. (1907). On the Inquisition, see H. C. Lea, A History of the Inqidsition of Spain, 4 vols. (1907), and, by the same author. The Inquisition in the Spanish Dependencies (1908), on the whole a dark pic- ture ; and, for a Catholic account, Elphege Vacandard, The Inquisition: a Critical and Historical Study of the Coercive Power of the Church, trans, by B. L. Conway (1908).

For the outcome of the Protestant Revolt and the Catholic Reformation from the theological standpoint, see Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma, Eng. trans.. Vol. VII (1900). Charles Beard, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century in its Relation to Modern Thought and Knowledge (1883) is a strongly Protestant estimate of the significance of the whole move- ment. J. Balmes, European Civilization: Protestantism and Catholicity Compared in their Ejects on the Civilization of Europe (1850), though old, is a suggestive resume from the Catholic standpoint.

CHAPTER V

THE CULTURE OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

"Culture" is a word generally used to denote learning and refinement in manners and art. The development of „ ^ ,

... p 1111 Culture

culture — the acquisition of new knowledge and the creation of beautiful things — is ordinarily the work of a com- paratively small number of scientists and artists. Now if in any particular period or among any special people, we find a rela- tively larger group of intellectual leaders who succeed in estabhshing an important educated class and in making per- manent contributions to the civiHzation of posterity, then we say that it is a cultured century or a cultured nation.

All races and all generations have had some kind of culture, but within the recorded history of humanity, certain peoples and certain centuries stand out most distinctly as in- Greek fluencing its evolution. Thus, the Greeks of the Culture fourth and fifth centuries before Christ gathered together and handed down to us all manner of speculation about the nature of the universe, all manner of hypothetical answers to the eternal questions — Whence do we come, What are we doing, Where do we go ? — and this was the foundation of modern philosophy and metaphysics. From the same Greeks came our geometry and the rudiments of our sciences of astronomy and medicine. It was they who gave us the model for nearly every form of literature — dramatic, epic, and lyric poetry, dialogues, oratory, history — and in their well-proportioned temples, in their balanced columns and elaborate friezes, in their marble chisel- ings of the perfect human form, they fashioned for us forever the classical expression of art.

Still in ancient times, the Romans developed classical archi- tecture in the great triumphal arches and in the high-domed

175

176 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

public buildings which strewed their empire. They adapted the fine forms of Greek literature to their own more pompous, but Roman less subtle, Latin language. They devised a code of

Culture lo^^ g^j^^j ^ legal system which made them in a real sense the teachers of order and the founders of the modern study of law.

The Mohammedans, too, at the very time when the Chris- tians of western Europe were neglecting much of the ancient Moham- heritage, kept aUve the traditions of Greek philoso- medan phy, mathematics, astronomy, and medicine. From

^^^^^ eastern Asia they borrowed algebra, the Arabic

numerals, and the compass, and, in their own great cities of Bagdad, Damascus, and Cordova, they themselves developed the curiously woven curtains and rugs, the strangely wrought blades and metalHc ornaments, the luxurious dwelHngs and graceful minarets which distinguish Arabic or Mohammedan art. ,

In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries — the height of the middle ages — cam^e a wonderful outburst of intellectual and Medieval artistic activity. Under the immediate auspices of the Culture Catholic Church it brought forth abundantly a pe- culiarly Christian culture. Renewed acquaintance with Greek philosophy, especially with that of Aristotle, was joined with a hvely religious faith to produce the so-called scholastic philoso- phy and theology. Great institutions of higher learning — the universities — were now founded, in which centered the revived study not only of philosophy but of law and medicine as well, and over which appeared the first cloud-wrapped dawn of modern experimental science. And side by side with the sono- rous Latin tongue, which long continued to be used by scholars, were formed the vernacular languages — German, EngHsh, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. — that gave a wealth of variety to reviving popular Hterature. Majestic cathedrals with pointed arch and flying buttress, with lofty spire and dehcate tracery, wonderful wood carvings, illumi- nated manuscripts, quaint gargoyles, myriad statues of saints and martyrs, delicately colored paintings of surpassing beauty — all betokened the great Christian, or Gothic, art of the middle ages.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 177

The educated person of the sixteenth century was heir to all these cultural periods : intellectually and artistically he was descended from Greeks, Romans, Mohammedans, and his medieval Christian forbears. But the sixteenth Elements century itself added cultural contributions to the in Culture original store, which help to explain not only the century^" social, political, and ecclesiastical activities of that time but also many of our present-day actions and ideas. The essentially new factors in sixteenth-century culture may be reckoned as (i) the diffusion of knowledge as a result of the in- vention of printing; (2) the development of hterary criticism by means of humanism ; (3) a golden age of painting and archi- tecture ; (4) the flowering of national hterature ; (5) the begin- nings of m.odern natural science.

THE INVENTION OF PRINTING

The present day is notably distinguished by the prevalence of enormous numbers of printed books, periodicals, and news- papers. Yet this very printing, which seems so commonplace to us now, has had, in all, but a comparatively brief existence. From the earHest recorded history up to less than five hundred years ago every book in Europe ^ was laboriously written by hand,^ and, although copyists acquired an astonishing swiftness in reproducing books, libraries of any size were the property exclusively of rich institutions or wealthy individuals. It was at the beginning of modern times that the invention of printing revolutionized intellectual history.

Printing is an extremely complicated process, and it is small wonder that centuries of human progress elapsed before its in- vention was complete. Among the most essential elements of the perfected process are movable type with which the impression is made, and paper, on which it is made. A few facts may be conveniently culled from the long involved story of the develop- ment of each of these elements.

^ For an account of early printing in China, Japan, and Korea, see the inform- ing article "Typography" in the Encyclopcedia Britannica, nth edition, Vol. XXVII, p. 510.

^ It is interesting to note the meaning of our present word "manuscript," which is derived from the Latin — manii scrlptum ("written by hand").

N

1 78 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

For their manuscripts the Greeks and Romans had used papyrus, the prepared fiber of a tough reed which grew in the Develop- Valley of the Nile River. This papyrus was very ex- ment of pensive and heavy, and not at all suitable for print- ^^^'^ ing. Parchment, the dressed skins of certain animals,

especially sheep, which became the standard material for the hand-written documents of the middle ages, was extremely durable, but Hke papyrus, it was costly, unwieldy, and ill adapted for printing.

The forerunner of modern European paper was probably that which the Chinese made from silk as early as the second century before Christ. For silk the Mohammedans at Mecca and Damascus in the middle of the eighth century appear to have substituted cotton, and this so-called Damascus paper was later imported into Greece and southern Italy and into Spain. In the latter country the native-grown hemp and flax were again substituted for cotton, and the resulting Hnen paper was used considerably in Castile in the thirteenth century and thence penetrated across the Pyrenees into France and gradually all over western and central Europe. Parchment, however, for a long time kept its preeminence over silk, cotton, or linen paper, because of its greater firmness and durabihty, and notaries were long forbidden to use any other substance in their official writ- ings. Not until the second half of the fifteenth century was assured the triumph of modern paper,^ as distinct from papyrus or parchment, when printing, then on the threshold of its career, demanded a substance of moderate price that would easily receive the impression of movable type.

The idea of movable type was derived from an older practice of carving reverse letters or even whole inscriptions upon blocks _ , of wood so that when they were inked and appHed to

Develop- . . • , , 111 , . .

ment of writmg material they would leave a clear impression.

Movable Medieval kings and princes frequently had their sig- natures cut on these blocks of wood or metal, in order to impress them on charters, and a kind of engraving was em- ployed to reproduce pictures or written pages as early as the twelfth century.

It was a natural but slow evolution from block-impressing to

^ The word "paper" is derived from the ancient "papyrus."

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 179

the practice of casting individual letters in separate little pieces of metal, all of the same height and thickness, and then ar- ranging them in any desired sequence for printing. The great advantage of movable type over the blocks was the infinite variety of work which could be done by simply setting and re- setting the type.

The actual history of the transition from the use of blocks to movable type — the real invention of modern printing — is shrouded in a good deal of mystery and dispute. It now appears likely that by the year 1450, an obscure Lourens Coster of the Dutch town of Haarlem had devised movable type, that Coster's invention was being utihzed by a certain Johan Gutenberg in the German city of ISIainz, and that improvements were being added by various other contemporaries. Papal letters of in- dulgence and a version of the Bible, both printed in 1454, are the earUest monuments of the new art.

Slowly evolved, the marvelous art, once thoroughly de- veloped, spread with almost Hghtning rapidity from Mainz throughout the Germanics, the Italian states, France, and England, — in fact, throughout all Christian Europe. It was welcomed by scholars and applauded by popes. Print- ing presses were erected at Rome in 1466, and book-pub- Hshing speedily became an honorable and lucrative business in every large city. Thus, at the opening of the sixteenth century, the scholarly Aldus Manutius was operating in Venice the famous Aldine press, whose beautiful editions of the Greek and Latin classics are still esteemed as masterpieces of the printer's art.

The early printers fashioned the characters of their type after the letters that the scribes had used in long-hand writing. Dif- ferent kinds of common hand-writing gave rise, there- fore, to such varieties of type as the heavy black-faced Gothic that prevailed in the Germanics or the several adapta- tions of the clear, neat Roman characters which predominated in southern Europe and in England. The compressed "italic" type was devised in the Aldine press in Venice to enable the pubhsher to crowd more words upon a page.

A constant development of the new art characterized the six- teenth century, and at least three remarkable results became

i8o HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

evident. (i) There was an almost incalculable increase in the supply of books. Under earher conditions, a skilled and Results of conscientious copyist might, by prodigious toil, pro- invention duce two books in a year. Now, in a single year of o nnting ^j^^ sixteenth century, some 24,000 copies of one of Erasmus's books were struck off by one printing press.

(2) This indirectly increased the demand for books. By lessening the expense of books and enabhng at least all members of the middle class, as well as nobles and princes, to possess private hbraries, printing became the most powerful means of diffusing knowledge and broadening education.

(3) A greater degree of accuracy was guaranteed by printing than by manual copying. Before the invention of printing, it was well-nigh impossible to secure two copies of any work that would be exactly alike. Now, the constant proof-reading and the fact that an entire edition was printed from the same type were securities against the anciently recurring faults of forgery or of error.

HUMANISM

Printing, the invention of which has just been described, was the new vehicle of expression for the ideas of the sixteenth cen- tury. These ideas centered in something which commonly is called "humanism." To appreciate precisely what humanism means — to understand the dominant intellectual interests of the educated people of the sixteenth century — it will be neces- sary first to turn back some two hundred years earlier and say a few words about the first great humanist, Francesco Petrarca, or, as he is known to us, Petrarch.

The name of Petrarch, who flourished in the fourteenth cen- tury (1304- 1 3 74), has been made familiar to most of us by sen- timentahsts or by Hterary scholars who in the one case

Petrarch

" the have pitied his loves and his passions or in the other

Father of have admired the grace and form of his Italian son-

Humamsm' ° r i • -r. 1 ^

nets. But to the student of history Petrarch has seemed even more important as the reflection, if not the source, of a brilliant intellectual movement, which, taking rise in his century, was to grow in brightness in the fifteenth and flood the sixteenth with resplendent hght.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE i8i

In some respects Petrarch was a topical product of the four- teenth century. He was in close touch with the great medieval Christian culture of his day. He held papal ofhce at Avignon in France. He was pious and "old-fashioned" in many of his religious views, especially in his dislike for heretics. Moreover, he wrote what he professed to be his best work in Latin and expressed naught but contempt for the new Italian language, which, under the immortal Dante, had already acquired literary polish.^ He showed no interest in natural science or in the phys- ical world about him — no sympathy for any novelty.

Yet despite a good deal of natural conservatism, Petrarch added one significant element to the former medieval culture. That was an appreciation, amounting almost to worship, of the pagan Greek and Latin Hterature. Nor was he interested in antique things because they supported his theology or incul- cated Christian morals ; his fondness for them was simply and solely because they were inherently interesting. In a multitude of poKshed Latin letters and in many of his poems, as well as by daily example and precept to his admiring contemporaries, he preached the revival of the classics.

This one obsessing idea of Petrarch carried with it several corollaries which constituted the essence of humanism and pro- foundly affected European thought for several genera- tions after the Italian poet. They may be enumer- isticsof

ated as follows : Petrarch's

, , 1 1 r 1 • Humanism

(i) Petrarch felt as no nian_ had^ f elt smce pagan days the pleasure of mere human life^ — the" '' juy^oi H\dng." This, he believed, was not in opposition to the Christian religion, although it contradicted the basis of ascetic Hfe. He remained a Cathohc Christian, but he assailed the monks.

(2) Petrarch possessed a confidence in himself, which in the constant repetition in his writings of first-person pronouns par- took of boastfulness. He replaced a reHance upon Divine Provi- dence by a sense of his own human ability and power.

(3) Petrarch entertained a clear notion of a living bond be- tween himself and men of like sort in the ancient world. Greek

^ Ironically enough, it was not his Latin writings but his beautiful Italian son- nets, of which he confessed to be ashamed, that have preserved the popular fame of Petrarch to the present day.

i82 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

and Roman civilization was to him no dead and buried antiq- uity, but its poets and thinkers lived again as if they were his neighbors. His love for the past amounted almost to an ecstatic enthusiasm.

(4) Petrarch tremendously influenced his contemporaries. He was no local, or even national, figure. He was revered and re- spected as " the scholar of Europe." Kings vied with each other in heaping benefits upon him. The Venetian senate gave him the freedom of the city. Both the University of Paris and the municipaHty of Rome crowned him with laurel.

The admirers and disciples of Petrarch were attracted by the fresh and original human ideas of life with which such classical writers as Virgil, Horace, and Cicero overflowed. This ism^^nd new-found charm the scholars called humanity {hu- the"Hu- manitas) and themselves they styled "humanists." De&dtions Their studies, which comprised the Greek and Latin languages and literatures, and, incidentally, profane history, were the humanities or "letters" {litterce humaniores), and the pursuit of them was humanism.

Petrarch himself was a serious Latin scholar but knew Greek quite indifferently. About the close of his century, however, Greek teachers came in considerable numbers from Constanti- nople and Greece across the Adriatic to Italy, and a certain Chrysoloras set up an influential Greek school at Florence.^ Thenceforth, the study of both Latin and Greek went on apace. Monasteries were searched for old manuscripts; hbraries for the classics were established ; many an ancient masterpiece, long lost, was now recovered and treasured as fine gold.^

At first, humanism met with some opposition from ardent churchmen who feared that the revival of pagan Hterature might Humanism ^xert an unwholesome influence upon Christianity, and Chris- But gradually the humanists came to be tolerated tiamty ^^^ Qwen cncouraged, until several popes, notably

Julius II and Leo X at the opening of the sixteenth century, themselves espoused the cause of humanism. The father of Leo X was the celebrated Lorenzo de' Medici, who subsidized

1 This was before the capture. of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453. ^ It was during this time that long-lost writings of Tacitus, Cicero, Quintilian, Plautus, Lucretius, etc., were rediscovered.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 183

humanists and established the great Florentine library of Greek and Latin classics ; and the pope proved himself at once the patron and exemplar of the new learning : he enjoyed music and the theater, art and poetry, the masterpieces of the ancients and the creations of his humanistic contemporaries, the spiritual and the witty — life in every form.

The zeal for humanism reached its highest pitch in Italy in the fifteenth century and the first half of the sixteenth, but it gradually gained entrance into other countries and at spread of length became the intellectual spirit of sixteenth-cen- Humanism tury Europe. Greek was first taught both in England and in France about the middle of the fifteenth century. The Italian expeditions of the French kings Charles VIII, Louis XII, and Francis I, 1494-1547, served to familiarize Frenchmen with humanism. And the rise of important new German universi- ties called humanists to the Holy Roman Empire. As has been said, humanism dominated all Christian Europe in the sixteenth century.

Towering above all his contemporaries was Erasmus, the foremost humanist and the intellectual arbiter of the sixteenth century. Erasmus (1466-1536) was a native of Rot- Erasmus terdam in Holland, but throughout a long and studi- Chief ous life he lived for a time in Germany, France, Eng- of"he land, Italy, and Switzerland. He took holy orders Sixteenth in the Church and secured the degree of doctor of ^° ^^^ sacred theology, but it was as a lover of books and a prolific writer that he earned his title to fame. Erasmus, to an even greater degree than Petrarch, became a great international figure — the scholar of Europe. He corresponded with every important writer of his generation, and he was on terms of per- sonal friendship with Aldus Manutius, the famous publisher of Venice, with Sir Thomas More, the distinguished statesman and scholar of England, with Pope Leo X, with Francis I of France, and with Hciiry VIII of England. For a time he presided at Paris over the new College of France.

A part of the work of Erasmus — his Greek edition of the New Testament and his Praise of Folly — has already been mentioned. In a series of satirical dialogues — the Adages and the Colloquies — he displayed a brilliant intellect and a sparkling

1 84 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

wit. With quip and jest he made Hght of the ignorance and creduhty of many clergymen, especially of the monks. He laughed at every one, himself included. "Literary people," said he, ''resemble the great figured tapestries of Flanders, which produce effect only when seen from the distance."

At first Erasmus was friendly with Luther, but as he strongly disapproved of rebellion against the Church, he sub-

Humamsm .

and sequently assailed Luther and the whole Protestant

Protes- movement. He remained outside the group of radical

tantism , , . - .

reformers, to the end devoted to his favorite authors_, simply a lover of good Latin.

Perhaps the chief reason why Erasmus opposed Protestantism was because he imagined that the theological tempest which LutRer aroused all over Catholic Europe would destroy fair- minded scholarship — the very essence of humanism. Be that as it may, the leading humanists of Europe — More in England, Helgesen in Denmark, and Erasmus himself — remained Catho- lic. And while many of the sixteenth-century humanists of Italy grew skeptical regarding all religion, their country, as we have seen, did not become Protestant but adhered to the Roman Church.

Gradually, as the sixteenth century advanced, many persons who in an earlier generation would have applied their minds to Decline of the study of Latin or Greek, now devoted themselves Humanism ^q theological discussion or moral exposition. The religious differences between Catholics and Protestants, to say nothing of the refinements of dispute between Calvinists and Lutherans or Presbyterians and Congregationalists, absorbed much of the mental energy of the time and seriously distracted the humanists. In fact, we may say that, from the second half of the sixteenth century, humanism as an independent intel- lectual interest slowly but steadily declined. Nevertheless, it was not lost, for it was merged with other interests, and with them. has been preserved ever since.

Humanism, whose seed was sown by Petrarch in the fourteenth century and whose fruit was plucked by Erasmus in the six- teenth, still lives in higher education throughout Europe and America. The historical "humanities" — Latin, Greek, and history — are still taught in college and in high school. They

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 185

constitute the contribution of the dominant intellectual interest of the sixteenth century.

ART IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

The effect of the revived interest in Greek and Roman cul- ture, which, as we have seen, dominated European thought from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century, was „

r 1 1 • !• 1 • T 1 IT r • Humanism

felt not only ni hterature and m the outward life of its and the devotees — in ransacking monasteries for lost manu- Renaissance

. . ,, , . . , . , , of Art

scripts, m critically studying ancient learning, and m consciously imitating antique behavior — but likewise in a marvelous and many-sided development of art.

The art of the middle ages had been essentially Christian — • it sprang from the doctrine and devotions of the Catholic Church and was inextricably bound up with Christian life. The grace- ful Gothic cathedrals, pointing their roofs and airy spires in heavenly aspiration, the fantastic and mysterious carvings of wood or stone, the imaginative portraiture of saintly heroes and heroines as well as of the subHme story of the fall and redemp- tion of the human race, the richly stained glass, and the spiritual organ music — all betokened the supreme thought of medieval Christianity. But humanism recalled to men's minds the pre- vious existence of an art simpler and more restrained, if less ethereal. The reading of Greek and Latin writers heightened an esteem for pagan culture in all its phases.

Therefore, European art underwent a transformation in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. While much of the distinc- tively medieval culture remained, civilization was enriched by a revival of classical art. The painters, the sculptors, and the architects now sought models not exclusively in their own Christian masters but in many cases in pagan Greek and Roman forms. Gradually the two Hnes of development were brought together, and the resulting union — the adaptation of classical art-forms to Christian uses — was marked by an unparalleled outburst of artistic energy.

From that period of exuberant art-expression in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, our present-day love of beautiful things has come down in unbroken succession. With no exaggeration

i86 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

it may be said that the sixteenth century is as much the basis

of our modern artistic Hfe as it is the foundation of modern

Protestantism or of modern world empire. The revolutions in

commerce and religion synchronized with the beginning of a

new era in art. All arts were affected — architecture, sculpture,

painting, engraving, and music.

In architecture, the severely straight and plain line of the

ancient Greek temples or the elegant gentle curve of the Roman

. , . dome was substituted for the fanciful lofty Gothic. A

Arcmtecture .

rounded arch replaced the pointed. And the ancient Greek orders — Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian — were dragged from oblivion to embellish the simple symmetrical buildings. The newer architecture was used for ecclesiastical and other structures, reaching perhaps its highest expression in the vast cathedral of St. Peter, which was erected at Rome in the six- teenth century under the personal direction of great artists, among whom Raphael and Michelangelo are numbered.

The revival of Greek and Roman architecture, like humanism, had its origin in Italy ; and in the cities of the peninsula, under the patronage of wealthy princes and noble families, it attained its most general acceptance. But, like humanism, it spread to other countries, which in turn it deeply affected. The chronic wars, in which the petty Italian states were engaged throughout the sixteenth century, were attended, as we have seen, by perpetual foreign interference. But Italy, vanquished in politics, became the victor in art. While her towns surrendered to foreign armies, her architects and builders subdued Europe and brought the Christian countries for a time under her artistic sway.

Thus in France the revival was accelerated by the military campaigns of Charles VIII, Louis XII, and Francis I, which led , ^ to the revelation of the architectural triumphs in Italy,

In France ,,.,. .- ir

the result bemg the importation of great numbers of Italian designers and craftsmen. Architecture after the Greek or Roman manner at once became fashionable. Long, horizontal lines appeared in many public buildings, of which the celebrated palace of the Louvre, begun in the last year of the reign of Francis I (1546), and to-day the home of one of the world's greatest art collections, is a conspicuous example.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 187

In the second half of the sixteenth century, the new archi- tecture similarly entered Spain and received encouragement from Philip II. About the same time it manifested it- in other self in the Netherlands and in the Germanics. In Eng- Countnes land, its appearance hardly took place in the sixteenth century: it was not until 1619 that a famous architect, Inigo Jones (1573- 165 1), designed and reared the classical banqueting house in Whitehall, and not until the second half of the seventeenth cen- tury did Sir Christopher Wren (163 2-1 7 23), by means of the majestic St. Paul's cathedral in London, render the new archi- tecture popular in England.

Sculpture is usually an attendant of architecture, and it is not surprising, therefore, that transformation of the one should be connected with change in the other. The new ^ . ,

. . Sculpture

movement showed itself in Italian sculpture as early

as the fourteenth century, owing to the influence of the ancient monuments which still abounded throughout the peninsula and to which the humanists attracted attention. In the fifteenth century archaeological discoveries were made and a special interest fostered by the Florentine family of the Medici, who not only became enthusiastic collectors of ancient works of art but pro- moted the study of the antique figure. Sculpture followed more and more the Greek and Roman traditions in form and often in subject as well. The plastic art of Italy in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was strikingly akin to that of Athens in the fifth or fourth centuries before Christ.

The first great apostle of the new sculpture was Lorenzo Ghiberti (1378-1455), whose marvelous doors on the baptistery at Florence elicited the comment of Michelangelo that they were "worthy of being placed at the entrance of paradise." Slightly younger than Ghiberti was Donatello (i 383-1466), who, among other triumphs, fashioned the realistic statue of St. Mark in Venice. Luca della Robbia (1400-1482), with a classic purity of style and simpHcity of expression, founded a whole dynasty of sculptors in glazed terra-cotta. Elaborate tomb-monuments, the construction of which started in the fifteenth century, reached their highest magnificence in the gorgeous sixteenth-century tomb of Giovanni Galeazzo Visconti, the founder of the princely family of Visconti in Milan. Michelangelo himself was as famous

i88 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

for his sculpture as for his painting or his architecture ; the heroic head of his David at Florence is a work of unrivaled dignity. As the style of classic sculpture became very popular in the sixteenth century, the subjects were increasingly borrowed from pagan literature. Monuments were erected to illustrious men of ancient Rome, and Greek mythology was once more carved in stone.

The extension of the new sculpture beyond Italy was even more rapid than the spread of the new architecture. Henry VII invited Italian sculptors to England ; Louis XII patronized the great Leonardo da Vinci, and Francis I brought him to France. The tomb of Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain was fashioned in classic form. The new sculpture was famous in Germany before Luther; in fact, it was to be found everywhere in sixteenth- century Europe.

Painting accompanied sculpture. Prior to the sixteenth cen- tury, most of the pictures were painted directly upon the plaster

_, . ,. walls of churches or of sumptuous dwellings and were

Painting ^ ^

called frescoes, although a few were executed on wooden panels. In the sixteenth century, however, easel paint- ings — that is, detached pictures on canvas, wood, or other material — became common. The progress in painting was not so much an imitation of classical models as was the case with sculpture and architecture, for the reason that painting, being one of the most perishable of the arts, had preserved few of its ancient Greek or Roman examples. But the artists who were interested in architecture and sculpture were likewise naturally interested in painting ; and painting, bound by fewer antique traditions, reached a higher degree of perfection in the sixteenth century than did any of its allied arts.

Modern painting was born in Italy. In Italy it found its four great masters — Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, and Titian. The first two acquired as great a fame in archi- tecture and in sculpture as in painting; the last two were primarily painters.

Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), a Florentine by birth and training, was patronized in turn by the Sforza family of Milan, by the Medici of Florence, and by the French royal line. His great paintings — the Holy Supper and Madonna Lisa, usually

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 189

called La Gioconda- — carried to a high degree the art of com- position and the science of light and shade and color. In fact, Leonardo was a scientific painter — he carefully studied Leonardo the laws of perspective and painstakingly carried ^^ ^'"" them into practice. He was also a remarkable sculptor, as is testified by his admirable horses in relief. As an engineer, too, he built a canal in northern Italy and constructed fortifications about Milan. He was a musician and a natural philosopher as well. This many-sided man liked to toy with mechanical devices. One day when Louis XII visited Milan, he was met by a large mechanical Hon that roared and then reared itself upon its haunches, displaying upon its breast the coat-of-arms of France : it was the work of Leonardo da Vinci. Leonardo influenced his age perhaps more than any other artist. He wrote extensively. He gathered about himself a large group of disciples. And in his last years spent in France, as a pensioner of Francis I, he encouraged painting in that country as well as in Italy.

Michelangelo (1475-1564), Florentine like. Leonardo, was probably the most wonderful of all these artists because of his triumphs in a vast variety of endeavors. It might Michei- almost be said of him that "jack of all trades, he was ^ngeio master of all." He was a painter of the first rank, an incom- parable sculptor, a great architect, an eminent engineer, a charm- ing poet, and a profound scholar in anatomy and physiology. Dividing his time between Florence and Rome, he served the Medici family and a succession of art-loving popes. With his other qualities of genius he combined austerity in morals, up- rightness in character, a lively patriotism for his native city and people, and a proud independence. To give any idea of his achievements is impossible in a book of this size. His tomb of JuHus II in Rome and his colossal statue of David in Florence are examples of his sculpture ; the cathedral of St. Peter, which he practically completed, is his most enduring monument ; the mural decorations in the Sistine Chapel at Rome, telling on a grandiose scale the Biblical story from Creation to the Flood, are marvels of design ; and his grand fresco of the Last Judg- ment is probably the most famous single painting in the world.

Younger than Michelangelo and Hving only about half as long, Raphael (1483-1520), nevertheless, surpassed him in the

I go HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

harmonious composition and linear beauty of his painting. For ineffable charm of grace, "the divine" Raphael has always stood without a peer. Raphael lived the better part ^ of his life at Rome under the patronage of JuKus II

and Leo X, and spent several years in decorating the papal palace of the Vatican. Although he was, for a time, archi- tect of St. Peter's cathedral, and displayed some aptitude for sculpture and for the scholarly study of archaeology, it is as the greatest of modern painters that he is now regarded. Raphael lived fortunately, always in favor, and rich, and bearing himself like a prince.

Titian (c. 147 7-1 576) was the typical representative of the Venetian school of painting which acquired great distinction in bright coloring. Official painter for the city of Venice and patronized both by the Emperor Charles V and by Philip II of Spain, he secured considerable wealth and fame. He was not a man of universal genius like Leonardo da Vinci or Michelangelo ; his one great and supreme endowment was that of oil painting. In harmony, light, and color, his work has never been equaled. Titian's portrait of Philip II was sent to England and proved a potent auxiliary in the suit of the Spanish king for the hand of Mary Tudor. His celebrated picture of the Council of Trent was executed after the aged artist's visit to the council about 1555.

From Italy as a center, great painting became the heritage of all Europe. Italian painters were brought to France by Louis XII and Francis I, and French painters were subsidized to imitate them. Philip II proved himself a liberal patron of painting throughout his dominions.

In Germany, painting was developed by Albrecht Diirer (1471-1528), a native of Nuremberg, who received a stimulus from Italian work and was royally patronized by the Emperor MaximiHan. The career of Diirer was honored and fortunate : he was on terms of friendship with all the first masters of his age ; he even visited and painted Eras- mus. But it is as an etcher or engraver, rather than as a painter, that Diirer's reputation was earned. His greatest engravings — such as the Knight and Death, and St. Jerome in his Study — set a standard in a new art which has never been reached by his

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 191

successors. The first considerable employment of engraving, one of the most useful of the arts, synchronized with the inven- tion of printing. Just as books were a means of multiplying, cheapening, and disseminating ideas, so engravings on copper or wood were the means of multiplying, cheapening, and dissemi- nating pictures which gave vividness to the ideas, or served in place of books for those who could not read.

The impetus afforded by this extraordinary development of painting continued to affect the sixteenth century and a greater part of the seventeenth. The scene shifted, however, from Italy to the Spanish possessions. And Spanish kings, the suc- cessors of Philip II, patronized such men as Rubens (i 577-1640) and Van Dyck (i 599-1641) in the Belgian Netherlands, or Velas- quez (1590-1660) and Murillo (1617-1682) in Spain itself.

If the work of Rubens displayed Httle of the earlier Italian grace and refinement, it at any rate attained to distinction in the purely fanciful pictures which he painted in bewilder- Rumens ing numbers, many of which, commissioned by Marie and Van de' Medici and King Louis XIII of France, are now to ^"^ be seen in the Louvre galleries in Paris. And Van Dyck raised portrait painting to unthought-of excellence : his portraits of the English royal children and of King Charles I are world- famous.

Within the last century, many connoisseurs of art have been led to believe that Velasquez formerly has been much under- rated and that he deserves to rank with the foremost „ ,

Velasquez

Italian masters. Certainly in all his work there is a dignity, power, and charm, especially in that well-known Maids of Honor, where a little Spanish princess is depicted holding her court, surrounded by her ladies-in-waiting, her dwarfs and her mastiff, while the artist himself stands at his easel. The last feat of Velasquez was to superintend the elaborate decora- tions in honor of the marriage of the Spanish Infanta „ .,.

Murillo

With King Louis XIV of France. Murillo, the youngest of all these great painters, did most of his work for the Catholic Church and naturally dealt with ecclesiastical subjects.

A somewhat different t}^e of painter is found in the Dutch- man, Rembrandt (1606-1669), who lived a stormy and unhappy

192 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

life in the towns of Leyden and Amsterdam. It must be re- membered that Holland, while following her national career of „ , , independence, commerce, and colonial undertaking;,

Rembrandt , , , , , -r^ ^t • ^ , .

had become stanchly Protestant. Neither the im- moral paganism of antiquity nor the medieval legends of Catholi- cism would longer appeal to the Dutch people as fit subjects of art. Rembrandt, prototype of a new school, therefore painted the actual life of the people among whom he lived and the things which concerned them — hvely portraits of contemporary burgo- masters, happy pictures of popular amusements, stern scenes from the Old Testament. His Lesson in Anatomy and his Night Watch in their somber settings, are wonderfully reahstic products of Rembrandt's mastery of the brush.

Thus painting, like architecture and sculpture, was perfected in sixteenth-century Italy and speedily became the common

property of Christian Europe. Music, too, the most

primitive and universal of the arts, owes in its modern form very much to the sixteenth century. During that period the barbarous and uncouth instruments of the middle ages were reformed. The rebeck, to whose loud and harsh strains the medieval rustic had danced,^ by the addition of a fourth string and a few changes in form, became the sweet-toned vioUn, the most important and expressive instrument of the modern orches- tra. As immediate forerunner of our present-day pianoforte, the harpsichord was invented with a keyboard carried to four octaves and the chords of each note doubled or quadrupled to obtain prolonged tones.

In the person of the papal organist and choir-master, Pales- trina (15 24-1 594), appeared the first master-composer. He is

justly esteemed as the father of modern rehgious

Palestrina

music and for four hundred years the Catholic Church has repeated his inspired accents. A pope of the twentieth century declared his music to be still unrivaled and directed its universal use. Palestrina directly influenced much of the Itahan music of the seventeenth century and the classical German productions of the eighteenth.

^ The rebeck probably had been borrowed from the Mohammedans.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 193

NATIONAL LITERATURES IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

Latin had been the learned language of the middle ages : it was used in the Church, in the universities, and in polite society. If a lecturer taught a class or an author wrote a book, ^^^^ Latin was usually employed. In those very middle and the ages, however, the nations of western Europe were de- ^^^^'^^ ^^^ veloping spoken languages quite at variance with the classical, scholarly tongue. These so-called vernacular languages were not often written and remained a long time the exclusive means of expression of the lower classes — they consequently not only differed from each other but tended in each case to fall into a number of petty local dialects. So long as they were not largely written, they could achieve no fixity, and it was not until after the invention of printing that the national languages produced extensive national hteratures.

Just when printing was invented, the humanists — the fore- most scholars of Europe — were diligently engaged in strengthen- ing the position of Latin by encouraging the study of the pagan classics. Virgil, Cicero, Caesar, Tacitus, and the comedies of Plautus and Terence were again read by educated people for their substance and for their style. Petrarch imitated the man- ner of Latin classics in his letters ; Erasmus wrote his great works in Latin. The revival of Greek, which was also due to the humanists, added to the learning and to the literature of the cultured folk, but Greek, even more than Latin, was hardly understood or appreciated by the bulk of the people.

Then came the sixteenth century, with its artistic develop- ments, its national rivalries, its far-away discoveries, its theo- logical debates, and its social and religious unrest. The com- mon people, especially the commercial middle class, clamored to understand : and the result was the appearance of national hteratures on a large scale. Alongside of Latin, which was henceforth restricted to the hturgy of the Roman Catholic Church and to particularly learned treatises, there now emerged truly Hterary works in Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, English, etc. The printing of these works at once stereotyped their respective languages, so that since the six- teenth century the written forms of the vernacular tongues have

194 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

been subject to relatively minor change. Speaking generally, the sixteenth century witnessed the fixing of our best known modern languages.

To review all the leading writers who employed the various vernaculars in the sixteenth century would encroach too much upon the province of professed histories of comparative litera- ture, but a few references to certain figures that tower head and shoulders above all others in their respective countries may serve to call vividly to mind the importance of the period for national Hteratures.

At the very outset, one important exception must be made in favor of Italy, whose poetry and prose had already been im- itaiian mortalized by Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio a hun-

Literature dved years and more before the opening of the six- teenth century. But that country, as we have already repeatedly observed in many kinds of art, anticipated all others in modern times. Italy, almost the last European land to be politically unified, was the first to develop a great national literature.

But ItaHan Kterature was broadened and popularized by several influential writers in the sixteenth century, among whom stand preeminent the Florentine diplomat MachiaveUi (1469- 1527), whose Prince really founded the modern science of politics, and who taught the dangerous doctrine that a ruler, bent on exercising a benevolent despotism, is justified in employing any means to achieve his purpose ; Ariosto (1474-1533), whose great poem Orlando Furioso displayed a powerful imagination no less than a rare and cultivated taste ; and the unhappy mad Tasso ( 1 544-1 595), who in Jerusalem Delivered produced a bulky epic poem, adapting the manner of Virgil to a crusading subject, and in Aminta gave to his countrymen a delightful pastoral drama, the exquisite lyrics of which were long sung in opera.

French literature, like other French art, was encouraged by Francis I. He set up printing presses, established the College French of France, and pensioned native writers. The most

Literature famous French author of the time was the sarcastic and clever Rabelais (c. 1490-1553), whose memorable Gargantua comprised a series of daring fanciful tales, told with humor of a rather vulgar sort. The language of Gargantua is somewhat archaic — perhaps the French version of Calvin's Institutes

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 195

would be a better example of the French of the sixteenth cen- tury. But France, thus" seriously beginning her national litera- ture, was to wait for its supremacy until the seventeenth century — until the institution of the French Academy and the age of Louis XIV.

Spanish literature flourished in the golden era when Velas- quez and Murillo were painting their masterpieces. The im- mortal Don Quixote, which was published in 1604, en- Spanish titles its author, Cervantes (i 547-1616), to rank with Literature the greatest writers of all time. Lope de Vega (i 562-1635), far-famed poet, virtually founded the Spanish theater and is said to have composed eighteen hundred dramatic pieces. Cal- deron (1600-1681), although less effective in his numerous dramas, wrote allegorical poems of unequaled merit. The printing of large cheap editions of many of these works made Spanish Hterature immediately popular.

How closely the new vernacular literatures reflected significant elements in the national Kfe is particularly observable in the case of Portugal. It was of the wonderful exploring Portuguese voyages of Vasco da Gama that Camoens (1524- Literature 1580), prince of Portuguese poets, sang his stirring Lusiads.

In the Germanics, the extraordinary influence of humanism at first militated against the development of literature in the vernacular, but the Protestant reformer, Martin German Luther, in his desire to reach the ears of the common Literature people, turned from Latin to German. Luther's translation of the Bible constitutes the greatest monument in the rise of modern German.

To speak of what our own English language and literature owe to the sixteenth century seems superfluous. The popular writings of Chaucer in the fourteenth century were historically important, but the presence of very many archaic words makes them now difficult to read. But in England, from the appear- ance in 1 551 of the English version of Sir Thomas More's Utopia,^ a representation of an ideal state, to the publication of Milton's grandiose epic, Paradise Lost, in 1667, there was a continuity of great literature. There were Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer and the King James Version of the Bible ; Edmund Spenser's

^ Originally published in Latin in 1516.

196 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

graceful Faerie Queene; ^ the supreme Shakespeare; Ben Jonson and Marlowe ; Francis Bacon and Richard Hooker ; Thomas Hobbes and Jeremy Taylor ; and the somber Milton himself.

BEGINNINGS OF MODERN NATUR.\L SCIENCE

Human civihzation, or culture, always depends upon progress in two directions — the reason, and the feelings or emotions. Two-fold "^^^ ^^ ^^^ expression of the latter, and science of the Develop- former. Every great period in the world's history, Culture therefore, is marked by a high appreciation of aesthet- Science ics and an advance in knowledge. To this general ^° * rule, the sixteenth century was no exception, for it was

distinguished not only by a wonderful development of archi- tecture, sculpture, painting, engraving, music, and literature, — whether Roman, Greek, or vernacular, — but it is the most obvious starting point of our modern ideas of natural and experi- mental science.

Nowadays, we believe that science is at once the legitimate means and the proper goal of the progress of the race, and we fill our school curricula with scientific studies. But this spirit is essentially modern : it owes its chief stimulus to important achievements in the sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth.

Five elements contributed to impress the period that we are now reviewing with a scientific character. In the first place, Scientific ^^^ humanists encouraged a critical spirit in compar- Character- ing and contrasting ancient manuscripts and in in- the"ix- vestigating the history of the distant past ; and their teenth discovery and application of pagan writings served

entury ^^ bring clearly and abruptly before the educated people of the sixteenth century all that the Greeks and Romans had done in astronomy, physics, mathematics, and medicine, as well as in philosophy, art, and literature. Secondly, the inven- tion of printing itself was a scientific feat, and its extended use enabled scientists, no less than artists, immediately to acquaint the whole civilized world with their ideas and demonstrations.

' For its scenery and mechanism, the Orlando Fiirioso of Ariosto furnished the framework ; and it similarly shows the influence of Tasso.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 197

Thirdly, the marvelous maritime discoveries of new routes to India and of a new world, which revolutionized European com- g|ffl||^, added much to geographical knowledge and led to the construction of scientific maps of the earth's surface. Fourthly, the painstaking study of a small group of scholars afforded us our first ghmpse of the real character of the vast universe about our own globe — the scientific basis of modern astronomy. Lastly, two profound thinkers, early in the seventeenth century, — Francis Bacon and Descartes, — pointed out new ways of using the reason — the method of modern science.

In an earlier chapter, an account has been given of the mari- time discoveries of the sixteenth century and their immediate results in broadening intellectual interests. In this chapter, some attention already has been devoted to the rise of human- ism and hkewise to the invention of printing. It remains, there- fore, to say a few words about the changes in astronomy and in scientific method that characterized the beginning of modern times.

In the year 1 500 the average European knew something about the universe of sun, moon, planets, and stars, but it was scarcely more than the ancient Greeks had known, and its .

1 • r r 11 T r rr^i • • i Astronomy

chief use was to foretell the future. 1 his practical aspect of astronomy was a curious ancient misconception, which now passes under the name of astrology. It was popularly beHeved prior to the sixteenth century that every heavenly body exerted a direct and arbitrary influence upon human char- acter and events,^ and that by casting "horoscopes," showing just how the stars appeared at the birth of any person, the sub- sequent career of such an one might be foreseen. Many silly notions and superstitions grew up about astrology, yet the prac- tice persisted. Charles V and Francis I, great rivals in war, \'ied with each other in securing the services of most eminent astrologers, and Catherine de' Medici never tired of reading horoscopes.

Throughout the middle ages the foremost scholars had con- tinued to cherish the astronomical knowledge of the Greeks,

^ Disease was attributed to planetary influence. This connection between medicine and astrology survives in the sign of Jupiter 2/, which still heads medic- inal prescriptions.

198 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

which had been conveniently collected and systematized by a celebrated mathematician and scholar living in Egypt in the ajjjg second century of the Christian era — Ptolemy by

Ptolemaic name. Among other theories and ideas, Ptolemy ystem taught that the earth is the center of the universe, that revolving about it are the moon. Mercury, Venus, the sun, the other planets, and the fixed stars, and that the entire machine is turned with incredible velocity completely around every twenty-four hours. This so-called Ptolemaic system of astronomy fitted in very nicely with the language of the Bible and with the popular prejudice that the earth remains stationary while the heavenly bodies daily rise and set. It was natural that for many centuries the Christians should accept the views of Ptolemy as almost divinely inspired.

However, a contradictory theory of the solar system was pro- pounded and upheld in the sixteenth century, quite supplanting " The ^^^ Ptolemaic theory in the course of the seventeenth.

Copernican The new System is called Copernican after its first ys em modern exponent — and its general acceptance went far to annihilate astrology and to place astronomy upon a rational basis.

Copernicus [the Latin form of his real name, Koppernigk (1473-1543)] was a native of Poland, who divided his time between official work for the Catholic Church and private re- searches in astronomy. It was during a ten-year sojourn in Italy (1496-1505), studying canon law and medicine, and fa- miharizing himself, through humanistic teachers, with ancient Greek astronomers, that Copernicus was led seriously to ques- tion the Ptolemaic system and to cast about in search of a truth- ful substitute. Thenceforth for many years he studied and reflected, but it was not until the year of his death (1543) that his results were published to the world. His book — On the Revolutions of the Celestial Bodies, dedicated to Pope Paul III — offered the theory that the earth is not the center of the uni- verse but simply one of a number of planets which revolve about the sun. The earth seemed much less important in the Coper- nican universe than in the Ptolemaic.

The Copernican thesis was supported and developed by two distinguished astronomers at the beginning of the next century —

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 199

Kepler (1571-1630) and Galileo (1564-1642), one a German, the other an Italian. Kepler taught astronomy for a number of years at Gratz and subsequently made his home in Prague, where he acquired a remarkable collection of instruments^ that enabled him to conduct numerous interesting experiments. While he entertained many fantastic and mystical theories of the "harmony of the spheres" and was not above casting horoscopes for the emperor and for Wallenstein, that soldier of fortune," he nevertheless established several of the fundamental laws of modern astronomy, such as those govern- ing the form and magnitude of the planetary orbits. It was Kepler who made clear that the planets revolve about the sun in elliptical rather than in strictly circular paths.

Galileo popularized the Copernican theory.^ His charming lectures in the university of Padua, where he taught from 1592 to 1 6 10, were so largely attended that a hall seating 2000 had to be provided. In 1609 he perfected a tele- scope, which, although hardly more powerful than a present- day opera glass, showed unmistakably that the sun was turning on its axis, that Jupiter was attended by revolving moons, and that the essential truth of the Copernican system was estab- lished. Unfortunately for Galileo, his enthusiastic desire to convert the pope immediately to his own ideas got him into trouble with the Roman Curia and brought upon him a prohibi- tion from further writing. Galileo submitted hke a loyal Catho- lic to the papal decree, but had he lived another hundred years, he would have rejoiced that almost all men of learning — popes included — had come to accept his own conclusions. Thus modern astronomy was suggested by Copernicus, developed by Kepler, and popularized by Galileo.

The acquisition of sound knowledge in astronomy and like- wise in every other science rests primarily upon the observation of natural facts or phenomena and then upon deducing rational conclusions from such observation. Yet this seemingly simple rule had not been continuously and effectively applied in any period of history prior to the sixteenth century. The scientific

^ From Tycho Brahe, whose assistant he was in 1600-1601.

* See below, pp. 223, 226.

^Another "popularizer" was Giordano Bruno (c. 1548-1600).

200 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

method of most of the medieval as well as of the ancient scholars

was essentially that of Aristotle.^ This so-called deductive method

of Aristotle assumed as a starting-point some general

Modern • • i • i i • i i

Method of prmciple as a premise or hypothesis and thence pro- Science: cecded, by logical reasoning, to deduce concrete ap-

Induction ,. . ^ ^ '=',,, \

plications or consequences. it had been extremely valuable in stimulating the logical faculties and in showing men how to draw accurate conclusions, but it had shown a woeful inabihty to devise new general principles. It evolved an elabo- rate theology and a remarkable philosophy, but natural experi- mental science progressed relatively little until the deductive method of Aristotle was supplemented by the inductive method of Francis Bacon.

Aristotle was partially discredited by radical humanists, who made fun of the medieval scholars who had taken him most Francis seriously, and by the Protestant reformers, who as- Bacon sailed the Cathohc theology which had been carefully

constructed by Aristotelian deduction. But it was reserved for Francis Bacon, known as Lord Bacon (1561-1626), to point out all the shortcomings of the ancient method and to propose a practicable supplement. A famous lawyer, lord chancellor of England under James I, a born scientist, a brilliant essayist, he wrote several philosophical works of first-rate importance, of which the Advancement of Learning (1604) and the Novum Orga- num (1620) are the most famous. It is in these works that he summed up the faults which the widening of knowledge in his own day was disclosing in ancient and medieval thought and set forth the necessity of slow laborious observation of facts as antecedent to the assumption of any general principle.

What of scientific method occurred to Lord Bacon appealed even more to the intellectual genius of the Frenchman Descartes ( 1 596-1660). A curious combination of sincere prac- ticing Catholic and of original daring rationalist was this man, traveling all about Europe, serving as a soldier in the Netherlands, in Bavaria, in Hungary, living in Holland, dying in Sweden, with a mind as restless as his body. Now interested

' Exception to this sweeping generalization must be made in favor of several medieval scientists and philosophers, including Roger Bacon, a Franciscan friar of the thirteenth century.

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 201

in mathematics, now in philosophy, presently absorbed in physics or in the proof of man's existence, throughout his whole career he held fast to the faith that science depends not upon the authority of books but upon the observation of facts. "Here are my books," he told a visitor, as he pointed to a basket of rabbits that he was about to dissect. The Discourse on Method (1637) and the Principles of Philosophy (1644), taken in con- junction with Bacon's work, ushered in a new scientific era, to some later phases of which we shall have occasion to refer in subsequent chapters.

ADDITIONAL READING

The Renaissance. General. Cambridge Modern History^ Vol. I (1902), ch. xvi, xvii ; Histoire generak\ Vol. IV, ch. vii, viii, Vol. V, ch. x, xi ;

E. M. Hulme, Renaissance and Reformation, 2d ed. (1915), ch. v-vii, xix, xxix, XXX. More detailed accounts: Jakob Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Period of the Renaissance in Italy, trans, by S. G. C. Middlemore, 2 vols. (1878), I vol. ed. (1898), scholarly and profound; J. A. Symonds, Renaissance in Italy, 5 parts m 7 vols. (1897-1898), interesting and sugges- tive but less reliable than Burckhardt ; Ludwig Geiger, Renaissance und Humanisnius in Italien und Dcutschland (1882), in the great Oncken Series;

F. X. Kraus, Geschichte der christlichcn Kunst, 2 vols, in 4 (1896-1908), a monumental work of great interest and importance, by a German Catholic.

Humanism. The best description of the rise and spread of humanism is J. E. Sandys, A History of Classical Scholarship, Vol. II (1908). For the spirit of early humanism see H. C. Hollway-Calthrop, Petrarch : his Life and Times (1907) ; J. H. Robinson and H. W. Rolfe, Petrarch, the First Modern Scholar and Man of Letters, 2d ed. (1914), a selection from Petrarch's letters to Boccaccio and other contemporaries, translated into English, with a valuable introduction ; Pierre de Nolhac, Petrarque et Vhumanisme, 2d ed., 2 vols, in i (1907). Of the antecedents of humanism a convenient summary is presented by Louise Loomis, Mediceval Hellenism (1906). A popular biography of Erasmus is that of Ephraim Emerton, Desiderius Erasmus (1899) ; the Latin Letters of Erasmus are now (191 6) in course of publication by P. S. Allen ; F. M. Nichols, The Epistles of Erasmus, 2 vols. (1901-1906), an excellent translation of letters written prior to 1517 ; Erasmus's Praise of Folly, in English translation, is ob- tainable in many editions. D. F. Strauss, Ulrich von Hutten, his Life and Times, trans, by Mrs. G. Sturge (1874), gives a good account of the whole humanistic movement and treats Hutten very sympathetically ; The Letters of Obscure Men, to which Hutten contributed, were published, with English translation, by F. G. Stokes in 1909. An excellent edition of The Utopia of Sir Thomas More, the famous EngHsh humanist, is that of George Sampson

202 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

(1910), containing also an English translation and the charming contem- porary Biography by More's son-in-law, William Roper. The standard summary of the work of the humanists is the German writing of Georg Voigt, Die Wiederbehbung des classischen Alterthunis, 3d ed., 2 vols. (1893). Interesting extracts from the writings of a considerable variety of humanists are translated by Merrick Wliitcomb in his Literary Source Books of the Renaissance in Germany and in Italy (1898-1899).

Invention of Printing. T. L. De Vinne, Invention of Printing, 2d ed. (1878), and, by the same author. Notable Printers of Italy during the Fif- teenth Century (1910), two valuable works by an eminent authority on the subject; G. H. Putnam, Books and their Makers during the Middle Ages, 2 vols. (1896-1897), a useful contribution of another experienced publisher; Johannes Janssen, History of the German People, Vol. I, Book I, ch. i. There is an interesting essay on '" Publication before Printing " by R. K. Root in the Publications of the Modern Language Association, Vol. XXVIII

(1913), pp. 417-431-

National Literatures. Among the many extended bibliographies of national literatures the student certainly should be famihar with the Cam- bridge History of English Literature, ed. by A. W. Ward and A. R. Waller, 12 vols. (1907-1916) ; and with G. Lanson, Alanuel bibliographique de la litterature franqaise moderne, i^oo-igoo, 4 vols. (1909-1913). See also, as suggestive references, Pasquale Villari, The Life and Times of Machiavclli, 2 vols, in I (1898) ; A. A. Tilley, The Literature of the French Renaissance, 2 vols. (1904) ; George Saintsbury, A History of Elizabethan Literature (1887) ; and Sir Sidney Lee, Life of Shakespeare, new rev. ed. (1915).

Art in the Sixteenth Century. Architecture: A. D. F. Hamlin, A Text- book of the History of Architecture, 5th ed. (1902), a brief general survey; A History of Architecture, Vols. I, II by Russell Sturgis (1906), III, IV by A. L. Frothingham (191 5) ; Banister Fletcher, A History of Architecture, Sth ed. (1905) ; James Fergusson, History of Architecture in All Countries, 3d rev. ed., 5 vols. (1891-1899). Sculpture: Allan Marquand and A. L. Frothingham, A Text-book of the History of Sculpture (1896) ; Wilhelm von Liibke, History of Sculpture, Eng. trans., 2 vols. (1872). Painting: J. C. Van Dyke, A Text-book of the History of Painting, new rev. ed. (191 5); Alfred von Woltmann and Karl Woermann, History of Paint- ing, Eng. trans., 2 vols. (1894). Music: W. S. Pratt, The History of Music (1907). See also the Lives of Seventy of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects by Giorgio Vasari (1512-1574), the contemporary and friend of Michelangelo, trans, by Mrs. Foster in the Bohn Library ; Osvald Siren, Leonardo da Vinci: the Artist and the Man (191 5); and Romain Rolland, Michelangelo (191 5).

Science and Philosophy in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge Modern History, Vol. V (1908), ch. xxiii, Vol. IV (1906), ch. xxvii, scholarly ac- counts of Galileo, Bacon, Descartes, and their contemporaries. A veritable storehouse of scientific facts is H. S. and E. H. Williams, A History of Science, 10 vols. (1904-1910). Specifically, see Arthur Berry, Short History

FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE 203

of Astronotny (1899) ; Karl von Gebler, Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia, Eng. trans, by Mrs. George Slurge (1879) ; B. L. Conway, The Con- demnaiion of Galil 0 (191 3) ; and Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, Eng. trans, by Crew and Salvio (1914). The Philosophical Works of Francis Bacon, ed. by J. ]\I. Robertson (1905), is a convenient edition. On the important thinkers from the time of Machiavelli to the middle of the eighteenth century, see Harald Hoffding, A History of Modern Philosophy, \o\. I (1900) ; W. A. Dunning, A History of Political Theories from Luther to Montesquieu (1905) ; Paul Janet, Histoire de la science politique dans ses rapports avec la morale, 3d ed., Vol. II (1887),

PART II DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY

PART II

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY

In the seventeenth century and in the greater part of the eighteenth, pubhc attention was directed chiefly toward dynas- tic and colonial rivalries. In the European group of national states, France was the most important. Pohtically the French evolved a form of absolutist divine-right monarchy, which be- came the pattern of all European monarchies, that of England alone excepted. In international affairs the reigning family of France — the Bourbon dynasty — after a long struggle suc- ceeded in humihating the rulers of Spain and of Austria — the Habsburg dynasty. The hegemony which, in the sixteenth century, Spain had exercised in the newly estabhshed state- system of Europe was now supplanted by that of France. In- tellectually, too, ItaHan leadership yielded to French, until France set the fashion alike in manners, morals, and art. Only in the sphere of commerce and trade and exploitation of lands beyond the seas was French supremacy questioned, and there not by declining Portugal or Spain but by the vigorous English nation. France, victorious in her struggle for dynastic aggran- dizement on the continent of Europe, was destined to suffer defeat in her efforts to secure colonies in Asia and America.

This period of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was marked Hkewise by the constant decay of old poHtical and social institutions in Italy and in Germany, by the gradual decKne of the might and prestige of the Ottoman Turks, and by the extinc- tion of the ancient kingdom of Poland. In their place appeared as great world powers the northern monarchies of Prussia and Russia, whose royal Hues — Hohenzollerns and Romanovs — were to vie in ambition and prowess, before the close of the period, with Habsburgs and Bourbons.

207

2o8 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Socially, the influence of nobles and clergy steadily declined. As steadily arose the numbers, the ability, and the importance of the traders and commercial magnates, the moneyed people, all those who were identified with the new wealth that the Com- mercial Revolution was creating, the lawyers, the doctors, the professors, the merchants, — the so-called middle class, the bourgeoisie, who gradually grew discontented with the restric- tive institutions of their time. Within the bourgeoisie was the seed of revolution : they would one day in their own interests overturn monarchy, nobihty, the Church, the whole social fabric. That was to be the death-knell of the old regime — the annun- ciation of the nineteenth century.

CHAPTER VI

THE GROWTH OF ABSOLUTISM IN FRANCE AND THE

STRUGGLE BETWEEN BOURBONS AND HABSBURGS,

1589-1661

GROWTH OF ABSOLUTISM IN FRANCE: HENRY IV, RICHELIEU, AND MAZARIN

For the first time in many years France in 1598 was at peace. The Edict of Nantes, which in that year accorded qualified religious toleration to the Huguenots, removed the most serious danger to internal order, and the treaty of Vervins, concluded in the same year with the king of Spain, put an end to a long and exhausting foreign war. Henry IV was now free to under- take the internal reformation of his country.

Sorry, indeed, was the phght of France at the close of the sixteenth century. Protracted civil and foreign wars had pro- duced their ine\dtable consequences. The state was g^^j-y nearly bankrupt. Country districts lay largely un- PUght of cultivated. Towns were burned or abandoned, close of^ Roads were rough and neglected, and bridges in Sixteenth ruins. Many of the discharged soldiers turned high- ^^ ""^^ waymen, pillaged farmhouses, and robbed travelers. Trade was at a standstill and the artisans of the cities were out of work. During the wars, moreover, great noblemen had taken many rights into their own hands and had acquired a habit of not obeying the king. The French crown seemed to be in danger of losing what power it had gained in the fifteenth century.

That the seventeenth century was to witness not a diminu- tion but a pronounced increase of royal power, was due to the character of the French king at this critical juncture. Henry IV (i 589-1610) was strong and vivacious. With his high forehead, sparkhng eyes, smiHng mouth, and his neatly pointed beard (Henri guatre), he was prepossessing in p 209

2IO HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

looks, while his affability, simplicity, and constant expression of interest in the welfare of his subjects earned him the appella- tion of " Good King Henry." His closest companions knew that he was selfish and avaricious, but that his quick decisions were hkely to be good and certain to be put in force. Above all, Henry had soldierly qualities and would brook no disloyalty or disobedience.

Throughout his reign, Henry IV was well served by his chief minister, the duke of Sully, ^ an able, loyal, upright Huguenot, Still though avaricious Hke the king and subject to furious

fits of jealousy and temper. Appointed to the general oversight of financial affairs, Sully made a tour of inspection throughout the country and completely reformed the royal finances. He forbade provincial governors to raise money on their own authority, removed many abuses of tax-collecting, and by an honest, rigorous administration was able between 1600 and 1 6 10 to save an average of a milhon Hvres a year. The king zealously upheld Sully's poHcy of retrenchment : he re- duced the subsidies to artists and the grants to favorites, and retained only a small part of his army, sufficient to overawe rebellious nobles and to restore order and security throughout the realm. To promote and preserve universal peace, he even proposed the formation of a World Confederation — his so-called "Grand Design" ^ — ^ which, however, came to naught through the mutual jealousies and rival ambitions of the various Euro- pean sovereigns. It proved to be much too early to talk con- vincingly of general pacifism and disarmament.

While domestic peace was being estabhshed and provision was being made for immediate financial contingencies, Henry Agricultural ^^ ^^^ ^is great minister were both laboring to in- Develop- crease the resources of their country and thereby to ™^° promote the prosperity and contentment of the people.

Sully beHeved that the true wealth of the nation lay in farming pursuits, and, therefore, agriculture should be encouraged even, if necessary, to the neglect of trade and industry. While the king allowed Sully to develop the farming interests, he himself encouraged the new commercial classes.

In order to promote agriculture. Sully urged the abolition of

^ 1560-1641.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 211

interior customs lines and the free circulation of grain, subsidized stock-raising, forbade the destruction of the forests, drained swamps, rebuilt the roads and bridges, and planned a vast system of canals.

On his side, Henry IV was contributing to the wealth of the middle class. It was he who introduced silkworms and the mulberry trees, on which they feed, thereby giving an impetus to the industry which is now one of the most important in France. The beginnings of the industrial importance of Paris, Lyons, and Marseilles date from the reign of Henry IV.

The king hkewise encouraged commerce. A French mer- chant marine was built up by means of royal bounties. A navy was started. Little by little the French began to com- commercial pete for trade on the high seas at first with the Dutch, Deveiop- and subsequently with the Enghsh. French trading °*^" posts were estabhshed in India ; and Champlain was dispatched to the New World to lay the foundations of a French empire in America. It was fortunate for France that she had two men like Henry IV and Sully, each supplementing the work of the other.

The assassination of Henry IV by a crazed fanatic in 1610 threatened for a time to nullify the effects of his labors, for supreme power passed to his widow, Marie de' Medici, Regency of an ambitious but incompetent woman, who dismissed Marie de' Sully and undertook to act as regent for her nine-year- old son, Louis XIII. The queen-regent was surrounded by worthless favorites and was hated by the Huguenots, who feared her rigid Catholicism, and by the nobles, Catholic and Huguenot alike, who were determined to maintain their pri\dleges and power.

The hard savings of Henry IV were quickly exhausted, and

France once more faced a financial crisis. In this emergency

the Estates- General was again convened (1614).

Since the accession of Louis XI (1461), the French of the

monarchs with their absolutist tendencies had en- Estates- General deavored to remove this ancient check upon their

authority : they had convoked it only in times of public con- fusion or economic necessity. Had the Estates-General really been an effective body in 161 4, it might have taken a position

212 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

similar to that of the seventeenth-century Parhament in Eng- land and estabhshed constitutional government in France, but its organization and personnel militated against such heroic action. The three estates — clergy, nobles, and commoners (bourgeois) — sat separately in as many chambers ; the clergy and nobles would neither tax themselves nor cooperate with the Third Estate ; the commoners, many of whom were Huguenots, were dishked by the court, despised by the First and Second Estates, and quite out of sympathy with the peasants, the bulk of the French nation. It is not surprising, under the circum- stances, that the session of 1614 lasted but three weeks and ended as a farce : the queen-regent locked up the halls and sent the representatives home — she needed the room for a dance, she said. It was not until the momentous year of 1789 — after a lapse of 175 years — • that the Estates-General again assembled.

After the fiasco of 16 14, affairs went from bad to worse. Nobles and Huguenots contended between themselves, and both against the court favorites. As many as five distinct uprisings occurred. Marie de' Medici was forced to relinquish the govern- ment, but Louis XIII, on reaching maturity, gave evidence of httle executive ability. The king was far more interested in music and hunting than in business of state. No improvement appeared until Cardinal Richeheu assumed the guidance of affairs of state in 1624. Henceforth, the royal power was exer- cised not so much by Louis XIII as by his great minister.

Born of a noble family of Poitou, Armand de Richelieu (1585- 1642), at the age of twenty-one had been appointed bishop of Cardinal the small diocese of Lugon. His eloquence and ability Richelieu g^g spokesman for the clergy in the fatuous Estates- General of 1614 attracted the notice of Marie de' Medici, who invited him to court, gave him a seat in the royal council, and secured his nomination as a cardinal of the Roman Church. From 1624 until his death in 1642, Richeheu was the most im- portant man in France.

. With undoubted loyalty and imperious will, with the most deUcate diplomacy and all the blandishments of subtle court intrigue, sometimes with sternest and most merciless cruelty, Richelieu maintained his influence over the king and proceeded to destroy the enemies of the French crown.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 213

Richelieu's policies were quite simple : (i) To make the royal power supreme in France; (2) to make France predominant in Europe. The first invoh'ed the removal of checks Richelieu's upon royal authority and the triumph of absolutism ; Policies the second meant a vigorous foreign poHcy, leading to the hu- miliation of the rival Habsburgs. In both these poKcies Riche- lieu was following the general traditions of the preceding cen- tury, essentially those of Henry IV, but to an exaggerated extent and with unparalleled success. Postponing consideration of general European affairs, let us first see what the great cardinal accomplished in France.

First of all, Richelieu disregarded the Estates-General. He was convinced of its futihty and unhesitatingly decKned to con- sult it. Gradually the idea became current that the Estates-General was an out-worn, medieval institu- ance^of^^'^ tion, totally unlit for modern purposes, and that Represent- official business could best — and therefore properly gi^ent^ — be conducted, not by the representatives of the chief social classes in the nation, but by personal appointees of the king. Thus the royal council became the supreme lawmaking and administrative body in the country.

Local estates, or parliaments, continued to exist in certain of the most recently acquired provinces of France, such as Brittany, Provence, Burgundy, and Languedoc, but they had Httle in- fluence except in apportioning taxes : RicheHeu tampered with their privileges and vetoed many of their acts.

The royal prerogative extended not only to matters of taxation and legislation, including the right to levy taxes and to make ex- penditures for any purpose without pubUc account- The Royal ing, but it was preserved and enforced by means of a ^^^™y large standing army, which received its pay and its orders ex- clusively from the crown. To the royal might, as well as to its right, Richelieu contributed. He energetically aided Louis XIII in organizing and equipping what proved to be the best army in Europe.

Two factions in the state aroused the cardinal's ire — one the Huguenots, and the other the nobles — for both threatened the autocracy which he was bent upon erecting. Both factions suffered defeat and humihation at his hands.

214 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Richelieu, though a cardinal of the Roman Church, was more politician and statesman than ecclesiastic ; though living in an age of religious fanaticism, he was by no means a bigot. As we shall presently see, this CathoHc cardinal actually gave miHtary support to Protestants in Germany — for political purposes ; it was similarly for poHtical purposes that he attacked the Protestants in France.

As has already been pointed out, French Protestantism meant an influential political party as well as a religion. Since Henry IV had issued the Edict of Nantes, the Huguenots had Poiuicli ° ^^^^ their own assembhes, officers, judges, and even Privileges certain fortified towns, all of which interfered with the Huguenots sovereign authority and impaired that uniformity which thoughtful royalists beheved to be the very cornerstone of absolutism. Richelieu had no desire to deprive the Huguenots of rehgious freedom, but he was resolved that in poUtical matters they should obey the king. Consequently, when they revolted in 1625, he determined to crush them. In spite of the considerable aid which England endeavored to give them, the Huguenots were entirely subdued. Richeheu's long siege of La Rochelle, lasting nearly fifteen months, showed his forceful resolution. When the whole country had submitted, the Edict of Alais was published (1629), leaving to the Protes- tants freedom of conscience and of worship but depriving them of their fortifications and forbidding them to hold assembhes. Public office was still open to them and their representatives kept their judicial posts. "The honest Huguenot retained all that he would have been willing to protect with his Hfe, while the factious and turbulent Huguenot was deprived of the means of embarrassing the government."

The repression of the nobles was a similar statesmanHke achievement, and one made in the face of redoubtable opposition. Repression ^^ ^^^ long been customary to name noblemen as gover- ofthe nors of the various provinces, but the governors had

gradually become masters instead of administrators : they commanded detachments of the army ; they claimed alle- giance of the garrisons in their towns ; they repeatedly and openly defied the royal will. The country, moreover, was sprinkled with noblemen's castles or chateaux, protected by fortifications

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 215

and armed retainers, standing menaces to the prompt execution of the king's orders. Finally, the noblemen at court, jealous of the cardinal's advancement and spurred on by the intrigues of the disaffected Marie de' Medici or of the king's own brother, hampered the minister at every turn. Of such intolerable con- ditions, Richeheu determined to be quit.

Into the ranks of noble courtiers, Richelieu struck terror. By means of spies and trickery, he ferreted out conspiracies and arbitrarily put their leaders to death. Every attempt at rebel- lion was mercilessly punished, no matter how exalted in rank the rebel might be. Richelieu was never moved by entreaties or threats — he was as inexorable as fate itself.

The cardinal did not confine his attention to noblemen at court. As early as 1626 he pubHshed an edict ordering the im- mediate demolition of all fortified castles not needed _

. Demolition

for defense against foreign invasion. In carrymg this of Private edict into force, Richelieu found warm supporters in ^ortifica-

, - , tions

the peasantry and townsfolk who had long suffered from the exactions and depredations of their noble but warHke neighbors. The ruins of many a chateau throughout modern France bear eloquent witness to the cardinal's activity.

Another enduring monument to Richelieu was the centrah- zation of French administration. The great minister was tired of the proud, independent bearing of the noble gover- ^^^^.^ nors. Without getting rid of them altogether, he tion of checked these proud officials by transferring most of Admims- their powers to a new kind of royal ofHcer, the intend- ant. Appointed by the crown usually from among the intelli- gent, loyal middle class, each intendant had charge of a certain district, supervising therein the assessment and collection of royal taxes, the organization of local police or militia, the enforcement of order, and the conduct of courts. The These intendants, with their wide powers of taxation, i^tendants police, and justice, were later dubbed, from their approximate number, the "thirty tyrants" of France. But they owed their positions solely to the favor of the crown ; they were drawn from a class whose economic interests were long and well served by the royal power; and their loyalty to the king, therefore, could be depended upon. The intendants constantly made re-

2i6 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

ports to, and received orders from, the central government at Paris. They were so many eyes, all over the kingdom, for an ever-watchful Richelieu. And in measure as the power of the bourgeois intendants increased, that of the noble governors diminished, until, by the eighteenth century, the ofifices of the latter had become largely honorary though still richly remunera- tive. To keep the nobles amused and in money, and thereby out of mischief and politics, became, from Richelieu's time, a maxim of the royal policy in France.

Such, in brief, was the work of this grim figure that moved across the stage at a critical period in French history. Riche- RicheUeu's Heu, more than any other man, was responsible for Significance ^j^g assurance of absolutism in his country at the very time when England, by means of revolution and bloodshed, was establishing parliamentary government ; and, as we shall soon see, his foreign policy covered France with European glory and prestige.

In person, Richelieu was frail and sickly, yet when clothed in his cardinal's red robes he appeared distinguished and com- manding. His pale, drawn face displayed a firm determination and an inflexible will. Unscrupulous, exacting, and without pity, he preserved to the end a proud faith in his moral strength and in his loyalty to country and to king.

Richelieu died in 1642, and the very next year the monarch whom he had served so gloriously followed him to the grave, leaving the crown to a boy of five years — Louis XIV.

The minority of Louis XIV might have been disastrous to France and to the royal power, had not the strong policies of Minority of Richellcu been exemplified and enforced by another Louis XIV remarkable minister and cardinal, Mazarin. Mazarin (1602-1661) was an Itahan, born near Naples, educated for an ecclesiastical career at Rome and in Spain. In the discharge Cardinal of Several delicate diplomatic missions for the pope, Mazarin j^g Yisid acted as nuncio at Paris, where he so in- gratiated himself in Richelieu's favor that he was invited to enter the service of the king of France, and in 1639 he became a naturalized Frenchman.

Despite his foreign birth and the fact that he never spoke French without a bad accent, he rose rapidly in public service.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 217

He was named cardinal and was recognized as Richelieu's disciple and imitator. From the death of the greater car- dinal in 1642 to his own death in 1661, Mazarin actually governed France.

Against the Habsburgs, Mazarin continued the great war which Richelieu had begun and brought it to a successful con- clusion. In domestic affairs, he encountered greater unrest of troubles. The nobles had naturally taken umbrage at *^® Nobles the vigorous policies of Richelieu, from which Mazarin seemed to have no thought of departing. They were strengthened, more- over, by a good deal of popular dislike of Mazarin's foreign birth, his avarice, his unscrupulous plundering of the revenues of the realm for the benefit of his own family, and his tricky double- deahng ways.

The result was the Fronde,' the last attempt prior to the French Revolution to cast off royal absolutism in France. It was a vague popular protest coupled with a selfish re- action on the part of the influential nobles : the pre- text was Mazarin's interference with the parlement of Paris.

The parlements were judicial bodies ^ which tried important cases and heard appeals from lower courts. That of Paris, being the most eminent, had, in course of time, se- The cured to itself the right of registering royal decrees — Parlements that is, of receiving the king's edicts in formal fashion and enter- ing them upon the statute books so that the law of the land might be known generally. From making such a claim, it was only a step for the parlement of Paris to refuse to register cer- tain new edicts on the ground that the king was not well in- formed or that they were in conflict with older and more binding enactments. If these claims were substantiated, the royal will would be subjected to revision by the parlement of Paris. To prevent their substantiation, both Louis XIII and Louis XIV held "beds of justice" — that is, appeared in person before the parlement, and from their seat of cushions and pillows declared their will regarding the new edict and directed that it be pro- mulgated. There were amusing scenes when the boy-king, at

^ Probably so called from the name of a street game played by Parisian children and often stopped by policemen.

^ There were thirteen in the seventeenth century.

2i8 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

the direction of Mazarin, gave orders in his shrill treble to the learned lawyers and grave old judges.

Egged on by seeming popular sympathy and no doubt by the contemporaneous pohtical revolution in England, the par- lement of Paris at length defied the prime minister. It pro- claimed its immunity from royal control ; declared the illegaHty of any public tax which it had not freely and expressly author- ized ; ordered the aboHtion of the office of intendant ; and protested against arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. To these demands, the people of Paris gave support — barricades were erected in the streets, and Mazarin, whose loyal army was still fighting in the Germanics, was obhged temporarily to recognize the new order. Within six months, however, sufficient troops had been collected to enable him to overawe Paris and to annul his concessions.

Subsequent uprisings, engineered by prominent noblemen, were often more humorous than harmful. To be sure, no less a Suppression Commander than the great Conde, one of the chief of the heroes of the Thirty Years' War, took arms against

^°" ^ the Cardinalists, as Mazarin's party was called, but

so slight was the aid which he received from the French people that he was speedily driven from his country and joined the Spanish army. The upshot of the Fronde was (i) the nobihty were more discredited than ever; (2) the parlement was for- Triumph of bidden to devote attention to political or financial Absolutism affairs ; (3) Paris was disarmed and lost the right of electing its own municipal officers ; (4) the royal au- thority was even stronger than under Richelieu because an un- successful attempt had been made to weaken it. Henry IV, Richelieu, and Mazarin had made straight the way for the despotism of Louis XIV.

STRUGGLE BETWEEN BOURBONS AND HABSBURGS: THE THIRTY YEARS' WAR

Every European country, except England, was marked in the seventeenth century by a continued growth of monarchical power. The kings were busily engaged in strengthening their hold upon their respective states and in reaching out for addi-

\

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 219

tional lands and wealth. International wars, therefore, assumed the character of struggles for dynastic aggrandizement. How might this or that royal family obtain wider terri- dynastic tories and richer towns? There was certainly suf- Character ficient national life in western Europe to make the j^ the common people proud of their nationality; hence Seventeenth the kings could normally count upon popular sup- ^° ^^^ port. But wars were undertaken upon the continent of Europe in the seventeenth century not primarily for national or patri- otic motives, but for the exaltation of a particular royal family. Citizens of border pro\dnces were treated like so many cattle or so much soil that might be conveniently bartered among the kings of France, Spain, or Sweden.

This idea had been quite evident in the increase of the Habs- burg power during the sixteenth century. In an earlier chapter we have noticed how that family had acquired one dis- Habsburg trict after another until their property included : Dominions (1) Under the Spanish branch — Spain, the Two Sici- lies, Milan, Franche Comte, the Belgian Netherlands, Portugal, and a huge colonial empire ; (2) Under the Austrian branch — Austria and its dependencies, Hungary, Bohemia, and the title of Holy Roman Emperor. Despite the herculean labors of Philip II, France remained outside Habsburg influence, a big gap in what would otherwise have been a series of connected territories.

In measure as the French kings — the Bourbons — strengthened their position in their own country, they looked abroad not merely to ward off foreign attacks but to Ambition add land at their neighbors' expense. Richelieu of the understood that his two policies went hand in glove — to make the Bourbons predominant in Europe was but a corollary to making the royal power supreme in France.

The chief warfare of the seventeenth century centers, there- fore, in the long, terrible conflict between the Habsburgs and the Bourbons. Of this struggle, the so-called Thirty The Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) may be treated as the first ^^^^^' ^" stage. Let us endeavor to obtain a clear idea of the interests involved.

When Richelieu became the chief minister of Louis XIII

2 20 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

(1624), he found the Habsburgs in serious trouble and he resolved to take advantage of the situation to enhance the prestige of the Bourbons. The Austrian Habsburgs were fac- ing a vast civil and religious war in the Germanics, and the Spanish Habsburgs were dispatching aid to their hard-pressed kinsmen.

The war, which proved momentous both to the Habsburgs and to their enemies, resulted from a variety of reasons — reH- gious, economic, and poHtical.

The peace of Augsburg (1555) had been expected to settle the religious question in the Germanics. But in practice it had failed to fix two important matters. In the first place, Years' War • ^^^^ provision forbidding further secularization of Ecciesias- cliurch property ("Ecclesiastical Reservation") was Causes ^'^^ carried out, nor could it be while human nature

and human temptation remained. Every Catholic ecclesiastic who became Protestant would naturally endeavor to take his church lands with him. Then, in the second place, the peace had recognized only Catholics and Lutherans : mean- while the Calvinists had increased their numbers, especially in southern and central Germany and in Bohemia, and demanded equal rights. In order to extort concessions from the emperor, a union of Protestant princes was formed, containing among its members the zealous young Calvinist prince of the Palatinate, Frederick, commonly called the Elector Palatine of the Rhine. The Catholics were in an equally belligerent frame of mind. Not only were they determined to prevent furthur secularization of church property, but, emboldened by the progress of the Catholic Reformation in the Germanics during the second half of the sixteenth century, they were now anxious to revise the earlier religious settlement in their own interest and to regain, if possible, the lands that had been lost by the Church to the Protestants. The Catholics relied for political and military support upon the Catholic Habsburg emperor and upon Maxi- milian, duke of Bavaria and head of the Catholic League of Princes. Religiously, the enemies of the Habsburgs were the German Protestants.

But a hardly less important cause of the Thirty Years' War lay in the politics of the Holy Roman Empire. The German princes

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 221

had greatly increased their territories and their wealth during the Protestant Revolution. They aspired, each and all, to complete sovereignty. They would rid themselves of the out- Thirtv worn bonds of a medieval empire and assume their Years' War : proper place among the independent and autocratic Political rulers of Europe. On his side, the emperor was in- sistent upon strengthening his position and securing a united powerful Gennany under his personal control. Politically ^ the enemies of the Habsburgs were the Gemian princes.

With the princes was almost invariably allieci any European monarch who had anything to gain from dividing Germany or weakening Habsburg influence. In case of a civil war, the Habsburgs might reasonably expect to find enemies in Denmark, Sweden, and France.

The war naturally divides itself into four periods : (i) The Bohemian Revolt ; (2) The Danish Period ; (3) The Swedish Period ; (4) The French or International pe^ods Period. in the

The signal for the outbreak of hostilities in the years' War Germanics was given by a rebeUion in Bohemia against the Habsburgs. Following the death of Rudolph II (15 76-16 12), a narrow-minded, art-loving, and unbalanced recluse, his child- less brother Matthias (1612-1619) had desired to secure the succession of a cousin, Ferdinand II (1619-1637), who, although a man of blameless life and resolute character, was known to be devoted to the cause of absolutism and fanatically loyal to the CathoHc Church. Little opposition to this settle- j j^^ ment was encountered in the various Habsburg Bohemian dominions, except in Bohemia. In that country, however, the nobles, many of whom were Calvinists, dreaded the prospective accession of Ferdinand, who w^ould be likely to deprive them of their special privileges and to impede, if not to forbid, the exercise of the Protestant religion in their territories. Already there had been encroachments on their religious liberty.

One day in 1618, a group of Bohemian noblemen broke into the room where the imperial envoys were stopping and hurled them out of a window into a castle moat some sixty feet below. This so-called "defenestration" of Ferdinand's representatives was followed by the proclamation of the dethronement of the

222 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Habsburgs in Bohemia and the election to the kingship of Frederick, the Calvinistic Elector Palatine. Frederick was crowned at Prague and prepared to defend his new lands. Fer- dinand II,_j;aismg^ a large array in his other possessionsT'ahd. receiving assistance from Maximihan of Bavaria and the Catho- lic League as well as from Tuscany and the^SpaiUshjIabsburgs, intrusted the allied forces to an able veteran generalp~€t>unt- Tilly (1559-1632). King Frederick had expected support from his^tathef-in-raw, James I of England, and from the Lutheran princes of northern Germany, but in both respects he was dis- appointed. What with parhamentary quarrels at home and a curiously mistaken foreign policy of a Spanish alHance, James confined his assistance to pompous advice and long words. Then, too, most of the Lutheran princes, led by the tactful John George, elector of Saxony, hoped by remaining neutral to obtain special concessions from the emperor.

Within a very brief period, Tilly subdued Bohemia, drove out Frederick, and reestablished the Habsburg power. Many re- bellious nobles lost their property and lives, and the practice of the Protestant religion was again forbidden in Bohemia. Nor was that all. The victorious imperialists drove the fugitive Frederick, now derisively dubbed the "winter king," out of his original wealthy possessions on the Rhine, into miserable exile, an outcast without land or money. The conquered Palatinate was turned over to Maximilian of Bavaria, who was further re- warded for his services by being recognized as an elector of the Holy Roman Empire in place of the deposed Frederick.

The first period of the war was thus favorable to the Habsburg and CathoHc causes. Between 161 8 and 1620, revolt had been suppressed in Bohemia and an influential Rhenish electorate had been transferred from Calvinist to Catholic hands.

Now, however, the northern Protestant princes took alarm. If they had viewed with composure the failure of Frederick's foolhardy efforts in Bohemia, they beheld with downright dis- may the expansion of Bavaria and the destruction of a balance of power long maintained between Cathohc and Protestant Ger- many. And so long as the ill-disciplined remnants of Frederick's armies were behaving like highwaymen, pillaging and burning

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 223

throughout the Germanics, the emperor dechncd to consider the grant of any concessions.

At this critical juncture, while the Protestant princes were wavering between obedience and rebellion, Christian IV of Denmark intervened and precipitated the second 2. Danish period of the war. Christian IV (i 588-1648) was intervention impulsive and ambitious : as duke of Holstein he was a member of the Holy Roman Empire and opposed to Habsburg domina- tion ; as king of Denmark and Norway he was anxious to extend his influence over the North Sea ports ; and as a ^. , . „,

• 1 ' 1 r 1 • Chnstian IV

Lutheran, he sought to champion the rights of his German co-religionists and to help them retain the rich lands which they had appropriated from the Catholic Church. In 1625, therefore, Christian invaded Germany, supported by liberal grants of money from England and by the troops of many of the German princes, both Calvinist and Lutheran.

Against the Danish invasion, Tilly unaided might have had difficulty to stand, but fortune seemed to have raised up a co- defender of the imperiahst cause in the person of an extraordinary adventurer, Wallenstein. This man had enriched himself enormously out of the recently confiscated estates of rebelHous Bohemians, and now, in order to benefit himself still further, he secured permission from the Emperor Ferdinand II to raise an independent army of his own to restore order in the empire and to expel the Danes. By liberal promises of pay and plunder, the soldier of fortune soon recruited an army of some 50,000 men, and what a motley collection it was ! ItaHan, Swiss, Spaniard, German, Pole, Englishman, and Scot, — Protes- tant was welcomed as heartily as CathoHc, — any one who loved adventure or hoped for gain, all united by the single tie of loyalty and devotion to Wallenstein. The force was whipped into shape by the undoubted genius of its commander and at once became an effective machine of war. Yet the perpetual plun- dering of the land, on which it lived, was a constant source of reproach to the army of Wallenstein.

The campaigning of the second period of the war took place in North Germany. At Lutter, King t^Viricti'^n TV wag rlpfpntt>r1 overwhelmingly by the combined forces of TiUy and Wallen.- stein7 anctZtheTl-utheran states were left at the mercy of the

224 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Catholic League. Brandenburg openly espoused the imperialist cause and aided Ferdinand's generals in expeUing the Danish king from German soil. Only the lack of naval control of the Baltic and North seas prevented the victors from seizing Den- mark. The desperation of Christian and the growingly sus- picious activity of Sweden resulted in the peace of Liibeck (1629), by which the king of Denmark was left in possession of Jutland, Schleswig, and Holstein, but deprived of the German bishoprics which various members of his family had taken from the Catho- 'lic Church.

Following up its successes, the Catholic League prevailed upon the Emperor Ferdinand II in the same year (1629) to sign Edict of the Edict of Restitution, restoring to the Church all Restitution |-]^g property that had been secularized in violation of the peace of Augsburg of 1555. The edict was to be executed by imperial commissioners, all of whom were Catholics, and so well did they do their work that, within three years of the promulgation of the edict, Roman Catholicism in the Germanics had recovered five bishoprics, thirty Hanse towns, and nearly a hundred monasteries, to say nothing of parish churches of which the number can hardly be estimated.

So far, the religious and economic grievances against the Habsburgs had been confined mainly to Calvinists, but now the Lutheran princes were alarmed. The enforcement of the Edict of Restitution against all Protestants alike was the signal for an emphatic protest from Lutherans as well as from Calvinists. A favorable opportunity for intervention seemed to present itself to the foremost Lutheran power — Sweden. Not only were many Protestant princes in Germany in a mood to welcome foreign assistance against the Catholics, but the emperor was less able to resist invasion, since in 1630, yielding to the urgent entreaties of the Catholic League, he dismissed the plundering and ambitious Wallenstein from his service.

The king of Sweden at this time was Gustavus Adolphus (1611-1632), the grandson of that Gustavus Vasa who had established both the independence and the Lutheranism of his country. Gustavus Adolphus was one of the most attractive figures of his age — in the prime of life, tall, fair, and blue-eyed, well educated and versed in seven languages, fond of music and

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 225

poetry, skilled and daring in war, impetuous, well balanced, and versatile. A rare combination of the idealist and the practical man of affairs, Gustavus Adolphus had dreamed of making Protestant Sweden the leading power in interven-^ northern Europe and had \igorously set to work to tion: Gus- achieve his ends. His determination to encircle the Adolphus whole Baltic with his own territories — making it Hterally a Swedish lake — brought him first into conflict with Muscovy, or, as we call it to-day, Russia. Finland and Es- thonia were occupied, and Russia agreed in 161 7 to exclusion from the Baltic sea coast. Next a stubborn conflict with Poland (1621-1629) secured for Sweden the province of Livonia and the mouth of the Vistula River. Gustavus then turned his longing eyes to the Baltic coast of northern Germany, at the very time when the Edict of Restitution promised him aggrieved allies in that quarter.

It was likewise at the very time when Cardinal Richelieu had crushed out all insurrection, whether Huguenot or noble, in France and was seeking some effective means of pro- ^ , ..,

1-1 ' ^ ^ ' 1 111 French Aid

longmg the war m the Germanics to the end that the rival Habsburgs might be irretrievably weakened and humiliated. He entered into definite alHance with Gustavus Adolphus and provided him arms and money, for the time asking only that the Protestant champion accord the Hberty of Catholic worship in conquered districts.

Gustavus Adolphus landed in Pomerania in 1630 and pro- ceeded to occupy the chief northern fortresses and to treat for alliances with the influential Protestant electors of Brandenburg and Saxony. While Gustavus tarried at Potsdam, in protracted negotiation with the elector of Brandenburg, Tilly and the im- perialists succeeded, after a long siege, in capturing the Lutheran stronghold of Magdeburg (May, 1631). The fall of the city was attended by a mad massacre of the garrison, and of armed and unarmed citizens, in streets, houses, and churches ; at least 20,000 perished ; wholesale plundering and a general conflagra- tion completed the havoc. The sack of Magdeburg evoked the greatest indignation from the Lutherans. Gustavus Adolphus, now joined by the electors of Brandenburg and Saxony and by many other Protestant princes of northern Germany, advanced Q

226 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

into Saxony, where, in September, 1631, he avenged the destruc- tion of Magdeburg by defeating decisively the smaller army of Tilly on the Breitenfeld, near Leipzig. Then Gustavus turned southwestward, making for the Rhine valley, with the idea of forming a union with the Calvinist princes. Only the prompt protest of his powerful ally, Richelieu, prevented the rich arch- bishoprics of Cologne, Trier, and Mainz from passing imme- diately under Swedish control. Next Gustavus Adolphus turned east and invaded Bavaria. Tilly, who had reassembled his forces, failed to check the invasion and lost his life in a battle on the Lech (April, 1632). The victorious Swedish king now made ready to carry the war into the hereditary dominions of the Austrian Habsburgs. As a last resort to check the invader, the emperor recalled Wallenstein with full power over his free- lance army. About the same time the emperor concluded a close alhance with his kinsman, the ambitious Philip IV of Spain. The memorable contest between the two great generals — Gustavus Adolphus and Wallenstein — was brought to a tragic close in the late autumn of the same year on the fateful field of Liitzen. Wallenstein was defeated, but Gustavus was killed. Although the Swedes continued the struggle, they were com- paratively few in numbers and possessed no such general as their fallen king. On the other side, Wallenstein's loyalty could not be depended upon ; rumors reached the ear of the emperor that his foremost general was negotiating with the Protestants to make peace on his own terms ; and Wallenstein was assassinated in his camp by fanatical imperialists (February, 1634). The tragic removal of both Wallenstein and Gustavus Adolphus, the economic exhaustion of the whole empire, and the national desire on the part of many Protestant princes, as well as on the part of the Catholic emperor, to rid the Germanics of foreign soldiers and foreign influence — all these developments seemed to point to the possibihty of concluding the third, or Swedish, period of the war, not perhaps as advantageously for the im- perialist cause as had ended the Bohemian revolt or the Danish intervention, but at any rate in a spirit of reasonable com- promise. In fact, in May, 1635, a treaty was signed at Prague between the emperor and such princes as were then willing to lay down their arms, whereby all the military forces in the empire

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 227

were henceforth to be under the direct control of the emperor (with the exception of a contingent under the special command of the Lutheran elector of Saxony) ; all princely leagues within the empire were to be dissolved ; mutual restoration of captured territory was to be made ; and, as to the fundamental question of the ownership of ecclesiastical lands, it was settled that any such lands actually held in the year 1627, whether acquired before or after the rehgious peace of Augsburg of 1555, should continue so to be held for forty years or until in each case an amicable arrangement could be reached.

What wrecked the peace of Prague was not so much the dis- inclination of the Protestant princes of Germany to accept its terms as the poHcy of Cardinal Richelieu of France. Richelieu was convinced more than ever that French greatness depended upon Habsburg defeat ; he would not suffer the princes to make peace with the emperor until the latter was soundly trounced and all Germany devastated ; instead of supplying the Swedes and the German Protestants with assistance from behind the scenes, he now would come boldly upon the stage and engage the emperor in open combat.

The final, or French, period of the Thirty Years' War lasted from 1635 to 1648 — almost as long as the other three periods put together. Richeheu entered the war not only to 4. French humble the Austrian Habsburgs and, if possible, to intervention wrest the valuable Rhenish province of Alsace from the Holy Roman Empire, but also to strike telling blows at the Continen- tal supremacy of the Spanish Habsburgs, who, since 1632, had been actively helping their German kinsmen. The ^. , ,. , Spanish king, it will be remembered, still held the Policy in Belgian Netherlands, on the northern frontier of *^® 9"'

. manies

France, and Franche Comte on the east, while oft- contested Milan in northern Italy was a Spanish dependency, France was almost surrounded by Spanish possessioas, and Richeheu naturally declared war against Spain as against the emperor. The wily French cardinal could count upon the Swedes and many of the German Protestants to keep the Aus- trian Habsburgs busily engaged and upon the assistance of the Dutch in humbling the Spaniard, for Spain had not yet formally recognized the independence of the Dutch Netherlands. Inas-

228 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

much as England was chiefly concerned with troublesome internal affairs, the enemies of France could hardly expect aid from across the Channel.

At first, the French suffered a series of military reverses, due in large part to unpreparedness, incompetent commanders, Conde and and ill-disciplined troops. At one time it looked as if Turenne ^]^g Spaniards might capture Paris. But with unflag- ging zeal and patriotic devotion, Richeheu pressed on the war. He raised armies, drilled them, and dispatched them into the Netherlands, into Alsace, into Franche Comte, into northern Italy, and into Roussillon. He stirred up the Portuguese . to revolt and recover their independence (1640). And Mazarin, who succeeded him in 1642, preserved his foreign policy intact. Young and brilliant generals now appeared at the head of the French forces, among whom were the dashing Prince of Conde (1621-1686), and the master strategist Turenne (1611-1675), the greatest soldier of his day. The former's victory of Rocroi (1643) dated the commencement of the supremacy of France in war, a supremacy which was retained for a century.

Finally, Turenne's masterly maneuvering against the Span- iards and his forcible detachment of Maximilian of Bavaria Peace of from the imperial alliance broke down effective oppo- Westphaiia sition and ended the Thirty Years' War in the Ger-

"^ manies. The various treaties which were signed in

1648 constituted the peace of Westphalia.

The political clauses of the peace of Westphalia provided : (i) Each German state was free to make peace or war without consulting the emperor — each prince was invested with sov- ereign authority; (2) France received Alsace, except the free city of Strassburg, and was confirmed in the possession of the bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun ; (3) Sweden was given territory in Pomerania controlling the mouth of the Oder, and the secularized bishopric of Bremen, surrounding the city of that name and dominating the mouths of the Elbe and the Weser ; (4) France and Sweden received votes in the Diet of the Holy Roman Empire, with implied rights to exercise an oversight of German affairs ; (5) Brandenburg secured eastern Pomerania and several bishoprics, including Magdeburg ; (6) The Palatinate was divided between Maximilian of Bavaria and the son of the

ii,k East. JO fr'»n Gri

iBirtVtO Bx BOfiMAY & CO.j H,f

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 229

deposed Frederick — each bearing the title of elector; (7) Swit- zerland and the United Provinces (Holland) were formally recog- nized as independent of the empire and of Spain respectively.

The religious difhculties were settled as follows : (i) Calvinists were to share all the privileges of their Lutheran fellow-Protes- tants; (2) All church property was to be secured in the posses- sion of those, whether Catholics or Protestants, who held it on I January, 1624; (3) An equal number of Catholic and Protes- tant judges were to sit in the imperial courts. Inasmuch as after 1648 there was Httle relative change of religion in Germany, this rehgious settlement was practically permanent.

One of the most striking results of the peace of Westphalia was the completion of a long process of political disruption in the Germanics. Only the form of the Holy Roman Em- ^^jj gggcts pire survived. The already shadowy imperial power of the became a mere phantom, nor was a change destined yeasts' to come until, centuries later, the Prussian Hohenzol- War on lerns should replace the Austrian Habsburgs. Mean- ^'■"^'^y while the weakness of Germany enabled France to extend her northern boundaries toward the Rhine.

Far more serious than her political losses were the economic results to Germany. The Thirty Years' War left Germany almost a desert. "About two-thirds of the total population had disappeared ; the misery of those that survived was piteous in the extreme. Five-sixths of the villages in the empire had been destroyed. We read of one in the Palatinate that in two years had been plundered twenty-eight times. In Saxony, packs of wolves roamed about, for in the north quite one- third of the land had gone out of cultivation, and trade had drifted into the hands of the French or Dutch. Education had almost disap- peared ; and the moral decline of the people was seen in the coarsening of manners and the growth of superstition, as wit- nessed by frequent burning of witches." .

The peace' of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years' tion of War War in the Germanies, but it did not stop the bitter 5,®tween

' ^ French

contest between France and Spain. Mazarin was de- Bourbons termined to secure even greater territorial gains for and Spanish his country, and, although Conde deserted to Spain, Turenne was more than a match for any commander whom the

230 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Spaniards could put in the field. Mazarin, moreover, by ced- ing the fortress of Dunkirk to the English, obtained aid from the veteran troops of Cromwell. It was not until 1659 that, in the celebrated treaty of the Pyrenees, peace was concluded between France and Spain. This provided : (i) France, by the addition of Roussillon, extended her southern fron-

Peace .

of the tier completely to the Pyrenees; (2) France was

Pyrenees, recognized as protector of the duchy of Lorraine; (3) Conde was pardoned and reinstated in French serv- ice ; (4) Maria Theresa, eldest daughter of the Spanish Habs- burg king, Philip IV, was to marry the young French Bourbon king, Louis XIV, and, in consideration of the payment of a large dowry, was to renounce all claims to the Spanish dominions.

The treaty of the Pyrenees was the last important achieve- ment of Cardinal Mazarin. But before he died in 1661 he had the satisfaction of seeing the triumph of those policies which he had adopted from Richelieu : the royal power firmly established within France ; the Habsburgs, whether Austrian or Spanish, defeated and humiliated ; the Bourbon king of France respected and feared throughout Europe.

Not least among the results of the conflict between Habsburgs and Bourbons was the stimulus given to the acceptance of fixed principles of international law and of definite usages mentor ^^^ international diplomacy. In ancient times the Inter- existence of the all-embracing Roman Empire had mili-

Law°° tated against the development of international rela-

tions as we know them to-day. In the early middle ages feudal society had left little room for diplomacy. Of course, both in ancient times and in the middle ages, there had been embassies and negotiations and treaties ; but the embassies had been no more than temporary missions directed to a particular end, and there had been neither permanent diplomatic agents nor a professional diplomatic class. To the development of such a class the Italy of the fifteenth century had given the first impetus. Northern and central Italy was then filled, as we have discovered, with a large number of city- states, all struggling for political and economic mastery, all dependent for the maintenance of a "balance of power" upon alliances and counter alHances, all employing diplomacy quite

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 231

as much as war in the game of peninsular politics. It was in Italy that there grew up the institution of passports, the distinc- tion between armed forces and civilians, international comity, and in fact the very notion that states have an interest in the observance of law and order among themselves. Of special im- portance, in this connection, was Venice, which gradually evolved a regular system of permanent diplomats, and incidentally obliged her ambassadors to present detailed reports on foreign affairs ; and, because of their commercial preeminence in the Mediterranean, the Venetians contributed a good deal to the development of rules of the sea first in time of peace, and subse- quently in time of war.

During the sixteenth century the Italian ideas of statecraft and inter-state relations, ably championed by Machiavelli, were communicated to the nations of western Europe. Per- ^^ Europe manent embassies were established in foreign countries in Sixteenth by the kings of Spain, Portugal, France, and England. ^° ^^^ Customs of international intercourse grew up. Diplomacy be- came a recognized occupation of distinguished statesmen.

Two institutions might have thwarted or retarded the de- velopment of international law : one was the Catholic Church with its international organization and its claim to universal spiritual supremacy ; the other was the years' War Holy Roman Empire, with its claim to temporal pre- and inter- dominance and with its insistence upon the essential Law"" inequality between itself and all other states. But the Protestant Revolt in the sixteenth century dealt a severe blow to the claim and power of the Catholic Church. And the long struggle between Bourbons and Habsburgs, culminating in the Thirty Years' War, reduced the Holy Roman Empire to a posi- tion, in theory as well as in fact, certainly no higher than that of the national monarchies of France, England, and Spain, or that of the Dutch Republic.

From the treaties of Westphalia emerged a real state-system in Europe, based on the theory of the essential equality of inde- pendent sovereign states, though admitting of the fact that there were Great Powers. Henceforth the public law of Europe was to be made by diplomats and by congresses of ambassadors. Westphalia pointed the new path.

232 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Another aspect of international relations was emphasized in the iirst half of the seventeenth century. It was the Thirty Years' War, with its revolting cruelty, which brought out the contrast between the more humane practice of war as an art in Italy and the savagery which disgraced the Germanics. The brutality of the struggle turned thinkers' attention to the need of formulating rules for the protection of non-combatants in time of war, the treatment of the sick and wounded, the pro- hibition of wanton pillage and other horrors which shocked the awakening conscience of seventeenth-century Europe. It was the starting-point of the publication of treatises on inter- national law.

The first effective work, the one which was destined long to influence sovereigns and diplomats, was Grotius's On the Law of War and Peace. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) ^ was a learned Dutch humanist, whose active participation in politics against the stadholder of the Netherlands and whose strong protests for religious toleration against the dominant orthodox Calvinists of his country combined to bring upon him- self a sentence of life imprisonment. Immured in a Dutch fortress in 1619, he managed to escape and fled to Paris, where he prepared and in 1625 published his immortal work. On the Law of War and Peace is an exhaustive and masterly text-book — the first and one of the best of the systematic treatises on the fundamental principles of international law.

ADDITIONAL READING '

Henry IV, Richelieu, and Mazarin. Brief general accounts: H. O. Wakeman, The Ascendancy of France, i^gS-iyis (1894), ch. i-vii ; Mary A. Hollings, Renaissance and Reformation, 1453-1660 (igio), ch. xi, xii; J. H. Sacret, Bourbon and Vasa, 1610-1715 (1914), ch. i-vii; A. J. Grant, The French Monarchy, I48j-i'/8q, Vol. I (1900), ch. vi-ix ; G. W. Kitchin, A History of France, 3d and 4th editions (1894-1899), Vol. II, Book. IV, ch. i-iii, Vol. Ill, Book IV, ch. iv-viii ; H. T. Dyer, A History of Modern Europe from the Fall of Constantinople, 3d ed. rev. by Arthur Hassall (1901), ch. xxix-xxxv; Victor Duruy, History of Modern Times, trans, and rev. by E. A. Grosvenor (1894), ch. xvii, xviii, xx ; Cambridge Modern

^ Known in his native country as Huig van Groot. The last years of his life he spent as ambassador of Sweden at the French court.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 233

History, Vol. II, ch. xx (by Stanley Leathes, on Henry IV), Vol. I\^, ch. iv (on Richelieu), xxi (on Mazarin) ; Histoire generale, Vol. V, ch. vi-viii. Vol. VI, ch. i. More detailed works : Histoire de France, ed. by Ernest Lavisse, Vol. VI, Part I (1904), Livre IV (on Henry IV), Vol. VI, Part II (1905), Livres I-III (on Henry IV and Richelieu, by J. H. Mariejol), Vol. VII, Part I (1906), Livre I (on Mazarin, by E. Lavisse) ; P. F. Willert, Henry of Navarre (1897), in " Heroes of the Nations " Series; C. C. Jack- son, The First of the Bourbons, 2 vols. (1890) ; J. B. Perkins, Ricluiieii and the Growth of French Power (1900), in the " Heroes of the Nations " Series, and, by the same author, an admirable writer and authority on the whole period, France under Mazarin, 2 vols. (1886) ; Georges (Vicomte) d'Avenel, Richelieu et la nionarchie ahsolue, 4 vols, (i 884-1 890), the foremost French work on the subject ; Gabriel Hanotaux, Origines de rinstitntion des in- tcndants de provinces (1884), a careful study of the beginnings of the ofiEce of intendant by a famous French statesman and historian; P. A. Cheruel, Histoire de France pendant la minorite de Louis XIV, 4 vols. (1879-1880), and, by the same author, Histoire dc France sous le ministere de Mazarin, 1651-1661, 3 vols. (1882), a very elaborate treatment of Mazarin's public career in France; Louis BatifTol, The Century of the Renaissance in France, Eng. trans, by Elsie F. Buckley (1916), containing an excellent chapter on the French monarchy at the close of the sixteenth century.

The Thirty Years' War. General treatments: E. F. Henderson, A Short History of Gertnany, Vol. I (1902), ch. xvii, xviii, a good, short in- troduction ; S. R. Gardiner, The Thirty Years' War (1897), in the " Epochs of Modern History " Series, the best brief survey; History of All Nations, Vol. XII, ch. iv-viii, by Martin Philippson, a well-known German his- torian; Cambridge Modern History, Vol. IV (1906), ch. i, iii, v-vii, xiii, xiv, XX, xxii; Histoire generale, Vol. V, ch. xii ; Anton Gindely, The Thirty Years' War, trans, from the German by Andrew Ten Brook, 2 vols. (1884), a popular treatment by a recognized authority in this field, breaking o&, unfortunately, in the year 1623 ; Gustav Droysen, DasZeitalter des dreissig- jdhrigen Krieges (1888) and Georg Winter, Geschichte des dreissigjdhrigen Krieges (1893), two bulky volumes in the Oncken Series devoted re'spec- tively to the pohtical and mihtary aspects of the war; Emile Charveriat, Histoire de la guerre de trentc ans, 2 vols. (1878), a reliable French account of the whole struggle. On the history of the Germanics from the religious peace of Augsburg to the peace of Westphalia there is the painstaking Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Gegenreformation und des dreissigjdhrigen Krieges, 1555-1648, by Moritz Ritter, 3 vols. (1889-1908). For the his- tory of Austria during the period, see Franz Krones, Handbuch der Ge- schichte Oesterreichs von der dltesten Zeit, Vol. Ill (1877), Books XIV-XV. For the Netherlands, with special reference to Spain's part in the war: Henri Pirenne, Histoire de Belgique, Vol. IV, 1 567-1648 (191 1). For Bohemia: Ernest Denis, Fin de rindependance boheme, Vol. II (1890), and, by the same author. La Boheme depuis la Montagne-Blanche, Vol. I (1903). For Denmark and Sweden: R. N. Bain, Scatuiinavia, a Political

234 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

History of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, from 1513 to igoo (1905). There is a convenient biography of Gustavus Adolphus by C. R. L. Fletcher in the " Heroes of the Nations " Series (1890), and a more detailed study in German by Gustav Droysen, 2 vols. (1869-1870). On Wallenstein there are two standard German works : Leopold von Ranke, Geschichte Wallen- steins, 3d ed. (1872), and Anton Gindely, Waldstein, 1625-1630, 2 vols. (1886). The best brief treatment of European international relations in the time of Richelieu and Mazarin is Emile Bourgeois, Manuel historique de politique etrangcre, 4th ed., Vol. I (1906), ch. i, ii, vi. For a brief treat- ment of the development of international law during the period, see D. J. Hill, History of Diplomacy in the International Development of Europe, Vol. II (1906), ch. vii. The treaties of Westphalia are in the famous old com- pilation of Jean Dumont, Corps uttiversel diplomatique du droit des gens, 8 vols. (1726-1731).

CHAPTER VII

THE GROWTH OF ABSOLUTISM IN FRANCE AND THE

STRUGGLE BETWEEN BOURBONS AND HABSBURGS,

1661-1743

THE AGE OF LOUIS XIV

Upon the death of Cardinal Mazarin in 1661, the young king Louis XIV declared that he would assume personal charge of the domestic and foreign affairs of the French monarchy. From that date, throughout a long reign, Louis was in fact as well as in name ruler of the nation, and his rule, like that of Napoleon, stands out as a distinct epoch in French history.

Louis XIV profited by the earHer work of Henry IV, Sully, Richelieu, and Mazarin. He inherited a fairly compact state, the population of which was patriotic and loyal to the . cro\\Ti. Insurrections of Protestants or rebellions of the Heir to nobles were now things of the past. The Estates- Absolutist

. P . . Tendencies

General, the ancient form of representative gov- ernment, had fallen into disuse and oblivion. Local adminis- tration was conducted by faithful middle-class officials, the intendants ; and all powers of taxation, war, public improve- ments, police, and justice were centered in the hands of the king. Abroad, the rival Habsburgs had been humbled and French boundaries had been extended and French prestige heightened. Everything was in readiness for a great king to practice absolutism on a scale never before realized.

The theories of government upon which the absolutism of Louis XIV was based received a classic expression in a celebrated book written by Bossuet (16 2 7-1 704), a learned and upright bishop of the time. Government, according to Bossuet,^ is

^ The statements of the arguments in favor of monarchy by divine right are taken from Bossuet's famous book, La politique tiree des propres paroles de VEcriture Sainte.

235

236 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

divinely ordained in order to enable mankind to satisfy the natural instincts of living together in organized society. Under ., , . God, monarchy is, of all forms of government, the

Absolutism 111 • 1 1 r 1

most usual and the most ancient, and therefore the most natural : it is likewise the strongest and most eiScient, therefore the best. It is analogous to the rule of a family by Monarchy ^^^ father, and, like that rule, should be hereditary, by Divine Four qualities are referred by the eloquent bishop to ^ such an hereditary monarch : (i) That he is sacred

is attested by his anointing at the time of coronation by the priests of the Church — it is accordingly blasphemy and sacrilege to assail the person of the king or to conspire against him; (2) That he is to provide for the welfare of his people and watch over their every activity may be gathered from the fact that he is, in a very real sense, the father of his people, the paternal king ; (3) His power is absolute and autocratic, and for its exer- cise he is accountable to God alone — no man on earth may rightfully resist the royal commands, and the only recourse for subjects against an evil king is to pray God that his heart be changed ; (4) Greater reason is given to a king than to any one else — the king is an earthly image of God's majesty, and it is wrong, therefore, to look upon him as a mere man. The king is a public person and in him the whole nation is embodied. "As in God are united all perfection and every virtue, so all the power of all the individuals in a community is united in the person of the king."

Such was the theory of what is called divine-right monarchy or absolutism. It must be remembered that it had been gain-

• YTv ^^-^S ground during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, until it was accepted practically by all the French people as well as by most of their Continental neighbors. Even in England, as we shall presently see,^ the Stuart kings attempted, for a time with success, to assert and maintain the doctrine. It was a pohtical idea as popular in the seventeenth century as that of democracy is to-day. And Louis XIV was its foremost personification. Suave, dignified, elegant in manners and speech, the French king played his part well ; he appeared to have been born and divinely appointed to the kingly calling.

^ See below, pp. 263 ff.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 237

For a king, Louis worked hard. He was conscientious and painstaking. Day after day he reviewed the details of adminis- tration. Over all things he had a watchful eye. Systematically he practiced what he termed the "trade of a king." "One reigns by work and for work," he wrote his grandson.

No prince was more fortunate than Louis XIV in his personal advisers and lieutenants. Not only were his praises proclaimed by the silver-tongued Bossuet, but he was served by such men as Colbert, the financier and reformer; Louvois, the military organizer ; Vauban, the master builder of fortifications ; Conde and Turenne, unconquerable generals ; and by a host of literary lights, whom he patronized and pensioned, and who cast about his person a glamour of renown. Louis was hailed as the " Grand Monarch," and his age was appropriately designated the Age of Louis the Fourteenth.

At Versailles, some twelve miles from Paris, in the midst of what had been a sandy waste, the Grand Monarch erected those statelv palaces, with their lavish furnishings, and

*^ Versailles

broad parks and great groves and myriads of delight- and the ful fountains, which became Europe's pleasure center. ^°"^* °^

rr^t . ^ 1 IT-. 1 1 •!• 1 'r LOUIS XIV

I hither were drawn the French nobility, who, if shorn of all political power, were now exempted from disagree- able taxes and exalted as essential parts of a magnificent social pageant. The king must have noblemen as valets-de-chambre, as masters of the wardrobe or of the chase or of the revels. Only a nobleman was fit to comb the royal hair or to dry off the king after a bath. The nobles became, like so many chande- liers, mere decorations for the palace. Thus, about Versailles gathered the court of France, and the leaders of fashion met those of brains.

It was a time when French manners, dress, speech, art, literature, and science were adopted as the models and property of civilized Europe. Corneille (i 606-1 684), the father u jj^g ^ of the French stage; MoHere (1622-1673), the great- of Louis est of French dramatists; Racine (1639-1699), the polished, formal playwright; Madame de Sevigne (1626-1696), the brilliant and witty authoress of memoirs; La Fontaine (1621-1695), the popular rhymer of whimsical fables and teller of scandalous tales; and many another graced the court of

238 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Versailles and tasted the royal bounty. French became the language of fashion as well as of diplomacy — a position it has ever since maintained.

While the court of Louis XIV was thus the focal point of French — almost of European — life, the professional and mer- " Rule of cantile classes, who constituted the Third Estate, the Robe " enjoyed comparative security and prosperity and under the king held all of the important offices of actual ad- ministration. Because of the judicial offices which the middle class filled, the government was popularly styled the "rule of the robe."

Colbert (1619-1683), one of Louis's greatest ministers, was the son of a merchant, and was intensely interested in the wel- fare of the class to which he belonged. Installed in office through the favor of Mazarin, he was suc- cessively named, after the cardinal's death, superintendent of public works, controller-general of finances, minister of marine, of commerce and agriculture, and of the colonies. In short, until his death in 1683, he exerted power in every department of government except that of war. Although he never possessed the absolute personal authority which marked the ministries of Richelieu and Mazarin, being plainly subservient to the king's commands, nevertheless he enjoyed for many years the royal favor and by incessant toil succeeded in accomplishing a good deal for the material prosperity of France. In many respects his policies and achievements resembled Sully's.

First, financial reform claimed all the energies of Colbert. Under the government of Richelieu, and more particularly under Attempted ^^^^ ^^ Mazarin, the hard savings of Sully had been Financial squandered, enormous sums had been granted to ^ "™ favorites, and the ever-increasing noble class had been exempted from taxation, an evil system of tax-gathering, called "farming the taxes," ^ had grown up, and the weight of the financial burden had fallen almost exclusively upon the wretched peasantry. Colbert sternly and fearlessly set about

^ "Farming the taxes," that is, intrusting the collection of taxes to individuals or corporations that squeezed as much money as they could from the taxpayers and kept for themselves what they collected over and above the lump sum due the government.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 239

his task. He appointed agents whose honesty he could trust and reformed many of the abuses in tax-collecting. While he was unable to impose the direct land tax — the taille — upon the privileged nobility, he stoutly resisted every attempt further to augment the number of exemptions, and actually lowered this direct tax upon the peasantry by substituting indirect taxes, or customs duties, which would in some degree affect all the people. To Hghten the burden of the country-folk, he sought to promote agriculture. He provided that no farmers' tools might be seized for debt. He encouraged the breeding of horses and cattle. He improved the roads and other means of interior communication. The great canal of Languedoc, joining the Mediterranean with the Garonne River and thence with the Atlantic, was planned and constructed under his patronage. As far as possible, the duties on the passage of agricultural produce from province to province were equalized.

In forwarding what he beHeved to be his own class interests, Colbert was especially zealous. Manufactures and commerce were fostered in every way he could devise. New ^ „

. , . , , . 1 , . 1 Colbert and

mdustnes were estabhshed, mventors protected, French workmen invited from foreign countries, native Mercantu-

° ism

workmen prohibited to leave France. A heavy tariff was placed upon foreign imports in order to protect "in- fant industries" and increase the gain of French manufacturers and traders. Liberal bounties were allowed to French ships engaged in commerce, and foreign ships were compelled to pay heavy tonnage duties for using French ports. And along with the protective tariff and subsidizing of the merchant marine, went other pet policies of mercantilism,^ such as measures to prevent the exportation of precious metals from France, to encourage corporations and monopoHes, and to extend minute governmental supervision over the manufacture, quality, quan- tity, and sale of all commodities. What advantages accrued from Colbert's efforts in this direction were more than offset by the unfortunate fact that the mercantile class was unduly enriched at the expense of other and numerically larger classes in the community, and that the centralized monarchy, in which the

^ See above, pp. 63 f.

240 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

people had no part, proved itself unfit, in the long run, to over- see the details of business with wisdom or honesty.

Stimulation of industry and commerce has usually necessitated the creation of a protecting navy. Colbert appreciated the re- Coibert's quirement and hastened to fulfill it. He recon- " World structed the docks and arsenal of Toulon and estab- ° *^^ lished great ship-yards at Rochefort, Calais, Brest,

and Havre. He fitted out a large royal navy that could compare favorably with that of England or Spain or Holland. To supply it with recruits he drafted seamen from the maritime provinces and resorted to the use of criminals, who were often chained to the galleys like so many slaves of the new industry.

Likewise, the adoption of the mercantile policy seemed to demand the acquisition of a colonial empire, in which the mother- country should enjoy a trade-monopoly. So Colbert became a vig- orous colonial minister. He purchased Martinique and Guade- loupe in the West Indies, encouraged settlements in San Domingo, in Canada, and in Louisiana, and set up important posts in India, in Senegal, and in Madagascar. France, under Colbert, became a serious colonial competitor with her older European rivals.

Colbert was essentially a financier and economist. But to the arts of peace, which adorned the reign of Louis XIV, he was a potent contributor. He strengthened the French Academy, which had been founded by Richelieu, and himself established the Academy of Sciences, now called the Institute of France, and the great astronomical observatory at Paris. He pensioned many writers, and attracted foreign artists and scientists to France. Many buildings and triumphal arches were erected under his patronage.

In the arts of war, Louis XIV possessed an equally able and hard-working assistant. Louvois (1641-1691) was one of the greatest war ministers that the world has ever seen. and^French ^^ recruited and supported the largest and finest Militarism standing army of his day. He introduced severe Loufs^xiv regulations and discipline. He prescribed, for the first time in history, a distinctive military uniform and introduced the custom of marching in step. Under his supervision, camp life was placed upon a sanitary basis. And under his influence, promotion in the service no longer depended

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 241

primarily on social position but upon merit as well. In Vauban (1633-1707), Louvois had the greatest military engineer in history — for it was Vauban who built those rows of superb fortifications on the northern and eastern frontiers of France. In Conde and Turenne, moreover, Louvois had first-class generals who could give immediate effect to his reforms and policies.

Thus was the Grand Monarch well and faithfully served. Yet the outward show and glamour of his reign were very decep- tive of the true internal conditions. Colbert tried to Deceptive do too many things, with the result that his plans Character repeatedly miscarried. The nobles became more in- Glamour of dolent, wasteful, and pleasure-loving, and the middle the Age of class more selfish and more devoted to their own class °"'^ interests, while the lot of the peasantry, — the bulk of the na- tion, — despite the spasmodic efl'orts of the paternal govern- ment, steadily grew worse under the unrelieved burden of taxation. Then, too, the king was extravagant in maintaining his mistresses, his court, and his favorites. His excessive vanity had to be appeased by expensive entertainment and show. He preferred the spectacular but woeful feats of arms to the less pretentious but more solid triumphs of peace. Indeed, in course of time, Colbert found his influence with the king waning before that of Louvois, and when he died it was with the bitter thought that his financial retrenchment had been in vain, that his husbanded resources were being rapidly dissipated in foreign war. It was Louis's wars that deprived his reign of true grandeur and paved the way for future disaster.

Before turning our attention to the foreign wars of Louis XIV, mention must be made of another blot on his reign. It was Louis XIV who renewed the persecution of the Revocation Protestants. He was moved alike by the absolutist's °V:^® ^

■^ Edict of

desire to secure complete uniformity throughout Nantes, France and by the penitent's rehgious fervor to ^^^s make amends for earlier scandals of his private life. For a time he contented himself with so-called dragonnades — quar- tering hcentious soldiers upon the Huguenots — but at length in 1685 he formally revoked the Edict of Nantes. France, which for almost a century had led Europe in the principle and practice of religious toleration, was henceforth reactionary.

242 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Huguenots were still granted liberty of conscience, but were denied freedom of worship and deprived of all civil rights in the kingdom. The immediate effect of this arbitrary and mistaken action was the emigration of large numbers of industrious and valuable citi- zens, who added materially to the political and economic life of England, Holland, and Prussia, the chief Protestant foes of France.

EXTENSION OF FRENCH FRONTIERS

Louis XIV was not a soldier himself. He never appeared in military uniform or rode at the head of his troops. What he lacked, however, in personal genius as a great military com- mander, he compensated for in a genuine fondness for war and in remarkable personal gifts of diplomacy. He was one of the greatest diplomats of his age, and, as we have seen, he possessed large loyal armies and able generals that he could employ in prosecuting the traditional foreign pohcy of France.

This foreign pohcy, which had been pursued by Francis I, Henry II, Henry IV, RicheHeu, and Mazarin, had for its goal the humiliation of the powerful Habsburgs, whether Foreign of Austria or of Spain. Although France had gained Policy of materially at their expense in the treaties of West- phaha and of the Pyrenees, much remained to be done by Louis XIV. When the Grand Monarch assumed direct control of affairs in 1661, the Spanish Habsburgs still ruled not only the peninsular kingdom south of France, but the Belgian Netherlands to the north, Franche Comte to the east, and Milan in northern Italy, while their kinsmen of Austria maintained shadowy imperial government over the rich Rhenish provinces on the northeastern boundary of France. France was still almost completely encircled by Habsburg holdings.

To justify his subsequent aggressions, Louis XIV propounded the doctrine of "natural boundaries." Every country, he main- Doctrine of tained, should secure such frontiers as nature had " Natural obviously provided — mountains, lakes, or rivers ; Boundaries ^^^^ France was naturally provided with the frontiers of ancient Gaul — the Pyrenees, the Alps, the Rhine River, and the Ocean. Any foreign monarch or state that claimed power within such frontiers was an interloper and should be expelled.,

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 243

For many years, and in three great wars, Louis XIV en- deavored, with some success, to reach the Rhine. These three wars — the War of Devolution, the Dutch War, and j^^ the War of the League of Augsburg — we shall now Wars of discuss. A fourth great war, directed toward the °"'^ acquisition of the Spanish throne by the Bourbon family, will be treated separately on account of the wide and varied interests involved.

The War of Devolution was an attempt of Louis to gain the Spanish or Belgian Netherlands. It will be remembered that in accordance with the peace of the Pyrenees, Louis j^ie had married Maria Theresa, the eldest daughter of " War of Philip IV of Spain. Now by a subsequent marriage ^voution Philip IV had had a son, a weak-bodied, half-witted prince, who came to the throne in 1665 as Charles II. Louis XIV at once took advantage of this turn of affairs to assert in behalf of his wife a claim to a portion of the Spanish inheritance. The claim was based on a curious custom which had prevailed in the inheritance of private property in the Netherlands, to the effect that children of a first marriage should inherit to the exclusion of those of a subsequent marriage. Louis insisted that this custom, called "devolution," should be appHed not only to private property but also to sovereignty and that his wife should be recognized, therefore, as sovereign of the Belgian Netherlands. In reality the claim was a pure invention, but the French king thought it would be a sufficient apology for the robbery of a weak brother-in-law.

Before opening hostilities, Louis XIV made use of his diplo- matic wiles in order to guard himself against assistance which other states might render to Spain. In the first place, he obtained promises of friendly neutrality from Holland, Sweden, and the Protestant states of Germany which had been allied with France during the Thirty Years' War. In the second place, he threat- ened to stir up another civil war in the Holy Roman Empire if the Austrian Habsburgs should help their Spanish kinsman. Finally, he had no fear of England because that country was in the midst of a pecuKarly bitter trade war with the Dutch. ^

^ It was on the eve of this second trade war between England and Holland (1665-1667) that the English took New Amsterdam from the Dutch (1664) and

244 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

The War of Devolution lasted from 1667 to 1668. The well-disciplined and splendidly generaled armies of Louis XIV jjjg had no difficulty in occupying the border fortresses

" Balance in the Spanish Netherlands. The whole territory ° °^^'' would undoubtedly have fallen to France, had not a change unexpectedly occurred in international affairs. The trade war between England and Holland came to a speedy end, and the two former rivals now joined with Sweden in forming the Triple Alliance to arrest the war and to put a stop to the French advance. The "balance of power" demanded, said the alHes, that the other European states should combine in order to prevent any one state from becoming too powerful. This plea for the "balance of power" was the reply to the French king's plea for "natural boundaries."

The threats of the Triple Alliance caused Louis XIV to negotiate the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, by which Spain sur- rendered to France an important section of territory in Aix-ia- Flanders, including the fortified cities of Charleroi,

^66^^'^^' Tournai, and Lille, but still retained the greater part of the Belgian Netherlands. The taste of the Grand Monarch was thereby whetted, but his appetite hardly appeased.

Louis blamed the Dutch for his rebuff. He was thoroughly alive to the fact that Holland would never take kindly to ha\dng Franco- powerful France as a near neighbor, and that French Dutch acquisition of the Belgian Netherlands, therefore,

'^^^y would always be opposed by the Dutch. Nor were

wounded vanity and poHtical considerations the only motives for the Grand Monarch's second war, that against the Dutch. France, as well as England, was now becoming a commercial and colonial rival of Holland, and it seemed both to Louis XIV and to Colbert that the French middle class would be greatly benefited by breaking the trade monopolies of the Dutch. Louis's second war was quite as much a trade war as a poHtical conflict.

First, Louis bent his energies to breaking up the Triple AlHance and isolating Holland. He took • advantage of the pohtical

rechristened it New York, and during this struggle that the remarkable Dutch admiral, De Ruyter, burned the English fleet and shipping on the Thames (June, 1667).

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 245

situation in England to arrange (1670) the secret treaty of Dover with Charles II, the king of that country : in return for a large pension, which should free him from reliance upon Parlia- ment, the Enghsh king undertook to declare himself a Roman Cathohc and to withdraw from the Triple Alhance. Liberal pensions hkewise bought off the Swedish government. It seemed now as if Holland, alone and friendless, would have to endure a war with her powerful enemy. Nor was Holland in shape for a successful resistance. Ever since she civii strife had gained formal recognition of her independence *" HoUand (1648), she had been torn by ci\al strife. On one side, the head of the Orange family, who bore the title of stadholder, sup- ported by the country districts, the nobles, the Calvinistic clergy, and the peasantry, hoped to consoHdate the state and to estabHsh an hereditary monarchy. On the other side, the aristocratic burghers and rehgious Uberals, the townsfolk gener- ally, found an able leader in the celebrated Grand Pensionary, John DeWitt (1625-1672), who sought to preserve the repubhc and the rights of the several proxinces. For over twenty years, the latter party was in power, but as the young prince of Orange, William III, grew to maturity, signs were not lacking of a re- action in favor of his party.

Under these circumstances, Louis XIV declared war against Holland in 1672. French troops at once occupied Lorraine on the pretext that its duke was plotting with the Dutch, The Dutch and thence, proceeding down the Rhine, past Cologne, ^^^ invaded Holland and threatened the prosperous city of Amster- dam. The Dutch people, in a frenzy of despair, murdered John DeWitt, whom they unjustly blamed for their reverses ; and, at the order of the young William III, who now assumed supreme command, they cut the dykes and flooded a large part of northern Holland. The same expedient which had enabled them to expel the Spaniards in the War of Independence now stayed the \ictorious advance of the French.

The refusal of Louis XIV to accept the advantageous terms of peace offered by the Dutch aroused general apprehension through- out Europe. The Emperor Leopold and the Great Elector of Brandenburg made an offensive alhance with Holland, which subsequently was joined by Spain and several German states.

246 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

The general struggle, thus precipitated, continued indeed with success for France. Turenne, by a brilHant victory, compelled the Great Elector to make peace. The emperor was defeated. The war was carried into the Spanish Netherlands and Franche Comte.

But when at length the English Parliament compelled Charles II to adhere to the general anti-French alHance, Treaty of Louis XIV thought it was time to make peace. As Nijmwegen, events proved, it was not Holland but Spain that

^ had to pay the penalties of Louis's second war.

By the treaty of Nijmwegen, the former lost nothing, while the latter ceded to France the long-coveted province of Franche Comte and several strong fortresses in the Belgian Netherlands. France, moreover, continued to occupy the duchy of Lorraine.

Thus, if Louis XIV had failed to punish the insolence of the

Dutch, he had at least succeeded in extending the French frontiers

one stage nearer the Rhine. He had become the

Effects ° , r 1 T • T^ ^r

of the greatest and most-feared monarch m Europe. Yet

Dutch War fQj- these gains France paid heavily. The border

on France

provinces had been wasted by war. The treasury was empty, and the necessity of negotiating loans and increasing taxes put Colbert in despair. Turenne, the best general, had been killed late in the contest, and Conde, on account of ill health, was obliged to withdraw from active service.

Yet at the darker side of the picture, the Grand Monarch refused to look. He was puffed up with pride by his successes in war and diplomacy. Like many another vain, ambitious ruler, he felt that what economic grievances or social discontent might exist within his country could readily be forgotten or obscured in a blaze of foreign glory — in the splendor of am- bassadors, the glint and din of arms, the grim shedding of human blood. Having picked the sanguinary path, and at first found pleasure therein, the Grand Monarch pursued it to an end bitter for his family and tragic for his people.

No sooner was the Dutch War concluded than Louis XIV set out by a policy of trickery and diplomacy further to augment the French territories. The cessions, which the treaties of Westphaha and Nijmwegen guaranteed to France, had been made "with their dependencies." It now occurred to Louis

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 247

that doubtless in the old feudal days of the middle ages or early modern times some, if not all, of his new acquisitions had possessed feudal suzerainty over other towns or terri- ^j^^ tories not yet incorporated into France. Although " Chambers in most cases such ancient feudal ties had practically and ^Further lapsed by the close of the seventeenth century, never- French An- theless the French king decided to reinvoke them in order, if possible, to add to his holdings. He accordingly constituted special courts, called "Chambers of Reunion," composed of his own obedient judges, who were to decide what districts by right of ancient feudal usage should be annexed. So painstaking and minute were the investigations of these Chambers of Reunion that they adjudged to their own country, France, no less than twenty important towns of the Holy Roman Empire, including Luxemburg and Strassburg. Nothing seemed to prevent the prompt execution of these judgments by the French king. He had kept his army on a war footing. The king of England was again in his pay and his alliance. The emperor was hard pressed by an invasion of the Ottoman Turks. Armed imperial resistance at Strassburg was quickly overcome (1681), and Vauban, the great engineer, proceeded to make that city the chief French fortress upon the Rhine. A weak effort of the Spanish monarch to protect Luxemburg from French aggres- sion was doomed to dismal failure (1684).

Alarmed by the steady advance of French power, the Emperor Leopold in 1686 succeeded in forming the League of Augsburg with Spain, Sweden, and several German princes, in order to preserve the territorial integrity of the Holy Roman Empire. Nor was it long before the League of Augsburg was called upon to resist further encroachments of the French king. In 1688 Louis dispatched a large army into the Rhenish Palatinate to enforce a preposterous claim which he had advanced to that valuable district. The war which resulted League of^ was Louis's third struggle, and has been variously Augsburg styled the War of the League of Augsburg or the War pai°atinate of the Palatinate. In America, where it was to be paralleled by an opening conflict between French and English colonists, it has been known as King William's War.

In his first two wars, Louis XIV could count upon the neu-

248 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

trality, if not the friendly aid, of the English. Their king was dependent upon him for financial support in maintaining an absolutist government. Their influential commercial and trad- ing classes, who still suffered more from Dutch than from French rivalry, displayed no anxiety to mix unduly in the dynastic conflicts on the Continent. Louis had an idea that he could count upon the continuation of the same English policy ; he was certainly on good terms with the English king, James II (1685-1688). But the deciding factor in England and in the war was destined to be not the subservient James II but the

implacable WilUam III. This William III,^ as stad- stadhdder' hoWer of Holland, had long been a stubborn opponent of Holland of Louis XIV on the Continent ; he had repeatedly of' England displayed his ability as a warrior and as a cool, crafty

schemer. Through his marriage with the princess Mary, elder daughter of James II, he now managed adroitly to ingratiate himself with the Protestant, parliamentary, and commercial parties in England that were opposing the Catholic, absolutist, and tyrannical policies of James.

We shall presently see that the English Revolution of 1688, which drove James II into exile, was a decisive step in the es- tablishment of constitutional government in England. It was likewise of supreme importance in its effects upon the foreign policy of Louis XIV, for it called to the English throne the son- in-law of James, Wilham III, the stadholder of Holland and arch enemy of the French king.

England, under the guidance of her new sovereign, promptly joined the League of Augsburg, and declared war against France. „ . . Trade rivalries between Holland and England were in

Beginning , . , .

of a new large part composed, and the colonial empires of the

Hundred ^^q gtates, now United under a joint ruler, naturally

between Came iiito Conflict with the colonial empire of France.

France and xhus, in addition to the difficulties which the Bourbons

England . , . , . .

encountered m promoting their dynastic interests on the continent of Europe, they were henceforth confronted by a vast colonial and commercial struggle with England. It was the beginning of a Flundred Years' War that was to be fought for the mastery of India and America.

^ William III (1650-1702), Dutch stadholder in 1672 and British king in 1689.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 249

Louis XIV never seemed to appreciate the importance of the colonial side of the contest. He was too much engrossed in his ambition of stretching French boundaries to the Rhine. So in discussing the War of the League of Augsburg as well as the subsequent War of the Spanish Succession, we shall devote our attention in this chapter primarily to the European and dynastic elements, reserving the account of the parallel colonial struggle to a later chapter on the "World Conflict of France and Great Britain."

The War of the League of Augsburg, Louis' third war, lasted from 1689 to 1697. Notwithstanding the loss of Turenne and Conde, the splendidly organized French armies were able to hold the allies at bay and to save their country from invasion. They even won several victories on the frontier. But on the sea, the struggle was less successful for Louis, and a French expedition to Ireland in favor of James II proved disastrous. After many years of strife, ruinous to all the combatants, the Grand Monarch sued for peace.

By the treaty of Ryswick, w^hich concluded the War of the League of Augsburg, Louis XIV (i) surrendered nearly all the places adjudged to him by the Chambers of Reunion, ^j^^ Treaty except Strassburg ; (2) allowed the Dutch to garrison of Ryswick, the chief fortresses in the Spanish Netherlands as a ^ ^^ "barrier" against French aggression; (3) granted the Dutch a favorable commercial treaty ; (4) restored Lorraine to its duke; (5) abandoned his claim to the Palatinate; (6) ac- knowledged William III as king of England and promised to support no attempt against his throne. Thus, the French king lost no territory, — in fact, he obtained full recognition of his ownership of the whole province of Alsace, — but his reputation and vanity had been uncomfortably wounded.

THE WAR OF THE SPANISH SUCCESSION

One of the main reasons that prompted Louis XIV to sue for peace and to abandon his claims on Lorraine and the Palatinate was the rapid physical decHne of the inglorious Spanish monarch, Charles II, of whose enormous possessions the French king hoped by diplomacy and intrigue to secure valuable portions.

250 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Spain was still a great power. Under its crown were gathered not only the ancient kingdoms of Castile, Aragon, and Navarre ^jjg in the Spanish peninsula, but the greater part of the

Spanish Belgian Netherlands, and in Italy the kingdom of the Inheritance ^^^ SiciMes, the duchy of Milan, and the control of Tuscany, as well as the huge colonial empire in America and the Philippines. At the time when kings were absolute rulers and reckoned their territories as personal possessions, much de- pended upon the royal succession.

Now it happened that the Spanish Habsburgs were dying out in the male line. Charles II was himself without children Tjjg or brothers. Of his sisters, the elder was the wife of

Spanish Louis XIV and the younger was married to the uccession Ej-Qpgj-Qr Leopold, the heir of the Austrian Habsburgs. Louis XIV had renounced by the peace of the Pyrenees (1659) all claims to the Spanish throne on condition that a large dowry be paid him, but the impoverished state of the Spanish ex- chequer had prevented the payment of the dowry. Louis, therefore, might lay claim to the whole inheritance of Charles II and entertain the hope of seeing the Bourbons supplant the Habsburgs in some of the fairest lands of Christendom. In opposition to the French contention, the emperor was prop- erly moved by family pride to put forth the claim of his wife and that of himself as the nearest male relative of the Spanish king. If the contention of Leopold were sustained, a single Habsburg ruler might once more unite an empire as vast as that which the Emperor Charles V had once ruled. On the other side, if the ambition of Louis XIV were realized, a new and formidable Bourbon empire would be erected. In either case the European "balance of power" would be destroyed.

Bound up with the poHtical problem in Europe were grave commercial and colonial questions. According to the mer- cantilist theories that flourished throughout the seven- an™"^"^" teenth and eighteenth centuries, every country which Colonial posscssed colonies should reserve trade privileges with tions^''^^ them exclusively to its own citizens. So long as France and Spain were separate and each was only moderately powerful, their commercial rivals, notably England and Holland, might hope to gain special trade-concessions from

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 251

time to time in French or Spanish colonies. But once the colo- nial empires of France and Spain were united under a joint ruler, such a vast monopoly would be created as would effectually pre- vent the expansion of Enghsh or Dutch commerce while it heightened the economic prosperity of the Bourbon subjects.

It was natural, therefore, that William III, as stadholder of Holland and king of England, should hold the balance of power between the Austrian Habsburgs and the French Bour-* .

n T I , ' • 1 1 • r Attempts to

bons. Both the claimants appreciated this fact and partition understood that neither would be allowed peacefully *^f Spanish

. . , . , . T Innentance

to appropriate the entire Spanish inheritance. In fact, several ''partition treaties" were patched up between Louis and WilHam III, with a view to maintaining the balance of power and preventing either France or Austria from unduly increasing its power. But flaws were repeatedly found in the treaties, and, as time went on, the problem grew more vexatious. After the conclusion of the peace of Ryswick, Louis XIV was absorbed in the game of di\dding the property of the dying Spanish king. One of the very greatest triumphs of Louis' diplomatic art was the way in which he ingratiated himself in Spanish favor. It must be remembered that it was Spain which the Grand Monarch had attacked and despoiled in his earlier wars of aggrandizement, and neither the Spanish court nor the Spanish people could have many patriotic motives for loving him. Yet such was his tact and his finesse that within three years after the treaty of Ryswick he had secured the respect of the feeble Charles II and the gratitude of the Spanish people.

A month before his pitiful death (1700), Charles II, the last of the Spanish Habsburgs, summoned all his strength and dictated a will that awarded his whole inheritance -^^ ^f to Philip of Anjou, the grandson of Louis XIV, with Charles 11 the resolute proviso that under no circumstances pavor^ofthe should the Spanish possessions be dismembered. French When the news reached Versailles, the Grand Mon- ^°^*'°^^ arch hesitated. He knew that acceptance meant war at least with Austria, probably with England. Perhaps he thought of the wretched condition into which his other wars had plunged his people.

252 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Hesitation was but an interlude. Ambition triumphed over

fear, and the glory of the royal family over the welfare of France.

In the great hall of mirrors at Versailles, the Grand Acceptance

of the Monarch heralded his grandson as Philip V, the first

T^^^-^XTv Bourbon king of Spain. And when Philip left for Madrid, his now aged grandfather kissed him, and the Spanish ambassador exultantly declared that "the Pyrenees no longer exist."

Anticipating the inevitable outbreak of hostihties, Louis pro- ceeded to violate the treaty of Ryswick by seizing the "barrier" fortresses from the Dutch and by recognizing the son of James II as king of England. He then made hasty alHances with Bavaria and Savoy, and called out the combined armies of France and Spain.

Meanwhile, William III and the Emperor Leopold formed the Grand Alliance, to which at first England, Holland, Austria, ^, ^ . and the German electors of Brandenburg-Prussia,

The Grand . °

AiUance Hanover, and the Palatinate adhered. Subsequently, against the Portugal, by means of a favorable commercial treaty

Bourbons • i i • • • •

With England,^ was induced to join the alliance, and the duke of Savoy abandoned France in favor of Austria with the understanding that his country should be recognized as a kingdom. The alhes demanded that the Spanish crown should pass to the Archduke Charles, the grandson of the emperor, that Spanish trade monopolies should be broken, and that the power of the French king should be curtailed.

The War of the Spanish Succession — the fourth and final war of Louis XIV — lasted from 1702 to 17 13. Although ^, „, William III died at its very commencement, he was

The vv 3.r

of the certain that it would be vigorously pushed by the

Spanish English government of his sister-in-law, Queen Anne (1702-17 14). The bitter struggle on the high seas and in the colonies, where it was known as Queen Anne's War, will be treated in another place." The military campaigns in Europe were on a larger scale than had hitherto been known. Fighting was carried on in the Netherlands, in the southern Germanics, in Italy, and in Spain.

The tide of war turned steadily for several years against the Bourbons. The allies possessed the ablest generals of the time

^ The "Methuen Treaty" (1703). 2 g^e below, p. 308.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 253

in the duke of Marlborough (1650-1722), the conscientious self-possessed English commander, and in the skillful and daring Prince Eugene of Savoy (i 663-1 736). The great battle of Blenheim (1704) drove the French from the Holy Roman Em- pire, and the capture of Gibraltar (1704) gave England a foot- hold in Spain and a naval base for the Mediterranean. Prince Eugene crowded the French out of Italy (1706); and by the victories of RamilKes (1706), Oudenarde (1708), and Malplaquet (1709), Marlborough cleared the Netherlands. On land and sea one reverse followed another. The allies at length were advanc- ing on French soil. It appeared inevitable that they would settle peace at Paris on their own terms.

Then it was that Louis XIV displayed an energy and devotion worthy of a better cause. He appealed straight to the patriotism of his people. He set an example of untiring appHcation to toil. Nor was he disappointed in his expectations. New recruits hurried to the front ; rich and poor poured in their contribu- tions ; a supreme effort was made to stay the advancing enemy.

The fact that Louis XIV was not worse punished was due to this remarkable uprising of the French and Spanish nations and likewise to dissensions among the allies. A change of ministry in England led to the disgrace and retirement of the duke of Marlborough and made that country lukewarm in prosecuting the war. Then, too, the unexpected accession of the Archduke Charles to the imperial and Austrian thrones (171 1) now rendered the claims of the allies' candidate for the Spanish throne as menacing to the European balance of power as would be the recognition of the French claimant, Philip of Bourbon.

These circumstances made possible the conclusion of the peace of Utrecht, with the following major provisions :

(i) Philip V, grandson of Louis XIV, was acknowledged king of Spain and the Indies, on condition that the crowns of France and Spain should never be united. (2) The Austrian Habsburgs were indemnified by securing peace Naples, Sardinia,^ Milan, and the Belgian Nether- of Utrecht, lands. The last-named, which had been called the Spanish Netherlands since the days of Philip II, were hence- forth for a century styled the Austrian Netherlands.

^ By the treaty of London (1720), Austria exchanged Sardinia for Sicily.

254 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

(3) England received the lion's share of the spoils. She ob- tained Newfoundland, Acadia (Nova Scotia), and Hudson Bay from France, and Gibraltar and Minorca from Spain. She also secured a preferential tariff for her imports into the great port of Cadiz, the monopoly of the slave trade, and the right of send- ing one ship of merchandise a year to the Spanish colonies. France promised not to assist the Stuarts in their attempts to regain the English throne.

(4) The Dutch recovered the "barrier" fortresses and for garrisoning them were promised financial aid by Austria. The Dutch were also allowed to estabhsh a trade monopoly on the River Scheldt.

(5) The elector of Brandenburg was acknowledged king of Prussia, an important step in the fortunes of the HohenzoUern family which at the present time reigns in Germany.

(6) The duchy of Savoy was recognized similarly as a kingdom and was given the island of Sicily.^ From the house of Savoy has descended the reigning sovereign of present-day Italy.

The peace of Utrecht marked the cessation of a long conflict between Spanish Habsburgs and French Bourbons. For nearly „. .„ a century thereafter both France and Spain pursued

Significance . ., / . t • r i . ^

of the Similar foreign pohcies for the common mterests of

Settlement ^}^g Bourbon family. Bourbon sovereigns have con-

of Utrecht , ,.,.. . ..„.

tinned, with few mterruptions, to reign m Spam to the present moment.

The Habsburg influence, however, remained paramount in Austria, in the Holy Roman Empire, in Italy, and in the Belgian Netherlands. It was against this predominance that the Bour- bons were to direct their dynastic policies throughout the greater part of the eighteenth century.

The peace of Utrecht likewise marked the rise of English power upon the seas and the gradual elimination of France as a successful competitor in the race for colonial mastery. Two states also came into prominence upon the continent of Europe — Prussia and Savoy — about which the new German Empire and the unified Italian Kingdom were respectively to be builded.

'The title of king was recognized by the emperor only in 1720, when Savoy exchanged Sicily for Sardinia. Henceforth the kingdom of Savoy was usually referred to as the kingdom of Sardinia.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 255

While France was shorn of none of her European conquests, nevertheless the War of the Spanish Succession was exceedingly disastrous for that country. In its wake came famine , ^ „ and pestilence, excessive imposts and taxes, official of the debasement of the currency, and bankruptcy — a 95^"^ ,.

'. ,. , T • -»7-Txr Monarch

long line ot social and economic disorders. Louis XIV survived the treaty of Utrecht but two years, and to such depths had his prestige and glory fallen among his own people, that his corpse, as it passed along the royal road to the stately tombs of the French kings at St. Denis, "was saluted by the curses of a noisy crowd sitting in the wine-rooms, celebrating his death by drinking more than their fill as a compensation for having suffered too much from hunger during his lifetime. Such was the coarse but true epitaph which popular opinion accorded to the Grand Monarch."

Nor had the immediate future much better things in store for exhausted France. The successor upon the absolutist throne was Louis XV, great-grandson of Louis XIV Misgovem- and a boy of five years of age, who did not under- ment of take to exercise personal power until near the middle during of the eighteenth century. In the meantime the Minority of country was governed for about eight years by the °"^^ king's uncle, the duke of Orleans, and then for twenty years by Cardinal Fleury.

Orleans loved pleasure and gave himself to a Hfe of debauchery ; he cared little for the boy-king, whose education and training he grievously neglected. His foreign policy was weak and vacillating, and his several efforts to reform abuses in the political and economic institutions of Louis XIV invariably ended in failure. It was while experimenting with the disorganized finances that he was duped by a Scotch adven- turer and promoter, a certain John Law (1671-1729). Law had an idea that a gigantic corporation might be formed for French colonial trade, ^ shares might be widely sold throughout the country, and the proceeds therefrom utilized to wipe out the public debt. Orleans accepted the scheme and for a while the country went mad with the fever of speculation. In due time, however, the stock was discovered to be worthless, the bubble

^ Law's corporation was actually important in the development of Louisiana.

256 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

burst, and a terrible panic ensued. The net result was in- creased misery for the nation.

The little sense which Orleans possessed was sufficient to keep him out of foreign war/ but even that was lacking to his successor, Cardinal Fleury. Fleury was dragged into the"wa/" a war (i 733-1 738) with Austria and Russia over the of the election of a Polish king. The alhes supported the

EkcUon elector of Saxony ; France supported a Pole, the father-in-law of Louis XV, Stanislaus Leszczinski. France was defeated and Louis XV had to content himself with securing the duchy of Lorraine for his father-in-law. Thus, family ambition merely added to the economic distress of the French people.

It was during the War of the Polish Election, however, that the Bourbon king of Spain, perceiving his rivals engaged else- where, seized the kingdom of the Two Sicilies from Austria and put a member of his own family on its throne. Thus, in the eighteenth century, the Bourbons dominated France, Spain, and southern Italy.

' France was at peace throughout his regency, except for a brief time (1719- 1 720) when Orleans joined the British government in preventing his Spanish cousin, Philip V, from upsetting the treaty of Utrecht.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY

257

258

HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

THE BOURBON FAMILY, 1589-1915 KINGS OF FR.\NCE, SPAIN, AND NAPLES

Louis XIV, of France

(1643-1715)

I

Louis (dauphin),

d. 1711

Louis, Duke of Burgundy, d. 171

Henry IV, of France

(1589-1610)

I

Louis XIII, of France

(1610-1643)

I

Philip V, of Spain (1700-1746)

Philip, Duke of Orleans, d. 1701

Philip, Duke of

Orleans,

Regent of

France, d. 1723

I Louis, Duke of Orleans, d. 1752

Louis XV, of France

(171S-1774)

Ferdinand VI,

of Spain

(1746-1759)

Charles III,

of Naples (i73S-i759).

of Spain (1759-1788)

Louis (dauphin), Charles IV, Ferdinand I

d. 1765 of Spain of Naples

I (1788-1808) (1759-1825)

I \ I I i I

Louis XVI, Louis XVIII, Charles X, Ferdinand VII, Charles, Francis I,

of France of France of France of Spain Pretender of Naples

(1774-1793) (1814-1824) (1S24-1830)

Louis XVII,

of France,

never reigned,

d. 1795

(180S-1833) (Don Carlos), (1825-1830) d. 1855

Charles, Isabella II Duke of of Spain

Berry, (1833-1868; murdered 1820 i

Henrj', Alphonso XII, Duke of of Spain

Bordeaux and (1874-1885)

Charles, John, Pretender, d. 1861

Louis Philippe,

Duke of Orleans,

d. 1785

Philip, Duke of

Orleans

(Egalite), d. 1793

Louis Philippe, of France (1830-1848)

Ferdinand II, of Naples (1830-1859)

Ferdinand,

Duke of

Orleans, d. 18

Count of Chambord, d.

Charles, Fr.\ncis II, Pretender of Naples, (Don Carlos), deposed d. 1909

i860, d. 1894

Alphonso XIII, Jaime,

King of Spain Pretender to the (1886- ) throne of Spain, b. 1870

Louis Philippe,

Count of Paris,

d. 1894

Louis Philippe,

Bourbon-

Orleanist

Pretender to

throne of France

191S

ADDITIONAL READING

General. Brief accounts: J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard, The De- velopment of Modern Europe, Vol. I (1907), ch. i-iii ; H. O. Wakeman, The Ascendancy of France, i^g8~iyi^ (1894), ch. ix-xi, xiv, xv ; A. H. Johnson, The Age of the Enlightened Despot, iddo-iySg (1910), ch i-iii, vi; J. H. Sacret, Bourbon and Vasa, 1610-1715 (1914), ch. viii-xii ; Arthur Hassall, Louis XIV and the Zenith of the French Monarchy (1897) in the " Heroes of the Nations " Series ; H. T. Dyer, A History of Modern Europe from the Fall of Constantinople, 3d ed. rev. by Arthur Hassall (1901), ch.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 259

xxxvii, xxxix-xl, xlii-xliv ; A. J. Grant, The French Monarchy, i4Sj-iy89, Vol. II (iQoo), ch. x-xvi; G. W. Kitchin, .1 History of France, Vol. Ill (iSgg), Books \' and \'I, ch. i, ii; Victor Duruy, History of Modern Times, trans, and rev. by E. A. Grosvenor (1S94), ch. xxi-xxiii. More detailed treatments: Cambridge Modern History, Vol. \' (1Q08), ch. i-iii, vii-ix, xiii, xiv, Vol. \'I (1909), ch. iv-vi ; Histoire generate, Vol. VI, ch. iii-v, vii-ix, xii-xvi, xx, Vol. VII, ch. i-iii; Histoire de France, ed. by Ernest Lavisse, Vols. VII and Mil (1906-1909) ; History of All Nations, Vol. XIII, The Age of Louis XIV, by Martin Philippson.

Domestic Affairs of France. Gecile Ilugon, Social France in the Seven- teenth Century (191 1), popular, suggestive, and well-illustrated. On Col- bert : A. J. Sargent, Economic Policy of Colbert (1899) ; S. L. Minis, Colbert's West India Policy (191 2); Emile Levasseur, Histoire des classes onvrieres et de Vindiistrie en France avant 1789, Vol. II (1901), Book VI; Pierre Clement (editor), Lettres, Instructions ct Memoir es de Colbert, 7 vols, in 9 (1861-1873). H. M. Baird, The Huguenots and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, 2 vols. (1895), a detailed study by a warm partisan of the French Protestants. Among the numerous important sources for the reign of Louis XIV should be mentioned especially F. A. Isambert (editor), Recueil general des anciennes lois, \'ols. X\'III-XX, containing significant statutes of the reign; G. B. Dcpping (editor), Correspondance administrative sous Ic regne de Louis XIV, 4 vols. (1850-1855), for the system of government ; Arthur de Boislisle (editor), Corrcspondatice des contrdlcurs generaux, 2 vols., for the fiscal system. Voltaire's brilliant- ^^c of Louis the Fourteenth has been translated into English ; an authoritative history of French literature in the Age of Louis XIV is Louis Petit de Julleville (editor), Histoire de la langue et de la litterature franqaise, \'ol. V (1898). The best account of the minority of Louis XV is that of J. B. Perkins, France under the Regency (1892) ; a brief summary is Arthur Hassall, The Balance of Power, 1715- 1789 (1896), ch. i-iv.

Foreign Wars of Louis XIV. On Louis XIV's relations with the Dutch : P. J. Blok, History of the People of the Netherlands, Part IV, Frederick Henry, John DeWitt, William III, abridged Eng. trans, by O. A. Bier- stadt (1907). On his relations with the empire: Ruth Putnam, Alsace and Lorraine from Ccesar to Kaiser, 58 B.C.~i87i A.D. (1914), a popular narrative ; Franz Krones, Handbuch der Geschichte Oesterreichs, Vol. Ill, Book XVI, Vol. IV, Book XVII (1878), a standard German work. On his relations with Spain : M. A. S. Hume, Spain, its Greatness and Decay, 1479-1788 (1898), ch. ix-xiii. On Louis XIV's relations with England: Osmund Airy, The English Restoration and Louis XIV (1895), in the "Epochs of Modern History" Series; Sir J. R. Seeley, The Growth of British Policy, 2 vols. (1895), especially Vol. II, Parts IV and V; Earl Stanhope, History of England, Comprising the Reign of Queen Anne until the Peace of Utrecht (1870), a rather dry account of the War of the Spanish Succession ; G. J. (Viscount) Wolseley, Life of John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, to the Accession of Queen Anne, 4th ed., 2 vols. (1894), an

26o HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

apology for Marlborough; J. S. Corbett, England in the Mediterranean, 1603-1713, Vol. II (1904), for English naval operations; J. W. Gerard, The Peace of Utrecht (1885). On the diplomacy of the whole period: D. T. Hill, History of Diplomacy in the International Development of Europe, Vol. Ill (1914), ch. i-iv, a clear outhne ; Eniile Bourgeois, Manuel his- torique de politique etrangcre, 4th ed.. Vol. I (1906), ch. iii, iv, vii, ix, xiv; Arsene Legrelle, La diplomatie franqaise et la succession d'Espagne, i65g-i725, 4 vols. (1888-1892), a minute study of an important phase of Louis XIV's diplomacy ; the text of the principal diplomatic documents is in course of publication at Paris (20 vols., 1884-1913) as the Recueil des instructions donnees aux amhassadeurs et ministres de France depuis Ics traites de Westphalie jusqu'a la revolution franqaise.

Memoirs of the Age of Louis XIV. Among the multitudinous memoirs of the period, the most signiiacant, from the standpoint of the general his- torian, are : Marquise de Sevigne, Lctlrcs, delightful epistles relating mainly to the years 1670-1696, edited in fullest form for " Les grands ecrivains de la France " by Monmerc[ue, 14 vols. (1862-1868), selections of which have been translated into English by C. Syms (1898) ; Due de Saint-Simon, Memoir es, the most celebrated of memoirs, dealing with many events of the years 1692-1723, gossipy and racily written but oc- casionally inaccurate and frequently partisan, edited many times — most recently and best for " Les grands ecrivains de la France " by Arthur de Boislisle, 30 vols. (1879-1916), of which a much-abridged translation has been published in English, 4 vols. ; Marquis de Dangeau, Journal, 19 vols. (1854-1882), written day by day, throughout the years 1684-1720, by a conscientious and well-informed member of the royal entourage ; Life and Letters of Charlotte Elizabeth (1889), select letters, trans, into English, of a German princess who married Louis XIV's brother, of which the most complete French edition is that of Jaegle, 3 vols. (1890). See also Comtesse de Puliga, Madame de Sevigne, her Correspondents and Contemporaries, 2 vols. (1873), and, for important collections of miscellaneous memoirs of the period, J. F. Michaud and J. J. F. Poujoulat, Nouvelle collection des memoires rclatifs a Vhistoire de France depuis le 13^ siecle jusqu'd la fin du 18^ siecle, 34 vols. (1854), and Louis Lafaist and L. F. Danjou, Archives curieuses de Vhistoire de France, 27 vols. (1834-1840).

CHAPTER VIII

THE TRIUMPH OF PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND

CONFLICTING POLITICAL TENDENCIES IN ENGLAND: ABSOLUTISM VERSUS PARLIAMENTARIANISM

Through all the wars of dynastic rivalry which have been traced in the two preceding chapters, we have noticed the in- creasing prestige of the powerful French monarchy, culminating in the reign of Louis XIV. We now turn to a nation which played but a minor role in the international rivalries of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Later, from 1689 to 1763, England was to engage in a tremendous colonial struggle with France. But from 1560 to 1689 England for the most part held herself aloof from the continental rivalries of Bourbons and Habsburgs, and never fought in earnest except against Philip II of Spain, who threatened England's economic and pohtical independence, and against the Dutch, who were Eng- land's commercial rivals. While the continental states were engaged in dynastic quarrels, England was absorbed in a con- flict between rival principles of domestic government — between constitutional parliamentary government and unlimited royal power. To the triumph of the parliamentary principle in England we owe many of our modern ideas and practices of constitutional government.

Absolutism had reached its high-water mark in England long before the power and prestige of the French monarchy had culminated in the person of Louis XIV. In the ., , .

. , 1 , • 1 • 1 1 Absolutism

Sixteenth century — the very century m which the of the

FrenclT'sovereigns faced constant foreign war and ^"i^°^^; chronic civil commotion — the^Tudor rujjers. of Eng- land were gradually freeing themselves from reliance upon. Parliament and were commanding the united support of the

" M— — - - 261

262 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

English nation. \| From the accession of Henry VII in 1485 to the death of his grand-daughter EHzabeth in 1603, the practice of absolutism, though not the theory of divine-right monarchy, seemed ever to be gaining ground./

How Tudor despotism was established and maintained is ex- plained in part by reference to the personality of Henry VII and to the circumstances that brought him to the throne.^ It is also explicable by reference to historical developments in England throughout the sixteenth century."/ As Henry VII humbled the nobility, so Henry VIII and Elizabeth subor- dinated the Church to the crown. And all the Tudors asserted their supremacy in the sphere of industry and commerce. By a law of 1503, the craft gilds had been obliged to obtain the ap- proval of royal officers for whatever new ordinances the gilds might wish to make. In the first year of the reign of Edward VI the gilds were crippled by the loss of part of their property, which was confiscated under the pretext of religious reform. Eliza- beth's reign was notable for laws regulating apprenticeship, prescribing the terms of employment of laborers, providing that wages should be fixed by justices of the peace, and ordering vagabonds to be set to work. In the case of commerce, the royal power was exerted encouragingly, as when Henry VII negotiated the Intercursus Magnus with the duke of Burgundy to gain admittance for EngHsh goods into the Netherlands, or chartered the "Merchant Adventurers" to carry on trade in English woolen cloth, or sent John Cabot to seek an Atlantic route to Asia ; or as when Elizabeth countenanced and abetted explorers and privateers and smugglers and slave-traders in extending her country's maritime power at the expense of Spain. All this meant that the strong hand of the English monarch had been laid upon commerce and industry as well as upon justice, finance, and rehgion.

'{The power of the Tudors had rested largely upon their popu- larity with the growing influential middle class. They had subdued sedition, had repelled the Armada, had fostered pros-

^ For the character and main achievements of Henry VII (1485-1509), see above, pp. 4 ff.

^ For the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth, see above, pp. 86, 97 ff., 150 ff.

DYNASTIC AND COLOxXIAL RIVALRY 263

perity, and had been willing at times to cater to the whims of their subjects. They had faithfully personified national patriotism ; and the English nation, in turn, had extolled them.} ( Yet despite this absolutist tradition of more than a century's duration, England was destined in the seventeenth century to witness a long bitter struggle between royal and parhamentary factions, the beheading of one king and the exiling of another, and in the end the irrevocable rejection of the theory and prac- tice of absolutist divine-right monarchy, and this at the very time when Louis XIV was holding majestic court at Versailles and all the lesser princes on the Continent were zealously pat- terning their proud words and boastful deeds after the model of the Grand jNIonarch. In that day a mere parliament was to become dominant in England.,'

/ The death of EHzabeth, the last of the Tudors, and the ac- cession (1603) of her cousin James, the first of the Stuarts, marked the real beginning of the struggle. W^hen he was but a year old, this James had acquired through oMhr^°° the deposition of Kis unfortunate mother, Mary Stuart, Stuarts : the crown of Scotland (1567), and had been proclaimed 1603^1625 James VI in that disorderly and distracted country. The boy who was whipped by his tutor and kidnapped by his barons and browbeaten by Presbyterian divines learned to rule Scotland with a rod of iron and incidentally acquired such as- tonishing erudition, especially in theology, that the clever King Henry IV of France called him " the wisest fool in Christendom." At the age of thirty-seven, this Scotchman succeeded to the throne of England as James I. "He was indeed," says Macaulay, "made up of two men — a witty, well-read scholar who wrote, dis- puted, and harangued, and a nervous, driveling idiot who acted." James was not content, like his Tudor predecessors, merely to be an absolute ruler in practice; he insisted also upon the theory of divine-right monarchy. Such a theory was carefully worked out by the pedantic Stuart king Theorfor eighty years before Bishop Bossuet wrote his classic Absolutist treatise__on divine-right monarchy for the guidance Molmchy^^ of the young son of Louis XIV. To James it seemed quite clear that God had di\dnely ordained kings to rule, for had not Saul been anointed by Jehovah's prophet, had

264 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

not Peter and Paul urged Christians to obey their masters, and had not Christ Himseh said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Csesar's"? As the father corrects his children, so should the king correct his subjects. As the head directs the hands and feet, so must the king control the members of the body politic. Royal power was thus the most natural and the most effective instrument for suppressing anarchy and rebellion. \ James I summarized his idea of government in the famous Latin epigram, "a dco rex, -n rcgc lex,'' — "the king is from God, and law from the king.")

It has been remarked already ^ that in one important respect the past governmental evolution of England differed from that Stuart °^ France. While both countries in the sixteenth

Theory century followed absolutist tendencies, in France

Medievai^° the medieval tradition of constitutional Umitations English upon the power of the king was far weaker than in Tradition England, with the result that in the seventeenth century the French accepted and consecrated absolutism while the English gave new force and life to their medieval tradition and practice of constitutional government. / The tradition of English restrictions upon royal power cen- tered in the old document of Magna Carta and in an ancient Restrictions institution called Parliament. Magna Carta dated on Royal back, almost four centuries before King James, to England^- ^^"^ y^^^ ^^^5 when King John had been compelled Magna by liis rebellious barons to sign a long list of promises ;

Carta ^j^^^ ^i^^ ^^s the "long charter" or Magna Carta,^

and it was important in three respects, (i) It served as a constant reminder that "the people" of England had once risen in arms to defend their "rights" against a despotic king, although as a matter of fact Magna Carta was more concerned with the rights of the feudal nobles (the barons) and of the clergy than with the rights of the common people. (2) Its most important provisions, by which the king could not levy extraordinary taxes on the nobles without the consent of the Great Council, furnished something of a basis for the idea of self-taxation. (3) Clauses such as "To no man will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice," although never effectively en-

^ Sec above, pp. 4-7. - Magna Carta was many times reissued after 1215.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RUALRV 265

forced, established the idea thai justice should not be sold, denied, or delayed, j

Parliament' was a more or less representative assembly of clergy, nobility, and commoners, claiming to have powers of taxation and legislation. The beginnings of Parlia- p^^jj^^j^gj^^ ment are traced back centuries before James I. There had l^een an advisory body of prelates and lords even before the Norman conquest (1066). After the conquest a somewhat similar assembly of the king's chief feudal vassals

— lay and ecclesiastical — had been called the Great Council, and its right to resist unjust taxation had been recognized by Magna Carta. Henceforth it had steadily acquired power. The ''Provisions of Oxford" (1258) had provided, in addition, for "twelve honest men" to represent the "commonalty" and to "treat of the wants of the king; and the commonalty shall hold as estabhshed that which these men shall do."

For the beginnings of the House of Commons we may go back to the thirteerith century. In 1254 the king summoned to Parliament not only the bishops, abbots, earls, and barons, but also two knights from every shire. Then, in an irregular Parliament, convened in 1265 by Simon de Montfort, a great baronial leader against the king, two burgesses from each of twenty-one towns for the first time sat with the others and helped to decide how their liberties were to be protected. These knights and burgesses were the elements from which the House of Commons was subsequently to be formed. Similar bodies met repeatedly in the next thirty years, and in 1295 Edward I called a "model Parliament" of archbishops, bishops, abbots, representative clergy, earls, and barons, two knights from every shire, and two citizens from each privileged city or borough,

— more than four hundred in all. For some time after 1295 the clergy, nobility, and commoners ^ may have deliberated sep- arately much as did the three "estates" in France. At any rate, early in the fourteenth century the lesser clergy dropped out, the greater prelates and nobles were Lords and fused into one body — the House of "Lords spiritual House of and temporal," — and the knights joined the burgesses

to form the House of Commons. Parliament was henceforth a

^ I.e., the knights of the shires and the burgesses from the towns.

266 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

bicameral body, consisting of a House of Commons and a House of Lords.

The primary function of Parliament was to give information to the king and to hear and grant his requests for new ''sub- Powers of sidies" or direct taxes. The right to refuse grants Parliament: was gradually assumed and legally recognized. As axation ^^^q taxes on the middle class soon exceeded those on the clergy and nobility, it became customary in the fifteenth century for money bills to be introduced in the Commons, approved by the Lords, and signed by the king.

The right to make laws had always been a royal prerogative, in theory at least. Parliament, however, soon utilized its . financial control in order to obtain initiative in legisla- tion. A threat of withholding subsidies had been an effective way of forcing Henry III to confirm Magna Carta in 1225 ; it proved no less effective in securing royal enactment of later ''petitions" for laws. In the fifteenth century legislation by "petition" was supplanted by legislation by "bill," that is, introducing in either House of Parhament measures which, in form and language, were complete statutes and which became such by the united assent of Commons, Lords, and king. To this day English laws have continued to be made formally "by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the ad- vice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the

C.thority of the same." The right to demand an account of expenditures, to cause e removal of royal officers, to request the king to abandon Influence unpopular policies, or otherwise to control adminis- on Adminis- trative affairs, had occasionally been asserted by ra ion Parliament, but not consistently maintained.

From what has been said, it will now be clear that the fulcrum of parliamentary power was control of finance. What had Parliament enabled the Tudors to incline toward absolutism was under the the fact that for more than a hundred years they had " °^^ made themselves fairly independent of Parliament in

matters of finance ; and this they had done by means of economy, by careful collection of taxes, by irregular expedients, by con- fiscation of religious property, and by tampering with the cur-

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 267

rency. Parliament still met, however, but irregularly, and during Elizabeth's reign it was in session on the average only three or four weeks of the year. Parliament still transacted business, bur rarely differed with the monarch on matters of importance^ / At the end of the Tudor period, then, we have an ancient \ tradition of constitutional, parliamentary government on the one hand, and a strong, practical, royal power on the james i other. The conflict between Parliament and king, and Par- which had been avoided by the tactful Tudors, soon ^^^^^ began in earnest when James I ascended the throne in 1603, with his exaggerated notion of his own authority. James I w^as an extravagant monarch, and needed parHamentary sub- sidies, yet his own pedantic principles prevented him from humoring Parliament in any dream of power. The inevitable result was a conflict for political supremacy between Parliament and king. When Parliament refused him money, James re- sorted to the imposition of customs duties, grants of monopolies, saleToFpeerages, and the soHcitation of "benevolences" (forced loans). Parliament promptly protested against such practices, as well as against his foreign and religious policies and against his absolute control of the appointment and operation of the judiciary. Parliament's protests only increased the wrath of the king. The noisiest parliamentarians were imprisoned or sent home with royal scoldings. In 162 1 the Commoners entered in their journal a "Great Protestation" against the king's inter- ference with their free right to discuss the affairs of the realm. This so angered the king that he tore the Protestation out of the journal and presently dissolved the intractable Parliament ; but the quarrel continued, and James's l^st Parliament had the audacity to impeach his lord treasurer^^ The political dispute was made more bitter by the co-existence f a religious conflict. James, educated as a devout Anglican, was naturally inclined to continue to uphold the com- political promise by which the Tudors had severed the English Dispute Church from the Roman Catholic hierarchy, 3'et had crtTdby retained many forms of the Catholic Church and the Religious episcopal organization by means of which the sovereign ' erence was able to control the Church. During Elizabeth's reign,

268 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

however, a large part of the middle class — the townsmen Caivinists especially — and many of the lower clergy had come in England under the influence of Calvinistic teaching.^ The movement was marked (i) by a virulent hatred for even the most trivial forms reminiscent of "popery," as the Roman The Catholic religion was called; and (2) by. a tendency

"Puritans" ^q place emphasis upon the spirit of the Old Testament as well as upon the precepts of the New. Along with austerity of manner, speech, dress, and fast-day observance, they revived much of the mercilessness with which the Israelites had con- quered Canaan. The same men who held it a deadly sin to dance round a may-pole or to hang out holly on Christmas were later to experience a fierce and exalted pleasure in conquer- ing New England from the heathen Indians. They knew neither self-indulgence nor compassion. Little wonder that Elizabeth feared men of such mold and used the episcopal ad- ministration of the Anglican Church to restrain them. Many of these so-called Puritans remained members of the Anghcan Church and sought to reform it from within. But restraint only caused the more radical to condemn altogether the fabric of bishops and archbishops, and to advocate a presbyterian church. Others went still further and wished to separate from the Established Anglican Church into independent rehgious groups, and were therefore called Independents or Separatists.

These rehgious radicals, often grouped together as "Puritans," were continually working against Elizabeth's strict enforce- ment of Anglican orthodoxy. The accession of James was Hostility of seized by them as an occasion for the presentation of a James I to great petition for a modification of church govern- t e untans j^gj^^ ^^.^^ ritual. The petition bore no fruit, however, and in a rehgious debate at Hampton Court in 1604 James made a brusque declaration that bishops like kings were set over the multitude by the hand of God, and, as for these Puritans who would do away with bishops, he would make them con- form or "harry them out of the land." From this time forth he insisted on conformity, and deprived many clergymen of their offices for refusing to subscribe to the regulations framed in 1604.

^ On the ductrines of Calvinism, sec above, pp. 139 ff., 156, 164 S.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 269

The hard rule of this iiiouareh wlio claimed to govern by the will of God was rendered even more abhorrent to the stern Puritan moralists by reports of "drunken orgies" and ^^^ ^ horrible vices which made the royal court appear to be of the a veritable den of Satan. But worst of all was his fu^tans

,, r ^ T\ ' ^^^ James I

suspected leanmg towards popery. The Puritans had a passionate hatred for anything that even remotely sug- gested Roman Catholicism. Consequently it was not with extreme pleasure that they welcomed a king whose mother had been a Catholic, whose wife was suspected of harboring a priest, a ruler who at times openly exerted himself to obtain greater toleration for Roman Catholics and to maintain the Anglican ritual against Puritan modification. With growing alarm and resentment they learned that Catholic conspirators had plotted to blow up the houses of Parliament, and that in his foreign policy James was decidedly friendly to Catholic princesy

The cardinal points of James's foreign policy, — union with Scotland, peace, and a Spanish alliance, — were all calculated to arouse antagonism. The EngHsh, having for centuries nourished enmity for their northern neighbors and perceiving no apparent advantage in close union, defeated the project of amalgamating the two kingdoms of England and Scotland, James's policy of non-intervention in the Thirty Years' War evoked bitter criticism ; he was accused of favoring the Catholics and of deserting his son-in-law, the Protestant elector of the Palatinate. The most hotly contested point was, however, the Spanish policy. Time and time again, Parliament protested, but James pursued his plans, making peace with Spain, and negotiating for a marriage between his son Charles and the Infanta of Spain, and Prince Charles actually went to Spain to court the daughter of Philip III.

It was essentially the Puritan middle classes who were an- tagonized by the king. The strength of the Puritans ,

1 • 1 • 1 11 1 r 1 1 Intercon-

rested m the middle class of merchants, seamen, and nection of squires. It was this class which had profited by the Puntamsm,

.. , ^ ■; Commer-

war With Spain m the days of good Queen Bess daiism, and when many a Spanish prize, laden with silver and Parhamen- dye woods, had been towed into Plymouth harbor. Their dreams of erecting an English colonial and commercial em-

270 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

pire on the ruins of Spain's were rudely shattered by James. It was to this Puritan middle class that papist and Spaniard were bywords for assassin and enemy. By his Spanish policy, as well as by his irregular methods of taxation, James had touched the Puritans in their pocketbooks. The Puritans, too, were grieved to see so sinful a man sit on the throne of England, and so wasteful a man squander their money. They were even hindered in the exercise of their religious convictions. Every fiber in them rebelled.

Puritans throughout the country looked to the large Puritan majority in the House of Commons to redress their grievances. The parhamentary struggle became then not only a defense of abstract ideals of democracy but also a bitter battle in defense of class interests. Parliamentary traditions were weapons against an oppressive monarch ; religious scruples gave divine sanction to an attack on royalist bishops ; consciousness of being God's elect gave confidence in assailing the aristocracy of land and birth. For the present, the class interests of the Puritans were to be defended best by the constitutional Kmita- tion of royal power, and in their struggle with James's son and successor, Charles I (1625-1649), they represent by chance the forces of democracy.

For a time it appeared as if the second Stuart king would be very popular. Unlike his father, Charles seemed thoroughly Charles I, English ; and his athletic frame, his dignified manners, 1625-1649 anj hig purity of life contrasted most favorably with James's deformities in character and physique. Two years before his father's death Charles had been jilted by his Spanish fiancee and had returned to England amid wild rejoicing to aid Parliament in demanding war with Spain. He had again re- joiced the bulk of the English nation by solemnly assuring Parliament on the occasion of his marriage contract with Hen- rietta Maria, sister of Louis XIII of France, that he would grant no concessions to Roman Catholics in England. As a matter of fact, Charles simultaneously but secretly assured the French government not only that he would allow the queen the free exercise of her rehgion but that he would make general concessions to Roman Catholics in England. This duplicity on the part of the young king, which augured ill for the har-

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 271

mony of future relations between himself and Parliament, throws a flood of light upon his character and policies. Though Charles was sincerely religious and well-intentioned, he was

- ° A True

as devoted to the theory of divine-right monarchy as . stuart in his father liad been: and as to the means which ?^''°*'°" *°

II' Absolutism

he might employ in order to estabhsh absolutism upon a firm foundation he honestly beheved himself responsible oiil\- lo God and to his own conscience, certainly not to Parha- ment. This fact, together with a certain inherent aptitude for shirking the settlement of difficulties, explains in large part the faults wliich historians have usually ascribed to him — his meanness and ingratitude toward his most devoted followers, his chronic obstinacy which only feigned compliance, and his incurable untruthfulness.

Just before Charles came to the throne, ParHament granted subsidies in expectation of a war against Spain, but, when he had used up the war-money without showing any serious in- clination to open hostihties with Spain, and had then demanded additional grants, ParHament gave evidence of its growing dis- trust by limiting a levy of customs duties to one year, instead of granting them as usual for the whole reign. In view of the increasingly obstinate temper manifested by the House of Commons in withholding subsidies and in assaihng his worthless favorite, the Duke of Buckingham, Charles angrily dissolved his first ParHament.

The difficulties of the administration were augmented not only by this arbitrary treatment of Parliament but also by the miser- able failure of an English fleet sent against Cadiz, and by the humiliating result of an attempt to relieve conflict the French Huguenots.^ Meanwhile, a second Parlia- between ment, more intractable even than its predecessor, had p^fjament been dissolved for its insistence on the impeachment of Buckingham. Attempts to raise money by forced loans in place of taxes failed to remove the financial distress into which Charles had fallen, and consequently, in 1628, he consented ^j^^ to summon a third ParHament. In return for grants Petition of of subsidies, he signed the_Peiition of Right (1628), '^ > ^ ^ prepared by the two houses. By it he "promised not to levy

^ See above, p. 214.

272 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

taxes without consent of Parliament, iiot to quarter soldiers in private houses, not to estabhsh martial law in time of peace, not to order arbitrary imprisonment.

Even these concessions were not enough. Parliament again demanded the removal of Buckingham, and only the assassina- tion of the unpopular minister obviated prolonged dispute on that matter. The Commoners next attempted to check the unauthorized collection of customs duties, which produced as much as one-fourth of the total royal revenue, and to prevent the introduction of " popish " innovations in religion, but for this trouble they were sent home.

■'Charles was now so thoroughly disgusted with the members of

Parliament that he determined to rule without them, and for

, „ eleven years (1620-1640) he successfully carried on a

" Personal" ,. -^ ,,,,.. . ,.

Rule of personal as distinct from a parliamentary gov-

Chariesi, ernment, in spite of financial and rehgious diffi- 1629-1040

culties.

Without the consent of Parliament, Charles was bound not to levy direct taxes. During the period of his personal rule, therefore, he was compelled to adopt all sorts of expedients to replenish his treasury. He revived old feudal laws and col- lected fines for their infraction. A sum of one hundred thousand pounds was gained by lines on suburban householders who had disobeyed a proclamation of James I forbidding the extension of London. The courts levied enormous fines merely for the sake of revenue. Monopolies of wine, salt, soap, and other articles were sold to companies for large sums of money ; but the high prices charged by the companies caused much popular discontent.

The most obnoxious of all devices for raising money were the levies of "ship-money." Claiming that it had always been the " Ship- duty of seaboard towns to equip ships for the defense

money " Qf ^-j-^g country, Charles demanded that since they no longer built ships, the towns should contribute money for the maintenance of the navy. In 1634, therefore, each town was ordered to pay a specified amount of "ship-money" into the royal treasury, and the next year the tax was extended to in- land towns and counties.^ To test the legality of this exaction,

^ The first writ of ship-money yielded £100,000 (Cunningham).

■oimAi t CO., [Haii/>. Njr.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 273

a certain John Hampden refused to pay his twenty shillings ship-money, and took the matter to court, claiming that ship-money was illegal taxation. The majority of the judges, who held office during the king's pleasure and were therefore strictly under royal influence, upheld the legality of ship-money and even went so far as to assert that in times of emergency the king's prerogative was unlimited, but the country rang with protests and Hampden was hailed as a hero.

Opposition to financial exactions went hand in hand with bitter religious disputes. Charles had intrusted the control of religious affairs to William Laud, whom he named ^

Devotion of

archbishop of Canterbury, and showed favor to other Charles i clergN'men of marked Catholic leanings. The laws '° *^5

A.ri£lic8.ii

against Roman Catholics were relaxed, and the restric- church : tions on Puritans increased. It seemed as if Charles Archbishop

. Laud

and his bishops were bent wpon goading the Puritans to fury, at the very time when one by one the practices, the vestments, and even the dogmas of the Catholic Church were being reintroduced into the Anglican Church, when the tyran- nical King James was declared to have been divinely Puritan inspired, and when Puritan divines were forced to read Opposition from their pulpits a royal declaration permitting the ''sinful" practices of dancing on the green or shooting at the butts (tar- gets) on the Sabbath.^ So hard was the lot of the extreme Protestants in England that thousands fled the country and established themselves in America.- ^, o . ^

The Scotch

In his Scotch policy Charles overreached himself. Covenant, With the zealous cooperation of Archbishop Laud, he ^?^ Begm-

, , ^ . , , ^ . mngs of

imprudently attempted to strengthen the episcopacy Armed (system of bishops) in the northern kingdom, and 5*^5°^^^° likewise to introduce an un-Calvinistic order of public worship. Thereupon the angry Scotch Presbyterians signed a great Covenant, swearing to defend their religion (1638) ; they

^ It is an interesting if not a significant fact that the Puritans with their austere views about observance of the Sabbath not only decreased the number of holidays for workingmen, but interfered with innocent recreation on the remain- ing day of rest. One aspect of the resulting monotonous life of the laborer was, according to Cunningham, the remarkable increase of drunkenness at this period.

^ In the decade 1630-1640 some 20,000 Englishmen sailed for the colonies. Many of these, however, emigrated by reason of strictly economic distress.

274 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

deposed the bishops set over them by the king and rose in re- volt. Faihng in a first effort to crush the Scotch rebelHon, the king summoned a ParHament in order to secure tion^oTuie financial support for an adequate royal army. This Long Parliament — the so-called Short Parliament — was

1640^™^° ' dissolved, however, after some three weeks of boot- less wrangling. Now unable to check the advance of the rebeUious Scotch forces into northern England, Charles in desperation convoked (1640) a new Parliament, which, by reason of its extended duration (i 640-1 660), has been com- monly called the Long ParHament. In England and Scotland divine-right monarchy had failed.

THE PURITAN REVOLUTION

Confident that Charles could neither fight nor buy off the Scotch without parliamentary subsidies, the Long Parliament Reforms showed a decidedly stubborn spirit. Its leader, of the Long John Pym, a country gentleman already famous for ar amen j^-^ gpecches against despotism, openly maintained that in the House of Commons resided supreme authority to disregard ill-advised acts of the Upper House or of the king. Hardly less radical were the views of John Hampden and of Oliver Cromwell, the future dictator of England.

The right of the Commons to impeach ministers of state, asserted under James I, was now used to send to the Tower both Archbishop Laud and Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, who, since 1629, had been the king's most valued and enthu- siastically loyal minister.^ The special tribunals — the Court of High Commission, the Court of Star Chamber, and others — which had served to convict important ecclesiastical and political offenders were abolished. No more irregular financial ex- pedients, such as the imposition of ship-money, were to be adopted, except by the consent of Parliament. As if this were not enough to put the king under the thumb of his Parliament, the royal prerogative of dissolving that body was abrogated,

^ Strafford was accused of treason, but was executed in 1641 in accordance with a special "bill of attainder" enacted by Parliament. Laud was put to death in 1645-

D\^ASTIC AND COLONIAL RIV.\LRY 275

and^ meetings at least every three years were provided for by a

the contested points of government had been decided adversely to the king. But his position was now somewhat stronger. He had been able to raise money, the Scotch invaders had turned back, and the House of ^i°;[^^°"

. . of Parlia-

Commons had shown itself to be badly divided on the mentary question of church reform and in its debates on the P"viieges:

Attempted

publication of a Grand Remonstrance — a document Seizure by exposing the grievances of the nation and apologizing S^^^p^ °* for the acts of Parliament. Moreover, a rebellion Members had broken out in Ireland and Charles expected to be put at the head of an army for its suppression. With this much in his favor, the king in person entered the House of Commons and attempted to arrest five of its leaders, but his dismal failure only further antagonized the Commons, who now proceeded to pass ordinances without the ^j^^ q^^^^^ royal seal, and to issue a call to arms. The levy of Rebellion, troops contrary to the king's will was an act of re- ^ '*^~^ ^ bellion ; Charles, therefore, raised the royal standard at Notting- ham and called his loyal subjects to suppress the Great Re- bellion (1642-1646).!

To the king's standard rallied the bulk of the nobles, high churchmen, and Roman Catholics, the country "squires," and all those who disliked the austere moral code of the _ „ .

, . . The Parties

Puritans. In opposition to him a few great earls to the

led the middle classes — small land-holders, mer- p^^ ^^^ • „

chants, manufacturers, shop-keepers, especially in and

London and other busy towns throughout the south "^°""!^"

and east of England. The close-cropped heads of

these "God-fearing" tradesmen won them the nickname

"Roundheads," w^hile the royalist upper classes, not thinking

it a sinful vanity to wear their hair in long curls, were called

"Cavahers."

In the Long Parliament there was a predominance of the Presbyterians — that class of Puritans midway between the reforming Episcopalians and the radical Independents. Accord- ingly a "solemn league and covenant" was formed (1643) with the Scotch Presbyterians for the establishment of religious uni-

276 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

formity on a Presbyterian basis in England and Ireland as well as in Scotland. After the defeat of Charles at Marston Moor

(1644) the Presbyterians abolished the ofi&ce of bishop, and the removed altars and communion rails from the churches, Presby- ^^(\ smashed crucifixes, images, and stained-glass

windows. Presbyterianism became a more intolerant state religion than Anglicanism had been. Satisfied with their work, the Presbyterian majority in Parliament were now willing to restore the king, pro^dded he would give permanence to their religious settlement.

The Puritan army, however, was growing restive. Oliver Cromwell, an Independent, had organized a cavalry regiment

of "honest sober Christians" who were fined 12 pence andthe"^ if they swore, who charged in battle while "singing independ- psalms," and who went about the business of kilHng c^omweir^"^ their enemies in a pious and prayerful, but withal a

highly effective, manner. Indeed, so successful were Cromwell's "Ironsides" that a considerable part of the Parlia- mentary army was reorganized on his plan. The "New Model" army, as it was termed, was Independent in sympathy, that is to say, it wished to carry on the war, and to overthrow the tyranny of the Presbyterians as well as that of the Anglicans.

The "New Model" army, under the command of Fairfax and Cromwell, defeated Charles and forced him to surrender in 1646.

For almost two years the Presbyterian Parliament ne-

Cromwell s • i r t • p i 1 •

Army gotiatcd for the restoration of the kmg and at last

Defeats would have made peace with the royalists, had not and Domi- the army, which still remembered Charles's schemes nates Par- |-q bring Irish and foreign "papists" to fight English- men, now taken a hand in affairs. Colonel Pride, stationed with his soldiers at the door of the House of Commons, arrested the 143 Presbyterian Commoners, and left the In- dependents — some sixty strong — to dehberate alone upon the jjjg nation's weal (1648). This "Rump" or sitting part of

" Rump Parliament, acting on its own authority, appointed a ar lament ''f^jgh Court of Justicc" by whose sentence Charles I was beheaded, 30 January, 1649. It then decreed England to be a Commonwealth with neither king nor House of Lords.X

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 277

(rhe executive functions, hitherto exercised by the king, were intrusted to a Council of State, of whose forty-one members thirty were members of the Mouse. The Rump Parlia- ^^^ q^^_ ment, instead of calling for new elections, as had been monweaith, expected, continued to sit as the "representatives of ^ '^^^ the people," although they represented the sentiments of only a small fraction of the people. England was in the hands of an oligarchy whose sole support was the vigorous army of Cromwell. )

Menacing conditions confronted the newly born Common- wealth. War with Scotland and with Holland was imminent; /mutiny and unrest showed that the execution of Charles had infused new life into the royalists; CathoHc-royaHst rebels mastered all of Ireland except DubHn. Under these circum- stances, the Commonwealth would have perished but for three sources of strength : (1) Its financial resources proved adequate : customs duties were collected, excise taxes on drinks and food were lexied, and confiscat^l royahst estates were sold ; (2) its enemies had no well-drillm armies ; and (3) its own army v/as remarkably powerful.

Cromwell, victor in a series of bloody engagements in Ireland, after butchering thousands of the defeated royahsts and shipping others as slaves to Barbados, was able to return to ^

Cromwell London m 1650, declaring, "I am persuaded that this and the

is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous Restoration wretches [the Irish] who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood, and that ij: will tend to prevent the efi'usion of blood for the future." ^The next movement of Cromwell, as Parliamentary commander-in-chief, was against the Scotch, who had declared for Charles II, the son of Charles I. The Scotch armies, were annihilated, and Prince Charles fled in disguise to France. \

Meanwhile the members of the Rump, still the nominal rulers of England, finding opportunity for profit in the sale of royalist lands and in the administration of finance, had exasperated Navigation Cromwell by their maladministration and neglect of the ^'^*' ^^^i public welfare. The life of the Rump was temporarily prolonged, however, by the popularity of its legislation against the Dutch, at this time the rivals of England on the seas and in the col- onies. In 165 1 the Rump passed the first Na\dgation Act, for-

278 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

bidding the importation of goods from Asia, Africa, or America, except in English or colonial ships, and providing that commod- ities of European production should be imported only in vessels of England or of the producing country. The framers of the Navigation Act intended thereby to exclude Dutch vessels from trading between England and other lands. The next year a commercial and naval war (165 2-1 654) broke out between England and Holland, leading to no decisive result, but, on the whole, increasing the prestige of the English navy. With renewed confidence the Rump contemplated perpetuating its narrow oligarchy, but Cromwell's patience was exhausted, and in 1653 he turned Parliament out of doors, declaring, "Your hour is come, the Lord hath done with you!" Cromwell remained as military and religious dictator.

Oliver Cromwell (i 599-1 658) is the most interesting figure in seventeenth-century England. Belonging by birth to the class Oliver of country gentlemen, his first appearance in public

Cromwell jjfg ^q^^ [^ ^}^g Parliament of 1628 as a pleader for the liberty of Puritan preaching. When the Long Parliament met in 1640, Cromwell, now forty-one years of age, assumed a con- spicuous place. His clothes were cheap and homely, "his countenance swollen and reddish, his voice sharp and untune- able," nevertheless his fervid eloquence and energy soon made him "very much hearkened unto." From the Civil War, as we know, Cromwell emerged as an unequaled military leader, the idol of his soldiers, fearing God but not man. His frequent use of Biblical phrases in ordinary conversation and his manifest confidence that he was performing God's work flowed from an intense religious zeal. He belonged, properly speaking, to the Independents, who believed that each local congregation of Christians should be practically free, excepting that "prelacy" {i.e., the episcopal form of church government) and "popery" (i.e., Roman Catholic Christianity) were not to be tolerated. In private life Cromwell was fond of "honest sport," of music and art. It is said that his gayety when he had "drunken a cup of wine too much " and his taste in statuary shocked his more austere fellow-Puritans. In public life he was a man of great forcefulness, occasionally giving way to violent temper ; he was a statesman of signal ability, aiming to secure good

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 279

government and economic prosperity for England and religious freedom for Protestant Dissenters.

After arbitrarily dissolving the Rump of the Long Parliament (1653), Cromwell and his Council of State broke with tradition entirely by selecting 140 men to constitute a legislative j^^^j^^ body or convention. This body speedily recei\'ed the Experiments popular appellation of "Barebone's Parliament" after ^"^^''^^y one of its members, a certain leather merchant, who bore the descriptive Puritan name of Praisegod Barebone. The new legislators were good Independents — "faithful, fearing God, and hating covetousness." Recommended by Independent ministers, they felt that God had called them to rule in right- eousness. Their zeal for reform found expression in the reduc- tion of public expenditure, in the equalization of taxes, and in the compilation of a single code of laws ; but their radical proposals for civil marriage and for the abohtion of tithes startled the clergy and elicited from the larger landowners the cry of "confiscation!" Before much was accomplished, however, the more conservative members of "Barebone's ParHament" voted to "deHver up unto the Lord-General [Cromwell] the powers we received from him."

Upon the failure of this experiment, Cromwell's supporters in the army prepared an "Instrument of Government," or con- stitution. By this Instrument of Government — the -^j^g pj-^. first written constitution in modern times — a tectorate, "Protectorate" was established, which was a con- ^ ^3 i 59 stitutional monarchy in all but name. Oliver Cromw^, who became "Lord Protector" for life, was to govern with the aid of a small Council of State. ParHaments, meeting at least every three years, were to make laws and levy taxes, the Protector possessing the right to delay, but not to veto, legislation. Puri- tanism was made the state religion.

The first Parliament under the Protectorate was important for three reasons, (i) It consisted of only one House; (2) it was the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland rather parliament than of England alone; (3) its members were elected under the on a reformed basis of representation, — that is, the right of representation had been taken from many small places and transferred to more important towns.

28o HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Although royalists were excluded from the polls, the Inde- pendents were unable to control a majority in the general elec- tion, for, it must be remembered, they formed a very Dictatorship Small, though a powcrful, minority of the population. °fi^'^°'fi^8^' '^^^ Presbyterians in the new Parliament, with char- acteristic stubbornness, quarreled with Cromwell, until he abruptly dismissed them (1655). (Thenceforth Cromwell governed as a mihtary dictator, placing England under the rule of his generals, and quarreling with his Parhaments. To raise money he obhged all those who had borne arms for the king to pay him 10 per cent of their rental. While permitting his office to be made hereditary, he refused to accept the title ofxking, but no Stuart monarch had ruled with such absolute powen( nor was there much to choose between James's "a dco rex, a rege lex^' and Cromwell's, "If my calling be from God and my testimony from the people, God and the people shall take it from me, else Pwill not part from it." / The question is often raised, how Cromwell, representing the Miumerically insignificant Independents, contrived to maintain himself as absolute ruler of the British Isles. Three circum- stances may have contributed to his strength, (i) He was the beloved leader of an army respected for its rigid disciphne and feared for its grim mercilessness. (2) Under his strict enforce- ment of law and order, trade and industry brought domestic prosperity. (3) His conduct of foreign affairs was both sati^ factory to Enghsh patriotism and profitable to English purses/ Advantageous commercial treaties were made with the Dutch and the French. Industrious Jews were allowed to enter Eng- land. Barbary pirates were chastised. In a war against Spain, the army won Dunkirk ; and the navy, now becoming truly powerful, sank a Spanish fleet, wrested Jamaica from Spain, and brought home ship-loads of Spanish silver.

The weakness of Cromwell's position, however, was obvious. Cavaliers were openly hostile to a regime of religious zealots; moderate Anglicans would suffer the despotism of Cromwell only as long as it promoted prosperity ; Presbyterians were anxious to end the toleration which was accorded to all Puritan sects ; radicals and republicans were eager to try new experi- ments.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 281

The death of Cromwell ("1658) left the army without a master and the country without a government. True, Ohver's son, Richard Cromwell (1626-17 12), attempted for a time oisorgani- to fill his father's place, but soon abdicated after zation having lost control of both army and Parliament. the°Death Arm}' officers restored the Rump of the Long Parha- of ouver mcnt, dissolved it, set it up again, and forced it ^'^^^ to recall the Presbyterian members who had been expelled in 1648, and ended by obliging the reconstituted Long Parhament to convoke a new and freely elected " Convention Parhament." Meanwhile, General Monck opened negotiations for the return of Charles XL

THE RESTOR.\TION : THE REIGN OF CIL\RLES II

The widespread and exuberant enthusiasm which restored the Stuarts was not entirely without causes, social and re- hgious, as well as pohtical. The grievances and ideals „

° ' '■ ^ . . Popular

which had inspired the Great Rebelhon were bemg Grievances forgotten, and a new generation was finding fault against the with the Protectorate. The simple country folk longed for their may-poles, their dances, and games on the green ; only fear compelled them to bear with the tyranny of the sanctimonious soldiers who broke the windows in their churches. Especially hard was the lot of tenants and laborers on the many estates purchased or seized by Puritans during the Rebellion. Many townsmen, too, excluded from the ruhng ohgarchy, found the Puritan government as oppressive and arbitrary as that of Charles I.

(The rehgious situation was especially favorable for Charles II. Tne outrages committed by Cromwell's soldiery had caused the Independents to be looked upon as terrible fanatics, opposition Even the Presbyterians were wilHng to yield some to Pun- points to the king, if only Independency could be ^'"^"^ overthrown ; and many who had been incHned to Puritanism were now unwavering in loyalty to the Anglican Church. Ortho- dox Anglicanism, from its origin, had been bound up with the monarchy, and it now consistently expected a double triumph of the "divine-right" of kings and of bishops. Most bitter of

282 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

all against the Cromwellian regime were the Roman Catholics in Ireland. Though Cromwell as Lord Protector had favored toler- ation for Protestants, it would be long before CathoHcs could forget the Irish priests whom Cromwell's soldiery had brutally knocked on the head, or the thousands of Catholic girls and boys whom Cromwell's agents had sold into horrible slavery in the West Indies.

This strong royaHst undercurrent, flowing from reUgious and social conditions, makes more comprehensible the ease Royalist witli whicli England drifted back into the Stuart Reaction monarchy. The younger generation, with no mem- ory of Stuart despotism, and with a keen dislike for the con- fusion in which no constitutional form was proof against miHtary tyranny, gave ready credence to Prince Charles's promises of constitutional government. There seemed to be little proba- bility that the young monarch would attempt that arbitrary rule which had brought his father's head to the block.

The experiment in Puritan repubhcanism had resulted only in convincing the majority of the people that "the government is, and ought to be, by King, Lords, and Commons." 166*0-^685' "^^^ people merely asked for some assurances against despotism, — and when a throne was thus to be pur- chased with promises, Charles II was a ready buyer. He swore to observe Magna Carta and the "*' Petition of Right," to respect Parhament, not to interfere with its religious pohcy, nor to levy illegal taxes. Bound by these promises, he was welcomed back to England in 1660 and crowned the following year. The reinstatement of the king was accompanied by a general re- sumption by bishops and royaHst nobles of their offices and lands : things seemed to slip back into the old grooves. Charles II dated his reign not from his actual accession but from his father's death, and his first Parhament declared invahd all those acts and ordinances passed since 1642 which it did not specifically confirm.

The history of constitutional government under the restored Stuarts is a history of renewed financial and religious chsputes. Charles II and his younger brother and heir, Prince James, duke of York, alike adhered to the political faith of their Stuart father and grandfather. Cousins on their mother's side of

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 283

Louis XIV of Franco, in whose court they had been reared, they were more used to the practices of French absolutism than to the pecuHar customs of parliamentary government in England. /Unlike their i^ther, who had been most upright in private life and most loyal to the Anglican Church, both Charles and James had acquired from their foreign environment at once a taste for vicious living and a strong attachment to the Roman Catholic Church. In these two Stuarts Catholicism was combined with absolutism ; and the Englishmen repre- sented in ParUament were therefore brought face to face not only witli a revival of the earlier Stuart theory of divine-right monarchy but with a new and far more hateful possibility of the royal establishment of Roman Catholicism in England. Charles II did not publicly confess his conversion to Catholicism until liis deathbed, but James became a zealous convert in 1672! ( That Charles II was able to round out a reign of twenty-five years and die a natural death as king of England was due not so much to his virtues as to his faults. He was so hypocritical that his real aims were usually successfully concealed. He was so indolent that with some show of right he could blame his min- isters and advisers for his own mistakes and misdeeds. He was so selfish that he would make concessions here and there rather than ''embark again upon his travels." In fact, pure selfishness was the basis of his policy in domestic and foreign affairs, but it was always avselfishness veiled in wit, good humor, and cap- tivating affability^

At the beginning of the reign of Charles II, the country gentle- men were astute enough to secure the abolition of the surviving feudal rights by which the king might demand certain specified services from them and certain sums of money when an heiress married or a minor inherited an estate. This action, seemingly insignificant, was in reality of the greatest importance, for it indicated the abandonment in England of the feudal theory that land is held by nobles in return for military service, and at the same time it consecrated the newer principle that the land should be owned freely and personally — a principle which has since been fully recognized in the United States and other modern countries as well as in England. The extinction of feudal prerogatives in the early days of the Stuart Restoration benefited

284 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

the landlords primarily-, but the annual lump sum of £100,000 which Charles II was given in return, was voted by Parhament and was paid by all classes in the form of excise taxes on alcoholic drinks. Customs duties of £4 105. on every tun of wine and Renewal of 5 P'^'^ ^^^^^ ^^ valorem on other imports, hearth- Financial money (a tax on houses), and profits on the post between^ office contributed to make up the royal revenue of King and somewhat less than £1,200,000. This was intended arhament u^ defray the ordinary expenses of court and gov- ernment bttt seemed insufficient to Charles, who was not only extravagantly luxurious, but desirous of increasing his power by bribing members of Parhament and by maintaining a stand- ing army. The country squires who had sold their plate for the royalist cause back in the 'forties and were now suffering from hard times, thought the court was too extravagant ; to this feehng was added fear that Charles might hire foreign soldiers to oppress Englishmen. Consequently Parhament grew more parsimonious, and in 1665-1667 claimed a new and important privilege — that of devoting its grants to specific pbjects and demanding an account of expenditures.,/'

f Charles, however, was determined to have money by fair means or foul. A group of London goldsmiths had loaned more than a million and a quarter pounds sterling to the govern- ment. In 1672 Charles announced that instead of paying the money back, he would consider it a permanent loan. Two years earlier he had signed the secret treaty of Dover (1670) with Louis XIV, by which Louis promised him an annual subsidy of £200,000 and troops in case of rebelhon, while Charles was openly to join the Roman Catholic Church and to aid Louis in his French wars against Spain and Holland.

In his ambition to reestablish CathoHcism in England, Charles underestimated the intense hostility of the bulk of the Eng- ^ . , Hsh squires to any religious innovation. During the

Continued _ ^ , r- i x^ • x^ • • 111

Religious first decade of the Restoration, Puritanism had been Compiica- most feared. Some two thousand clergymen, mostly Presbyterian, had been deprived of their offices by an Act of Uniformity (1662), requiring their assent to the Anghcan prayer-book ; these dissenting clergymen might not return within five miles of their old churches unless they renounced

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 285

the ''Solemn League and Covenant" and swore loyalty to the king (Five-mile Act, 1665) ; for repeated attendance at their meetings (conventicles) Dissenters might be condemned to penal servitude in the West Indies against (Conventicle Act, 1664); and the Corporation Act Protestant

, , , ' . ^ -^ Dissenters

of 1 66 1 excluded Dissenters from town otnces.

As tlie danger from Puritanism disappeared, the Catholic cloud darkened the horizon. In 1672 Prince James, the heir to tlie throne, embraced Catholicism ; and in the same year Charles II issued a "Declaration of In- chariesii° dulgence," suspending the laws which oppressed toward Roman Catholics and incidentally the Dissenters caSoUdsm hkewise. The Declaration tlirew England into paroxysms of fear ; it was believed that the Catholic monarch of FraiK;e was about to aid in the subversion of the Anglican Church A

Parliament, already somewhat distrustful of Charles's foreign policy, and fearful of his leanings toward Roman Catholicism, found in the Declaration of Indulgence a serious in- jj^g fraction of parliamentary authority. The royal Exclusion right to "suspend" laws upon occasion had un- doubtedly been exercised before, but ParHament was now strong enough to insist upon the binding force of its enactments and to oblige Charles to withdraw his Indulgence. The fear of Catholicism ever increased ; gentlemen who at other times were quite rational gave unhesitating credence to wild tales of a "Popish Plot" (1678). In 1679 an Exclusion Bill was brought forward which would debar Prince James from the throne, be- cause of his conversion to Roman Catholicism.

In the excitement over this latest assertion of parhamentary power, ^ two great factions were formed. The supporters of Exclusion were led by certain great nobles who were The jealous of the royal power, and were recruited from " Whigs " merchants and shop-keepers who looked to Parliament to protect their economic interests. Since many of the adherents of this political group were Dissenters, whose dislike of Anglicanism

^ In the course of the debate over Exclusion, the parliamentary party won an important concession — the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, which was designed to prevent arbitrary imprisonment.

286 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

was exceeded only by their hatred of "popery," the whole party was called by a nickname —" Whig " — which had formerly been appHed to rebellious Presbyterians in Scotland.

Opposed to the Whigs were the "Tories"'- — squires and country clergymen and all others of an essentially conservative The turn of mind. They were anxious to preserve the

"Tones" Church and state alike from Puritans and from "pa- pists," but most of all to prevent a recurrence of civil war. In the opinion of the Tories, the best and most effective safeguard against quarrehng earls and insolent tradesmen was the heredi- tary monarchy. Better submit to a Roman Catholic sover- eign, they said, than invite civil war by disturbing the regular succession. In the contest over the Exclusion Bill, the Tories finally carried the day, for, although the bill was passed by the Commons (1680), it was rejected by the House of Lords.

In the last few years of Charles's reign the cause of the Whigs was discredited. Rumors got abroad that they were plotting to assassinate the king and it was said that the Whig- Success gish nobles who brought armed retainers to Parliament of the were planning to use force to estabhsh Charles's

Tories ...

illegitimate son — the duke of Monmouth — on the throne. These and similar accusations hurt the Whigs tre- mendously, and help explain the violent Tory reaction which enabled Charles to rule without Parliament from 1681 to his death in 1685. As had been feared, upon the death of Charles II, the duke of Monmouth organized a revolt, but this, together with a simultaneous insurrection in Scotland, was easily crushed, and James II was securely seated on the throne.

THE "GLORIOUS REVOLUTION" AND THE FINAL

ESTABLISHMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY

GOVERNMENT IN GREAT BRITAIN

In his short reign of three years James II (1685-1688) suc- ceeded in stirring up opposition on all sides. The Tories, the party most favorable to the royal prerogative, upon whom he might have relied, were shocked by his attempts to create a standing army commanded by Catholics, for such an army

^ Tory, a name applied to "popish" outlaws in Ireland.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 287

might prove as disastrous to their hberties as Cromwell's "New Model"; and the Whigs, too, were driven from sullenness to desperation by James's religious policy and despotic government. James, Hke his brother, claiming the /^5^^^^^ right to "suspend" the laws and statutes which Par- 1688): His liament had enacted against Roman Catholics and !i"^"f.

, . r T 1 1 • Combina-

Dissenters, issued a Declaration of Indulgence in tion of 1687, which exempted CathoUcs and Dissenters from Absolutism

• 1 r • r • r ^ t^ ^ ^"" Roman

punishnyent for mfractions of these laws. Further- cathoUcism more, h\appointed Roman Cathohcs to office in the army and in the civil government. In spite of protests, he is- sued a second Declaration of Indulgence in 1688 and ordered it to be read in all Anghcan churches, and, when seven bishops remonstrated, he accused them of seditious libel. No jury would con\ict the seven bishops, however, for James had alien- ated every class, and they were acquitted. The Tories were estranged by what seemed to be a deliberate attack on the Anglican Church and by fear of a standing army. The arbi- trary disregard of parhamentary legislation, and thevfavor sho^vn to Roman Cathohcs, goaded the Whigs into fury. \)

So long as Whigs and Tories ahke could look forward to the accession on the death of James II of his Protestant daughters — Mary or Anne — they continued to acquiesce in ^^^ his arbitrary government. But the outlook became " Glorious gloomier when on 10 June, 1688, a son was born to (iggs^'^De- James II by his second wife, a Catholic. Most Protes- thronement tants beheved that the prince was not really James's ° J^™^^ son ; politicians prophesied that he would be educated in his father's "popish" and absolutist doctrines, and that thus Eng- land would continue to be ruled by papist despots. Even those who professed to beheve in the divine right of kings and had denied the right of Parliament to alter the succession were de- jected at this prospect, and many of them were willing to join with the Whigs in inviting a Protestant to take the throne. The next in Hne of succession after the infant prince was Mary, the elder of Jamea^'s two daughters, wife of William of Orange,^ and an Anghcan./ Upon the invitation of Whig and Tory leaders, WilUam croaked over to England with an army and entered

' ^ See above, pp. 245, 248.

288 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

London without opposition (1688). Deserted even by his army, James fled to France.^ |

A bloodless revolution was now accomplished and the crown was formally presented to William and Mary by an irregular Par- liament, which also declared that Tames II, having

Accession. •/ -' o

of William endeavored to subvert the constitution and having

and Mary, ^^^ from the kingdom, had vacated the throne. In 1089 .

offermg the crown to William and Mary, Parliament

was very careful to safeguard its own power and the Protestant

religion by issuing a Declaration of Rights (13 February, 1689),

which was enacted as the Rill of.^yThts 16 December, Constitu- 1689. This act decreecl^ that the sovereign must Settlement : henceforth belong to the Anglican Church, thereby de^ the Bill of barring the Catholic son of James II. The act also (1689) and denied the power of a king to "suspend" laws or to ^i"'"™!!^ "dispense" subjects from obeying the laws, to levy" *ment money, or to maintain an army without consent of

Parliament ; .asserted that neither the free election nor the free speech and proceedings of members of Parliament should be interfered with ; affirmed the right of subjects to petition the sovereign ; and demanded impartial juries and frequent Parliaments. The Bill of Rights, far more important in English history than the Petition of Right (1628), inasmuch as Parliament was now powerful enough to maintain as well as -pjjg to defme its rights, was supplemented by the prac-

Mutiny tice, begun in the same year, 1689, of granting taxes

and making appropriations for the army for one year only. Unless Parliament were called every year to pass a Mutiny Act (provision for the army), the soldiers would receive

no pay and in case of mutiny would not be punish-

Measures . "^ ^

Favorable able by court martial.

to Land- Both Wliigs and Tories had participated in the

Revolution, and both reaped rewards. The Tories were especially pleased with the army laws and with an arrange- ment by which farmers were given a "bounty" or money pre- mium for every bushel of grain exported.^ The Whigs, having

^ Risings in favor of James were suppressed in Ireland and in Scotland. In Ireland the famous battle of the Bo3me (i July, 1690) was decisive. 2 That is, when wheat was selling for less than 6s. a bushel.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 289

played a more prominent part in the deposition of James II, were able to secure the long-coveted political supremacy of ParUament, and religious toleration of Dissenters. Religious The Toleration Act of 1689 did not go as far as the Toleration Dissenters might have desired, but it gave them the tant 0*13^^ legal right to worship in pubHc, while their enemies, senters: the Roman Catholics, remained under the ban. Persetution

In the foreign poUcy of the reigns of William (1689- of Roman 1702) and Mary, and of Anne (1702-1714), Whiggish policies generally predominated. The merchants and shippers who formed an important wing of the Whig party were highly gratified by the Wars of the League of Augsburg and commer- of the Spanish Succession,^ in which England fought ciai Gains at once against France, her commercial and colonial °^ ^^''^ rival, and against Louis XIV, the friend of the Catholic Stuart pretenders to the EngHsh throne.- The Methuen Treaty (1703) was also advantageous : it allowed Enghsh merchants „ .

. 1 • 1 1 • Union of

to sell their manufactures in Portugal without hm- England drance ; in return for this concession England lowered f "*^ ^^°^'

• 1 ^ T-. M land: the

the duties on Portuguese "svmes, and 'Port sup- Kingdom planted "Burgundy" on the tables of English gentle- ^^^■^^\ men. The Act of Union of 1707 was not unfavorable, either, for it established common trade regulations, customs, and excise in England and in Scotland, while it made the West- minster Parliament representative of and supreme over both England and Scotland. To the merely personal union between the crowns of England and Scotland which had been inaugurated (1603) by the first of the Stuart monarchs of England now suc- ceeded under the last of the Stuart sovereigns a corporate union of the two monarchies under the title of the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707).

Upon the death of Anne (1714), the crown passed^ to her cousin, the son of Sophia of Hanover, George I (1714-1727). The new king, unable even to speak the English language, much less to understand the complicated traditions of parliamentary

^ See above, pp. 248 flf., and below, pp. 306 ff.

* Louis XIV openly supported the pretensions of James (III), the "Old Pre- tender."

' In accordance with the Act of Settlement (1701). U

290 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

government, was neither able nor anxious to rule, but was con- tent merely to reign. The business of administration, therefore, was handed over to a group of ministers who strove o/thr^°° not only to please their royal master but to retain the Hanoverians good-will of the predoininant party in Parliament. Co^nttnued Since this practice, with the many customs which

Decline have grown up about it, has become a most essential Power^ part of the government of the United Kingdom to- day, and has been copied in recent times by many other countries, it is important to understand its early history. Even before the accession of the Tudors, the Great Council of Rise of the nobles and prelates which had advised and assisted Cabinet early kings in matters of administration had sur- rendered most of its actual functions to a score or so of "Privy Councilors." The Privy Council in turn became unwieldy, and allowed an inner circle or "cabal" of its most energetic mem- bers to direct the conduct of affairs. This inner circle was called a cabinet or cabinet council, because it conferred with the king in a small private room (cabinet), and under the restored Stuarts it was extremely unpopular.

Wilham III, more interested in getting money and troops to defend his native Holland against Louis XIV than in govern- ing England, allowed his ministers free rein in most matters. So long as the Whigs held a majority of the seats in the Com- mons, William found that the wheels of government turned smoothly if all his ministers were Whigs. On the other hand, when the Tories gained a preponderance in the Commons, the Whig ministers were so distasteful to the new majority of the Commons that it was necessary to replace them with Tories. Queen Anne, although her sincere devotion to Anglicanism in- clined her to the Tories, was forced to appoint Whig ministers. Only toward the close of her reign (1710) did Anne venture to dismiss the Whigs.

Under George I (17 14-17 27) it became customary for the king to absent himself from cabinet-meetings. (It will be remem- bered that George could not speak English.) This tended to make the cabinet even more independent of the sovereign, as shown by the fact that Anne was the last to use her prerogative to veto bills. From 17 14 to 1761 was the great era of Whig

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 291

domination. Both George I and George II naturally favored

the Whigs, because the Tories were supposed to desire a second

restoration of the Stuarts. Certainly many of the Tories had

participated in the vain attempt of the " Old Pretender " in 171 5

to seat himself on the British throne as James III, and again

in 1745 extreme Tories took part in the insurrection in Scotland,

gallantly led by the Young Pretender, ''Prince Charlie," the

grandson of James II. Under these circumstances practically

all classes rallied to the support of the Whigs, who

stood for the Protestant monarchy. Great Whig whig

landowners controlled the rural districts, and the Domination,

. . 1714-1701 aristocracy of the towns was won by the Whiggish

poHcy of devotion to public credit and the protection of com- merce. The extensive and continued power of the Whigs made it possible for Sir Robert Walpole,^ a great W^hig ^ 1^ ^ leader, to hold office for twenty-one years (i 721-1742), waipoie jealously watching and maintaining his supremacy ^'^^. ^^ under two sovereigns — George I (i 714-1727) and George II (1727-1760). Though disclaiming the title, he was recognized by every one as the ''prime minister" — prime in importance, prime in power. The other ministers, nominally appointed by the sovereign, were in point of fact dependent upon him for office, and he, though nominally appointed by the crown, was really dependent only upon the support of a Whig majority in the Commons.

Walpole's power was based on poHcy and pohtical manipula- tion. His policy was twofold, the maintenance of peace and of prosperity. We shall see elsewhere how he kept England clear of costly Continental wars.^ His policy of prosperity was based on mercantihst ideas and consisted in strict attention to business methods in public finance,^ the removal of duties on imported raw materials, and on exported manufactures. In spite of the great prosperity of the period, there was considerable criticism of Walpole's policy, and " poKtics " alone enabled him to persevere in it. By skillful partisan patronage, by bestowal of state offices and pensions upon members of Parliament, by open

^ Created earl of Orford in 1742.

^ See above, p. 256, and below, pp. 309 £f., 324 f.

^ Walpole was called the "best master of figures of any man of his time."

292 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

bribery, and by electioneering, he secured his ends and main- tained his majority in the House of Commons.

Walpole's successors, — Henry Pelham and the duke of New- castle, — Hke him represented the oligarchy of Whig nobles William "^^^ millionaires, and even outdid him in corrupt Pitt, Earl methods. Another section of the Whig party under of Chatham ^^^ leadership of WilHam Pitt the elder (the earl of Chatham) won great popularity by its condemnation of political "graft." Pitt's fiery demands for war first against Spain (1739- 1748) and then against France (1756-1763) were echoed by patriotic squires and by the merchants who wished to ruin French commerce and to throw off the restrictions laid by Spain on American commerce. Pitt had his way until George III, a monarch determined to destroy the power of the Whigs, ap- pointed Tory ministers, such as Lord Bute and Lord North. The attempt of George III to regain the power his great-grand- father had lost, to rule as well as to reign, was in^ie end a failure, and later Hanoverians might well have joined George II in de- claring that "ministers are kings in this country."

This indeed is the salient fact in the evolution of constitutional

government in England. While in other countries late in the

^. .^ eighteenth century monarchs still ruled by divine

Sigmncance ,

of EngUsh right, in England Parliament and ministers were the real

Constitu- rulers, and, in theory at least, they ruled by the will

Develop- of the people. That England was able to develop this

ment in the form of government may have been due in part to her

Seventeenth . , *=> . . . ^ , . , ,. • 1,1

and Early msuiar position, her constitutional traditions, and trie Eighteenth iH-adviscd conduct of the Stuart kings, but most of all it was due to the great commercial and industrial development which made her merchant class rich and powerful enough to demand and secure a share in government.

In their admiration for the English government, many pop- ular writers have fallen into the error of confounding the Qj.g^t struggle for parhamentary supremacy with the strug-

Britain gle for democracy. Nothing could be more mis-

fariar^"' leading. The "Glorious Revolution" of 1689 was but not a coup d'etat engineered by the upper classes, and the

Democratic i^^^^^y jj. preserved was the liberty of nobles, squires, and merchants — not the political liberty of the common people.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 293

The House of Commons was essentially undemocratic. Only one man in every ten had even the nominal right to vote. It is estimated that from 1760 to 1832 nearly one-half of ^j^^ ^n- the members owed their seats to patrons, and the reformed representatives of large towns were frequently chosen ^■■*^™®° by a handful of rich merchants. In fact, the government was controlled by the upper class of society, and by only a part of that. No representatives sat for the numerous manufacturing towns which had sprung into importance during the last few decades, and rich manufacturers everywhere complained that the country was being ruined by the selfish administration of great landowners and commercial aristocrats.

Certain it is that the Parhament of the seventeenth and eight- eenth centuries, while wonderfully earnest and successful in enriching England's landlords and in demolishing every obstacle to British commerce, at the same time either willfully neglected or woefully failed to do away with intolerance in the Church and injustice in the courts, or to defend the great majority of the people from the greed of landlords and the avarice of employers.

Designed as it was for the protection of selfish class interests, the EngHsh government was nevertheless a step in the direction of democracy. The idea of representative government as ex- pressed by Parliament and cabinet was as yet very narrow, but it was capable of being expanded without violent revolution, slowly but inevitably, so as to include the whole people.

294

HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

o w

O

W

H

k- H C ^

dj=

5 u^'% ^^

^ <

S

"3 -a cd . O

.-a S

w <

_Q g

'da

■eS

O I 4^ '

> rs

ai,-

H-,00

u a

piJ-O

3

a

-I i^ C O i^

rj CI a; -J a;

O ■- y 3^ >

M " S 3 O

o L-o o c

o

:w

W3>

S P M

bOvg tu "

R^ ti a o

(M

— ^- r

L

b.S

.a i«

as;

11

M'2 a ^

c o u t~

rz'^j K •-

Mi-i — CO

S-S-o

l-l

d

i)00

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY

295

THE HANOVERIAN SOVEREIGNS OF GREAT BRITAIN (1714-1915)

George II (1727-1760)

Freaerick,

Prince of Wales,

d. 1751

George III 11760-1820)

George IV

(1820-1830)

William IV (1830-1837)

George I (1714-1727)

Edward,

Duke of Kent,

d. 1820

I

Victoria

(1837-1901)

Edward \'II (1901-1910)

I George V (1910- )

Sophia m. Frederick William I, I King of Prussia I (1713-1740)

Frederick the Great, King of Prussia (1740-1786)

Victoria m. Frederick III

d. 1901 I German Emperor (18

William II,

German Emperor

(1888- )

ADDITIONAL READING

General. Brief surveys : A. L. Cross, History of England and Greater Britain (1914), ch. xxvii-xli ; T. F. Tout, An Advanced History of Great Britain (1906), Book VI, Book VII, ch. i, ii ; Benjamin Terry, A History of England (1901), Part III, Book III and Book IV, ch. i-iii; E. P. Chey- ney, A Short History of England (1904), ch. xiv-xvi, and, by the same author. An Introduction to the Industrial and Social History of England (1901). More detailed narratives : J. F. Bright, History of England, ^yols. (1884-1904), especially Vol. II, Personal Monarchy, 1485-1688, and Vol. Ill, Constitutional Monarchy, i68p~i8jy; Cambridge Modern History, Vol. IV (1906). ch. viii-xi, xv-xix. Vol. V (1908), ch. v, ix-xi, xv ; H. D. Traill and J. S. Mann (editors). Social England, illus. ed., 6 vols, in 12 (1909), Vol. IV; A. D. Innes, History of England and the British Empire, 4 vols. (1914), Vol. II, ch. x-xvi; G. M. Trevelyan, England under the Stuarts, 1603-1714 (1904), brilliant and suggestive; Leopold von Ranke, History of England, Principally in the Seventeenth Century, Eng. trans., 6 vols. (1875), particularly valuable for foreign relations; Edward Dowden, Puritan aiui Anglican (1901), an interesting study of literary and intellec- tual England in the seventeenth century ; John Lingard, History of Eng- land to 1688, new ed. (1910) of an old but valuable work by a scholarly Roman Catholic, Vols. VII-X ; H. W. Clark, History of English Non- conformity, Vol. I (191 1)', Book II, ch. i-iii, and Vol. II (1913), Book III, ch. i, ii, the best and most recent study of the role of the Protestant Dis- senters; W. R. W. Stephens and William Hunt (editors), History of the

296 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Church of England, the standard history of AngHcanism, of Avhich Vol. V (1904), by W. H. Frere, treats of the years 1558-1625, and Vol. VI (1903), by W. H. Hutton, of the years 1625-1714. On Scotland during the period : P. H. Brown, History of Scotland, 3 vols. (1899-1909), Vols. II, III ; Andrew Lang, A History of Scotland from the Roman Occupation, 2d ed., 4 vols. (1901-1907), Vols. Ill, IV. On Ireland: Richard Bagwell, Ireland under the Tudors, 3 vols. (1885-1S90), and Ireland under the Stuarts and during the Interregnum, 2 vols. (1909). Convenient source-material: G. W. Prothero, Select Statutes and Other Constitutional Documents Illustrative of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I, 4th ed. (1913) ; S. R. Gardiner, The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, 162S-1660, 2d ed. (1899); C. G. Robertson, Select Statutes, Cases, and Documents, 1660-1832 (1904) ; E. P. Cheyney, Readings in English History Drawn from the Original Sources (1908) ; Frederick York Powell, English History by Con- temporary Writers, 8 vols. (1887) ; C. A. Beard, An Introduction to the English Historians (1906), a collection of extracts from famous secondary works.

The English Constitution in the Seventeenth Century. F. W. Maitland, The Constitutional History of England (1908), Periods III, IV, special studies of the English government in 1625 and in 1702 by an eminent authority; D. J. Medley, A Student's Manual of English Constitutional History, 5th ed. (1913), topical treatment, encyclopedic and dry; T. P. TasweU-Langmead, English Constitutional History, 7th ed. rev. by P. A. Ashworth (191 1), ch. xiii-xvi, narrative style and brief; Henry HaUam, Constitutional History of England from the Accession of Henry VII to the Death of George II, an old work, first pub. in 1827, still useful, new ed., 3 vols. (1897). The best summary of the evolution of English parHamen- tary government in the middle ages is A. B. White, The Making of the English Constitution, 44Q-148J (1908), Part III. In support of the pre- tensions of the Stuart kings, see J. N. Figgis, The Divine Right of Kings, 2d ed. (1914) ; and in opposition to them, see G. P. Gooch, English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century (1898).

James I and Charles I. S. R. Gardiner, The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution, 7th ed. (1887), a brief survey in the " Epochs of Modern History " Series by the most prolific and most distinguished writer on the period, and, by the same author, the elaborate History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War, 10 vols. (1883-1884), History of the Great Civil War, 1642-1649, 4 vols. (1893), and Constitu- tional Documents of the Puritan Revolution (1899) ; F. C. Montague, Polit- ical History of England, 160J-1660 (1907), an accurate and strictly political narrative ; Cambridge Modern History, Vol. Ill, ch. xvi, xvii, on Spain and England in the time of James I. Clarendon's History of the Great Rebellion, the classic work of a famous royalist of the seventeenth century, is strongly partisan and sometimes untrustworthy : the best edition is that of W. D, Macray, 6 vols. (1886). R. G. Usher, The Rise and Fall of the High Com- mission (1913), is an account of one of the arbitrary royal courts. Valu-

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 297

able biographies: H. D. Traill, Sirajford (1889); W. H. Hutton, Laud (i8q5); E. C. Wade, John Pym (1912); C. R. Markham, Life of Lord Fairfax (1S70).

The Cromwellian Regime. The standard treatise is that of S. R. Gar- diner, The History of the Commomccalth and Protectorate, 4 vols. (1903). Among numerous biographies of Oliver Cromwell, the following are note- worth}' : C. H. Firth, Cromwell (1900), in " Heroes of the Nations " Series ; S. R. Gardiner, Cromwell (1899), and, by the same author, Cromwell's Place in History (1S97) ; John (Viscount) Morley, Oliver Cromwell (1899) ; A. F. Pollard, Factors in Modern History (1907), ch. ix-x; Thomas Carlyle, Crom-welVs Letters and Speeches, ed. by S. C. Lomas, 3 vols. (1904). The Diary of John Evelyn, a royahst contemporary, affords naturally a some- what different point of view: the best edition is that of H. B. Wheatley, 4 vols. (1906). \'arious special phases of the regime: C. H. Firth, Crom- wclVs Army, 2d ed. (1912) ; Edward Jenks, The Constitiitioual Experi- ments of the Protectorate (1S90) ; Sir J. R. Seeley, Growth of British Policy, \'ol. II (1895), Part III; G. L. Beer, Cromwell's Policy in its Economic Aspects (1902); Sir W. L. Clowes, The Royal Navy: a History, Vol. II (1898) ; G. B. Tatham, The Puritans in Power, a Study of the English Church from 1640 to 1660 (1913) ; W. A. Shaw, History of the English Church, 1640-1660, 2 vols. (1900) ; Robert Dunlop, Ireland under the Common- wealth, 2 vols. (1913), largely a collection of documents; C. H. Firth, The Last Years of the Protectorate, 2 vols. (1909).

The Restoration. Richard Lodge, T/ie Political History of England, i66o~ijn2, a survey of the chief political facts, conservative in tone ; J. N. Figgis, English History Illustrated from Original Sources, i66o~ijis (1902), a convenient companion volume to Lodge's ; Osmund Airy, Charles II (1901), inimical to the first of the restored Stuart kings. Of contemporary accounts of the Restoration, the most entertaining is Samuel Pepys, Diary, covering the years 1659-1669 and written by a bibulous public official, while the most valuable, though tainted with strong Whig partisanship, is GUbert (Bishop) Burnet, History of My Own Times, edited by Osmimd Airy, 2 vols. (1897-1900). See also H. B. Wheatley, Samuel Pepys and the World he Lived In (1880). Special topics in the reign of Charles II: W. E. Sydney, Social Life in England, i66o-i66g (1892) ; J. H. Overton, Life in the English Church, 1660-1714 (1885) ; John Pollock, The Popish Plot (1903) ; J. A. Roebuck, History of the Whig Party, 2 vols. (1852) ; C. B. R. Kent, TJic Early History of the Tories (1908).

James II and the " Glorious Revolution." The best brief account is that of Arthur Hassall, The Restoration and the Revolution (191 2). The classic treatment is that of T. B. (Lord) Macaulay, History of England, 1685-1702, a literary masterpiece but marred by vigorous Whig sympathies, new ed. by C. H. Firth, 6 vols. (1913-1914). Sir James Mackintosh, Review of the Causes of the Revolution of 1688 (1834), an old work but still prized for the large collection of documents in the appendix; Adventures of James II (1904), an anonymous and sympathetic account of the career

298 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

of the deposed king; H. B. Irving, Life of Lord Jefreys (1898), an apology for a much-assailed agent of James II; Alice Shield and Andrew Lang, The King over the Water (1907), and, by the same authors, Henry Stuart, Cardinal of York, and his Times (1908), popular treatments of subsequent Stuart pretenders to the British throne. A good account of the reign of William III is that of Sir J. R. Seeley, Growth of British Policy, Vol. II (1895), Part V.

Great Britain in the First Half of the Eighteenth Century. General histories: Cambridge Modern History, Vol. VI (1909), ch. i-iii ; I. S. Leadam, Political History of England, iyo2~iy6o (1909), conservative and matter-of-fact ; W. E. H. Lecky, A History of England in the Eighteenth Century, new ed., 7 vols. (1892-1899), especially Vol. I, brilliantly written and very informing, and, by the same author, A History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century, 5 vols. (1893) ; C. G. Robertson, England under the Hanoverians (1911), ch. i, ii, iv ; Earl Stanhope (Lord Mahon), History of England from the Peace of Utrecht to the Peace of Versailles, 171 3-1783, 5th ed., 7 vols. (185S), particularly Vols. I, II, tedious but still useful es- pecially for foreign affairs. On the union of England and Scotland : P. H. Brown, The Legislative Union of England and Scotland (1914) ; W. L. Matthieson, Scotland and the Union, i6gs-i747 (1905) ; Daniel Defoe, History of the Union between England and Scotland (1709). On the rise of the cabinet system : Mary T. Blauvelt, The Development of Cabinet Government in England (1902), a clear brief outline; Edward Jenks, Parlia- mentary England: the Evolution of the Cabinet System (1903); and the general constitutional histories mentioned above. The best account of Sir Robert Walpole is the biography by John (Viscount) Morley (1889).

CHAPTER IX

THE WORLD CONFLICT OF FRANCE AND GREAT BRITAIN

FRENCH AND ENGLISH COLONIES IN THE SEVENTEENTH

CENTURY

[n the sixteenth century, while Spain and Portugal were carv- ing out vast empires beyond the seas, the sovereigns of France and England, distracted by religious dissensions or absorbed in European politics, did httle more than to send out a few pri- vateers and explorers. But in the seventeenth century the England of the Stuarts and the France of the Bourbons found in colonies a refuge for their discontented or venturesome sub- jects, a source of profit for their merchants, a field for the ex- ercise of religious zeal, or gratification for national pride. Eve^>^^'here were commerce and colonization growing apace, and especially were they beginning to play a large part in the national life of England and of France. We have already noticed how the Dutch, themselves the despoilers of Portugal ^ in the first half of the seventeenth century, were in turn attacked by the English in a series of commercial wars - during the second half of the seventeenth century. By 1688 the period of active growth was past for the colonial empires of Holland, Portugal, and Spain ; but England and France, beginning to realize the possibilities for power in North America, in India, and on the high seas, were just on the verge of a world conflict, which, after raging intermittently for more than a hundred years, was to leave Great Britain the "mistress of the seas."

' See above, pp. 58 f.

2 The Dutch Wars of 1652-1654, 1665-1667, and 1672-1674. See above, PP- 59, 243, 278.

299

300 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Before plunging into the struggle itself, let us review the posi- tions of the two rivals in 1688 : first, their claims and Position of possessions in the New World and in the Old ; secondly, the Rivals their comparative resources and poHcies.

It will be remembered that ilie voyage of John Cabot (1497) gave England a claim to the mainland of North America. The Tudors (1485-1603), however, could not occupy so vast a territory, nor were there any fences for the exclusion of In North intruders. Consequently the actual English settle- America ments in North America, made wholly under the Stuarts,^ were confined to Newfoundland, to a few fur depots in the region of Hudson Bay, and to a strip of coastland from Maine to South Carolina ; while the French not only had sent Verrazano (1524), who explored the coast of North America, and Cartier (i 534-1 536), who sailed up the St. Lawrence, but by virtue of voyages of discovery and exploration, especially that of La Salle (1682), laid claim to the whole interior of the

..Continent.

', Of all the North American colonies, the most populous were those which later became the United States. Li the year 1688 there were ten of these colonies. The oldest one, Virginia, had been settled in 1607 by the London Company under a charter from King James I. Plymouth, founded in 1620 by the Pilgrims (Separatists or Independents driven from England by the en- forcement of rehgious conformity to the Anglican Church), was presently to be merged with the neighboring Puritan colony of Massachusetts. Near these first New England settlements had grown up the colonies of Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire : Maine was then a part of Massachusetts. Just as New England was the Puritans' refuge, so Maryland, granted to Lord Baltimore in 1632, was a haven for the perse- cuted Roman Catholics. A large tract south of Virginia, known as Carolina, had been granted to eight nobles in 1663 ; but it was prospering so poorly that its proprietors were willing to sell it to the king in 1729 for a mere £50,000. The capture of

^ However much modern Englishmen may condemn the efforts of the Stuart sovereigns to estabhsh political absolutism at home, they can well afford to praise these same royal Stuarts for contributing powerfully to the foundations of England's commercial and colonial greatness abroad.

EUROPEAN COLONIES

IN

NORTH AMERICA, 1C88 (rti^

ScaU' of Miles 0 mo 200 400 GOO

^ A N S E ^ »-«■' \ i R I B B C A ^ If St ^" g

'ROVIDENCE I ^^ q "

Ca,

•v

t-ai|i'

1 I EiiKliMi PusK.jHsions V^

I J Fr»*iii*h Pofnessious

[T^ Spaniel. Po.M;ssiou8

1 1 Territory hi dlsnute between French ami Kn^Miwh

Tht AVh' 2ietherland», inchuling the Swedish Settlements ^~^ o?^ the Delaware which had been annexed by the Dutch in to Enyland in 1GG4.

/'/

I 1055, wi-rc ceded I

.&..

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 301

the Dutch colony of New Netherland ^ in 1664, and the settle- ment of Pennsylvania (1681) by William Penn and his fellow Quakers - at last filled up the gap between the North and the Sj>uth.

(/Numerous causes had contributed to the growth of the British feolonies in America. Rehgious intolerance had driven Puritans to New England and Roman Catholics to Maryland ; the success of the Puritan Revolution had sent Cavaliers to Virginia ; thou- sands of ot^iers had come merely to acquire wealth or to escape starvation. J And America seemed a place wherein to mend broken fortunes. Upon the estates (plantations) of southern gentlemen negro slaves toiled without pay in the tobacco fields.^ New England was less fertile, but shrewd Yankees found wealth in fish, lumber, and trade. No wonder, then, that the colonies grew in wealth and in population until in 1688 there were nearly three hundred thousand English subjects in the New World.

The French settlers were far less numerous* but more wide- spread. From their first posts in Acadia (1604) and Quebec (1608) they had pushed on up the St. Lawrence. Jesuit and other Roman Catholic missionaries had led the way from Mon- treal westward to Lake Superior and southward to the Ohio River. In 1682 the Sieur de La Salle, after paddhng down the Mississippi, laid claim to the whole basin of that mighty stream, and named the region Louisiana in honor of Louis XIV of France. Nominally, at least, this territory was claimed by the English, for in most of the colonial charters emanating from the English crown in the seventeenth century were clauses which granted lands "from sea to sea" — that is, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The heart of "New France" remained on the St. Law- rence, but, despite English claims, French forts were commenc- ing to mark the trails of French fur-traders down into the "Louisiana," and it was clear that whenever the English colonists

^ Rechristened New York. It included New Jersey also.

- The Swedish colony on the Delaware was temporarily merged with Pennsyl- vania.

^ Subsequently, rice and cotton became important products of Southern agri- culture.

■* Probably not more than 20,000 Frenchmen were residing in the New World in 1688. By 1750 their number had increased perhaps to 60,000.

302 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

should cross the Appalachian Mountains to the westward they would have to fight the French.

French and Enghsh were neighbors also in the West Indies. Martinique and Guadeloupe acknowledged French sovereignty, In West while Jamaica, Barbados, and the Bahamas were Indies English.-^ These holdings in the West Indies were

valuable not only for their sugar plantations, but for their con- venience as stations for trade with Mexico and South America.

In Africa the French had made settlements in Madagascar,

at Goree, and at the mouth of the Senegal River, and the English

had established themselves in Gambia and on the Gold

In Afnca ^ i i * r •

Coast, but as yet the Atrican posts were mere stations for trade in gold-dust,^ ivory, wax, or slaves. The real struggle for Africa was not to come until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Of far greater importance was Asiatic India, which, unlike America or even Africa, offered a field favorable for commerce rather than for conquest or for colonization. For it happened that the fertility and extent of India — its area was half as large as that of Europe — were taxed to their uttermost to support a population of probably two hundred millions ; and all, therefore, which Europeans desired was an opportunity to buy Indian products, such as cotton, indigo, spices, dyes, drugs, silk, precious stones, and peculiar manu- factures.

In the seventeenth century India was ruled by a dynasty of Mohammedan emperors called Moguls,^ who had entered the peninsula as conquerors in the previous century and had estab- lished a splendid court in the city of Delhi on a branch of the Ganges. The bulk of the people, however, maintained their ancient "Hindu" religion with their social ranks or ''castes," and preserved their distinctive speech and customs. Over a

^ The following West Indies were also English : Nevis, Montserrat, Antigua, Honduras, St. Lucia, Virgin Islands, and the Turks and Caicos Islands. St. Kitts was divided between England and France ; and the western part of Haiti, already visited by French buccaneers, was definitely annexed to France in 1697. The Bermudas, lying outside the " West Indies," were already English.

2 Gold coins are still often called "guineas" in England, from the fact that a good deal of gold used to come from the Guinea coast of Africa.

* So called because racially they were falsely supposed to be Mongols or Moguls.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 303

country like India, broken up into many sections by physical features, climate, industries, and language, the Mohammedan conquerors, — the ''Great Mogul" and his viceroys, called nawabs,^ — found it impossible to establish more than a loose sovereignty, many of the native princes or "rajas" still being allowed to rule with considerable independence, and the millions of Hindus feeling little love or loyalty for their emperor. It was this fatal weakness of the Great Mogul which enabled the European traders, who in the seventeenth century besought his favor and protection, to set themselves up in the eighteenth as his masters.

It will be remembered that after the voyage of Vasco da Gama the Portuguese had monopolized the trade with India and the East until they had been attacked by the Dutch toward the close of the sixteenth century. This was the very time when the Enghsh were making their first voyages ^ to the East and were taking advantage of their own war with Philip II to attack liis Portuguese possessions. The first EngHsh trading stations were opened at Masulipatam (161 1) and at Surat (161 2). In the latter year and again in 161 5 Portuguese fleets were de- feated, and in 1622 the Portuguese were driven out of the important Persian city of Ormuz. By 1688 the English had acquired three important points in India, (i) Calcutta in the delta of the Ganges had been occupied in 1686, but it was yet uncertain whether the English could hold it against the will of the Mogul emperor. (2) At Madras, further south. Sir Francis Day had built Fort St. George (1640). (3) On the western coast, the trading station of Surat was now surpassed in value by Bombay, the dowry of Catherine of Braganza, a Portuguese princess, who had married King Charles II (1662).

The first French Company for Eastern trade had been formed only four years ^ after the English East India Company, but the first French factory in India — at Surat — was not established until 1668 and the French did not seriously compete with the

^ More popularly, "nabobs."

2 Actually the first English voyage to the East Indies was made between 1591 and 1594, almost a century after the first Portuguese voyage.

^ Charters to French companies had been granted in 1604 and in 1615. The Compagnie des hides was formed in 1642, and reconstructed in 1664.

304 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

English and Dutch in India until the close of the seventeenth century. However, their post at Chandarnagar (1672), in dangerous proximity to Calcutta, and their thriving station at Pondicherry (1674), within a hundred miles of Madras, augured ill for the future harmony of French and English in India.

From the foregoing brief review of the respective colonial possessions of Great Britain and France in the year 1688, it must now be clear that although France had entered ^°^^Q^ the colonial competition tardily, she had succeeded sources of remarkably well in becoming a formidable rival of the ErTg^and '^ EngHsli. The great struggle for supremacy was to be decided, nevertheless, not by priority of settlement or validity of claim, but by the fighting power of the contest- ants. Strange as it may seem, France, a larger, more populous, and richer country than England, able then single-handed to keep the rest of Europe at bay, was to prove the weaker of the two in the struggle for world empire.

In the first place, England's maritime power was increasing more irresistibly than that of France. Although Richelieu (1624-1642) had recognized the need for a French navy and had given a great impetus to ship-building, France had become in- extricably entangled in European politics, and the navy was half forgotten in the ambitious land wars of Louis XIV. The Eng- lish, on the other hand, were predisposed to the sea by the very fact of their insularity, and since the days of the great Armada, their most patriotic boast had been of the deeds of mariners. In the commercial wars with Holland, the first great English admiral — Robert Blake — had won glorious victories.

Then, too, the Navigation Acts (1651, 1660), by excluding foreign ships from trade between Great Britain and the colonies, may have lessened the volume of trade, but they resulted in undoubted prosperity for English shippers. English ship- builders, encouraged by bounties, learned to build stronger and more powerful vessels than those of other nations. Whether capturing galleons on the "Spanish main" or defeating Portu- guese fleets in the Far East, English pirates, slavers, and mer- chantmen were not to be encountered without fear or envy. English commerce and industry, springing up under the protec-

DVNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 305

tion and encouragement of tlie Tudors, had given birth, as we have seen, to a middle class powerful enough to secure special rights and privileges through Parliament.

The French, on the other hand, labored under most serious commercial handicaps. Local tolls and internal customs-duties hindered traflfic ; and the medieval gild system had retained in France its power to hamper industry with absurd regulations. The long ci\'il and religious wars, which called workmen from their benches and endangered the property and lives of mer- chants, had resulted in reducing French commerce to a shadow before 1600. Under Henry IV prosperity revived, but the growth of ro}-al power made it impossible for the Huguenot merchants in France to achieve political power comparable with that which the Puritans won in England. Consequently the mercantile classes were quite unable to prevent Louis XIV from ruining his country by foreign war, — they could not vote them- selves pri\'ileges and bounties as in England, nor could they declare war on commercial rivals. True, Colbert (1662-1683), the great "mercantilist" minister, did his best to encourage new industries, such as silk production, to make rules for the better conduct of old industries, and to lay taxes on such imported goods as might compete with home products, but French indus- try could not be made to thrive like that of England. It is often said that Colbert's careful regulations did much harm by stifling the spirit of free enterprise ; but far more destructive were the wars and taxes ^ of the Grand Monarch. The only wonder is that France bore the drain of men and money so well.

The English, then, had a more promising na\y and a more prosperous trade than the French, and w^re therefore able to gain control of the seas and to bear the expense of war.

In general colonial policy France seemed decidedly superior. Louis XIV had taken over the whole of "New France" as a royal pro\ance, and the French could present a united front

^ In order to obtain money for his court, diplomacy, and wars, Louis XIV not only increased taxes but debased tlie coinage. Particularly unfortunate, economi- cally, was the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685), as a result of which some 50,000 of the most industrious and thrifty citizens of France fled to increase the industry of England, Holland, and Brandenburg (Prussia).

X

3o6 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

against the divided and discordant English colonies. Under Colbert the number of French colonists in America increased Compara- 3°° P^^ ^^^^ ^^^ twenty years. Moreover the French, tive Colonial both in India and in America, were almost uniformly Francr °^ successful in gaining the friendship and trust of the and Eng- natives, whereas, at least with most of the redmen, ^^^ the EngHsh were constantly at war.

The English, however, had a great advantage in the number of colonists. The population of France, held in check by wars, did not naturally overflow to America; and the Huguenots, persecuted in the mother country, were not allowed to emigrate to New France, lest their presence might impede the missionary labors of the Jesuits among the Indians.^ England was more fortunate in that her Puritan, Quaker, and Catholic exiles went to her colonies rather than to foreign lands. The English colo- nists, less under the direct protection of the mother country, learned to defend themselves against the Indians, and were better able to help the mother country against their common foe, the French.

Taken all in all, the situation was favorable to Great Britain. As long as French monarchs wasted the resources of France in Europe, they could scarcely hope to cope with the superior navy, the thriving commerce, and the more populous colonies, of their ancient enemies.

PRELIMINARY ENCOUNTERS, 1689-1748

Colonial and commercial rivalry could hardly bring France and Great Britain to blows while the Stuart kings looked to War of the Louis XIV for friendly aid in the erection of absolut- League of ism and the reinstatement of Catholicism in England. Augs urg rpj^^ Revolution of 1689, which we have already dis- cussed 2 in its political significance, was important in its bear- ing on foreign relations, for it placed on the English throne the

^ The statement is frequently made that the "paternalism" or fatherly care \vith which Richelieu and Colbert made regulations for the colonies was responsible for the paucity of colonists and the discouragement of colonial industry. This, however, will be taken with considerable reservation when it is remembered that England attempted to prevent the growth of such industries in her colonies as might compete with those at home.

2 See above, pp. 286 ff.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 307

arch-enemy of France, William III, whose chief concern was the protection of his ancestral possessions — the Dutch Netherlands — against the encroachments of Louis XIV. The support given by the latter to the pretensions of James II was a second cause of war. In an earher chapter ^ we have seen how interna- tional relations in 1689 led to the juncture of England and Holland with the League of Augsburg, which included the emperor, the kings of Spain and Sweden, and the electors of Bavaria, Saxony, and the Palatinate; and how the resulting War of the League of Augsburg was waged in Europe from 1689 to 1697. It was during that struggle, it will be remembered, that King William finally defeated James II and the latter's French and Irish alHes in the battle of the Boyne (1690). It was also during that struggle that the French navy, though successful against combined Dutch and EngHsh squadrons off Beachy Head (1690), was decisively beaten by the English in a three-day battle near La Hogue (1692).

The War of the League of Augsburg had its counterpart in the American "King William's War," of which two aspects should be noted. In the first place, the New Eng- land colonists aided in the capture (1690) of the William's French fortress of Port Royal in Acadia (Nova Scotia) ^^^^ ^^^9- and in an inconsequential attack on Quebec. In the second place, we must notice the role of the Indians. As early as 1670, Roger Williams, a famous New England preacher, had declared, "the French and Romish Jesuits, the firebrands of the world, for their godbelly sake, are kindling at our back in this country their hellish fires with all the natives of this country." The outbreak of King WilHam's War was a signal for the kindling of fires more to be feared than those imagined by the good di\ane ; the burning of Dover (N. H.), Schenectady (N. Y.), and Groton (Mass.) by the red allies of the French governor. Count Fron- tenac, earned the latter the lasting hatred of the "Yankees."

The contest was interrupted rather than settled by Treaty of the colorless treaty of Ryswick (1697), according to Ryswick, which Louis XIV promised not to question William's ^ ^^ right to the English throne, and all colonial conquests, includ- ing Port Royal, were restored,

^ See above, pp. 247 ff.

3o8 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Only five years later Europe was plunged into the long War of the Spanish Succession (1702-1713). King William and the War of the Habsburg emperor with other European princes Spanish formed a Grand Alliance to prevent Louis' grandson uccession pj-^jijp from inheriting the Spanish crowns. For if France and Spain were united under the Bourbon family, their armies would overawe Europe ; their united colonial empires would surround and perhaps engulf the British colonies; their combined navies might drive the British from the seas. Further- more, the English were angered when Louis XIV, upon the death of James II (1701), openly recognized the Catholic son of the exiled royal Stuart as "James III," king of Great Britain.

While the duke of Marlborough and Prince Eugene were winning great victories in Europe,^ the British colonists in Queen America were fighting "Queen Anne's War" against

Anne's War, the French. Again the French sent Indians to destroy 1702-1713 ]\^g^ England villages, and again the English retaliated by attacking Port Royal and Quebec. After withstanding two un- successful assaults. Port Royal fell in 17 10 and left Acadia open to the British. In the following year a fleet of nine war vessels and sixty transports carried twelve thousand Britishers to at- tack Quebec, while an army of 2300 moved on Montreal by way of Lake Champlain ; but both expeditions failed of their object.

On the high seas, as well as in America and in Europe, the British won fresh laurels. It was during Queen Anne's War that the British navy, sometimes with the valuable aid of the Dutch, played an important part in defeating the French fleet in the Mediterranean and driving French privateers from the sea, in besieging and capturing Gibraltar, in seizing a rich squad- ron of Spanish treasure ships near Cartagena, and in terrorizing the French West Indies.

The main provisions of the treaty of Utrecht, which terminated this stage of the conflict, in so far as they affected the colonial Treaty of situation,^ were as follows : (i) The French Bourbons Utrecht, were allowed to become the reigning family in Spain, ^^^^ and though the proviso was inserted that the crowns

of France and Spain should never be united, nevertheless so lojig as Bourbons reigned in both countries, the colonies of Spain and

^ See above, pp. 249 ff. ^ pgj. ^he European settlement, see above, pp. 253 f .

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALR^' 309

France might almost be regarded as one immense Bourbon em- pire. (2) Great Britain was confirmed in possession of Acadia/ which was rechristencd Nova Scotia, and France abandoned her claims to Hudson Bay, Newfoundland, and the island of St. Kitts in the West Indies. (3) Great Britain secured from Spain the cession of the island of Minorca and the rocky strong- hold of Gibraltar — bulwarks of Mediterranean commerce. (4) Of more immediate value to Great Britain was the trade concession, called the Asiento, made by Spain (1713). Prior to the Asiento, the British had been forbidden to trade with the Spanish possessions in America, and the French had jj^g monopolized the sale of slaves to the Spanish colonies. Asiento, The Asiento, however, allowed Great Britain exclusive ^'^^^ right to supply Spanish America with negro slaves, at the rate of 4800 a year, for thirty years. They were still forbidden to sell other commodities in the domains of the Spanish king, except that once a year one British ship of five hundred tons burden might visit Porto Bello on the Isthmus of Panama for purposes of general trade. For almost three decades after the peace of Utrecht, the smoldering colonial jealousies were not allowed to break forth into the flame of open lude of war. During the interval, however, British ambitions Peace, were coming more and more obviously into conflict with the claims of Spain and France in America, and with those of France in India.

In spite of her losses by the treaty of Utrecht, France still held the St. Lawrence River, with Cape Breton Island defend- ing its mouth ; her fishermen still had special privi- ^^^^^^ leges on the Newfoundland banks ; her islands in the Aggressive- West Indies flourished under greater freedom of trade ^^^^^^^^ than that enjoyed by the EngHsh ; and her pioneers were occupying the vast vafley of the Mississippi. Moreover, in preparing for the next stage of the conflict, France displayed astonishing energy. Fort Louisburg was erected on Cape Breton Island to command the entrance to the Gulf of St. Law- rence. A long series of fortifications was constructed to stake out and guarantee the French claims. From Crown Point on

1 A dispute later arose whether, as the British claimed, "Acadia" included Cape Breton Island.

3IO HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Lake Champlain, the line was carried westward by Fort Niagara, Fort Detroit, Sault Sainte Marie, on to Lake Winnipeg and even beyond ; other forts commanded the Wabash and Ilhnois rivers, and followed the Mississippi down to the Gulf.^ Settlements were made at Mobile (1702) and at New Orleans (17 18), and British sailors were given to understand that the Mississippi was French property. The governors of British colonies had ample cause for alarm.

In India, likewise, the French were too enterprising to be good neighbors. Under the leadership of a wonderfully able governor-general, Dupleix, who was appointed in 1741, Aggressive- ^^^y Were prospering and were extending their in- nessin fluence in the effete empire of the Great Mogul.

Dupleix Dupleix exhibited a restless ambition ; he began to interfere in native politics and to assume the pom- pous bearing, gorgeous apparel, and proud titles of a native prince. He conceived the idea of augmenting his slender gar- risons of Europeans with "sepoys," or carefully drilled natives, and fortified his capital, Pondicherry, as if for war.

To the dangerous rivalry between British and French colo- nists and traders in America and in India, during the thirty Trade years which followed the treaty of Utrecht, was added

Disputes the continuous bickering which grew out of the Asiento Spain and Concluded in 17 13 between Great Britain and Spain. Great Spaniards complained of British smugglers and pro-

"^^'^ tested with justice that the British outrageously

abused their special privilege by keeping the single stipulated vessel in the harbor of Porto Bello and refilling it at night from other ships. On the other hand, British merchants resented their general exclusion from Spanish markets and recited to will- ing listeners at home the tale of their grievances against the Spanish authorities. Of such tales the most notorious was that of a certain Captain Robert Jenkins, who with dramatic detail told how the bloody Spaniards had attacked his good ship, plundered it, and in the fray cut off one of his ears, and to prove his story he is said to have produced a box containing what pur- ported to be the ear in question. In the face of the popular

^ By the year 1750 there were over sixty French forts between Montreal and New Orleans.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 311

excitement aroused in England by this and similar incidents, Sir Robert Walpole, the peace-loving prime minister, was unable to restrain his fellow-countr^Tnen from declaring war against Spain.

It was in 1739 that the commercial and colonial warfare was thus resumed, — on this occasion involving at the outset only Spain and Great Britain, — in a curious struggle com- ^j^^ « y^^^. monly referred to as the War of Jenkins's Ear. A of Jenkins's British fleet captured Porto Bello, but failed to take ^"'" '"^^^ Cartagena. In North America the war was carried on fruit- lessly by James Oglethorpe, who had recently (1733) founded the English colony of "Georgia" ^ to the south of the Carolinas, in territory claimed by the Spanish colony of Florida.

The War of Jenkins's Ear proved but an introduction to the resumption of hostilities on a large scale between France and Great Britain. In a later chapter ^ it is explained i^^^. ^^ ^j^g how in 1 740 the War of the Austrian Succession broke Austrian out on the continent of Europe — a war stubbornly "^^=^^^1°° fought for eight years, and a war in which Great Britain entered the lists for Maria Theresa of Austria against France King and Prussia and other states. And the European con- wa7%44- flict was naturally reflected in "King George's War" 1748 (i 744-1 748) in America, and in simultaneous hostilities in India.

The only remarkable incident of King George's War was the capture of Louisburg (1745) by Colonel William Pepperell of New Hampshire with a force of British colonists, who were sorely disappointed when, in 1748, the captured fortress was returned to France by the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. The war in India was similarly indecisive. In 1746 a French squadron easily captured the British post at Madras; other British posts were attacked, and Dupleix defeated the nawab of the Carnatic, who would have punished him for violating Indian peace and neutrality.

The tables were turned by the arrival of a British fleet in 1748, which laid siege to Dupleix in Pondicherry. At this juncture, news arrived that Great Britain and of Aixia- France had concluded the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle ChapeUe, (1748), whereby all conquests, including Madras and

^ So named in honor of the then reigning King George II (1727-1760). 2 See below, pp. 354 S.

312 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Loiiisburg, were to be restored. So far as Spain was concerned, Great Britain in 1750 renounced the privileges of the Asiento in return for a money payment of £100,000.

THE TRIUMPH OF GREAT BRITAIN: THE SEVEN YEARS' WAR, 1756-1763

Up to this point, the wars had been generally indecisive, although Great Britain had gained Hudson Bay, Newfound- Questions land, and Nova Scotia by the peace of Utrecht (17 13). at Issue British naval power, too, was undoubtedly in the in 1750 ascendancy. But two great questions were still un-

answered. Should .France be allowed to make good her claim to the Mississippi valley and possibly to drive the British from their slender foothold on the coast of America? Should Du- pleix, wily diplomat as he was, be allowed to make India a French empire? To these major disputes was added a minor quarrel over the boundary of Nova Scotia, which, it will be remembered, had been ceded to Great Britain in 17 13. Such questions could be decided only by the crushing defeat of one nation, and that defeat France was to suffer in the years between 1754 and 1763. „, ,, ., Her loss was fourfold : (i) Her European armues were

World-wide . ^ ^ . '■

Extent of defeated in Germany by Frederick the Great, who «ie Seven ^gg aided by English gold, in the Seven Years' War (1756-1763).^ (2) At the same time her naval power was almost annihilated by the British, whose war vessels and privateers conquered most of the French West Indies and almost swept French commerce from the seas. (3) In India, the machi- nations of Dupleix were foiled by the equally astute but more martial Clive. (4) In America, the "French and Indian War" (i 754-1 763) dispelled the dream of a New France across the Atlantic. We shall first consider the war in the New World.

The immediate cause of the French and Indian War was a contest for the possession of the Ohio valley. The English had already organized an Ohio Company (1749) for colonization of the valley, but they did not fully realize the pressing need of action until the French had begun the construction of a line of forts in western Pennsylvania — Fort Presqu' Isle (Erie),

' For an account of the European aspects of this struggle, see below, pp. 358 ff.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 313

Fort Le Boeuf (Waterford) , and Fort Venango (Franklin). The most important position — the junction of the Monon- gahela and Allegheny rivers — being still unoccupied, the Ohio Company, early in 1754, sent a small force American to seize and fortify it. The French, however, were ^^^?,® °^

., -11 11*^^ Seven

not to be so easily outwitted; they captured the Years' War: newlv built fort with its handful of defenders, en- ^^^

. French

larged it, and christened it Fort Duquesne m honor and Indian" of the governor of Canada. Soon afterward a young ^^^ ^754- \^irginian, George Washington by name, arrived on the scene with four hundred men, too late to reenforce the Enghsh fort-builders, and he also was defeated on 4 July, 1754.

Hope was revived, however, in 1755 when the British General Braddock arrived with a regular army and an ambitious plan to attack the French in three places — Crown Point (on Lake Champlain), Fort Niagara, and Fort Duquesne. Against the last-named fort he himself led a mixed force of British regulars and colonial militia, and so incautiously did he advance that presently he fell into an ambush. From behind trees and rocks the Frenchmen and redskins peppered the surprised redcoats. The "seasoned" veterans of European battlefields were defeated, and might have been annihilated but for the timely aid of a few *'raw" colonial militiamen, who knew how to shoot straight from behind trees. The expedition against Niagara also failed of its object but entailed no such disaster. Failing to take Crown Point, the Enghsh built Forts Edward and William Henry on Lake George, while the French constructed the famous Fort Ticonderoga.^

The gloom which gathered about British fortunes seemed to

increase during the years 1756 and 1757. Great Britain's most

valuable ally, Frederick the Great of Prussia, was ,, ^ , ■' Montcalm

defeated in Europe ; an English squadron had been sadly defeated in the Mediterranean ; the French had captured the island of Minorca ; and a British attack on the French fortress of Louisburg had failed. To the French in America,

^ This same year, 1755, so unfortunate for the English, was a cruel year for the French settlers in Nova Scotia ; like so many cattle, seven thousand of them were packed into English vessels and shipped to various parts of North America. The English feared their possible disloyalty.

314 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

the year 1756 brought Montcalm and continued success. The Marquis de Montcalm (17 12-1759) had learned the art of war on European battlefields, but he readily adapted himself to new conditions, and proved to be an able commander of the French and Indian forces in the New World. The Enghsh fort of Oswego on Lake Ontario, and Fort William Henry on Lake George, were captured, and all the campaigns projected by the English were foiled. . •

In 1757, however, new vigor was infused into the war on the part of the British, largely by reason of the entrance of William Pitt (the Elder) into the cabinet. Pitt was determined to arouse all British subjects to fight for their country. Stirred with martial enthusiasm, colonial volunteers now joined with British regulars to provide a force of about 50,000 men for simultaneous attacks on four important French posts in America — Louisburg, Ticonderoga, Niagara, and Duquesne. The suc- cess of the attack on Louisburg (1758) was insured by the sup- port of a strong British squadron ; Fort Duquesne was taken and renamed Fort Pitt ^ (1758); Ticonderoga repulsed one ex- pedition (1758) but surrendered on 26 July, 1759, one day after the capture of Fort Niagara by the British.

Not content with the capture of the menacing French fron- tier forts, the British next aimed at the central strongholds of the French. While one army marched up the Hudson valley to attack Montreal, General Wolfe, in com- mand of another army of 7000, and accompanied by a strong fleet, moved up the St. Lawrence against Quebec. An inordi- nate thirst for mihtary glory had been Wolfe's heritage from his father, himself a general. An ensign at fourteen, Wolfe had be- come an officer in active service while still in his teens, had com- manded a detachment in the attack on Louisburg in 1758, and now at the age of thirty-three was charged with the capture of Quebec, a natural stronghold, defended by the redoubtable Montcalm. The task seemed impossible ; weeks were wasted in futile efforts ; sickness and apparent defeat weighed heavily on the young commander. With the energy of despair he fastened at last upon a daring idea. Thirty-six hundred of his men were ferried in the dead of night to a point above the city where his

^ Whence the name of the modern city of Pittsburgh.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 315

soldiers might scramble through bushes and over rocks up a precipitous path to a high plain — the Plains of Abraham — commanding the towTi.

Wolfe's presence on the heights was revealed at daybreak on 13 September, 1759, and Montcalm hastened to repel the attack. For a time it seemed as if Wolfe's force would be over- „ .^. ^

British

powered, but a well-directed volley and an impetuous victory at

charge threw the French lines into disorder. In the Quebec,

• 1759 moment of victory, General Wolfe, already twice

wounded, received a musket-ball in the breast. His death was

made happy by the news of success, but no such exultation filled

the heart of the mortally wounded Montcalm, dying in the

bitterness of defeat.

Quebec surrendered a few days later. It was the beginning of the end of the French colonial empire in America. All hope was lost when, in October, 1759, a great armada, ready to em- bark against England, was destroyed in Quiberon Bay by Admiral Hawke. In 1760 Montreal fell and the British completed the conquest of New France, at the very time when the last vestiges of French power were disappearing in India.

In his extremity, Louis XV of France secured the aid of his Bourbon kinsman, the king of Spain, against England, but Spain was a worthless ally, and in 1762 British interven- squadrons captured Cuba and the Philippine Islands ^on of as well as the French possessions in the West Indies.

Let us now turn back and see how the loss of New France was paralleled by French defeat in the contest for the vastly more populous and opulent empire of India. The Mogul Empire, to which reference has already the Seven been made, had been rapidly falling to pieces through- X^j""^'. ^" out the first half of the eighteenth century. The rulers or nawabs (nabobs) of the Deccan, of Bengal, and of Oudh had become semi -independent princes. In a time when conspiracy and intrigue were common avenues to power, the French gover- nor, Dupleix, had conceived the idea of making himself continued the poHtical leader of India, and in pursuit of his goal. Activity of as we have seen, he had affected Oriental magnificence "^ ®^ and grandiloquent titles, had formed alliances with half the neighboring native magnates, had fortified Pondicherry, and

3i6 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

begun the enrollment and organization of his sepoy army. In 1750 he succeeded in overthrowing the nawab of the Carnatic ^ and in establishing a pretender whom he could dominate more easily.

The hopes of the experienced and crafty Dupleix were frus- trated, however, by a young man of twenty-seven — Robert Robert Clive. At the age of eighteen, Clive had entered the

cuve employ of the English East India Company as a clerk

at Madras. His restless and discontented spirit found relief, at times, in omnivorous reading ; at other times he grew despond- ent. More than once he planned to take his own life. During the War of the Austrian Succession, he had resigned his civil post and entered the army. The hazards of military life were more to his liking, and he soon gave abundant evidence of ability. After the peace of 1748 he had returned to civil life, but in 1751 he came forward with a bold scheme for attacking Arcot, the capital of the Carnatic, and overthrowing the upstart nawab who was supported by Dupleix. Clive could muster only some two hundred Europeans and three hundred sepoys, but this slender force, infused with the daring and irresistible determina- tion of the young leader, sufficed to seize and hold the citadel of Arcot against thousands of assailants. With the aid of native and British reenforcements, the hero of Arcot further defeated the pretender; and, in 1754, the French had to ac- FaUure knowledge their failure in the Carnatic and with-

mthe draw support from their vanquished protege. Du-

pleix was recalled to France in disgrace ; and the British were left to enjoy the favor of the nawab who owed his throne to Clive.

Clive's next work was in Bengal. In 1756 the young nawab of Bengal, Suraj-ud-Dowlah by name, seized the English fort at Calcutta and locked 146 Englishmen overnight in a stifling prison — the ''Black Hole" of Calcutta — from which only twenty-three emerged alive the next morning. Clive, hastening from Madras, chastised Suraj for this atrocity, and forced him to give up Calcutta. And since by this time Great Britain and France were openly at war, Clive did not hesitate to capture the near-by French post of Chandarnagar. His next move was to

^ The province in India which includes Madras and Pondicherry and has its capital at Arcot.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 317

give active aid to a certain Mir Jafir, a pretender to the throne of the unfriendly Suraj-ud-Dowlah. The French naturally took sides with Suraj against Chve. In 1757 Clive drew up 1 100 Europeans, 2100 sepoys, and nine cannon in a grove of mango trees at Plassey, a few miles south of the city of JNIurshidabad, and there attacked Suraj, who, with an army of 68,000 native troops and with French artillerymen to work his lifty-three cannon, anticipated an easy victory. The outcome was a brilliant victory for Clive, as overwhelming as it was unexpected. The British candidate forthwith became nawab of Bengal and'as token of his indebtedness he British paid over £1,500,000 to the English East India Com- Success in pany, and made Clive a rich man. The British were ^°^ henceforth dominant in Bengal. The capture of Masulipatam in 1758, the defeat of the French at Wandewash, between Madras and Pondicherry, and the successful siege of Pondicherry in 1761, finally established the British as masters of all the coveted eastern coast of India.

The fall of Quebec (1759) and of Pondicherry (1761) prac- tically decided the issue of the colonial struggle, but the war dragged on until, in 1763, France, Spain, and Great Treaty of Britain concluded the peace of Paris. Of her Ameri- Paris, can possessions France retained only two insignificant ^^ ^ islands on the Newfoundland coast, ^ a few islands in the West Indies,'- and a foothold in Guiana in South America. Great Britain received from France the whole of the St. Lawrence valley and all the territory east of the Mississippi River, together with the island of Grenada in the West Indies ; and from Spain, Great Britain secured Florida. Beyond the surrender of the sparsely settled territory of Florida, Spain suffered no loss, for Cubg. and the Phihppines were restored to her, and France gave her western Louisiana, that is, the western half of the Mississippi valley. The French were allowed to return to their old posts in India, but were not to build forts or to maintain troops in Ben- gal. In other words, the French returned to India as traders but not as empire builders.^

^ St. Pierre and Miquelon. ^ Including Guadeloupe and Martinique.

^ During the war, the French posts in Africa had been taken, and now Goree was returned while the mouth of the Senegal River was retained by the British.

3i8 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Let us attempt to summarize the chief results of the war.

In the first place, Great Britain preserved half of what was later

to constitute the United States, and gained Canada

Significance , , . -^ .. . " . , . ^

of the and an ascendancy m India — empires wider, richer.

Seven ^j^^j more diverse than those of a Caesar or an Alex-

Ycsrs' vt3J"

to Great ander. Henceforth Great Britain was indisputably Britain and ^]^g preeminent colonizing country — a nation upon whose domains the sun never set. It meant that the English language was to spread as no other language, until to-day one hundred and sixty millions of people use the tongue which in the fifteenth century was spoken by hardly five millions.

Secondly, even more important than this vast land empire was the dominion of the sea which Great Britain acquired, for from the series of wars just considered, and especially from the last, dates the maritime supremacy of England. Since then her commerce, protected and advertised by the most powerful navy in the world, has mounted by leaps and bounds, so that now half the vessels which sail the seas bear at their masthead the Union Jack. From her dominions beyond the oceans and from her ships upon the seas Great Britain drew power and prestige ; British merchants acquired opulence with resulting social and political importance to themselves and to their country, and British manufactures received that stimulation which prepared the way for the Industrial Revolution of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

Thirdly, the gains of Great Britain were at least the tem- porary ruin of her rival. Not without reluctance did France abandon her colonial ambitions, but nearly a century was to elapse after the treaty of Paris before the French should seriously reenter the race for the upbuilding of world empire. Nor was France without a desire for revenge, which was subsequently made manifest in her alliance with Britain's rebellious American colonies in 1778. But French naval power had suffered a blow from which it was difificult to recover,^ and much of her com- merce was irretrievably lost. If toward the close of the eight-

' Yet between 1763 and 1778 the French made heroic and expensive efforts to rebuild their navy. And as we shall presently see in studying the general war which accompanied the American revolt, France attempted in vain to reverse the main result of the Seven Years' War.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIV.\LRY 319

eenth century bankruptcy was to threaten the Bourbon court and government at \^ersaillcs, and if at the opening of the next century, British sea-power was to undermine Napoleon's empire, it was in no slight degree the result in either case of the Seven Years' disaster.

India and America were lost to France. Her trade in India soon dwindled into insignificance before the powerful and wealthy British East India Company. "French India" to-day consists of Pondicherry, Karikal, Yanaon, Mahe, and Chandarnagar — • 196 square miles in all, — while the Indian Empire of Britain spreads over an area of 1,800,000 square miles. French empire in America is now represented only by two puny islands off the coast of Newfoundland, two small islands in the West Indies, and an unimportant tract of tropical Guiana, but historic traces of its fomier greatness and promise have sur\ived alike in Canada and in Louisiana. In Canada the French population has stubbornly held itself aloof from the British in language and in religion, and even to-day two of the seven millions of Canadians are Frenchmen, quite as intent on the preservation of their ancient nationality as upon their allegiance to the British rule. In the United States the French element is less in evi- dence; nevertheless in New Orleans sidewalks are called "ban- quettes," and embankments, "levees"; and still the names of St. Louis, Des Moines, Detroit, and Lake Champlain perpetuate the memory of a lost empire.

ADDITIONAL READING

General. Textbooks and brief treatises: J. S. Bassett, A Short His- tory of the United States (1914), ch. iii-vii; A. L. Cross, History of England and Greater Britain (1914), ch. xxxvi-xlii; J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard, The Development of Modern Europe, Vol. I (1907), ch. vi, vii; A. D. Innes, History of England and the British Empire, Vol. Ill (1914), ch. i-vi; W. H. Woodward, A Short History of the Expansion of the British Empire, 1500- igii, 3d ed. (191 2), ch. i-v; A. T. Story, The Building of the British Empire (1898), Part I, 1558-1688; H. C. Morris, The History of Coloniza- tion (1900), Vol. I, Part ill, ch. x-xii, Vol. II, ch. xvi-xviii. More detailed and specialized studies : John Fiske, New France and New England {igo2), a delightful review of the development of the French empire in America, its struggle with the British, and its collapse, and, by the same author. Colonization of the New World, ch. vii-x, and Independence of the New

320 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

World, ch. i-iii, the last two books being respectively Vols. XXI and XXII of the History of All Nations; Cambridge Modern History, Vol. V (1908), ch. xxii, on the growth of the French and English empires, Vol. VI (igog), ch. XV, on the English and French in India, 1720-1763, and \o\. VII (1903), ch. i-iv, on the struggle in the New World ; Pelham Edgar, The Struggle for a Continent (1902), an excellent account of the conflict in North America, edited from the writings of Parkman ; E. B. Greene, Provincial America, i6go-i740 (1905), being Vol. VI of the " American Nation " Series ; Emile Levasseur, Histoire du commerce de la France, Vol. I (191 1), the best treat- ment of French commercial and colonial policy prior to 1789; Sir J. R. Seeley, Expansion of England (1895), stimulating and suggestive on the relations of general European history to the struggle for world dominion ; A. W. Tilby, The English People Overseas, a great history of the British empire, projected in 8 vols., of which three (191 2) are particularly im- portant — Vol. I, The American Colonies, Ij8j~iy6j, Vol. II, British India, 1600-1828, and Vol. IV, Britain in the Tropics, 1 527-1 gio; A. T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1783, 24th ed. (1914), an epoch-making work; Sir W. L. Clowes (editor). The Royal Navy: a His- tory, 7 vols. (1897-1903), ch. xx-xxviii; J. S. Corbett, England in the Seven Years' War, 2 vols. (1907), strongly British and concerned chiefly with naval warfare; J. W. Fortcscue, History of the British Army, Vols. I and II (1899). See also the general histories of imperialism and of the British Empire Hsted in the bibliographies appended to Chapters XXVII and XXIX, of Volume II.

With Special Reference to the British in America. C. M. Andrews, The Colonial Period (191 2) in " Home University Library," and C. L. Becker, Beginnings of the American People (191 5) in "The Riverside History," able and stimulating resumes; L. G. Tyler, England in America, 1 580-1652 (1904), Vol. IV of "American Nation" Series; John Fiske, Old Virginia and her Neighbors (1900), and, by the same author, in his usually accurate and captivating manner. Beginnings of New England (1898), and Dutch and Quaker Colonies in America (1903) ; H. L. Osgood, The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, 3 vols. (1904-1907), the standard authority, together with J. A. Doyle, English Colonies in America, 5 vols. (1882-1907) ; Edward Channing, A History of the United States, Vol. II, A Century of Colonial History, 1660-1760 (1908), very favor- able to New England.

With Special Reference to the French in America. R. G. Thwaites, France in America, 14Q7-1763 (1905), Vol. VII of the " American Nation " Series, is a clear and scholarly survey. For all concerning French Canada prior to the British conquest, the works of Francis Parkman occupy an almost unique position : they are well known for their attractive quahties, descriptive powers, and charm of style ; on the whole, they are accurate, though occasionally Parkman seems to have misunderstood the Jesuit missionaries. The proper sequence of Parkman's writings is as follows : Pioneers of France in the New World (1865), The Jesuits in North America

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 321

(1867), La Salle a>id the Discovery of l/ie Creal IVesl (1861)), The Old Regime in Canada (1874), Count Fronte)iac and New France under Louis XIV (1877), -"1 Half Century of Conflict, 2 vols. (1892), Montcalm and Wolfe, 2 vols. (18S4), The Conspiracy of Pontiac, and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada, 2 vols. (1851). Other useful studies: C. W. Colby, Canadian Types of the Old Regime, i6o8-i6g8 (1908) ; G. M. Wrong, The Fall of Canada: a Chapter in the History of the Seven Years' War (1914) ; Thomas Hughes, S.J., History of the Society of Jesus in North America, Vols. I, II (1907-1908), the authoritative work of a learned Jesuit; T. J. Campbell, S.J., Pioneer Priests of North America, 1642-1710, 3 vols. (1911-1914); William Kingsford, History of Canada, 10 vols. (1S87-1897), elaborate, moderately English in point of view, and covering the years from 1608 to 1841 ; F. X. Garneau, Ilistoire dii Canada, 5th ed. of the famous work of a French Canadian, revised by his grandson Hector Garneau, \'ol. I to 1713 (1913).

India in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. A monumental History of India in 6 bulky volumes is now (19 16) in preparation by the Cambridge University Press on the model of the " Cambridge Modern History." Of brief accounts, the best are: A. C. Lyall, The Rise and Expansion of British Dominion in India, 5th ed. (1910) ; A. D. Innes, .-1 Short History of the British in India (1902) ; and G. B. Malleson, His- tory of the French in India, 1674-1761, 2d ed. reissued (1909). See also the English biography of Dupleix by G. B. Malleson (1895) and the French lives by Tibulle Hamont (1881) and Eugene Guenin (1908). An excellent brief biography of Clive is that of G. B. Malleson (1895). Robert Orme (1728-1801), History of the Military Transactions of the British Nation in Indostan from 174^ [to 1761], 2 vols, in 3, is an almost contemporaneous account by an agent of the English East India Company who had access to the company's records, and Beckles Willson, Ledger and Sword, 2 vols. (1903), deals with the economic and political policies of the English East India Company. For history of the natives during the period, see Sir H. M. Elliot, History of India, as told by its own Historians: the Muham- madan Period, 8 vols. (1867-1877) ; and J. G. Duff, History of the Mahrattas, new ed., 3 vols. (1913).

William Pitt, Earl of Chatham. Of the character of the Elder Pitt, such an important factor in the British triumph over France, many differ- ent estimates have been made by historians. The two great biographies of the English statesman are those of Basil Williams, 2 vols. (1913), very favorable to Pitt, and Albert von Ruville, Eng. trans., 3 vols. (1907), hostile to Pitt. See also Lord Rosebery, Lord Chatham, His Early Life and Con- nections (1910) ; D. A. Winstanley, Lord Chatham and the Whig Opposition (1912); and the famous essay on Pitt by Lord Macaulay.

CHAPTER X

THE REVOLUTION WITHIN THE BRITISH EMPIRE

THE BRITISH COLONIAL SYSTEM IN THE EIGHTEENTH

CENTURY

The contest for world-empire, from which we have seen Great Britain emerge victorious, was closely followed by a less suc- cessful struggle to preserve that empire from disrupting forces. We may properly leave to American history the details of the process by which, as the colonies became more acutely conscious of the inherent conflict between their economic interests and the colonial and commercial policy of Great Britain, they grew at the same time into a self-confident and defiant independence. Nevertheless, as an epochal event in the history of British im- perialism, the American War of Independence deserves a promi- nent place in European history.

( The germs of disease were imbedded in the very policy to which many statesmen of the eighteenth century ascribed Eng- land's great career, — the mercantilist theories, whose

Mercan- . , . t ■, \ rr>^

tuism and acquamtance we made m an earlier chapter.^ Ihe the British mercantilist statesman, anxious to build up the power, and therefore the wealth, of his country, logically con- ceived three main ideas about colonies : (i) they should furnish the mother country with commodities which could not be pro- duced at home ; (2) they should not injure the mother country by competing with her industries or by enriching her commercial rivals ; and (3) they should help bear the burdens of the govern- ment, army, and navy. Each one of these ideas was reflected in the actual policy which the British government in the eight- eenth century adopted and enforced in respect of the American colonies.

^ See above, pp. 63 ff., and likewise pp. 239 f. 322

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 323

(i) Various expedients were employed to encourage the pro- duction of particular colonial commodities which the British Parhament thought desirable. The commodity might Regulation be exempted from customs duties, or Parliament of Colonial might forbid the importation into Great Britain of ° ^^^^^ similar products from foreign countries, or might even bestow outright upon the colonial producer "bounties," or sums of money, as an incentive to persevere in the industry. Thus the cultivation of indigo in Carolina, of coffee in Jamaica, of tobacco in Virginia, was encouraged, so that the British would not have to buy these desirable commodities from Spain. Similarly, bounties were given for tar, pitch, hemp, masts, and spars imported from America rather than from Sweden/ / (2) The chief concern of the mercantilist was the framirfg of such governmental regulations of trade as would deter colonial commerce or industry from taking a turn which con- Restrictions ceivably might lessen the prosperity of the British on Colonial manufacturers or shippers, on whom Parliament de- ° "^ ^^ pended for taxes. Of the colonial industries which were dis- couraged for this reason, two or three are particularly note- worthy. Thus the hat manufacturers in America, though they could make hats cheaply, because of the plentiful supply of fur in the New World, were forbidden to manufacture any for export, lest they should ruin the hatters of London. The weaving of cloth was likewise discouraged by a law of 1699 which prohibited the export of woolen fabrics from one colony to another. Again, it was thought necessary to protect British iron-masters by forbidding (1750) the colonists to manufacture wrought iron or its finished products. Such restrictions on manufacture were imposed, not so much for fear of actual competition in the Eng- lish market, as to keep the colonial markets for English manu- facturers. They caused a good deal of rancor, but they were too ill enforced to bear heavily upon the colonies.;

More irksome were the restrictions on commerce. As far back as 1651, when Dutch traders were bringing spices from the East and sugar from the West to sell in London at a handsome profit. Parliament had passed the first famous Navigation Act,^ which had been successful in its general design — to destroy the

^ See above, pp. 277 f., 304 f.

324 HISTORY OF MODERN P:UROPE

Dutch carrying trade and to stimulate British ship-building. In the eighteenth century a similar policy was applied to the Restrictions colonies. For it was claimed that the New England on Colonial traders who sold their fish and lumber for sugar, molasses, and rum in the French West Indies were enriching French planters rather than English. Consequently, a heavy tariff was laid on French sugar-products. Moreover, inasmuch as it was deemed most essential for a naval power to have many and skilled ship-builders, the Navigation Acts^ were so developed and expanded as to include the following prescrip- tions :r(i) In general all import and export trade must be con- ducted in ships built in England, in Ireland, or in the colonies, manned and commanded by British subjects. Thus, if a French or Dutch merchantman appeared in Massachusetts Bay, offer- ing to sell at a great bargain his cargo of spices or silks, the shrewd merchants of Boston were legally bound not to buy of him. (2) Certain "enumerated" articles, such as sugar, tobacco, cotton, indigo, and, later, rice and furs, could be exported only to England. A Virginia planter, wishing to send tobacco to a French snuff -maker, would have to ship it to London in an Eng- lish ship, pay duties on it there, and then have it reshipped to Havre. (3) All goods imported into the American colonies from Europe must come by way of England and must pay duties there. Silks might be more expensive after they had paid cus- toms duties in London and had followed a roundabout route to Virginia, but the proud colonial dame was supposed to pay dearly and to rejoice that English ships and English sailors were employed in transporting her finery..

It would seem as if such restrictive measures would not have

been tolerated in the colonies, even when imposed by

forEariy ^^^^ mother country. There were, however, several

Colonial Very good reasons why the trade restrictions were long

Toleration tolprafpd

of Restric- toierateQ.

tions on In the first place, for many years they had been very

and^Trade poorly enforced. During his long ministry, from 1721 to 1742, Sir Robert Walpole had winked at infrac- tions of the law and had allowed the colonies to develop as best

^ Subsequent to the Act of 1651, important Navigation Acts were passed in 1660, 1663, 1672, and 1696.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 325

they might under his iK)licy of "salutary neglect." Then, during the colonial wars, it had been inexpedient Leniency and impossible to insist upon the Navigation Acts ; of Enforce- and smuggling had become so common that respect- °^^° able merchants made no effort to conceal their traffic in goods which had been imported contrary to provisions of the law.

iSIoreover, the colonies would gladly endure a good deal of economic hardship in order to have the help of the mother coun- try against the French. So long as Count de Fron- Fear of the tenac and his successors were sending their Indians French southward and eastward to burn New England villages, it was very comforting to think that the mother country would send armies of redcoats to conquer the savages and defeat the French.

But even had there been every motive for armed resistance to Great Britain, the American colonies could hardly have at- tempted it until after the conclusion of the French and Indian War. Until the second half of the eight- and^D^s-^^ eenth century the British colonies were both weak and union of divided. They had no navy and very few fortili- colonies ^^° cations to defend their coastline. They had no army except raw and unreliable militia. Even in 1750 their inhabit- ants numbered but a paltry 1,300,000 as compared with a popu- lation in Great Britain of more than 10,000,000 ; and in wealth and resources they could not dream of rivaling the mother country.

The lack of union among the colonies sprang from funda- mental industrial, social, and reHgious differences. The south- ern proxdnces — Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia — were agricultural, and their products were plantation-grown rice, indigo, and tobacco. New York and Pennsylvania produced corn and timber. In New England, although there were many small farmers, the growing interest was in trade and manufac- ture. The social distinctions were equally marked. The northern colonists were middle-class traders and small farmers, with democratic towTi governments, and with an intense pride in education. In the South, gentlemen of good old English families lived like feudal lords among their slaves and cultivated manners quite as assiduously as morals. Of forms of the Chris-

326 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

tian religion, the Atlantic coast presented a bizarre mixture. In the main, New England was emphatically Calvinistic and sternly Puritanical ; Virginia, proudly Episcopalian (Anglican) ; and Maryland, partly Roman Catholic. Plain-spoken Quakers in Pemisylvania, Presbyterians and Baptists in New Jersey, and German Lutherans in Carolina added to the confusion.

Between colonies so radically different in religion, manners, and industries, there could be at the outset little harmony or cooperation. It would be hard to arouse them to concerted action, and even harder to conduct a war. Financial coopera- tion was impeded by the fact that the paper money issued by any one colony was not worth much in the others. Military cooperation was difficult because while each colony might call on its farmers temporarily to join the militia in order to repel an Indian raid, the militia-men were always anxious to get back to their crops and would obey a strange commander with ill grace.

With the conclusion of the French and Indian War, however, conditions were materially changed, (i) The fear of the French Altered ^^^ ^° longer present to bind the colonies to the

Situation mother country. (2) During the wars the colonies Thirteen ^^^ grown not Only more populous (they numbered Colonies about 2,000,000 inhabitants in 1763) and more ^^^^ ^7 3 wealthy, but also more self-confident. Recruits from the northern colonies had captured Louisburg in 1745 and had helped to conquer Canada in the last French war. Virginia volunteers had seen how helpless were General Braddock's red- coats in forest-warfare. Experiences like these gave the pro- vincial riflemen pride and confidence. Important also was the Albany Congress of 1754, in which delegates from seven colonies came together and discussed Benjamin Franklin's scheme for federating the thirteen colonies. Although the plan was not adopted, it set men to thinking about the advantages of con- federation and so prepared the way for subsequent union.

Not only were the colonists in a more independent frame of mind, but the British government became more oppressive. During two reigns — those of George I and George II — min- isters had been the power behind the throne, but in 1760 George III had come to the throne as an inexperienced and poorly educated youth of twenty-two, full of ambition to be

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 327

the power behind the ministers. Not without justice have historians accused George III of prejudice, stubbornness, and stupidity. Nevertheless, he had many friends. The fact that he, the first really English king Rigorous since the Revolution of 1688, should manifest a Attitude great personal interest and industry in affairs of Britain^ state, endeared him to many who already respected toward the his irreproachable private morality and admired his ahe^^Ac^- flawless and unfailing courtesy. Under the inspira- cession of tion of Lord Bute,^ the "king's friends" became a j^^q^^ ' political party, avowedly intent on breaking the power of the great Whig noblemen who had so long dominated corrupt Parliaments and unscrupulous ministries.

George III attempted at the outset to gain control of Parlia- ment by wholesale bribery of its members, but, since even this questionable expedient did not give him a majority, he tried dividing the forces of his Whig opponents. This was somewhat less difficult since Pitt, the most prominent Whig, the eloquent Chauvinist^ minister, "friend of the colonies," and idol of the cities, had lost control of the ministry. England, too, felt the burdensome expense of war, and the pubHc debt had mounted to what was then the enormous sum of GrenvUie,

Jrrini6

£140,000,000. George III, therefore, chose for prime Minister,

minister (i 763-1 765) George Grenville, a representa- ^^^^^^l^^'

tive of a faction of Whig aristocrats, who, alarmed of the

by the growth of the pubUc debt, and jealous of Pitt's ^°}?^^^ ^

. -Ti- r 1 1 • ) 1-1 Pohcies of

power, were quite wiUmg to favor the king s colonial George iii policies. Great Britain, they argued, had undergone a costly war to defend the colonists on the Atlantic coast from French aggression. The colonies were obviously too weak and too divided to garrison and police the great Mississippi and St. Lawrence valleys ; and yet, in order to prevent renewed danger from French, Spaniards, or Indians, at least ten thousand regu-

^ The earl of Bute (1713-1792) became prime minister in 1762, after the resigna- tions of Pitt, who had been the real head of the cabinet, and the duke of Newcastle, who had been the nominal premier. Bute in turn was succeeded by George Grenville (17 12-17 70).

- Chau\'in, a soldier in Napoleon's army, was so enthusiastic for the glory of the great general that his name has since been used as an adjective denoting excessive patriotism and fondness for war.

328 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

lar soldiers would be needed at an annual expense of £300,000. What could be more natural than that the colonists, to whose benefit the war had redounded, and to whose safety the army would add, should pay at least a part of the expense? This idea, put forward by certain Whig statesmen, that the colonists should bear part of the financial burden of imperial defense, was eagerly seized upon by George III and utilized as the cornerstone of his colonial policy. To such a policy the Tories, as ardent upholders of the monarchy, lent their support.

Grenville, the new minister, accordingly proposed that the colonists should pay about £150,000 a year, — roughly a half The Sugar of the estimated total amount, — and for raising the Act, 1764 money, he championed two special finance acts in the British Parliament. The first was the Sugar Act of 1 764. Gren- ville recognized that a very high tariff on the importation of for- eign sugar-products into the colonies invited smuggling on a large scale, was therefore generally evaded, and yielded little revenue to the government. As a matter of fact, in the previous year, Massachusetts merchants had smuggled 15,000 hogsheads of molasses ^ from the French West Indies. Now, in accordance with the new enactment, the duty was actually halved, but a serious attempt was made to collect what remained. For the purpose of the efficient collection of the sugar tax, the Naviga- tion Acts were revived and enforced ; British naval officers were ordered to put a peremptory stop to smuggling ; and magis- trates were empowered to issue "writs of assistance" enabling customs collectors to search private houses for smuggled goods. The Sugar Act was expected to yield one-third of the amount demanded by the British ministry.

The other two-thirds of the £150,000 was to be raised under the Stamp Act of 1765. Bills of lading, official documents, deeds, The stamp wills, mortgages, notes, newspapers, and pamphlets Act, 1765 were to be written or printed only on special stamped paper, on which the tax had been paid. Playing cards paid a stamp tax of a shilling ; dice paid ten shillings ; and on a college diploma the tax amounted to £2. The Stamp Act bore heavily on just the most dangerous classes of the population — news-

' Large quantities of molasses were used in New England for the manufacture of rum.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 329

paper-publishers, pamphleteers, lawyers, bankers, and mer- chants. Naturally the newspapers protested and the lawyers argued that the Stamp Act was unconstitutional, that opposition Parliament had no right to le\^' taxes on the colonics, in the The very battle-cry, "Taxation. without^Representa- ^°^°'"^^ tion is Tyranny^' was the phrase of a Boston lawyer, Ja'mes Otis.

At once the claim was made that the colonists were true British subjects and that taxation without representation was a flagrant violation of the "immemorial rights of Englishmen." Now the colonists had come to believe that their only true rep- resentatives were those for whom they voted personally, the members of the provincial assemblies. Each colony had its representative assembly ; and these assemblies, like the parent Parliament in Great Britain, had become very important by acquiring the function of voting taxes. The colonists, therefore, claimed that taxes could be voted only by their own assemblies, while the British government repUed, with some pertinency, that Parhament, although elected by a very small minority of the population, was considered to be generally representative of all British subjects.

Many colonists, less learned than the lawyers, were unac- quainted with the subtleties of the argument, but they were quite willing to be persuaded that in refusing to pay ^j^^ stamp British taxes they were contending for a great prin- Act Con- ciple of Uberty and self-government. Opposition to ^^^^^' ^'^ ^ the stamp tax spread like wildfire and culminated in a congress at New York in October, 1765, comprising delegates from nine colonies. The "Stamp Act Congress," for so it was called, issued a declaration of rights — the rights of trial by jury ^ and of self-taxation — and formally protested against the Stamp Act.

Parliament might have disregarded the declaration of the Congress, but not the tidings of popular excitement, of mob violence, of stamp-collectors burned in effigy. More- over, colonial boycotts against British goods — "non- of the importation agreements" — were effective in creating ^^^™p ^^^' sentiment in England in favor of conciliation. Taking advantage of Grenville's resignation, a new ministry under the

^ The right of trial by jury had been violated by British officials in punishing smugglers.

330 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

marquess of Rockingham/ a liberal Whig, procured the repeal of the obnoxious Stamp Act in March, 1766. While the partic- ular tax was abandoned, a Declaratory Act was issued, affirm- ing the constitutional right of Parliament to bind the colonies in all cases.

That right was asserted again in 1767 by a brilHant but reck- less chancellor of the exchequer, Charles Townshend, who, with- ^jjg out the consent of the other ministers, put through

Townshend Parhament the series of acts which bear his name, c s, 17 7 jjjg intention was to raise a regular colonial revenue for the support of colonial governors, judges, and other officers as well as for the defense of the colonies. For these purposes, import duties were laid on glass, lead, painters' colors, paper, and tea; the duties were to be collected by Enghsh com- missioners resident in the American ports ; and infractions of the law in America were to be tried in courts without juries.

The Townshend Acts brought forth immediate and indignant protests. Colonial merchants renewed and extended their non- " The importation agreements. Within a year the imports

Boston from Great Britain fell off by more than £700,000.

The customs officers were unable or afraid to collect the duties strictly, and it is said that in three years the total revenue from them amounted only to £16,000. Troops were dispatched to overawe Boston, but the angry Bostonians hooted and hissed the "lobsterbacks," as the redcoats were derisively styled, and in 1770 provoked them to actual bloodshed — the so-called "Boston Massacre."

At this crucial moment. King George III chose a new prime minister, Lord North, a gentleman of wit, ability, and affabihty, , . „ , unfailingly humorous, and unswervingly faithful to

Lord North, i,.. t • r i i

Prime the kmg. Among his nrst measures was the repeal

Minister, (1770) of the hated Townshend duties. Merely a tax of threepence a pound on tea was retained, in order that the colonies might not think that Parhament had surrendered its right to tax them. Lord North even made an arrangement with the East India Company whereby tea was sold so cheaply that it would not pay to smuggle tea from the Dutch.

1 Rockingham retired in July, 1766.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 331

But the colonists would not now yield even the principle of Parliamentary taxation.^ They insisted that were they to pay this tax, trilling as it might be, Parhament would ',, assert that they had acknowledged its right to tax Boston them, and would soon lay heavier taxes upon them. ^®* Party," They, therefore, refused to buy the tea, and on a cold December night in 1773 a number of Boston citizens dressed up Hke Indians, boarded a British tea ship, and emptied 342 chests of tea into the harbor.

Boston's "TearParty" brought punishment swift and sure in the famous five "intolerable acts" (1774). Boston harbor was closed ; Massachusetts was practically deprived of „

1 c ^ rr ■, - ^ • The FivC

seli-govemment ; royal oincers who committed capi- "intoier- tal offenses were to be tried in England or in other ^^'® Acts," colonies ; royal troops were quartered on the colonists ; and the province of Quebec was extended south to the Ohio, cutting off vast territories claimed by Massachusetts. Connec- ticut, and Virginia. This last act, by recognizing and estabUsh- ing the Roman Catholic Church in French-speaking Quebec, excited the hvehest fear and apprehension on the part of Protestants in the Enghsh-speaking colonies.

Agitators in the other colonies feared that their turn would come next, and ralhed to the aid of Massachusetts. The first Continental Congress of delegations from all the colo-

• 9 , • • TM -1 1 1 1 • r. 1 i-T , First Con-

nies- met m 1774 m Philadelphia to dehberate and tinentai

determine upon wise and proper measures, to be by Congress,

them recommended to all the colonies, for the recovery

and estabHshment of their just rights and liberties, civil and

religious, and the restoration of union and harmony between

Great Britain and the colonies." The Congress dispatched a

petition to the king and urged the colonists to be faithful to the

"American Association" for the non-importation of British

goods.

^ Despite the fact that the colonists had regularly been paying import duties on molasses and on foreign wine. ^ Except Georgia.

332 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

THE WAR OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE, 1775-1783

Neither king nor colonies would yield a single point. William Pitt, now earl of Chatham, in vain proposed conciliatory meas- ures. The colonies fast drifted into actual revolt. In

Revolt

of the May, 1775, the second Continental Congress met at

Thirteen Philadelphia, but already blood had been shed at

Lexington (Massachusetts), 19 April, 1775, and New England was a hotbed of rebelHon. The Congress accepted facts as they were, declared war, appointed George Washington commander-in-chief, sent agents to France and other foreign countries, and addressed a final petition to the king.

But it was too late for reconciHation, and events marched rap- idly until on 4 July, 1776, the colonies declared themselves "free

and independent states." ^ TJie Declaration of Inde-

The Decla- i i 1 r 1 • • t m i

ration of pcndence was remarkable tor two thmgs, its philosophy

independ- g^^d itS' "effects. The philosophy was that held by

6nc6 I 770 .

many radical thinkers of the time — "that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"; that among such rights are Hfe, liberty, and the exclusive right to tax themselves ; and that any people may rightfully depose a tyrannical ruler. We shall find a similar philosophy appKed more boldly in the French Revolution.

In America the Declaration was denounced by "Tories" as treason, but was welcomed by "patriots" as an inspiration and a stimulus. To show their joy, the people of New York City pulled down the leaden statue of King George and molded it into bullets. Instead of rebellious subjects, the English-speaking Americans now claimed to be a belHgerent nation, and on the basis of this claim they sought recognition and aid from other nations.

For over three years, however, the war was carried on simply between rebelhous colonies and the mother country. Had the grave nature of the revolt been thoroughly understood in England from the outset, the colonists might possibly have been crushed within a short time, for many of the richest colonists were opposed

^ The colonies on the recommendation of Congress set up independent govern- ments and these state governments were formally federated in accordance with "articles of Confederation and perpetual Union," drawn up in Congress in 1777 and fmally ratified in 1781.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 333

to the war; and even had the "people of the United States" supported the struggle unanimously, they were no match for Great Britain in wealth, population, or naval power. As it was, Great Britain allowed the revolution to get under full head- way before making a serious effort to suppress it. In 1776, however, a force of about 30,000 men, many of whom were mer- cenary German soldiers, commonly called "Hessians," was sent to occupy New York. Thenceforward, the British pursued ag- gressive tactics, and inasmuch as their armies were generally superior to those of the colonists in numbers, discipline, and equipment, and besides were supported by powerful fleets, they were able to possess themselves of the important colonial ports of New York, Philadelphia, and Charlestown,-^ and to win many victories. On the other hand, the region ^nd^E^'riT to be conquered was extensive and the rebel armies Successes stubborn and elusive. Moreover, the colonists pos- ^j-ltj^h sessed a skillful leader in the person of the aristocratic Virginian planter who has already been mentioned as taking a part in the French and Indian War. At first, George Washing- ton was criticized for bringing the gravity of a judge and the dignified bearing of a courtier to the battlefield, but he soon proved his abihty. He was wise enough to retreat before superior forces, always keeping just out of harm's way, and occasionally catching his incautious pursuer unawares, as at Princeton or Trenton.

One of the crucial events of the war was the surrender of the British General Burgo^Tie with some six thousand men at Sara- toga, on 17 October, 1777, after an unsuccessful inva- ^ . . . sion of northern New York. At that very time, Ben- Reverse at jamin Frankhn, the public-spirited Philadelphia pub- Saratoga, lisher, was in Paris attempting to persuade France to ally herself with the United States. Frankhn's charming per- sonaHty, his "repubHcan plainness," his shrewd common sense, as well as his knowledge of philosophy and science, made him welcome at the brilhant French court; but France, although still smarting under the humiHating treaty of 1763, would not yield to his persuasion until the American victory at Saratoga seemed to indicate that the time had come to strike. An alhance

^ Name changed to Charleston in 1 783.

334 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

with the United States was concluded, and in 1778 war was declared against Great Britain.

The war now took on a larger aspect, and in its scale of opera- tions and in its immediate significance the fighting in the colonies

was dwarfed into comparative insignificance. In the into'^th" attack upon Great Britain, France was dutifully War of joined by Spain (1779). Holland, indignant at the

(msf ^^y ^^ which Great Britain had tried to exclude Dutch

Spain traders from commerce with America, joined the Bour-

iand^(i78o)' bons (,1780) against their common foe. Other nations,

too, had become alarmed at the rapid growth and domineering maritime policy of Great Britain. Since the out- break of hostilities, British captains and admirals had claimed the right to search and seize neutral vessels trading with America or bearing contraband of war. Against this dangerous practice, Catherine II of Russia protested vigorously, and in 1780 formed Isolation ^^^ "armed neutrality of the North" with Sweden of Great and Denmark to uphold the protest with force, if

necessary. Prussia, Portugal, the Two SiciHes, and the Holy Roman Empire subsequently pronounced their ad- herence to the Armed Neutrality, and Great Britain was con- fronted by a unanimously hostile Europe.

In the actual operations only three nations figured — France, Spain, and Holland ; and of the three the last named gave little The War trouble except in the North Sea. More to be feared in Europe were France and Spain, for by them the British Em- pire was attacked in all its parts. For a while in 1779 even the home country was threatened by a Franco-Spanish fleet of sixty- six sail, convoying an army of 60,000 men ; but the plan came to naught. Powerful Spanish and French forces, launched against Great Britain's Mediterranean possessions, succeeded in taking Minorca, but were repulsed by the British garrison of Gibraltar. On the continent of North America the insurgent colonists, aided by French fleets and French soldiers, gained a signal vic- The War tory. An American army under Washington, a m America French army under the Marquis de Lafayette, and a French fleet suddenly closed in upon the British general, Lord Cornwallis, in Yorktown, Virginia, and compelled him to sur- render on 19 October, 1781, with over 7000 men. The capitula-

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 335

tion of Cornwallis practically decided the struggle in America, for all the reserve forces of Great Britain were required in Europe, in the West Indies, and in Asia.

Matters were going badly for Great Britain until a naval vic- tory in the Caribbean Sea partially redeemed the day. For three winters an indecisive war had been carried on jj^g -^^^ in the West Indies, but in 1782 thirty-six British ships, in the West under the gallant Rodney, met the French Count de Grasse with thirty-three sail of the line near the group of islands known as " the Saints," and a great battle ensued — the "battle of Saints" — on 12 April, 1782. During the fight the g^^tie of wind suddenly veered around, making a great gap in Saints, the line of French ships, and into this gap sailed the ^'^ ^ British admiral, breaking up the French fleet, and, in the con- fusion, capturing six vessels.

While the battle of Saints saved the British power in the West Indies, the outlook in the East became less favorable. At first the British had been successful in seizing the French The War forts in India (1778) and in defeating (1781) the native "^ ^^^^^ ally of the French, Hyder Ali, the sultan of Mysore. But in 1782 the tide was turned by the appearance of the French admiral De Suffren, whose brilhant victories over a superior British fleet gave the French temporary control of the Bay of Bengal.

Unsuccessful in America, inglorious in India, expelled from Minorca, unable to control Ireland,-^ and weary with war, England was very ready for peace, but not en- ^^t m)t tirely humbled, for was she not still secure in the Ruin of British Channel, victorious over the Dutch, triumphant Britain in the Caribbean, unshaken in India, and unmoved on Gibraltar? Defeat, but not humiliation, was the keynote of the treaties (1783) which Great Britain concluded, one ^^.^^^j^^ at Paris with the United States, and one at Versailles of Paris with France and Spain. Let us consider the provi- g^J/'^" g sions of these treaties in order, as they affected the United States, France, and Spain.

^ The Protestants in Ireland had armed and organized volunteer forces, and threatened rebellion unless Great Britain granted "home rule" to them. Great Britain yielded and in 1782 granted legislative autonomy to the Irish Parliament. See below, p. 431.

336 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

,By the treaty of Paris (3 September, 1783), the former thir- teen colonies were recognized as the sovereign and independent United States of America, — bounded on the north by

The

United Canada and the Great Lakes, on the east by the Atlan-

states of i[q^ Qn the west by the Mississippi, and on the south by Florida. Important fishing rights on the Newfound- land Banks and the privilege of navigation on the Mississippi were extended to the new nation. When the treaty of Paris was signed, the United States were still held loosely together by the articles of Confederation, but after several years of political confusion, a new and stronger federal constitution was drawn up in 1787, and in 1789 George Washington became first president of the republic. The republic thus created was the first im- portant embodiment of the political theories of Montesquieu and other French philosophers, who, while condemning titled nobility and absolute monarchy, distrusted the ignorant classes of the people, and believed in placing political control chiefly in the hands of intelligent men of property and position.

Had it not been for the disastrous battle of Saints, France might have dictated very favorable terms in the treaty of Ver- Resuits to sailles,^ but, as it was, she merely regained Tobago in France ^he West Indies and Senegal in Africa, which she had

lost in 1 763 .^ The equipment of navies and armies had exhausted the finances of the French government, and was largely respon- sible for the bankruptcy which was soon to occasion the fall of absolutism in France. Moreover, French "radicals," having seen the Americans revolt against a king, were, themselves, the more ready to enter upon a revolution.

Better than France fared Spain. By the treaty of Versailles Results to she received the island of Minorca and the territory Spain Qf Florida, which then included the southern portions of

what later became the American states of Alabama and Mississippi.^

^ In 1786 a supplementary Anglo-French treaty restored regular commerce between the two nations, and recognized that Great Britain had no right to seize traders flying a neutral flag, except for contraband of war, I.e., guns, powder, and provisions of war.

2 See above, p. 317.

^ The Louisiana territory, which had come into Spanish possession in 1763, was re-ceded to France in 1800 and sold by France to the United States in 1803. Eighteen years later (1821) all of Florida was formally transferred to the United States. And see below, p. 532,

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 337

Holland, the least important participant in the war, was not a part}' to the treaty of Versailles, but was left to con- settlement elude a separate peace with Great Britain in the between following year (1784). The Dutch not only lost grTtain some of their East Indian possessions,^ but, what was and HoI- more essential, they were, forced to throw open to *" > ^7 4 British merchants the valuable trade of the Malay Archipelago.

THE REFORMATION OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE

The War of American Independence not only had cost Great Britain the thirteen colonies, hitherto the most important,^ oldest, and strongest of her possessions, and likewise Senegal, Florida, Tobago, and Minorca, but it had diiatory necessitated a terrible expenditure of men, money, and Coiomai ships. More bitter than the disastrous results of the war, however, was the reflection that possibly all might have been avoided by a poHcy of conciliation and concession. Still it was not too late to learn, and in its treatment of the remain- ing colonies, the British government showed that the lesson had not been lost.

On the eve of the revolt of the Enghsh-speaking colonies in America, a wise measure of toleration was accorded to the French inhabitants of Canada by the Quebec Act of 1774. Quebec which allowed them freely to profess their Roman ^^^> ^774 CathoHc reUgion, and to enjoy the continuance of the French ci\il law. To these advantages was added in ^^^^^ ^f 1791 the privilege of a representative assembly. Control in India, too, felt the influence of the new pohcy, ° *^' ^'^ ^ when in 1784 ParHament created a Board of Control to see that the East India Company did not abuse ^

. Separate

its poKtical functions. Even Ireland, which was Parliament practically a colony, was accorded in 1782 the for Ireland, right to make its own local laws, a measure of self-government enjoyed till i January, 1801.^

^ Including stations on the Malabar and Coromandel coasts of India.

- The thirteen colonies were not actually then so profitable, however, as the fertile West Indies, nor did they fit in so well with the mercantilist theory of colonialism.

^ See below, p. 431, z

338 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

British commercial policy, too, underwent a change, for the Navigation Acts, which had angered the American colonies, Decline could not now be apphed to the free nation of the and Gradual United States. Moreover, the mercantihst theory, m«i^*of" having in this case produced such unfortunate results, Mercan- henceforth began to lose ground, and it is not without *"'^™ interest that Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, the

classic expression of the new poHtical economy of free trade, — of laisser-faire, as the French styled it, — which was destined to supplant mercantihsm, was pubKshed in 1776, the very year of the declaration of American independence. Of course Great Britain's mercantihst trade regulations were not at once aban- doned, but they had received a death-blow, and British com- merce seemed none the worse for it. The southern American states began to grow cotton ^ for the busy looms of British manufacturers, and of their own free will the citizens of the United States bought the British manufactures which previously they had boycotted as aggrieved colonists. In this particular, at least, the loss of the colonies was hardly a loss at all.

Even for those ardent British patriots who wished to see their flag waving over half the world and who were deeply chagrined by the untoward political schism that had rent kindred of the Enghsh-speaking peoples asunder, there was still some

British consolatioii and there was about to be some compen-

ci^sHf* sation. In the New World, Canada, Bermuda, the Eighteenth Bahamas, Jamaica, and smaller islands of the West en ury j^fjigg, and a part of Honduras, made no mean empire ; and in the Old World the British flag flew over the forts at Gibraltar, Gambia, and the Gold Coast, while India offered almost limitless scope for ambition and even for greed.

To the extension and sohdification of her empire in the East, Great Britain now devoted herself, and with encouraging re- sults. It will be remembered that British predominance in India had already been assured by the brilHant and daring CHve, who had defeated the French, set up a puppet nawab in Bengal, and attempted to ehminate corruption from the ad-

^ During the war, cotton was introduced into Georgia and Carolina from the Bahamas, and soon became an important product. In 1794, 1,600,000 pounds were shipped to Great Britain.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 339

ministration. Clive's work was continued by a man no less famous, Warren Hastings (1732-1818), whose term as governor- general of India (i 774-1 785) covered the whole period of the American revolt. At the age of seven- of*thr'°" teen, Hastings had first entered the employ of the British East India Company, and an apprenticeship of over in"Jndfa twenty years in India had browned his face and inured his lean body to the pecuharities of the cHmate, as well as giving him a thorough insight into the native character. When at last, in 1774, he became head of the Indian warren administration, Hastings inaugurated a pohcy which Hastings he pursued with tireless attention to details — a poHcy involving the transference of British headquarters to Calcutta, and a thorough reform of the poHce, mihtary, and financial systems. In his wars and intrigues with native princes and in many of his financial transactions, a Parhament, which was incHned to censure, found occasion to attack his honor, and the famous Edmund Burke, with all the force of oratory and hatred, at- tempted to con\dct the great governor of ''high crimes and misdemeanors." But the tirades of Burke were powerless against the man who had so potently strengthened the founda- tions of the British empire in India.

In 1785 Hastings was succeeded by Lord Cornwallis — the same who had surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. Corn- wallis was as successful in India as he had been unfor- _ „.

Cornwallis

tunate in America. His organization of the tax sys- tem proved him a wise administrator, and his reputation as a general was enhanced by the defeat of the rebelHous sultan of Mysore.

The work begun so well by CHve, Hastings, and CornwalHs, was ably carried on by subsequent administrators,^ until in 1858 the crown finally took over the empire of the East India Company, an empire stretching northward to the Himalayas, westward to the Indus River, and eastward to the Brahmaputra.

In the years immediately following the War of American Independence occurred two other important extensions of British

^ For details concerning British rule in India between 1785 and 1858, see Vol. 11, pp. 662 ff.

340 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

power. One was the occupation of the "Straits Settlements," which gave Great Britain control of the Malay peninsula and of The straits ^^^ Straits of Malacca through which the spice ships Settle- passed. But more valuable as a future home for

ments English-speaking Europeans, and, therefore, as par-

tial compensation for the loss of the United States, was the vast island-continent of Australia, which had been almost unknown until the famous voyage of Captain Cook to Botany Bay in 1770. For many years Great Britain regarded Australia as a kind of open-air prison for her criminals, and the first British settlers at Port Jackson (1788) were exiled convicts. The introduction of sheep-raising and the discovery of gold made the island a more attractive home for colonists, and thenceforth its development was rapid. To-day, with an area of almost 3,000,000 square miles, and a population of some 4,800,000 English-speaking people, Australia is a commonwealth more populous than and three times as large as were the thirteen colonies with which Great Britain so unwillingly parted in 1783.

ADDITIONAL READING

British Colonial Policy. A very brief survey : J. S. Bassett, A Short History of the United States (1914), ch. viii, ix. The most readable and reliable detailed account of mercantilism as applied by the British to their colonies is to be found in the volumes of G. L. Beer, The Origin of the British Colonial System, 1578-1660 (1908) ; The Old Colonial System, 1660-1/34, Part I, The Establishment of the System, 2 vols. (191 2); British Colonial Policy, 1754-1765 (1907) ; and The Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies (1893), a survey. From the English standpoint, the best summary is that of H. E. Egerton, A Short History of British Colonial Policy (1897). Other valuable works: C. M. Andrews, Colonial Self-Government (1904), Vol. V of the "American Nation " Series; O. M. Dickerson, American Colonial Government, i6g6-i765 (191 2), a study of the British Board of Trade in its relation to the American colonies, political, industrial, and administrative ; G. E. Howard, Preliminaries of the Revolu- tion, 1763-1775 (1905), Vol. VIII of the "American Nation" Series; Reginald Lucas, Lord North, Second Earl of Guilford, 2 vols. (1913) ; and the standard treatises of FI. L. Osgood and of J. A. Doyle cited in the bibliography to Chapter IX, above.

The American Revolution. Sir G. O. Trevelyan, The American Revolu- tion, 4 vols. (1899-1912), and, by the same author, George the Third and Charles Fox: the Concluding Part of the American Revolution, 2 vols. (191 2-

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 341

1914), scholarly and literary accounts, sympathetic toward the colonists and the English Whigs ; Edward Chanuing, A History of the United States, Vol. Ill (iqi2), the best general work; C. H. Van Tyne, The American Revolution (1Q05), \'ol. IX of the " American Nation " Series, accurate and informing; John Fiskc, American Revolution, 2 vols. (1891), a very readable popular treatment ; S. Ci. Fisher, The Struggle for American Independence, 2 vols. (1908), unusually favorable to the British loyalists in America; Cambridge Modern History, \o\. VII (1903), ch. v-vii, written in great part by J. A. Doyle, the English specialist on the American colonies ; J. B. Perkins, France in the American Revolution (191 1), entertaining and instructive; Arthur Hassall, The Balance of Power, iji^-ijSg (1896), ch. xii, a very brief but suggestive indication of the international setting of the War of American Independence ; J. W. Fortescue, History of the British Army, Vol. Ill (1902), an account of the military operations from the English standpoint.

The Reformation of the British Empire. A good general history : M. R. P. Dorman, History of the British Empire in the Nineteenth Century, Vol. I, lygj-iSoj (1902), Vol. II, 1806-igoo (1904). On Ireland : W. O'C. Morris, Ireland, i4g4-ipos, 2d ed. (1909). On Canada: Sir C. P. Lucas, A History of Canada, i^6j-iSi2 (1909). On India: Sir Alfred Lyall, Warren Hastings, originally published in 1889, reprinted (1908), an ex- cellent biography ; G. W. Hastings, Vindication of Warren Hastings (1909), the best apology for the remarkable governor of India, and should be con- trasted with Lord JNIacaulay's celebrated indictment of Hastmgs ; Sir John Strachey, Hastings and the Rohilla War (1892), favorable to Hastings' work in India. On Australia: Greville Tregarthen, Australian Common- wealth, 3d ed. (1901), a good outline, in the " Story of the Nations " Series; Edward Jenks, A History of the Australasian Colonies (1896), an excellent summary ; Edward Heawood, A History of Geographical Discovery in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (1912) ; Arthur Kitson, Captain James Cook (1907).

CHAPTER XI

THE GERMANIES IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE IN DECLINE

In another connection we have already described the polit- ical condition of the Germanics in the sixteenth century.^ Backward- Outwardly, little change was observable in the eight- ness of the eenth. The Holy Roman Empire still existed as a Germames nominal bond of union for a loose assemblage of varied states. There was still a Habsburg emperor. There were still electors — the number had been increased from seven to nine ^ — with some influence and considerable honor. There was still a Diet, composed of representatives of the princes and of the free cities, meeting regularly at Ratisbon.^ But the empire was clearly in decline. The wave of national enthusiasm which Martin Luther evoked had spent itself in religious wrangling and dissension, and in the inglorious conflicts of the Thirty Years' War. The Germans had become so many pawns that might be moved back and forth upon the international chessboard by Habsburg and Bourbon gamesters. Switzerland had been lost to the empire ; both France and Sweden had deliberately dis- membered other valuable districts.*

It seemed as though slight foundation remained on which a substantial political structure could be reared, for the social conditions in the Germanics were deplorable. It is not an ex- aggeration to say that during the Thirty Years' War Germany lost at least half of its population and more than two-thirds of

^ See above, pp. lo ff.

2 Bavaria became an electorate in 1623 and Hanover in 1708; in 1778 Bavaria and the Palatinate were joined, again making eight.

^ Ratisbon or Regensburg, — in the bavarian Palatinate. The Diet met there regularly after 1663.

^ For the provisions of the treaties of Westphalia, see above, pp. 228 f.

342

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 343

its movable property. In the middle of the seventeenth century, at about the time Louis XIV succeeded to a fairly prosperous France, German towns and villages were in ashes, ^ , ^,

,. . , . f r^^ ^ Deplorable

and vast districts turned into deserts. Churches Results of and schools were closed by hundreds, and religious ^^ ^^^^ and intellectual torpor prevailed. Industry and trade were so completely paralyzed that by 1635 the Hanseatic League was \'irtually abandoned, because the free commercial cities, formerly so wealthy, could not meet the necessary ex- penses. Economic expansion and colonial enterprise, together with the consequent upbuilding of a well-to-do middle class, were resigned to Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, or England, without a protest from what had once been a proud burgher class in Germany. This elimination of an influential bourgeoisie was accompanied by a sorry impoverishment and oppression of the peasantry. These native sons of the German soil had fondly hoped for better things from the reHgious revolution and agrarian insurrections of the sixteenth century; but they were doomed to failure and disappointment. The peasantry were in a worse plight in the eighteenth century in Germany than in any other country of western or central Europe.

The princes alone knew how to profit by the national prostra- tion. Enriched by the confiscation of ecclesiastical property in the sixteenth century and relieved of meddlesome The Ger- interference on the part of the emperor or the Diet, they ™^" Pnnces utihzed the decline of the middle class and the dismal serfdom of the peasantry to exalt their personal political power. They got rid of the local assemblies or greatly curtailed their privi- leges, and gradually estabhshed petty tyrannies. After the Thirty Years' War, it became fashionable for the heirs of German principalities to travel and especially to spend some time at the court of France. Here they imbibed the political ideas of the Grand Monarch, and in a short time nearly every petty court in the Germanics was a small-sized reproduction of the court of Versailles. In a silly and ridiculous way the princes aped their great French neighbor : they too maintained armies, palaces, and swarms of household officials, w^hich, though a crushing burden upon the people, were yet so insignificant in comparison with the real pomp of France, that they were in many instances

344 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

the laughingstock of Europe. Beneath an external gloss of refinement, these princes were, as a class, coarse and selfish, and devoid of any compensating virtues. Neither the common people, whom they had impoverished, nor the Church, which they had robbed, was now strong enough to resist the growing absolutism and selfishness of the princes.

THE HABSBURG DOMINIONS

At the opening of the eighteenth century, the largest and

most important states of the Holy Roman Empire were those

,„ which owned the direct sovereignty of the Austrian

Charles VI ^^ , , ^i , , rx / \

and his Habsburgs. Charles Vi (1711-1740), who as the

Hereditary Archduke Charles had vainly struggled against Louis

Dominions i^ttt 1 i 1 o • 1 • 1 • • i

XIV to secure the whole Spanish mhentance m the War of the Spanish Succession (1702-1713), reigned over exten- sive and scattered dominions. Around Vienna, his capital city, were gathered his hereditary possessions: (i) Lower Aus- tria, or Austria proper, on the Danube ; (2) Inner Austria, which comprised Styria, Carinthia, and Camiola ; (3) Further Austria, consisting of the mountainous regions about Innsbruck, com- monly designated the Tyrol ; and (4) Upper Austria, embracing Breisgau on the upper Rhine near the Black Forest. To this nucleus of lands, in the greater part of which the German lan- guage was spoken universally, had been added in course of time the Czech or Slavic kingdom of Bohemia with its German de- pendency of Silesia and its Slavic dependency of Moravia, and a portion of the Magyar kingdom of Hungary, with its Slavic dependencies of Croatia and Slavonia and its Rumanian depend- ency of Transylvania. Charles VI, like so many of his Habsburg ancestors, was also emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and was thereby accounted the foremost of German princes. But neither Bohemia nor Hungary was predominantly German in language or feeling, and Hungary was not even a part of the Holy Roman Empire.

What additions were made to the Habsburg dominions by Charles VI were all of non-German peoples. The treaty of Utrecht had given him the Flemish- and French-speaking Belgian Netherlands and the Italian-speaking duchy of Milan and king-

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 345

dom of the Two Sicilies.^ A series of wars with the Ottoman Turks had enabled his family to press the Hungarian bound- aries south as far as Bosnia and Serbia and to in- conquests corporate as a dependency of Hungary the Rumanian- of Charles speaking principaHty of Transylvania.- Of course all these newer states of the Habsburgs remained outside of the Holy Roman Empire.

Between the various peoples who were thus brought under the Habsburg sway, the bond was of loosest description. They spoke a dozen different languages and presented an even greater diversity of interests. They did not constitute of Habs- a compact, strongly centralized, national state like ^^^^. ^°"

T^ y-11 1 Ttt 1 1 t • • • 1 -r 1 1 minions

Trance. Charles VI ruled his territories by mamtold titles : he was archduke of Austria, king of Bohemia, king of Hungary, duke of Milan, and prince of the Netherlands ; and the administration of each of these five major groups was inde- pendent of the others. The single bond of union was the com- mon allegiance to the Habsburg monarch.

To adopt and pursue a policy which would suit all these lands and peoples would hardly be possible for any mortal : it cer- tainly surpassed the wit of the Habsburgs. They had made an attempt in the seventeenth century to develop Habsbur^g'" a \igorous German policy, to unify the empire and to Ambitions strengthen their hold upon it, but they had failed dis- Germanics mally. The disasters of the Thirty Years' War, the jealousies and ambitions of the other German princes, the inter- ested intervention of foreign powers, notably Sweden and France, made it brutally clear that Habsburg influence in the Germanics had already reached its highest pitch and that henceforth it would tend gradually to wane.

Blocked in the Germanics, the Austrian Habsburgs looked elsewhere to satisfy their aspirations. But almost equal dif- ficulties confronted them. Extension to the southeast in the direction of the Balkan peninsula involved almost incessant war- fare with ihe Turks. Increase of territory in Italy incited Spain, France, and Sardinia to armed resistance. Development of the trade of the Belgian Netherlands aroused the hostility

^ See above, p. 253, footnote.

* Definitely ceded by Turkey by the treaty of Karlowitz (1699).

346 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

of the influential commercial classes in England, Holland, and France. The time and toil spent upon these non-German proj- ects obviously could not be devoted to the internal affairs of the Holy Roman Empire. Thus, not only were the Germanics a source of weakness to the Habsburgs, but the Habsburgs were a source of weakness to the Germanics.

Despite these drawbacks, the Habsburg family was still powerful. The natural resources and native wealth of many ^ . , of the regions, the large, if rather cosmopolitan, armies

Continued , . , . , , . f , . . ^. , .

Prestige which might be raised, the mtricate marriage relation- Tr*h h ships with most of the sovereign families of Europe,

the championship of the Cathohc Church, the absolut- ist principles and practices of the reigning prince, — all contrib- uted to cloak the weaknesses, under a proud name and preten- tious fame, of the imperial Austrian line.

In the eighteenth century a particularly unkind fate seemed to attend the Habsburgs. We have already noticed how the

extinction of the male line in the Spanish branch pre-

Question .. , . ., - ..,

of the cipitated a great international war oi succession, with

Habsburg ^^ie result that the Spanish inheritance was divided

Inheritance ^ i • i t-, i

and the greater part passed to the rival Bourbon family. Now Charles VI was obliged to face a similar danger in the Austrian inheritance. He himself had neither sons nor brothers, but only a daughter, Maria Theresa. Spurred on by the fate of his Spanish kinsman, Charles VI directed his energies toward securing a settlement of his possessions prior to his The death. Early in his reign he promulgated a so-called

" ^\^^' Pragmatic Sanction which declared that the Habs-

matic Sane- " . , .,,'..,,

tion " of burg dominions were indivisible and that, contrary Charles VI ^q ^Qj^g custom, they might be inherited by female heirs in default of male. Then he subordinated his whole for- eign policy to securing general European recognition of the right of Maria Theresa to succeed to all his territories. One after another of his manifold principalities swore to observe the Prag- matic Sanction. One after another of the foreign powers — Prussia, Russia, Great Britain, Holland, the Empire, Poland, France, Spain, and Sardinia, — to whom liberal concessions were made — pledged their word and their honor most sacredly to preserve the Pragmatic Sanction. When Charles VI died in

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 347

1740, he left his daughter a disorganized state, a bankrupt treasury, and a small ill-disciplined army, but he bequeathed her an ample number of parchment guarantees. The cynical Prussian Idng remarked that 200,000 lighting men would have been a more useful legacy, and, as events proved, he was right.

THE RISE OF PRUSSIA. THE HOHENZOLLERNS

Next to the Habsburgs, the most influential German family in the eighteenth century was the Hohenzollern. As far back as the tenth century, a line of counts was ruling over a «pjjg g^, castle on the hill of Zollern just north of what is now henzoUem Switzerland. These counts slowly extended their ^°"^ lands and their power through the fortunes of feudal warfare and by means of a kindly interest on the part of the Holy Roman Emperors, until at length, in the twelfth century, a representa- tive of the Hohenzollems became by marriage burgrave of the important city of Nuremberg.

So far the Hohenzollems had been fortunate, but as yet they were no more conspicuous than hundreds of petty potentates throughout the empire. It was not until they were Branden- invested by the Habsburg emperor with the electorate ^""^^ of Brandenburg in 141 5 that they became prominent. Branden- burg was a district of northern Germany, centering in the town of Berlin and lying along the Oder River. As a mark, or frontier province, it was the northern and eastern outpost of the German language and German culture, and the exigencies of almost perpetual warfare with the neighboring Slavic peoples had given Brandenburg a good deal of military experience and prestige. As an electorate, moreover, it possessed considerable influence in the internal affairs of the Holy Roman Empire.

In the sixteenth century, the acceptance of Lutheranism by the Hohenzollern electors of Brandenburg enabled them, hke many other princes of northern Germany, to seize valuable properties of the Catholic Church and to rid themselves of a foreign power which had curtailed their poHtical and social sway. Brandenburg subsequently became the chief Protestant state of Germany, just as to Austria was conceded the leadership of the Catholic states.

348 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

The period of the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) was as auspicious to the Hohenzollerns as it was unlucky for the Habs- burgs. On the eve of the contest, propitious marriage zoUerns ^^ alhances bestowed two important legacies upon the and the family — the duchy of Cleves "• on the lower Rhine, Years' War ^^^ ^^^ duchy of East Prussia,^ on the Baltic north of Poland. Henceforth the head of the Hohenzollern family could sign himself margrave and elector of Brandenburg, duke of Cleves, and duke of Prussia. In the last-named role, he was a vassal of the king of Poland ; in the others, of the Holy Roman Emperor. In the course of the Thirty Years' War, the Hohenzollerns helped materially to lessen imperial control, and at the close of the struggle secured the wealthy bishoprics of Halberstadt, Minden, and Magdeburg,^ and the eastern half of the duchy of Pomerania.

The international reputation of the Hohenzollerns was estab- lished by Frederick William, commonly styled the Great Elector The Great (1640-1688). When he asccndcd the throne, the Elector Thirty Years' War had reduced his scattered domin-

ions to utmost misery: he was resolved to restore prosperity, to unify his various possessions, and to make his realm a factor in general European politics. By diplomacy more than by military prowess, he obtained the new territories by the peace of Westphalia. Then, taking advantage of a war between Sweden and Poland, he made himself so invaluable to both sides, now helping one, now deserting to the other, that by cunning and sometimes by unscrupulous intrigue, he induced the king of Poland to renounce suzerainty over East Prussia and to give

^ Though the alliance between Brandenburg and Cleves dated from 1614, the Hohenzollerns did not reign over Cleves until 1666. With Cleves went its dependencies of Mark and Ravensberg.

2 Prussia was then an almost purely Sla\'ic state. It had been formed and governed from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century by the Teutonic Knights, a military, crusading order of German Catholics, who aided in converting the Slavs to Christianity. In the sixteenth century the Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights professed the Lutheran faith and transformed Prussia into an hereditary duchy in his own family. In a series of wars West Prussia was incorporated into Poland, while East Prussia became a fief of that kingdom. It was to East Prussia only that the Hohenzollern elector of Brandenburg succeeded in t6i8.

' The right of accession to Magdeburg was accorded the Hohenzollerns in 1648; they did not formally possess it until 1680.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 349

him that duch\' in full sovereignty. In the Dutch War of Louis XIV (1672-1678) he completely defeated the Swedes, who were in alliance with France, and, although he was not allowed by the provisions of the peace to keep* what he had conquered, nevertheless the fame of his army was established and Branden- burg-Prussia took rank as the chief competitor of Sweden's hegemony in the Baltic.

In matters of government, the Great Elector was, like his | contemporary Louis XIV, a firm believer in absolutism. At the commencement of his reign, each one of the three parts of his lands — Brandenburg, Cleves, and East Prussia — was organized as a separate, petty state, with its own Diet or form of representative government, its own army, and its own inde- pendent administration. After a hard constitutional struggle, Frederick Wilham deprived the several Diets of their significant functions, centered financial control in his own person, declared the local armies national, and merged the three separate adminis- trations into one, strictly subservient to his royal council at Berlin. Thus, the three states were amalgamated into one ; and, to all intents and purposes, they constituted a united monarchy.

The Great Elector was a tireless worker. He encouraged industry and agriculture, drained marshes, and built the Fred- erick WilKam Canal, Joining the Oder with the Elbe. When the revocation of the Edict of Nantes caused so many Huguenots to leave France, the Great Elector's warm invitation attracted to Brandenburg some 20,000, who were settled around Berlin and who gave French genius as well as French names to their adopted country. The capital city, which at the Great Elector's accession numbered barely 8000, counted at his death a popu- lation of over 20,000.

Brandenburg-Prussia was already an important monarchy, but its ruler was not recognized as "king" until 1701, when the Emperor Leopold conferred upon him that title in order to enlist his support in the War of the Spanish ^^^ ^^' Succession. In 1713, by the treaty of Utrecht, the Prussia a other European powers acknowledged the title. It j.-^^^ °™' was Prussia, rather than Brandenburg, which gave its name to the new kingdom, because the former was an entirely independent state, while the latter was a member of the Holy

3SO HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Roman Empire. Thereafter the "kingdom of Prussia" ^ desig- nated the combined territories of the Hohenzollern family.

Prussia rose rapidly in the eighteenth century. She shared with Austria the leadership of the Germanics and secured a position in Europe as a first-rate power. This rise was the result largely of the efforts of Frederick Wilham I (1713-1740).

King Frederick WilHam was a curious reversion to the type of his grandfather : he was the Great Elector over again with all his practical good sense if without his taste for diplo- Frederick macy. His own ideal of kingship was a paternal des- Wiiiiam I, potism, and his ambition, to use most advantageously the Umited resources of his country in order to render Prussia feared and respected abroad. He felt that absolutism was the only kind of government consonant with the character of his varied and scattered dominions, and he understood in a canny way the need of an effective army and of the closest econ- omy which would permit a relatively small kingdom to support a relatively large army. Under Frederick William I, money, mihtary might, and divine-right monarchy became the indis- pensable props of the Hohenzollern rule in Prussia.

By a close thrift that often bordered on miserhness King Frederick Wilham I managed to increase his standing army from 38,000 to 80,000 men, bringing it up in numbers so as to rank with the regular armies of such first-rate states as France or Austria. In efficiency, it probably surpassed the others. An iron discipline molded the Prussian troops into the most precise military engine then to be found in Europe, and a staff of officers, who were not allowed to buy their commissions, as in many European states, but who were appointed on a merit basis, commanded the army with truly professional skill and devoted loyalty.

In civil administration, the king persevered in the work of centrahzing the various departments. A "general directory" was intrusted with the businesslike conduct of the finances and

^ At first, the Hohenzollern monarch assumed the title of king /;; Prussia, be- cause West Prussia was still a province of the kingdom of Poland. Gradually, however, under Frederick William I (1713-1740), the popular appellation of "king of Prussia" prevailed over the formal "king in Prussia." West Prussia was definitely acquired in 1772 (see below, p. 387).

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 351

gradually evolved an elaborate civil service — • the famous Prussian bureaucracy, which, in spite of inevitable "red tape," is notable to this day for its efficiency and devotion to duty. The king endeavored to encourage industry and trade by enforc- ing up-to-date mercantilist regulations, and, although he re- peatedly expressed contempt for current culture because of what he thought were its weakening tendencies, he nevertheless prescribed compulsory elementary education for his people.

King Frederick William, who did so much for Prussia, had many personal eccentricities that highly amused Europe. Imbued with patriarchal instincts, he had his eye on everybody and everything. He treated his kingdom as a schoolroom, and, like a zealous schoolmaster, flogged his naughty subjects unmer- cifully. If he suspected a man of possessing adequate means, he might command him to erect a line residence so as to improve the appearance of the capital. If he met an idler in the streets, he would belabor him with his cane and probably put him in the army. And a funny craze for tall soldiers led to the crea- tion of the famous Potsdam Guard of Giants, a special company whose members must measure at least six feet in height, and for whose service he attracted many foreigners by liberal finan- cial offers : it was iJie only luxury which the parsimonious king allowed himself.

During a portion of his reign the crabbed old king feared that all his labors and savings would go for naught, for he was su- premely disappointed in his son, the crown-prince Frederick. The stern father had no sympathy for the of Frederick Hterary, musical, artistic tastes of his son, whom he *^® Great, thought effeminate, and whom he abused roundly with a quick and violent temper. When Prince Frederick tried to run away, the king arrested him and for punishment put him through such an arduous, slave-Hke training in the civil and military administration, from the lowest grades upward, as perhaps no other royal personage ever received. It was this despised and misunderstood prince who as Frederick II succeeded his father on the throne of Prussia in 1740 and is known in his- tory as Frederick the Great.

The year 1740 marked the accession of Frederick the Great in the Hohenzollern possessions and of Maria Theresa in the

352 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Habsburg territories.^ It also marked the outbreak of a pro- tracted struggle within the Holy Roman Empire between the two foremost German states — Austria and Prussia.

THE MINOR GERIVIAN STATES

Of the three hundred other states which composed the empire, few were sufficiently large or important to exert any considerable influence on the issue of the contest. A few, however, sutes^'^ which took sides, deserve mention not only because in other than the eighteenth century they preserved a kind of bal- Prussla^" ance of power between the rivals but also because they have been more or less conspicuous factors in the progress of recent times. Such are Bavaria, Saxony, and Hanover.

Bavaria lay on the upper Danube to the west of Austria and

in the extreme southeastern corner of wlTM is now the German

Empire. For centuries it was ruled by the Wittels-

Bavana . ....

bach famJly, whose remarkable prince, Maximilian I (1597-1651), had headed tlie CathoKc League and loyally sup- ported the Habsburgs in the Thirty Years' War, and by the peace of Westphaha had gained a part of the Palatinate^ together with the title of ''elector." His successor had labored with much credit in the second half of the seventeenth century to repair the wounds caused by the war, encouraging agriculture and industries, building or restoring numerous churches and monasteries. But the Bavarian electors in the first half of the eighteenth century sacrificed a sound, vigorous policy of internal reform to a far-reaching ambition in international politics. Despite the bond of a common rehgion which united them to Austria, they felt that their proximity to their powerful neighbor made the Habsburgs their natural enemies. In the War of the Spanish Succession, therefore, Bavaria took the side of France against Austria, and when Maria Theresa ascended the throne in 1740, the elector of Bavaria, who had married a Habsburg

^ Below are discussed the forei<:^n achievements (pp. 354 ff.) of these two rival sovereigns, and in Chapter XIV (pp. 440 fT.) their internal policies.

2 The other part of the Palatinate, under another branch of the Wittelsbachs, was reunited with Bavaria in 1779.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 353

princess disbarred by the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VI, immediately aUied himself witli Frederick of Prussia and with France in order to dismember the Austrian dominions.

The Saxony of the eighteenth century was but a very small frac- tion of the vast Saxon duchy which once comprised all north- western Germany and whose people in early times had emigrated to England or had been subjugated by Charlemagne. Saxony had been restricted since the thirteenth century to a district on the upper Elbe, wedged in between Habs- burg Bohemia and Hohenzollem Brandenburg. Here, however, several elements combined to give it an importance far beyond its extent or population. It was the geographical center of the Germanics. It occupied a strategic position between Prussia and Austria. Its ruling family — the Wettins — were electors of the empire. It had been, moreover, after the championship of Martin Luther by one of its most notable electors,^ a leader of the Lutheran cause, and the reformer's celebrated translation of the Bible had fixed the Saxon dialect as the hterary language of Germany. At one time it seemed as if Saxony, rather than Brandenburg-Prussia, might become the dominant state among the Germanics. But the trend of events determined otherwise. A number of amiable but weak electors in the seventeenth cen- tury repeatedly alUed themselves with Austria against the Hohenzollems and thereby practically conceded to Brandenburg the leadership of the Protestant states of northern Germany.^ Then, too, toward the close of the century, the elector separated himself from his people by becoming a Roman Cathohc, and, in order that he might establish himself as king of Poland, _

. • 1 A • 11' Personal

he burdened the state with contmued Austrian am- union of ance, with war, and with heavy taxes. The unnatural ^^d^P^iand union of Saxony and Poland was maintained through- out the greater part of the eighteenth century : it was singularly disastrous for both parties.

A part of the original ancient territory of the Saxons in north-

^ Frederick the Wise (1486-1525).

^ Another source of weakness in Saxony was the custom in the Wettin family of dividing the inheritance among members of the family. Such was the origin of the present infinitesimal states of Saxe-Weimar, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Saxe- Meiningen, and Saxe-Altenburg.

354 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

western Germany was included in the eighteenth century in the state of Hanover, extending between the Elbe and the Weser and Hanover reaching from Brandenburg down to the North Sea. and its Hanover was recognized as an electorate during the

u^on"with ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ Spanish Succession/ but its real impor- Great tance rested on the fact that its first elector, through

" ^'° his mother's family, became in 17 14 George I

of Great Britain, the founder of the Hanoverian dynasty in that country. This personal union between the British king- dom and the electorate of Hanover continued for over a century, and was not without vital significance in international negotia- tions. Both George I and George II preferred Hanover to Eng- land as a place of residence and directed their primary efforts towards the protection of their German lands from Habsburg or Hohenzollern encroachments.

Enough has now been said to give some idea of the distracted condition of the Germanics in the eighteenth century and to explain why the Holy Roman Empire was an unimportant bond of union. Austria, traditionally the chief of the Germanies, was increasingly absorbed in her non-German possessions in Hungary, Italy, and the Netherlands. Prussia, the rising king- dom of the North, comprised a population in which Slavs con- stituted a large minority. Saxony was linked with Poland ; Hanover, with Great Britain. Bavaria was a chronic ally of France. Add to this situation, the political domination of France or Sweden over a number of the petty states of the empire, the selfishness and jealousies of all the German rulers, the looming bitter rivalry between Prussia and Austria, and the sum-total is pohtical chaos, bloodshed, and oppression.

THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN HOHENZOLLERNS AND HABSBURGS

In the struggle between Prussia and Austria — between Hohenzollerns and Habsburgs — centered the European diplo- macy and wars of the mid-eighteenth century. On one side was the young king Frederick II (i 740-1 786) ; on the other,

^ The emperor had given the title of elector to Ernest Augustus in 1692; the Powers recognized George I as elector in 1 708.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 355

the young queen Maria Theresa (i 740-1 780). Both had ability and sincere devotion to their respective states and peoples, — a high sense of royal responsibilities, p^g^g^ck Maria Theresa was beautiful, emotional, and proud ; the Great Frederick was domineering, cynical, and always ra- ^^^j.^^'* tional. The Austrian princess was a firm beHever in Catholic Christianity; the Prussian king was a friend of Voltaire and a devotee of skepticism.

Frederick inherited from his father a fairly compact monarchy and a splendidly trained and equipped army of 80,000 men. He smiled at the disorganized troops, the disordered ^.^. ^ finances, the conflicting interests in the hodge-podge of against territories which his rival had inherited from her ^^^l^^ father. He also smiled at the solemn promise which Prussia had made to respect the Austrian dominions. No sooner was the Emperor Charles VI dead and Maria Theresa proclaimed at Vienna than Frederick II entered into engage- ments with Bavaria and France to dismember her realm. The elector of Bavaria was to be made Holy Roman Emperor as Charles VII and Prussia was to appropriate Silesia. France was suspected of designs upon the Austrian Netherlands.

Silesia thus became the bone of contention between Fred- erick II and Maria Theresa. Silesia covered the fertile valley of the upper Oder, separating the Slavic Czechs of Frederick's Bohemia on the west from the Slavic Poles on the east. Designs on Its population, which was largely German, was as nu- merous as that of the whole kingdom of Prussia, and if annexed to the Hohenzollern possessions would make them overwhelm- ingly German. On the other hand, the loss of Silesia would give Austria less direct influence in strictly German affairs and would deprive her of a convenient point of attack against Berlin and the heart of Prussia.

Trumping up an ancient family claim to the duchy, Frederick immediately marched his army into Silesia and occu- outbreak pied Breslau, its capital. To the west, a combined of the Bavarian and French army prepared to invade Austria Austrian and Bohemia. Maria Theresa, pressed on all sides, Succession, fled to Hungary and begged the Magyars to help her. ^^'^^ The effect was electrical. Hungarians, Austrians, and Bo-

356 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

hemians rallied to the support of the Habsburg throne ; recruits were drilled and hurried to the front; the War of the Austrian Succession (i 740-1 748) was soon in full swing.

A trade war had broken out between Great Britain and Spain in 1739/ which speedily became merged with the conti- nental struggle. Great Britain was bent on maintain- of Great ing liberal trading privileges in the Belgian Nether- Britain lands and always opposed the incorporation of those

and Spain . , i • i i r i ^ c

provmces into the rival and powerful monarchy 01 France, preferring that they should remain in the hands of some distant and less-feared, less commercial power, such as Austria. Great Britain, moreover, had fully recognized the Pragmatic Sanction and" now determined that it was in accordance with her own best interests to supply Maria Theresa with money and to dispatch armies to the Continent to defend the Nether- lands against France and to protect Hanover against Prussia. On the other side, the royal family of Spain sympathized with their Bourbon kinsmen in France and hoped to recover from Austria all the Italian possessions of which Spain had been deprived by the treaty of Utrecht (17 13).

The main parties to the War of the Austrian Succession were, therefore, on the one hand, Prussia, France, Spain, and Bavaria, and, on the other, Austria and Great Britain. With the former at first joined the elector of Saxony, who wished to play off Prussia against Austria for the benefit of his Saxon and Pohsh lands, and the king of Sardinia, who was ever balancing in Italy between Habsburg and Bourbon pretensions. With Austria and Great Britain was united Holland, because of her desire to protect herself from possible French aggression.

The war was not so terrible or bloody as its duration and the number of contestants would seem to indicate. Saxony, whrch Course of inclined more naturally to Austrian than to Prussian the War friendship, was easily persuaded by bribes to desert her alHes and to make peace with Maria Theresa. Spain would fight only in Italy ; and Sardinia, alarmed by the prospect of substantial Bourbon gains in that peninsula, went over to the side of Austria. The Dutch were content to defend their own territories.

^ Commonly called the War of Jenkins's Ear. See above, p. 311.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 357

Despite the greatest exertions, Maria Theresa was unable to expel Frederick from Silesia. Her generals suffered repeated reverses at his hands, and three times she was forced to Success of recognize his occupation in order that she might em- Frederick ploy all her forces against her western enemies. By the third treaty between the two German sovereigns, concluded at Dresden in 1745, Silesia' was definitely ceded by Austria to Prussia. Frederick had gained his ends : he coolly deserted his allies and withdrew from the war.

Meanwhile the Austrian arms had elsewhere been more suc- cessful. The French and Bavarians, after winning a few trifling victories in Bohemia, had been forced back to the upper Danube. Munich was occupied by the troops of Maria Theresa at the very time when the elector was being crowned at Frankfort as Holy Roman Emperor. The whole of Bavaria was soon in Austrian possession, and the French were in retreat across the Rhine. Gradually, also, the combined forces of Austria and Sardinia made headway in Italy against the Bourbon armies of France and Spain.

In the last years of the war, the French managed to protect Alsace and Lorraine from Austrian invasion, and, under the command of the gifted Marshal Saxe, they actually succeeded in subjugating the greater part of the Austrian Netherlands and in carrying the struggle into Holland. On the high seas and in the colonies, the conflict raged between France and Great Britain as "King George's War," which has already been separately noted. -

The treaties which ended the War of the Austrian Succession were signed at Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748. They guar- anteed the acquisition of Silesia by Frederick II of of Aix-ia- Prussia and restored everything else to the situation Chapeiie at the opening of the conflict. The Wittelsbach lidtcisive family was reinstated in Bavaria and in the Palati- Character nate, and the husband of Maria Theresa, Francis of between Lorraine, succeeded Charles VII as Holy Roman Prussia

-r> T^ r n 1 T, 1 and Austria

Emperor. I ranee, for all her expenditures and sacrifices, gained nothing. The War of the Austrian Succession

^ Except a very small district, which thereafter was known as "Austrian Silesia." 2 See above, pp. 311 f.

358 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

was but a preliminary encounter in the great duel for German leadership between Prussia and Austria. It was similarly only an indecisive round in the prolonged battle between France and Great Britain for the mastery of the colonial and commercial world. In the war just closed, Austria had been the chief loser, and the resolute Maria Theresa set herself at once to the difficult task of recovering her prestige and her ceded territory, against Her first efforts were directed toward internal reform

Frederick — consolidating the administrations of her various

the Great , . . , ^ . r .1 -i

dommions by the creation of a strong central council at Vienna, encouraging agriculture, equahzing and augmenting the taxes, and increasing the army. Her next step was to form a great league of rulers that would find a common interest with her in dismembering the kingdom of Frederick. She knew she could count on Saxony. She easily secured an ally in the Tsarina Elizabeth of Russia, who had been deeply offended by the caustic wit of the Prussian king. She was already united by friendly agreements with Great Britain and Holland. She had only France to win to her side, and in this policy she had the services of an invaluable agent, Count Kaunitz, the greatest diplomat of the age. Kaunitz held out to France, as the price for the abandonment of the Prussian alliance and the acceptance of that of Austria, the tempting bait of Frederick's Rhenish provinces. But Louis XV at first refused an Austrian alHance : it would be a departure from the traditional French poHcy of opposing the Habsburgs. Kaunitz then appealed to the king's mistress, the ambitious Madame de Pompadour, who, like the Tsarina EKzabeth, had had plenty of occasions for taking offense at the witty verses of the Prussian monarch : the favor of the Pompadour was woti, and France entered the league against Prussia.

Meanwhile, however. Great Britain had entered into a special agreement with Frederick with the object of guaranteeing the " Di integrity of Hanover and the general peace of the Ger- lomatic manies. When, therefore, the colonial war between Revoiu- Great Britain and France was renewed in 1754, it was quite natural that the former should contract a definite aUiance with Prussia. Thus it befell that, whereas in the inde- cisive War of the Austrian Succession Prussia and France were

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 359

pitted against Austria and Great Britain, in the determinant Seven Years' War, which ensued, Austria and France were in arms against Prussia and Great Britain. This overturn of traditional alliances has been commonly designated the "Diplo- matic Revolution."

The Seven Years' War lasted in Europe from 1756 to 1763, and, as regards both the number of combatants and the brilliant generalship displayed, deserves to rank with the War jj^g g^^^j^ of the Spanish Succession as the greatest war which Years' War, the modern world had so far witnessed. The story has ^^^ -17 3 already been told of its maritime and colonial counterpart, which embraced the French and Indian War in America (17 54-1 763) and the triumphant campaigns of Clive in India, and which decisively estabUshed the supremacy of Great Britain on the seas, in the Far East, and in the New World. ^ There remains to sketch its course on the European continent.

Without waiting for a formal declaration of hostilities, Fred- erick seized Saxony, from which he exacted large indemnities and drafted numerous recruits, and, with his well- „ . . .

. . Frederick s

tramed veteran troops, crossed the mountams into victory at Bohemia. He was obliged by superior Austrian Rossbach, forces to raise the siege of Prague and to fall back on his own kingdom. Thence converged from all sides the allied armies of his enemies. Russians moved into East Prussia, Swedes from Pomerania into northern Brandenburg, Austrians into Silesia, while the French were advancing from the west. Here it was that Frederick displayed those qualities which entitle him to rank as one of the greatest military commanders of all time and to justify his title of "the Great." Inferior in numbers to any one of his opponents, he dashed with lightning rapidity into central Germany and at Rossbach (1757) inflicted an over- whelming defeat upon the French, whose general wrote to Louis XV, "The rout of our army is complete : I cannot tell you how many of our officers have been killed, captured, or lost." No sooner was he relieved of danger in the west than he was back in Silesia. He flung himself upon the Austrians at Leuthen, took captive a third of their army, and put the rest to flight. The victories of Frederick, however, decimated his army.

^ See above, pp. 312 ff.

36o HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

He still had money, thanks to the subsidies which Pitt poured in from Great Britain, but he found it very difficult to procure men : he gathered recruits from hostile countries ; he granted amnesty to deserters ; he even enrolled prisoners of war. He was no longer sufficiently sure of his soldiers to take the offensive, and for five years he was reduced to defensive campaigns in Silesia. The Russians occupied East Prussia and penetrated into Brandenburg; in 1759 they captured Berhn.

The French, after suffering defeat at Rossbach, directed their energies against Hanover but encountered unexpected resist- French ance at the hands of an army collected by Pitt's

Reverses gQ^^j g^j-^^j commanded by a Prussian general, the prince of Brunswick. Brunswick defeated them and gradually drove them out of Germany. This series of reverses, coupled with disasters that attended French armies in America and in ^j^g India, caused the French king to call upon his

" Family cousin, the king of Spain, for assistance. The re- Compact ^^Yi was the formation of the defensive alliance (1761) between the Bourbon states of France, Spain, and the Two Sicihes, and the entrance of Spain into the war (1762).

What really saved Frederick the Great was the death of the Tsarina Elizabeth (1762) and the accession to the Russian Withdrawal throne of Peter III, a dangerous madman but a warm of Russia admirer of the military prowess of the Prussian king. Peter in brusque style transferred the Russian forces from the standard of Maria Theresa to that of Frederick and restored to Prussia the conquests of his predecessor.^ Spain entered the war too late to affect its fortunes materially. She was Hubertus- unable to regain what France had lost, and in fact the burg (1763) : Bourbon states were utterly exhausted. The Aus-

Humilia- . . . . , . -,., .

tion of the trians, after frantic but vam attempts to wrest bilesia Habsburgs from Frederick, finally despaired of their cause. Triumph The treaty of Hubertusburg (1763) put an end to

of the Ho- lY^Q Seven Years' War in Europe. Maria Theresa finally, though reluctantly, surrendered all claims to Silesia. Prussia had clearly humihated Austria and become a first-rate power. The Hohenzollerns were henceforth the ac-

* Peter III was dethroned in the same year; his wife, Catherine II, who suc- ceeded him, refused to give active military support to either side.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIV.\LRY 361

knowledged peers of the Habsburgs. The almost synchronous treaty of Paris closed the war between Great Britain, on the one hand, and France and Spain on the other, by ceding the bulk of the French colonial empire to the British. There- after, Great Britain was practically undisputed mistress of the seas and chief colonial power of the world.

Frederick the Great devoted the last years of his life to the consolidation of his monarchy ^ and to enlarging its sphere of influence rather by diplomacy than by war. Fred- erick felt that the best safeguard against further at- the Great tempts of Austria to recover Silesia was a firm alliance and the between Prussia and Russia. And it was an outcome of^oiand of that alliance that in 1772 he joined with the Tsarina Catherine in making the first partition of Poland. Catherine ap- propriated the country east of the Diina and the Dnieper rivers. Frederick annexed West Prussia, except the towns of Danzig and Thorn, thereby Hnking up Prussia and Brandenburg by a continuous line of territory. Maria Theresa, moved by the loss of Silesia and by fear of the undue preponderance which the partition of Poland would give to her northern rivals, thought to adjust the balance of power by sharing in the shameful transaction : she occupied GaHcia, including the important city of Cracow. Maria Theresa repeatedly expressed her abhorrence of the whole business, but, as the scoffing Frederick said, "She wept, but she kept on taking."

The partition of Poland was more favorable to Prussia than to Austria. In the former case, the land annexed lay along the Baltic and served to render East Prussia, Brandenburg, and Silesia a geographical and political unit. On the other hand, Austria to some extent was positively weakened by the acquisi- tion of territory outside her natural frontiers, and the addition of a turbulent Polish people further increased the diversity of races and the clash of interests within the Habsburg dominions.

When, a few years later, the succession to the electorate of Bavaria was in some doubt and Austria laid claims to the greater part of that state (1777-1779), Frederick again stepped in, and now by intrigue and now by threats of armed force again pre- vented any considerable extension of Habsburg control. His

^ For the internal reforms of Frederick, see below, pp. 440 ff.

362 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

last important act was the formation of a league of princes to champion the lesser German states against Austrian aggression. By hard work, by military might, by force of will, unhampered by any moral code, Frederick the Great perfected the policies of the Great Elector and of Frederick Wilham I and raised Prussia to the rank of partner with Austria in German leader- ship and to an eminent position in the international affairs of Europe. Had Frederick lived, however, but a score of years longer, he would have witnessed the total extinction of the Holy Roman Empire, the apparent ruin of the Germanies, and the degradation of his own country as well as that of Austria.^ He might even have perceived that a personal despotism, built by bloodshed and unblushing deceit, was hardly proof against a nation stirred by ideaHsm and by a consciousness of its own rights and power.

^ See below, Chapter XVI.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY

363

THE HOHENZOLLERN FAMILY (1415-1915) : ELECTORS OF BRANDENBURG, KINGS OF PRUSSIA, AND GERMAN

EMPERORS

Frederick I, Elector of Brandenburg I (1415-1440)

Frederick II (144&-1470)

Albert Achilles

(1470-1486)

John Cicero (i486- I 499)

Frederick, m. Sophia, dau. of Casimir IV,

Margrave of

Ansbach,

d. 1536

Joachim I

(1499-1535)

i Joachim II (1535-1571)

John George

(1S71-1598)

I

Joachim Frederick

(1598-1608)

I

John Sigisuund

(1608-1619)

Albert,

Card. Archb.

of Mainz,

d. 1545

King of Poland

Albert, Grand Master of Teutonic Order (1511-1525), Duke of Prussia (1525-1568)

Albert Frederick, m. Maria Eleonora, heiress

Duke of Prussia (1568-1618)

of Cleves, Jillich, and Berg

— Aiine

George Willum

(1619-1640)

Eleonora m. Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden

Frederick Willum, the Great Elector

(1640-1688)

Frederick III (1688-17 13)

(Frederick I, King of Prussia, 1701-1713)

Frederick Willlam I, m. Sophia, dau. of George I of Great Britain (1713-1740) I

Frederick II, the Great Augustus William (1740-1786) I

Frederick WiLLiAii II (1786-1797)

Frederick William HI

(1797-1840)

I

Frederick William IV (1840-1861)

William I,

King of Prussia (i86i-i88i German Emperor (1871-1?

Charlotte m. Nicholas I, Tsar of Russia

Frederick III (1888) m. Victoria of Great Britain

WnxiAM n (1888- ) Henry, admiral

Sophia m. Constantine I, King of Greece

ADDITION.\L READING

General. Brief narratives: J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard, The Development of Modern Europe, Vol. I (1907), ch. iv, v; E. F. Henderson, A Short History of Germany, Vol. II (1902), ch. i-iv; A. H. Johnson, The

364 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Age of the Enlightened Despot, i66o-ij8g (igio), ch. vii, viii ; Ferdinand Schevill, The Making of Modern Germany (1916), ch. i, ii ; Arthur Hassall, The Balance of Power, ijis-ijSg (1896), ch. vi-ix; C. T. Atkinson, A History of Germany, 1715-1815 (1908), almost exclusively a miUtary history ; H. T. Dyer, A History of Modern Europe from the Fall of Con- stantinople, 3d ed. rev. by Arthur Hassall, 6 vols. (1901), ch. xlv-xlviii. Longer accounts: Cambridge Modern History, Vol. V (1908), ch. xii, xx, xxi, and Vol. VI (1909), ch. vii-ix, xx; Histoire generale. Vol. V, ch. xix, Vol. VI, ch. xvi, and Vol. VII, ch. iv, v; Emile Bourgeois, Manuel historique de politique etrangere, 4th ed.. Vol. I (1906), ch. vi, xii, valuable for international relations of the Germanies ; Bernhard Erdmannsdorffer, Deutsche Geschichte, i648-i'/40, 2 vols. (1892-1893).

The Habsburg Dominions in the Eighteenth Century. In English : Sidney Whitman, Austria (1899), and, by the same author. The Realm of the Habsburgs (1893), brief outlines; Louis Leger, A History of Austro- Hungary from the Earliest Time to the Year i88g, trans, by Mrs. B. Hill from a popular French work (1889) ; William Coxe, House of Austria, 4 vols. (1893-1895) in the Bohn Library, originally published nearly a cen- tury ago but still useful, especially Vol. Ill ; C. M. KnatchbuU-Hugessen, The Political Evolution of the Hungarian Nation, Vol. I (1908), ch. iv-vii; Armin Vambery, The Story of Hungary (1894), in the " Story of the Na- tions " Series. In German: Franz Krones, Handbuch der Geschichte Oester- reichs, 5 vols. (1876-1879), Vol. IV, Book XVIII. There is a good brief English biography of Maria Theresa by J. F. Bright (1897) in the " Foreign Statesmen " Series, and a great standard German biography by Alfred von Arneth, Geschichte Maria Theresias, 10 vols. (1863-1879). See also A. Wolf and Hans von Zwiedineck-Siidenhorst, Osterreich unter Maria Theresia (1884).

The Rise of Prussia. History of All Nations, Vol. XV, The Age of Frederick the Great, Eng. trans, of a weU-known German history by Martin Philippson ; Herbert Tuttle, History of Prussia to the Accession of Frederick the Great (1884), and, by the same author, History of Prussia under Frederick the Great, 3 vols., coming down to 1757 (i 888-1 896), primarily constitu- tional and political ; Reinhold Koser, Geschichte der brandenburgisch- preussischen Politik, Vol. I (1914), from earliest times through the Thirty Years' War, by the late general director of the Prussian State Archives, an eminent authority on the history of his country ; J. G. Droysen, Geschichte der preussischen Politik, 14 vols. (1868-1876), the most elaborate history of Prussia down to 1756 by a famous national historian; Ernst Berner, Geschichte des preussischen Staales (1891), a briefer, popular account, richly illustrated ; Hans von Zwiedineck-Siidenhorst, Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitraum der Griindung des preussischen Konigtums, 2 vols. (1890-1894), an enthusiastic German appreciation ; Albert Waddington, Histoire de Prusse, Vol. I (191 1), from the origins of the state to the death of the Great Elector, an able French presentation. There is an admirable old German biography of Frederick the Great's father, with copious extracts from the

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 365

sources, by F. C. Forster, Fricdrich Wilhelm I Konig von Preusscn, 3 vols. (1834-1835). On Frederick the Great: F. W. Longman, Frederick the Great and the Seven Years' War, 2d ed. (1886), a good summary in English ; W. F. Reddaway, Frederick the Great and the Rise of Prussia (1904) in the " Heroes of the Nations " Series ; Thomas Carlyle, Frederick the Great, an English classic in many editions, sympathetic and in spots inaccurate ; Reinhold Koser, Geschichte Friedrichs dcs Grossen, 5th ed., 4 vols. (1912- 1914), a most thorough and authoritative biography ; Politische Korre- spondenz Friedrichs des Grossen, ed. by Reinhold Koser and others, in many volumes, constitutes the most valuable original source for the reign of Frederick the Great.

The Wars of Frederick the Great. G. AL Priest, Germany since 1740 (1915), ch. i-iii, a useful outline; D. J. Hill, History of Diplomacy in the International Development of Europe, \o\. Ill (1914), ch. vi-viii, valuable for diplomatic relations ; Richard Waddington, La guerre de sept ans : histoire diplomatique et militaire, 5 vols. (1899-1914), the best history of the Seven Years' War ; A. D. Schaefer, Geschichte des siehenjdhrigen Kriegs, 2 vols, in 3 (1867-1874), a careful German account ; Wilhelm Oncken, Das Zeitalter Friedrichs des Grossen, 2 vols. (1881-1882), an important work on Frederick's reign, in the imposing Oncken Series. See also A. W. Ward, Great Britain and Hanover, Some Aspects of their Personal Union (1899).

CHAPTER XII

THE RISE OF RUSSIA AND THE DECLINE OF TURKEY, SWEDEN, AND POLAND

RUSSIA IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

How the backward. Oriental tsardom of Muscovy has been transformed into the huge empire of Russia, now comprising one- sixth of the land surface and one-twelfth of the population of the earth, is one of the most fascinating phases of the history of modern times. It was not until the eighteenth century that Russia came into close contact with the commerce and culture of western Christendom ; not until then did she become a great power in the European family of nations.

Several occurrences during the two centuries which separated the reign of the Tsar Ivan the Great from that of Peter the Russian Great paved the way for the subsequent, almost start- Expansion jjj^g^ j-jgg Qf ^}|g powerful empire of northern and east- ern Europe. The first in importance was the expansion of the Russian race and dominion. Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the farming folk of the region about Moscow were emigrating south and east and establishing them- selves in the fertile plains of the Don, the Volga, and the Irtysh.^ A glance at the map of Russia will show how the network of rivers combined with the level character of the country to facili- tate this process of racial expansion. The gentle southerly flowing Dnieper, Don, and Volga, radiating from the same central region, and connected by way of the Kama with the headwaters of the Dwina, which empties into the White Sea in the extreme north, became chief channels of trade and migration, and contributed much more to the elaboration of national unity than any political institutions. Boats could

^ Armies of the tsar backed up the colonists : they occupied Kazan in 1552 and Astrakhan, near the Caspian Sea, in 1554.

366

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 367

be conveyed over flat and easy portages from one river-basin to another, and these portages with a relatively small amount of labor were gradually changed into navigable channels, so that even now the canals are more important than many of the railways as arteries of commerce.

As the emigrants threaded their way along the river courses and over the broad plains they had to be constantly on the alert against attacks of troublesome natives, and they The accordingly organized themselves in semi-military Cossacks fashion. Those in the vanguard of territorial expansion con- stituted a peculiar class known as Cossacks, who, like frontiers- men of other times and places, for example, like those that gained for the United States its vast western domain, lived a wild life in which agricultural and pastoral pursuits were intermingled with hunting and lighting. In the basins of the southern rivers, the Cossacks formed semi-independent military communities : those of the Volga and the Don professed allegiance to the tsar of Muscovy, while those of the Dnieper usually recognized the sovereignty of the king of Poland.

Nor was the migration of the Russian race restricted to Europe. The division between Europe and Asia is largely imaginary, as another glance at the map will prove, — the low-lying Eastward Urals are a barrier only toward the north, while south- Expansion ward the plains of Russia stretch on interminably above the Caspian until they are merged in the steppes of Si- beria. Across these plains moved a steady stream of Cossacks and peasants and adventurers, carrying with them the habits and traditions of their Russian homes. Ever eastward wended the emigrants. They founded Tobolsk in 1587 and Tomsk in 1604; they established Yakutsk on the Lena River in 1632, and Irkutsk on Lake Baikal in 1652 ; in 1638 they reached the Sea of Okhotsk, and, by the close of the seventeenth century, they occupied the peninsula of Kamchatka and looked upon the broad Pacific. Thus at the time when the Spaniards were extending their speech and laws throughout South America and the EngUsh were laying the foundations for the predominance of their institutions in North America, the Russians were appro- priating northern Asia and demonstrating that, with them at least, the course of empire takes its way eastward.

368 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Ivan the Great had already been described m church serv- ice as "the ruler and autocrat of all Russia, the new Tsar Constantine ^ in the new city of Constantine, Moscow." His successors invariably had themselves crowned as tsars and auto- crats of all Russia. By iTiihtary might they maintained their control over the ever-widening territories of the Russian people ; with racial pride and religious fervor, the distant emigrants regarded their royal family at Moscow. The power of the tsars kept pace with the expansion of the state.

Yet this greater Russia remained essentially Oriental. Its form of Christianity was derived from the East rather than from the West. Its social customs savored more of Asia Character- than of Europc. Its nobles and even its tsars were isticsof rated by western Christendom as little better than barbarians. In fact, the Russian state was looked upon in the seventeenth century in much the same way as China was regarded in the nineteenth century.

The reasons for this relative backwardness are not hard to as- certain. In the first place, the rehgion of the state was a direct heritage of the expiring Eastern Empire and was different from either the Catholicism or the Protestantism of western Europe. Secondly, long and close contact with the conquering Mongols or Tatars of Asia had saturated the Russian people with Oriental customs and habits." Thirdly, the nature of the country tended to exalt agriculture and to discourage industry and foreign commerce, and at the same time to turn emigration and expansion eastward rather than westward. Finally, so long as the neigh- boring western states of Sweden, Poland, and Turkey remained powerful and retained the entire coast of the Baltic and Black seas, Russia was deprived of seaports that would enable her to engage in traffic with western Europe and thus to partake of the common culture of Christendom.

Not until Russia was modernized and westernized, and had made considerable headway against one or all of her western

' The last Csesar of the Graeco-Roman Empire, Constantine XI, had perished in 1453 in vain defense of Constantinople against the Turks. It was a significant fact that the Russian rulers, who owed their Christianity and their nation's culture to the Greeks, should now revive the title of Caesar (Russian form, tsar or czar).

^ See above, pp. 21 f.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 369

neighbors, could she hope to become a European Power. Not until the accession of the Romanov dynasty did she enter seri- ously upon this twofold policy.

The direct line of Ivan the Great had died out at the close of the sixteenth century, and there ensued what in Russian history are known as "the troublous times." Disputes over ^j^^ the succession led to a series of civil wars, and the "Troublous consequent anarchy invited foreign intervention. For ^" a time the Poles harassed the country and even occupied the Kremlin, or citadel, of Moscow. The Swedes, also, took advan- tage of the troublous times in Russia to enlarge their conquests on the eastern shore of the Baltic and to seize the important trading center of Novgorod. In the south, the Turks warred with the Cossacks and brought many of the Crimean princi- palities under their control.

Under these discouraging circumstances a great national assembly met at Moscow in 16 13 to elect a tsar, and their choice fell upon one of their own number, a certain Michael ^

^ 111 Accession

Romanov, whose family had been connected by mar- of the riage ties with the ancient royal line. It is an inter- Romanovs, esting fact that the present autocrat of Russia is a lineal descendant of the Romanov who was thus popularly elected to supreme authority in 16 13.

Michael Romanov proved an excellent choice. Accepted by all classes, he reestablished order and security throughout the country and successfully resisted foreign encroachments. He founded several fortified towns in the south against the Tatars and the Turks. He recovered Novgorod from the Swedes. During the reign of his son, PoHsh depredations were stopped and the Dnieper River was fixed upon ^ as the general divid- ing line between Poland and Russia.

PETER THE GREAT

The grandson of Michael Romanov was the celebrated Peter the Great, who may rightfully be designated as the father of modern Russia. His older brothers, with whom during his

1 Treaty of Andrussovo (1667), in accordance with which Poland ceded to Russia Kiev, Smolensk, and eastern Ukraine.

370 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

youth he was nominally associated in the government, died

in turn without leaving direct heirs, and Peter became sole

ruler in 1606. From the outset he showed an insati-

His Ac- . . , , , . .

cession able curiosity about the arts and sciences 01 western

and Early Europe, the authority of its kings and the organiza-

Travels . ^- . . ^ ^ ^^ . '^. .

tion of its armies and fleets, i o an intense curiosity, Peter added an indomitable will. He was resolved to satisfy his every curiosity and to utilize whatever he learned or found.

From childhood, Peter had displayed an aptitude for mechani- cal tools and inventions and especially for boat-making. Ship- building and ship-sailing became his favorite pastimes. When he was barely twenty-one, he launched at Archangel, on the ice-bound White Sea, a ship which he had built with his own hands. Now in 1696, being sole tsar at the age of twenty-four, he fitted out a fleet which defeated the Turks on the Black Sea and allowed him to capture the valuable port of Azov. No other successes were gained, however, in this Turkish War ; and the young tsar began to perceive that if he were to succeed in his cherished project he would have to obtain Western aid. In 1697, therefore, a special commission left Moscow for the pur- pose of soliciting the cooperation of the principal Powers against Turkey, and to this commission the young tsar attached him- self as a volunteer sailor, "Peter Mikhailov," in order that he might incidentally learn much about ship-building and other technical sciences.

In its primary purpose, the Russian commission failed sig- nally. Western Europe was on the eve of the War of the Spanish Succession, and all the European sovereigns seemed to be en- grossed in the distractions of dynastic poHtics. No help against the Turks was forthcoming. But personally Peter learned many useful things. In Holland he studied ship-building as well as anatomy and engraving. In England he investigated industry and commerce. He closely scrutinized the miHtary establish- ment of Prussia. In all places which he visited he collected artisans, sailors, engineers, or other workmen, whom he sent back to Russia to instruct his people.

While he was on his way from Vienna to Venice, news reached him that the royal bodyguard, called the streltsi, had taken advantage of his absence of a year and a half and had mutinied

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 371

at Moscow. In hot haste he hurried home and wreaked dire vengeance upon the mutineers. Two thousand were hung or broken on the wheel, live thousand were beheaded, and Peter for many days amused himself and edilied sion of his court by the wonderful dexterity he displayed in ^® sUcing off the heads of slrdtsi with his own ro3^al arm.

The severe punishment of the rebellious streltsi and the immediate abohtion of their military organization was clear evidence that Peter was fully determined both to break with the past traditions of his country and to compel all the Russian people to do likewise.

His first care was the reconstruction of the army on the Prussian model. Officered and disciplined by for- Military eigners dependent entirely upon the tsar, the new Reform army replaced the streltsi and proved a potent factor in further- ing the domestic and foreign policies of Peter the Great.

The young reformer next turned his attention to the customs of his people — their clothing and manners — which he would transform from Oriental to Occidental. Edict followed ^ , ^ ,.

• ,. rr.1 1 • J- Introduction

edict with amazing rapidity. The chief potentates of Occi- of the empire were solemnly assembled so that Peter Rental

^ . . . Customs

with his own hand might deliberately chp off their long beards and flowing mustaches. A heavy tax was imposed on such as persisted in wearing beards. French or German clothes were to be substituted, under penalty of large fines, for the traditional Russian costume. The use of tobacco was made compulsory. The Oriental semi-seclusion of women was prohibited. Both sexes were to mingle freely in the festivities of the court. These innovations were largely superficial : they partially permeated the nobihty and clergy, but made little impression on the mass of the population. Peter had begun a work, however, which was certain of great results in the future. The reign of Peter the Great is notable for the removal of serious checks upon the power of the tsar and the definitive estab- lishment of that form of absolutism which in Russia is ueveiop- called ''autocracy." By sheer abihty and will-power, ment of the tsar was quahfied to play the role of divine-right " ocracy monarch, and his observation of the centralized government of Louis XIV, as well as the appreciation of his country's needs,

372 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

convinced him that that kind of government was the most suit- able for Russia.

We have already observed how Peter replaced the inde- pendent, turbulent streltsi with a thoroughly devoted and or- ^ , ,. derly standing army. That was one important step

Subordi- . , ,. . . ^, 1

nation of m the direction of autocracy. Ihe next was the sub- J^^ ^y^^° , ordination of the Church to the state. The tsar under- to the stood the very great influence which the Holy Ortho-

Russian (^Qx Church exerted over the Russian people and the danger to his policies that ecclesiastical opposition might create. He was naturally anxious that the Church should become the ally, not the enemy, of autocracy. He, therefore, took such steps as would exalt the Church in the opinion of his comitrymen and at the same time would render it a serviceable agent of the government. Professing the warmest faith in its rehgious tenets, he deprived the patriarch ^ of Moscow of his privilege of controlling the ecclesiastical organization and vested The Holy all powcrs of church government in a body, called the Synod Holy Synod, whose members were bishops and whose

chief was a layman, all chosen by the tsar himself. No appoint- ment to ecclesiastical office could henceforth be made without the approval of the Holy Synod ; no sermon could be preached and no book could be published unless it had received the sanc- tion of that august body. The authority which the tsar thereby obtained over the Russian Church was as complete and far- reaching as that which Henry VIII had acquired, two centuries earher, over the Anglican Church. The results have been in keeping with Peter's fondest expectations, for the Orthodox Church in Russia has been from his time to the present the right- hand support of absolutism. The tsars have exalted the Church as the fountain of order and holiness ; as a veritable ark of the covenant have the clergy magnified and extolled the autocracy. A remodeling of the secular government of Russia along autocratic lines was another achievement of Peter the Great which long endured. At the head of the state was the tsar or

1 Until late in the sixteenth century, the metropolitan of Moscow was in theory under the authority of the patriarch of Constantinople ; thereafter, through Boris Godunov, he became independent with full consent and approval of the whole Greek Orthodox Church and was styled the patriarch of Moscow.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 373

emperor, possessing absolute', unlimited powers. An ancient as- sembly, or Duma, of nobles, which had formerly exercised vague legislative rights, was practicall}- abohshed, its place being taken by an ad\isory Council of State whose Power members, usually noblemen, were selected by the tsar. °f *^®

■' . . Tsar

All traces of local self-government were similarly swept away, and the country was henceforth administered by the tsar's personal agents. To enforce his autocratic will, a system of police was organized on a militia basis, its chiefs being made dependent on the central authority. In these, as in all his other reforms, the tsar encountered a good deal of opposition, and for a while was obliged to rely largely on foreigners to carry them out. As soon as possible, however, Peter employed natives, for it was a cardinal point in his pohcy that the Russians themselves must manage their own state without foreign interference or help.

Like his contemporaries in western Europe, Peter gave con- siderable attention to the economic condition of the monarchy. He strove, though often in a bungling manner, to pro- mote agriculture and to improve the lot of the peasan- sodai Re- try, who still constituted the overwhelming bulk of forms of the population. He certainly deprived the nobles of Qj-gat many of their former privileges and sought to rest po- litical power and social position on ability rather than on birth. He understood that Russia grievously lacked a numerous and prosperous middle class, and he aimed to create one by encourag- ing trade and industries. His almost constant participation in wars, however, prevented him from bringing many of his eco- nomic and social plans to fruition.

Internal reforms were but one-half of Peter's ambitious pro- gram. To him Russia owes not only the abolition of the streltsi, the loss of the independence of the Church, the Europeanization of manners and customs, and the Foreign firm estabhshment of autocracy, but also the pro- PoUcy of nouncement and enforcement of an elaborate scheme q^.^^^ of foreign aggrandizement. On one hand, the tsar showed a lively interest in the exploration and colonization of Siberia and in the extension of Russian dominion around the Caspian Sea and towards the Persian Empire. On the other hand, — and this, for our purposes, is far more important, —

374 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

he was resolved to make the cultural and commercial connection between Russia and Europe strong and intimate, to open a way to the west by gaining outlets on both the Black and Baltic seas — "windows" to the west, as he termed them.

On the Baltic Sea, Sweden blocked him ; toward the Black Sea, the Ottoman power hemmed him in. It was, therefore, against Sweden and Turkey that Peter the Great waged war. It seemed to him a matter of dire necessity for the preservation of European civiUzation in Russia that he should defeat one or both of these states. Against the Turks, as events proved, he made little headway ; against the Swedes he fared better.

In order that we may understand the nature of tlie momentous confhct between Russia and Sweden in the first quarter of the eighteenth century, it will be necessary at this point to notice the parallel development of Sweden.

SWEDEN AND THE CAREER OF CHARLES XII

It will be recalled that a century before Peter the Great, the remarkable Gustavus Adolphus had aimed to make the Baltic a Swedish lake. To his own kingdom, lying along the Sweden a western shore of that sea, and to the dependency of Power Finland, he had added by conquest the eastern prov-

in the inccs of KareHa, Ingria, Esthonia, and Livonia,^ and

Century his successful interference in the Thirty Years' War had given Sweden possession of western Pomerania and the mouths of the Elbe, Oder, and Weser rivers and a con- siderable influence in German affairs. For many years after the death of Gustavus Adolphus, Sweden was the recognized leader of continental Protestantism, and her trade on the Baltic grew and thrived. The exports of Russia and Poland found a con- venient outlet through the Swedish port of Riga, and those of the northern Germanics were frequently dispatched on Swedish vessels from Stettin or Stralsund.

Repeated efforts were made by Denmark, Poland, and Bran- denburg to break the commercial monopoly which Sweden enjoyed

^ Livonia, occupied by Gustavus Adolphus during the Polish War of 1621- 1629, was not formally relinquished by Poland until 1660. Esthonia had been conquered by the Swedes in 1561, but Russia did not renounce her pretensions to this province until 161 7.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 375

upon the Baltic and to deprive her of her conquests, but for a long time in vain. Victory continued to attend Swedish arms and a general treaty in 1660 confirmed her dominion. At that time Sweden was not only a military power of the first magnitude but also one of the largest states of Europe, possessing about twice as much area as present-day Sweden. Her area embraced a land-surface 7000 square miles larger than the modern Ger- man Empire. All the islands and the greater part of the coast of the Baltic belonged to her. Stockholm, the capital, lay in the very center of the empire, whose second city was Riga, on the other side of the sea. In politics, in rehgion, and in trade, Sweden was feared and respected.

Yet the greatness of Sweden in the seventeenth century was more apparent than real. Her commerce provoked the jealousy of all her neighbors. Her dependencies across the Baltic were difficult to hold : peopled by Finns, Rus- «/ w^^k^ sians, Poles, Germans, and Danes, their bond with ness in Sweden was essentially artificial, and they usually pog^jtion^ sympathized, naturally enough, with their sovereign's enemies. They, therefore, imposed on the mother country the duty of remaining a military monarchy, armed from head to foot for every possible emergency. For such a tremendous destiny Sweden was quite unfitted. Her wide territory was very sparsely populated, and her peasantry were very poor. Only the French alKance gave her soHd backing in the Germanies, and, with the decline of the fortunes of Louis XIV and the rise of Prussia and Russia, she was bound to lose her leadership in the North.

To the fate of Sweden, her rulers in the seventeenth century contributed no small share. Nearly all of them were born fight- ers and nearly all of them were neglectful of home interests and of the works of peace. The miHtary instincts of the Swedish kings not only sacrificed thousands of Kves that were urgently needed in building up their country and cost the kingdom enor- mous sums of money but likewise impaired commerce, surrounded the empire with a broad belt of desolated territory, and implanted an ineradicable hatred in every adjacent state. Then, too, the extravagance and negligence of the sovereigns led to chaos in domestic government. Taxes were heavy and badly appor-

376 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

tioned. The nobles recovered many of their political privileges. The royal power steadily dwindled away at the very time when it was most needed ; and a selfish, grasping aristocracy hastened their country's ruin.^

At length, in 1697, when Charles XII, a boy of fifteen years, ascended the throne of Sweden, the neighboring Powers thought Coalition ^^^ time had arrived to partition his territories among against themselves. Tsar Peter, while returning home the

following year from his travels abroad, had discussed with Augustus II, elector of Saxony and king of Poland, a plan which the latter had formed for the dismemberment of the Swedish Empire : Poland was to recover Livonia and annex Esthonia ; Russia was to obtain Ingria and KareKa and thereby a port on the Baltic; Brandenburg was to occupy western Pomerania ; and Denmark was to take possession of Holstein and the mouths of the Elbe and Weser. Charles XII was to retain only his kingdom in the Scandinavian peninsula and the grand duchy of Finland. At the last moment Brandenburg balked, but Saxony, Denmark, and Russia signed the nefarious alliance in 1699. The alhes expected quick and decisive vic- tory. All western and southern Europe was on the verge of a great struggle for the Spanish inheritance and would clearly be unable to prevent them from despoihng Sweden.

But the alhes grossly underrated their foe. Charles XII was a mere boy, but precocious, gloomy, and sensitive, and ,,.,. endowed with all the martial determination and hero-

Military . tt i • i t • i

Exploits ism of his ancestors. He desired nothing better than of Charles ^q j^g^t against overwhelming odds, and the fury of the youthful commander soon earned him the sobri- quet of the "madman of the North." The alHance of 1699 pre- cipitated the Great Northern War which was to last until 1721 and slowly, but no less inevitably, lower Sweden to the position of a third-rate power. It was amid the most spectacular exploits of the boy-king that the ruin of Sweden was accomplished. It was a grander but more tragic fate than in the same period befell Spain.

Charles XII did not give the allies time to unite. Hurriedly

' A reaction appeared under the capable Charles XI (1660-1697), but its fruits were completely lost by his son and successor, Charles XII.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 377

crossing the straits, he invaded Denmark, whose terrified king I")romptly signed a treaty with him (1700), paying a large in- demnity and engaging to keep the peace in future.

Thence Charles hastened across the Baltic to Esthonia in order to deal with the invading Russians. At Narva he met and annihilated their army. Then he turned southward, clearing Livonia and Lithuania of Poles, Saxons, and Russians.

Into the very heart of Poland he carried the war, possessing himself of both Warsaw and Cracow. He obliged the Polish Diet to dethrone Augustus and to accept a king of his own choice in the person of a certain Stanislaus Leszczjmski (1704).

All these things had been done by a young man between the age of seventeen and twenty-two. It was quite natural that he should be puffed up with pride in his ability and successes. It was almost as natural that, hardened at an early age to the hor- rors of war, he should become increasingly callous and cruel. Many instructions the impulsive youth sent out over conquered districts in Russia, Poland, and Saxony "to slay, bum, and de- stroy." "Better that the innocent suffer than that the guilty escape" was his favorite adage.

Small wonder, then, that neither Peter the Great nor the Elector Augustus would abandon the struggle. While Charles was overrunning Poland, Peter was reorganizing his army and occupying KareHa and Ingria ; and when the Swedish king re- turned to engage the Russians, Augustus drove out Stanislaus and regained the croAvn of Poland. Yet Charles, with an unrea- soning stubbornness, would not perceive that the time had arrived for terminating the conflict with a few concessions. Russia at that time asked only a port on the Gulf of Finland as the price of an alKance against Poland.

To all entreaties for peace, Charles XII turned a deaf ear, and pressed the war in Russia. Unable to take Moscow, he turned southward in order to effect a juncture with some rebellious Cossacks, but met the army of Peter poitav" the Great at Poltava (1709). Poltava marks the (1709): decisive triumph of Russia over Sweden. The Swe- charfes°xii dish army was destroyed, only a small number being able to accompany the flight of their king across the southern Russian frontier into Turkish territory.

378 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Then Charles stirred up the Turks to attack the tsar, but from the new contest he was himself unable to profit. Peter bought peace with the Ottoman government by re-ceding the town of Azov, and the latter gradually tired of their guest's con- tinual and frantic clamor for war. After a sojourn of over five years in Ottoman lands, Charles suddenly and unexpectedly appeared, with but a single attendant, at Stralsund, which by that time was all that remained to him outside of Sweden and Finland.

Still, however, the war dragged on. The alUes grew in num- bers and in demands. Peter the Great and Augustus were . again joined by the Danish king. Great Britain, Han-

and Death over, and Prussia, all covetous of Swedish trade or of Charles Swedish territory, were now members of the coaKtion. Charles XII stood like adamant : he would retain all or he would lose all. So he stood until the last. It was while he was directing an invasion of Norway that the brilhant but ill-balanced Charles lost his Hfe (1718), being then but thirty-six years of age.

Peace which had been impossible during the hfetime of Charles, became a reahty soon after his death. It certainly came none Decline of too soon for the exhausted and enfeebled condition of Sweden Sweden. By the treaties of Stockholm (1719 and 1720), Sweden resigned all her German holdings except a small district of western Pomerania including the town of Stralsund. Denmark received Holstein and a money indemnity. Hanover gained the mouths of the Elbe and Weser ; Prussia, the mouth of the Oder and the important city of Stettin. Augustus was restored to the Pohsh throne, though without territorial gain. Great Britain, Denmark, and Prussia became the principal commercial heirs of Sweden.

The treaty of Nystad (1721) was the turning point for Russia, for thereby she acquired from Sweden full sovereignty over not only Karelia and Ingria but the important Baltic NjTslad" provinces of Esthonia and Livonia and a narrow strip (1721): of southern Finland including the strong fortress of

thTfiaitic Viborg. Peter the Great had realized his ambition of affording his country a "window to the west." On the waste marshes of the Neva he succeeded with enormous effort

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 379

and sacrifice of life in building a great city which might be a center of commerce and a bond of connection between Russia and the western world. He named his new city St. Peters- burg ^ and to it he transferred his government from Moscow. Russia supplanted Sweden in the leadership of the Baltic and assumed a place among the Powers of Europe.

Peter the Great did not reahze his other ambition of secur- ing a Russian port on the Black Sea. Although he captured and held Azov for a time, he was obUged to rehnquish it, as we have seen, in order to prevent the Turks from joining hands with Charles XII.

Nevertheless, when Peter died in 1725, he left his empire a compact state, well-organized, and well-administered, west- ernized at least superficially, and ready to play a con- character spicuous role in the international pohtics of Europe, of Peter The man who succeeded in doing all these things has been variously estimated. By some he has been represented as a monster of cruelty and a murderer,^ by others as a demon of the grossest sensuality, by still others as a great national hero. Probably he merited all such opinions. But, above all, he was a genius of fierce energy and will, who toiled always for what he considered to be the welfare of his country.

CATHERINE THE GREAT: THE DEFEAT OF TURKEY AND THE DISMEMBERMENT OF POLAND

It is hardly possible to feel much respect for the character of the Russian rulers who succeeded Peter the Great in the eighteenth century. Most of them were women with loose morals and ugly manners. But they had Uttle to fear from Sweden, which, utterly exhausted, was now on a steady decline ; and domestic difficulties both in Poland and in Turkey removed any apprehension of attacks from those countries. In policies

1 Known generally in the Teutonic form " St. Petersburg " from its foundation until the War of the Nations in 1914, when the Slavic form of " Petrograd " was substituted.

2 Peter had his son and heir, the Grand Duke Alexius, put to death because he did not sympathize with his reforms. The tsar's other punishments often as- sumed a most revolting and disgusting character.

380 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

of internal government, Peter had blazed a trail so clear and unmistakable that one would have difficulty in losing it.

Of those female sovereigns of the Russian Empire, the most

notable was Catherine II, usually called Catherine

of «ie*^ ^'^ ^^^^ Great (1762-1796). By birth she was not even a

Tsarina Russian, but a princess of Protestant Germany, whom

jj^ enne (iynastic considerations made the wife of the heir to

the Russian crown. ^

No sooner was she in her adopted country than she set to work to ingratiate herself with its people. She learned the Russian language. She outwardly conformed to the Orthodox Church. She slighted her German relatives and surrounded herself with Russians. She established a reputation for quick wit and lofty patriotism. So great was her success that when her half -insane husband ascended the throne as Peter III in 1762, the people looked to her rather than to him as the real ruler, and before the year was over she had managed to make away with him and to become sovereign in name as well as in fact. For thirty-four years Catherine was tsarina of Russia. Immoral to the last, without conscience or scruple, she ruled the country with a firm hand and consummated the work of Peter the Great.

In the administrative system Catherine introduced the "governments" and "districts," divisions and subdivisions of Russia, over which were placed respectively governors ministration ^^^ vicc-govemors, all appointed by the central au- thority. To the ecclesiastical alterations of Peter, she added the secularization of church property, thereby making the clergy distinctly dependent upon her bounty and strengthen- ing the autocracy.

The tsarina had some personal interest in the literary and scientific progress of the eighteenth century and was deter- jjgj. mined to make Russia appear cultured in the eyes of

Patronage wcstem Europc. She corresponded with Voltaire and

earning j^^j^y other philosophers and learned men of the time. She pensioned Diderot, the author of the great Encyclopagdia, and invited scholars to her court. She posed as the friend of higher education.

1 The marriage was arranged by Frederick the Great in order to minimize Austrian influence at Pelrograd.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 381

Of the three foreign countries which in the eighteenth century blocked the western expansion of Russia, Sweden had been humbled by Peter in the Great Northern War and the jj^j. treaty of Nystad. Poland and Turkey remained to Foreign be dealt with by Catherine the Great. Let us see ° *^^ what had kitely transpired to render tliis task comparatively easy for the tsarina.

Poland in the first half of the eighteenth century was geo- graphically a large state, but a variety of circumstances con- tributed to render it weak and unstable. In the first place, it was without natural boundaries or adequate in the means of defense. To the west it was separated from Eighteenth Prussia and Austria by an artificial line drawn through level plains or over low-hdng hills. To the south a fluctuating frontier, fixed usually along the Dniester River, set it off from the Ottoman Empire. The fertile valleys of the Dnieper, to the east, and of the Diina, to the north, were shared by Russia and Poland. No chains of mountains and no strongly fortified places protected the Polish people from Germans, Turks, or Russians.

Nor was this wade, but indefensible, territory inhabited by a single homogeneous people. The Poles themselves, centering in the western cities of Warsaw and Cracow, constituted a ma- jority of the population, but the Lithuanians, a kindred Slavic folk, covered the east-central part of the kingdom and a large number of Cossacks and "Little Russians" ^ lived in the extreme east, while along the northern and western borders were settle- ments of Germans and Swedes. Between the Poles and the Lithuanians existed a long-standing feud, and the Germans re- garded all the Slavs with ill-disguised contempt.

Religion added its share to the dissension created by race and language within Poland. The Poles and most of the Lithu- anians were stanch Roman Catholics. Other Lithuanians — • especially the great nobles — • together with the Russians and Cossacks adhered to the Greek Orthodox faith, while Lutheran Protestantism was upheld by the western settlements of Swedes and Germans. The Dissenters, as the Orthodox and Protestants were called, demanded from the Catholic majority a toleration

1 Ruthenians.

382 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

and a freedom of worship which at that time existed in no other country of Europe. When it was not forthcoming, they appealed to foreign Powers — the Lutherans to Prussia, the Orthodox to Russia.

Worst of all were the social conditions in Poland. By the eighteenth century, the towns had sunk into relative insignifi- cance, leaving Poland without a numerous or wealthy

Wretched

Social middle class. Of the other classes, the great nobles

Conditions qj- magnates owned the land, lived in luxury, selfishly

in Poland , ■, , ^ , . . , • 1 1

looked out for their own interests, and jealously played poKtics, while the mass of the nation were degraded into a state of serfdom and wretchedness that would be difhcult to parallel elsewhere in Europe. With a grasping, haughty no- bility on one hand, and an oppressed, ignorant peasantry on the other, social soHdarity, the best guarantee of poHtical inde- pendence, was entirely lacking.

An enHghtened progressive government might have done

something to remedy the social ills, but of all governments

that the world has ever seen, the most ineffectual and

of Polish pernicious was the Polish. Since the sixteenth cen-

PoUticai tury, the monarchy had been elective, with the result

Institutions . . . ._ ,,

that the reign of every sovereign was disfigured by foreign intrigues and domestic squabbles over the choice of his successor, and also that the noble electors were able not only to secure Hberal bribes but to wring from the elect such conces- sions as gradually reduced the kingship to an ornamental figure- head. Most of the later kings were foreigners who used what little power was left to them in furtherance of their native inter- ests rather than of the welfare of Poland. Thus the kings in the first half of the eighteenth century were German electors of Saxony, who owed their new position to the interested friendship of Austria, Prussia, or Russia, and to the large sums of money which they lavished upon the Polish magnates ; these same Saxon rulers cheerfully applied the Polish resources to their German policies.

Another absurdity of the PoHsh constitution was the famous "'liberum veto" a kind of gentlemen's agreement among the mag- nates, whereby no law whatsoever could be enacted by the Diet if a single member felt it was prejudicial to his interests, and ob-

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 383

jected. In the course of the seventeenth century the principle of the lihcriim veto had been so far extended as to recognize the lawful right of any one of the ten thousand noblemen of Poland to refuse to obey a law which he had not approved. This amounted to anarchism. And anarchism, however beautiful it might appear as an ideal, was hardly a trustworthy weapon with which to oppose the greedy, hard-hearted, despotic mon- archs who governed all the surrounding countries.

The Ottoman Empire was not in such sore straits as Poland, but its power and prestige were obviously waning. In another place we have rexaewed the achievements of the Turks ^ ^

^ . . Steady

in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries — how they Decline of overran the Balkan peninsula, captured Constanti- ottoman nople, put an end to the ancient Grasco-Roman Em- during pire, and under Suleiman the Magnificent extended Seventeenth their conquests along the northern coast of Africa and in Europe across the Danube into the very heart of Hun- gary. Although the sea-power of the Turks suffered a serious reverse at Lepanto (1571), their continued land advances pro- voked in Christendom the liveliest apprehension throughout the seventeenth century. After a twenty-five-years conflict they took Crete from Venice. They subjugated to their do- minion the Tatars and Russians immediately north of the Black Sea. They exacted homage from the princes of Rumania and Transylvania. They annexed Hungary. For a time they re- ceived tribute from the king of Poland. In 1683 they laid siege to the city of Vienna and would have taken it had not the pa- triotic PoUsh monarch, John Sobieski, brought timely aid to the beleaguered Austrians. That was the high-water mark of the Mohammedan advance in Europe.

Thenceforth the Turkish boundaries gradually receded. An alliance of Venice, Poland, the pope, and Austria waged long and arduous warfare with the Ottomans, and the resulting treaty of Karlowdtz, signed at the very close of the seventeenth century, gave the greater part of Hungary, including Transyl- vania, to the Austrian Habsburgs, extended the southern bound- ary of Poland to the Dniester River, and surrendered important trading centers on the Dalmatian and Greek coasts to the Vene- tians. Two subsequent wars between the sultan and the Habs-

384 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

burgs definitely freed the whole of Hungary from the Ottoman yoke.

The reasons for the wane of Turkey's power are scarcely to be sought in the inherent strength of her neighbors, for, with the possible exception of Austria and Russia, they were notori- ously weak and had seldom been able or willing to work together in behalf of any common cause. The real reasons lay rather in the character and nature of the Turkish power itself. Domestic, not foreign, difficulties prepared the way for future disasters.

It should be borne in mind that the Turks never constituted

a majority of the population of their European possessions.

They were a mere body of conquerors, who in frenzies

Nature r t • . / , . ..,.,,

of the of reugious or martial enthusiasm, inspired with the

Turkish [^j^q^ ^\-^^^ Divine Providence was using them as agents

Conquests 00

for the spread of Mohammedanism, had fought val- iantly with the sword or cunningly taken advantage of their enemies' quarrels to plant over wide areas the crescent in place of the cross. In the conquered regions, the native Christian peoples were reduced to serfdom, and the Turkish conquerors became great landholders and the official class. To extend, even to maintain, such an artificial order of things, the Turks would be obKged to keep their military organization always at the highest pitch of excellence and to preserve their government from weakness and corruption. In neither of these respects did the Turks ultimately succeed.

The sultans of the eighteenth century were not of the stuff of which a Suleiman the Magnificent had been made. To the grim risks of battle they preferred the cushioned ease in the of the palace, and all their powers of administration

Turkish g^j^^^ government were quite consumed in the manage- ment of the household and the harem. Actual author- ity was gradually transferred to the Divan, or board of minis- ters, whose appointments or dismissals were the results of palace intrigues, sometimes petty but more often bloody. Corruption ate its way through the entire office-holding element of the Otto- man state : positions were bought and sold from the Divan down to the obscure village, and office was held to exist primarily for financial profit and secondarily as a means of oppressing the subject people.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 385

The army, on which so much m the Turkish state depended, naturally reflected the demoralized condition of the government. While Peter the Great was organizing a powerful army in Russia, and Frederick the Great was perfecting the Prussian military machine, the Ottoman army steadily decKned. It failed to keep pace with the development of tactics and of firearms in western Europe, and fell behind the times. The all-prevalent corruption ruined its disciphne, and its regularly organized portion — the ''janissaries" — became the masters rather than the servants of the sultans and of the whole Turkish govern- ment.

It was the fortune of the Russian tsarina — Catherine the Great — to appreciate the real weakness of both Turkey and Poland and to turn her neighbors' distress to the profit of her own country.

No sooner had Catherine secured the Russian crown and by her inactivity permitted Frederick the Great to bring the Seven Years' War to a successful issue, than the death of Catherines Augustus III, elector of Saxony and king of Poland, interference gave her an opportunity to interfere in PoHsh affairs. She was not content with the Saxon line which was more or less under Austrian influence, and, with the astute aid of Frederick, she induced the Polish nobles to elect one of her own courtiers and favorites, Stanislaus Poniatowski, who thus in 1764 became the last king of an independent Poland.

With the accession of Stanislaus, the predominance of Russia was fully established in Poland. Russia entered into an execrable agreement with Prussia and Austria to uphold the anarchical constitution of the unhappy and victimized country. When patriotic Poles made efforts — as they now frequently did — to reform their government, to abohsh the liberum veto, and to strengthen the state, they found their attempts thwarted by the allies either by force of arms or by bribes of money. The racial animosities and the religious difl'erences within Poland af- forded sufficient pretexts for the intervention of the neighboring Powers, especially Prussia and Russia.

A popular insurrection of Polish Catholics against the intol- erable meddling of foreigners was crushed by the troops of Catherine, with the single result that the Russians, in pursuing

2C

386 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

some fleeing insurgents across the southern frontier, violated Turkish territory and precipitated a war between the Ottoman Empire and Russia.

This Turkish War lasted from 1768 to 1774. The Ottoman

government was profoundly alarmed by the Russian foreign

policy, believing that the intrigues in Poland would

Catherine's ^ , /' ^ . , , ^ t^ .

War with end m the annexation 01 that state to Russia and the *^fi8^"'^^^' consequent upsetting of the balance of power in the East, and that, Poland once being disposed of, the turn of Turkey would come next. The Turks, moreover, were egged on by the French government, which, anxious also to preserve the balance of power and to defend the liberties of Poland, was too financially embarrassed itself to undertake a great war against Prussia and Russia.

This war between Russia and Turkey fully confirmed the behef that the power of the latter was waning. The Ottoman troops, badly armed and badly led, suffered a series of reverses. The Russians again occupied Azov, which Peter the Great had been compelled to relinquish ; they overran Moldavia and Wal- lachia ; they seized Bucharest ; and they seemed likely to cross the Danube. Catherine went so far as to fan a revolt among the Greek subjects of the sultan.

At length, in 1774, the treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji was con- cluded between the belligerents. It was most important in marking the southern extension of Russia. By its Kuchuk provisions, (i) Turkey formally ceded Azov and adja- Kainarji ^.gj-^^ territory to Russia and renounced sovereignty Russia over all land north of the Black Sea; (2) Turkey re-

on the covered Wallachia, Moldavia, and Greece, on condi-

Black Sea

tion that they should be better governed ; (3) Russia obtained the right of free navigation for her merchant ships in Turkish waters ; and (4) Russia was recognized as the protector of certain churches in the city of Constantinople.

Within a few years after the signature of the treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji, Catherine estabhshed Russian control over the various Tatar principalities north of the Black Sea, whose sovereignty Turkey had renounced, and by a supplementary agreement in 1792, the Dniester River was fixed upon as the boundary be- tween the Russian and Ottoman empires.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 387

The Turkish poHcy of Catherine the Great bore three significant results. In the first place, Russia acquired a natural boundary in southern Europe, and became the chief Power on the Black Sea, whence her ships might pass freely through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles out into the Mediterranean to trade with western Europe. Russia's second "window to the west" was gained. Then, in the second place, Russia was henceforth looked upon as the natural ally and friend of oppressed nationahties within the Turkish Empire. Finally, the special clause conferring on Russia the protectorate of certain churches in Constantinople afforded her a pretext for a later claim to protect Christians throughout the Ottoman state and consequently to interfere incessantly in Turkish affairs. Since the treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji, Turkey has dechned with ever-increasing rapidity, and Russia has become an eager candidate for a liberal share of the spoils.

Even while the Turkish War was in progress, Catherine the Great had not lost sight of her Pohsh pohcy. Frederick of Prussia had doubtless hoped that she would, in order ^ , .

. Cathenne

that he might have a free rem to direct a distnbution and the of territory entirely satisfactory to himself and to ^fp'V°". Prussia. But the wily tsarina was never so immersed in other matters that she neglected Russian interests in Poland. In 1772, therefore, she joined with Frederick and with p.j.g^ Maria Theresa of Austria in making the first partition Partition, of Poland. Russia took all the country which lay ^^^^ east of the Duna and Dnieper rivers. Prussia took West Prussia except the town of Danzig. Austria took Galicia and the city of Cracow. In all, Poland was deprived of about a fourth of her territory.

The partition of 1772 sobered the Polish people and brought them to a full realizing sense of the necessity of radical political reform. But the shameful and hypocritical attitude gecond of the neighboring sovereigns continued to render their Partition, every effort abortive. For another twenty-one years ^^^^ the wretched country struggled on, a victim of selfish foreign tutelage. Although both Frederick and Maria Theresa died in the interval, their successors proved themselves quite as will- ing to cooperate with the implacable tsarina. In 1793 Russia

388 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

and Prussia effected the second partition of Poland, and in 1795, following a last desperate attempt of the Poles to establish a new government, they admitted Austria to a share in the final dismemberment of the unhappy country. Desperately did Third and ^^^ brave Kosciuszko try to stem the tide of invasion Last Par- which poured in from all sides. His few forces, in

ion, 1795 gpjj^g (3f great valor, were no match for the veteran allies, and the defense was vain. "Freedom shrieked when Kosciuszko fell." King Stanislaus Poniatowski resigned his crown and betook himself to Petrograd. Poland ceased to exist as an independent state.

By the partitions of 1793 and 1795, Austria obtained the upper valley of the Vistula, and Prussia the lower, including the city of Warsaw, while the rest — the major share — went to Russia. Little Russia (Ruthenia) and approximately all of Lithuania thus passed into the hands of the tsarina. Russia thenceforth bordered immediately on Prussia and Austria and became geographically a vital member of the European family of nations.

Catherine the Great survived the third and final partition of Poland but a year, dying in 1796. If it can be said of Peter that he made Russia a European Power, it can be affirmed with equal truth that Catherine made Russia a Great Power. The eighteenth century had witnessed a marvelous growth of Russia in Europe. She had acquired territory and a capital on the Baltic. She had secured valuable ports on the Black Sea. She had pushed her boundaries westward into the very center of the Continent.

The rise of Russia was at the expense of her neighbors. Sweden had surrendered her eastern provinces and lost her con- trol of the Baltic. Turkey had abandoned her monopoly of the shores and trade of the Black Sea. Poland had disappeared from the map.

DYNASTIC AND COLONIAL RIVALRY 389

THE ROM.\NOV FAMILY: RUSSIAN SOVEREIGNS (1613-1915)

(i) MiCHAiiL (1613-1645), founder of the Romanov dynasty (2) Alexius (1645-1676)

(3) Theodore II (4) Ivan V Sophia (4) Peter I m. (5) Catherine I

(1676-1682) (16S2-1689) (Regent 1682-16S9) (1682-1725) I (1725-1727)

Catherine, (7) Anne Alexius Anna, (9) Elizabeth

duchess of (173C3-1740) I duchess of (1741-1762)

Mecklenburg Holstein

I I I

Anna, (6) Peter II (lo) Peter III m. (11) Catherine II

duchess of (1727-1730) (1762) I (1762-1796) Brunswick

I I

(8) Ivan VI (12) Paul (1796-1801)

(1740-1741) I

I \ 1

(13) Alexander I Constantine, (14) Nicholas I

(1801-1825) Governor of Poland (18^5-1855)

(15) Alexander II (1855-1881)

(16) Alexander III (1881-1894)

(17) Nicholas II (1894- )

ADDITIONAL READING

The Rise of Russia. Elementary sketches : J. H. Robmson and C. A. Beard, The Development of Modern Europe, Vol. I (1907), ch. iv ; H. O. Wakeman, The Ascendaney of France, isgS-iyiS (1894), ch. viii, xii, xiii ; .\rthur Hassall, The Balance of Power, I'/is-ijSg (1896), ch. v, xi ; A. H. Johnson, The Age of the Enlightened Despot, i66o-ij8g (1910), ch. iv, v; H. T. Dyer, A History of Modern Europe from the Fall of Constantinople, 3d ed. rev. by Arthur Hassall, 6 vols. (1901), ch. xxxvi, xxxviii, xli, xlix, 1. More detailed histories: Cambridge Modern History, Vol. V (1908), ch. xvi-xix, and Vol. VI (1909), ch. x, xix; Histoire generate. Vol. V, ch. xvi- xviii, XX, Vol. VI, ch. xvii-xix, xxi, xxii, Vol. VII, ch. viii, ix, excellent chapters in French by such eminent scholars as Louis Leger and Alfred Rambaud ; V. O. Kliuchevsky, A History of Russia, Eng. trans, by C. J. Hogarth, 3 vols. (1911-1913), authoritative. on the early history of Russia, but comes down only to 1610; Alfred Rambaud, Histoire de la Russie depuis les origines jusqu'd nos jours, 6th' ed. (1914), ch. xiv-xxxii, — an earlier edition of this standard work was translated into English by Leonora B. Lang and published in two volumes, of which the larger part treats of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries ; James IMavor, Economic History of Russia, Vol. I (1914), Book I, ch. iv-vii, especially useful for the economic and social reforms of Peter the Great. On the Russian sovereigns: R. N. Bain, The First Romanovs, i6ij~iy25 (1905), and, by the same author. Pupils of Peter the Great : a History of the Russian Court and Empire from i6qj to 1740 (1897) ; Eugene Schuyler, Peter the Great, 2 vols. (1884), a

390 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

scholarly work ; Kazimierz Waliszewski, Peter the Great, an admirable study trans, from the French by Lady Mary Loyd (1900), and, by the same author, though not as yet translated, U heritage de Pierre le Grand : regiie dcsjcmmes, goHvernement des favoris, 1725-1741 (igoo) and La derniere dcs Romanov, Elisabeth F^ (1902) ; Alexander Bruckner, Peter der Grosse (1879), and, by the same author, Katharina die Zweite (1883), important German works, in the Oncken Series; E. A. B. Hodgetts, The Life of Catherine the Great of Rtissia (1914), a recent fair-minded treatment in English. On the ex- pansion of the Russian people : Alfred Rambaud, The Expansion of Russia, 2d ed. (1904) ; F. A. Colder, Russian Expansion on the Pacific, 1641-1850; Hans Ubersberger, Riisslands Orientpolitik in den letzten zwei Jahrhunderten, Vol. I, down to 1792 (1913).

The Decline of Sweden, Turkey, and Poland. On Sweden : R. N. Bain, Scandinavia, a Political History of Denmark, Noi-way, and Sweden, 1513-IQ00 (1905), and, by the same author, Charles XII (1899) in the " Heroes of the Nations " Series. On Turkey: Stanley Lane-Poole, Turkey (1889), in the " Story of the Nations " Series, and E. A. Freeman, The Ottoman Power in Europe, its Nature, its Groivth, and its Decline (1877), suggestive outlines by eminent English historians; Nicolae Jorga, Ge- schichte des osmaniscJien Reiches, 5 vols. (1908-1913), particularly Vols. in, IV, the best and most up-to-date history of the Ottoman Empire ; Joseph von Hammer, Geschichte des osmauischen Reiches, 10 vols. (1827- 1835), an old work, very detailed and still famous, of which Vols. VI- VIII treat of the eighteenth century prior to 1774. On Poland: W. A. Phillips, Poland (191 5), ch. i-vi, a convenient volume in the " Home University Library"; R. N. Bain, Slavonic Europe: a Political History of Poland and Russia from 1447 to i7g6 (1908), ch. v-xix; Cambridge Modern History, Vol. VIII (1904), ch. xvii; W. R. A. Morfill, Poland (1893), in the " Story of the Nations" Series; R. H. Lord, The Second Partition of Poland: a Study in Diplomatic History (191 5), scholarly and well-written; R. N. Bain, Tlie Last King of Poland and his Contemporaries (1909) ; U. L. Lehtonen, Die polnischcn Provinzen Russlands tinier Katharina II in den Jahren 1772-1782 (1907), a German translation of an important Finnish work. An excellent French account of international relations in the seventeenth and^ eighteenth centuries, affecting Russia, Sweden, Poland, and Turkey, is Emile Bourgeois, Manuel historique de politique etrangcre, 4th ed., Vol. I (1906), ch. viii, x, xiii.

PART III "LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY"

PART III "LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY"

Our narrative of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries thus far has been full of intrigue, dynastic rivalry, and colonial competition. We have sat with red-robed cardinals in council to exalt the monarch of France ; we have witnessed the world- wide wars by which Great Britain won and lost vast imperial domains ; we have followed the thundering march of Frederick's armies through the Germanics, wasted with war ; but we have been blind indeed if the glare of bright helmets and the glamour of courtly diplomacy have hidden from our eyes a phenomenon more momentous than even the growth of Russia or the conquest of New France. It is the rise of the bourgeoisie.

Driven on by insatiable ambition, not content to be lords of the world of business, with ships and warehouses for castles and with clerks for retainers, the bourgeoisie have placed their law- yers in the royal service, their learned men in the academies, their economists at the king's elbow, and with restless energy they push on to shape state and society to their own ends. In England they have already helped to dethrone kings and have secured some hold on Parliament, but on the Continent their power and place is less advanced.

For the eighteenth century is still the grand age of monarchs, who take Louis XIV as the pattern of princely power and pomp. "Benevolent despots" they are, these monarchs meaning well to govern their people with fatherly kindness. But their plans go wrong and their reforms fall fiat, while the bourgeoisie be- come self-conscious and self-reliant, and rise up against the throne of the sixteenth Louis in France. It is the bourgeoisie that start the revolutionary cry of "Liberty, Equality, Frater- nity," and it is this cry in the throats of the masses which sends

393

394 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

terror to the hearts of nobles and kings. Desperately the old order — the old regime — defends itself. First France, then all

I Europe, is affected. Revolutionary wars convulse the Conti- nent. Never had the world witnessed wars so disastrous, so bloody.

Yet the triumph of the bourgeoisie is not assured. The Revo- lution has been but one battle in the long war between the rival aristocracies of birth and of business — a war in which peasants and artisans now give their lives for illusory dreams of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," now fight their feudal lords, and now turn on their pretended liberators, the bourgeoisie. For already it

1 begins to dawn on the dull masses that "Liberty, Equality, Fra- ternity" are chiefly for their masters.

The old regime, its decay, the rise of the bourgeoisie, the dis- appointment of the common people, — these are the bold land- marks on which the student must fix his attention, while in the following chapters we sketch the condition of Europe in the eighteenth century, and trace the course of the French Revolu- tion, the career of Napoleon, and the restoration of "law and order" under Metternich.

CHAPTER XIII

EUROPEAN SOCIETY IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

AGRICULTURE IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

If some ''Rip Van Winkle" of the sixteenth century could have slept for two centuries to awake in 1750, he would have found far less to marvel at in the common life of the General people than would one of us. Much of the farming, Backward- and even of the weaving, buying, and selling, was done °^^^ just as it had been done centuries before ; and the great changes that were to revolutionize the life and work of the people were as yet hardly dreamed of. In fact, there was so much in com- mon between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, that the reader who has already made himself familiar with the manor and the gild, as described in Chapter II, will find himself quite at home in the "old regime," as the order of things in the eight- eenth century is now termed.

One might still see the countless little agricultural villages and manor houses nestling among the hills or dotting the plains, surrounded by green fields and fringed with forest or wasteland. The simple villagers still cultivated their strips in the common fields in the time-honored way, working hard for meager returns. A third of the land stood idle every year ; it often took a whole day merely to scratch the surface of a single acre with the rude wooden plow then in use ; cattle were killed oft' in the autumn for want of good hay ; fertihzers were only crudely applied, if at all ; many a humble peasant was content if his bushel of seed brought him three bushels of grain, and was proud if his fatted ox weighed over four hundred pounds, though a modern farmer would grumble at results three or four times as good.

395

396 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

There were some enterprising and prosperous landowners who used newer and better methods, and even wrote books about

"husbandry," as agriculture was called. The Dutch, m^n°*^^ especially, learned to cultivate their narrow territory Farmers " carefully, and from them Enghsh farmers learned many bandry^"^ sccrets of tillage. They grew clover and "artificial

grasses" — such as rye — for their cattle, cultivated turnips for winter fodder, tilled the soil more thoroughly, used fertihzers more diligently, and even learned how to shift their

crops from field to field according to a regular plan, of^^rops"" ^° ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ would not lose its fertihty and would

not have to be left idle or "fallow" every third year. These new methods were all very fine for "gentlemen farmers," but for the average peasant the old "open-field" system was an Survival of effective barrier to progress. He could not plant new Primitive crops on his strips in the grain fields, for custom for- Methods bade it; he could not breed his cows scientifically, while they ran in with the rest of the village cattle. At best he could only work hard and pray that his cows would not catch contagion from the rest, and that the weeds from his neighbor's wheat-patch might not spread into his own, for between such patches there was neither wall nor fence.

Primitive methods were not the only survivals of manorial Kfe. Actual serfdom still prevailed in most of the countries of

Europe except France^ and England, and even in these o"serrdom coun tries nominal freedom lifted the peasantry but little

above the common lot. It is true, indeed, that count- less differences in the degree and conditions of servitude ex- isted between Russians and Frenchmen, and even between peasants in the same country or village. The English or French plowman, perhaps, might not be sold to fight for

other countries like the Hessians, nor could he be Condition commanded to marry an undesired bride, as were °! *^® the tenants of a Russian nobleman. But in a

P 6 3. S 3.11 1 IT V

general way we may say that all the peasants of Europe suffered from much the same causes. With no voice in making the laws, they were liable to heavy fmes or capital

^ Even in France, some serfdom still survived.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 397

pimishmciU t'oi' hreakinu; ihc laws. 'Hicir acK'ice was not asked when taxes were levied or ajiportioned, but upon them fell the heaviest burdens of the state.

It was vexatious to pay outrageous fees for the use of a lord's mill, bridge, oven, or wine-press, to be haled to court for an imaginary offense, or to be called from one's fields to war, or to w^ork on the roads without pay. It was hard for the hungry serf to see the fat deer \'enturing into his very dooryard, and to remember that the master of the mansion house was so fond of the chase that he would not allow his game to be killed for food for \'ulgar plowmen.

But these and similar vexations sank into insignificance in comparison with the burdens of the taxes paid to lord, to church, and to king. In every country of Europe the peasants were taxed, directly or indirectly, for the support of the three pillars of the "old regime." The form of such taxation in England differed widely from that in Hungary ; in Sweden, from that in Spain. But beneath discrepancies of form, the system was essentially the same. Some idea of the triple taxation that everywhere bore so heavily upon the peasantry may be obtained from a brief resume of the financial obHgations of an ordinary French peasant to his king, his Church, and his lord.

To the lord the serf owed often three days' labor a week, in addition to stated portions of grain and poultry. In place of servile work the freeman paid a "quit-rent," that is, a peasant sum of money instead of the services which were con- Obligations sidered to accompany the occupation of land. Double rent was paid on the death of the peasant, and, if the farm was sold, one-fifth of the price went to the lord. Sometimes, how- ever, a freeman held his land without quit-rent, but still had numerous obHgations which had survived from medieval times, such as the annual sum paid for a "miUtary protection" which he neither demanded nor received.

The second obligation was to the church — • the tithe or tenth, which usually amounted every year to a twelfth or peasant a fifteenth of the gross produce of the peasant's Obligation

, , & I ^ to Church

land.

Hea\dest of all w^re the taxes levied by the king. The taille, or land tax, was the most important. The amount was

398 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

not fixed, but was supposed to be proportional to the value of

the peasant's land and dwelling. In practice the tax-collectors

often took as much as they could get, and a shrewd JPeassint

Obligations peasant would let his house go to pieces and pretend to King j-Q ]3g utterly destitute in order that the assessors

and State . ■' .

might not mcrease the valuation of his property.

The other direct taxes were the poll tax, i.e., a trifling sum which everybody alike must pay, and the income tax, usually a twentieth part of the income. Finally, there were indirect taxes, such as the salt gabelle. Thus, in certain provinces every person had to buy seven pounds of salt a year from the govern- ment salt-works at a price ten times its real value. Road- making, too, was the duty of the peasant, and the corvee, or labor on roads, often took several weeks in a year.

All these burdens — dues to the lord, tithes to the church, taxes to the king — left the peasant but little for himself. It is Burden of ^° difficult to get exact figures that we can put no trust Taxation on in the estimate of a famous writer that dues, tithes, and taxes absorbed over four-fifths of the French peasant's produce : nevertheless, we may be sure that the burden was very great. In a few favored districts of France and Eng- land farmers were able to pay their taxes and still live comfort- ably. But elsewhere the misery of the people was such as can hardly be imagined. With the best of harvests they could barely provide for their families, and a dry summer or long winter would bring them to want. There was only the coarsest of bread — and little of that ; meat was a luxury ; and delicacies were for the rich. We read how starving peasants in France tried to appease their hunger with roots and herbs, and in hard times succumbed by thousands to famine. One-roomed mud huts with leaky thatched roofs, bare and windowless, were good enough dwellings for these tillers of the soil. In the dark corners of the dirt-floors lurked germs of pestilence and death. Fuel was expensive, and the bitter winter nights must have found many a peasant shivering supperless on his bed of straw.

True, the gloom of such conditions was relieved here and there by a prosperous village or a well-to-do peasant. But, speaking in a general way, the sufferings of the poorer European peasants and serfs can hardly be exaggerated. It was they who

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 399

in large part had paid for the wars, theaters, palaces, and pleas- ures of the courts of Europe.

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

Let us now turn our eyes from the country to the city, for in the towns are to be found the bourgeoisie, the class in which we are most interested. The steady expansion of com- Growth of merce and industry during the sixteenth and seven- Towns teenth centuries had been attended by a remarkable develop- ment of town life. Little villages had gro^vn, until in 1787 there were 78 towns of over 10,000 inhabitants each. London, the greatest city in Europe, had increased in population from about half a million in 1685 to over a million in 1800. Paris was at least half as large ; Amsterdam was a great city ; and several German towns Hke Hamburg, Bremen, and Frankfort were im- portant trading centers.

The towns had begun to lose some of their medieval charac- teristics. They had spread out beyond their cramping walls; roomy streets and pleasant squares made the newer sections more attractive. The old fortifications, no longer needed for protec- tion, served now as promenades. City thoroughfares were kept cleaner, sometimes well paved with cobbles ; and at night the feeble but cheerful glow of oil street-lamps lessened the terrors of the belated burgher who had been at the theater or Ustened to protracted debates at the great town hall.

The hfe of the town was nourished by industry and commerce. Industry in the eighteenth century meant far more than baking bread, making clothes, cobbhng shoes, and fashioning furniture for use in the town ; it meant the produc- tion on a large scale of goods to sell in distant places, — cloth, clocks, shoes, beads, dishes, hats, buttons, and what not. Many of these articles were still manufactured under the regulations of the old craft gilds. For although the gild system oud was pretty well broken up in England, it still main- Regulation tained its hold on the Continent. In France the division of crafts had become so comphcated that innumerable bickerings arose between cobblers' gilds and shoemakers' gilds, between

400 HISTOR^' OF MODERN EUROPE

watch-makers and clock-makers. In Germany conditions were worse. The gilds, now aristocratic and practically hereditary corporations, used their power to prevent all competition, to keep their apprentices and journeymen working for Httle or nothing, to insure high profits, and to prevent any technical improvements which might conceivably injure them. *'A hatter who improved his wares by mixing silk with the wool was attacked by all the other hatters ; the inventor of sheet lead was opposed by the plumbers ; a man who had made a success in print-cloths was forced to return to antiquated methods by the dyers."

To gild regulation was added government regulation. It will be remembered that many seventeenth-century statesmen had urged their kings to make laws for the greater pros- ReguM^rT perity of industry, and that Colbert had given the of Industry: classic expression in France to the mercantilist idea tuism^'^ that wealth could be cultivated by regulating and encouraging manufactures. In order that French dyers might acquire a reputation for thorough work, he issued over three hundred articles of instruction for the better conduct of the dyeing business. In an age when unscrupulous English merchants were hurting the market with poorly woven fabrics, French weavers were given careful orders about the quaUty of the thread, the breadth of the cloth, and the fineness of the weave. It is said that in 1787 the regulations for French manu- factures filled eight volumes in quarto ; and other governments, while less thorough, were equally convinced of the wisdom of such a poHcy.

The mercantihst was not content with making rules for estab- lished industries. In justice to him it should be explained that he was anxious to plant new trades. Privileges, titles of no- bihty, exemption from taxation, generous grants of money, and other favors were accorded to enterprising business men who undertook to introduce new branches of manufacture.

In general, however, the efforts of such mercantilists as Col- bert have been adversely criticized by economists. The regu- lations caused much inconvenience and loss to many manu- facturers, and the privileges granted to new enterprises often favored unstable and unsuitable industries at the expense of

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 401

more natural and valuable trades. It is impossible to estimate the value to France of Colbert's pet industries, and equally impossible to see what would have happened had industry been allowed free rein. But we must not entirely condemn the sys- tem simply because its faults are so obvious and its benefits so hard to ascertain.

Commerce, hke industry, was subject to restrictions and impeded by antiquated customs. Merchants traversing the country were hindered by poor roads ; at frequent intervals they must pay toll before passing a knight's castle, a Restrictions bridge, or a town gate. Customs duties were levied on on Com- commerce between the provinces of a single kingdom. And the cost of transportation was thus made so high that the price of a cask of wine passing from the Orleanais to Normandy — two provinces in northwestern France — increased twenty-fold.

From our past study of the commercial and colonial wars of the eighteenth century, especially those between France and Great Britain, we have already learned that mercantilist ideas were still dominant in foreign commerce. We have noted the heavy protective tariffs which were designed to shut out foreign competition. We have discussed the Navigation Acts, by means of -which England encouraged her ship-owners. We have also mentioned the absorption, by specially chartered companies, of the profits of the lucrative European trade with the Indies. The East India Company, the Hudson's Bay Company, the Dutch East India Company, and the French Compagnie des Indes were but a few famous examples of the chartered com- panies w^hich still practically monopoUzed the trade of most non- European countries.

Customs and companies may have been injurious in many respects, but commerce grew out of all bounds. The New World gave furs, timber, tobacco, cotton, rice, sugar, rum, q^^^^ molasses, coffee, dyes, gold, and silver, in return for Growth of negro slaves, manufactures, and Oriental wares ; and the broad Atlantic highways were traversed by many hundreds of hea\dly laden ships. The spices, jewels, tea, and textiles of the Far East made rich cargoes for well-built East Indiamen. Important, too, was the traffic which occupied English and Dutch merchant fleets in the Baltic; and the flags of many nations

402 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

were carried by traders coastwise along all the shores of Europe. Great Britain at the opening of the eighteenth century possessed a foreign commerce estimated at $60,000,000, and that of France was at least two-thirds as great. During the century the volume of commerce was probably more than quadrupled.

It is difficult to reahze the tremendous importance of this expansion of commerce and industry. It had erected colonial empires, caused wars, lured milKons of peasants from their farms, and built populous cities. But most important of all — it had given strength to the bourgeoisie. « Merchants, bankers, wholesalers, rich gild-masters, and even I less opulent shopkeepers, formed a distinct "middle class," be- Rise of the tween the privileged clergy and nobility on the one Bourgeoisie hand, and the oppressed peasant and artisan, or manual laborer, on the other. The middle class, often called by the French word bourgeoisie because it dwelt in towns or bourgs, was strongest in England, the foremost commercial nation of Europe, was somewhat weaker in France, and very much weaker in less commercial countries, such as Germany, Austria, and Russia.

If the bourgeoisie was all-powerful in the world of business, it was influential in other spheres. Lawyers came almost exclu- sively from commercial families. Judges, local magistrates, keepers of prisons, government secretaries, intendants, all the world of officialdom was thronged with scions of bourgeois families. The better and older middle-class families prided I themselves on their wealth, influence, and culture. They read the latest books on science and philosophy ; they sometimes criticized the religious ideas of the past ; and they eagerly dis- cussed questions of constitutional law and political economy.

Ambition came quite naturally with wealth and learning. The bourgeoisie wanted power and privilege commensurate Ambition y^'ith their place in business and administration. It of the seemed unbearable that a foppish noble whose only

ourgeoisie ^^jg^jj^g ^q respect were a moldy castle and a worm- eaten patent of nobility should everywhere take precedence over men of means and brains. Why should the highest social dis- tinctions, the richest sinecures, and the posts of greatest honor in the army and at court be closed to men of ignoble birth, as

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 403

if a man were any better for the possession of a high-sounding title ?

Moreover, the bourgeoisie desired a more direct say in politics. Lq England, to be sure, the sons of rich merchants were fre- quently admitted to the nobility, and commercial interests were pretty well represented in Parliament. In France, however, the feudal nobility was more arrogant and exclusive, and the government less in harmony with middle-class notions. The extravagant and wasteful administration of royal money was censured by every good business man. It was argued that if France might only have bourgeois representation in a national parliament to regulate finance and to see that customs duties, trade-laws, and foreign relations were managed in accordance with business interests, then all would be well.

THE PRIVILEGED CLASSES

Thus far, in analyzing social and economic conditions in the eighteenth century, we have concerned ourselves with the lowest class, the peasants and day laborers, and with the middle class or bourgeoisie — the ''Third Estate" of France and the ''Com- mons" of Great Britain. All of these were technically unpriv- ileged or ignoble classes. The highest place in society was re- served for the classes of the pri\'ileged, the clergy and the nobility, constituting the First and the Second Estates, respectively. And it is to these that w^e must now direct our attention.

The pri\dleged classes formed a very small minority of the popu- lation. Of the 2 5, 000,000 inhabitants of France, prob- ably less than 150,000 were nobles and 130,000 clerics ; Number of about one out of every hundred of the people was " ^"^|; therefore pri\dleged.

This small upper class was distinguished from the common herd by rank, possessions, and privileges. The person of noble birth, i.e., the son of a noble, was esteemed to be in- herently finer and better than other men ; so much so Number that he would disdain to marry a person of the lower f^ " -P"^*" class. He was addressed In terms of respect — "my lord," "your Grace " ; common men saluted him as their superior. His clothes were more gorgeous than those of the plain people ;

404 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

on his breast glittered the badges of honorary societies, and his coach was proudly decorated with an ancestral coat of arms. His "gentle" birth admitted him to the polite society of the court and enabled him to seek preferment in church or army.

More substantial than marks of honor were the actual pos- sessions of nobles and clergy. Each noble bequeathed to his eldest son a castle or a mansion with more or less territory from which to collect rents or feudal dues. Bishops, abbots, and archbishops received their office by election or appointment rather than by inheritance, and, being unmarried, could not transmit their stations to children. But in countries where the wealth of the Church had not been confiscated by Protestants, the "prince of the Church" often enjoyed during his Hfetime magnificent possessions. The bishop of Strassburg had an an- nual income approximating 500,000 francs. Castles, cathedrals, palaces, rich vestments, invaluable pictures, golden chalices, rentals from broad lands, tithes from the people, — these were the property of the clergy. It is estimated that the clergy and nobihty each owned one-fifth of France, and that one-third of all the land of Europe, one-half the revenue, and two-thirds the capital, were in the hands of Christian churches.

The noble famihes, possessing thousands of acres, and monopo- hzing the higher offices of church and army, were further en- riched, especially in France, by presents of money from the king, by pensions, by grants of monopolies, and by high-salaried posi- tions which entailed Httle or no work. "One young man was given a salary of $3600 for an office whose sole duty consisted in signing his name twice a year."

With all their wealth the first two orders contributed almost nothing to lighten the financial burdens of the state. ^ The Exemption Church in France claimed exemption from taxation, from but made annual gifts to the king of several hundred

Taxation thousand dollars, though such grants represented less than one per cent of its income. The nobles, too, considered the payment of direct taxes a disgrace to their gentle blood, and did not hesitate by trickery to evade indirect taxation, leaving the

^ Exemption from taxation was often and similarly granted to bourgeois incum- bents of government offices.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 405

chief burdens to fall upon the lower classes, and most of all upon the peasantry.

All these advantages, privileges, and immunities might be looked upon as a fitting reward which medieval Europe had given to her nobles for protecting peaceable plowmen Failure from the marauding bands then so common, and of the which she had bestowed upon her clergy for preserv- to"perform ing education, for encouraging agriculture, for fostering Real the arts, for tending the poor, the sick, and the ^^^^^^ traveler, and for performing the offices of religion. But long before the eighteenth century the protective functions of feudal nobles had been transferred to the royal government. No longer useful, the hereditary nobifity was merely burdensome, and ornamental. Such as could aft'ord it, spent their lives The Higher in the cities or at the royal court where they rarely NobiUty did anytliing worth while, unless it were to invent an unusually dehcate compHment or to fashion a flawless sonnet. Their morals were not of the best, — it was almost fashionable to be vicious, — but their manners were perfect.

Meanwhile, the landed estates of these absentee lords were in charge of flint-hearted agents, whose sole mission was to squeeze money from the peasants, to make them pay well for mill, bridge, and oven, to press to the uttermost every claim which might give the absent master a larger revenue.

The poorer noble, the "country gentleman," was hardly able to live so extravagant a life, and accordingly remained at home, sometimes making friends of the villagers, stand- The Coun- ing god-father to peasant-children, or inviting heavy- ^^^ Gentry booted but fight-hearted plowmen to dance in the castle courtyard. But often his life was dull enough, with rents hard to collect, and only hunting, drinking, and gossip to pass the time away.

A similar and sharper contrast was observable between the higher and lower clergy, in England as well as in Roman Catho- lic countries. Very frequently dissipated young nobles were nominated bishops or abbots : they looked upon [ their office as a source of revenue, but never dreamed of dis- 1 charging any spiritual duties. While a Cardinal de Rohan with ' 2,500,000 livres a year astonished the court of France with his

4o6 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

magnificence and luxury, many a shabby but faithful country curate, with an uncertain income of less than $150 a year, was doing his best to make both ends meet, with a httle to spare for charity.

RELIGIOUS AND ECCLESIASTICAL CONDITIONS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

The great ecclesiastical organization that had dominated the middle ages was no longer the one church of Europe, but was ^j^g still the most impressive. Although the Protestant

Catholic Revolt of the sixteenth century had established inde- pendent denominations in the countries of northern Europe, as we have seen in Chapter IV, Roman Catholic Chris- tianity remained the state rehgion of Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, Austria, the Austrian Netherlands, Bavaria, Poland, and several of the Swiss Cantons. Moreover, large sections of the population of Ireland, Bohemia, Hungary, Asia, and America professed Catholic Christianity.

Orthodox Roman Catholics held fast to their faith in dogmas and sacraments and looked for spiritual guidance, correction, and comfort to the regular and secular clergy of their Church. The "secular" hierarchy of pope, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, and deacons, did not cease its pious labor "in the world" ; nor was there lack of zealous souls willing to forego the pleasures of this world, that they might live holier lives as monks, nuns, or begging friars, — the "regular" clergy.

In its relations with lay states, the Roman Cathohc Church had changed more than in its internal organization. Many Relations Protestaiit rulers now recognized the pope merely as an of the Itahan prince,^ and head of an undesirable religious

Church*^ sect. Roman Catholics were either persecuted, or, as with Lay in Great Britain, deprived of poHtical and civil rights. The pope, on the other hand, could hardly regard as friends those who had denied the spiritual mission and con- fiscated the temporal possessions of the Church.

In Roman Catholic countries, too, the power of the pope had

1 The pope, it will be remembered, ruled the central part of Italy as a temporal prince.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 407

been lessened. The old dispute whether pope or king should control the appointment of bishops, abbots, and other high church officers had at last been settled in favor of the king. The pope consented to recognize royal appointees, provided they were "godly and suitable" men ; in return he usually received a fee ("annate") from the newly appointed prelate. Other taxes the pope rarely ventured to levy ; but good Roman Catho- Hcs continued to pay "Peter's Pence" as a free-will offering, and the bishops occasionally taxed themselves for his benefit. In other ways, also, the power of the Church was curtailed. Royal courts now took cognizance of the greater part of those cases which had once been within the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts ; ^ the right of appeal to the Roman Curia was limited ; and the lower clergy might be tried in civil courts. Finally, papal edicts were no longer published in a country without the sanction of the king. These curtailments of papal privilege were doubtless important, but they meant little or nothing to the millions of peasants and humble workmen who heard Mass, were confessed, and received the sacraments as their fathers had done before them.

Besides their incalculable influence over the souls of men, the clergy were an important factor in the civil hfe of Roman Catho- lic countries. Education was mostly under their . . auspices ; they conducted the hospitals and relieved privileges the poor. Marriages were void unless solemnized in ^J^^, the orthodox manner, and, in the eye of the law, chil- dren born outside of Christian wedlock might not inherit property. Heretics who died unshriven, were denied the privilege of burial in Catholic cemeteries.

Of the exemption of the clergy from taxation, and of the wealth of the Church, we have already spoken, as well as of the high social rank of its prelates — a rank more in keeping with that of wealthy worldly noblemen than with that of devout "servants of the Lord." But we have yet to mention the in- fluence of the Church in suppressing heresy.

In theory the Roman CathoHc religion was still obligatory in Catholic states. Uniformity of faith was still considered essen-

^ Blasphemy, contempt of religion, and heresy were, however, still matters for church courts.

4o8 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

tial to political unity. Kings still promised at coronation faith- fully to extirpate heretical sects. In Spain, during the first half of the eighteenth century hundreds of heretics were con- demned by the Inquisition and burned at the stake ; only toward the close of the century was there an abatement of re- ligious intolerance. In France, King Louis XIV had revoked the Edict of Nantes in 1685, and in the eighteenth century one might have found laws on the French statute-books directing that men who attended Protestant services should be made galley-slaves, that medical aid should be withheld from im- penitent heretics, and that writers of irreligious books should suffer death. Such laws were very poorly enforced, however, and active religious persecution was dying out in France in the second half of the eighteenth century. But toleration did not mean equahty ; full civil and pohtical rights were still denied the several hundred thousand Huguenots in France.

The strength of the Roman Catholic Church in the eight- eenth century was impaired by four circumstances : (i) the existence of bitterly antagonistic Protestant sects ; of"^ak^ (2) the growth of royal power and of the sentiment nesses in of nationalism, at the expense of papal power and of Chur^h^°^^*^ internationalism ; (3) the indolence and worldliness of some of the prelates ; and (4) the presence of internal dissensions. The first three circumstances should be clear from what has already been said, but a word of explanation is neces- sary about the fourth.

The first of these dissensions arose concerning the teachings of a certain Flemish bishop by the name of Cornelius Janssen (1585-1638),^ whose followers, known as Jansenists, anseiu ^^^ possessed thcmsclves of a sort of hermitage and nunnery at Port-Royal in the vicinity of Paris. Jansenism found a number of earnest disciples and able exponents, whose educational work and reforming zeal brought them into conflict with the Jesuits. The Jesuits accused the Jansenists of heresy, affirming that Janssen's doctrine of conversion-by-the-will-of- God was in last analysis practically Calvin's predestination. For some years the controversy raged. Blaise Pascal (1623- 1662), a famous mathematician and experimenter in physics,

^ Janssen is commonly cited by the Latin version of his name — Jans«nius.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 409

defended the Jansenists eloquently and learnedly, but Jesuits had the ear of Louis XIV and broke up the little colony at Port- Royal. Four years later the pope issued a famous bull, called "Unigenitus" (17 13), definitively condemning Jansenist doctrines as heretical ; but the sect still Hved on, especially in Holland, and "Unigenitus" was disliked by many orthodox Roman CathoHcs, who thought its condemnations too sweeping and too severe.

A second dispute, questioning the authority of tlie papacy, centered in a German theologian ^ who wrote under the Latin name of Febronius. Febronianism was an attempted Febronian- revival of the conciliar movement of the fifteenth cen- '^™ tury and closely resembled "GalHcanism," as the movement in favor of the "Liberties of the GalHcan Church" was called. These "Liberties" had been formulated in a French declaration of 1682 and involved two major claims : (i) that the pope had no right to depose or otherwise to interfere with temporal mon- archs, and (2) that in spiritual affairs the general council of bishops (oecumenical council) was superior to the sovereign pontiff. This twofold movement towards nationahsm and rep- resentative church government was most strongly controverted by the Jesuits, who took their stand on the assertion that the pope was supreme in all things. By the opponents of the Jesuits, this looking "beyond the mountains" to the Roman Curia for ultimate authority was called Ultramontanism (beyond-the- mountain-ism). In almost every CathoHc country of Europe the struggle between Ultramontanism and Febronianism aroused controversy, and the nature of papal supremacy remained a mooted point well into the nineteenth century.

Towards the close of the eighteenth century Ultramontanism received a serious though temporary setback by the suppression of the Jesuits (1773). For over two centuries mem- ^^ bers of the Society of Jesus had been famed as school- sion of masters, preachers, controversiaHsts, and mission- q^^^^^^"^* aries ; but in the eighteenth century the order became increasingly involved in temporal business ; its power and wealth were abused ; its poHtical entanglements incurred the resentment of reforming royal ministers ; and some of its missionaries became

^ Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim, auxiliary bishop of Trier. His famous work was published in 1763.

4IO HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

scandalously lax in their doctrines. The result was the sup- pression of the order, first in Portugal (1759), then in other countries, and finally altogether by a papal decree of 1773.^

We shall next consider the AngHcan Church, whose complete independence from the papacy, it will be remembered, was The An- established by Henry VIII of England, and whose doc- giican trinal position had been defined in the Thirty-nine

Church Articles of Ehzabeth's reign. It was the state Church

of England, Ireland, and Wales, and had scattering adherents in Scotland and in the British colonies. Like the Roman Catho- lic Church in France, the Anglican Church enjoyed in the British Isles, excepting Scotland, special privileges, great wealth, and the collection of tithes from Anglicans and non-Anglicans alike. It was intensely national, independent of papal control or other foreign influence, and patriotic in spirit. It retained a hierar- chical government similar to that of the Roman Catholics. As in France, the bishops were incHned to use the emoluments with- out doing the work of their office, while the country curates were very poor.

In its relations with others, the Anglican Church was not very liberal. In England, Protestant (Calvinistic) Dissenters had been granted liberty of worship in 1689 (Toleration Act) but still they might not hold civil, military, or pohtical office without the special dispensation of Parliament. Baptism, regis- tration of births and deaths, and marriage could be performed legally only by Anglican clergymen. Non-Anglicans were barred from Oxford and could take no degree at Cambridge University.

Worst of all was the lot of the Roman Catholics. In Eng- land they had practically no civil, political, or religious rights. By a law of 1700 ^ the Roman Catholic must abjure the Mass or lose his property, and priests celebrating Mass were liable to life imprisonment. In Ireland the communicants of the "Church of Ireland" (Anglican) constituted a very small minority,^ while

' In Russia, where the order of suppression was not enforced, the Jesuits kept their corporate organization. Subsequently, on 7 August, 18 14, the entire society- was restored by papal bull, and is now in a flourishing condition in many countries.

2 Repealed in 1778, but on condition that Roman Catholics should deny the temporal power of the pope and his right to depose kings.

' Even in the nineteenth century, there were only about 500,000 Anglicans out of a population of somewhat less than 6,000,000.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 411

the native Roman Catholics, comprising over four-fifths of the population, were not only seriousl}' hindered from exer- cising their own religion, not only deprived of their pohtical rights, not only made subservient to the economic interests of the Protestants, but actually forced to pay the tithe to support English bishops and curates, who too often lived in England, since their parishioners were all Roman Catholics.

The Dissenters from the Anglican Church embraced many different creeds. We have already spoken of the Calvinistic Presbvterians and Separatists. Besides these, several „ ^

^ , Protestant

new sects had appeared. The Baptist Church was sects in a seventeenth-century off-shoot of Separatism. To ^"sf?"**- Calvinistic theology and Congregational Church gov- ernment, the Baptists had added a behef in adult baptism, im- mersion, and religious liberty.

A group of persons who denied the divinity of Christ, thereby departing widely from usual Protestantism as well as from traditional CathoHcism, came into some prominence „ .^ .

. Unitarians

m the eighteenth century through secessions from the Anglican Church and through the preaching of the scientist Joseph Priestley, and gradually assumed the name of Unitarians. It was not until 1844 that the sect obtained complete rehgious liberty in England.

A most remarkable departure from conventional forms was made under the leadership of George Fox, the son of a weaver, whose followers, loosely organized as the Society of Friends, were often derisively called Quakers, because they insisted that true religion was accompanied by deep emo- tions and quakings of spirit. Although severely persecuted,^ the Quakers grew to be influential at home, and in the colonies, where they founded Pennsylvania (1681). Their refusal to take oaths, their quaint "thee" and "thou," their simple and somber costumes, and their habit of sitting silent in religious meeting until the spirit should move a member to speak, made them a most picturesque body. Professional ministers and the cere- monial observance of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, they held to be forms destructive of spontaneous reHgion. War, they said, gave free rein to un-Christian cruelty, selfishness, and

^ In 1685 as many as 1460 Quakers lay in English prisons.

412 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

greed ; and, therefore, they would not fight. They were also vigorous opponents of negro slavery.

The Methodist movement did not come until the eighteenth century. By the year 1740, a group of earnest Oxford students had won the nickname of " Methodists " by their absti- nence from frivolous amusements and their methodical cultivation of fervor, piety, and charity. Their leader, John Wesley (i 703-1791), was a man of remarkable energy, rising at four in the morning, filling every moment with work, living frugally on £28 a year, visiting prisons, and exhorting his com- panions to piety. The Methodist leaders were very devout and orthodox Anglicans, but they were so anxious "to spread Scrip- tural Holiness over the land" that they preached in open fields as well as in churches. Wesley and other great orators appealed to the emotions of thousands of miners, prisoners, and ignorant weavers, and often moved them to tears. It is said that John Wesley preached more than 40,000 sermons.

The Methodist preachers gradually became estranged from the Anglican Church, established themselves as a new dissenting sect, and dropped much of the Anglican ritual. The influence of their preaching was very marked, however, and many ortho- dox Anglican clergymen traveled about preaching to the lower classes. This "evangelical movement" is significant because it showed that a new class of industrial workers had grown up without benefit of the church or protection of the state. We shall subsequently hear more of them in connection with the events of the Industrial Revolution.

In the eighteenth century, Lutheranism was the state religion of Denmark (including Norway), Sweden, and of several Ger- man states, notably Prussia, Saxony, and Brunswick. Churches The Lutheran churches retained much of the old ritual on the 2^j^(j episcopal government. Ecclesiastical lands, how-

ever, had been secularized, and Lutheran pastors were supported by free-will offerings and state subventions. In Prussia,^ Denmark, and Sweden the church recognized the king as its summus episcopus or supreme head.

1 Later, in 1817, the Lutherans and Calvinists of Prussia were brought together, under royal pressure, to form the " Evangelical Church." According to the king, this was not a fusion of the two Protestant faiths, but merely an external union.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 413

Zwinglian and Calvinistic churches were usually called "Re- formed" or "Presbyterian" and represented a more radical deviation than Lutheranism from Roman Catholic Reformed theology and ritual, holding the Lord's Suj^per to be Churches but a commemorative ceremony, doing away with altar-lights, crucifixes, and set prayers, and governing themselves by synods of priests or presbyters. In the eighteenth century Presby- terianism was still the established religion of Scotland, and of the Dutch Netherlands. In France the Huguenots, in Switzerland the French-speaking Calvinists and German-speaking Zwinglians, and numerous congregations in southern Germany still repre- sented the Reformed Church of Calvin and Zwingli.^

One of the most noteworthy features of the eighteenth cen- tury was the appearance of a large number of doubters of Chris- tianity. In the comparatively long history of the Growth of Christian Church, there had often been reformers. Skepticism who attacked specific doctrines or abuses, but never before, with the possible exception of Itahan humanists of the fifteenth century," had there been such a considerable and influential number who ventured to assail the very foundations of the Christian belief. During the last quarter of the seventeenth century, a number of Enghsh philosophers, imbued with enthu- siasm for the discovery of scientific laws, went on to apply the newer scientific methods to rehgion. They claimed that the Bible was untrustworthy, that the dogmas and cere- . monies of the churches were useless if not actually harmful, and that true religion was quite natural in man and independent of miraculous revelation. God, they asserted, had created the universe and estabHshed laws for it. He would not upset these laws to answer the foolish prayers of a puny human being. Men served God best by discounting miracles, discredit- ing "superstition," and living in accordance with natural law. Just what this law was, they left largely to the common sense of each man to determine. As a result, the positive side of Deism, as the body of the new teachings was called, was lost in

^ For the Orthodox Church in Russia, see above, pp. 122, 372, 380. Some reforms in the ritual had been introduced by a certain Nikon, a patriarch of the seventeenth century.

2 See above, pp. 124, 182 ff.

414 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

vagueness, and the negative side — the mere denial of orthodox Christianity — became uppermost in men's minds.

Deism was important in several ways, especially for France, whence it was carried from England, (i) For a large part of

I the most inteUigent and influential classes, it destroyed reverence for the Church, and prepared the way for the rehgious experi- ments of the French Revolution. (2) It gave an impetus to philosophers who evolved great systems and exhibited wonderful ingenuity and confidence in formulating laws which would explain the why, what, whence, and whither of human hfe. (3) While casting doubt on the efficacy of particular religions, it demanded

f toleration for all. (4) Finally, it was responsible for a great increase of indifference to rehgion. People too lazy or too igno- rant to understand the philosophic basis of Deism, used the arguments of Deists in justification of their contempt for religion, and to many people disbelief and intelHgence seemed to be synonymous. We have considered Deism here for its significant bearing on the religious situation in the eighteenth century. In the following section we shall see how it was part and parcel of the scientific and intellectual spirit of the times.

SCIENTIFIC AND INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

As we have observed in an earlier chapter, both science and art flowered in the sixteenth century. The great men of the eighteenth century, however, devoted themselves al- most exclusively to science ; and the artists of the time were too insincere, too intent upon pleasing shallow-brained and frivolous courtiers, to produce much that was worth while. Great numbers of plays were written, it is true, but they were hopelessly dull imitations of classic models. Imitative and un- inspired likewise were statues and paintings and poems. One merit they possessed. If a French painter lacked force and originality, he could at least portray with elegance and charm a group of fine ladies angling in an artificial pool. Elegance, indeed, redeemed the eighteenth century from imitative dullness and stupid ostentation : elegance expressed more often in per- fumes, laces, and mahogany than in paint or marble. The silk-

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 415

stockinged courtier accompanying his exquisitely perfect bow with a nicely worded compliment was surely as much an artist as the sculptor. Nor can one help feeling that the chairs of Louis XV were made not to sit in, but to admire; for their curving mahogany legs look too slenderly delicate, their carved and gilded backs too uncomfortable, for mere use. Chairs and fine gentlemen were alike useless, and alike elegant.

More substantial were the achievements of eighteenth-century scientists. From philosophers of an earlier century — Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and Rene Descartes (1596-1650) The New — they learned to question everything, to seek new Science knowledge by actual experiment, to think boldly. You must not blindly believe in God, they said, you must first prove His existence. Or, if you will learn how the body is made, it will not do to believe what Hippocrates or any other Greek authority said about it ; you must cut rabbits open and see with your own eyes where heart and lungs are hidden beneath the coat of fur. Seeing and thinking for oneself were the twin principles of the new scientific method.

The new science found many able exponents in the seven- teenth and eighteenth centuries, and of them all Sir Isaac New- ton- (1646-1727) was probably the most illustrious. Isaac Coming from a humble family in a little English Newton village, Newton at an early age gave evidence of uncommon intelligence. At Cambridge University he astonished his pro- fessors and showed such great skill in mathematics that he was given a professor's chair when only twenty-three years old.

For Descartes, Newton conceived great admiration, and, like Descartes, he applied himself to experimentation as well as to formal mathematics. His boyish ingenuity in the construction of windmills, kites, and water-clocks was now turned to more serious ends. Like other scientists of the day, he experimented with chemicals in his laboratory, and tried different combina- tions of lenses, prisms, and reflectors, until he was able to design a great telescope with which to observe the stars.

His greatest achievement was in astronomy. Galileo, Coper- nicus, and other investigators had already concluded that the earth is but one of many similar bodies moving around the sun, which in turn is only one of countless suns — for every star is a

m

416 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

sun. Now Newton wondered what held these mighty spheres in their places in space, for they appeared to move in definite and well-regulated orbits without any visible support or prop. It is alleged that the answer to the problem was suggested by the great philosopher's observation of a falling apple. The same invisil3le force that made the apple fall to the ground must, he is said to have reasoned, control the moon, sun, and stars. The earth is pulled toward the sun, as the apple to the earth, but it is also pulled toward the stars, each of which is a sun so far away that it looks to us very small. The result is that the earth neither falls to the sun nor to any one star, but moves around the sun in a regular path.

This suggestive principle by which every body in the universe is pulled towards every other body, Newton called the law of universal gravitation. Newton's law ^ was expressed in a simple mathematical formula ^ by means of which physics and astron- omy were developed as mathematical sciences. When a modern astronomer foretells an eclipse of the sun or discusses the course of a comet, or when a physicist informs us that he has weighed the earth, he is depending directly or indirectly upon Newton's discovery.

The brilliance of Sir Isaac Newton's individual achievement

should not obscure the fame of a host of other justly celebrated

scientists and inventors. One of Newton's contem-

mentai and poraries, the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm

Applied YQj-^ Leibnitz (i 646-1 716), elaborated a new and valua-

Science \ ^ § / y

ble branch of mathematics, the differential calculus,^ which has proved to be of immense service in modern engineer- ing. At the same time, the fi.rst experiments were being made with the mysterious potencies of electricity : the electrical researches of Benjamin Franklin (i 706-1 790), his discovery that flashes of lightning are merely electrical phenomena and his invention of the lightning rod are too familiar to need repeating ; the work of Luigi Galvani (i 737-1 798) and of Count Alessandro

^ It was really only a shrewd guess, but it appears to work so well that we often call it a "law."

2 "The force increases directly in proportion to the product of the masses, and inversely in proportion to the square of the distance."

*The credit for this achievement was also claimed by Newton.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 417

Volta (1745-1827), two famous Italian physicists, is less well known, but their labors contributed much to the development of physical science, and their memory is perpetuated whenever the modern electrician refers to a "voltaic cell" or when the tinsmith speaks of "galvanized" iron. In this same period, the first important advances were made in the construction of balloons, and the conquest of the air was begun. In the eight- eenth century, moreover, the foundations of modern chemistry were laid by Joseph Priestley (i 733-1804), Antoine Laurent Lavoisier (1743-1794), and Henry Cavendish (1731-1810) ; oxygen was discovered, water was decomposed into its elements, and the nomenclature of modern chemistry had its inception. In medicine and surgery, too, pioneer work was done by John Hunter (17 28-1 793), a noted Scotch surgeon and anatomist, and by the Swiss professor Albrecht von Haller (1708-1777), the "father of m-odern physiology" ; the facts which eighteenth- century physicians discovered regarding the circulation of the blood made possible more intelligent and more effective methods of treating disease ; and just at the close of the eighteenth cen- tury, Edward Jenner (i 749-1823), an English physician, demon- strated that the dread disease of smallpox could be prevented by vaccination. Geographical knowledge was vastly extended by the' voyages of scientific explorers, Hke the English navigator Captain James Cook ^ (1728-1779) and the French sailor Louis de Bougainville (i 729-181 1), in the hitherto uncharted expanses of the southern Pacific. Furthermore, since these explorers frequently brought home specimens of unfamiliar tropical ani- mals and plants, rich material was provided for zoology and botany, which, thanks to the efforts of the Frenchman Georges de Buffon (1707-1788) and of the Swede Carolus Linnaeus (1707- 1778), were just becoming important sciences.

One reason for the rapid development of natural science in the eighteenth century was the unprecedented popularity and favor enjoyed by scientists. Kings granted large pensions to scientists ; British ministers bestowed remunerative offices, and petty princes showered valuable gifts upon them. Pretentious observatories with ponderous telescopes were built, often at

^ The Captain Cook who discovered, or rediscovered, Australia. See above, P- 340-

2E

4i8 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

public expense, in almost every country of Europe. Groups of learned men were every^vhere banded together in "acad- Popuiarity cmies " or "societies." The "Royal Society" of of the New London, founded in 1662, listened to reports of the Science latest achievements in mathematics, astronomy, and

physics. The members of the Academic franqaise (French Academy) were granted pensions by Louis XIV and even reckoned Newton among their honorary members.

Never before had there been such interest in science, and never before had there been such opportunity to learn. Print- ing was now well developed ; the learned societies and observa- tories published reports of the latest developments in all branches of knowledge. Encyclopedias were gotten out professing to embody in one set of volumes the latest information relative to all the new sciences. Books were too expensive for the common person, but not so for the bourgeoisie, nor for numerous nobles. Indeed, it became quite the fashion in society to be a "savant," a scientist, a philosopher, to dabble in chemistry, perhaps even to have a little laboratory or a telescope, and to dazzle one's friends with one's knowledge.

It seemed as if the golden age was dawning : the human inind seemed to be awakening from the slumber of centuries to con- The Spirit ^^^^ ^^^ world, to unravel the mysteries of hfe, and of Progress to discovcr the secrets of the universe. Confident that an e orm ^^^y ^ httle thought would be necessary to free the world from vice, ignorance, and superstition, thinkers now turned boldly to attack the vexing problems of religion and morality, to criticize state, society, and church, and to point the way to a new and earthly paradise.

This tendency — this enthusiasm — has usually been styled "rationahsm" because its champions sought to make everything rational or reasonable. Its foremost representatives were to be found in Great Britain between 1675 and 1725. They wrote many books discussing abstruse problems of philosophy, which can have slight interest for us ; but certain ideas they had of very practical importance, ideas which probably found their most notable expression in the writings of John Locke (1632- 1704). Locke argued (i) that all government exists, or should exist, by consent of the governed — by a "social" contract, as

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 419

it were ; (2) that education should be more widespread ; (3) that superstition and religious formalism should not be allowed to obscure "natural laws," and "natural religion"; and (4) that religious toleration should be granted to all but atheists.

The ideas of these English philosophers were destined to exercise a far greater influence upon France than upon England. They found delighted admirers among the nobility, ardent disciples among the bourgeoisie, and eloquent apostles in Vol- taire, Diderot, and Rousseau.

Without a doubt, the foremost figure in the intellectual world of the eighteenth century was Francois Marie Arouet, or, as he called himself, Frangois M. A. de Voltaire (i 694-1 778). .

Even from his boyhood he had been a clever hand at turning verses, and had fully appreciated his own cleverness. His businessHke father did not enjoy the boy's poetry, especially if it was written when young Francois should have been study- ing law. But Francois had a inind of his own ; he liked to show his cleverness in gay society and relished making witty rhymes about the foibles of public ministers or the stupidity of the prince regent of France.

His sharp tongue and sarcastic pen were a source of constant danger to Voltaire. For libel the regent had him imprisoned a year in the Bastille. Some years later he was beaten by the lackeys of an offended nobleman, again sent to the Bastille, and then exiled three years in England.

At times he was the idol- of Paris, applauded by philosophes and petted by the court, or again he would be a refugee from the wrath of outraged authorities. For a great part of his Hfe he resided at Cirey in Lorraine, — with his mistress, his books, his half-iinished plays, and his laboratory — for Voltaire, like all philosophes, had to play at science. Here he lived in constant readiness to flee over the border if the king should move against him. For a time he lived in Germany as the protege of Frederick the Great, but he treated that irascible monarch with neither tact nor deference, and soon left Berlin to escape the king's ire. He Adsited Catherine the Great of Russia. He also lived at Geneva for a while, but even there he failed to keep peace with the magistrates.

Such conflicts with established authority only increased his

420 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

fame. Moreover, his three years' exile in England (17 26-1 7 29) had been of untold value, for they had given him a first-hand acquaintance with English rationalism. He had been brought up to discount rehgious "superstition," but the EngHsh thinkers provided him with a well-considered philosophy. Full of en- thusiasm for the ideas of his Enghsh friends, he wrote Letters on the English — a triumph of deistic philosophy and sarcastic criticism of church and society.

The opinions which Voltaire henceforth never ceased to ex- pound had long been held by Enghsh rationaUsts. He com- bined (i) admiration for experimental science with (2) an exalted opinion of his own abihty to reason out the "natural laws" which were supposed to He at the base of human nature, religion, society, the state, and the universe in general. (3) He was a typical Deist, thinking that the God who had made the myriad stars of the firmament and who had promulgated eternal laws for the universe, would hardly concern Himself with the soul of Pierre or Jean. To him all priests were impostors, and sacra- ments meaningless mummery, and yet he would not abolish religion entirely. Voltaire often said that he believed in a "natural religion," but never explained it fully. Indeed, he was far more interested in tearing down than in building up, and disposed rather to scoff at the priests, teachings, and prac- tices of the Catholic Church than to convert men to a better religion. (4) Likewise in his criticism of government and of society, he confined himself mostly to bitter denunciations of contemporaneous conditions, without offering a substitute or suggesting practical reforms. His nearest approach to the prac- tical was his admiration for Enghsh institutions, but he never explained how the "liberties" of England were to be transplanted into France.

Voltaire was not an acutely original thinker. Nevertheless, his innumerable tragedies, comedies, histories, essays, and letters established his reputation as the most versatile and accomphshed writer of his age. But all the "hundred volumes" of Voltaire are rarely read to-day. They are clever, to be sure, witty, graceful, — but admittedly superficial. He thought that he could understand at a glance the problems upon which more earnest men had spent their lives ; he would hurriedly dash off

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 421

a tragedy, or in spare moments write a pretentious liistory. He was not always accurate but he was always clever.

Let us remember him as, at the age of eighty-four, he pays a famous visit to Paris, — a sprightly old man with wrinkled face, and with sharp old eyes peering out from either side of the long nose, beaming with pride at the flattery of his admirers, spar- kling with pleasure as he makes a witty repartee. The ladies call him a most amusing old cynic. Cynic he is, and old. His hfe work has been scoffing. Yet Voltaire is unquestionably the intellectual dictator of Europe. His genius for satire and his fearless attacks on long-standing abuses have made him hated, and feared, and admired. He has given tone and character to the Old Regime.

Voltaire was not alone in the work of spreading discontent. Less famous but hardly less brilHant or versatile, was Denis Diderot (17 13-1784). His great achievement was the ^j^^j.^^ editing of the Encyclopedia. The gathering of all and the human knowledge into one set of volumes — • an ency- ^^^^^°' clopedia — had been for generations a favorite idea in Europe. Diderot associated with himself the most distin- guished mathematicians, astronomers, scientists, and philoso- phers of the time in the compilation of a work which in seventeen volumes ^ undertook to summarize the latest findings of the scholarship of the age. Over four thousand copies had been subscribed when the Encyclopedia appeared in 1765. It proved to be more than a monument of learning : it was a mani- festo of radicahsm. Its contributors were the apostles of rationahsm and deism,^ and their criticism of current ideas about religion, society, and science won many disciples to the new ideas.

The mission of Voltaire and the Encyclopedists (as the editors of the Encyclopedia are called) was to disseminate knowledge and to destroy prejudice, especially in religion. Practical specific reforms were suggested by Montesquieu, Rousseau, Beccaria, and Adam Smith.

Montesquieu (1689-17 5 5), a French lawyer-nobleman, a stu- dent of natural science, and an admirer of Newton, was the fore-

^ Not counting pictorial supplements.

2 Some went even further and practically denied the existence of God.

422 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

most writer of the eighteenth century on the practice of govern- ment. In his Persian Letters, and more especially in The Montes- Spirit of the Laws (1748), he argued that govern- quieu ment is a compUcated matter and, to be successful,

must be adapted to the pecuUarities of a particular people. Theo- retically he preferred a repubhc, and the Constitution of the United States consciously embodied many of his theories. Prac- tically, he considered the government of Great Britain very admirable, and although it sheltered many abuses, as we shall presently see/ nevertheless he urged the French to pattern their pohtical organization after it. Moderation was the motto of Montesquieu.

A more radical reformer was Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-

1778). In his Hfe Rousseau was everything he should not have

been. He was a failure as footman, as servant, as

Rousseau . . ^

tutor, as secretary, as music copier, as lace maker. He wandered in Turin, Paris, Vienna, London. His immorality was notorious, — he was not faithful in love, and his children were sent to a foundling asylum. He was poverty-stricken, dis- honest, discontented, and, in his last years, demented.

Yet this man, who knew so little how to Hve his own hfe, exercised a wonderful influence over the Hves of others. Sordid as was his career, the man himself was not without beautiful and generous impulses. He loved nature in an age when other men simply studied nature. He liked to look at the clear blue sky, or to admire the soft green fields and shapely trees, and he was not ashamed to confess it. The emotions had been for- gotten while philosophers were praising the intellect : Rousseau reminded the eighteenth century that after all it may be as sane to enjoy a sunset as to solve a problem in algebra. Rousseau possessed the soul of a poet.

To him right feeling was as important as right thinking, and in this respect he quarreled with the rationalists who claimed that common sense alone was worth while. Rousseau was a Deist — at most he beHeved but vaguely in a ''Being, whatever He may be, Who moves the universe and orders all things." But he detested the cold reasoning of philosophers who conceived of God as too much interested in watching the countless stars

1 See below, pp. 432 ff.

"LIBERTY, EQU.\LITY, FRATERNITY" 423

obey His eternal laws, to stoop to help puny mortals with their petty affairs. "O great philosophers!" cried Rousseau, ''How much God is obhged to you for your easy methods and for spar- ing Him work." And again Rousseau warns us to " flee from those [Voltaire and his like] who, under the pretense of explain- ing nature, sow desolating doctrines in the hearts of men, and whose apparent skepticism is a hundred times more . . . dog- matic" than the teachings of priests. Rousseau was not an or- thodox Christian, nor a calmly rational Deist ; he simply felt that "to love God above all things, and your neighbor as yourself, is the sum of the law."

This he reproached the philosophers with not doing. Rousseau had seen and felt the bitter suffering of the poor, and he had per- ceived the cynical indiff'erence with which educated men often regarded it. Science and learning seemed to have made men only more selfish. Indeed, the ignorant peasant seemed to him humbler and more virtuous than the pompous pedant. In a passionate protest — his Discourse on Arts and Sciences (1749) — Rousseau denounced learning as the badge of selfishness and corruption, for it was used to gratify the pride and childish curiosity of the rich, rather than to right the wrongs of the poor.

In fact, it were better, he contended, that all men should be savages, than that a few of the most cunning, cruel, and greedy should make slaves of the rest. His love of nature, his con- tempt for the silly showiness and shallow hypocrisy of eighteenth- century society, made the idea a favorite one. He loved to dream of tlie times ^ when men were all free and equal, when nobody claimed to own the land which God had made for all, when there were no wars to kill, no taxes to oppress, no philoso- phers to deceive the people.

In an essay inquiring What is the Origin of Inequality among Men (1753), Rousseau sought to show how vanity, greed, and selfishness had found lodgment in the hearts of these "simple savages," how the strongest had fenced off plots of land for themselves and forced the weak to acknowledge the right of private property. This, said Rousseau, was the real origin of inequality among men, of the tyranny of the strong over the

^ It must be confessed that here Rousseau was dreaming of times that probably nev'er existed.

424 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

weak ; and this law of private property "for the profit of a few ambitious men, subjected thenceforth all the human race to labor, servitude, and misery."

The idea was applied to government in a treatise entitled the Social Contract (1761). The "social-contract" theory was not new, but Rousseau made it famous. He taught that govern- ment, law, and social conventions were the outcome of an agree- ment or contract by which at the misty dawn of history all members of the state had voluntarily bound themselves. All governments exercised their power in last analysis by virtue of this social contract, by will of the people. Laws, therefore, should be submitted to popular vote. The republic is the best form of government, because it is the most sensitive to the desires of the people. This idea of "popular sovereignty," or rule of the people, was in men's minds when they set up a republic in France fourteen years after the death of Rousseau.

Rousseau's cry, "Back to nature," had still another aspect. He said that children should be allowed to follow their natural inclinations, instead of being driven to study. They should learn practical, useful things, instead of Latin and Greek. "Let them learn what they must do when they are men, and not what they must forget."

It is hard to fix limits to the influence of Rousseau's writings. True, both the orthodox Cathohcs and the philosophical Deists condemned him. But his followers were many, both bourgeois and noble. "Back to nature" became the fad of the day, and court ladies pretended to Hve a "natural" hfe and to go fishing. His theory of the social contract, his contention that wealth should not be divided among a few, his idea that the people should rule themselves, — these were to be the inspiration of the republican stage of the French Revolution, and in time to per- meate all Europe.

The spirit of reform was applied not only against the clergy, the nobles, the monarchy, and faulty systems of law and educa- tion, but likewise to the administration of justice.

Beccaria . .

Hitherto the most barbarous "punishments" had been meted out. A pickpocket might be hung for steaHng a couple of shilHngs ' ; for a more serious offense the criminal might

^ In England.

"LIBERTY, EQU.\LITY, FRATERNITY" 425

have his bones broken and then be hiid on his back on a carl- wheel, to die in agony while crowds looked on and jeered. In a book entitled Crimes and Punishments (1764), an Italian marquis of the name of Beccaria (i 738-1 794) held that such punishments were not only brutal and barbarous, but did not serve to prevent crimes as effectually as milder sentences, promptly and surely administered. Beccaria's ideas are the basis of our modern laws, although the death penalty still lingers in a few cases.

In yet another sphere — that of economics — philosophers were examining the old order of things, and asking, as ever, "Is it reasonable?" As we have repeatedly observed, p^^^^^jj most governments had long followed the mercantilist Economy: plan more or less consistently. But in the eighteenth *^^^^^^^'°' century, Francois Quesnay, a bourgeois physician at the court of Louis XV, announced to his friends that mercan- tihsm was all wrong. He became the center of a little group of philosophers who called themselves "economists," and who taught that a nation's wealth comes from farming and mining ; that manufacturers and traders produce nothing new, but merely exchange or transport commodities. The manufacturers and merchants should therefore be untaxed and unhampered. Laissez-faire — "Let them do as they will." Let the farmers pay the taxes. The foremost disciple of laisser-faire in France was Turgot (1727-1781). As minister of finance under Louis XVI he attempted to abolish duties and restrictions on com- merce, but his efforts were only partially successful.

Meanwhile, a Scotchman, who had visited France and had known Quesnay, was conveying the new ideas across the Channel. It was Adam Smith, the "father of political y^jj^^ sj^jtii economy." Smith was quite in harmony with the philosophic spirit, with its "natural rights," "natural religion," and "natural laws." He was a professor of "moral philosophy" in the University of Glasgow, and as an incident of his philo- sophical speculations, he thought out a system of political economy, i.e., the "laws" by which a nation might increase its wealth, on the lines suggested by Quesnay. Adam Smith's famous book The Wealth of Nations appeared in 1776, the year of American independence. It was a declaration of inde-

426 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

pendence for industry. Let each man, each employer of labor, each seller of merchandise follow his own personal business interests without let or hindrance, for in so doing he is "led by an invisible hand" to promote the good of all. Let the govern- ment aboHsh all monopolies,' all restrictions on trade, all customs duties, all burdens on industry. Thus only can the true wealth of a nation be promoted.

Smith's opinions were so plausible and his arguments so in- genious that his doctrines steadily gained in influence, and in the first half of the nineteenth century pretty generally triumphed. In actual practice the abolition of restrictions on industry was destined to give free rein to the avarice and cruelty of the most selfish employers, to enrich the bourgeoisie, and to leave the lower classes more miserable than ever. The " Wealth of Nations" was to be the wealth of the bourgeoisie. But mean- while, it was to destroy mercantihsm.

We have now completed our survey of the social, reUgious,

and intellectual conditions in the Europe of the eighteenth cen-

, . tury. Before our eyes have passed poverty-stricken

Conclusion -^ , . , . ^ , i i .

peasants plowmg their fields, prosperous merchants who demand power, frivolous nobles squandering their fives and fortunes, worldly bishops neglecting their duties, humble priests remaining faithful, sober Quakers refusing to fight, earnest astronomers who search tlie skies, sarcastic Deists who scoff at priests, and bourgeois philosophers who urge reform. The pro- cession is not quite done. Last of all come the kings in their royal ermine and ministers in robes of state. To them we dedi- cate a new chapter. It will be the last occasion on which kings will merit such detailed attention.

ADDITIOKAX READING

General Social Conditions in Eighteenth-Century Europe. Brief out- lines: J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard, The Development oj Modern Europe, Vol. I (1907), ch. viii, ix ; H. E. Bourne, The Revolutionary Period in Europe, 1763-1815 (1914), ch. i, iii; Clive Day, History oJ Commerce (1907). More detailed accounts: Cambridge Modern History, Vol. VI; and Histoire

^ He was somewhat inconsistent in approving joint-stock monopolies and ship- ping regulations.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 427

gen&rde, Vol. V'll, ch. xiii-xvii. The most scholarly and exhaustive study of social conditions is that of INIaximc Kovalevsky, Die oekonomische Ent- wicklung Europas bis zimi Bcginn dcr kapilalistischen Wirtschaftsfonn, trans, into German from Russian by Leo Motzkin, 7 vols. (1901-1914), especially \"ols. \T, VII.

French Society on the Eve of the Revolution. Shailer Mathews, The French Rcvohilion (reprint, 1912), ch. i-v, a clear summary; E. J. Lowell, The Eve of the French Revolution (1892), probably the best introduction in English ; Alexis de Tocqueville, The State of Society in France before tfie Revolution of 17 8g, Eng. trans, by Henry Reeve, 3d ed. (1888), a brilliant and justly famous work; H. A. Taine, The Ancient Regime, Eng. trans, by John Durand, new rev. ed. (i8g6), another very celebrated work, better on the literary and philosophical aspects of the Old Regune than on the economic ; Albert Sorel, L Europe et la Revolution franqaise, Vol. I (1885) of this monumental history is an able presentation of French social con- ditions in the eighteenth century; Arthur Young, Travels in France, 1787, 1788, and 178Q, valuable observations of a contemporary English gentle- man-farmer on conditions in France, published in several editions, notably in the Bohn Library. Detailed treatises in French : Histoire de France, Vol. IX, Part I (1910), Regne de Louis XVI, 1774-178Q, by H. Carre, P. Sagnac, and E. Lavisse, especially livres III, IV; Emile Levasseur, Histoire des classes ouvrieres et de rindustrie en France avant I78g, Vol. II (1901), livre VII; Maxime Kovalevsky, La France economique et sociale a la veille de la Revolution, 2 vols. (1909-1911), an admirable study of conunon life both rural and urban; Georges dAvenel, Histoire economique de la propriete, des salaires, etc., 1200-1800, 6 vols. (1894-1912), elaborate treat- meats of such topics as money, land, salaries, the wealthy and bourgeois classes, the growth of private expenses, etc. ; Albert Babeau's careful monographs on many phases of the Old Regime, such as Les voyageurs en France (1885), La ville (1884), La vie rurale (1885), Les artisans et les domes- tiques (1886), Les bourgeois (1886), La vie militaire, 2 vols. (1890), Le village (1891), La province, 2 vols. (1894) ; Nicolas Kareiev, Les pay sans et la question paysanne en France dans le dernier quart du XV I IP siecle, Fr. trans. (1899) ; Edme Champion, La France drapers les cahiers de i78g (1897). Also see books listed under The French Monarchy, i 743-1 789, p. 463, below.

English Society in the Eighteenth Century. Brief surveys: A. L. Cross, History of England andGi-cater Britain (1914), ch. xliv ; G. T. Warner, Landmarks in English Industrial History, nth ed. (191 2), ch. xiv; H. de B. Gibbins, Industry in England, 6th ed. (1910), ch. xvii-xx; G. H. Perris, The Industrial History of Modern England (1914), ch. i. FuUer treat- ments: H. D. Traill and J. S. Mann (editors), Social England, iUus. ed., 6 vols, in 12 (1909), ch. xvi-xviii ; W. G. Sydney, England and the English in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols. (1891) ; E. S. Roscoe, The English Scene in the Eighteenth Century (191 2) ; Sir H. T. Wood, Industrial England in the Middle of the Eighteenth Century (1910) ; Sidney and Beatrice Webb,

428 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

English Local Government from the Revolution to the Municipal Corporations Act, 1688-1835, The Manor and the Borough, 2 parts (1908), and The Story of the King's Highway (1913) ; W. E. H. Lecky, A History of England in the Eighteenth Century, London ed., 7 vols. (1907), particularly full on social and intellectual conditions. Special studies and monographs: A. Andreades, History of the Bank of England, Eng. trans, by Christabel Meredith (1909), an authoritative review by a Greek scholar; Sir Walter Besant, London in the Eighteenth Century (1903), charmingly written but not always trustworthy; J. L. and B. Hammond, The Village Labourer, 1760-1832 (191 1) ; J. E. Thorold Rogers, History of Agricidture and Prices in England, 7 vols. (1866-1902), a monumental work, of which Vol. VII deals with the eighteenth century ; R. E. Prothero, English Farming Past and Present (191 2) ; E. C. K. Conner, Common Land and Inclosure (191 2) ; A. H. Johnson, The Disappearance of the Small Landowner (1909) ; Wilhelm Hasbach, A History of the English Agricultural Labourer, new ed. trans, into English by Ruth Kenyon (1908) ; R. M. Garnier, History of the English Landed Interest, its Customs, Laws and Agriculture, 2 vols. (1892-1893), and, by the same author, Annals of the British Peasantry (1895). For interesting contemporary accounts of English agriculture in the eighteenth century, see the journals of Arthur Young, A Six Weeks' Tour through the Southern Counties (1768), A Six Months' Tour through the North of Eng- land, 4 vols. (1791), and The Farmer's Tour through the East of England, 4 vols. (1791). Also see books Ksted under The British Monarchy, 1760- 1800, pp. 461 f., below.

Special Studies of Social Conditions in Other Countries. For Scotland : H. G. Graham, Social Life in Scotland in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols. (1900). For Hungary: Henry Marczali, Hungary in the Eighteenth Cen- tury (1910). For Russia: James Mavor, An Economic History of Russia, Vol. I (1914), Book II, ch. i-iv. For Spain : Georges Desdevises du Dezert, L'Espagne de I'ancien regime, 3 vols. (1897-1904). For the Germanics: Karl Biedermann, Deutschland im achtzehnten Jahrhundert, 2 vols, in 3 (1867-1880).

Ecclesiastical Affairs in the Eighteenth Century. The general his- tories of Christianity, cited in the bibliography to Chapter IV, above, should be consulted. Additional information can be gathered from the following. On the CathoUc Church: William Barry, The Papacy and Modern Times (191 1), ch. v; Cambridge Modern History, Vol. V (1908), ch. iv, on Gallicanism and Jansenism, by Viscount St. Cyres, a vigorous opponent of Ultramontanism ; Histoire generate. Vol. VI, ch. vi, and Vol. VII, ch. xvii, both by Emile Chenon ; Joseph de Maistre, Du pape, 24th ed. (1876), and De I'eglise gallicane, most celebrated treatments of Gallicanism from the standpoint of an Ultramontane and orthodox Roman Catholic; C. A. Sainte-Beuve, Port-Royal, 2d ed., 5 vols, (i860), the best literary account of Jansenism; R. B. C. Graham, A Vanished Arcadia: being some account of the Jesuits in Paraguay, idoy to 1767 (1901) ; Paul de Crousaz-Cretet, L'eglise et I'etat, ou les deux puissances au X VHP siecle,

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 429

lyij-iySg (1893), on the relations of church and state; Leon Mention, Documents relalifs aux rapports du clerge avcc la royaute de 1682 a lySg, 2 vols. (1893-1903), containing many important documents. On Protes- tantism in England: H. O. Wakcman, An Introduction to the History of the Church of England, 5th ed. (1898), ch. xviii, xix ; J. H. Overton and Frederic Relton, .1 History of the Church of England, IJ14-1800 (1906), being \'ol. \'II of a comprehensive work ed. by W. R. W. Stephens and William Hunt ; John Stoughton, Religion under Queeyi Anne and the Georges, 1702-1800, 2 vols. (187S) ; H. W. Clark, History of English Nonconformity, 2 vols. (1911-1913), especially Vol. II, Book IV, ch. i, ii, on ]\Iethodism ; W. C. Braithwaite, The Beginnings of Quakerism (191 2); F. J. Snell, Wesley and Methodism (1900) ; and T. E. Thorpe, Joseph Priestley (1906). Deism and the Science and Philosophy of the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge Modern History, Vol. \', ch. xxiii, and \'ol. Mil, ch. i; Histoire generalc. Vol. \T, ch. x, and \'ol. \'II, ch. xv, two excellent chapters on natural science, 1648-1788, by Paul Tannery; Sir Oliver Lodge, Pioneers of Science (1893) ; Sir Leslie Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 3d ed., 2 vols. (1902), an interesting account of the English Deists and of the new political and economic theorists, and, by the same author, English Literature and Society in the Eighteenth Century (1909) ; Edmund Gosse, A History of Eighteenth Century Literature, 1660- 1780 (191 1); J. M. Robertson, A Short History of Free Thought, 3d rev. ed., 2 vols. (1915), a sympathetic treatment of deism and rationalism; C. S. Devas, The Key to the World's Progress (1906), suggestive criticism of the thought of the eighteenth century from the standpoint of a well- informed Roman Catholic. On the most celebrated French philosophers of the time, see the entertaining and enthusiastic biographies by John (Viscount) Morley, Rousseau, 2 vols. (1873), Diderot and the Encyclopcedists, 2 vols. (1891), Voltaire (1903), and the essays on Turgot, etc., scattered throughout his Critical Miscellanies, 4 vols. (1892-1908). There is a con- venient little biography of Montesquieu by Albert Sorel, Eng. trans, by Gustave JNIasson (1887), and useful monographs by J. C. Collins, Boling- broke, a Historical Study; and Voltaire in England (1886). Such epochal works as jSIontesquieu's Spirit of the Laws, \'oltaire's Letters on the English and Philosophical Dictionary, and Rousseau's Social Contract and Eniile, are readily procurable in Enghsh. On the rise of political economy : Henry Higgs, The Physiocrats (1897) ; Charles Gide and Charles Rist, A History of Economic Doctrines from the Time of the Physiocrats, Eng. trans. (19 15), Book I, ch. i, ii ; L. L. Price, .4 Short History of Political Economy in Eng- lattd from Adam Smith to Arnold Toynbee, 7th ed. (191 1) ; R. B. (Viscount) Haldane, Life of Adam Smith (1887) in the " Great Writers " Series; John Rae, Life of Adam Smith (1895), containing copious extracts from Smith's letters and papers; Georges Weulersse, Le mouvement physiocralique en France de 1756 a 1770, 2 vols. (1910), scholarly and elaborate. There is a two-volume edition of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1910) in " Every- man's Library," with an admirable introductory essay by E. R. A. Seligman.

CHAPTER XIV EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

In the foregoing chapter we have seen how the social structure of the eighteenth century rested on injustice, poverty, and suffering; we have hstened to the complaints of the bourgeoisie and to their demands for reform. Philos- ophers might plead for reform, but only the king could grant it. For in him were vested all powers of government : he was the absolute monarch.

Such was the situation in virtually every important country in Europe. In Great Britain alone were the people even reputed to have a share in the government, and to Great Britain the Voltaires and the Montesquieus of the Continent turned for a model in politics. Let us join them in considering the pecuKar organization of the British monarchy, and then we shall observe how the other governments of Europe met the demand for reform.

THE BRITISH MONARCHY

In the eighteenth century, what was the British monarchy?

It was, first of all, the government of England (which included

Wales). Secondly, it embraced Scotland, for since

1603 Scotland and England had been subject to the

same king, and in 1707 by the Act of Union the two kingdoms had

„ . , been united to form the monarchy of " Great Britain,"

Scotland . , , . , -r. t ^

with a common king and a common Parliament.

The British monarchy was properly, then, the government

of united England (Wales) and Scotland. But in addition the

Great crown had numerous subordinate possessions : the

Britain royal colonies,^ and Ireland. For these dependencies

^ The royal colonies were, in 1800: Newfoundland (1583), Barbados (1605), Bermudas (i6oq), Gambia (c. 1618), St. Christopher (1623), Nevis (1628), Mont- serrat (1632), Antigua (1632), Honduras (1638), St. Lucia (1638), Gold Coast

430

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 431

the home government appointed governors, made laws, and le\aed taxes, in theory at least ; but they were possessions rather than integral parts of the monarchy.

A few words should be said in explanation of the political status of Ireland under the British crown. The Enghsh kings had begun their conquests in that island as far back as the twelfth century ; and by dint of much blood- shed and many efforts they had long maintained possession. In the seventeenth century OUver Cromwell had put down a bitter revolt and had encouraged Protestant Enghsh and Scotch immi- grants to settle in the north and east, taking the land from the native Irishmen, who were Roman Catholics. An Irish parlia- ment had existed since the middle ages, but from the close of the fifteenth century its acts to be valid required the approval of the Enghsh Privy Council, and from the middle of the seventeenth century Roman CathoUcs were debarred from it. In 1783, however, while Great Britain was engaged in the War of American Independence, the Protestants in Ireland secured the right to make most of their own laws, and ten years later the Catholic disquahfications were removed. From 1782 to 1801, Ireland retained this half-way independence ; but a Protestant minority actually controlled the Irish Parhament, incurring the dishke of the Roman CathoHc Irish and of the British government, so that in iSoo, following an Irish revolt, an Act of Union was passed, according to which, in 1801, Great Britain and Ireland became the United Kingdom. Thenceforth Ireland was represented by 28 peers and 100 Commoners in the Parhament of the United Kingdom (often called, carelessly, the British Parhament).

It may be said, then, that except during the brief period of Irish semi-independence (i 782-1801), the British Parliament governed not only Great Britain, but Ireland and the crown colonies as well. How the British monarchy was governed, we have now to discover,

(c. 1650), St. Helena (1651), Jamaica (1655), Bahamas (1666), Virgin Islands (1666), Gibraltar (1704), Hudson Bay Territory (1713), Nova Scotia (17^3), New Brunswick (1713), Quebec, Ontario, and Prince Edward Island (1763), Dominica (1763), St. Vincent (1763), Grenada (1763), Tobago (1763), Falkland (1765), Pitcairn (1780), Straits Settlements (1786 ff.), Sierra Leone (1787), New South Wales (1788), Ceylon (1795), Trinidad (1797), and, under the East India Company, Madras (1639), Bombay (1661), and Bengal (1633-1765).

432 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

In theory the king was still the ruler of his kingdom. In his name all laws were made, treaties sealed, governmental officials appointed. Like other monarchs, he had his and his " Privy Councilors" to advise him, and ministers

Nominal (Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretaries of State, the Lord Chancellor, etc.) to supervise various details of central administration. But this was largely a matter of form. In fact, the kings of Great Britain had lost most of their power, and retained only their dignity; they were becoming figureheads.

Ever since the signing of Magna Carta, back in 12 15, the English people had been exacting from their sovereigns written The British promises by which the crown surrendered certain pow- Constitution gj-g Greatest progress in this direction had been made amid those stirring scenes of the seventeenth century which have been described already in the chapter on the Triumph of Parhamentary Government in England. In addition to formal documents, there had been slowly evolved a body of customs and usages, which were almost as sacred and binding as if they had been inscribed on parchment. Taken together, these written and customary limitations on royal authority were called the "British Constitution."

This Constitution hmited the king's power in four important

ways, (i) It deprived him of the right to levy taxes. For his

household expenses he was now granted an allowance,

Limitations ^^^ ^^^ (.-^-^ List. WilHam III, for instance, was

on the ' _ ' _

Actual allowed £700,000 a year. (2) The king had no right

rtie^^ng* either to make laws on his own responsibihty or to prevent laws being made against his will. The sover- eign's prerogative to veto Parhament's bills still existed in theory, •but was not exercised after the reign of Queen Anne. (3) The king had lost control of the judicial system {i.e., the courts) : he could not remove judges even if they gave decisions un- favorable to him; and the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 pro- vided that any one thrown into prison should be told why, and given a fair legal trial. (4) The king could not maintain a standing army without consent of Parliament. These re- strictions made Great Britain a "limited," rather than an "absolute," monarchy.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 433

The powers taken from the king were now exercised by ParHa- ment. The constitutional conilict of the seventeenth century had left Parliament not onh' in enjoyment of freedom „ ,.

. - . 1 r 11 Parliament

of speech for its members but with full power to levy taxes, to make laws, to remove or retain judges, and essentially to determine the policy of the government in war and in peace. Parhamcnt had even taken upon itself on one celebrated occasion (1689) to deprive a monarch of his "divine right" to rule, to establish a new sovereign, and to decree that never again should Great Britain have a king of the Roman Catholic faith.

French philosophers who saw so much power vested in a representative body could not be too loud in their praise of "English hberty." Had they investigated more closely, these same observers might have learned to their surprise that Parlia- ment represented the people of Great Britain only in name.

As we have seen in an earlier chapter/ Parliament consisted of two legislative assembHes or "Houses," neither one of which could make laws without the consent of the other.' One of these houses, the House of Lords, was cratic Char- frankly aristocratic and undemocratic. Its members ^^^f. °^ were the "lords spiritual" — rich and influential bishops of the Anglican Church, — and the "lords temporal," or peers, haughty descendants of the ancient feudal nobles or haughtier heirs of miUionaires recently ennobled by the king.^ These proud gentlemen were mainly landlords, and as a class they were almost as selfish and undemocratic as the courtiers of France.

But, the French philosopher replies, the representatives of the people are found in the lower house, the House of Commons ; the peers merely give stability to the government. Let us see.

One thing at least is certain, that in the eighteenth century the majority of the people of Great Britain had no voice in choosing their "representatives." In the country, the "knights of the shire" were, supposedly elected, two for each shire or county. But a man could not vote unless he had an estate worth

^ See above, pp. 265 f.

2 A peer was technically a titled noble who possessed an hereditary seat in the House of Lords. George III created many peers : at his death there were over 300 in all.

434 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

an annual rent of forty shillings, and, since the same amount of money would then buy a good deal more than nowadays, forty shillings was a fairly large sum. Persons who could vote were often afraid to vote independently, and frequently they sold their vote to a rich noble, so that many ''knights of the shire" were practically named by the landed aristocracy, the wealthy and titled landlords.

Matters were even worse in the towns, or "boroughs." By no means all of the towns had representation. Moreover, for the towns that did choose their two members to sit in the House of Commons, no method of election was prescribed by law ; but each borough followed its own custom. In one town the aristo- cratic municipal corporation would choose the representatives; in another place the gilds would control the election ; and in yet another city there might be a few so-called "freemen" (of course everybody was free, — "freeman" was a technical term for a member of the town corporation) who had the right to vote, and sold their votes regularly for about £5 apiece. In general the town representatives were named by a few well-to-do pohticians, while the common 'prentices and journeymen worked uninter- ruptedly at their benches. It has been estimated that fewer than 1500 persons controlled a majority in the House of Commons.

In many places a nobleman or a clique of townsmen appointed their candidates without even the formahty of an election. In other places, where rival influences clashed, bribery would decide the day. For in contested elections, the voting lasted forty days, during which time the price of votes might rise to £25 or more. Votes might be purchased with safety, too, for voting was public and any one might learn from the poll-book how each man had voted. Not infrequently it cost several thousand pounds to carry such an election.

We may summarize these evils by saying that the peasants and artisans generally were not allowed to vote, and that the " Rotten methods of election gave rise to corruption. But this Boroughs " -yyo^g j^Q^ q\\ There was neither rhyme nor reason to be found in the distribution of representation between different sections of the country. Old Sarum had once been a prosperous village and had been accorded representation, but after the vil- lage had disappeared, leaving to view but a lonely hill, no one

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 435

in England could have told why two members should still sit for Old Sarum. Nor, for that matter, could there have been much need of representation in Parhament for the sea-coast town of Dunwich. Long ago the coast had sunk and the salt- sea waves now washed the remains of a ruined town. Bosseney in Cornwall was a hamlet of three cottages, but its citizens were entitled to send two men to Parliament.

While these decayed towns and "rotten boroughs" continued to enjoy representation, populous and opulent cities like Birming- ham, IManchester, Leeds, and Sheffield were ignored. They had grown with the growth of industry, while the older towns had declined. Yet Parliamentary representation underwent no change from the days of Charles II to the third decade of the nineteenth century. Thus Parliament in the eighteenth cen- tury represented neither the different classes of society nor the masses of population. Politics was a gentleman's game. The nobleman who sat in the upper house had his dummies in the lower chamber. A certain Sir James Lowther had nine pro- teges in the lower house, who were commonly called " Low- ther's Ninepins." A distinguished statesman of the time de- scribed the position of such a protege : "He is sent here by the lord of this or the duke of that, and if he does not obey the instruc- tions which he receives, he is held to be a dishonest man."

Under conditions such as these it is not hard to understand how seats in ParHament were bought and sold Uke boxes at the opera or seats in a stock-exchange. Nor is it surpris- „ ,.

., .,. ., „. .,.. Paruamen-

ing that alter havmg paid a small fortune for the privi- tary Bribery lege of representing the people, the worldly-wise and Cor- Commoner should be mlling to indemnify himself by accepting bribes, or, if perchance his tender conscience forbade monetary bribes, by accepting a government post with fat salary and few duties except to vote with the government.

For many years (1714-1761) the arts of corruption were practiced with astonishing success by a group of clever Whig pohticians. As has been noticed in an earlier chap- ^, „ ,.

^ , . . . ^ The Cabinet

ter,^ it was to their most conspicuous leader, Sir Rob- ert Walpole, that the first two Georges intrusted the conduct of affairs ; and Walpole filled the important offices of state with

^ See above, pp. 291 f.

436 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

his Whig friends. Likewise it has been noticed' that during the same period the idea of the cabinet system became more firmly fixed. Just as Walpole secured the appointment of his friends to the high offices of state, so subsequent statesmen put their supporters in office. The practice was not yet rigid, but it was customary for a dozen or so of the leaders of the faction in power to hold ''cabinet" meetings, in which they decided in advance what measures should be presented to Parliament. If a measure indorsed by the cabinet should be defeated by the Commons, the leader of the party would normally resign, and the ministers he had appointed would follow his example. In other words, the cabinet acted in concert and resigned as a whole.

If the affairs of the government were all carried on by the cabinet, and if the cabinet depended for its support on the majority in the House of Commons, what remained for the king to do ? Obviously, very little !

George I and George II had not been averse from cabinet- government : it was easy and convenient. But George III „.., (1760-1820) was determined to make his authority

British ) ' ^^ \ . . . . . . . .^

Government felt. He Wished to preside at cabinet meetings ; he under outbribed the Whigs ; and he repeatedly asked his

George III . . . , i ,• im 1 i • t •

ministers to resign because he disliked their policies. Besides the friends he purchased, George III possessed a con- siderable number of enthusiastic and conscientious supporters. The country squires and clergy who believed in the Anglican Church and looked with distrust upon the power of corrupt Whig politicians in Parliament, were quite willing that a pains- taking and gentlemanly monarch should do his own ruling. Such persons formed the backbone of the Tory party and some- times called themselves the "king's friends." With their sup- port and by means of a liberal use of patronage, George III was able to keep Lord North, a minister after his own heart, in power twelve years (i 770-1 782). But as we have learned,^ the War of American Independence caused the downfall of Lord North, and for the next year or two, pohtics were in confusion. During 1 782-1 783 the old Whig and Tory parties ^ were sadly broken up, and a new element was unmistakably infused into party-warfare by the spirit of reform.

^ See above, p. 290. ^ ggg above, pp. 332 ff. ' See above, pp. 285 f.

"LIBERTY, EQUALirV, FRATERNITY" 437

Surely, if ever a country needed reform, it was Great Britain in 1783. The country was filled with paupers maintained by the taxes ; poor people might be shut up in work- j^g^^ ^^^ houses and see their cliildren carted off to factories ; Demand sailors were kidnapped for the royal navy ; the farm- °'^ ^ "'^^ hand was practically bound to the soil like a serf ; over two hundred offenses, such as steahng a shilling or cutting down an apple tree, were punishable by death ; religious intolerance flourished — Quakers were imprisoned and Roman Catholics were debarred from office and Parliament. And Ireland was being ruined by the selfish and obstinate minority which con- trolled its parhament.

But about these things Enghsh "reformers" were not much concerned. A few altruistic souls decried the traffic in black slaves, but that evil was quite far from English shores. The reform movement was chiefly directed against parliamentary corruption and received its support from the small country gentlemen who hated the great Whig owners of "pocket-bor- oughs," ^ and from the lower and newer ranks of the bourgeoisie. For the small shop-keepers and tradesmen, and especially the rich manufacturers in new industrial towns like Birmingham, felt that Parliament did not represent their interests, and they set up a cry for pure politics and reformed representation.

The spirit of reform spread rapidly. In the 'sixties of the eighteenth century, John Wilkes, a squint-eyed and immoral but very persuasive editor, had raised a hubbub of reform talk. He had criticized the poHcy of George III, had been elected to Parliament, and, when the House of Commons expelled him, had insisted upon the right of the people to elect him, regardless of the will of the House. His admirers — and he had many — shouted for "Wilkes and Liberty," elected him Lord Mayor of London, and enabled him to carry his point.

The founding of four newspapers furthered the reform move- ment. They took it upon themselves to report parHamentary debates, and along with information they spread discontent. Their activity was somewhat checked, however, by the operation of the old laws which punished libelous attacks on the king with

1 Boroughs whose members were named by a political "patron."

438 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

imprisonment or exile, and also by a stamp duty of 2ld. a sheet

(1789).

Under the new influence a number of Wliigs became advocates of reform. George III had outdone them at corruption; they Charles now sought to reestablish their own power and Parlia- james Fox nient's by advocating reform. Of these Whigs, Charles James Fox (i 749-1806) was the most prominent. Fox had been taught to gamble by his father and took to it readily. Cards and horse-racing kept him in constant bankruptcy ; many of his nights were spent in debauchery and his mornings in bed ; and his close association with the rakish heir to the throne was the scandal of London. In spite of his eloquence and abiUty, the loose manner of his Hfe mihtated against the success of Fox as a reformer. His friends knew him to be a free-hearted, impulsive sympathizer with all who were oppressed, and they entertained no doubt of his sincere wish to bring about parliamentary reform, complete religious toleration, and the aboHtion of the slave trade. But strangers could not easily reconcile his private life with his public words, and were antag- onized by his frequent lack of political tact.

Despite drawbacks Fox furthered the cause of reform to a considerable extent. He it was who presided over a great The Pro- niass meeting, held under the auspices of a reform gram of club, at which meeting was drawn up a program of Reform liberal reform, a program which was to be the battle- cry of British poUtical radicals for several generations. It comprised six demands: (i) Votes for all adult males, (2) each district to have representation proportionate to its population, (3) payment of the members of Parhament so as to enable poor men to accept election, (4) abohtion of the property qualifica- tions for members of Parliament, (5) adoption of the secret ballot, and (6) Parliaments to be elected annually.

Such reform seemed less likely of accomplishment by Fox than by a younger statesman, Wilham Pitt (i 759-1806), second William ^^^ ^^ ^^^ famous earl of Chatham. When but seven Pitt the years old, Pitt had said: "I want to speak in the Younger Housc of Commons like papa." Throughout his boy- hood and youth he had kept this ambition constantly before him ; he had studied, practiced oratory, and learned the arts

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 439

of debate. At the age of twenty-one, he was a tall, slender, and sickly youth, with sonorous voice, devouring ambition, and sublime self-confidence. He secured a seat in the Commons as one of Sir James Lowther's "ninepins," and speedily won the respect of the House. He was the youngest and most promising of the politicians of the day. At the outset he was a Whig.

By a combination of circumstances young Pitt was enabled to form an essentially new political party — the "New Tories." By his scrupulous honesty and earnest advocacy of The " New parliamentary reform, he won to his side the unreprc- Tones " sented bourgeoisie and the opponents of "bossism." On the other hand, by accepting from King George III an appointment as chief minister, and holding the position in spite of a temporarily hostile majority in the House of Commons, Pitt won the respect of the Tory country squires and the clergy, who stood for the king against Parliament. And finally, being quite moral him- self (if chronic indulgence in port wine be excepted), and sup- porting a notoriously virtuous king against corrupt politicians and against the gambling Fox, Pitt became an idol of all lovers of "respectability."

In the parliamentary elections of 1784 Pitt won a great victory. In that year he was prime minister with loyal majorities in both Houses of Parliament, with royal favor, and with the support of popular enthusiasm. He was feasted in Grocers' Hall in London ; the shopkeepers of the Strand illuminated their dwellings in his honor ; and crowds cheered his carriage.

Reform seemed to be within sight. The horrors of the slave trade were mitigated, and greater freedom was given the press. Bills were introduced to abolish the representa- tion of "rotten" boroughs and to grant representation to the newer towns.

It can hardly be doubted that Pitt would have gone further had not affairs in France — the French Revolution — „ ,, ^

Halt of

alarmed him at the critical time and caused him to Reform in fear a similar outbreak in England.^ The government 9^^^^ and upper classes of Great Britain at once abandoned their roles as reformers, and set themselves sternly to repress any- thing that might savor of revolution.

^ For the effect of the French Revolution upon England, see pp. 494 f., 504.

440 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Two important conclusions may now be drawn from our study of the British government in the eighteenth century. In the first place, despite the admiration with which the French philosophers regarded the British monarchy as a model of poHtical liberty and freedom, it was in fact both cor- rupt and oppressive. Secondly, the spirit of reform seemed for a time as active and as promising in Great Britain as in France, but from the island kingdom it was frightened away by the tumult of revolution across the Channel.

THE ENLIGHTENED DESPOTS

The spirit of progress and reform had slowly made itself felt in Great Britain through popular agitation and in Parha- ment. On the Continent it naturally took a different turn, for there government certainly was not by Parliaments, but by sovereigns "by the Grace of God." In France, Prussia, Austria, Spain, and Russia, therefore, the question was always, "Will his Majesty be cruel, extravagant, and unprogressive ; or will he prove himself an able and Uberal-minded monarch?"

It happened during the eighteenth century that most of the Continental rulers were of this latter sort — conscientious and well-meaning. On the thrones of Austria, Prussia, Benevolent Spain, Portugal, Tuscany, Sardinia, Bavaria, and Despotism Sweden sat men of extraordinary abihty, who sought ConUnent rather the welfare of their country than careless per- sonal pleasure.

These were the benevolent despots. They were despots, absolute rulers, countenancing no attempt to diminish royal authority, believing in government by one strong hand rather than by the democratic many. But with despotism they com- bined benevolence ; they were anxious for the glory of their nation, and no less solicitous for the happiness and prosperity of their people. Thus the development of absolute monarchy and the rationalism of the eighteenth century united to produce the benevolent despot. For this reason the term "enlightened" {i.e., philosophical) despot is frequently applied to these auto- crats who attempted to rule in the hght of reason.

One of the most successful of the enlightened despots was

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 441

Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia. In our chapter on the

Germanies,^ we have seen how he fought all Europe ^^^^^^^y^

to gain prestige and power for Prussia ; we shall now the Great

see how he endeavored to ai)ply scientific methods to °* Prussia,

' '■ ■' 1740-1786

the government of his own country.

With the major intellectual interests of the eighteenth cen- tury, Frederick II became acquainted quite naturally. As a boy he had been fond of reading French plays, had learned Latin against his father's will, had filled his mind with the ideas of deistic philosophers, and had seemed hkely to become a dreamer instead of a ruler. But the dogged determination of his father, King Frederick WilUam I, to make something out of Frederick besides a l^ute-playing, poetizing philosopher, had resulted in famiharizing him with elaborate financial reports and monot- onous minutes of tiresome official transactions. Young Fred- erick, however, learned to Hke the details of administration and when he came to the throne in 1 740 he was not only enlightened but industrious.

The young king had a clear conception of his duties, and even wrote a book in French about the theory of government. "The prince," he said, "is to the nation he governs what the head is to the man ; it is his duty to see, think, and act for the whole community, that he may procure it every advantage of which it is capable." "The monarch is not the absolute master, but only the first servant of the state." Frederick was indeed the first servant of Prussia, rising at five in the morning, working on official business until eleven o'clock, and spending the after- noon at committee meetings or army reviews.

He set about laboriously to make Prussia the best and most governed state in Europe. He carefully watched the judges to see that they did not render wrongful decisions or take bribes. He commissioned jurists to compile the laws and to make them so simple and clear that no one would violate them through ignorance. He abolished the old practice of torturing suspected criminals to make them confess their guilt.

Education, as well as justice, claimed his attention ; he founded elementary schools, so that as many as possible of his subjects could learn at least to read and write. In rehgious affairs,

^ See above, ch. xi.

442 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Frederick allowed great individual liberty ; for he was a deist, and, Uke other deists of the time, believed in religious toleration.

More important even than justice, education, and toleration, he considered the promotion of material prosperity among his people. He would have considered himself a failure, had his reign not meant " good times" for farmers and merchants. He encouraged industry. He fostered the manufacture of silk. He invited thrifty farmers to move from other countries and to settle in Prussia. He built canals. Marshes were drained and transformed into rich pasture-land. If war desolated a part of the country, then, when peace was concluded, Frederick gave the farmers seed and let them use his war-horses before the plow. He advised landlords to improve their estates by planting orchards ; and he encouraged peasants to grow turnips as fodder for cattle. Much was done to Hghten the financial burdens of the peasantry, for (as Frederick himself declared) if a man worked all day in the fields, "he should not be hounded to despair by tax-collectors."

Taxes were not hght by any means, but everybody knew that the king was not squandering the money. Frederick was not a man to lavish fortunes on worthless courtiers ; . he diligently examined all accounts ; and his officials dared not be extravagant for fear of being corporally punished, or, what was worse, of being held up to ridicule by the cruel wit of their royal master.

It was only this marvelous economy and careful planning that enabled Prussia to support an army of 200,000 men and to embark upon a policy of conquest, by which Silesia and a third of Poland were won. On the army alone Frederick was willing to spend freely, but even in tliis department he made sure that Prussia received its money's worth. Tireless drill, strict disciphne, up-to-date arms, and well-trained officers made the Prussian army the envy and terror of eighteenth- century Europe.

In dwelKng upon his seemingly successful attempts to govern in the light of reason and common sense, we have almost for- gotten Frederick's love of philosophy. Let us recur to it before we take leave of him ; for benevolent despotism was only one side of the philosophical monarch. He liked to play his flute

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 443

while thinking how to outwit Maria Theresa; he delighted in making witty answers to tiresome reports and petitions; he enjoyed sitting at table with congenial companions discussing poetry, science, and the drama. True, he did not encourage the rising young German poets Lessing and Goethe. He thought their work vulgar and uninspired. But he invited literary Frenchmen to come to Berlin, and he put new life into the BerUn Academy of Science. Even Voltaire was for a time a guest at Frederick's court, and the amateurish poems written in French by the Prussian king were corrected by the "prince of philosophers."

While Frederick was demonstrating that "the prince is but the first servant of the state," Catherine II was playing the en- lightened despot in Russia. In the course of her re- . markable career,^ Catherme found trnie to write flat- the Great

tering letters to French philosophers, to make pres- of Russia . ,.^.^., , 1762-1796

ents to Voltaire, and to mvite Diderot to tutor her son.

She posed, too, as a Hberal-minded monarch, wilhng to discuss the advisabiHty of giving Russia a written constitution, or of emancipating the serfs. Schools and academies were estabhshed, and French became the language of polite Russian society.

At heart Catherine was little moved by desire for real reform or by pity for the peasants. She had the heavy whip — the knout — appUed to the bared backs of earnest reformers. Her court was scandalously immoral, and she violated the conven- tions of matrimony without a qualm. For some excuse or another, the promised constitution was never written, and the lot of the serfs tended to become actually worse. To the gov- ernor of ]\Ioscow, the tsarina wrote: "My dear prince, do not complain that the Russians have no desire for instruction; if I institute schools, it is not for us, — it is for Europe, where we must keep our position in pubhc opinion. But the day when our peasants shall wish to become enhghtened, both you and I will lose our places." This shows clearly that while Catherine wished to be considered an enlightened despot, she was at heart quite the reverse. Her true character was not to be made manifest until the outbreak of the French Revolution, and then Catherine of Russia was to preach a crusade against reform.

^ See above, pp. 380 ff.

444 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

There were other benevolent despots, however, who were undoubtedly sincere. Charles III, with able ministers, made Charles III T^^^Y changes in Spain.^ The Jesuits were sup- of Spain, pressed ; the exaggerated zeal of the Inquisition was 1759-178 effectually checked ; police were put on the streets of Madrid ; German farmers were encouraged to settle in Spain ; roads and canals were built ; manufactures were fostered ; science was patronized ; and the fleet was nearly doubled. . When Charles III died, after a reign of almost thirty years, the revenues of Spain had tripled, and its population had increased from seven to eleven millions.

Charles's neighbor, Joseph I of Portugal, possessed in the famous Pombal a minister who was both a topical philosopher Joseph I ^^^ ^^ active statesman. Under his administration, of Portugal, industry, education, and commerce throve in Portugal 1750-1777 ^g jj^ Spain. Gustavus III (i 771-1792) of Sweden similarly made himself the patron of industry and the friend of the workingman. In Italy, the king of Sardinia was freeing his serfs, while in Tuscany several important reforms were being effected by Duke Leopold, a younger brother of the Habsburg emperor, Joseph II.

Joseph II, archduke of Austria and emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, carried the theory of enlightened despotism to Joseph II ^^^ greatest lengths. He was at once the most enthu- of Austria, siastic and the most unsuccessful of all the benevolent oMhrHoiy despots. Ill him is to be observed the most striking Roman example of the aims, and likewise the weaknesses, of

^^"^ this generation of philosopher-kings.

Before we consider Joseph's career, it is important to under- stand what his mother, Maria Theresa (i 740-1 780), had already „. „ . done for the Habsburg realms. We are familiar with age from her brave conduct in defense of her hereditary lands Maria against the unscrupulous ambition of Frederick the

Theresa

Great.2 For her loss of Silesia she had obtained through the partition of Poland some compensation in Galicia and Moldavia. Her domestic policy is of present concern.

* Charles III had previously been king of Naples (1735-1759) and had insti- tuted many reforms in that kingdom. ^ See above, ch. xi.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 445

The troops furnished by vote of provincial assemblies, she welded together into a national army. German became the official language of military officers ; and a movement was begun to supplant Latin by German in the civil administration. The privileges of religious orders were curtailed in the interest of strong government ; and the papal bull suppressing the Jesuits was enforced. The universities were remodeled ; and the elab- orate system of elementary and secondary schools, then estab- lished, survived with but little change until 1869.

Maria Theresa had begun reform along most of the lines which her son was to follow. But in two important particulars she was unHke him and unlike the usual enhghtened despot. In the first place, she was politic rather than philosophical. She did not attempt wholesale reforms, or bhndly follow fine theories, but introduced practical and moderate measures in order to remedy e\ils. She was very careful not to offend the prejudices or traditions of her subjects. Secondly, Maria Theresa was a devout Roman CathoHc. Love of her subjects was not a theory with her, — it was a religious duty. A cynical Frederick the Great might laugh at conscience, and to a Catherine morality might mean nothing ; but Maria Theresa remained an ardent Christian in an age of unbehef and a pure woman when loose Hving was fashionable.

Her eldest son, Joseph 11,^ was brought up a Roman CathoKc, and although strongly influenced by Rousseau's writings, never seceded from the Church. But neither religion nor „ ,. .

. Policies

expediency was his guiding principle. He said, "I and Plans have made Philosophy the legislator of my Empire: of Joseph 11, her logical principles shall transform Austria."

There was something very noble in the determination of the young ruler to do away with all injustice, to relieve the oppressed, and to Hft up those who had been trampled under foot. His ambition was to make Austria a strong, united, and prosperous kingdom, to be himself the benefactor of his people, to protect the manufacturer, and to free the serf. Austria was to be re- modeled as Rousseau would have wished — except in respect of Rousseau's basic idea of popular sovereignty.

^ Holy Roman Emperor (i 765-1 790), and sole ruler of the Habsburg dominions (1780-1790).

446 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

It is a pity that Joseph II cannot be judged simply by his good intentions, for he was quite unlitted to carry out whole- some reforms. He had derived his ideas from French philoso- phers rather than from actual life ; he was so sure that his theories were right that he would take no advice ; he was im- patient and would brook no delay in the wholesale apphcation of his theories. Regardless of prejudice, regardless of tradition, regardless of every consideration of pohtical expediency, he rushed ahead on the path of reform.

To Joseph II it mattered not that Austria had long been the stronghold and her rulers the champions of Catholic Chris- tianity. He insisted that no papal bulls should be pubHshed in his dominions without his own authorization ; he nominated the bishops ; he confiscated church lands. Side altars and vari- ous emblems were removed from the churches, not because they were useless, for humble Christians still prayed to their God before such altars, but because the emperor thought side altars were signs of superstition. The old and well-loved cere- monies were altered at his command. Many monasteries were aboUshed. The clergy were to be trained in schools controlled by the emperor. And, to cap the climax, heretics and Jews were to be not only tolerated, but actually given the same rights as orthodox Catholics.

Many of these measures were no doubt desirable, and one or two of them might have been accomplished without causing much disturbance, but by trying to reform everything at once, Joseph only shocked and angered the clergy and such of his people as piously loved their rehgion.

His political policies, which were no more wisely conceived or executed, were three in number, (i) He desired to extend his possessions eastward to the Black Sea and southward to the Adriatic, while the distant Netherlands might conveniently be exchanged for near-by Bavaria. (2) He wished to get rid of all provincial assemblies and other vestiges of local independ- ence, and to have all his territories governed uniformly by offi- cials subject to himself. (3) He aimed to uplift the lower classes of his people, and to put down the proud nobles, so that all should be equal and all alike should look up to their benev- olent, but all-powerful, ruler.

"LIBERTY, EQU.AJLITY, FRATERNITY" 447

The first of these poHcies brought him only disastrous wars. His designs on Bavaria were frustrated by Frederick the Great, who posed as the protector of the smaller German states. In the Balkan peninsula liis armies fought much and gained Httle.

His administrative policy was as unfortunate as his terri- torial ambition. Maria Theresa had taken some steps to sim- plify the administration of her heterogeneous dominions, but she had wisely allowed Hungary, Lombardy, and the Nether- lands to preserve certain of the traditions and formulas of self- government, and she did everything to win the loyalty and confidence of her Hungarian subjects. Joseph, on the other hand, carried the sacred crown of St. Stephen — treasured by all Hungarians — to Vienna ; aboKshed the privileges of the Hungarian Diet, or congress ; and with a stroke of the pen established a new system of government. He divided his lands into thirteen provinces, each under a mihtary commander. Each province was divided into districts or counties, and these again into townships. There would be no more local privileges but all was to be managed from Vierma. The army was hence- forth to be on the Prussian model, and the peasants were to be forced to serve their terms in it. German was to be the ofl&cial language throughout the Habsburg realm. This was all very fine 'on paper, but in practice it was a gigantic failure. The Austrian Netherlands rose in revolt rather than lose their local autonomy ; the Tyrol did Hkewise ; and angry protests came from Hungary. Local liberties and traditions could not be abolished by an imperial decree.

Finally, in his attempts to reconstruct society, Joseph came to grief. He directed that all serfs should become free men, able to marry without the consent of their lord, privileged to sell their land and to pay a fixed rent instead of being compelled to labor four days a week for their lord. Nobles and peasants ahke were to share the burdens of taxation, all paying 13 per cent on their land. Joseph intended still further to help the peasantry, for, he said "I could never bring myself to skin two hundred good peasants to pay one do-nothing lord more than he ought to have." He planned to give everybody a free elementary education, to encourage industry, and to make all his subjects prosperous and happy.

448 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

But the peasants disliked compulsory military service and misunderstood his reforms ; the nobles were not willing to be Failure of deprived of their feudal rights ; the bourgeoisie was Joseph II irritated by his blundering attempts to encourage industry ; the clergy preached against his religious policy. He reigned only ten years ; yet he was hated by many and loved by none ; he had met defeat abroad, and at home his subjects were in revolt.

Little wonder that as he lay dying (1790) with hardly friend or relative near to comfort him, the discouraged reformer should have sighed : "After all my trouble, I have made but few happy, and many ungrateful." He directed that most of his "reforms" should be canceled, and proposed as an epitaph for himself the gloomy sentence: "Here Hes the man who, with the best intentions, never succeeded in anything." ^

Joseph II was not the only benevolent despot who met with discouragement. The fatal weakness of "enlightened despot- ism" was its failure to enlist the sympathy and sup- of Benevo- port of the people. Absolute rulers like Joseph II lent Des- tried to force reforms on their peoples whether the reforms were popularly desired or not. As a result, few of their measures were lasting, and ingratitude was uniformly their reward.

If all kings had possessed the supreme abihty and genius of a Frederick the Great, enlightened despotism might still be in vogue. The trouble was that even well-meaning monarchs like Joseph II were unpractical ; and many sovereigns were not even well-meaning. In Prussia, the successor of Frederick the Great, King Frederick William II, had neither abihty nor char- acter ; his weak rule undid the work of Frederick. The same thing happened in other countries : weakness succeeded ability, extravagance wasted the fruits of economy, and corruption ruined the work of reform. Absolute monarchy without good inten- tions proved terribly oppressive.

* The epitaph was not quite true. The serfs in Austria retained at least part of the liberty he had granted.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 449

THE FRENCH MONARCHY

Li no country was the evil side of absolutism exhibited so unmistakably as in France. During the eighteenth century the French government went from bad to worse, until at last it was altered not by peaceful reform but by \dolent revolution.

As far as their actual condition was concerned, the people of France were, on the whole, better off than most Germans or Italians. Next to England, France had the most numerous, prosperous, and intelligent middle class ; peopie and her peasants were slightly above the serfs of other better off Continental countries. But the very fact that in ma- Ne^hboi^s terial well-being they were a little better off than their neighbors, made the French people more critical of their gov- ernment. The lower classes had not all been ground down until they were mere slaves without hope or courage; on the con- trary, there were many sturdy farmers and thrifty artisans who hoped for better days and bitterly resented inequalities in society and abuses in the government. The bourgeoisie was even less inclined to bow to tyranny ; it was numerous, intelli- gent, wealthy, and influential ; it could see the mistakes of the royal administration and was hopeful of gaining a voice in the government. Thus, the people of France were keener to feel wrongs and to resent the injustice of undutiful monarchs.

Let us glance at the crying abuses in the French state of the eighteenth century, and then we shall understand how great was the guilt of that pleasure-loving despot — Louis XV (171 5-1 774).

The French administrative system was confused and oppres- sive. In theory, it was quite simple — the govern- The Ad- ment was the king. As Louis XV haughtily re- ministration marked: "The sovereign authority is vested in my person . . . the legislative power exists in myself alone - • • r^r^ xr- my people are one only with me ; national rights and national interests are necessarily combined with my own and only rest in my hands."

But in practice, the king could not alone make laws, keep order, and collect taxes, especially when he spent whole days hunting or gambling. He contented himself with spending the state money, getting into wars, and occasionally interfering with the work of his ministers. And it was necessary to intrust the

450 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

actual conduct of affairs to a complicated system or no-system of royal officials.

The highest rung in the ladder of officialdom was the Royal Council. It was composed of the half dozen chief ministers The Royal and about thirty councilors who helped their chiefs to Council supervise the affairs of the kingdom, — issuing de- crees, conferring on foreign policy, levying taxes, and acting on endless reports from local officials.

The Royal Council had numerous local representatives. There were the bailiffs and seneschals, whose actual powers Local Ad- had quite disappeared, but whose offices served to ministration complicate matters. Then there were the governors of provinces, well-fed gentlemen with fat salaries and little to The do. The bulk of local administration fell into the

intendants hands of the intendants and their sub-delegates. Each of the thirty-four intendants — the so-called "Thirty Tyrants of France" — was appointed by the king's ministers and was like a petty despot in his district (generalite).

The powers of the intendant were extensive. He decided what share of the district taxes each village and taxpayer should bear. He had his representatives in each parish of his district, and through them he super\-ised the police, the preservation of order, and the recruiting of the army. He reHeved the poor in bad seasons. The erection of a church, or the repair of a town hall, needed his sanction. When the Royal Council ordered roads to be built, it was the intendant and his men who directed the work and called the peasants out to do the labor. With powers such as these, it was Uttle wonder that the intendant was called Monseigneur — "My lord."

The system of Royal Council, intendants, and sub-intendants would have been comparatively simple, had it not been compli- The Par- cated by the presence of numerous other pohtical lament of bodics, eacli of which claimed certain customary ^^"^ powers. First of all, there was the Parlement, or

supreme court, of Paris, primarily a judicial body which regis- tered the royal decrees. If the Parlement disliked a decree, it might refuse to register it, until the king should hold a "bed of justice" — that is, should formally summon the Parlement and in person command it to register his decree.

''LIBERTY, EQU.\LITY, FRATERNITY" 451

Then there were proWncial "Estates/' or assemblies, in a few of the pro\'inces.^ These bodies, survivals of the middle ages, did not make laws but had a voice in the apportion- Provincial ment of taxes among the parishes of the pro\-ince, and Estates exercised powers of supervision over road-building and the col- lection of taxes.

The government of the towns was peculiar. The old gilds, now including only a small number of the wealthiest burghers, elected a To\mi Council, which managed the prop- Town erty of the to\\Ti, appointed tax-collectors, saw that CouncUs the tovm. hall was kept in repair, and super\-ised the collection of customs duties on goods brought into the tovm. It is easy to perceive how the Town Council and the intendant would have overlapping powers, and how considerable confusion might arise, especially since in different towns the nature and the powers of the Tovm. Council differed widely. Matters were compHcated still further by the fact that the mayors of the towns were not elected by the council, but appointed by the crown.

In rural districts there was a trace of the same conflict betw^een the system of intendants and the surv-ivals of local self-govern- ment. Summoned by the clanging church bell, aU the men of the \'illage met on the \Tllage green. And the simple \'illagers, thus gathered together as a town meeting or communal assembly, might elect collectors of the taille, or might perhaps petition the intendant to repair the parsonage or the bridge.

Possibly the reader may now begin to realize that confusion was a prime attribute of the French administrative system. The common people were naturally be\sildered by the confusion overlapping functions of Royal Council, Parlement. in Adminis- pro\'incial estates, governors, bailiff's, intendants, sub- in tendants, mayors, to-vsTi councils, and ^•illage assemblies. The system, or lack of system, gave rise to corruption and complica-

^ Such prcnnces were called pays d'etat and included Brittany, Languedoc, Provence, Roussillon, Dauphine, Burgundy, Franche Comte, Alsace, Lorraine, Artois, Flanders, Corsica, etc. The local assemblies in these pays d'etat were by no means representative of all the inhabitants. The remaining pro\-inces, in which no vestiges o{^pro\-incial seh-govemment survived, were called pays d'elec- tion: they included lie de France, Orleanais, Champagne and Brie, Maine, Anjou, Poitou, Guyenne and Gascony. Limousin, Auvergne, Lyonnais, Bourbonnais, Touraine. Xormandj', Picardy. etc.

452 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

tion without insuring liberty. The most trivial affairs were reg- ulated by overbearing and exacting royal officials. Everything depended upon the honesty and industry or upon the meanness and caprice of these officials. Each petty officer transmitted long reports to his superior ; but the general pubhc was kept in the dark about official matters, and was left to guess, as best it could, the reasons for the seemingly unreasonable acts of the government. If an intendant increased the taxes on a village, the ignorant inhabitants blamed it upon official "graft" or favor- itism. Or, if hard times prevailed, or if a shaky bridge broke down, the villagers were prone in any case to find fault with the government, for the more mysterious and powerful the gov- ernment was, the more Hkely was it to bear the blame for all ills.

Confusion in administrative offices was not the only confu- sion in eighteenth-century France. There was no uniformity or simplicity in standards of weight and measure, in coinage, in tolls, in internal customs-duties. But worst of all were the laws and the courts of justice.

What was lawful in one town was often illegal in a place not five miles distant. Almost four hundred sets or bodies of law Confusion were in force in different parts of France. In some in Laws districts the old Roman laws were still retained ; else- where laws derived from early German tribes were enforceable. Many laws were not even in writing ; and such as were written were more often in Latin than in French. The result was that only unusually learned men knew the law, and common people stumbled along in the dark. The laws, moreover, were full of injustice and cruelty. An offender might have his hand or ear cut off, or his tongue torn out ; he might be burned with red-hot irons or have molten lead poured into his flesh. Hanging was an easy death compared to the lingering torture of having one's bones broken on a wheel.

The courts were nearly as bad as the laws. There were royal courts, feudal courts, church courts, courts of finance. Confusion ^^^ military courts ; and it was a wise offender who in Law knew before which court he might be tried. Ex-

tremely important cases might be carried on appeal to the highest courts of the realm — the Parlements — of which there were thirteen, headed in honor by that of Paris.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY. FRATERNITY" 453

Although courts were so plenteous, justice was seldom to be found. Persons wrongfully accused of crime were tortured until they confessed deeds they had never committed. Prevalence The public was not admitted to trials, so no one knew °^ injustice on what grounds the sentence was passed, and the judge gave no reason for his verdict. Ci\dl lawsuits were appealed from court to court and might drag on for years until the parties had spent all their money. Lawyers were more anxious to extract large fees from their clients than to secure justice for them.

Confused laws and conflicting jurisdictions were often made worse by the character of the judges who presided over royal courts. Many of them were rich bourgeois who had " Noblesse purchased their appointment from the king. For a **® ** ^°^^ " large price it was possible to buy a judgeship or seat in a Parle- ment, not only for a lifetime but as an hereditary possession. It has been estimated that 50,000 bourgeois families possessed such judicial offices : they formed a sort of lower nobility, ex- empted from certain taxes and very proud of their honors. Naturally envious were his neighbors when the "councilor" appeared in his grand wig and his enormous robe of silk and velvet, attended by a page who kept the robe from trailing iii the dust. No wonder these bourgeois judges were called "the nobihty of the robe."

In some way or other the "noble of the robe" had to com- pensate himself for the price of his office and the cost of his robe. One bought an office for profit as well as for honor. For to the judge were paid the court fees and fines ; and no shrewd judge would let a case pass him without exacting some kind of a fee. Even more profitable were the indirect gains. If Monsieur A had gained his case in court, it was quite to be expected that in his joy Monsieur A would make a handsome present to the judge who had given the decision. At least, that is the way the judge would have put it. As a plain matter of fact the judges were bribed, and justice w^as too often bought and sold hke judgeships.

Corruption and abuses were not confined to the civil govern- ment and the courts of law ; the army, too, was infected. In the ranks were to be found hired foreigners, unwilling peasants dragged

454 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

from their farms, and the scum of the city slums. Thousands de- serted every year. Had the discontented troops been well com- Abusesin manded, they might still have answered the purpose. the Army g^j- such was not the case. There were certainly enough officers — an average of one general for every 157 privates. But what officers they were ! Dissolute and dandi- fied generals drawing their pay and never visiting their troops, lieutenants reveling in vice, instead of drilling and caring for their commands. Noble blood, not ability, was the qualifica- tion of a commander. Counts, who had never seen a battlefield, were given mihtary offices, and the seven-year-old Due de Frousac was a colonel.

Confused administration, antiquated laws, corrupt magistrates, Confusion and a disorganized army showed the weakness of the in France French monarchy ; but financial disorders threatened its very existence, — for a government out of money is as help- less as a fish out of water.

The destructive wars, costly armies, luxurious palaces, and ex- travagant court of Louis XIV had left to the successors of the Grand Monarch many debts, an empty treasury, and an over- taxed people. If ever there was need of care and thrift, it was in the French monarchy in the eighteenth century.

Yet the king's ministers did not even trouble themselves to keep orderly accounts. Bills and receipts were carelessly laid away; no one knew how much was owed or how much was to be expected by the treasury; and even the king himself could not have told how much he would run into debt during the year. While it lasted, money was spent freely.

The amount of money required by the king would have made taxes very heavy anyway, but bad methods of assessment and Royal collection added to the burden. The royal revenue

Revenue ^g^g derived chiefly from three sources : the royal do- mains, the direct taxes, and the indirect taxes. From the royal domains, the lands of which the king was landlord as well as sov- ereign, a considerable but ever-diminishing income was derived. Direct The direct taxes were the prop of the treasury, for

Taxes ^j^gy could be increased to meet the demand, at least

as long as the people would pay. There were three direct taxes — the taille, the capitation, and the vingtieme. The ving-

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 455

Heme, or "twentieth," was a tax on incomes — ^5 per cent ^ on the salary of the judge, on the rents of the noble, on the earning of the artisan, on the produce of the peasant. The The in- clergy were entirely exempted from this tax ; the more *^°°^® "^^ influential nobles and bourgeois contrived to have their incomes underestimated, and the burden fell heaviest on the poorer classes. Capitation was a general poll or head tax, The PoU varying in amount according to whichever of twenty- '^^ two classes claimed the individual taxpayer. Maid-servants, for example, paid annually three livres and twelve sous.^

The most important and hated direct tax was the taille or land tax, — practically a tax on peasants alone. The total amount to be raised was apportionQd among the The TaiUe intendants by the Royal Council, and by the intend- or Land Tax ants among the \dllages of their respective districts. At the village assembly collectors were elected, who were thereby authorized to demand from each villager a share of the tax, according to his ability to pay. As a result of this method, each villager tried to appear poor so as to be taxed lightly ; whole villages looked run-down in order to be held for only a small share ; and influential pohticians often obtained allevia- tion for parts of the country.

The indirect taxes were not so heavy, but they were bitterly detested. There were taxes on alcohol, metal-ware, cards, paper, and starch, but most disliked of all was that on salt (the indirect gahelle). Every person above seven years of age was Taxes supposed annually to buy from the government salt-works seven pounds of salt at about ten times its real value.^ Only govern- ment agents could legally sell salt, and smugglers were fined heavily or sent to the galleys. These indirect " Tax taxes were usually "farmed out," that is, in return Farming" for a lump sum the government would grant to a company of speculators the right to collect what they could. These specu- lators were called "farmers-general," — France could be called

^ Five per cent in theory ; in practice in the reign of Louis XVI it was 1 1 per cent.

^ A livre was worth about z. franc (20 cents) and a sou was equivalent to one cent.

^ It should be understood, of course, that the gabelle was higher and more burdensome in some provinces than in others.

456 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

their farm^ and money its produce. And they farmed well. After paying the government, the "farmers" still had milhons of francs to distribute as bribes or as presents to great personages or to retain for themselves. Thus, millions were lost to the treasury.

Taxes could not always be raised to cover emergencies, nor collected so wastefully. The peasants of France were crushed The Burden by feudal dues, tithes, and royal taxes. The bour- of Taxation geoisie were angered by the income tax, by the indirect taxes, by the tolls and internal customs, and by the monopohstic privileges which the king sold to his favorites. How long the unprivileged classes would bear the burden of taxation, while the nobles and clergy were almost free, no one could tell ; but signs of discontent were too patent to be ignored.

Louis XIV (1643-17 1 5) at the end of his long reign perceived the danger. As the aged monarch lay on his deathbed, flushed with fever, he called his five-year-old great-grandson and heir, the future Louis XV, to the bedside and said : ''My child, you will soon be sovereign of a great kingdom. Do not forget your obHgations to God ; remember that it is to Him that you owe all that you are. Endeavor to live at peace with your neigh- bors ; do not imitate me in my fondness for war, nor in the ex- orbitant expenditure which I have incurred. Take counsel in all your actions. Endeavor to relieve Hie people al the earliest possible moment, and thus to accomplish what, unfortunately, I am unable to do myself."

It was good advice. But Louis XV was only a boy, a play- thing in the hands of his ministers. In an earlier chapter ^ we Louis XV, have seen how under the duke of Orleans, who was 1715-1774 prince regent from 1715 to 1723, France entered into war with Spain, and how finance was upset by speculation ; and how under Cardinal Fleury, who was minister from 1726 to 1743, the War of the Polish Election (i 733-1 738) was fought and the War of the Austrian Succession (i 740-1 748) begun.

When in 1743 the ninety-year-old Cardinal Fleury died, Louis

1 Etymologically, the French word for farm (fcrme) was not necessarily con- nected with agriculture, but signified a fixed sum (Jirma) paid for a certain privi- lege, such as that of collecting a tax.

2 See above, pp. 255 f.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 457

XV announced that he would be lils own minister. But he was not a Frederick the Great. At the council table poor Louis "opened his mouth, said little, and thought not at all." State business seemed terribly dull, and the king left most of it to others.

But of one thing, Louis XV could not have enough — and that was pleasure. He much preferred pretty girls to pompous ministers of state, and spent most of his time with the ladies and the rest of the time either hunting or gambling. In spite of the fact that he was married, Louis very easily fell in love with a charming face ; at one time he was infatuated by the duchess of Chateauroux, then by Madame de Pompadour, and later by Madame du Barry. Upon his mistresses he was willing to la\dsh princely presents, — he gave them estates and titles, had them live at Versailles, and criminally allowed them to interfere in poli- tics ; for their sake he was willing to let his country go to ruin.

The character of the king was reflected in his court. It became fashionable to neglect one's wife, to gamble all night, to laugh at \'irtue, to be wasteful and extravagant. Versailles was gay ; the ladies painted their cheeks more brightly than ever, and the lords spent their fortunes more recklessly.

But Versailles was not France. France was ruined with wars and taxes. Louis XIV had said, "Live at peace with your neighbors"; but since his death four wars had been waged, culminating in the disastrous Seven Years' War (1756-1763), by which French commerce had been destroyed and the French colonies had been lost.^ Debts were multiphed and taxes in- creased. What with war, extravagance, and poor management, Louis XV left F^rance a bankrupt state.

Complaints were loud and remonstrances bitter, and Louis XV could not silence them, try as he might. Authors who criticized the government were thrown into prison ; ^

!• 1 • • r- 11 Growing

radical writmgs were confiscated or burned ; but complaints criticism persisted. Enemies of the government were against the

1 -1 • 1 • -i-» Ml 7 7 French

imprisoned without trial m the Bastille by lettres de Monarchy cachet, which were orders for arrest signed in blank by ^^^J^ „,,

Louis XV

the king, who sometimes gave or sold them to his favorites, so that they, too, might have their enemies jailed. Yet

' The formal annexation of Lorraine in 1766 and of Corsica in 1768 afforded some crumbs of comfort for Louis XV.

458 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

the opposition to the court ever increased. Resistance to taxa- tion centered in the Parlement of Paris. It refused to register the king's decrees, and remained defiant even after Louis XV had angrily announced that he would not tolerate interference with his prerogatives. The quarrel grew so bitter that all the thirteen Parlements of France were suppressed (1771), and in their stead new royal courts were established.

Opposition was only temporarily crushed ; and Louis XV knew that graver trouble was brewing. He grew afraid to ride openly among the discontented crowds of Paris ; the peasants saluted him sullenly ; the treasury was empty ; the monarchy was tottering. Yet Louis XV felt neither responsibility nor care. "It will surely last as long as I," he cynically affirmed; "my successor may take care of himself."

His successor was his grandson, Louis XVI (i 774-1 792), a weak-kneed prince of twenty years, very virtuous and well- Louis XVI, meaning, but lacking in intelligence and will-power. 1774-1792 He was too awkward and shy to preside with dignity over the ceremonious court ; he was too stupid and lazy to dominate the ministry. He liked to shoot deer from out the palace window, or to play at lock-making in his royal carpentry shop. Government he left to his ministers.

At first, hopes ran high, for Turgot, friend of Voltaire and contributor to the Encyclopedia, was minister of finance ( 1 774-1 776), and reform was in the air. Industry and commerce were to be unshackled ; laisser-Jaire was to be the order of the day ; finances were to be reformed, and taxes lowered. The clergy and nobles were no longer to escape taxa- tion ; taxes on food were to be aboUshed ; the peasants were to be freed from forced labor on the roads. But Turgot only stirred up opposition. The nobles and clergy were not anxious to be taxed ; courtiers resented any reduction of their pensions ; tax-farmers feared the reforming minister ; owners of industrial monopolies were frightened ; the peasants misunderstood his intentions ; and riots broke out. Everybody seemed to be relieved when, in 1776, Turgot was dismissed.

Turgot had been a theorist ; his successor was a business- man. Jacques Necker was well known in Paris as a hard-headed Swiss banker, and Madame Necker's receptions were attended

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 459

by the chief personages of the bourgeois society of Paris. During his live years in office (i 776-1 781) Necker applied busi- ness methods to the royal finances. He borrowed „ , 400,000,000 francs from his banker friends, reformed the collection of taxes, reduced expenditures, and carefully au- dited the accounts. In 1781 he issued a report or '^ Account Ren- dered of the Financial Condition." The bankers were delighted ; the secrets of the royal treasury were at last common property ; ^ and Necker was praised to the skies.

While Necker's Parisian friends rejoiced, his enemies at court prepared his downfall. Now the most powerful enemy of Necker's reforms and economies was the queen, Marie An- Marie Antoinette. She was an Austrian princess, the toilette daughter of Maria Theresa, and in the eyes of the French people she always remained a hated foreigner — "the Austrian," they called her — the living symbol of the ruinous alliance between Habsburgs and Bourbons which had been arranged by a Madame de Pompadour and which had contributed to the disasters and disgrace of the Seven Years' War.^ While grave ministers of finance were puzzling their heads over the deficit, gay Marie Antoinette was buying new dresses and jewelry, making presents to her friends, giving private theatricals, attending horse-races and masked balls. The light-hearted girl-queen had little seri- ous interest in politics, but when her friends complained of Necker's miserliness, she at once demanded his dismissal.

Her demand was granted, for the kind-hearted, well-inten- tioned Louis XVI could not bear to deprive his pretty, irresponsible Marie Antoinette and her charming friends, — gallant nobles of France, — of their pleasures. Their pleasures were very costly ; and fresh loans could be secured by the obse- quious new finance-minister, Calonne, only at high rates of interest.

From the standpoint of France, the greatest folly of Louis XVI's reign v/as the ruinous intervention in the War of American Independence (1778-1783). The United States became free;

^ The Compte Rendu, as it was called in France, was really not accurate ; Necker, in order to secure credit for his financial administration, made matters appear better than they actually were.

2 See above, pp. 358 ff.

460 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Great Britain was humbled ; Frenchmen proved that their valor was equal to their chivalry ; but when the impulsive Mar- C{uis de Lafayette returned from assisting the Americans to win their liberty, he found a ruined France. The treasury was on the verge of collapse. From the conclusion of the war in 1783 to the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789, every possible financial expedient was tried — in vain.

To tax the so-called privileged classes — the clergy and the nobles — might have helped ; and successive finance ministers ^jjg so counseled the king. But it was absolutely against

Problem of the Spirit of the ''old regime." What was the good Taxation ^^ being a clergyman or a noble, If one had no privi- leges and was obliged to pay taxes like the rest? To tax all alike would be in itself a revolution, and the tottering divine- right monarchy sought reform, not revolution.

Yet in 1786 the interest-bearing debt had mounted to $600,000,000, the government was running in debt at least $25,000,000 a year, and the treasury-officials were ex- sembiy of periencing the utmost difficulty in negotiating new Notables, loans. Something had to be done. As a last resort, the king convened (1787) an Assembly of Notables — 145 of the chief noblfes, bishops, and magistrates — in the vain hope that they would consent to the taxation of the privileged and unprivileged ahke. The Notables were not so self-sacri- ficing, however, and contented themselves with abolishing com- pulsory labor on the roads, voting to have provincial assemblies established, and demanding the dismissal of Calonne, the minister of finance. The question of taxation, they said, should be re- ferred to the Estates-General. All this helped the treasury in no material way.

A new minister of finance, who succeeded Calonne, — Arch- bishop Lomenie de Brienne, — politely thanked the Notables and sent them home. He made so many fine prom- tion of the iscs that hope temporarily revived, and a new loan Estates- ^j^g raised. But the Parlement of Paris, which to- gether with the other Parlements had been restored early in the reign of Louis XVI, soon saw through the arti- fices of the suave minister, and positively refused to register further loans or taxes. Encouraged by popular approval, the

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 461

Parlemcnt went on to draw up a declaration of rights, and to assert that subsidies could constitutionally be granted only by the nation's representatives — the ancient Estates- General. This sounded to the government like revolution, and the Parlements were again abolished. The abolition of the Parlemcnts raised a great cry of indignation ; excited crowds assembled in Paris and other cities ; and the soldiers refused to arrest the judges. Here was real revolution, and Louis XVI, frightened and anxious, yielded to the popular demand for the Estates- General.

In spite of the fact that every one talked so glibly about the Estates-General and of the great things that body would do, few knew just what the Estates-General was. Most people had heard that once upon a time France had had a representative body of clerg}^-, nobility, and commoners, somewhat Uke the British Parhament. But no such assembly had been convoked for almost two centuries, and only scholars and lawyers knew what the old Estates-General had been. Nevertheless, it was beheved that nothing else could save France from ruin ; and in August, 1788, Louis XVI, after consulting the learned men, issued a summons for the election of the Estates-General, to meet in May of the following year.

The convocation of the Estates- General was the death-warrant of divine-right monarchy in France. It meant that absolutism had failed. The king was bankrupt. No Absolutism half-way reforms or pitiful economies would do now. in France The Revolution was at hand.

ADDITIONAL READING

The British Monarchy, 1760-1800. General accounts: A. L. Cross, History of England and Greater Britain (1914), ch. xlv, a brief resume; Cambridge Modern History, Vol. \T (iqoq), ch. xiii ; A. D. Innes, History of England and the British Empire, Vol. Ill (1914), ch. vii-ix, xi ; C. G. Robertson, England under the Hanoverians (191 1); J. F. Bright, History of En gland, \o\. Ill, Constitutional Monarchy, i68g-i8j^; William Hunt, Political History of England, 1760-1801 (1905), Tory in sympathy; and W. E. H. Lecky, A History of England in the Eighteenth Century, London ed., 7 vols. (1907), and A History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century, 5 vols. (1893), the most complete general histories of the century. Special

462 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

studies: E. and A. G. Porritt, The Unreformed House of Commons, new ed., 2 vols. (1909), a careful description of the undemocratic character of the parliamentary system ; J. R. Fisher, The End of the Irish Parliament (1911); W. L. INIathieson, The Awakening of Scotland, iy4'/-i-jgj (1910) ; Correspondence of George III with Lord North, ij68-iy8j, ed. by W. B. Donne, 2 vols. (1867), excellent for illustrating the king's system of per- sonal government ; Horace Walpole, Letters, ed. by Mrs. P. Toynbee, 16 vols. (1903-1905), a valuable contemporary source as "Walpole is the acknowledged prince of letter writers " ; G. S. Veitch, The Genesis of Parlia- mentary Reform (1913), a clear and useful account of the agitation in the time of Pitt and Fox; W. P. Hall, British Radicalism, ijgi-iygj (1912), an admirable and entertaining survey of the movement for political and social reform in England ; J. H. Rose, William Pitt and National Revival (1911), dealing with the years 1781-1791. There are biographies of William Pitt (the Younger) by Lord Rosebery (iSgi) and by W. D. Green (1901) ; and The Early Life of Charles James Fox by Sir G. O. Trevelyan (1880) afTords a delightful picture of the life of the time. Also see books listed under English Society in the Eighteenth Century, pp. 427 f., above. The Benevolent Despots. Brief general accounts: H. E. Bourne, The Revolutionary Period in Europe, 1763-1815 (1914), ch. ii, iv, v; J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard, The Development of Modern Europe, Vol. I (1907), ch. X, xi ; H. M. Stephens, Revolutionary Europe, iy8g-i8i5 (1893), ch. i; Cambridge Modern History, Vol. VI (1909), ch. xii, xviii-xx, xxii, xvi ; E. F. Henderson, A Short History of Germany, Vol. II (1902), ch. v, excellent on Frederick the Great. With special reference to the career of Charles III of Spain : Joseph Addison, Charles III of Spain (1900) ; M. A. S. Hume, Spain, its Greatness and Decay, i4'jg-i'/88 (1898), ch. xiv, xv ; Frangois Rousseau, Regne de Charles III d^Espagne, ijjg-iySS, 2 vols. (1907), the best and most exliaustive work on the subject ; Gustav Diercks, Geschichte Spaniens von der friihestcn Zeiten bis aitf die Gegenwart, 2 vols. (1895-1896), a good general history of Spain by a German scholar. On Gustavus III of Sweden: R. N. Bam, Scandinavia, a Political History of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, from 1513 to igoo (1905). On the Dutch Netherlands in the eighteenth century : H. W. Van Loon, The Fall of the Dutch Republic (1913). On Joseph II: A. H. Johnson, The Age of the Enlightened Despot, 1660-1 j8g (1910), ch. x, an admirable brief introduc- tion to the subject; Cambridge Modern History, Vol. VIII (1904), ch. xi, on Joseph's foreign policy; William Coxa (i 747-1828), History of the House of Austria, Vol. Ill, an excellent account though somewhat an- tiquated ; Franz Krones, Handbuch der Geschichte Ocstcrrcichs, Vol. IV (1878), Books XIX, XX, a standard work; Karl Ritter, Kaiser Joseph II und seine kirchlichen Reformen; G. Holzknecht, Ursprung mui Herkunft der reformideen Kaiser Josefs II auf kirchlichcni Gcbicte (19 14). For further details of the projects and achievements of Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa, see bibliographies accompanying Chapter XI, above ; and for those of Catherine II of Russia, see bibliography of Chapter XII, above.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 463

The French Monarchy, 1743 1789. Brief general accounts: Shailer Mathews, The French Revolution (reprint 1912), ch. vi-viii ; A. J. Grant, The French Monarchy, I48j-iy8g, Vol. II (1900), ch. xix-xxi ; G. W. Kitchin, .1 History of France, Vol. Ill (4th ed., 1899), Book VI, ch. iii-vii ; Cambridge Modern History, Vol. VIII (1904), ch. ii-iv ; E. J. Lowell, The Eve of the French Revolution (1892), an able survey ; Sophia H. MacLehose, The Last Days of the French Monarchy (1901), a popular narrative. More detailed studies: J. B. Perkins, France under Louis XV, 2 vols. (1897), an admirable treatment; Ernest Lavisse (editor), Histoire de France, Vol. VIII, Part II, Rcgne de Louis XV, 1715-1774 (1909), and Vol. IX, Part I, Regne de Louis XVI, j774-~I78q (1910), the latest and most authoritative treatment in French ; Felix Rocquain, The Revolutionary Spirit Preceding the French Revolution, condensed Eng. trans, by J. D. Hunting (1891), a suggestive account of various disorders immediately preceding 1789; Leon Say, Tiirgot, a famous little biography translated from the French by M. B. Anderson (1S88) ; W. W. Stephens, Life aiui Writings of Turgot (1895), containing extracts from important decrees of Turgot ; Alphonse Jobez, La France sous Louis XV, 6 vols. (1864-1873), and, by the same author. La France sous Louis XVI, 3 vols. (1877-1893), exhaustive works, stiU useful for particular details but in general now largely superseded by the Histoire de France of Ernest Lavisse ; Charles Gomel, Les causes financier es de la revolution franqaise: les derniers controleurs generaux, 2 vols. (1892- 1893), scholarly and especially valuable for the public career of Turgot, Necker, Calonne, and Lomenie de Brienne ; Rene Stourm, Les finances de I'ancien regime et de la revolution, 2 vols. (1885); Aime Cherest, La chute de I'ancien regime, ijSj-ijSg, 3 vols. (1884-1886), a very detailed study of the three critical years immediately preceding the Revolution; F. C. von Mercy-x\rgenteau, Correspondance secrete avec Vimperatrice Marie- Therese, avec les lettres de Marie-Therese et de Marie- Antoinette, 3 vols. (1875) ; and Correspondance secrete avec I'empereur Joseph II et le prince de Kaunitz, 2 vols. (1889-1891), editions of original letters and other in- formation which Mercy-Argent eau transmitted to Vienna from 1766 to 1 790, very valuable for the contemporary pictures of court-life at Versailles (selections have been translated and published in English) . Also see books listed under French Society on the Eve of the Revolution, p. 427, above.

CHAPTER XV

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION INTRODUCTORY

The governments and other political institutions which flourished in the first half of the eighteenth century owed their origins to much earher times. They had undergone only such alterations as were absolutely necessary to adapt them to various places and changing circumstances. Likewise, the same social classes existed as had always characterized western Europe ; and these classes — the court, the nobles, the clergy, the bour- geoisie, the artisans, the peasants — continued to bear relations to each other which a hoary antiquity had sanctioned. Every individual was born into his class, or, as the popular phrase went, to "a station to which God had called him," and to ques- tion the fundamental divine nature of class distinctions seemed silly if not downright blasphemous.

Such ideas were practical so long as society was comparatively static and fixed, but they were endangered as soon as the human world was conceived of as dynamic and progressive. S'sodetr ^^^ development of trade and industry, as has been in Eight- emphasized, rapidly increased the numbers, wealth, Century ^^^ influence of the bourgeoisie, or middle class, and quite naturally threw the social machine out of gear. The merchants, the lawyers, the doctors, the professors, the literary men, began to envy the nobles and clergy, and in turn were envied by the poor townsfolk and by the downtrodden peasants. With the progress of learning and study, thoughtful persons of all classes began to doubt whether the old order of politics and society was best suited to the new conditions and new relations. The "old regime" was for old needs; did it satisfy new requirements?

464

''LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 465

To this question the philosophers of the eighteenth century responded unequivocally in the negative. Scientists, of whom the period was full, had done much to exalt the notions influence that the universe is run in accordance with immutable of Phi- laws of nature and that man must forever utiUze his °^°^ ^ reasoning faculties. It was not long before the philosophers were applying the scientists' notions to social conditions. "Is this reasonable?" they asked, or, "Is that rational?" Montes- quieu insisted that divine-right monarchy is unreasonable. Voltaire poked fun at the Church and the clergy for being irrational. Rousseau claimed that class inequalities have no basis in reason. Beccaria taught that arbitrary or cruel inter- ference with personal hbcrty is not in accordance with dictates of nature or reason.

Philosophy did not directly effect a change ; it was merely an expression of a growing behef in the advisabihty of change. It reflected a conviction, deep in many minds, that the old pohtical institutions and social distinctions had served their purpose and should now be radically adapted to the new order. Every country in greater or less degree heard the radical philos- ophy, but it was in France that it was first heeded.

•In France, between the years 1789 and 1799, occurred a series of events, by v/hich the doctrine of democracy supplanted that of di\ine-right monarchy, and the theory of class The Revo- distinctions gave way to that of social equaHty. ^"*^°° These events, taken together, constitute what we term the French Revolution, and, inasmuch as they have profoundly affected all pohtical thought and social action throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, they are styled, by way of eminence, the Revolution.

Why the Revolution started in France may be suggested by reference to certain points which have already been mentioned in the history of that country. France was the coun- ^j^g -Revo- try which, above any other, had perfected the theory lution and practice of divine-right monarchy. In France had developed the sharpest contrasts between the various social classes. It was hkewise in France that the relatively high level of education and enlightenment had given great vogue to a peculiarly destructive criticism of political and social conditions.

466 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Louis XIV had erected his absolutism and had won for it foreign glory and prestige only by placing the severest burdens upon the French people. The exploitation of the state by the selfish, immoral Louis XV had served not to lighten those burdens but rather to set forth in boldest relief the inherent weaknesses of the "old regime." And Louis XVI, despite all manner of pious wishes and good intentions, had been unable to square conditions as they were with the operation of antique institutions. One royal minister after another discovered to his chagrin that mere "reform" was worse than useless, A "revolution" would be required to sweep away the mass of abuses that in the course I of centuries had adhered to the body politic.

At the outset, any idea of likening the French Revolution to the EngHsh Revolution of the preceding century must be dis- missed. Of course the EngUsh had put one king to between^^^ death and had expelled another, and had clearly the French limited the powers of the crown; they had "estab- Revoiutlons lished parliamentary government." But the EngKsh Revolution did not set up genuine representative government, much less did it recognize the theory of democracy. Voting remained a special privilege, conferred on certain per- sons, not a natural right to be freely exercised by all. Nor' was the Enghsh Revolution accompanied by a great social up- " heaval : it was in the first instance political, in the second in- stance religious and ecclesiastical ; it was never distinctly social. To all intents and purposes, the same social classes existed in the England of the eighteenth century as in the England of the sixteenth century, and, with the exception of the merchants, in much the same relation to one another.

How radical and far-reaching was the French Revolution in contrast to that of England will become apparent as we review the course of events in France during the decade 1789- 1799. A brief summary at the close of this chapter will aim ^, ^ , to explain the significance of the Revolution. Mean-

The French , •, i n f • • r

Revolution while, wc shall devote our attention to a narrative of in Two ^Yie main events.

Periods

The story falls naturally into two parts : First, 1 789-1 791, the comparatively peaceful transformation of the absolute, divine-right monarchy into a limited monarchy, ac-

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 467

companied by a definition of the rights of the individual and a profound change in the social order; second, 1792-1799, the transformation of the limited monarchy into a republic, at- tended by the first genuine trial of democracy, and attended likewise by foreign war and internal tumult. The story, in either of its parts, is not an easy one, for the reason that im- portant r61es are played simultaneously by five distinct groups of interested persons.

In the first place, the people who benefit by the political and social arrangements of the "old regime" will oppose its destruction. Among these friends of the " old regime " may be included the royal court, headed by the queen, court and Marie Antoinette, and by the king's brothers, the J^® ^"^" count of Provence and the count of Artois, and hke- wise the bulk of the higher clergy and the nobles — the privi- leged classes, generally. These persons cannot be expected to surrender their privileges without a struggle, especially since they have been long taught that such privileges are of divine sanction. Only dire necessity compels them to acquiesce in the convocation of the Estates-General and only the mildest meas- ures of reform can be palatable to them. They hate and dread revolution or the thought of revolution. Yet at their expense the Revolution wall be achieved.

In the second place, the bourgeoisie, who have the most to lose if the "old regime" is continued and the most to gain if reforms are obtained, will constitute the majority in Rsie of the all the legislative bodies which will assemble in France Bourgeoisie , between 1789 and 1799. Their legislative decrees will in large, measure reflect their class interests, and on one hand will terrify ' the court party and on the other will not fully satisfy the lower classes. The real achievements of the Revolution, however, will be those of the bourgeois assembhes.

In the third place, the artisans and poverty-stricken populace of the cities, notably of Paris, will through bitter years lack for bread. They will expect great things from the as- ^gjg ^f ^he semblies and will revile the efforts of the court to Urban Pro- impede the Revolution. They will shed blood at first to defend the freedom of the assembhes from the court, subsequently to bring the assemblies under their own domina-

468 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

tion. Without their cooperation the Revolution will not be achieved.

In the fourth place, the dull, heavy peasants, in whom no one has hitherto suspected brains or passions, long dumb under op- Role of the pression, will now find speech and opinions and an un- Peasantry wonted strength. They will rise against their noble oppressors and burn castles and perhaps do murder. They will force the astonished bourgeoisie and upper classes to take notice of them and indirectly they will impress a significant social character upon the achievements of the Revolution.

Finally, the foreign monarchs must be watched, for they will be intensely interested in the story as it unfolds. If the French Role of the pcople be permitted with impunity to destroy the Foreign very basis of divine-right monarchy and to overturn owers ^j^g whole social fabric of the "old regime," how long,

pray, will it be before Prussians, or Austrians, or Russians shall be doing Hkewise? With some thought for Louis XVI and a good deal of thought for themselves, the monarchs will call each other "brother" and will by and by send combined armies against the revolutionaries in France. At that very time the success of the Revolution will be achieved, for all classes, save only the handful of the privileged, will unite in ^ the cause of France, which incidentally becomes the cause of humanity. Bourgeoisie, townsfolk, peasants, will go to the front and revolutionary France will then be found in her armies. Thereby not only will the Revolution be saved in France, but in the end it will be communicated to the uttermost parts of Europe.

THE END OF ABSOLUTISM IN FRANCE, 1789

When the story opens, France is still the absolute, divine- right monarchy which Louis XIV had perfected and Louis XV

had exploited. The social classes are still in the time- France on '^ . . , .

the Eve honored position which has been described in Chapter l^ *^t • XIII. But all is not well with the "old regime." In

Revolution ,. . , i. • i i

the country districts the taxes are distressingly bur- densome. In the cities there is scarcity of food side by side with starvation wages. Among the bourgeoisie are envy of the

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 469

upper classes, an appreciation of the critical philosophy of the day, and a sincere admiration of what seem to be happier polit- ical and social conditions across the Channel in Great Britain. The public debt of France is enormous, and a large part of the I national income must, therefore, be applied to the payment of interest : even the courtiers of Louis XVI find their pensions and favors and sinecures somewhat reduced. When the privi- leged classes begin to feel the pinch of hard times, it is certain that the finances are in sore straits.

In fact, all the great general causes of the French Revolution, which may be inferred from the two preceding chapters, may be narrowed down to the financial embarrassment of Financial the government of Louis XVI. The king and his Embarrass- ministers had already had recourse to every ex- ^^'^ pedient consistent with the maintenance of the "old regime" save one, and that one — the convocation of the Estates-Gen- eral — was now to be tried. It might be that the represen- tatives of the three chief classes of the realm would be able to offer suggestions to the court, whereby the finances could be improved and at the same time the divine-right monarchy and the di\inely ordained social distinctions would be unimpaired.

With this idea of simple reform in mind, Louis XVI in 1788 summoned the Estates-General to meet at Versailles the follow- ing May. The Estates-General were certainly not a revolutionary body. Though for a hundred and tion of the seventy-five years the French monarchs had been able ^states-

1-11 1 -1 Ml 1 • • General

to do Without them, they were m theory still a legiti- mate part of the old-time government. Summoned by King Philip the Fair in 1302, they had been thenceforth convoked at irregular intervals until 16 14. Their organization had been in three separate bodies, representing by election the three estates of the realm — clergy, nobility, and commoners (Third Estate). Each estate voted as a unit, and two out of the three estates were sufficient to carry a measure. It usually happened that the clergy and nobility joined forces to outvote the com- moners. The powers of the Estates- General had always been advisory rather than legislative, and the kings had frequently ignored or violated the enac.tments of the assembly. In its powers as well as in its organization, the Estates- General dif-

470 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

fered essentially from the Parliament of England. By the Estates- General the ultimate supremacy of the royal authority had never been seriously questioned.

The elections to the Estates- General were held in accordance

with ancient usage throughout France in the winter of 1788-

1789. Also, in accordance with custom, the electors

. of the were invited by the king to prepare reports on the

j Estates- condition of the locality with which they were f amihar

and to indicate what abuses, if any, existed, and what

remedies, in their opinion, were advisable.

By the time the elections were complete, it was apparent that

1 the majority of the French people desired and expected a greater

measure of reform than their sovereign had an-

\ The Cahiers . . i rr^, it r • .i ^

ticipated. ihe reports and lists of grievances that had been drafted in every part of the country were astounding. To be sure, these documents, called cahiers, were not revolu- l tionary in wording : with wonderful uniformity they expressed [ loyalty to the monarchy and fidelity to the king : in not a single one out of the thousand cahiers was there a threat of violent change. But in spirit the cahiers were eloquent. All of them reflected the idea which philosophy had made popular that reason demanded fundamental, thoroughgoing reforms in gov- ernment and society. Those of the Third Estate were par- ! ticularly insistent upon the social inequalities and abuses long ^ associated with the "old regime." It was clear that if the elected representatives of the Third Estate carried out the instructions of their constituents, the voting of additional taxes to the government would be delayed until a thorough investigation had been made and many grievances had been redressed.

On the whole, it was probable that the elected representatives of the Third Estate would heed the cahiers. They were edu- [ The Third cated and brainy men. Two-thirds of them were I Estate lawyers or judges ; many, also, were scholars ; only

ten could possibly be considered as belonging to the lower classes. A goodly number admired the governmental system of Great Britain, in which the royal power had been reduced ; the class interests of all of them were directly opposed to the prevailing policies of the French monarchy. The Third Estate

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 471

was too intelligent to follow blindly or unhesitatingly the dic- tates of the court.

In the earliest history of the Estates-General, the Third Estate had been of comparatively slight importance either in society or in politics, and Philip the Fair had proclaimed that the duty of its members was ''to hear, receive, approve, and perform what should be commanded of them by the king." But be- tween the fourteenth and eighteenth centuries the relative social importance of the bourgeoisie had enormously increased. The class was more numerous, wealtliier, more enlightened, and more experienced in the conduct of business. It became clearer with the lapse of time that it, more than nobility or clergy, deserved the right of representing the bulk of the nation. This right Louis X\T had seemed in part to recognize by pro\dding that the number of elected representatives of the Third Estate should equal the combined numbers of those of the First and Second Estates. The commoners naturally drew the deduction from the royal concession that they were to exercise paramount poHtical influence in the Estates-General of 1789.

The Third Estate, as elected in the winter of 1 788-1 789, was fortunate in possessing two very capable leaders, Mirabeau! and Sieyes, both of whom belonged by ofi&ce or birth to the upper classes, but who had gladly accepted election as deputies of the unpri\'ileged classes. With two such leaders, it was ex- tremely doubtful whether the Third Estate would tamely sub- mit to playing an inferior role in future.

Mirabeau (i 749-1 791) was the son of a blui? but good-hearted old marquis who was not very successful in bringing up his family. Young Mirabeau had been so immoral and ,,. ^

. . . Mirabeau

unruly that his father had repeatedly obtamed lettres de cachet from the king in order that prison bars might keep him out of mischief. Released many times only to fall into new excesses, Mirabeau found at last in the French Revolution an opportunity for expressing his sincere belief in constitutional government and an outlet for his almost superhuman energy. From the convocation of the Estates-General to his death in 1 791, he was one of the most prominent men in France. His gigantic physique, half -broken by disease and imprisonment, his shaggy eyebrows, his heavy head, gave him an impressive,

472 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

though sinister, appearance. And for quickness in perceiving

at once a problem and its solution, as well as for gifts of

reverberating oratory, he was unsurpassed.

I Of less force but greater tact was the priest, Sieyes (1748-

\ 1836), whose lack of devotion to Christianity and the clerical

calling was matched by a zealous regard for the

skeptical and critical philosophy of the day and for

the practical arts of poHtics and diplomacy. It was a pamphlet

of Sieyes that, on the eve of the assembling of the Estates-Gen-

, eral, furiiished the Third Estate with its platform and program.

j "What is the Third Estate?" asks Sieyes. "It is everything,"

; he rephes. "What has it been hitherto in the pohtical order?

Nothing ! What does it desire? To be something !"

The position of the Third Estate was still officially undefined when the Estates-General assembled at Versailles in May, 1789. The king received his advisers with pompous cere- ^t^g"^ mony and a colorless speech, but it was soon obvious Estates- that he and the court intended that their business (Mar^78o) should be purely financial and that their organization I should be in accordance with ancient usage ; the

' three estates would thus vote "by order," that is, as three distinct bodies, so that the doubled membership of the Third Estate would have but one vote to the privileged Constitu- orders' two. With this view the great majority of Question the nobles and a large part of the clergy, especially Involved |-]^g higher clergy, were in full sympathy. On their ganization side the commoners began to argue that the Estates- of the General should organize itself as a single body, in

General which each member should have one vote, such vot- ing "by head" marking the establishment of true representation in France, and that the assembly should forth- with concern itself with a general reformation of the entire I government. With the commoners' argument a few of the I liberal nobles, headed by Lafayette, and a considerable group of the clergy, particularly the curates, agreed ; and it was backed up by the undoubted sentiment of the nation. Bad harvests I in 1788 had been followed by an unusually severe winter. The peasantry was in an extremely wretched plight, and the cities, notably Paris, suffered from a shortage of food. The increase

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 473

of popular distress, like a black cloud before a storm, gave menacing sup])ort to the demands of the commoners.

Over the constitutional question, fraught as it was with the most significant consequences to politics and society, the parties wrangled for a month. The king, unwilling to offend _^ ^.

1 Ml 111-1 T^ 1 ' • ^"® King

any one, shilly-shallied. iJut the uncomjiromismg Defied by attitude of the privileged orders and the indecision of ^® '^^'^ the leaders of the court at length forced the issue. On 17 June, 1789, the Third Estate solemnly proclaimed itself a National Assembly. Three days later, when the deputies of the Tliird Estate came to the hall which had been set apart in the palace of Versailles for their use, they found its doors shut and guarded by troops and a notice to the effect that it was undergoing repairs. Apparently the king was at last preparing to intervene in the contest himself. Then the commoners precipitated a veritable revolution. Led by Mirabeau and Sieyes, they proceeded to a great public building in the vicinity, which was variously used as a riding-hall or a tennis court. There, amidst intense excitement, with upstr etched ^j^g « Qath hands, they took an oath as members of the "Na- of the tional Assembly" that they would not separate until cou^^' they had drawn up a constitution for France. The 20 June, "Oath of the Tennis Court" was the true beginning ^ of the French Revolution. Without royal sanction, in fact against the express commands of the king, the ancient feudal Estates-General had been transformed, by simple proclamation of the nation's representatives, into a National Assembly, charged with the duty of establishing constitutional govern- ment in France. The "Oath of the Tennis Court" was the declaration of the end of absolute divine-right monarchy and of the beginning of a Hmited monarchy based on the popular will.

What would the king do under these circumstances? He might overwhelm the rebellious commoners by force of arms. But that would not solve his financial problems, nor could he expect the French nation to endure it. It would Hkely lead to a ruinous civil war. The only recourse left open to him was a game of bluff. He ignored the "Oath of the Tennis Court," and with majestic mien commanded the estates to sit

474 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

separately and vote "by order." But the commoners were not to be bluffed. Now joined by a large number of clergy and a few nobles, they openly defied the royal authority. In the ringing words of Mirabeau, they expressed their rebellion : "We are here by the will of the people and we will not leave our places except at the point of the bayonet." The weak- kneed, well-intentioned Louis XVI promptly acquiesced. Exactly one week after the scene in the tennis court, he reversed his earlier decrees and directed the estates to sit together and vote "by head."

By I July, 1789, the first stage in the Revolution was com- pleted. The nobles and clergy were meeting with the com- moners. The Estates-General had become the Na- tioii"of*the^ tional Constituent Assembly. As yet, however, two Estates- important questions remained unanswered. In the into the ^^^^ place, how would the Assembly be assured of National freedom from the intrigues and armed force of the Assembly"* court ? In the second place, what direction would the reforms of the Assembly take?

The answer to the first question was speedily evoked by the court itself. As early as i July, a gradual movement of royal troops from the garrisons along the eastern frontier Prepares toward Paris and Versailles made it apparent that to Use ^]^g king contemplated awing the National As-

against sembly into a more deferential mood. The As-

the As- sembly, in dignified tone, requested the removal of

the troops. The king responded by a peremptory refusal and by the dismissal of Necker,^ the popular finance- minister. Then it was that Paris came to the rescue of the Assembly,

The Parisian populace, goaded by real want, felt instinc- tively that its own cause and that of the National Assembly Popular were identical. Fired by an eloquent harangue of a uprising brilliant journalist, Camille Desmoulins (i 760-1 794) tn Behalf ^Y name, they rushed to arms. For three days there of the was wild disorder in the city. Shops were looted,

ssem y j-Qya^j officers were expelled, business was at a stand- still. On the third day — 14 July, 1789 — the mob surged

^ Necker had been restored to his office as director-general of the finances in 1 788.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 475

out to the east end of Paris, where stood the frowning royal fortress and prison of the Bastille. Although since the acces- r sion of Louis XVI the Bastille no longer harbored i political offenders, nevertheless it was still regarded gtruction as a symbol of Bourbon despotism, a grim threat of the against the liberties of Paris. The people would now j^fy ^^^g^"* take it and would appropriate its arms and ammuni- tion for use in defense of the National Assembly. The garrison of the Bastille was small and disheartened, provisions were short, and the royal governor was irresolute. Within a few hours the mob was in possession of the Bastille, and the defenders, most of whom were Swiss mercenaries, had been slaughtered.

The fall of the Bastille was the first serious act of violence in the course of the Revolution. It was an unmistakable sign that the people were with the Assembly rather than Revolution with the king. It put force behind the Assembly's in the

I decrees. Not only that, but it rendered Paris prac- of°Paris°^"

1 tically independent of royal control, for, during the the Com- period of disorder, prominent citizens had taken it upon themselves to organize their own government and their own army. The new local government — -the "commune," as

I it was called — was made up of those elected representatives of the various sections or wards of Paris who had chosen the city's delegates to the Estates-General. It was itself a revolu- tion in city government : it substituted popularly elected officials in place of royal agents and representatives of the outworn gilds. And the authority of the commune was sus- tained by a popularly enrolled militia, styled the National

\ Guard, which soon numbered 48,000 champions of the new cause.

The fall of the Bastille was such a clear sign that even Louis XVI did not fail to perceive its meaning. He instantly withdrew the royal troops and recalled Necker. He recog- ^ nized the new government of Paris and confirmed the Acqm- appointment of the liberal Lafayette to command f^g^^^°*

I the National Guard. He visited Paris in person, praised what he could not prevent, and put on a red-white-

\ and-blue cockade — combining the red and blue of the capital

' city with the white of the Bourbons — the new national tricolor

476 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

of France. Frenchmen still celebrate the fourteenth of July, the anniversary of the fall of the Bastille, as the independence day of the French nation. I For a while it seemed as though reform might now go forward I without further interruption. The freedom of the Assembly Renewed ^^^ been affirmed and upheld. Paris had settled Intrigues down oncc more into comparative repose. The king Famjiy °^^ ^^^ apparently learned his lesson. But the victory against the of the reformers had been gained too easily, ssem y LquIs XVI might take solemn oaths and wear strange cockades, but he remained in character essentially weak. His very virtues — good intentions, love of wife, loyalty to friends — were continually abused. The queen was bitterly opposed to the reforming policies of the National Assembly and actively resented any diminution of royal authority. Her clique of court friends and favorites disliked the decrease of pensions and amusements to which they had long been accustomed. Court and queen made common cause in appealing to the good qualities of Louis XVI. What was the weak king to do under the circumstances ? He was to fall completely under the domina- tion of his entourage. j The result was renewed intrigues to employ force against the obstreperous deputies and their allies, the populace of Paris. This time it was planned to bring royal troops from the garrisons in Flanders. And on the night of i October, 1789, a supper I was given by the officers of the bodyguard at Versailles in • honor of the arriving soldiers. Toasts were drunk liberally and royalist songs were sung. News of the "orgy," as it was termed, spread like wildfire in Paris, where hunger and suffering were more prevalent than ever. That city was starving while Versailles was feasting. The presence of additional troops at ^ Versailles, it was believed, would not only put an

Demonstra- i • i r i a 111 11

tion of the end to the mdependence of the Assembly but would Parisian continue the starvation of Paris. More excited grew

Women at . .

Versailles, the Parisians.

i October, Qj^ ^ October was presented a strange and uncouth

spectacle. A long line of the poorest women of Paris,

including some men dressed as women, riotous with fear and

hunger and rage, armed with sticks and clubs, screaming "Bread !

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 477

bread ! bread !" were straggling-along the twelve miles of high- way from Paris to Versailles. They were going to demand bread of the king. Lafayette and his National Guardsmen, who had been unable or unwilling to allay the excitement in Paris, marched at a respectful distance behind the women out to Versailles.

By the time Lafayette reached the royal palace, the women

I were surrounding it, howling and cursing, and demanding

* bread or blood ; only the fixed bayonets of the troops from

Flanders had prevented them from invading the building, and

even these regular soldiers were weakening. Lafayette at once

became the man of the hour. He sent the soldiers back to the

barracks and with his own force undertook the difficult task

of guarding the property and fives of the royal family and of

feeding and housing the women for the night. Despite his

precautions, it was a wild night. There was continued tumult

in the streets and, at one time, shortly before dawn, a gang of

I rioters actually broke into the palace and groped about in

I search of the queen's apartments. Just in the nick of time

I the hated Marie Antoinette hurried to safer quarters, although

several of her personal bodyguard were killed in the melee.

When the morning of 6 October had come, Lafayette addressed the crowd, promising them that they should be provided for, and, at the critical moment, there appeared at his side on the ■ balcony of the palace the royal family — the king, the little 1 prince, the little princess, and the queen — all wearing red- white-and-blue cockades. A hush fell upon the mob. The respected general leaned over and gallantly kissed the hand of Marie Antoinette. A great shout of joy went up. Ap- parently even the queen had joined the Revolution. The Parisians were happy, and arrangements were made for the return journey. ^ Removal

The procession of 6 October from Versailles to of the Paris was more curious and more significant than Assembly that of the preceding day in the opposite direction, from Ver- There were still the women and the National Guards- paVi^ men and Lafayette on his white horse and a host of people of the slums, but this time in the midst of the throng was a great lumbering coach, in which rode Louis and his wife

478 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

and children, for Paris now insisted that the court should no longer possess the freedom of Versailles in which to plot un- watched against the rights of the French people. All along the procession reechoed the shout, ''We have the baker and the baker's wife and the little cook-boy — now we shall have bread." And so the court of Louis XVI left forever the proud, imposing palace of Versailles, and came to humbler lodgings ^ in the city of Paris.

Paris had again saved the National Assembly from royal intimidation, and the Assembly promptly acknowledged the debt by following the king to that city. After October, 1789, not reactionary Versailles but radical Paris was at once the scene and the impulse of the Revolution.

The "Fall of the Bastille" and the "March of the Women to Versailles" were the two picturesque events which assured the independence of the National Assembly from the armed force and intrigue of the court. Meanwhile, the answer to the other question which we propounded above, "What direction would the reforms of the Assembly take?" had been supplied by the people at large.

Ever since the assembling of the Estates-General, ordinary administration of the country had been at a standstill. The Disintegra- people, expecting great changes, refused to pay the o?d ^^^-^ customar)^ taxes and imposts, and the king, for fear throughout of the National Assembly and of a popular uprising, France hesitated to compel tax collection by force of arms.

The local officials did not know whether they were to obey the Assembly or the king. In fact, the Assembly was for a time so busy with constitutional questions that it neglected to provide for local government, and the king was always timorous. So, during the summer of 1789, the institutions of the " old regime " disappeared throughout France, one after another, because there was no popular desire to maintain them and no competent authority to enforce them. The insurrection in Paris and the fall of the Bastille was the signal in July for similar action else- where : other cities and towns substituted new elective officers for the ancient royal or gild agents and organized National Guards of their own. At the same time the direct action of

* In the palace of the Tuileries.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 479

the people spread to the country districts. In most provinces the oppressed peasants formed bands which stormed and burned 1 the chateaux of the hated nobles, taking particular pains to destroy feudal or servile title-deeds. ]Monas- Reprisals teries were often ransacked and pillaged. A few of against the unlucky lords were murdered, and many others ^^^^'^' were driven into the towns or across the frontier. Amid the universal confusion, the old system of local govern- ment completely collapsed. The intendants and governors quitted their posts. The ancient courts of justice, whether feudal or royal, ceased to act. The summer of 1789 really ended French absolutism, and the transfer of the central gov- ernment from Versailles to Paris in October merely confirmed an accomplished fact.

Whatever had been hitherto the reforming policies of the National Assembly, the deputies henceforth faced The Revo- facts rather than theories. Radical social readjust- ^" '^^u "" ments were now to be effected along with purely Political governmental and administrative changes. The Revolution was to be social as well as political.

THE END OF THE OLD REGIME: THE NATIONAL CONSTIT- UENT ASSEMBLY, 1789-1791

By the transformation of the Estates-General into the National Constituent Assembly, France had become to all intents and purposes a Hmited monarchy, in which supreme authority was vested in the nation's elected repre- in*en^s^of sentatives. From October, 1789, to September, 1791, the National this Assembly was in session in Paris, endeavoring i^gg^^g^j to bring order out of chaos and to fashion a new France out of the old that was dying of exhaustion and decrepi- tude. Enormous was the task, but even greater were the achievements. Although the work of the Assembly during the period was influenced in no shght degree by the Parisian populace, nevertheless it was attended by comparative peace and security. And the work done was by far the most vital and most lasting of the whole revolutionary era.

Leaving out of consideration for the time the frightened royal

48o HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

family, the startled noblemen and clerg}% the determined peasan- try, and the excited townsfolk, and not adhering too closely to chronological order, let us center our attention upon the National Assembly and review its major acts during those momentous years, 1 789-1 791.

The first great work of the Assembly was the legal destruction of feudahsm and serfdom — a long step in the direction of social equahty. We have already noticed how in Destruction J^^Y' while the Assembly was still at Versailles, the of Feudal- royal officers in the country districts had ceased to Serfdom ^^^^ ^^^ ^"^^"^ ^^^ peasants had destroyed many chateaux amid scenes of unexpected violence. News of the rioting and disorder came to the Assembly from every province and filled its members with the Hveliest apprehension,

I A long report, submitted by a special investigating committee on 4 August, 1789, gave such harrowing details of the popular uprising that every one was convinced that something should be done at once.

While the Assembly was debating a declaration which might calm revolt, one of the nobles — a relative of Lafayette — arose " The ^^ ^^^ place and stated that if the peasants had at-

August tacked the property and privileges of the upper

^^^ classes, it was because such property and privileges

represented unjust inequaHty, that the fault lay there, and

j that the remedy was not to repress the peasants but to suppress inequality. It was immediately moved and carried that the

f Assembly should proclaim equality of taxation for all classes and the suppression of feudal and servile dues. Then followed a scene almost unprecedented in history. Noble vied with noble, and clergyman with clergyman, in renouncing the vested rights of the "old regime." The game laws were repudiated. The manorial courts were suppressed. Serfdom was aboHshed. ; Tithes and all sorts of ecclesiastical privilege were sacrificed. ' The sale of offices was discontinued. In fact, all special pri\'i- leges, whether of classes, of cities, or of provinces, were swept away in one consuming burst of enthusiasm. The holocaust lasted throughout the night of the fourth of August. Within a week the various independent measures had been consolidated into an impressive decree "aboUshing the feudal system" and

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 481

had received the royal assent. What many reforming ministers had vainly labored for years partially to accomplish was now done by the National Assembly in a few days and with much thoroughness. The so-called "August Days" dissolved the ancient society of France.

It has been customary to refer these vast social changes to the enthusiasm, magnanimity, and self-sacrifice of the privileged orders. That there was enthusiasm is unquestionable. But it may be doubted whether the nobles and clergy were so much magnanimous as terrorized. For the first time, they were genuinely frightened by the peasants, and it is possible that the true measure of their "magnanimity" was their alarm. Then, too, if one is to sacrifice, he must have something to sacrifice. At most, the nobles had only legal claims to sur- render, for the peasants had already taken forcible possession of nearly everything which the decree accorded them. In fact the decree of the Assembly constituted merely a legal and uni- form recognition of accomplished facts.

The nobles may have thought, moreover, that liberal ac- quiescence in the first demands of the peasantry would save themselves from further demands. At any rate, they zealously set to work in the Assembly to modify what had been done, to secure financial or other indemnity,^ and to prevent the enactment of additional social legislation. Outside the As- sembly few nobles took kindly to the loss of pri\'ilege and prop- erty : the overwhelming majority protested and tried to stir up civil war, and, when such attempts failed, they left France and enrolled themselves among their country's enemies.

It is not necessary for us to know precisely who were responsible for the "August Days." The fact remains that the "decree abolishing the feudal system" represented the most important achievement of the whole French Revolution. Henceforth, those who profited by the decree were loyal friends of the Revolu- tion, while the losers were its bitter opponents.

^ The general effect of the series of decrees of the Assembly from 5 to 1 1 August, ' 789, was to impose some kind of financial redemption for many of the feudal dues. It was only in July, 1793, almost four years after the "August Days," that all feudal dues and rights were legally abolished without redemp- tion or compensation. 21

]

n

482 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

The second great work of the Assembly was the guarantee of individual rights and liberties. The old society and govern- ment of France were disappearing. On what basis Declaration should the new be erected? Great Britain had its of the Magna Carta and its Bill of Rights ; America had its

Man ^ ° Declaration of Independence. France was now given a ''Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen." This document, which reflected the spirit of Rous- seau's philosophy and incorporated some of the British and American provisions, became the platform of the French Revo- lution and tremendously influenced political thought in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A few of its most striking sentences are as follows: "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights." The rights of man are "liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression." "Law is the expres- sion of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its formation. It must be the same for all." "No person shall be accused, ar- rested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law." Rehgious toleration, freedom of speech, and Hberty of the press are affirmed. The people are to control the finances, and to the people all officials of the state are responsible. Finally, the influence of the propertied classes, which were overwhelmingly represented in the As- sembly, showed itself in the concluding section of the Declara- tion: "Since private property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where pubhc necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equi- tably indemnified."

The next great undertaking of the National Assembly was the establishment of a new and uniform administrative system in France. The ancient and confusing "provinces," of Local "governments," "intendancies," "pays d'etat," "pays Adminis- d' election" " parlemcnts," and " bailliages " were swept away. The country was divided anew into eighty- three departments, approximately uniform in size and popula- tion, and named after natural features, such as rivers or moun- tains. Each department was subdivided into districts, cantons,

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 483

and communes, — divisions which have endured in France to the present time. The heads of the local government were no longer to be appointed by the crown but elected by the people, and extensive powers were granted to elective local councils. Provision was made for a new system of law courts throughout the country, and the judges, like the administrative officials, were to be elected by popular vote. Projects were hkewise put forward to unify and simplify the great variety and mass of laws which prevailed in different parts of France, but this work was not brought to completion until the time of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Another grave matter which concerned the National As- sembly was the regulation of the public finances. It will be recalled that financial confusion was the royal reason 4. Financial for summoning the Estates- General. And in the Regulation early days of the Assembly, the confusion became chaos : it | was impossible to enforce the payment of direct taxes ; indirect | taxes were destroyed by legislative decree ; and bankers could ^ not be induced to make new loans. Therefore, it was g gg^.^. to heroic measures that the Assembly resorted to save larization the state from bankruptcy. To provide funds, a property / heavy blow was struck at one of the chief props of The As- the "old regime "^ — the Catholic Church. The ^'^"^ ^ Church, as we have seen, owned at least a fifth of the soil of France, and it was now resolved to seize these rich church lands, ;' and to utilize them as security for the issue of paper money I — the assignats. As partial indemnity for the wholesale con- fiscation, the state was to undertake the payment of fixed salaries to the clergy. Thus by a single stroke the financial j pressure was relieved, the Church was deprived of an important source of its strength, and the clergy were made dependent on the new order. Of course, as often happens in similar cases, the issue of paper money was so increased that in time it ex- ceeded the security and brought fresh troubles to the state, but for the moment the worst dangers were tided over.

The ecclesiastical policies and acts of the National Assembly were perhaps the least efficacious and the most fateful achieve- ments of the Revolution. Yet it would be difficult to perceive how they could have been less radical than they were. The

484 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Church appeared to be indissolubly linked with the fortunes of old absolutist France ; the clergy comprised a particularly privi- leged class ; and the leaders and great majority of the Legislation Assembly were filled with the skeptical, Deistic, and against the anti-Christian philosophy of the time. In November, Church*^ 1789, the church property was confiscated. In Feb- ruary, 1790, the monasteries and other rehgious houses were suppressed. In April, absolute rehgious tolera- tion was proclaimed. In August, 1790, the *' Civil Constitu- tion of the Clergy" was promulgated, by which the bishops and priests, reduced in numbers, were made a civil body : they were to be elected by the people, paid by the state, and sepa- rated from the sovereign control of the pope. In December, the Assembly forced the reluctant king to sign a decree com- [ pelling all the clergy to take a solemn oath of allegiance to the "Civil Constitution."

The pope, who had already protested against the seizure of church property and the expulsion of the monks, now con- demned the "Civil Constitution" and forbade Catho- Opposition Hcs to take the oath of allegiance. Thus, the issue to the ^g^g squarely joined. Such as took the oath were

excommunicated by the pope. Such as refused com- pliance were deprived of their salaries and threatened with imprisonment. Up to this time, the bulk of the lower clergy, poor themselves and in immediate contact with the suffering of the peasants, had undoubtedly sympathized with the course of the Revolution, but henceforth their convictions and th&ir consciences came into conflict with devotion to their country. They followed their conscience and either incited the peasants, over whom they exercised considerable influence, to oppose further revolution, or emigrated ^ from France to swell the number of those who, dissatisfied with the course of events in their own country, would seek the first opportunity to undo the work of the Assembly. The Cathohc Church, as well as the \ hereditary nobility, became an unwearied opponent of the French ' Revolution.

^ The clergy who would not take the oath were called the "non-juring" clergy. Those who left France, together with the noble emigrants, were called "emigres."

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 485

Amid all these sweeping reforms and changes, the National Constituent Assembly was making steady progress in drafting a I written constitution which would clearly define the ^ -j-^e 1 agencies of government, and tlieir respective powers, Constitu- t in tlie new hmited monarchy. This constitution was '^'^^ "^^^ completed in 1791 and signed by the king — he could do nothing V else — and at once went into full effect. It was the first written constitution of %ny importance that any European country had had, and was preceded only slightly in point of time by that of the United States.^ , The Constitution of 1791, as it was called, provided, like the American constitution, for the "separation of powers," that is, ' that the law-making, law-enforcing, and law-interpreting func- tions of government should be kept quite distinct as the legis- lative, executive, and judicial departments, and should each spring, in last analysis, from the will of the people. This idea had been elaborated by Montesquieu, and deeply affected the constitution-making of the eighteenth century both in France and in the United States. I The legislative authority was vested in one chamber, styled I the "Legislative Assembly," the members of which were chosen ' by means of a compUcated system of indirect election.- Legislative The distrust with which the bourgeois framers of Provisions the constitution regarded the lower classes was shown not only in this check upon direct election but also in the requirements I that the privilege of voting should be exercised exclusively by 1 "active" citizens, that is, by citizens who paid taxes, and that the right to hold office should be restricted to property-holders. Nominally the executive authority resided in the hereditary king. In this respect, most of the French reformers thought they were imitating the British government, but as a matter of fact they made the kingship not even Qf^^e ornamental. True, they accorded to the king the King under

• 1 r .• ,1 ^' r J. the Consti-

right to postpone for a time the execution 01 an act tytj^n of the legislature — the so-called "suspensive veto"

iThe present American constitution was drafted in 1787 and went into effect in 1789, the year that the Estates-General assembled.

2 That is to say, the people would vote for electors, and the electors for the members of the Assembly.

486 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

— but they deprived him of all control over local government, over the army and navy, and over the clergy. Even his minis- ters were not to sit in the Assembly. Tremendous had been the decline of royal power in France during those two years, 1789- 1791.

This may conclude our brief summary of the work of the National Constituent Assembly. If we review it as a whole,

we are impressed by the immense destruction which of"th?^'^^ it effected. No other body of legislators has ever Work of demoHshed so much in the same brief period. The !use!^bir*^ old form of government, the old territorial divisions,

the old financial system, the old judicial and legal regulations, the old ecclesiastical arrangements, and, most significant of all, the old condition of holding land — serfdom and feudahsm — all were shattered. Yet all this destruction was not a mad whim of the moment. It had been preparing slowly and painfully for many generations. It was foreshadowed by the mass of well-considered complaints in the cahiers. It was achieved not only by the decrees of the Assembly, but by the forceful expression of the popular will.

THE LIMITED MONARCHY IN OPERATION: THE LEGIS- LATIVE ASSEMBLY (1791-1792) AND THE OUTBREAK OF FOREIGN WAR

Great pubHc rejoicing welcomed the formal inauguration of the limited monarchy in 1791. Many beheved that a new era Brief °f peace and prosperity was dawning for France.

Duration of Yet the extravagant hopes which were widely enter- Mona^rchy tained for the success of the new regime were doomed in France, to Speedy and bitter disappointment. The new 1791-1792 government encountered all manner of difficulties, the country rapidly grew more radical in sentiment and action, and within a single year the hmited monarchy gave way to a repubhc. The estabhshment of the repubhc was the second great phase of the Revolution. Why it was possible and even inevitable may be gathered from a survey of political conditions in France during 1792, — at once the year of trial for limited monarchy and the year of transition to the republic.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 487

By no means did all Frenchmen accept cheerfully and con- tentedly the work of the National Constituent As- Sources of sembly. Of the numerous dissenters, some thought Opposition it went too far and some thought it did not go far Limited enough. The former may be styled "reactionaries" ^^onarchy and the latter "radicals."

The reactionaries embraced the bulk of the formerly privileged I nobility and the non-juring clergy. The nobles had left France in large numbers as soon as the lirst signs of violence Reaction- appeared — about the time of the fall of the Bastille ^"^^ and the peasant uprisings in the provinces. Many of the clergy had similarly departed from their homes when the anti- clerical measures of the Assembly rendered it no longer possible for them to follow the dictates of conscience. These i. The reactionary exiles, or emigres as they were termed, Emigres I collected in force along the northern and eastern frontier, es- pecially at Coblenz on the Rhine. They possessed an influential leader in the king's owti brother, the count of Artois, and they maintained a perpetual agitation, by means of newspapers, pamphlets, and intrigues, against the new regime. They were anxious to regain their privileges and property, and to restore everything, as far as possible, to precisely the same position it had occupied prior to 1789.

Nor were the reactionaries devoid of support within France. It was believed that the royal family, now carefully watched in Paris, sympathized with their efforts. So long as 2. The Mirabeau, the ablest leader in the National Assembly, ^°^^^ was alive, he had never ceased urging the king to accept the reforms of the Revolution and to give no countenance to agita- tion beyond the frontiers. In case the king should find his position in Paris intolerable, he had been advised by Mirabeau to withdraw into western or southern France and gather the loyal nation about him. But unfortunately, Mirabeau, worn out by dissipation and cares, died prematurely in April, 1791. Only two months later the royal family attempted to follow the course against which they had been warned. The Flight Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, in an effort to rid ^o Varennes themselves of the spying vigilance of the Parisians, disguised themselves, fled from the capital, and made straight for the

\

488 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

eastern frontier, apparently to join the emigres. At Varennes, near the border, the royal fugitives were recognized and turned back to Paris, which henceforth became for them rather a prison than a capital. Although Louis subsequently swore a solemn oath to uphold the constitution, his personal popularity vanished with his ill-starred flight, and his wife — the hated "Austrian woman" — was suspected with good reason of being in secret correspondence with the emigres as well as with foreign govern- ments. Marie Antoinette was more detested than ever. The I king's oldest brother, the count of Provence, was more success- 1 ful than the king in the flight of June, 1791 : he eluded detection and joined the count of Artois at Coblenz.

Had the reactionaries been restricted entirely to emigres

and the royal family, it is hardly possible that they would have

been so troublesome as they were. They were able,

ative and howcver, to sccure considerable popular support in

CathoUc France. A small group in the Assembly shared their

Peasants o i j

views and proposed the most extravagant measures

in order to embarrass the work of that body. Conservative

clubs existed among the upper and well-to-do classes in the

I larger cities. And in certain districts of western France, es-

1 pecially in Brittany, Poitou (La Vendee), and Anjou, the

peasants developed hostility to the course of the Revolution :

their extraordinary devotion to Catholicism placed them under

the influence of the non-juring clergy, and their class feeling

against townspeople induced them to believe that the Revolution,

carried forward by the bourgeoisie, was essentially in the interests

of the bourgeoisie. Riots occurred in La Vendee throughout

1 791 and 1792 with increasing frequency until at length the

district blazed into open rebelhon against the radicals.

. More dangerous to the political settlement of 1791 than

\ the opposition of the reactionaries was that of the radicals — ■

those Frenchmen who thought that the Revolution

had not gone far enough. The real explanation of

the radical movement lies in the conflict of interest between

the poor working people of the towns and the middle class, or

bourgeoisie. The latter, as has been repeatedly emphasized,

possessed the brains, the money, and the education : it was

they who had been overwhelmingly represented in the National

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 489

Assembly. The former were degraded, poverty-stricken, and ig- norant, but tliey constituted tlie bulk of the population in the cities, notably in Paris, and they were both con- ^ jj^^ scious of their sorry condition and desperately deter- Bourgeois mined to improve it. These so-called "proletarians," ®^ ®" though hardly directly represented in the Assembly, neverthe- less fondly expected the greatest benefits from the work of that bod}'. For a while the bourgeoisie and the proleta- 2. The Pro- riat cooperated : the former carried reforms through letarians the Assembly, the latter defended by armed violence the free- dom of the Assembly ; both participated in the capture of the Bastille, in the establishment of the commune, and in the trans- fer of the seat of government from Versailles to Paris. So long as they faced a serious common danger from the court and privileged orders, they worked in harmony.

But as soon as the Revolution had run its first stage and had succeeded in reducing the royal power and in abolishing many special pri\'ileges of the nobles and clergy, a sharp conflict of cleavage became evident between the former allies — interests between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The Bourgeoisie bourgeoisie, to whom was due the enactment of the and Pro- great reforms of the National Constituent Assembly, ®*^"^* profited by those reforms far more than any other class in the community. Their trade and industry were stimulated by the removal of the ancient royal and feudal restrictions. Their in- creased wealth enabled them to buy up the estates of the out- lawed emigres and the confiscated lands of the Church. They secured an effective control of all branches of government, local and central. Of course, the peasantry also benefited to no shght extent, but their benefits were certainly less impressive than those of the bourgeoisie. Of all classes in France, the urban proletariat seemed to have gained the least : to be sure they were guaranteed by paper documents certain theoretical "rights and liberties," but what had been done for their material well-being? They had obtained no property. They had ex- perienced no greater ease in earning their daily bread. And in 1 791 they seemed as far from realizing their hopes of betterment as they had been in 1789, for the bourgeois constitution-makers had proxided that only taxpayers could vote and only property-

490 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

owners could hold office. The proletariat, thereby cut off from all direct share in the conduct of government, could not fail to be convinced that in the first phase of the Revolution they had merely exchanged one set of masters for another, that at the expense of the nobles and clergy they had exalted the bourgeoisie, and that they themselves were still downtrodden and oppressed. Radical changes in the constitution and radical social legislation i:i their own behalf became the policies of the proletariat; \dolence would be used as a means to an end, if other means failed. . Not all of the bourgeoisie were thoroughly devoted to the settlement of 1791. Most of them doubtless were. But a thoughtful and conspicuous minority allied themselves with the proletariat. Probably in many instances it was for the selfish motive of personal ambition that this or that middle- class individual prated much about his love for "the people" and shed tears over their wretchedness and made all manner of election promises to them. But, on the other hand, there were sincere and altruistic bourgeois who had been converted to the extreme democratic doctrines of Rousseau and who were deeply touched by the misery of the lowest classes. It was A under the leadership of such men that the proletariat grew lever more radical until they sought by force to establish democracy in France.

The radical movement centered in Paris, where now hved the royal family and where the legislature met. With the Center of object of intimidating the former and controlling the Radicalism latter, the agitation made rapid headway during 1791 in ans ^^^^ 1 792. It was conducted by means of inflamma- tory newspapers, coarse pamphlets, and bitter speeches. It ap- pealed to both the popular reason and the popular emotions. It was backed up and rendered efficient by the organization of revolutionary "clubs."

These clubs were interesting centers of political and social agitation. Their origin was traceable to the "eating clubs" ^. ^. , which had been formed at Versailles by various dcpu-

The Clubs . , , . , , i • , i 11

ties who desired to take their meals together, but the

I idea progressed so far that by 1791 nearly every cafe in Paris

aspired to be a meeting place for politicians and "patriots."

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 491

Although some of the chibs were strictly constitutional, and even, in a few instances, professedly reactionary, nevertheless the greater / number and the most influential were radical. Such cordeliers \ were the Cordelier and Jacobin clubs. The former, and organized as a "society of the friends of the rights ° ^°^ of man and of the citizen," was very radical from its inception and enrolled in its membership the foremost revolutionaries of Paris. The latter, starting out as a "society of the friends of the constitution," counted among its early members such men as Mirabeau, Sieyes, and Lafayette, but subsequently under ! the leadership of Robespierre, transformed itself into an or- ganization quite as radical as the Cordeliers. It is an interesting fact that both these radical clubs derived their popular names from monasteries, in whose confiscated buildings they customarily met.

From Paris the radical movement radiated in all directions. Pamphlets and newspapers were spread broadcast. The Jacobin club established a regular correspondence with branch Radical f clubs or kindred societies which sprang up in other Propaganda French towns. The radicals were everywhere inspired by the same zeal and aided by a splendid organization.

Of the chief radical leaders, it may be convenient at this point to introduce three — Marat, Danton, and Robespierre. ' All belonged to the bourgeoisie by birth and training. Radical but by conviction they became the mouthpieces of the l^eaders proletariat. All played important roles in subsequent scenes of the Revolution.

Marat {c. 1 742-1 793), had he never become interested in poHtics and conspicuous in the Revolution, might have been remem- bered in history as a scientist and a man of letters. „ ^

■^ ... Marat

J He had been a physician, and for skill m his profession, 1 as well as for contributions to the science of physics, he had received an honorary degree from St. Andrews University in Scotland, and for a time he was in the service of the count of Artois. The convocation of the Estates-General turned his attention to public affairs. In repeated and vigorous pamphlets he combated the idea then prevalent in France that his country- men should adopt a constitution similar to that of Great Britain. During several years' sojourn in Great Britain he had observed

492 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

that that country was being ruled by an oHgarchy which, while using the forms of liberty and pretending to represent the coun- try, was in reality using its power for the promotion of its own narrow class interests. He made up his mind that real reform must benefit all the people alike and that it could be secured only by direct popular action. This was the simple message that filled the pages of the Ami du peuple — the Friend of the People — a newspaper which he edited from 1789 to 1792. With fierce invective he assailed the court, the clergy, the nobles, even the bourgeois Assembly. Attached to no party and with no detailed policies, he sacrificed almost everything to his single mission. No poverty, misery, or persecution could keep him quiet. Forced even to hide in cellars and sewers, where he contracted a loathsome skin disease, he persevered in his frenzied appeals to the Parisian populace to take matters into their own hands. By 1792 Marat was a man feared and hated by the authorities but loved and venerated by the masses of the capital.^

No less radical but far more statesmanlike was Danton (1759- 1794), who has been called " a sort of middle-class Mirabeau." ^ The son of a farmer, he had studied law, had purchased

Danton . . i c

a position as advocate of the Royal Council, and, be- fore the outbreak of the Revolution, had acquired a reputation not only as a brilliant young lawyer, but also as a man of liberal tastes, fond of books, and happy in his domestic life. Like Mira- beau, he was a person of powerful physique and of stentorian voice, a skilled debater and a convincing orator ; unlike Mira- beau, he himself remained calm and self-possessed while arousing his audiences to the highest pitch of enthusiasm. Like Mirabeau, too, he was not so primarily interested in the welfare of his own social class as in that of the class below him : what the noble- man Mirabeau was to the bourgeoisie, the bourgeois Danton was to the Parisian proletariat. Brought to the fore, through the favor of Mirabeau, in the early days of the Revolution, Danton at once showed himself a strong advocate of real democracy. In 1790, in conjunction with Marat and Camille Desmoulins, he founded the Cordelier Club, the activities of which he directed

* Marat was assassinated on 13 July, 1793, by Charlotte Corday, a young woman who was fanatically attached to the Girondist faction.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 493

throughout 1791 and 1792 against the royal family and the whole cause of monarch}-. An influential member of the commune of ' Paris, he was largely instrumental in crystallizing public opinion in favor of republicanism. Danton was rough and courageous, but neither venal nor bloodthirsty.

Less practical than Danton and further removed from the proletariat than Marat, MaximiHen Robespierre (i 758-1 794) nevertheless combined such qualities as made him „ ^

Robespierre

the most promment exponent of democracy and re- publicanism. Descended from a iniddle-class family of Irish extraction, Robespierre had been a classmate of Camille Des- moulins in the law school of the University of Paris, and had practiced law with some success in his native town of Arras. (He was appointed a criminal judge, but soon resigned that ' post because he could not endure to inflict the death penalty. In his immediate circle he acquired a reputation as a writer, speaker, and something of a dandy. Elected to the Third Estate in 1789, he took his place with the extreme radicals in that body — the "thirty voices," as Mirabeau contemptuously called them. Robespierre had read Rousseau from cover to cover and beHeved in the philosopher's doctrines with all his heart so that he would have gone to death for them. In the. belief that they eventually would succeed and regenerate France and all mankind, he was ready to work with unwearied patience. The paucity of his followers in the National Assembly and the overpowering personality of Mirabeau prevented him from exercising much influence in framing the new constitution, and he gradually turned for support to the people of Paris. He was already a member of the Jacobin Club, which, by the withdrawal of its more conservative members in 1791, came then under his leadership. Thenceforth the Jacobin Club was a most effective instrument for establishing social democracy (although it was not committed to repubhcanism until August, 1792), and Robespierre was its oracle. Robespierre was never a dema- ' gogue in the present sense of the word : he was always em- phatically a gentleman and a man of culture, sincere and truthful. Although he labored strenuously for the "rights" of the pro- letariat, he never catered to their tastes ; to the last day of his life he retained the knee-breeches and silk stockings of the old society and wore his hair powdered.

494 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

We are now in a position to understand why the constitutional monarchy floundered. It had no great leaders to strengthen it and to conduct it through the narrow strait. It was bound to strike the rocks of reaction on one side or those of radicalism on the other. Against such fearless and determined assailants as Robespierre, Danton, and Marat, it was helpless.

The new government came into being with the first meeting of the Legislative Assembly on i October, 1791. Immediately Difficulties ^^^ troubles began. The members of the Legislative Confront- Assembly were wholly inexperienced in parliamentary Leysiative procedure, for an unfortunate self-denying ordinance ^ Assembly, of the retiring Constituent Assembly had prohibited ^^^^ any of its members from accepting election to the

new body. The Legislative Assembly contained deputies of fundamentally diverse views who quarreled long though elo- quently among themselves. Moreover, it speedily came into conflict with the king, who vainly endeavored to use his con- stitutional right of suspensive veto in order to check its activi- ties. Combined with these problems was the popular agitation and excitement : a peasant revolt in La Vendee, the angry threats of emigre nobles and non-juring clergy across the eastern iron tier, the loud tumults of the proletariat of Paris and of other large cities as well.

The difficulties of the Umited monarchy were further com- plicated by an embarrassing foreign situation. It will be borne in mind that all important European states still ad- HosTiiUy hered rigidly to the social institutions of the "old to the regime" and, with the exception of Great Britain,

Revdution ^*^ diviue-right monarchy. Outside of France there appeared as yet no such thing as "public opinion," certainly no sign among the lower classes of any opinion favor- able to revolution. In Great Britain alone was there a con- stitutional monarchy, and in the early days of the French Revolution, so long as British statesmen could flatter themselves that their neighbors across the Channel were striving to imitate their political system, these same public men sympathized with the course of events. But when it became evident that the Revolution was going further, that it aimed at a great social

^ Proposed by Robespierre.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 495

leveling, that it was a movement of the masses in behalf of the lowest classes in the community, then even British criticism assailed it. At the close of 1790 Edmund Burke published his Reflections on the Revolution in France, a bitter arraignment of the newer tendencies and a rhetorical panegyric of con- servatism. Although Burke's sensational work was speedily and logically answered by several forceful thinkers, including the brilHant Thomas Paine, nevertheless it long held its place as the classical expression of official Britain's horror of social equahty and of "mob violence." The book was likewise re- ceived with such approval by the monarchs of continental Europe, who interpreted it as a telling defense of their position, that Catherine of Russia personally comphmented the author and the puppet king of Poland sent him a flamboyant glorifica- tion and a gold medal. Thenceforth the monarchs, as well as the nobles and clergy, of Europe saw in the French Revolution only a menace to their political and social privileges : were it communicated to the lower classes, the Revolution might work the same havoc throughout the length and breadth of Europe that it was working in France. The "benevolent despots" had sincere desires to labor for the welfare of the people ; they shud- dered at the thought of what the people themselves would do in laboring for their own welfare.

Of the monarchs of Europe, several had special reasons for viewing the progress of the Revolution with misgiving. The Bourbons of Spain and of the Two Sicilies were united by blood and family compacts with the ruhng dynasty Roman° ^ of France: any behtthng of the latter's power was Emperor bound to affect disastrously the domestic position pjonof^™ and foreign pohcy of the former. Then, too, the Opposition French queen, Marie Antoinette, was an Austrian Revolution Habsburg. Her family interests were in measure at stake. In the Austrian dominions, the visionary and unprac- tical Joseph II had died in 1790 and had been succeeded by another brother of Marie Antoinette, the gifted though un- emotional Emperor Leopold II. Leopold skillfully extricated himself from the embarrassments at home and abroad bequeathed him by his predecessor and then turned his attention to French affairs. He was in receipt of constant and now frantic appeals

496 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

from his sister to aid Louis XVI against the revolutionaries. He knew that the Austrian Netherlands, whose rebellion he had suppressed with difficulty, were saturated with the doc- trines of the Revolution and that many of their inhabitants would welcome annexation to France. As chief of the Holy Roman Empire, he must keep revolutionary agitation out of the Germanics and protect the border provinces against French aggression. All these factors served to make the Emperor Leopold the foremost champion of the "old regime" in Europe and incidentally of the royal cause in France.

Now it so happened that the emperor found a curious ally in Prussia. The death of Frederick the Great in 1786 had called to the throne of that country a distinctly inferior sort tion^or' o^ potentate, Frederick WilHam II (i 786-1 797), who Piiinitz, combined with a nature at once sensual and pleasure- iToT^*' loving a remarkable religious zeal. He neglected the splendid military machine wliich Frederick William I and Frederick the Great had constructed with infinite patience and thoroughness. He lavished great wealth upon art as well as upon favorites and mistresses. He tired the nation with an excessive Protestant orthodoxy. And in foreign affairs he re- versed the far-sighted policy of iiis predecessor by allying himself with Austria and reducing Prussia to a secondary place among the German states. In August, 1791, Frederick William II joined with the Emperor Leopold in issuing the pubhc Declara- tion of Piiinitz, to the effect that the two rulers considered the restoration of order and of monarchy in France an object of " common interest to all sovereigns of Europe." The declaration was hardly more than pompous bluster, for the armies of the German allies were not as yet ready for war, but its solemn expression of an intention on the part of foreign despots to inter- fere in the internal affairs of France aroused the most bitter feeling among Frenchmen who were patriotic as well as revolu- tionary.

The prospect of war with the blustering monarchs of Austria and Prussia was quite welcome to several important factions in France. Marie Antoinette and her court clique gradually came to the conclusion that their reactionary cause would be abetted by war. If the allies won, absolutism would be restored in

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 497

France by force of arms. If llie French won, it would redound to the prestige of the royal family and enable them by constitu- tional means to recover their authority. Then, too, the constitutionalists, the bourgeois [)arty which was po'^i",^cs led by Lafayette and which loyally supported the set- under the / tlement of 1791, worked for war. Military success Mona^rchy would consolidate the French people and confirm the Favorable I constitution, and Lafayette aspired to win personal war"*^^'^" I glory as the omnipotent commander. Finally, the I overwhelming majority of radicals cried for war : to them it seemed as if the hberal monarchy would be completely dis- comfited by it and that out of it would emerge a republic in France and the general triumph of democratic principles in Europe. Why not stir up all the European peoples against their monarchs? The cause of France should be the cause of Europe. France should be the missionary of the new dispensation.

The Legislative Assembly, on which depended in last in- stance the solution of all these vital problems, domestic and foreign, represented several diverse shades of political opinion. Of the seven hundred members, four par^e^ hundred admitted no special leadership but voted in the independently on every question according to individ- Assenfbiy^ j ual preference or fear, while the others were divided ' between the camp of Feiiillants and that of Jacobins. The Feuillants were the constitutionalists, inclined, while in general consistently championing the settlement of 1791, to strengthen the royal power, — they were the conservatives of the Assembly. The Jacobins, on the other hand, deriving their common name from the famous club in Paris, were the radicals : many of them secretly cherished republican sentiments, and all of them desired a further diminution of the constitutional powers of , Louis XVI. The Jacobins, however, were divided into two I groups on the question of how the royal power should be re- duced. The larger number, whose most conspicuous members came from the department of the Gironde and were, therefore, collectively designated as Girondists, entertained the idea that the existing government should be clearly proved futile before proceeding to the next stage in the Revolution : they clamored for foreign war as the most effective means of disgracing the

498 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

existing monarchy. The smaller number of Jacobins, drawn largely from Paris, desired to take no chances on the outcome of war but advocated the radical reformation of monarchical institutions by direct and immediate popular action : subse- quently tliis small group was dubbed the Mountain ^ from the high seats its members later occupied in the Convention : they represented the general views of such men as Marat, Danton, and Robespierre.

Of the various parties or groups in the Legislative Assembly, the best organized was the Girondist. Its members, recruited The chiefly from the provinces, were young, enthusiastic,

Girondists g^j-^^] filled with noble, if somewhat unpractical, ideas borrowed from the ancient republics of Greece and Rome. They were cultured, eloquent, and patriotic. In Brissot (1754- 1793), a Parisian lawyer, they had an admirable leader and or- ganizer. In Vergniaud (i 753-1 793), they had a polished and convincing orator. In Condorcet (i 743-1 794), they had a brilhant scholar and philosopher. In Dumouriez (i 739-1823), they possessed a mihtary genius of the first order. And in the refined home of the brilliant Madame Roland (i 754-1 793), they had a charming center for political discussion.

In internal affairs the Legislative Assembly accomphshed next to nothing. Everything was subordinated to the question of foreign war. In that, Feuillants and Girondists found them- selves in strange agreement. Only Marat and Robespierre raised their voices against a policy whose pursuit they dreaded would raise a military dictator. Marat expressed his alarms in the Friend of tlie People: "What afflicts the friends of liberty is that we have more to fear from success than from defeat . . . the danger is lest one of our generals be crowned with victory and lest ... he lead his victorious army against the capital to secure the triumph of the Despot." But the counsels of extreme radicals were unavaihng. / In the excitement the Girondists obtained control of the government and demanded of the emperor that the Austrian troops be withdrawn from the frontier and that the emigres be expelled from his territories. As no action was taken by the ' emperor, the Girondist ministers prevailed upon Louis XVI to

^ This name did not come into general use until 1793.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 499

declare war on 20 April, 1792. Lafayette assumed supreme command, and the French prepared for the struggle. Although Leopold had just died, his policy was followed by his Declaration son and successor, the Emperor Francis II. Francis of War and Frederick William II of Prussia speedily collected aITs^I an army of 80,000 men at Coblenz with which to and Prussia, invade France. The campaign of 1792 was the first ^^'^^' ^^^^ stage in a vast conflict which was destined to rage throughout Europe for twenty-three years. It was the beginning of the contest between the forces of revolution and those of reaction.

Enthusiasm was with the French. They felt they were fight- ing for a cause — the cause of hberty, equaHty, and nationahsm. Men put on red Uberty caps, and such as possessed no firearms equipped themselves with pikes and hastened to the front. Troops coming up from Marseilles sang in Paris a new hymn of freedom which Rouget de Lisle had just composed at Strassburg for the French soldiers, — the inspiring Marseillaise that was to become the national anthem of France. But enthusiasm was about the only asset that the French possessed. Their armies were ill-organized and ill-disciplined. Provisions were scarce, arms were inferior, and fortified places in poor repair. Lafayette had greater ambition than ability.

The war opened, therefore, with a series of French reverses. An attempted invasion of the Austrian Netherlands ended in dismal failure. On the eastern frontier the allied ^^^^ armies under the duke of Brunswick experienced French little difficulty in opening up a Hne of march to Paris. ^^^®''^®^ Intense grew the excitement in the French capital. The re- verses gave color to the suspicion that the royal family were betraying miHtary plans to the enemy. A big demonstration took place on 20 June : a crowd of market women, artisans, coal heavers, and hod carriers pushed through poshion the royal residence, jostling and threatening the king of the and queen : no \dolence was done but the temper of pamiiy the Parisian proletariat was quite evident. But Louis and Marie Antoinette simply would not learn their lesson. Despite repeated and solemn assurances to the contrary, they were really in constant secret communication with the invading forces. The king was beseeching aid from foreign rulers in

500 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

order to crush his own people ; the queen was supplying the generals of the allies with the French plans of campaign. Limited monarchy failed in the stress of war.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FIRST FRENCH REPUBLIC: THE NATIONAL CONVENTION, 1792-1795

On 25 July, 1792, the duke of Brunswick (1735-1806), the pig-headed commander-in-chief of the allied armies, issued a Prociama- proclamation to the French people. He declared it tion of the his purpose " to put an end to the anarchy in the in- / Brunswick terior of France, to check the attacks upon the throne 25 July, and the altar, to reestablish the legal power, to restore ^^^^ to the king the security and hberty of which he is

now deprived and to place him in a position to exercise once more the legitimate authority which belongs to him." The bold duke went on to declare that French soldiers who might be captured "shall be treated as enemies and punished as rebels to their king and as disturbers of the public peace," and that, if the slightest harm befell any member of the royal family, his Austrian and Prussian troops would "inflict an ever-memorable vengeance by delivering over the city of Paris to military execu- tion and complete destruction, and the rebels guilty of such outrages to the punishment that they merit." This fooHsh I and insolent manifesto sealed the fate of the French monarchy. It was the clearest proof that French royalty and foreign armies were in formal alliance not only to prevent the further develop- The French ii'^^nt of the Revolution but also to undo what had Reply: the already been done. And all patriotically minded tion^of^o-io Frenchmen, whether hitherto they had sympathized August, with the course of events or not, now grew furious at ^^^^ the threats of foreigners to interfere in the internal

affairs of their country. The French reply to the duke of Bruns- Suspension wick was the insurrection of 9-10 August, 1792. of the On those days the proletariat of Paris revolted

FaU^of" against the liberal monarchy. They supplanted the Limited bourgeois commuuc with a radically revolutionary Monarchy commune, in which Danton became the leading figure. They invaded the royal palace, massacred the Swiss Guards, and

''LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 501

obliged the king and his family to flee for their lives to the Assembly. On 10 August, a remnant of terror-stricken deputies voted to suspend the king from his ofiice and to authorize the immediate election by universal manhood suffrage of a National Convention that would prepare a new constitution for France.

From the suspension of the king on 10 August to the assem- bhng of the National Convention on 21 September, France was practically anarchical. The royal family was in- Anarchy ^ carcerated in the gloomy prison of the Temple. The ^°^ France 1 regular governmental agents were paralyzed. Lafayette pro- i tested against the insurrection at Paris and surrendered himself jto the allies.

Still the allies advanced into France. Fear deepened into panic. Supreme control fell into the hands of the revolutionary commune : Danton became virtual dictator. His policy was simple. The one path of safety left open to the radicals was to strike terror into the hearts of their domestic and foreign foes. "In my opinion," said Danton, "the way to stop the enemy is to terrify the royalists. Audacity, more audacity, and always greater audacity!" The news of the investment of Verdun by the allies, published at Paris on 2 September, was the signal for the beginning of a wholesale massacre of royalists in the French capital. For five long days unfortunate royalists were taken from the prisons and handed over by a self-con- stituted judicial body to the tender mercies of a band of hired cutthroats. Slight discrimination was made of rank, sex, or age. Men, women, and children, nobles and magistrates, priests and bishops, — all who were suspected of royalist sym- pathy were butchered. The number of victims of these Sep- tember massacres has been variously estimated from 2000 to 10,000.

Meanwhile Danton was infusing new Kfe and new spirit into the French armies. Dumouriez replaced Lafayette in supreme command. And on 20 September the alhes received their first check at Valmy.

The very day on which news reached Paris that it Y^™r

1 1 1 -r^ . 1 • .the First

was saved and that Brunswick was m retreat, the Military National Convention met. Amid the wildest enthu- Success of

I'll ^"^ Revo-

siasm, it unanimously decreed that royalty is abol- lutionaries

502 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Prociama- ished in France." Then it was resolved to date from

Fkst° * ^ 2^ September, 1792, Year I of the Repubhc. A decree

French of perpetual banishment was enacted against the

^^" ^ emigres and it was soon determined to bring the king

to trial before the Convention.

The National Convention remained in session for three

years (i 792-1 795), and its work constituted the second

great phase of the Revolution. This work was essentially

twofold : (i) It secured a series of great victories in

National the foreign war, thereby rendering permanent the

Convention, remarkable social reforms of the first period of the 1792-1795 .

Revolution, that between 1789 and 1791 ; and (2) it

constructed a republican form of government, based on the

principle of democracy.

Perhaps no legislative body in history has been called upon to solve such knotty problems as those which confronted the National Convention at the opening of its sessions. Confront^ ^^ that time it was necessary (i) to decide what ingthe sliould be done with the deposed and imprisoned

Convention ^^^S ! (2) to organize the national defense and turn back foreign invasion ; (3) to suppress insurrection within France ; (4) to provide a strong government for the country; (5) to complete and consohdate the social reforms of the earlier stage of the Revcrlution ; and (6) to frame a new constitution and to estabhsh permanent repubhcan institutions. With all these questions the Convention coped with infinite industry and much success. And in the few following pages, we shall review them in the order indicated, although it should be borne in mind that most of them were considered by the Convention simultaneously.

Before taking up the work of the Convention, a word should

be said about the personnel of that body. The elections had

been in theory by almost universal suffrage, but in

Personnel . . ,./. -^ . . . , . 7 1 1

of the practice mdmerence or intimidation reduced the

National actual votcrs to about a tenth of the total electorate.

Convention , , . •

The result was the return of an overwhelming major- ity of radicals, who, while agreeing on the fundamental repub- lican doctrines, nevertheless differed about details. On the right of the Convention sat nearly two hundred Girondists,

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 503

including Brissot, Vergniaud, Condorcet, and the interesting Thomas Paine. These men represented largely the well-to-do bourgeoisie who were more radical in thought than The in deed, who ardently desired a democratic republic, Girondists but who at the same time distrusted Paris and the proletariat. In the raised seats on the opposite side of the Convention sat nearly one hundred members of the Mountain, now jj^g exclusively designated as Jacobins — extreme radi- Mountain- cals in thought, word, and deed — disciples of Rousseau — counting among their number Danton, Robes- pierre, Camot, and St. Just. Between the two factions of Mountainists and Girondists sat the Plain, as it was ^^^ pj^^ called, the real majority of the house, which had no I policies or convictions of its own, but voted usually according to the dictates of expediency. Our tactful, trimming Abbe 1 Sieyes belonged to the Plain. At the very outset the Plain I was likely to go with the Girondists, but as time went on and 1 the Parisian populace clamored more and more loudly against any one who opposed the action of their allies, the Mountainists, it gradually saw fit to transfer its affections to the Left.

The first serious question which faced the Convention was the disposition of the king. The discovery of an iron chest con- taining accounts of expenditures for bribing members of the National Constituent Assembly, coupled with Execution the all but confirmed suspicion of Louis' double of King dealings with France and with foreign foes,^ sealed j^^^J the doom of that miserably w^ak monarch. He was j brought to trial before the Convention in December, 1792, and i condemned to death by a vote of 387 to 334. With the majority \ voted the king's own cousin, the duke of Orleans, an enthusiastic radical who had assumed the name of Citizen Phihppe figalite (Equality). On 21 January, 1793, Louis XVI was beheaded near the overthrown statue of his voluptuous predecessor Louis XV in the Place de la Revolution (now called the Place de la Concorde). The unruffled dignity with which he met death was the finest act of his reign.

1 After the execution of the king, actual letters were discovered which Louis had dispatched to his fellow monarchs, urging their assistance. A typical extract is given in Robinson and Beard, Readings in Modern European History, Vol. I, pp. 287-288.

504 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Meanwhile the tide of Austrian and Prussian invasion had been rolling away from France. After Valmy, Dumouriez Military had pursued the retreating foreigners across the Successes Rhine and had carried the war into the Austrian Netherlands, where a large party regarded the French as de- Hverers. Dumouriez entered Brussels without serious resistance, and was speedily master of the whole country. It seemed as though the French would have an easy task in delivering the peoples of Europe from their old regime.

Emboldened by the ease with which its armies were over- running the neighboring states, the National Convention pro- posed to propagate liberty and reform throughout Champion Europe and in December, 1792, issued the following of Revo- significant decree: "The French nation declares

lution 1 • -11 • 11

that it will treat as enemies every people who, re- fusing hberty and equality or renouncing them, may wish to maintain, recall, or treat with a prince and the privileged classes ; on the other hand, it engages not to subscribe to any treaty and not to lay down its arms until the sovereignty and inde- pendence of the people whose territory the troops of the repubhc shall have entered shall be established, and until the people shall have adopted the principles of equality and founded a free and democratic government."

In thus throwing down the gauntlet to all the monarchs of Europe and in putting the issue clearly between democracy and Foreign the old regime, the French revolutionaries took a dan- Fears gerous step. Although a large number of the neigh- boring peoples undoubtedly sympathized with the aims and achievements of the Revolution, the rulers and privileged classes in more distant countries, such as Russia, Austria, Prussia, and even Spain and Great Britain, were still deeply intrenched in the patriotism and unquestioning loyalty of their people.

Then, too, the execution of Louis XVI in January, Coaiition'^^' ^TQSj increased the bitterness of the approaching against grave struggle. A royalist reaction in France itself

1793^^ precipitated civil war in La Vendee. Dumouriez, the

ablest general of the day, in disgust deserted to the Austrians. And at this very time, a formidable coahtion of frightened and revengeful monarchs was formed to overthrow the

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 505

French Republic. To Austria and Prussia, already in the field, were added Great Britain, Holland, Spain, and Sardinia.

Once more France was placed on the defensive. Once more the allies occupied Belgium and the Rhine provinces, and took the roads toward Paris. The situation in the spring of 1793 appeared as critical as that in the preceding Endeavors summer. But as the event proved, the republic was of the a far more effective government than the hberal tionaries monarchy. Revolutionary France now went gladly to war, singing the IVIarseillaise and displaying the banners of "Liberty, Equahty, and Fraternity." Bourgeois citizens, whose social and financial gains in the earlier stage of the Revolution would be threatened by the triumph of the foreign forces, now gave money and brains to the national defense. Artisans and peasants, who had won something and hoped to win more from the success of the Revolution, now laid down their lives for the cause. Heroism and devotion to a great ideal inspired the raw recruits that were rushed to the front.

But it was not enthusiasm alone that saved France. It was the splendid organization of that enthusiasm by an efficient central government at Paris. In Carnot (i 753-1823) the- National Convention possessed a mihtary and administrative genius of the first order. Of honorable and upright character, fearless, patriotic, and practical, Carnot plunged into the work of organizing the republican armies. His labors were incessant. He prepared the plans of campaign and the reports that were submitted to the Convention. He raised volunteers and drafted militia, drilled them, and hurried them to the frontiers. With the aid of Robert Lindet (1749- 1825), the able finance minister, he found means of feeding, clothing, and arming the host of soldiers. He personally visited the armies and by word and precept infused them with energy and determination. For the first time in modern history a nation was truly in arms.

The work of Carnot was supplemented by the labors of the "deputies on mission," radical members of the Convention who were detailed to watch the generalship and move- The New ments of the various French armies, endowed with Generals power to send any suspected or unsuccessful commander to

5o6 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

the guillotine and charged with keeping the central government constantly informed of military affairs. Gradually, a new , group of brilliant young republican generals appeared, among I whom the steadfast Moreau (i 763-1813), the stern Pichegru ^ (1761-1804), and the gallant Jourdan (1762-1833) stood pre- eminent.

In this way France met the monster coalition which would have staggered a Louis XIV. The country was cleared of French foreign enemies. The war was pressed in the Nether-

Successes lands, along the Rhine, in Savoy, and across the Pyrenees. So successful were the French that Carnot's popular title of "organizer of defense" was justly magnified to that of "organizer of victory." Of course it is impossible in our limited survey to do justice to these wonderful campaigns of 1794 and 1795. It will suffice to point out that when the National Con- vention finally adjourned in 1795, the First Coalition o/the "^ was in reality dissolved. The pitiful Charles IV of First Spain humbled himself to contract a close alHance

179s' ^°"' with the republic which had put his Bourbon cousin to death. By the separate treaty of Basel (1795), Prussia gave France a free hand on the left bank of the Rhine and turned her attention to securing compensation at the expense of Poland. William V, the Orange stadholder of Hol- land, was deposed and his country transformed into the Bata- vian Republic, allied with France. French troops were in full possession of the Austrian Netherlands and all other territories up to the Rhine. The life-long ambition of Louis XIV appeared to have been realized by the new France in two brief years. Only Great Britain, Austria, and Sardinia remained in arms against the republic.

The foreign successes of the republic seem all the more won- derful when it is remembered that at the same time serious revolts had to be suppressed within France. Opposi- sion^or' t^o^ ^o Carnot's drafting of soldiers was utilized by Domestic reactionary agitators to stir up an insurrection of the tion""^'^ peasants in La Vendee in order to restore the mon- archy and to reestablish the Roman Catholic Church. Provincial and bourgeois dislike of the radicalism of the Parisian proletariat caused riots and outbreaks in such important and

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 507

widely separated cities as Lyons, Marseilles, and Bordeaux. With the same devotion and thoroughness that had character- ized their foreign policy, but with greater sternness, the officials of the National Convention stamped out all these riots and insurrections. By 1795 all France, except only the emigres and secret conspirators, had more or less graciously accepted the republic.

The true explanation of these marvelous achievements, whether at home or abroad, lies in the strong central govern- ment which the National Convention estabhshed and in the policy of terrorism which that government pursued.

In the spring of 1793 the National Convention intrusted the supreme executive authority of France to a special committee, composed of nine (later twelve) of its members, who were styled the Committee of Pubhc Safety. This committee small body, which included such Jacobin leaders as cf^^^ Carnot, Robespierre, and St. Just, acting secretly, directed the ministers of state, appointed the local officials, and undertook the administration of the whole country. Mani- fold were the duties it was called upon to discharge. Among other problems, it must conduct the foreign relations, super- vise' the armies, and secure the active support of the French people. Diligently and effectively did it apply itself to its various activities.

Terrorism has been the word usually employed to describe the internal poHcy of the Committee of Pubhc Safety, and the "Reign of Terror," the period of the Committee's ^^^ chief work, from the summer of 1793 to that of 1794. "Terror" So sensational and so sanguinary was the period that l^^'^^'g^ many writers have been prone to make it the very center of the Revolution and to picture "Hberty, equality, and fraternity" as submerged in a veritable sea of blood. As a matter of fact, however, the Reign of Terror was but an in- cident, though obviously an inevitable incident, in a great Revolution. Nor may the French people be justly accused of a peculiarly bloodthirsty disposition. Given the same circum- stances, it is doubtful whether similar scenes would not have been enacted at Vienna, BerKn, Madrid, or even London. It must be remembered that great principles and far-reaching

5o8 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

reforms were endangered by a host of foreign and domestic enemies. It seemed to the republican leaders that the occasion demanded complete unanimity in France. A divided nation could not triumph over united Europe. The only way in which France could present a united front to the world was by striking terror into the hearts of the opponents of the new regime. And terror involved bloodshed.

The chief allies of the Committee of Public Safety in conduct- ing terrorism were the Committee of General Security and the Revolutionary Tribunal. The former was given police power in order to maintain order throughout the country. The latter was charged with trying and condemning any person suspected of disloyalty to the repubhc. Both were responsible to the Committee of Public Safety. A decree of the Convention, called the Law of Suspects, proclaimed as liable to arbitrary arrest every person who was of noble birth, or had held office before the Revolution, or had any relation with an emigre, or could not produce a signed certificate of citizenship.

With such instruments of despotism France became revolu- tionary by strokes of the guillotine.^ It is estimated that I about 2500 persons were executed at Paris during the Reign of ' Terror. Among others Marie Antoinette, Philippe Egalite, and Madame Roland suffered death.

The Terror spread to the provinces. Local tribunals were r everywhere established to search out and condemn suspected 1 persons. The city of Lyons, which ventured to resist the revolutionary government, was partially demoHshed and hun- dreds of its citizens were put to death. At Nantes, where echoes of the Vendee insurrection were long heard, the brutal ! Jacobin deputy Carrier loaded unhappy victims on old hulks ' which were towed out into the Loire and sunk. The total number of those who perished in the provinces is unknown, but it may have reached ten thousand.

When the total loss of life by means of revolutionary tribunals

' The guillotine, which is still used in France, consists of two upright posts between which a heavy knife rises and falls. The criminal is stretched upon a board and then pushed between the posts. The knife falls and instantly beheads him. The device was invented by a certain philanthropic Dr. Guillotine, who wished to substittite in capjital punishment an instrument sure to produce instant death in the place of the bungling process of beheading with an ax. (Mathews.)

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 509

is calculated, it will certainly be found to bear slight comparison with the enormous sacrifice of life which any one of the numerous great wars of the nineteenth century has entailed. The chief wonder about the Reign of Terror is that its champions and supporters, who had so much at stake, did not do worse things. A more calamitous phase of the Terror than the slaughter of royahsts and reactionaries was the wretched quarreling among / various factions of the radicals and the destruction ^ .

Factions of one for the benefit of another. Ihus. the efforts among the

of the Girondists to stay the execution of the king ^^voiu-

, , . . , . , tionanes

and to appeal to the provinces agamst the violence in Paris, coupled wdth the treason of Dumouriez, seemed to the Parisian proletariat to mark the alliance of the Girondists with the reactionaries. Accordingly, the workingmen of Paris, under the leadership of Marat, revolted on 31 May, 1793, and two days later obhged the Convention to expel twenty-nine Girondist members. Of these, the chief, including Brissot and Vergniaud, w^re brought to the guillotine in October, 1793. Next, the leaders of the commune of Paris, who had gone to such extreme lengths as to suppress the Christian churches in that city and to proclaim atheism, were dispatched in March, 1794, by a coalition of the followers of Danton and Robespierre. Then in April, when Danton at length wearied of the Terror I and counseled moderation, that redoubtable genius, together I with his friend, Camille Desmoulins, was guillotined. Finally, i Robespierre himself, after enjoying a brief dictatorship, during which time he vainly endeavored to put in practice the theories of Rousseau, w-as sent, in company with St. Just, to the guillotine by the more conservative members of the National Convention in July, 1794.

The death of Robespierre ended the Reign of Terror. The purpose of the Terror, however, was already achieved. The Revolution was preserved in France, and France was ^^^ ^f ^Yle preserved in Europe. The Thermidorian Reaction, Terror: as the end of the Terror is called, left the National dorian Convention free to resume its task of devising a Reaction, permanent republican constitution for the country. ^^^"^ A few subsequent attempts were made, now by reactionaries, now by extreme radicals, to interfere with the work, but they

5IO HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

were suppressed with comparative ease. The last uprising of the Parisian populace which threatened the Convention was 1 effectually quelled (October, 1795) by a "whiff of grape-shot" discharged at the command of a young and obscure captain of artillery, Napoleon Bonaparte by name.

In the midst of foreign war and internal dissension, even in the midst of the Terror, the National Convention found time to further the social reforms of the earlier stage of the oAhe"^ Revolution. Just as the bourgeois Constituent As- National sembly destroyed the inequalities arising from the i'792'-i705"' privileges of the "old regime," so the popular Con- vention sought to put an end to the inequahties aris- ing from wealth. Under its new leaders, the Revolution assumed j for a time a distinctly sociahstic character. The property of the emigres was confiscated for the benefit of the state. A maxi- mum price for grain was set by law. Large estates were broken up and offered for sale to poorer citizens in lots of two or three acres, to be paid for in small annual installments. All ground rents were abohshed without compensation to the owners. "The rich," said Marat, "have so long sucked out the marrow of the people that they are now visited with a crushing retribution." Some of the reforms of the Convention went to absurd I lengths. In the popular passion for equality, every one was \ to be called "Citizen" rather than "Monsieur." The oflicial record of the expense of Marie Antoinette's funeral was the ' simple entry, "Five francs for a coffin for the widow of Citizen ' Capet." Ornate clothing disappeared with titles of nobility, and the silk stockings and knee breeches (culottes), which had distinguished the privileged classes and the gentlemen, were universally supplanted by the long trousers which had hitherto been worn only by the lowest class of workingmen (sans-culottes) . 1 To do away with the remembrance of historic Christianity, the \ year was divided anew into twelve months, each containing three weeks of ten days (decades), every tenth day (decadi) being for rest, and the five or six days left over at the end of the year, called sans-culottides , were national holidays ; the names of the months were changed, and the revolutionary calendar made to date from the establishment of the repubhc, 22 September, 1792. Many of the reforms had long been urgently needed and

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 511

proved to be of permanent value. Such was the establishment of a convenient and uniform system of weights and measures, based on decimal, reckoning, the so-called metric system, which has come to be accepted by almost all civilized nations save the Enghsh-speaking peoples. Such, too, was the elaborate system of state education which the philosopher Condorcet ^ prepared and which, though more pressing questions compelled its post- ponement, became the basis on which the modern scheme of free public instruction has been built up in France. Such, moreover, was the separation of Church and state, effected in September, 1794, the estabhshment in the following year of liberty of worship, and the restoration of the churches to Chris- tian worship on condition that the clergymen submitted to the laws of the state. Such, finally, was the project of preparing a single comprehensive code of law for the whole country. Al- though the legal code was not completed until the dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte, nevertheless the Convention made a beginning and incorporated in it a fundamental principle of inheritance that has marked modern France — the principle that no person may will his property to one direct heir to the exclusion of others but that all children must inherit almost equally. Moreover, the practice of imprisoning men for debt was abolished, negro slavery was ended, and woman's claim on property was protected in common with man's. Finally the new republican constitution was permeated with ideas of political democracy.

After the downfall of Robespierre (Thermidorian Reaction), the National Convention ceased to press reforms in behalf of the proletariat and came more and more under the Eventual influence of the moderate well-to-do bourgeoisie. Bourgeois The law against suspects was repealed and the grain ^f^^^^ laws were amended. The Revolutionary Tribunal National was suppressed and the name of the Place de la Revolu- tion was changed to the Place de la Concorde. The death in prison of the young and only son of Louis XVI in 1795 was a severe blow to the hopes of the royalists. By 1795 France seemed definitively committed to a repubhcan form of govern- ment, which, however, would not be extremely radical but

^ Marquis de Condorcet (i 743-1 794).

512 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

only moderate, being now founded on the bourgeoisie rather than on the proletariat.

THE DIRECTORY (1795-1799) AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE REPUBLIC INTO A MILITARY DICTATORSHIP

The constitution of the first French Republic was drawn

up by the National Convention during the last year of its session

and after it had passed under bourgeois influence.

tion of I This constitution which went into effect in 1795 and

the Year | is known, therefore, as the Constitution of the Year

Constitution HI (^f the Republic), intrusted the legislative power

of the First to two chambers, chosen by indirect election, —

Republic 3, lower house of five hundred members, to propose

laws, and a Council of Ancients, of two hundred

and fifty members, to examine and enact the laws. The

I bourgeois distrust of the lower classes showed itself again

I in restricting the electorate to taxpayers who had lived at

I The least a year in one place. The executive authority

' Directory Qf ^]^q republic was vested in a board of live members,

styled Directors, and elected by t^he legislature, one retiring

every year. The Board of Directors, or "Directory," was to

supervise the enforcement of laws and to appoint the ministers

of state, or cabinet, who should be responsible to it.

Thus, as the National Constituent Assembly had framed the constitution for the liberal monarchy, so the National Con- vention drafted that for the repubhc. But in strength Duration ^^^^ durability the republic was hardly more fortunate of the than the limited monarchy. Louis XVI reigned as con-

1705-^1790 stitutional king under the document of 179 1 less than a year. The Directory governed in accordance with the constitution of the Year III less than four years (i 795-1 799). The failure of the Directory was due to two chief causes : / first, the prevalence of domestic difficulties ; and second, the '• Weaknesses ^^^^ ^^ military power and the appearance of a vie- in the torious, ambitious general. To both of these causes irec ory reference must be made. The former proved that another kind of government was needed to cope with the situa- tion ; the latter suggested what the nature of the new govern- ment would be.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 513

To consolidate the French people after six years of radical revolutionary upheavals required hard and honest labor on the part of men of distinct genius. Yet the Directors were, almost without exception, men of mediocre talents,^ who prac- ticed bribery and corruption with unblushing effrontery. They preferred their personal gain to the welfare of the state.

The period of the Directory was a time of plots and intrigues. The royalists who were elected in large numbers to the As- semblies were restrained from subverting the con- pontjcai stitution only by illegal force and violence on the part and Social of the Directors. On the other hand, the extremists 'ssensions in Paris found a warm-hearted leader in a certain Babeuf (1760- 1797), who declared that the Revolution had been directed prima- rily to the advantage of the bourgeoisie, that the proletarians, despite their toil and suft'ering and bloodshed, were still just as poorly oft" as ever, and that their only salvation lay in a com- pulsory equalization of wealth and the abolition of poverty. An insurrection of these radicals — the forerunners of modern Socialism — was suppressed and Babeuf was put to death in

1797- _

While sincere radicals and convinced reactionaries were unit- ing in common opposition to the unhappy Directory, the finances of the state were again becoming hopelessly involved. Financial "Graft" flourished unbridled in the le\'ying and col- Difficulties lecting of the taxes and in all public expenditures. To the ex- travagance of the Directors in internal administration were added the financial necessities of armies aggregating a million men. Paris, still in poverty and want, had to be fed at the expense of the nation. And the issue of as signals by the National Constituent Assembly, intended at first only as a temporary expedient, had been continued until by the year 1797 the total face value of the assignats amounted to about forty-five billion livres. So far had the value of paper money depreciated, however, that in March, 1796, three hundred livres in assignats were required to secure one livre in cash. In 1797 a partial bankruptcy was declared, interest payments being sus- pended on tw^o-thirds of the public debt, and the assignats were

^ Carnot, upright and sincere, and the only member of first-rate ability, was forced out of the Directory in 1797. 2L

514 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

demonetized. The republic faced much the same financial crisis

as had confronted the absolute monarchy in 1789.

r From but one direction did Ught stream in upon the Directory

' — and that was the foreign war. When the Directory assumed

office, France was still at war with Austria, Sardinia,

Success in and Great Britain. The general plan of campaign was

Foreign ^q advance one French army across the Rhine, through

southern Germany, and thence into the Austrian

dominions, and to dispatch another army across the Alps,

through northern Italy, and thence on to Vienna. Of the army

of the Rhine such veteran generals as Pichegru, Jourdan, and

Moreau were put in charge. To the command of the army

! operating in Italy, the young and inexperienced Bonaparte was

appointed.

Napoleon Bonaparte hitherto had not been particularly con- spicuous in poHtics or in war. He was beheved to be in full Appearance Sympathy with the Revolution, although he had taken of Napoleon pains after the downfall of Robespierre to disavow onapar e ^^^ attachment to the extreme radicals. He had ac- quired some popularity by liis skillful expulsion of the British from Toulon in 1793, and his protection of the National Con-' vention against the uprising of the Parisian populace in 1795 gave him credit as a friend of law and order. Finally, his marriage in 1796 with Josephine Beauharnais, the widow of a revolutionary general and an intimate friend of one of the Directors, bettered his chances of indulging his fondness for politics and his genius in war.

That very year (1796), while the older and more experienced French generals were repeatedly bafiled in their efforts to carry the war into the Germanics, the young commander — ■pi^i^^^ ® ^ but twenty-seven years of age — swept the Austrians itaUan from Italy. With Hghtning rapidity, with infectious

1796^1797 enthusiasm, with brilliant tactics, with great personal bravery, he crossed the Alps, humbled the Sardinians, and within a year had disposed of five Austrian armies and had ^ occupied every fort in northern Italy. Sardinia was com- ; pelled to cede Savoy and Nice to the French Republic, and, ' when Bonaparte's army approached Vienna, Austria stooped to make terms with this amazing republican general. By the

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 515

treaty of Campo Formio (1797), France secured the Austrian Netherlands and the Ionian Islands ; Austria obtained, as par- tial compensation for her sacrifices, the ancient Vene- ^^ ^ tian Republic, but agreed not to interfere in other campo parts of Italy; and a congress was to assemble at formio, Rastatt to rearrange the map of the Holy Roman Empire with a xdew to compensating those German princes whose lands on the left bank of the Rhine had been appropriated by France.

The campaign of 1 796-1 797, known in history as the First ItaHan campaign, was the beginning of a long series of sensa- tional mihtary exploits which were to rank Napoleon Bonaparte as the foremost soldier of modern times. Britain Its immediate effect was to complete the dissolution fe^t Alone

. ... in Arms

of the First CoaHtion by forcmg Austria and bardmia against the to follow the example of Spain, Prussia, and Holland j^^® ^^J^jj^ and to make a peace highly favorable to the French Repubhc. Great Britain alone continued the struggle against the Directory.

Another effect of the first Italian campaign, almost as im- mediate and certainly more portentous, was the sudden personal fame of Napoleon Bonaparte. He was the most Bonaparte's talked-of man in France. The people applauded Rising him. The government feared but flattered him. ^™® Schemers and plotters of every poHtical faith sought his support. Alongside of decreasing respect for the existing government was increasing trust in Bonaparte's strength and ability.

It was undoubtedly with a sense of relief that the despised Directors in 1798 assented to a project proposed by the popular hero to transport to Egypt a French expedition with ^^^^ ^^^^,^ the object of interrupting communications between Egyptian Great Britain and India. The ensuing Egyptian J^^Jgi^"^ campaign of 1798 was spectacular rather than decisive. Great Bonaparte made stirring speeches to his soldiers. He ^ntam, called the Pyramids to witness the valor of the French. He harangued the Mohammedans upon the beautiful and truth- ful character of their religion and upon the advantages which they would derive from free trade with France. He encouraged

5i6 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

the close study of Egyptian antiquities.^ But his actual victories did not measure up to the excessively colored reports that he sent home. He was checked in Syria, and a great naval victory won by the celebrated English admiral, Lord Nelson, near the mouth of the Nile, effectually prevented the arrival of reenforcements. Thereupon, General Bonaparte, luckily eluding the British warships, returned to France. It was believed by ments of Frenchmen that his last expedition had been emi- the Direc- ncntly succcssful ; but that in the meantime the work

tory during ,

Bonaparte's of the Directory had been disastrous, no one doubted. Absence While Bonaparte was away, affairs in France had gone

from France ^ i i rr^^ i • i

from bad to worse. There were new plots, mcreased financial and social disorders, and finally the renewal on a large scale of foreign war.

After the treaty of Campo Formio, the Directors had prose- cuted zealously the poHcy of surrounding France with a circle of

dependent republics. Even before that peace, Hol- Second land had been transformed into the Batavian Republic,

Coalition ^^^ j^Q^ pretexts of various sorts were utilized to

and the r nr-^ t i-

Renewal Convert the duchy of Milan, or Lombardy, into the of War in Cisalpine Republic ; the oligarchy of Genoa into the Ligurian Republic ; the Papal States into the Roman Republic ; the kingdom of the Two Sicihes into the Parthenopaean Republic ; the Swiss Confederation into the Helvetic Republic.

In view of the fact that the governments of all these republics were modeled after that of France and were allied with France, the monarchs of Europe bestirred themselves once more to get rid of the danger that threatened them. A Second Coalition was formed by Great Britain, Austria, and Russia, and, thanks to liberal sums of money supplied by William Pitt, the British minister, they were able to put large armies in the field.

During 1799 the Second Coahtion won repeated victories; the French were driven from Italy ; and most of the dependent French republics collapscd. It seemed as though Bonaparte's

Reverses ^j-g^^ Italian Campaign had been for naught. Possibly the military hero of France had himself foreseen this very situa- tion and had intended to exploit it to his own advantage.

^ It was an army officer on this Egyptian expedition who discovered the famous Rosetta Stone, by the aid of which hieroglyphics could be deciphered.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 517

At any rate, when Bonaparte had sailed for Egypt, he had left his country apparently prosperous, victorious, and honored. Now, when he landed at Frejus on 9 Bonaparte I October, 1799, he found Trance bankrupt, defeated, from Egypt: and disgraced. It is small wonder that his journey o^theHour" from Frejus to Paris was a triumphal ]:)rocession. The majority of Frenchmen were convinced that he was the man of the hour.

Within a month of his return from Egypt, public opinion enabled the young concjueror to o\Trthrow the government of the Directory. Skillfully intriguing with the Abbe Sieyes, who was now one of the Directors, he sur- "^Jif ^°"P rounded the Assemblies with a cordon of troops loyal the Eight- to himself and on 18 19 Brumaire (9-10 November, ^^'^^^ . 1799) secured by show of force the downfall of the overthrow government and the appointment of himself to °^.^^® supreme military command. This blow at the state 1799 {coup d'etat) was soon followed by the promulgation of a new constitution, by which General Bonaparte became First Consul of the French Republic.

The coup d'etat of 18 Brumaire virtually ended the Revolu- tion in France. Within the space of ten and a half Militarism

years from the assembling of the Estates-General at ^"^ *® T7 Ml 1- 11 Close of

Versailles, parliamentary and popular government the Revo- fell beneath the sword. The predictions of Marat i"tion and Robespierre were realized : militarism had supplanted democracy.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION (1789-1799)

It may now be possible for us to have some idea as to the real meaning of these ten years of Assembhes, constitutions, insurrections, and wars, which have marked the period of the French Revolution. A present-day visitor in Paris will be struck by the bold letters which stand out on the pubUc buildings and churches : Liberie, Egalite, Fraternite — Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. These were the words which the revolu- tionaries spelled out on their homes, which they thought em- bodied the true meaning of the Revolution.

5i8 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

As to the meaning of these words, there were certainly quite contradictory views. To the royahsts and rigid CathoHcs — to the privileged nobility and clergy — to many a surprised peasant

— to all the reactionaries, they meant everything that was hateful, blasphemous, sordid, inhuman, and unpatriotic. To the enlightened altruistic bourgeois — to the poverty-stricken workingman of the city — to many a dreamer and philanthropist

— to all the extreme radicals, they were but a shadowy will- of-the-wisp that glimmered briefly and perhaps indicated faintly the gorgeousness of the great day that much later might break upon them. Between these extremes of reaction and radicalism fell the bulk of the bourgeoisie and of the peasantry — the bulk of the nation — and it is in their sense that we shall try to make clear the meaning of the three symbolical words.

"Liberty" implied certain political ideals. Government was henceforth to be exercised not autocratically by divine right, , " ^^^ constitutionally by the sovereign will of the

governed. The individual citizen was no longer to be subject in all things to a king, but was to be guaranteed in possession of personal liberties which no state or society might abridge. Such were liberty of conscience, liberty of worship, liberty of speech, liberty of publication. The liberty of owning private property was proclaimed by the French Revolution as an inherent right of man.

"Equahty" embraced the social activities of the Revolution.

It meant the abolition of privilege, the end of serfdom, the

„ destruction of the feudal system. It pronounced all

men equal before the law. It aspired, though with

little success, to afford every man an equal chance with every

other man in the pursuit of life and happiness.

"Fraternity" was the symbol of the brotherhood of those who sought to make the world better and happier and more " Frater- just. In France it found expression in an outburst of '"^y " patriotism and national sentiment. No longer did

mercenaries fight at the behest of despots for dynastic ag- grandizement; henceforth a nation in arms was prepared to do battle under the glorious banner of "fraternity" in defense of whatever it believed to be for the nation's interests.

Pohtical liberty, social equahty, patriotism in the nation, —

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 519

these three ha\-e been the enduring watchwords of all those who down to our own day have looked for inspiration to the French Revolution.

ADDITION.\L READING

General. Textbook narratives: J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard, The Development of Modern Europe, Vol. I (1907), ch. xii, xiii ; J. A. R. Marriott, The Remaking of Modern Europe, ijSg-iSyS (1910), ch. i-vi; H. E. Bourne, The Revolutionary Period in Europe, 1763-1815 (1914), ch. vi- xvi ; H. j\I. Stephens, Revolutionary Europe, lySg-iSis (1893), ch. ii-vi ; J. H. Rose, Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era, ijSg-iSis (1895), ch- ii~ vi; C. A. Fyffe, A History of Modern Europe, I7Q2~iS/8 (1896), ch. i-iv; H. T. Dyer, A History of Modern Europe from the Fall of Constantinople, 3ded. rev. by Arthur Hassall (1901), ch. lii-ki; Charles Scignobos, History of Contemporary Civilization, Eng. trans, by J. A. James (1909), pp. 92-149. See also H. A. L. Fisher, The Republican Tradition in Europe (191 1), ch. i-vii ; and Emile Bourgeois, Manuel historique dc politique etrangcre, 4th ed., Vol. II (1906), ch. i-v, vii.

One-volume surveys : Shailer jVIathews, The French Revolution (reprint 1912), a clear, well-balanced introduction, ending with the year 1795; Hilaire BeUoc, The French Revolution (191 1), in the "Home University Library," interestingly written and inclined to be philosophical; R. M. Johnston, The French Revolution (1909), emphasizes the spectacular and military rather than the social and economic ; Louis Madehn, La Revolu- tion (191 1), written for the general French reader and probably the very best of its kind, now in process of translation into English.

Standard histories of the Revolution : Alphonse Aulard, Histoire politique de la revolution franqaise, 1780-1804, 3d ed. (1905), Eng. trans, by Bernard MiaU, 4 vols. (1910), a painstaking study of the growth of the spirit of democracy and of the rise of the republican movement, by an eminent authority who has devoted many years to a sympathetic study of the Revolution ; H. M. Stephens, A History of the French Revolution, 2 vols. (1886-1891), mainly political, generally reliable, but stops short with the Reign of Terror; H. A. Taine, The French Revolution, Eng. trans, by John Durand, 3 vols. (1878-1S85), brilliantly written and bitterly hostile to many of the leaders of the Revolution, a work still famous though many of its findings have been vehemently assailed by Aulard, the apologist of the Revolution; Jean Jaures (editor), Histoire socialiste, ij8g-igoo, 12 vols, (i 901-1909), a well-known and highly useful history of France by a group of prominent French Sociahsts with a penchant for stressing economic matters — Vols. I-IV, by Jaures himself, treat of the years 1789-1794, and Vol. V, by Gabrielle Deville, of 1 794-1 799; P. A. (Prince) Kropotkin, The Great French Revolution, I78g~i7g3, Eng. trans, by N. F. Dryhurst (1909), emphasizes the role played by the uneducated classes, eulogizes

520 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Marat, and suggests the conflict of interests between the bourgeoisie and the lower classes; Thomas Carlyle, The French Revolution, originally pub- lished in 1837, lively literary gossip and commentary rather than narrative history, amusing though often fuliginous, should be read only by those already familiar with the actual events of the Revolution ; Albert Sorel, U Europe et la revolution franQaise, 8 vols. (1885-1904), of which Vols. I- V deal with the years 1789-1799 and mainly with the effects of the Revolu- tion throughout Europe, a monumental work of the highest merit ; Gustave Le Bon, La revolution franqaise et la psychologie des revolutions (191 2), trans, by Bernard Miall under the title of Tlie Psychology of Revolution (1913), a noteworthy contribution to the study of " mob psychology " as exemplified by the French Revolution; Ernest Lavisse and Alfred Rambaud (editors), Histoire generale, Vol. VIII, a collection of scholarly monographs on various phases of the Revolution ; Cambridge Modern History, Vol. VIII (1904), a similar work in English; Heinrich von Sybel, Geschichte der Revolutionzeit von lySg, 3d ed., 5 vols. (1865-1879), the best and most famous German work on the subject ; Wilhelm Oncken, Das Zeit alter der Revolution, 2 vols. (1884-1886) ; Adalbert Wahl, Geschichte des enropdischen Staatensystems im Zeitalter der franzosischen Revolution und der Freiheits- Kriege, 1789-1815 (1912), useful epitome of foreign relations; Emile Levasseur, Histoire des classes ouvrieres et de Vindustrie en France de 1789 a 1870, Vol. I (1903), Livre I, La Revolution, valuable for the history of the working classes; Philippe Sagnac, La legislation civile de la revolution franqaise, 1789-1804 (1898), very important survey of permanent social and civil gains; E. F. Henderson, Symbol and Satire in the French Revolu- tion (1912), interesting side-lights.

Source Materials. Of the vast masses of source material available for special study of the French Revolution, the following selections may be found useful and suggestive : F. M. Anderson, Constitutions and Other Select Documents Illustrative of the History of France, 1789-1901, 2d rev. ed. (1909) ; L. G. Wickham Legg, Select Documents Illustrative of the French Revolution, the Constituent Assembly, 2 vols. (1905) ; Leon Duguit and Henry Monnier, Les constitutions et les principales lois politiques de la France depuis 1789 (1898) ; H. M. Stephens, The Principal Speeches of the States- men and Orators of the French Revolution, 1789-1795, 2 vols. (1892) ; Leon Cahen and Raymond Guyot, L'cBuvre legislative de la revolution (1913) ; Alphonse Aulard, Les graruis orateurs de la revolution — Vergniaud, Danton, Robespierre (1914) ; Merrick Whitcomb, Typical Cahiers of 1789, in " Trans- lations and Reprints " of the University of Pennsylvania (1898). In the Collection de documents inedits sur Vhisloire economique de la revolution franqaise, now in course of publication under the auspices of the French Ministry of Public Instruction, have appeared (1906-19 15) several volumes of the local cahiers of 1 788-1 789. See also Armand Brette, Recueil des documents rclatifs a la convocation des etats generaux de 1789, 3 vols. (1894- 1904) ; P. J. B. Buchez and P. C. Roux-Lavcrgnc, Histoire parlcmcntairc de la revolution franqaise, 1789-1815, 40 vols, (i 834-1 838), embracing

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 521

extracts from the debates, quotations from contemporary newspapers and pamphlets, and the text of some of the most important statutes and decrees; Archives parlcmcntaircs dc ijSj a i860, ist series lySj-iygg, 82 vols., the official, but not always trustworthy, reports of the debates in the successive French legislative bodies; Reimpression dc I'ancicn Monitcur, 32 vols., a reprint, in several different editions, of one of the most famous Parisian newspapers of the revolutionary period ; Alphonse Aulard, La sociele dcs jacobins, 6 vols. (iSSg-iSgj), a collection of documents concerning the most influential political club of revolutionary P'rance. Of the numerous memoirs of the time, perhaps the most valuable are those of Mallet du Pan, Comte de Fersen, Bailly, Fcrriercs, and IMalouet ; see also the History of My Time by the Due d'Audiffret-Pasquier (1767-1862), Eng. trans, by C. E. Roche, 3 vols. (1893-1894), especially Part I; and for additional memoirs and other source-material consult the bibliographies in the Cam- bridge Modern History or in the Histoire generale. There are several de- tailed bibliographies on the French Revolution ; and since 1881 the veteran scholar Aulard has edited La revolution franc^aise, devoted exclusively to the subject. For interesting personal impressions of the Revolution by an American eye-witness, see Gouverneur Morris, Diary and Letters, 2 vols. (1888). F. M. and H. D. Fling, Source Problems on the French Revolution (1913), is a useful compilation for intensive critical study of various phases of the Revolution.

Special Works on the Catholic Church in the French Revolution. W. M. Sloane, The French Revolution and Religious Reform (igoi), a resume of legislation affecting the Church, 1789-1804; Antonin Debidour, Histoire des rapports de Veglise et de Tctat en France de 17 8g a i8~o (1898) ; Pierre de La Gorce, Histoire religieuse de la revolution franqaise, Vol. I, ij8g-ijgi (1909), Vol. II, lygi-iyg^ (1912), comprehensive and exhaustive, sympa- thetic with the Church but scrupulously fair ; Paul Pisani, L'eglise de Paris et la revolution, 4 vols. (1908-1911), covering the years 1789-1802, a work of high rank by a canon of Notre Dame; J. F. E. Robinet, Le mouvement religieux a Paris pendant la revolution, ij8g-i8oi, 2 vols. (1896-1898), primarily a collection of documents; The Abbe Bridier (editor), A Papal Envoy during the Reign of Terror, being the Memoirs of Mgr. de Salamon the Internuncio at Paris during the Revolution, ijgo-iSoi, Eng. trans, by Frances Jackson (191 1); Ludovic Sciout, Histoire de la constitution civile du clerge, iygo-1801, 4 vols. (187 2-188 1) ; Alphonse Aulard, La revolution et les congregations : expose historique et documents (1903) ; Edme Champion, La separation de Veglise et de Vetat en i'jg4 (1903).

Special Works on Contemporary English Opinion of the French Revolu- tion. Edward Dowden, The French Revolution and English Literature (1897) ; H. N. Brailsford, Shelley, Godwin, and their Circle (1913) ; W. P. Hall, British Radicalism, lygi-iygy (191 2) ; Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, in many editions, a furious and prejudiced arraignment of the whole movement ; John (Viscount) Morley, Edmund Burke (1879), an apology for Burke; John MacCunn, The Political

522 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Philosophy of Burke (1913), clear and concise though somewhat less laudatory of Burke; The Life and Writings of Thomas Paine, edited by D. E. Wheeler, 10 vols. (1909), the most elaborate edition of the writings of the chief English friend of the Revolution; Paine's The Rights of Man has appeared in many other editions.

Secondary Works on Other Special Topics. On the wars 1 792-1795: Arthur Chuquet, Lcs gucrrcs dc la revolution, 11 vols, (i 886-1 896), very detailed, coming down only to September, 1793; A. T. Mahan, The In- fluence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution and Empire, i'/gj-'i8i2. Vol. I, loth ed. (1898) ; Mrs. Maxwell-Scott, Life of the Marquise de la Roche jaquclein (19 12), and Ida A. Taylor, The Tragedy of an Army: La Vendee in 17Q3 (1913), two sympathetic and popular accounts of the Ven- dean Revolt. On the Terror: H. A. Wallon, La Terreur, 2 vols. (1881), and, by the same author, Lcs representants du peuple en mission, 5 vols. (1889-1890), and Le tribunal revolutionnaire, 2 vols. (1900) ; Louis Mortimer- Ternaux, Histoire de la Terreur, lygz-iyg^, 8 vols. (1862) ; Edmond Eire, La legendc des girondins (1881) ; Charles de Ricault Hericault, La revolu- tion dc thcrmidor, 2d ed. (1878). On the Directory, 1795-1799: Ludovic Sciout, Le Directoire, 2 vols. (1895-1896).

Biographies. Of Mirabeau, the best biography in English undoubtedly will be that of F. M. Fluag, projected in three volumes, of which Vol. I, The Youth of Mirabeau, was published in 1908 ; the most recent and con- venient French treatment is by Louis Barthou (1913) ; a standard German work is Alfred Stern, Das Lcbcii Mirabeaus, 2 vols. (1889) ; and for a real insight into Mirabeau 's character and policies, reference should be made to his Correspondance avec le comte de la March, 3 vols. (1851). Hilaire Belloc has written very readable and suggestive English biographies of Danton (1899), Robespierre (1901), and Marie Antoinette (1909). Perhaps the best brief appreciation of Danton is that by Louis Madelin (1914) ; J. F. E. Robinet has written a valuable Danton (1889), and likewise a Condorcet (1893). The elaborate Histoire de Robespierre et du coup d'etat du g thermidor by Ernest Hamel, 3 vols. (1865-1867), is marred by excessive hero-worship. Jules Claretie, Camille Desmoulins, Lucille Desmoulins : etude sur les dantonistcs (1875), a charming biography, has been translated into English. Among other useful biographies of persons prominent during the Revolution, the following might be consulted with profit : J. H. Clap- ham, The Abbe Sieyes: an Essay in the Politics of the French Revolution (1912) ; E. D. Bradby, The Life of Bar nave, 2 vols. (1915), containing vivid descriptions of the National Constituent Assembly; Frangois Chevre- mont, Jean-Paul Marat, 2 vols. (1880) ; Charles Vatel, Vergniaud, 2 vols. (1873), and, by the same author, Charlotte de Corday et les girondins: pieces classees et annotees, 3 vols. (1864-1872) ; Arthur Chuquet, Dumouriez (1914) ; Pouget de Saint-Andre, Le general Dumouriez, i/'jg~i82j (1914) ; C. A. Dauban, Etude sur Madame Roland et son temps (1864) ; Bernard Mallet, Mallet du Pan and the French Revolution (1902) ; E. B. Bax, Babeuf: the Last Episode of the French Revolution (1911).

CHAPTER XVI

THE ERA OF NAPOLEON

I From 1799 to 1814 the history of Europe was the history of ' France, and the history of France was the biography of Napoleon Bonaparte. So completely did this masterful per- introduc- sonality dominate the course of events that his name ^°^y has justly been used to characterize this era. The Era of Na- poleon stands out as one of the most significant periods in mod- ern times. Apart from its importance as marking a revolution in the art of war, it bore memorable results in two directions : (i) the adaptation of revolutionary theories to French practical political necessities, and the establishment of many of the per- manent institutions of present-day France; and (2) the com- munication of the revolutionary doctrines of the French Revolu- tion far and wide throughout Europe, so that henceforth the movement was general rather than local.

During the first five years of the era (i 799-1804) France remained formally a republic. It was in these years that Gen- eral Bonaparte, as First Consul, consohdated his country and fashioned the nature ©f the lasting gains of the Revolution. I Thenceforth, from 1804 to 1814, France was an empire, estab- 1 Ushed and maintained by military force. Then it was that the national hero — self -crowned Napoleon I, emperor of the French, — by means of war, conquest, annexation, or alliance, spread the ideas of his country far and wide throughout Europe. Before we review the main activities of the constructive consulate or of the proselyting empire, we should have some notion of the character of the leading actor.

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC UNDER THE CONSULATE,

1799-1S04

When General Bonaparte executed the coup d'etat of 1799 and seized personal power in France, he was thirty years of age,

523

524 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

short, of medium build, quiet and determined, with cold gray eyes and rather awkward manners. His early life had been Napoleon peculiarly interesting. He was born at Ajaccio in Bonaparte Corsica on 15 August, 1 769. just after the island had been purchased by France from Genoa but before the French had fully succeeded in quelling a stubborn insurrection of the Corsicans. Belonging to a prominent and numerous ItaHan family, — at the outset his name was written Napoleone di Buonaparte, — he was selected along with sons of other conspicu- ous Corsican families to be educated at public expense in France. In this way he received a good iniUtary education at Brienne and at Paris. He early displayed a marked fondness for the study of mathematics and history as well as for the science of war ; and, though reserved and taciturn, he was noticeably ambitious and a keen judge of men.

During his youth Buonaparte dreamed of becoming the leader in establishing the independence of Corsica, but the out- break of the French Revolution afforded him a wider field for his enthusiasm and ambition. Already an engineer and artillery- man, he threw in his lot with the Jacobins, sympathized at least outwardly with the course of the Revolution, and was rewarded, as we have seen, with an important place in the recap- ture of Toulon (1793) and in the defense of the Convention (1795). It was not, however, until his first Itahan campaign, — when incidentally he altered his name to the French form, Bonaparte, — that he acquired a commanding reputation as the foremost general of the French RepubKc.

How Bonaparte utilized his reputation in order to make himself master of his adopted country has already been related. Character ^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^ large part to an extraordinary opportu- of Bona- nity which French politics at that time offered. But ^^^ ^ it was due, Ukewise, to certain characteristic quahties

of the young general. In the first place, he was thoroughly convinced of his own abihties. Ambitious, selfish, and egotis- tical, he was always thinking and planning how he might become world-famous. FataHstic and even superstitious, he beUeved that an unseen power was leading him on to higher and grander honors. He convinced his associates that he was "a. man of destiny." Then, in the second place, Bonaparte possessed an

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 525

effective means of satisfyin<j; his ambition, for he made himself the idol of his soldiers. "He would go to sleep repeating the names of the corps, and even those of some of the individuals who composed them ; he kept these names in a corner of his memory, and this habit came to his aid when he wanted to recognize a soldier and to give him a cheering word from his general. He spoke to the subalterns in a tone of good fellow- ship, which delighted them all, as he reminded them of their 1 common feats of arms." Then, in the third place, Bonaparte ^ was a keen observer and a clever critic. Being sagacious, he knew that by 1799 France at large was weary of weak govern- ment and perpetual political strife and that she longed to have her scars healed by a practical man. Such a man he instinc- t tively felt himself to be. In the fourth place, Bonaparte was ' a politician to the extreme of being unscrupulous. Knowing I what he desired, he was ready and willing to employ any means I to attain his ends. No love for theories or principles, no fear ^ of God or man, no sentimental aversion from bloodshed, nothing could deter him from striving to realize his vaulting but self- I centered ambition. Finally, there was in his nature an almost paradoxical vein of poetry and art which made him human and ' often served him well. He dreamed of empires and triumphs. He reveled in the thought of courts and polished society. He entertained a sincere admiration for learning. His highly colored speeches to his soldiers were at once brilliant and inspiriting. His fine instinct of the dramatic gave the right setting to all ( his public acts. And in the difficult arts of lying and deception, ! Bonaparte has never been surpassed.

Such was the man who effected the coup cfetat of 18 Bru- maire (November, 1799). His first work in his new role was to publish a constitution, which he prepared in con- junction with the Abbe Sieyes and which was to super- Government sede the Constitution of the Year III. It concealed °}^^^,

1 •!• • .1 ,• 1 r Consulate:

the mnitary despotism under a veil of popular forms. Constitu- , The document named three "consuls," the first of !!°" °L^]l®

whom was Bonaparte himself, who were to appoint ^a Senate. From lists selected by general election, the Senate

was to designate a Tribunate and a Legislative Body. The

First Consul, in addition to conducting the administration and

526 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

foreign policies and having charge of the army, was to propose, through a Council of State, all the laws. The Tribunate was to discuss the laws without voting on them. The Legislative Body was then to vote on the laws without discussing them. And the Senate, acting as a kind of supreme court, was to decide all constitutional questions. Thus a written constitution was provided, and the principle of popular election was recognized, but in last analysis all the power of the state was centered in the First Consul, who was Napoleon Bonaparte.

The document was forthwith submitted for ratification to a popular vote, called a plebiscite. So great was the disgust ' with the Directory and so unbounded was the faith of all classes in the military hero who offered it, that it was accepted by an overwhelming majority and was henceforth known in French history as the Constitution of the Year VIII.

One reason why the French nation so readily acquiesced in an obvious act of usurpation was the grave foreign danger that threatened the country. As we have noted in another \ Danger connection, the armies of the Second Coalition in the

Confronting course of 1 799 had rapidly undone the settlement of the treaty of Campo Formio, and, possessing them- selves of Italy and the Rhine valley, were now on the point of carrying the war into France. The First Consul perceived at a glance that he must face essentially the same situation as that which confronted France in 1796.

The Second Coalition embraced Great Britain, Austria, and Russia. Bonaparte soon succeeded by flattery and diplomacy _. . . not only in securing the withdrawal of Russia but

Dissolution , -'. iiir. rr^ T^l

of the m actuatmg the halt-msane i sar raul to revive

Second against Great Britain an Armed Neutrahty of the

North, which included Russia, Prussia, Sweden, and Denmark. Meanwhile the First Consul prepared a second Ital- ian campaign against Austria. Suddenly leading a French army through the rough and icy passes of the Alps, he descended into the fertile valley of the Po and at Marengo in June, 1800, in- flicted an overwhelming defeat upon the enemy. French suc- cess in Italy was supplemented a few months later by a brilliant ' victory of the army under Moreau at Hohenlinden in southern \ Germany. Whereupon Austria again sued for peace, and the

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 527

^ resulting treaty of Luneville (1801) reaffirmed and strengthened the provisions of the peace of Campo Formio.

Meanwhile, steps were being taken to terminate the state of war which had been existing between France and Great Britain since 1793. Although French arms were victorious { in Europe, the British squadron of Lord Nelson (1758- b^^een \ 1805) had managed to win and retain the supremacy France of the sea. By gaining the battle of the Nile (i Britain^^ August, 1798) Nelson had cut off the supplies of the Treaty of French expedition in Egj-pt and eventually (1801) ^^2^^' obliged it to surrender. Now, by a furious bombard- j ment of Copenhagen (2 April, 1801), Nelson broke up the Armed I Neutrality of the North. But despite the naval feats of the British, republican France seemed to be unconquerable on the Continent. Under these circumstances a treaty was signed I at Amiens in March, 1802, whereby Great Britain promised to restore all the colonial conquests made during the war, except Ceylon and Trinidad, and tacitly accepted the Continental settlement as defined at Luneville. The treaty of Amiens proved to be but a temporary truce in the long struggle between France and Great Britain.

So' far, the Consulate had meant the establishment of an advantageous peace for France. With all foreign foes subdued, with territories extended to the Rhine, and with alhes ^

French

m Spam, and in the Bata\dan, Helvetic, Ligurian, and Reforms Cisalpine repubhcs, the First Consul was free to u°der the

11. 1 . . 11.. . Consulate

devote his marvelous organizing and admimstrative instincts to the internal affairs of his country. The period of the Consulate (i 799-1804) was the period of Bonaparte's greatest and most enduring contributions to the development of French institutions.

Throughout his career Bonaparte professed himself to be the "son of the Revolution," the heir to the new doctrine of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. It was to the Revo- ^j^g r^^q. lution that he owed his position in France, and it was lutionary to France that he claimed to be assuring the results ^" ^® of the Revolution. Yet, in actual practice, it was equality and fraternity, but not liberty, that were preserved by the First \ Consul. "What the French people want," he declared, "is

528 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

equality, not liberty." In the social order, therefore, Bona- parte rigidly maintained the abolition of privilege, of serfdom and feudahsm, and sought to guarantee to all Frenchmen equal justice, equal rights, equal opportunity of advancement. But in the political order he exercised a tyranny as complete, if less open, than that of Louis XIV.

The Constitution of the Year VIII (1799) placed in Bona- parte's hands all the legislative and executive functions of . . the central government, and a series of subsequent

trative acts put the law courts under his control. In 1800

Centraii- |-]^g local government of the whole country was sub-

zation . , , "^

ordmated to him. The extensive powers vested by the Constituent Assembly in elective bodies of the departments and smaller districts (arrondissements) were now to be wielded by prefects and sub-prefects, appointed by the First Consul and responsible to him. The local elective councils continued to exist, but sat only for a fortnight in the year and had to deal merely with the assessment of taxes : they might be consulted by the prefect or sub-prefect but had no serious check upon the executive. The mayor of every small commune was hence- forth to be chosen by the prefect, while the poHce of all cities containing more than 100,000 inhabitants were directed by the central government and the mayors of towns of more than 5000 population were chosen by Bonaparte.

This highly centralized administration of the country af- forded the people Httle direct voice in governmental matters but it possessed distinct advantages in assuring the prompt, uniform, military-Hke execution of the laws and decrees of the central government. In essence it was a continuation of the system of intendants instituted by Cardinal Richeheu. How conservative are the French people, at least in the institutions of local govern- ment, may be inferred from the fact that despite many changes in France during the nineteenth century from repubHc to empire to monarchy to republic to empire to republic, Bonaparte's Bonaparte's system of prefects and sub-prefects has survived to Centralizing the present day.

As in administration, so in all his internal reforms, Bonaparte displayed the same fondness for centralization, with consequent thoroughness and efficiency, at the expense of ideal-

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 529

istic liberty. His reforms of every description — financial, ec- clesiastical, judicial, educational, — and even his public works, showed the guiding hand of the victorious general rather than that of the convinced revolutionary. They were the adaptation of the revolutionary heritage to the purposes and poKcies of one- man power.

It will be remembered that financial disorders had been the immediate cause of the downfall of the absolute monarchy as well as of the Directory. From the outset, Bonaparte Financial guarded against any such recurrence. By careful Readjust- collcction of taxes he increased the revenue of the state. By rigid economy, by the severe punishment of corrupt officials, and by the practice of obliging people whose lands he invaded to support his armies, he reduced the public expendi- tures. The crowning achievement of his financial The Bank readjustments was the establishment (1800) of the of France Bank of France, which has been ever since one of the soundest financial institutions in the world.

Another grave problem which Bonaparte inherited from the Revolution was the quarrel between the state and the Roman CatboHc Church. He was determined to gain the political support of the large number of conscientious ticaiTe^e- French Catholics who had been ahenated by the ment: the harsh anti-clerical measures of the revolutionaries. ^^^^^^ ^ ' After dehcate and protracted negotiations, a settle- ment was reached in a concordat (1801) between Pope Pius VII and the French RepubHc, whereby the pope, for his part, concurred in the confiscation of the property of the Church and the suppression of the monasteries, and the First Consul under- took to have the salaries of the clergy paid by the state; the latter was to nominate the bishops and the former was to invest them with their office ; the priests were to be appointed by the bishops. In this way the CathoHc Church in France became a branch of the lay government much more completely than it had been in the time of Louis XIV. So advantageous did the arrangement appear that the Concordat of 1801 continued to regulate the relations of church and state until 1905.

One of the fondest hopes cherished by enhghtened hberals was to clear away the confusion and discrepancies of the nu-

530 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

merous legal systems of the old regime and to reduce the laws of the land to a simple and uniform code, so that every person Judicial who could read would be able to know what was legal Reforms ^j^^j v/hat was illegal. The constitution of 1791 had promised such a work ; the National Convention had actually begun it ; but the preoccupations of the leading revolutionaries, combined with the natural caution and slowness of the lawyers to whom the task was intrusted, delayed its completion. It was not until the commanding personaHty of Bonaparte came into contact with it that real progress was made. Then surrounding himself with excellent legal advisers ^ whom he Uterally drove to labor, the First Consul brought out a great Civil Code (1804), The Code which was followed by a Code of Civil Procedure, a Napoleon Code of Criminal Procedure, a Penal Code, and a Commercial Code. These codes were of the utmost importance. The simplicity and elegance of their form commended them not only to France, but to the greater part of continental Europe. Moreover, they preserved the most valuable social conquests of the Revolution, such as ci\'il equality, religious toleration, equahty of inheritance, emancipation of serfs, freedom of land, legal arrest, and trial by jury. It is true that many harsh pun- ishments were retained and that the position of woman was made distinctly inferior to that of man, but, on the whole, the French Codes long remained not only the most convenient but the most enlightened set of laws in the world. Bonaparte was rightly hailed as a second Justinian.

A similar motive and the same enthusiasm actuated the First Consul in pressing forward important educational reforms. The New ^^ ^^^ foundation laid several years earlier by Con- Educational dorcet was now reared an imposing system of public ^^ ^™ instruction, (i) Primary or elementary schools were to be maintained by every commune under the general super- vision of the prefects or sub-prefects. (2) Secondary or grammar schools were to provide special training in French, Latin, and elementary science, and, whether supported by public or private enterprise, were to be subject to governmental control. (3) Ly- cees or high schools were to be opened in every important

^ Chief among these legal experts was Cambaccres (1753-1824), the Second Consul.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 531

town and instruction given in the higher branches of learning by teachers appointed by the state. (4) Special schools, such as technical schools, civil service schools, and military schools, were brought under public regulation. (5) The University of France was estabhshed to maintain uniformity throughout the new educational system. Its chief officials were appointed by the First Consul, and no one might open a new school or teach in public unless he was licensed by the university. (6) The recruiting station for the teaching staff of the public schools was provided in a normal school organized in Paris. All these schools were directed to take as the bases of their teaching the principles of the Cathohc Church, loyalty to the head of the state, and obedience to the statutes of the university. De- spite continued efforts of Bonaparte, the new system was handi- capped by lack of funds and of experienced lay teachers, so that at the close of the Napoleonic Era, more than half of the total number of French children still attended private schools, mostly those conducted by the Catholic Church.

Bonaparte proved himself a zealous benefactor of public works and improvements. With very moderate expenditure of French funds, for prisoners of war were obliged to do PubUc most of the work, he enormously improved the means Works of communication and trade within the country, and promoted the economic welfare of large classes of the inhabitants. The splendid highways which modern France possesses are in large part due to Bonaparte. In 181 1 he could enumerate 229 broad military roads which he had constructed, the most important of which, thirty in number, radiated from Paris to the extremi- ties of the French territory. Two wonderful Alpine roads brought Paris in touch with Turin, Milan, Rome, and Naples. Numerous substantial bridges were built. The former net- work of canals and waterways was perfected. Marshes were drained, dikes strengthened, and sand dunes hindered from spreading along the ocean coast. The principal seaports, both naval and commercial, were enlarged and fortified, especially the harbors of Cherbourg and Toulon.

Along with such obviously useful labor went desirable em- bellishment of life. State palaces were restored and enlarged, so that, under Bonaparte, St. Cloud, Fontainebleau, and Ram-

532 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

bouillet came to rank with the majesty of Versailles. The city of Paris was beautified. Broad avenues were projected. The Louvre was completed and adorned with precious works of art which Bonaparte dragged as fruits of victory from Italy, or Spain, or the Netherlands. During the Consulate, Paris was just beginning to lay claim to a position as the pleasure • city of Europe. Its population almost doubled during the Era of Napoleon.

The First Consul also entertained the hope of appearing as the restorer of the French colonial empire. In 1800 he pre- vailed upon the Spanish government to re-cede to

Colonial ^ \ / .° „ , ^ . .

Enterprises France the extensive territory — called Louisiana — and their lying west of the Mississippi River. Soon afterwards he dispatched his brother-in-law. General Leclerc, with an army of 25,000 men, to make good the French claims , to the large island of Haiti. But the colonial ventures of Na- poleon ended in failure. In Haiti, Leclerc's efforts to reestablish negro slavery encountered the stubborn resistance of the blacks, organized and led by one of their number, Toussaint L'Ouver- ture, a remarkable mihtary genius. After a determined and often ferocious struggle Leclerc proposed a compromise, and Toussaint, induced by the most solemn guarantees on the part of the French, laid down his arms. He was seized and sent to France, where he died in prison in 1803. The negroes, infuriated by this act of treachery, renewed the war with a barbarity un- equaled in previous contests. The French, further embarrassed by the appearance of a British fleet, were only too glad to relin- quish the island in November, 1803. Meanwhile, expectation of war with Great Britain had induced Bonaparte in April, 1803, to sell the entire Louisiana Territory to the United States.

If we except these brief and ill-starped colonial exploits, we may pronounce the First Consul's government and achieve- Success ments eminently successful. Bonaparte had inspired of the public confidence by the honesty of his administration

Consulate ^^^^ ^^ j^-^ ^]^q[(.q q^ officials, for he was served by such

I a consummate diplomat as Talleyrand and by such a tireless chief of police as Fouche. His speedy and victorious termination of the War of the Second Coalition and his subsequent apparent policy of peace had redounded to his credit. His sweeping and

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 533

thorough reforms in internal affairs had attracted to his support many and varied classes in the community — the business inter- ests, the bourgeoisie, the peasantry, and the sincere Catholics.

Only two groups — and these continually dwindling in size and importance — stood in the way of Bonaparte's complete mastery of France. One was the remnant of the ^ . ,..

Dwindling

Jacobins who would not admit that the Revolution opposition was ended. The other was the royalist party which *° Bona-

, parte

longed to undo all the work of the Revolution. Both

these factions were reduced during the Consulate to secret plots and intrigues. Attempts to assassinate the First Consul served only to increase his popularity among the masses. Early in 1804 Bonaparte unearthed a conspiracy of royalists, whom he punished with summary vengeance. General Pichegru, who was implicated in the conspiracy, was found strangled in prison soon after his arrest. Moreau, who was undoubtedly the ablest general in France next to Bonaparte, was hkewise accused of complicity, although he was a stanch Jacobin, and escaped more drastic punishment only by becoming an exile in America. Not content with these advantages, Bonaparte deter- mined thoroughly to terrorize the royalists : by military force he seized a young Bourbon prince, the due d'Enghien, on Ger-

I man soil, and without a particle of proof against him put him to

' death.

In 1802 a plebiscite had bestowed the Consulate on Bonaparte .for life. Now there was little more to do than to make the ofhce hereditary and to change its name. This alter- ation was proposed in 1804 by the subservient Senate mat^on^of and promptly ratified by an overwhelming popular the Consu-

, r\ T~\ t. o • 1 • • late into the

vote. On 2 December, 1804, amid imposing cere- Empire monies in the ancient cathedral of Notre Dame, in the presence of Pope Pius VII, who had come all the way from Rome to grace the event, General Bonaparte placed a crown upon his own head and assumed the title of Napoleon I, emperor of the French.

534 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE '

THE FRENCH EMPIRE AND ITS TERRITORIAL EXPANSION

The establishment of the empire was by no means a break The in French history. The principle of popular sover-

French eignty was still recognized. The social gains of the

c^«nua- Revolution were still intact. The magic words tionofthe "Liberty, EquaHty, Fraternity" still blazed proudly French forth on pubHc buildings. The tricolor was still the

RepubUc flag of France.

Of course a few changes were made in externals. The title of "citoyen" was again replaced by that of "monsieur." Lapse of '^^^ repubHcan calendar gradually lapsed. Napo- Repubiican leon's relatives became "grand dignitaries." The 1 Institutions j-gvolutionary generals who accepted the new regime ; were promoted to be "marshals of the empire." The old titles of nobility were restored, and new ones created.

The outward changes in France were reflected in the dependent

surrounding states. And in effecting the foreign alterations,

Napoleon took care to provide for his numerous family.

Monarchical _^,., , _ .,i -r., • t-, it

Alteration For liis brother Loms, the Batavian Republic was in Depend- transformed into the kingdom of Holland. For his

ent States

brother Jerome, estates were subsequently carved out of Hanover, Prussia, and other northwest German lands to form the kingdom of Westphaha. Brother Joseph was seated on the Bourbon throne of the Two Sicihes. The Cisalpine RepubHc became the kingdom of Italy with Napoleon as king, and Eugene Beauharnais, his stepson, as viceroy. Both Piedmont and Genoa were incorporated into the French Empire.

The Consulate, as has been explained, was characterized by a policy of peace. Sweeping reforms had been accomplished Censorship ^^ internal affairs so that France was consolidated and of the the vast majority of her citizens became devoted

Actwitro^f supporters of the emperor. What adverse criticism the Secret Frenchmen might have directed against the empire ^""'^^ was stifled by the activity of a splendidly organized

secret police and by a rigorous censorship of the press. So ' complete was Napoleon's control of the state that the decisive naval defeat of Trafalgar was not mentioned by a single French

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 535

newspaper until after the fall of the empire. By degrees the imperial despotism of the Corsican adventurer became as rigid as the absolute monarchy of the Bourbons. In fact, Napoleon went so far as to adapt an old catechism Eventual which the celebrated Bishop Bossuet had prepared Absolutism

1 • 1 • r T • -I'TTr 1 1-1 o^ Napoleon

during the reign 01 Louis XIV and to order its use by

all children. A few extracts from the catechism will make clear

how Napoleon wished to be regarded.

" Question. What are the duties of Christians toward those who govern them, and what in particular are our duties towards Napoleon I, our emperor ?

" Answer. Christians owe to the princes who govern them, and we in particular owe to Napoleon I, our emperor, love, respect, obedience, fidelity, military service, and the taxes levied for the preservation and defense of the empire and of his throne. We also owe him fervent prayers for his safety and for the spiritual and temporal prosperity of the state.

" Question. Why are we subject to all these duties toward our emperor ?

" Answer. First, because God, who has created empires and distributed them according to His will, has, by loading our emperor with gifts both in peace and in war, established him as our sovereign and made him the agent of His power and His image upon earth. To honor and serve our emperor is, therefore, to honor and serve God Himself. Secondly, because our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, both by His teaching and His example, has taught us what we owe to our sovereign. Even at His very birth He obeyed the edict of Ceesar Augustus ; He paid the established tax and while He commanded us to render to God those things which belong to God, He also commanded us to render unto Ctesar those things which are Caesar's.

" Question. WTiat must we think of those who are wanting in their duties towards our emperor ?

'' Answer. According to the Apostle Paul, they are resisting the order established by God Himself, and render themselves worthy of eternal damnation."

With opposition crushed in France and with the loyalty of the French nation secured, Napoleon as emperor could gratify his natural instincts for foreign aggrandizement and Mmtary glory. He had become all-powerful in France ; he Ambition of would become all-powerful in Europe. Ambitious ^^° ^°" and successful in the arts of peace, he would be more ambitious and more successful in the science of war. The emxpire, therefore, meant war quite as clearly as the Consulate meant peace. To

536 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

speculate upon what Napoleon might have accomplished for France had he restrained his ambition and continued to apply his talents entirely to the less sensational triumphs of peace, is idle, because Napoleon was not that type of man. He lived . for and by selfish ambition.

The ten years of the empire (1804-1814) were attended by continuous warfare. Into the intricacies of the campaigns it The Empire IS neither possible nor expedient in the compass of this MUitary chapter to enter. It is aimed, rather, to present only such features of the long struggle as are significant in the gen- eral history of Europe, for the wars of Napoleon served a pur- pose which their prime mover only incidentally had at heart — the transmission of the revolutionary heritage to Europe.

When the empire was established, war between France and Great Britain, interrupted by the truce of Amiens, had already Renewal broken forth afresh. The struggle had begun in first of War instance as a protest of the British monarchy against

France"nd ^^^ excesses of the French Revolution, especially Great against the execution of Louis XVI, and doubtless the

Bntain |_^^|j, ^^ ^j^^ Enghsh nation still fancied that they were

fighting against revolution as personified in Napoleon Bonaparte. But to the statesmen and influential classes of Great Britain as well as of France, the conflict had long assumed a deeper 1 significance. It was an economic and commercial war. The ' British not only were mindful of the assistance which France had given to American rebels, but also were resolved that France should not regain the colonial empire and commercial position which she had lost in the eighteenth century. The British had struggled to maintain their control of the sea and the monopoly of trade and industry which attended it. Now, when Napoleon extended the French influence over the Netherlands and Hol- land, along the Rhine, and throughout Italy, and even succeeded in negotiating an alliance with Spain, Britain was threatened with the loss of valuable commercial privileges in all those regions, and was further alarmed by the ambitious colonial projects of \ Napoleon. In May, 1803, therefore, Great Britain declared [war. The immediate pretext for the resumption of hostilities iwas Napoleon's positive refusal to cease interfering in Italy, 'in Switzerland, and in Holland.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 537

Napoleon welcomed the renewal of war. He understood that until he had comiilctel}' broken the power of Great Britain all his Continental designs were imperiled and his colonial and commercial projects hopeless. The humiliation of the great rival across the Channel would be the surest guarantee of the prosperity of the French bourgeoisie, and it was in last analysis from that class that his own political support was chiefly derived. The year 1 803-1 804 was spent by the emperor in elaborate prep- arations for an armed invasion of England. Along the Channel coast were gradually collected at enormous cost a host of trans- ports and frigates, a considerable army, and an abundance of supplies. To the amazing French armament, Spain was induced to contribute her resources.

Great Britain replied to these preparations by covering the Channel with a superior fleet, by preying upon French commerce, and by seizing Spanish treasure-ships from America. And William Pitt, the very embodiment of the Eng- coaution lishman's prejudice against things French, returned to against the ministry of his country. Pitt was unwilling to risk British armies against the veterans of Napoleon, preferring to spend liberal sums of money in order to instigate the Conti- nental Powers to combat the French emperor. Pitt was the real bone and sinews of the Third Coalition, which was formed in 1805 by Great Britain, Austria, Russia, and Sweden to over- throw Napoleon.

Austria naturally smarted under the provisions of the treaty of Luneville quite as much as under those of Campo Formio. Francis II was aroused by French predominance in Italy and now that he himself had added the title of "hereditary emperor of Austria" to his shadowy dignity as "Holy Roman Emperor" he was irritated by the upstart Napoleon's assumption of an imperial title.

In Russia the assassination of the Tsar Paul, the crazy ad- mirer of Bonaparte, had called to the throne in 1801 the active though easily influenced Alexander I. In early life Alexander had acquired a pronounced taste for revolutionary philosophy and its liberal ideas, and hkewise a more or less theoretical love of humanity. Now, Pitt persuaded him, with the assistance of English gold, that Napoleon was the enemy both of true liberty

538 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

and of humanity. So the tsar joined his army with that of Austria, and in the autumn of 1805 the alHes advanced through southern Germany toward the Rhine.

Pitt had done his best to bring Prussia into the coalition, but the Prussian king, Frederick WilHam III (i 797-1840), was timid and irresolute, and, despite the protests of his people, was cajoled by Napoleon's offer of Hanover into a declaration of neutrahty. Bavaria and Wiirttemberg, from fear of Austria, became open allies of the French emperor.

Before the troops of the Third Coalition could threaten the eastern frontier of France, Napoleon abandoned his military Napoleon projects against Great Britain, broke up his huge vs. Austria armaments along the Atlantic coast, and, with his usual rapidity of march, hurled his finely trained army upon the Austrians near the town of Ulm in Wiirttemberg. There, on 20 October, 1805, the Austrian commander, with some 50,000 men, surrendered, and the road to Vienna was open to the French.

This startling military success was followed on the very

next day by a naval defeat quite as sensational and even more

^ , , decisive. On 21 October, the allied French and Span-

Trafalgar . , . ^

(1805) and ish fleets, issuing from the harbor of Cadiz, encoun-

the Con- tcred the British fleet under Lord Nelson, and in a

tinued Sea

Power of terrific battle off Cape Trafalgar were completely

Great worsted. Lord Nelson lost his life in the conflict,

but from that day to the close of the Napoleonic Era

British supremacy on the high seas was not seriously challenged.

Wasting no tears or time on the decisive loss of sea-power, Napoleon hastened to follow up his land advantages. Occupy- Austeriitz, ing Vienna, he turned northward into Moravia where 1805 Francis II and Alexander I had gathered a large army

of Austrians and Russians. On 2 December, 1805, the anni- versary of his coronation as emperor, — his "lucky" day, as he termed it, — Napoleon overwhelmed the allies at Austerlitz in one of the greatest battles in history.

The immediate result of the campaign of Ulm and Austerlitz was the enforced withdrawal of Austria from the Third Coalition. Late in December, 1805, the emperors Francis II and Napoleon signed the treaty of Pressburg, whereby the former ceded

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 539

Venetia to the kingdom of Italy and recognized Napoleon as its king, and resigned the Tyrol to Bavaria, and outlying prov- inces in western Germany to Wiirttemberg. Both Bavaria and Wiirttemberg were converted into ^ustda^ kingdoms. By the humiliating treaty of Press- Treaty of j burg, Austria thus lost 3,000,000 subjects and ^g^^^ ^^^' ' large revenues ; was cut off from Italy, Switzer- land, and the Rhine ; and was reduced to the rank of a second- rate power.

For a time it seemed as if the withdrawal of Austria from the Third Coalition would be fully compensated for by the adhesion of Prussia. Stung by the refusal of Napoleon Napoleon to withdraw his troops from southern Germany and ^^- Prussia, by the bootless haggling over the transference of Hanover, and goaded on by his patriotic and high-spirited wife, the beautiful Queen Louise, timid Frederick William III at length ventured in 1806 to declare war against France. Then, with a ridiculously misplaced confidence in the old-time reputation of Frederick the Great, without waiting for assistance from the Russians who were I coming up, the Prussian army- — some 110,000 strong, under \ the old-fashioned duke of Brunswick — advanced against the 1 150,000 veterans of Napoleon. The resulting battle lof Jena, on 14 October, 1806, proved the absolute and^the ° ^superiority of Napoleon's strategy and of the enthusi- Humiiia- astic French soldiers over the older tactics and mili- p^issia tary organization of the Prussians. Jena was not ] merely a defeat for the Prussians ; it was at once a rout and a 'total collapse of that Prussian mihtary prestige which in the course of the eighteenth century had been gained by the utmost sacrifice. Napoleon entered BerHn in triumph and took posses- sion of the greater part of the kingdom of Prussia.

The Russians still remained to be dealt with. Winter was a bad season for campaigning in East Prussia, and it was not until June, 1807, at Friedland, that Napoleon was Napoleon able to administer the same kind of a defeat to the vs. Russia, Russians that he had administered to the Austrians at Austerhtz and to the Prussians at Jena. The Tsar Alexander at once sued for peace. At Tilsit, on a raft moored in the middle of the River Niemen, Napoleon and Alexander met and ar-

540 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

I ranged the terms of peace for France, Russia, and Prussia.

The impressionable tsar was dazzled by the striking personality

Treaty of ^^^^ ^^^ Unexpected magnanimity of the emperor of

Tilsit the French. Hardly an inch of Russian soil was ex-

Ditsoiution ^-Cted, Only a promise to cooperate in excluding

of the Third British trade from the Continent. Alexander was

°^ *^°° accorded full permission to deal as he would with

I Finland and Turkey. "What is Europe?" exclaimed the emo-

' tional tsar : "Where is it, if it is not you and I?" But Prussia

had to pay the price of the alliance between French and Russian

emperors. From Prussia was torn the portion of Poland which

was erected into the grand-duchy of Warsaw, under Napoleon's

; obsequious ally, the elector of Saxony. Despoiled altogether of

\ half of her territories, compelled to reduce her army to 42,000 men,

' and forced to maintain French troops on her remaining lands until

a large war indemnity was paid, Prussia was reduced to the rank

of a third-rate power. Tilsit destroyed the Third Coalition

and made Napoleon master of the Continent. Only Great

Britain and Sweden remained under arms, and against the latter

country Napoleon was now able to employ both Denmark and

Russia.

Early in 1808 a Russian army crossed the Finnish border without any previous declaration of war, and simultaneously a HumiUation Danish force prepared to invade Sweden from the of Sweden Norwegian frontier. The ill-starred Swedish king, Gustavus IV (1792-1809), found it was all he could do, even with British assistance, to fight off the Danes. The little Finnish army, left altogether unsupported, succumbed after an heroic struggle against overwhelming odds, and in 1809 the whole of Finland and the Aland Islands were formally ceded to Russia. Finland, however, did not enter Russia as a conquered province, but, thanks to the bravery of her people and not less to the wisdom and generosity of the Tsar Alexander, she long maintained her free constitution and was recognized as a semi-independent grand-duchy with the Russian tsar as grand-duke. Thus Sweden lost her ancient duchy of Finland, and she was permitted to retain a small part of Pomerania only at the humiliating price of making peace with Napoleon and excluding British goods from all her ports. In the same year, Gustavus IV was com-

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 541

pelled to abdicate in favor of his uncle, Charles XTTI (1809- 1818), an inlirm and childless old man, who was prevailed upon to designate as his successor one of Napoleon's own marshals. General Bcrnadotte. Surely, Napoleon might hope henceforth to dominate Sweden as he then dominated every other Conti- nental state. Of course, Creat Britain, triumphant on the seas, remained unconquered, l)ut the British army, the laughing- stock of Europe, could expect to achieve little where Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Sweden had failed.

The year that followed Tilsit may be taken as marking the height of Napoleon's carper. The Corsican adventurer was emperor of a France that extended from the Po to the Height of North Sea, from the Pyrenees and the Papal States Napoleon's to the Rhine, a France united, patriotic, and in enjoy- °^^'^' ^ ment of many of the fruits of the Revolution. He was king of an Italy that embraced the fertile valley of the Po and the ancient possessions of Venice, and that was administered by a viceroy, his stepson and heir-apparent, Eugene Beauharnais. The pope was his friend and ally. His brother Joseph governed the kingdom of Naples. His brother Louis and his stepdaughter Hortense were king and queen of Holland. His sister Elise was princess of the diminutive state of Lucca. The kings of Spain and Denmark were his admirers and the tsar of Russia now called him friend and brother. A restored Poland was a recruit- ing station for his army. Prussia and Austria had become second- or third-rate powers, and French influence once more predominated in the Germanics.

It was in the Germanics, in fact, that Napoleon's achieve- ments were particularly striking. Before his magic touch many of the antique political and social institutions of that p ^ ^ country crumbled away. As early as 1801 the diminu- changes tion of the number of German states had begun. The 'i* ^^^ .

° , Germames

treaty of Luneville had made imperative some action on the part of the Diet of the Holy Roman Empire in order to indemnify the rulers whose lands on the left bank of the Rhine had been incorporated into France, and to grant " compensa- tions" to the south German states. After laborious negotia- tions, lasting from 1801 to 1803, the Diet authorized ^ the whole-

' By a decree, called the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss.

542 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

sale confiscation throughout southern Germany of ecclesiastical lands and of free cities, with the result that 112 formerly inde- pendent states lying east of the Rhine were wiped out of existence and nearly one hundred others on the west bank were added to France. Thus the number of the Germanics was suddenly reduced from more than three hundred to less than one hundred, and the German states which mainly benefited, along with Prussia, were the southern states of Bavaria, Wiirttemberg, and Baden, which Napoleon desired to use as an equipoise against both Austria and Prussia. In this ambition he was not disappointed, for in the War of the Third Coalition (1805) he received important assistance from these three states, all of which were in turn liberally rewarded for their services, the rulers of Bavaria and Wiirttemberg being proclaimed kings.

The year 1806 was epochal in German history. On 19 July, the Confederation of the Rhine was formally established with Napoleon as Protector. The kings of Bavaria and Extinction Wiirttemberg, the grand-dukes of Baden, Hesse- HoWRoman Darmstadt, and Berg, the archbishop of Mainz, and Empire nine minor princes virtually seceded from the Holy

its Replace- Roman Empire and accepted the protection of Na- ment by the poleon, whom they pledged themselves to support Austria ° with an army of 63,000 men. On i August, Napoleon and the declared that he no longer recognized the Holy Roman tion^ofthe Empire, and on 6 August the Habsburg emperor, Rhine Francis II, resigned the crown which his ancestors for

centuries had worn. The work of a long line of French kings and statesmen, — Francis I, Henry IV, Richeheu, Mazarin, Louis XIV, — was thus consummated by Napoleon Bonaparte. The Holy Roman Empire had at last come to the inglorious end which it had long deserved. And its last emperor had to content himself with his newly appropriated title of Francis I, Hereditary Emperor of Austria. The dignity and might of the proud Habsburgs had declined before a mere upstart of the people as never before a royal Bourbon. And this same year, 1806, witnessed, as we have seen, not only the humihation of Austria but the deepest degradation of Prussia.

By 1808 all the Germanics were at the mercy of Napoleon. Prussia was shorn of half her possessions and forced to obey the

^Tj 7

I (/ * 4 , A-

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 543

behests of her conqueror. The Confederation of the Rhine was enlarged and soHdilied. A kingdom of Westphaha was carved out of northern and western Germany at the expense of Prussia, Hanover, Brunswick, and Hesse, and bestowed upon Jerome, brother of Napoleon. The grand-duchy of Berg was governed by the Protector's plebeian brother-in-law, Joachim Murat. And, greatest fact of all, wherever the French emperor's rule extended, there followed the abolition of feudalism and serfdom, the recognition of equality of all citizens before the law, the principles and precepts of the Code Napoleon.

This was the true apogee of Napoleon's power. From the November day in 1799 when the successful general had over- thrown the corrupt and despicable Directory down to 1808, his story is a magnihcent succession of the -fheSon triumphs of peace and of war. Whatever be the of the judgment of his contemporaries or of posterity upon tion'''"' his motives, there can be little question that through- out these nine years he appeared to France and to Europe what he proclaimed himself — "the son of the Revolution." He it was who in the lull between the combats of the Second Coali- tion and those of the Third had consolidated the work of the democratic patriots from Mirabeau to Carnot and had assured to France the permanent fruits of the Revolution in the domains of property, law, rehgion, education, administration, and finance. He it was who, if narrowing the concept of Hberty, had broad- ened the significance of equahty by the very lesson of his own rise to power and had deepened the meaning of fraternity by lavishing affection and devotion upon that machine of democ- racy— the national army — the "nation in arms." And he it was who, true to the revolutionary tradition of striking terror into the hearts of the divine-right monarchs of Europe, had with a mighty noise shaken the whole Continent and brought down the political and social institutions of the "old regime" tumbhng in ruins throughout central and southern Europe. He had made revolutionary reform too solid and too widespread to admit of its total extinction by the alhed despots of Europe. The dream which a Leopold and a Frederick William had cher- ished in 1 791 of turning back the hands on the clock of human progress and of restoring conditions in France as they had been

544 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

prior to 1789, was happily dispelled. But in the meantime the despots were to have their innings.

DESTRUCTION OF THE FRENCH EMPIRE

From 1808 to 18 14 — six dreadful years — Napoleon's power was constantly on the wane. Nor are the reasons for his ulti- mate failure difficult to perceive. Some of the very in the ^^^^ elements which had contributed most to the up- French building of his great empire with its dependent king- of™Napoieon doms and duchies were in the long run elements of weakness and instabihty — vital causes of its eventual downfall. In the first place, there was the factor of individual genius. Altogether too much depended upon the physical and mental strength of one man. Napoleon was undoubtedly a genius, but still he was human. He was growing older, more I. Napoleon corpulent, Icss able to withstand exertion and fatigue, Himself fonder of affluence and ease. On the other hand, every fresh success had confirmed his belief in his own ability and had further whetted his appetite for power until his ambition was growing into madness and his egotism was becoming mania. His aversion from taking the advice of others increased so that even the subtle intriguers, Talleyrand and Fouche, were less and less admitted to his confidence. The emperor would brook the appearance of no actor on the French stage other than him- self, although on that stage during those crowded years there was too much for a single emperor, albeit a master emperor, to do.

The second serious defect in the Napoleonic system was the fact that its very foundation was military. What had enabled 2 Defects ^^^ National Convention in the days of the Revolu- of MUita- tion's darkest peril to roll back the tide of foreign "^°^ invasion was the heroism and devotion of an enthusi-

astic citizen soldiery, actuated by a solemn consciousness that in a very literal sense they were fighting for their fields and fire- sides, for the rights of men and of Frenchmen. They constituted compact and homogeneous armies, inspired by the principles and words of Rouget de Lisle's rousing battle hymn, and they smote the hired troopers of the banded despots hip and thigh. It was this kind of an army which Napoleon Bonaparte took

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 545

over and wliich had earned for him liis first spectacular successes. He certainly tried to preserve its Revolutionary enthusiasm throughout his career. He talked much of its ''mission" and its "destiny," of liberty, equality, and fraternity, and he kept alive its traditions of heroism and duty. He even improved its discipline, its material well-being, and its honor. But gradually, almost imperceptibly, the altruistic ideals of the Revolution gave way in the French army to the more selfish and more Na- poleonic ideal of glamour and glory. And as years passed by and the deadly campaigns repeated themselves and the number of patriotic volunteers lessened, Napoleon resorted more and more to conscription — forcibly taking away thousands of young Frenchmen from peaceful and productive pursuits at home and strewing their bones throughout the length and breadth of the Continent.

Nor did Napoleon's army remain homogeneous. To the last its kernel was French, but, as the empire expanded and other peoples were brought into a dependent or allied posi- ^ Reaction tion, it came to include regiments or companies of of National- Poles, Germans, Italians, Dutch, Spaniards, and Danes. In its newer heterogeneous condition it tended the more to lose its original character and to assume that of an enormous machine- like conglomeration of mercenaries who followed the fortunes of a despot more tyrannical and more dangerous than any of the despots against whom it had at first been pitted. It is true that many of the Frenchmen who composed the kernel of the Grand Army still entertained the notion that they were fighting for liberty, equality, and fraternity, and that their contact with their fellow-soldiers and likewise with their enemies was a most effec- tive means of communicating the revolutionary doctrines to Europe, but it is also true that Napoleon's policy of quartering his troops upon the lands of his enemies or of his alHes, and thereby conserving the resources of his own country, operated to develop the utmost hatred for the French, for the Revolution, and for Napoleon. This hatred produced, particularly in Ger- many and in Spain, a real patriotic feeling among the masses of the exploited nations, so that those very peoples to whom the notions of liberty and equality had first come as a blessed promise of deliverance from the oppression of their own divine-

2N

546 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

right rulers now used the same notions to justify them in rising as nations against the despotism of a foreign mihtary oppressor. Liberty, equahty, and fraternity — the gospel of the Revolu- tion — was the boomerang which Napoleon by means of his army hurled against the European tyrants and which returned with redoubled force against him.

It was thus the character of the emperor himself and his military exigencies that, taken in conjunction with the so-called 4. " The " Continental System" and the national revolts, made Continental Napoleon's empire but an episode in the story of ys em modern times. It is now time to explain the Conti- nental System and then to see how it reacted throughout Europe upon the feehng of national patriotism to bring about the down- fall of the Corsican adventurer.

"Continental System" is the term commonly apphed to the curious character which the warfare between Napoleon and Great Britain gradually assumed. By 1806 the inter- Economic esting situation had developed that Great Britain was ^f indisputable mistress of the seas while Napoleon was

between , . ,.

Great no less mdisputable master of the Continent. The

Britain battles of the Nile, of Copenhagen, and of Trafalgar

had been to the British what those of Marengo, Aus- terlitz, and Jena had been to the French. On one hand the destruction of the French fleet, together with the Danish, Dutch, and Spanish squadrons, had effectually prevented Napoleon from carrying into practice his long-cherished dream of invading England. On the other hand, the British army was not strong enough to cope successfully with Napoleon on land, and the European Powers which all along had been subsidized by Eng- hsh gold had been cowed into submission by the French emperor. Apparently neither France nor Great Britain could strike each other by ordinary military means, and yet neither would sue for peace. WiUiam Pitt died in January, 1806, heart-broken by the news of Austerlitz, the ruin of all his hopes. Charles James Fox, the gifted Whig, who thereupon became British foreign secretary, was foiled in a sincere attempt to negotiate peace with Napoleon, and died in September of the same year, despairing of any amicable settlement.

The brilliant French victory at Jena in October, 1806, seemed

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 547

to till the British as well as the Prussian cup to overflowing. The very next month Napoleon followed up his successes by inaugurating a thoroughgoing campaign against his arch-enemy, Great Britain herself ; but the campaign was to be conducted in the field of economics rather than in the purview of military science. England, it must be remembered, had become, thanks to the long series of dynastic and colonial wars that filled the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the chief commercial nation of the world : she had a larger number of citizens who made their living as ship-owners, sailors, and traders than any other country in the world. Then, too, as we shall see in a sub- sequent chapter, it was in the England of the eighteenth century that the Industrial Revolution began, — a marvelous improve- ment in manufacturing, which fostered the growth of a powerful industrial class and enabled the English to make goods more cheaply and in greater profusion and to sell them more readily, at lower prices, both at home and abroad, than any other people in the world. Industry was fast becoming the basis of Great Britain's wealth, and the commercial classes were acquiring new strength and influence. It was, therefore, against "a nation of shopkeepers," as Napoleon contemptuously dubbed the English, that he must direct his new campaign.

To Napoleon's clear and logical mind, the nature of the problem was plain. Deprived of a navy and unable to utilize his splendid army, he must attack Great Britain in what appeared to be her one vulnerable spot — in her commerce and industry. If he could prevent the importation of British goods into the Con- tinent, he would deprive his rivals of the chief markets for their products, ruin British manufacturers, throw thousands of Brit- ish workingmen out of employment, create such hard times in the British Islands that the mass of the people would rise against their government and compel it to make peace with him on his own terms : in a word, he would ruin British commerce and in- dustry and then secure an advantageous peace. It was a gigan- tic gamble, for Napoleon must have perceived that the Con- tinental peoples might themselves oppose the closure of their ports to the cheaper and better manufactured articles of Great Britain and might respond to a common economic impulse and rise in force to compel him to make peace on British terms, but

548 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

the stakes were high and the emperor of the French was a good gambler. From 1806 to 181 2 the struggle between Napoleon and Great Britain was an economic endurance-test. On the one hand, the question was whether the British government could retain the support of the British people. On the other hand, the question was whether Napoleon could rely upon the cooperation of the whole Continent.

The Continental System had been foreshadowed under the Di- rectory and in the early years of the Consulate, but it was not The Berlin Until the Berlin Decree (November, 1806) that the and Milan first great attempt was made to define and enforce ecrees -^ j^ ^j^j^ decree, Napoleon proclaimed a state of blockade against the British Isles and closed French and allied ports to ships coming from Great Britain or her colonies. The Berlin Decree was subsequently strengthened and extended by decrees at Warsaw (January, 1807), Milan (December, 1807), and Fontainebleau (October, 18 10). The Milan Decree pro- vided that even neutral vessels saihng from any British port or from countries occupied by British troops might be seized by French warships or privateers. The Fontainebleau Decree went so far as to order the confiscation and public burning of all British manufactured goods found in the Napoleonic States.

To these imperial decrees the British government, now largely dominated by such statesmen as Lord Castlereagh and George The Orders Canning, rephed with celebrated Orders in Council in CouncU (January-November, 1807), which declared all vessels trading with France or her allies liable to capture and provided further that in certain instances neutral vessels must touch at a British port. Thus the issue was squarely joined. Napoleon would suffer no importation of British goods whether by com- batants or by neutrals. The British would allow none but themselves to trade with France and her allies. In both cases the neutrals would be the worst sufferers. The effects of the conflict were destined to be far-reaching.

The British by virtue of their sea-power could come nearer to enforcing their Orders in Council than could Napoleon to giving full effect to his imperial decrees. Of course they had their troubles with neutrals. The stubborn effort of Denmark to preserve its independence of action in politics and trade was

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 549

frustrated in 1807 when a British expedition bombarded Copen- hagen and seized the remnant of the Danish navy. From that time until 18 14 Denmark was naturally a stanch ally of Napoleon. Against the Americans, too, who took jn M^n'^^ advantage of the Continental System to draw into taining the their own hands a liberal portion of the carrying system" ^ trade, the British vigorously applied the Orders in Council, and the consequent ill-feeling culminated in the War of 181 2 between Great Britain and the United States. But on the whole, the British had less trouble with neutrals than did Napoleon. And compared with the prodigious hardships which the System imposed upon the Continental peoples and the conse- quent storms of popular opposition to its author, the contem- poraneous distress in England was never acute ; and the British nation at large never seriously wavered in affording moral and material support to their hard-pressed government.

Here was the failure of Napoleon. It proved physically impossible for him to extend the Continental System widely and thoroughly enough to gain his point. In many cases, to stave off opposition, he authorized exceptions to his own decrees. If he could have prevailed upon every Continental state to close its ports to British goods simultaneously and for several succes- sive years, he would still have been confronted with a difiiicult task to prevent smuggling and the bribery of customs officials, which reached large proportions even in France and in the sur- rounding states that he had under fairly effective control. But to bring all Continental states into line with his economic cam- paign against Great Britain was a colossal task, to the perform- ance of which he subordinated all his subsequent policies.

We have seen how by the treaty of Tilsit (1807) Napoleon extorted promises from the tsar of Russia and the king of Prussia to exclude British goods from their respective countries. He himself saw to the enforcement of the decrees in the French Empire, in the kingdom of Italy, in the Confederation of the Rhine, and in the grand-duchy of Warsaw. Brother Joseph did his will in Naples, Brother Jerome in Westphalia, Sister Elise in Tuscany, and Brother Louis was expected to do his will in Holland. The outcome of the war with Sweden in 1808 was the completion of the closure of all Scandinavian ports to the British.

550 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

Napoleon's determination to have his decrees executed in the Papal States, as well as his high-handed treatment of matters affecting the Catholic Church in France, brought Subordi- him into conflict with Pope Pius VII, a gentle but Napoleon's courageous man, who in daring to excommunicate the Foreign European taskmaster was summarily deprived of his toVhTEn- temporal rule and carried off a prisoner, first to forcement Grenoble, then to Savona, and finally to Fontaine- Contfnentai blcau, where he resided, heaped with disgrace and System insults, Until 1814. In 1809 Napoleon formally in-

corporated the Papal States into the French Empire. And when in the next year Louis Bonaparte gave clear signs of an intention to promote the best interests of his Dutch sutJ- jects, even to his brother's detriment, by admitting British goods, he was peremptorily deposed, and Holland, too, was incorporated into the ever-enlarging French Empire. Hence- forth, the Dutch had to bear the burdens of conscription and of crushing taxation.

Meanwhile Napoleon was devoting special attention to clos- ing Portugal and Spain to British goods, and political conditions Napoleon's ^^ these Countries seemed to favor his designs. For Interference ovcr a hundred years Portugal had been linked in in ortuga (>jQgg trade relations with England, ever since the Methuen Treaty of 1703, which, in return for the admission of English woolens into Portugal, had granted differential duties favoring the importation of Portuguese wines into England and had thus provided a good market for an important Portuguese product to the exclusion largely of the French. Napoleon, early in his pubHc career, had tried, for a time successfully,^ to break these commercial relations between Great Britain and Portugal, but it was not until after Tilsit that he entered seri- ously upon the work. He then formally demanded the adherence of Portugal to the Continental System and the seizure of all British subjects and property within the kingdom. Prince

^ In 1 801, as First Consul, Napoleon had prevailed upon Spain to attack Portu- gal in order to secure the repudiation of the Methuen Treaty and the promise of hostility to Great Britain. This step had proved fatal to Portuguese trade, and in 1804 the Portuguese government had purchased from Napoleon a solemn recog- nition of neutrality.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 551

John, the regent of the small country, protested, besought Great Britain for^aid, hesitated, and linally refused. Already a Franco- Spanish army was on its way to force compliance with the emperor's demands.

In the court of the Spanish Bourbons was a situation that Napoleon could readih' utilize in order to have his way both in Portugal and in Spain. On the throne of Spain was and in seated the aging Charles IV (i 788-1808), boorish, Spain foolish, easily duped. By his side sat his queen, a coarse sensu- ous woman " with a tongue like a fishwife's." Their heir was Prince Ferdinand, a conceited irresponsible young braggart in his early twenties. And their favorite, the true ruler of Spain, if Spain at this time could be said to have a ruler, was Godoy, a vain flashy adventurer, who was loved by the queen, shielded by the king, and envied by the heir. Under such a combination it is not strange that Spain from 1795 to 1808 was but a vassal state to France. Nor is it strange that Napoleon was able in 1807 to secure the approval of the Spanish king to the partition of Portugal, a liberal share having been allotted to the precious Godoy.

Thus French troops were suffered to pour across Spain, and, in October, 1807, to invade Portugal. On i December, Lisbon was occupied and the Continental System proclaimed in force, but on the preceding day the Portuguese royal family escaped and, under convoy of a British fleet, set sail for their distant colony of Brazil. Then it was that Napoleon's true intentions in regard to Spain as well as to Portugal became e\ddent.

French troops continued to cross the Pyrenees and to possess themselves of the whole Iberian peninsula. In Spain pubHc opinion blamed the feeble king and the detested favorite for this profanation of the country's soil, and Bona^J^rte in the recriminations that ensued at court Prince King of Ferdinand warmly espoused the popular side. Riots jl^g^' followed. Charles IV, to save Godoy, abdicated and proclaimed Ferdinand VII (17 March, 1808). On the pretext of mediating between the rival factions in the Bourbon court. Napoleon lured Charles and Ferdinand and Godoy to Bayonne on the French frontier and there by threats and cajolery compelled both king and prince to resign all claims upon their

552 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

throne. Charles retired to Rome on a pension from Napoleon ; Ferdinand was kept for six years under strict military guard at Talleyrand's chateau ; the Bourbons had ceased to reign. Brother Joseph Bonaparte was at once promoted to the throne of Spain, and Brother-in-law Joachim Murat supplanted him as king of Naples.

In July, 1808, under protection of French troops, Joseph Bonaparte was crowned at Madrid. Forthwith he proceeded ■ to confer upon his new subjects the favors of the Napoleonic regime : he decreed equality before the law, individual hberties, abolition of feudaHsm and serfdom, educational reforms, sup- pression of the Inquisition, diminution of monasteries, confisca- tion of church property, pubHc improvements, and, last but not least, the vigorous enforcement of the Continental System.

The comparative ease with which Napoleon had thus been able Vi to supplant the Spanish Bourbons was equaled only by the Resistance difficulty which he and his brother now experienced in Spain y^j|-}-^ ^]^g Spanish people. Until 1808 the Corsican adventurer had had to deal primarily with divine-right monarchs and their old-fashioned mercenary armies ; henceforth he was confronted with real nations, inspired by the same soHd patri- otism which had inspirited the French and dominated by much the same revolutionary fervor. The Spanish people despised their late king as weak and traitorous ; they hated their new king as a foreigner and an upstart. For Spain they were patriotic to the core : priests and nobles made common cause with commoners and peasants, and all agreed that they would not brook foreign interference with their domestic concerns. All Spain blazed forth in angry insurrection. Revolutionary com- mittees, or juntas, were speedily organized in the provinces ; troops were enrolled ; and a nationaHst reaction was in full swing. By I August, 1808, Joseph was obliged to flee from Madrid and interrela- ^^^ French troops were in retreat toward the Pyrenees, tion of the To add to the discomfiture of the French, George

Syst*^em and Canning, the British foreign minister, promptly prom- Spanish ised his country's active assistance to a movement Nationalism ^j^^gg j.g^j significance he already clearly perceived. In ringing words he laid down the British policy which would obtain until Napoleon had been overthrown: "We shall pro-

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 553

cecd upon the principle that any nation of FAiropc wliich starts

up to op[)ose a Power which, whether professing insidious peace

or declaring open war, is the common enemy of all nations,

becomes instantly our ally." On i August, 1808, true to this

declaration, a British army under the command of Sir Arthur

Wellesley, subsequently duke of Wellington, landed in Portugal

and proceeded to cooperate with Portuguese and

Spanish against the French. It was the beginning Peninsular

of the so-called Peninsular War, which, with little in- '^ar, 1808-

1813 terruption, was to last until 18 13 and to spell the

first disasters for Napoleon.

Witliin three weeks after their landing the British were in

possession of Portugal. Roused by this unexpected reverse.

Napoleon assumed personal command of the French forces in

(the Peninsula. And such was his vigor and resourcefulness that in December, 1808, he reinstated Joseph in Madrid and drove the main British army out of Spain. The success of Na- poleon, however, was but temporary and illusory. Early in 1809 grave developments in another part of Europe called him laway from Spain, and the marshals, whom he left behind, L quarreled with one another and at the same time experienced to the full the difficulties which Napoleon himself would have encountered had he remained.

The difficulties which impeded French military operations in the Iberian peninsula were well-nigh insurmountable. The nature of the country furnished several unusual obstacles. In the first place, the poverty of the farms and the paucity of settle- ments created a scarcity of provisions and rendered it difficult for the French armies to resort to their customary practice of living upon the land. Secondly, the sudden alternations of heat and cold, to which the northern part of Spain is liable, coupled with the insanitary condition of many of the towns, spread disease among the French soldiery. Finally, the suc- cession of fairly high and steep mountain ranges, which cross the Peninsula generally in a direction of northwest to southeast, prevented any campaigning on the large scale to which Napo- leonic tactics were accustomed, and put a premium upon loose, irregular guerrilla fighting, in which the Spaniards were adepts. In connection with these obstacles arising from the nature

554 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

of the country must be remembered the fierce patriotic deter- mination of the native people and the arms and discipHned commanders furnished by the British. ,, The era of national revolts had dawned, and it was not long \^ before Austria learned the lesson from Spain. Ever since 1792 Nationalism the Austrian ruler had borne the brunt of the Conti- in Austria nental warfare against revolutionary France. And stung by the disasters and humiliations of 1805 and 1806, the Emperor Francis intrusted preparations for a war of revenge to the Archduke Charles and to Count Stadion, an able states- man and diplomat. The immediate results were : first, a far- reaching scheme of mihtary reform, which abolished the obsolete methods of the eighteenth century, the chief characteristics of the new order being the adoption of the principle of the \' "nation in arms" and of the war organization and tactics in use among the French ; and secondly, the awakening of a Hvely and enthusiastic feehng of patriotism among the Austrian people, especially among the Tyrolese, whom the arbitrary act of the French despot had handed over to Bavaria. The opportunity Premature ^^^ ^^ effective stroke appeared to be afforded by Efforts of the Spanish situation, and the general result was a Austria desperate attempt, premature as the event proved,

to overthrow Napoleon. On 9 April, 1809, Austria declared war, and the next day Archduke Charles with a splendid army advanced into Bavaria. Napoleon, who temporarily put the Spanish danger out of his mind, struck the archduke with his , usual lightning rapidity, and within a week's time had forced ^ him back upon Vienna. Before the middle of May the French emperor was once more in the Austrian capital. But the Arch- duke Charles remained resolute, and on 21-22 May inflicted such a reverse on Napoleon at Aspern on the Danube below li Vienna, that, had there been prompt cooperation on the part of other Austrian commanders and speedy assistance from other states, the Corsican might then have been overthrown (1809) and and Europe saved from a vaster deluge of blood. As the FaUure [^ ^-g^g^ Napoleon was allowed a fateful breathing spell, and on 5-6 July he fought and won the hard battle of Wagram. Wagram was not a rout hke Austerlitz, but it was sufficiently decisive to induce the Austrian emperor to

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 555

accept an armistice, and, after the failure of a cooperating British expedition, to conclude the treaty of Vienna or Schon- brunn (14 October, 1809), by the terms of which he had to surrender western Galicia to the grand-duchy of Warsaw and eastern GaHcia to Russia ; to cede the Illyrian provinces to the French Empire; and to restore the Tyrol, together with a strip of Upper Austria, to Bavaria. This treaty cost Austria four

,1 and one-half million subjects, a heavy war indemnity, and promises not to maintain an army in excess of 150,000 men, nor to have commercial dealings with Great Britain. As a further pledge of Austria's good behavior, and in order to assure a direct heir to his greatness, Napoleon shortly afterwards secured an annulment of his marriage with Josephine on the ground that it had not been solemnized in the presence of a parish priest, and

1 early in 18 10 he married a young Austrian archduchess, Maria

U Louisa, the daughter of the Emperor Francis II. Even this venture at first seemed successful, for in the following year a son was born who received the high-sounding appellation of king of Rome. But Austria remained at heart thoroughly hos- tile ; Maria Louisa later grew faithless ; and the young prince, half-Habsburg and half-Bonaparte, was destined to drag out a weary and futile existence among enemies and spies.

Meanwhile, the national reaction against Napoleon grew apace. It was in Prussia that it reached more portentous dimen- sions than even in Austria or in Spain. Following so influence closely upon the invigorating victories of Frederick the of the Great, the disaster of Jena and the humihation of Tilsit Revdution had been a doubly bitter cup for the Prussian people, upon Prussian statesmen were not lacking who put the blame for their country's degradation upon many of the social and political conditions which had characterized the "old regime" in all European monarchies, and, as these statesmen were called in counsel by the w^ll-intentioned King Frederick William III (i 797-1840), the years from 1807 to 1813 were marked by a series of internal reforms almost as significant in the history of Prussia as were those from 1789 to 1795 in the history of France.

; The credit of the Prussian regeneration belongs mainly to the great minister, the Baron vom Stein (1757-1831), and in the second place to the Chancellor Hardenberg (1750-182 2), both

556 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

of whom felt the influence of English ideas and of the French philosophy of the eighteenth century. On 9 October, 1807, The Re Stein issued at Memel the famous Edict of Emancipa-

\ generation tion, which abolished the institution of serfdom of Prussia throughout Prussia. Free trade in land was estab- lished, and land was left free to pass from hand to hand and class to class. Thus the Prussian peasants became personally free, although they were still bound to make fixed payments to their lords as rent. Moreover, all occupations and professions were thrown open to noble, commoner, and peasant alike. Stein's second important step was to strengthen the cabinet and to introduce sweeping changes in the conduct of public business, reforms too complicated and too technical to receive detailed explanation in this place. His third great, measure was the grant (19 November, 1808) of local self-government, on liberal

1 yet practical lines, to all Prussian towns and villages with a population in excess of 800. Stein undoubtedly intended the last law to be a corner-stone in the edifice of national con- stitutional government which he longed to erect in his country, but in this respect his plans were thwarted and Prussia remained another two generations without a written constitution. In 181 1 Hardenberg continued the reform of the condition of the

\/ peasants by making them absolute owners of part of their hold- ings, the landlords obtaining the rest as partial compensation for their lost feudal and servile dues. During the same period, : the army was likewise reorganized by Scharnhorst and Gneise-

! • nau ; compulsory universal service was introduced, while the condition imposed by Napoleon that the army should not exceed 42,000 men was practically evaded by replacing each body of 42,000 men by another of the same size as soon as the first was fairly versed in military affairs. In this way every able- bodied male Prussian was in preparation for an expected War of Liberation.

Of course Napoleon had some idea of what was happening in Prussia : he protested, he threatened, he actually succeeded late in 1808 in securing the dismissal of Stein. But the re- doubtable Prussian reformer spent the next three years in trying to fan the popular flame in Austria and thence betook himself to Russia to poison the ear and mind of the Tsar Alexander

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 557

against the emperor of the Frencli. In the meantime Napoleon was far too busy with other matters to give thorough attention to the continued development of the popular reforms in Prussia. There the national spirit burned ever brighter through the exer- tions of patriotic societies, such as the Tugendbimd, or "League of Mrtue," through the writings of men like Fichte and Arndt, and, perhaps most permanently of all, through the wonderful educational reforms, which, associated indissolubly with the name of Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835), gave to Prussia the basis of her present common-school system and to the world the great University of Berhn (1809).

It was no longer true that the French had a monopoly of the blessed principles of liberty, equahty, and fraternity, for which to light. It was no longer a fact that they were the only nation defending their homes, their lands, and their rights. By 1810 the despotism of Napoleon was more selfish and more di- rectly galling to the Prussian people than had been the threatened tyranny of Austrian and Prussian monarchs to an emancipated French nation in the dark days of 1792. Prussia was bankrupt, shorn of half her provinces, enduring the quartering of foreign soldiers, and suffering the ruin of her crops and the paralysis of her trade. Thanks to the 'Continental System, which had been none of their doing, the Prussian people witnessed the decay of their seaports, the rotting of their ships in their harbors, paid exorbitant prices for tobacco, and denied themselves sugar, coffee, and spices. They were grumbling and getting into a temper that boded ill to the author of their injuries.

Meanwhile the warfare in Spain dragged on. In 181 2 Well- ington with his allied British and Spanish troops won the great \dctory of Salamanca, captured Madrid, and drove Liberalism Joseph and the French north to Valencia. In the ^° ^p^*" same year radical groups of Spaniards, who had learned revo- lutionary doctrines from the French, assembled at Cadiz and drafted a constitution for what they hoped would be their regenerated country. This written constitution, Spanish next in age to the American and the French, was 5°'^^*l^"o more radical than either and long served as a model for liberal constitutions throughout southern Europe. After a preamble in honor of the "old fundamental laws of this mon-

558 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

archy," the constitution laid down the very principle of the , Revolution: "Sovereignty is vested essentially in the nation, 1 and accordingly it is to the nation exclusively that the right of making its fundamental laws belongs." The legislative power was intrusted to the Cortes, a single-chamber parliament elected for two years by indirect universal suffrage. The executive power was given to the king to be exercised by his ministers. The king could affix a suspensive veto to the acts of the Cortes. The constitution further proclaimed the principles of individual liberty and legal equality and sought to abolish the old regime root and branch : provision was made for a thorough reorganiza- tion of courts, local administration, taxation, the army, and public education. While the framers of the constitution affirmed that "the religion of the Spanish nation is and always will be the Apostolic Church of Rome, the only true Church," they persisted in decreeing the suppression of the Inquisition and the secularization of ecclesiastical property. That such a radical constitution would be understood and championed forthwith by the whole Spanish people, only the most confirmed and fanatical optimist could believe, but, on the other hand, it was certain that the Spaniards as a nation were resolved that the Conti- nental System and the Bonaparte family must go. They might sacrifice equality but not national liberty.

At last the four fateful defects in the Napoleonic Empire, —

! the character of Napoleon himself, the nature of his army, the

I Continental System, and the rise of nationalism, — were painfully

( in evidence. The drama thenceforth led irresistibly through

two terrible acts ^ — the Russian campaign and the Battle of the

Nations — to the denouement in the emperor's abdication and to

a sorry epilogue in Waterloo.

It was the rupture between Napoleon and the Tsar Alexander that precipitated the disasters. A number of events which strained transpired between the celebrated meeting at Tilsit Relations in 1807 and the memorable year of 1812 made a Napoleon rupture inevitable. Tilsit had purported to divide and Tsar the world between the two emperors, but Alexander, as junior partner in the firm, soon found that his chief function was to assist Napoleon in bringing all western and cen- tral Europe under the domination of the French Empire while

Fraiifi- when Nm|pi)1«)1i rnnie to Pi>\vi'r'(17'.l!)) Kreiii h Ari|iiiNitions under Nii|>(ilecin rri.k'i Pr.ilf.tiim i.f Naiiolciin

(r

\\

i

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 559

he himself was allowed b}- no means a free rein in dealing with his own country's hereditary enemies — Sweden, Poland, and Turkey. To be sure, Alexander had wrested Finland from Sweden (1809), but Napoleon's forcing of Sweden into a war with Great Britain (1810-1812), presumably as an ally of Russia as well as of France, had prevented him from extending his terri- tory further in that direction. Then, too, the revival of a Polish state under the name of the grand-duchy of Warsaw and under French protection was a thorn in his flesh, which became all the more painful, more irritating, when it was enlarged after the Austrian War of 1809. Finally, Alexander's warfare against Turkey was constantly handicapped by French diplomacy, so that when the treaty of Bucharest was at length concluded (28 May, 181 2) it was due to British rather than to French assist- ance that Russia extended her southern boundary to the River Pruth. Alexander was particularly piqued when Napoleon de-

il throned one of the tsar's relatives in Oldenburg and arbitrarily annexed that duchy to the French Empire, and he was deeply chagrined when the marriage of his ally with a Habsburg arch- duchess seemed to cement the bonds between France and Austria. All these political differences might conceivably have been adjusted, had it not been for the economic breach which the Continental System ever widened. Russia, at that time almost exclusively an agricultural country, had special need of British imports, and the tsar, a sympathetic, kind-hearted man, could not endure the suffering and protests of his people. The result was a gradual suspension of the rigors of the Continental System in Russia and the eventual return to normal trade relations as they had existed prior to Tilsit. This simple fact Napoleon could not and would not recognize. ''Russia's partial abandon-

^ ^ ment of the Continental System was not merely a pretext but the real ground of the war. Napoleon had no alternative be- tween fighting for his system and abandoning the prepara- only method open to him of carrying on war against tions for England." Z^een

By the opening of the year 181 2 Napoleon was France and actively preparing for war on a large scale against his recent ally. From the Austrian court, thanks to his wife, he secured assurances of sympathy and the promise of a guard of

56o HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

30,000 men to protect the right wing of his Russian invasion. From the trembhng Prussian king he wrung, by threats, per- mission to lead his invaders across Prussian soil and the support of 20,000 troopers for the left of his Hnes. A huge expedition was then gathered together: some 250,000 French veterans; 150,000 Germans from the Confederation of the Rhine; 80,000 Italians ; 60,000 Poles ; and detachments of Dutch, Swiss, Danes,

! and Serbo-Croats ; in all, a mighty motley host of more than 600,000 men.

As the year advanced, the Tsar Alexander made counter preparations. He came to a formal understanding with Great Britain. Through British mediation he made peace with the Turks and thus removed an enemy from his flank. And a series of treaties between himself, Great Britain, and Marshal Berna- dotte, who was crown-prince of Sweden and tired of Napoleonic domination, guaranteed him in possession of Finland, assured him of a supporting Swedish army, and in return promised Nor- way as compensation to Sweden. A well-trained Russian army

^ of 400,000 men, under the stubborn, taciturn veteran, General

^ Kutusov, was put in the field.

War seemed imminent by April, 181 2. After leisurely complet- ing his preparations, Napoleon crossed the Niemen on 24 June, and the invasion of Russia had begun. It was the

Napoleon s . ii-

Russian plan of the French emperor either to smash his enemy Campaign, [-^ ^ single great battle and to force an early advan- tageous treaty, or, advancing slowly, to spend the winter in Lithuania, inciting the people to insurrection, and then in the following summer to march on to Moscow and there in the ancient capital of the tsars to dictate terms of peace. The Russian plan of campaign was quite different. The tsar knew his people, that they were deeply rehgious and patriotic, that they hated Napoleon bitterly, and that they could be trusted not to revolt. He likewise knew well the character of the 800 miles of comparatively barren steppes that intervened between the Niemen and Moscow, whereon small armies could be beaten and large ones starved. Against the Grande Armee \i therefore, Alexander directed that no decisive battle be risked, but that the Russian forces, always retreating, should draw their opponents on as far as possible into the interior of the country,

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 561

where the rigors and i)ri\ali()ns of a Russian winter could be expected to work greater havoc among them than could powder and bullets.

To his surprise and uneasiness, therefore, Napoleon after cross- ing the Niemen found the Russians always retreating before his advance. No decisive victory could be won against the elusive foe. Nor was the temper of the Lithuanians such as to encourage him to remain all winter among them. Pushing on

j.'into Russia, he captured the great fortress of Smolensk but still

M failed to crush the main Russian army. Then it was that he made the momentous decision to press on at once to Moscow. On 7 September, General Kutusov turned against him at Boro-

Mdino and inflicted serious injury upon his army, but a week later he was in possession of Moscow. The battle of Borodino, together with the perpetual harassing of his outposts by the

\ retreating Russians, had already inflicted very severe losses

1 1 upon Napoleon, but he still had an army of about 100,000

I' to quarter in IMoscow.

p The very night of his triumphal entry, the city was set on fire through the carelessness of its own inhabitants, — the bazaar, with its stock of wine, spirits, and chemicals, becoming the prey of the flames. Barracks and foodstuffs were alike de- stroyed; the inhabitants fled; what was left of the city was pillaged by the French troops as well as by the Russians them- selves ; and the burning of Moscow became the signal for a gen- eral rising of the peasants against the foreigners who had brought such evils in their train. The lack of supplies and the impossi- bility of wintering in a ruined city, attacked in turn by an enraged peasantry and by detachments of General Kutusov 's army, now comfortably ensconced a short distance to the south, com- pelled Napoleon on 22 October, after an unsuccessful attempt

y to blow up the Kremlin, or citadel, to evacuate Moscow and to retrace his steps toward the Niemen.

The retreat from Moscow is one of the most horrible episodes in all history. To the exasperating and deadly attacks of the victoriously pursuing Russians on the rear were added the severity of the weather and the barrenness of the country. Steady down- pours of rain changed to blinding storms of sleet and snow. Swollen streams, heaps of abandoned baggage, and huge snow- 20

562 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

drifts repeatedly blocked the line of march. The gaunt and desolate country, which the army had ravaged and pillaged dur- ing the summer's invasion, now grimly mocked the re- astrour' treating host. It was a land truly inhospitable and Retreat dreary beyond description. Exhaustion overcame Moscow thousands of troopers, who dropped by the wayside and beneath the snows gave their bodies to enrich the Russian ground. The retreat became a rout and all would have been lost had it not been for the almost superhuman efforts of the valiant rear-guard under Marshal Ney. As it was, a mere remnant of the Grande A rmee — certainly fewer than \ 50,000 men — recrossed the Niemen on 13 December, and, in piti- able plight, half-starved and with torn uniforms, took refuge in Germany. Fully half a million lives had been sacrificed upon the fields of Russia to the ambition of one man. Yet in the face of these distressing facts, this one man had the unblushing effrontery and overweening egotism to announce to the affiicted French people that "the emperor has never been in better health!"

For a moment the Tsar Alexander hesitated. Russia at least ^' was freed from the Napoleonic peril. To make peace in this hour of triumph might be of great advantage to his country Coalition and would involve no further risks on his part. But against j^jg Q^y^ dreamy longing to pose as the chief figure on

the European stage, the deliverer of oppressed nationali- ties, coupled with the insistent promptings of Baron vom Stein, who was always at his elbow, eventually decided him to complete the overthrow of his rival. Late in December he signed a con- i[ vention with the Prussian commander. General Yorck, whereby the Prussian army was to cooperate with the Russian, British, and Swedish forces, and, in return, Prussia was to be restored to the position it had enjoyed prior to Jena. On 13 January, 181 3, Alexander at the head of the Russian troops crossed the Niemeri and proclaimed the liberty of the European peoples. King Frederick William III, amidst the enthusiastic rejoicing of his people, soon confirmed the convention of his general, and in March declared war against Napoleon. The War of Libera- tion had commenced.

The events of the year 1813 were as glorious in the history

'^ LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 563

of Germany as they were disastrous for the fortunes of Napo- leon. Prussia led in the movement to free all the German- speaking people from French domination. From Prus- The War of sia the national enthusiasm spread to the other states. Liberation Mecklenburg, which had been the last addition to the Confed- eration of the Rhine, was the first to secede from it. All north- ern and central Germany was speedily in popular revolt, and the Prussian army, swelled by many patriotic enlistments, marched southward into Saxony. Austria, divided between fear of Napoleon and jealousy of the growing power of Russia, mobilized her army and waited for events to shape her conduct. In these trying circumstances Napoleon acted with his accus- tomed promptness and vigor. Since his arrival in France late in 181 2, he had been frantically engaged in recruiting a new army, which, with the wreck of the Grande Armee and the assistance that was still forthcoming from Naples and southern Germany, now numbered 200,000 men, and with which he was ready to

If take the offensive in Saxony. On 2 May, 1813, he fell on the allied Russians and Prussians at Liitzen and defeated them, but was unable to follow up his advantage for want of cavalry. On 20—21 May, he gained another fruitless victory at Bautzen.

j It became increasingly ob\ious that he was being outnumbered

! and outmaneuvered.

At this point an armistice was arranged through the friendly mediation of Austria. The government of that country pro- posed a general European peace on the basis of the reconstruction of Prussia, the re-partition of the coaution grand-duchy of Warsaw by Russia, Prussia, and {°'"!,^ ^^ Austria, the re-cession of the Illyrian provinces to Austria, the dissolution of the Confederation of the Rhine, and the freedom of the German ports of Hamburg and Liibeck. But it was a decisive victory, not peace, that Napoleon most wanted, and the only reason which had induced him to accept the armistice was to gain time in order that reenforcements from Italy and France might arrive. The delay, however, was fatal to the French emperor, for his reenforcements were greatly outnumbered by the patriots who were continually flock- ing to the standards of the allies, and by 12 August, 1813, when a state of war was resumed, Austria, whose peace proposals had

w

\

564 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

been rudely rejected, had formally joined the coalition against him.

Napoleon was now at Dresden in supreme command of armies I aggregating about 400,000 men, opposed by 250,000 Austrians Leipzig, the ^^ Bohemia under Schwarzenberg ; 100,000 Prussians "Battle of and Russians in Silesia under Bliicher; 100,000 tions," Swedes, Prussians, and Russians near Berhn under

October, the Crown Prince Bernadotte of Sweden ; and at

least 300,000 reserves. At Dresden, in August, he won his last great victory, against the Austrian army of General Schwarzenberg. As his marshals suffered repeated reverses, he was unable to follow up his own successes and found himself gradually hemmed in by the allies, until at Leipzig he turned at bay. There, on 16-19 October, was fought the great three- day "Battle of the Nations." Against the 300,000 troops of the allies, Napoleon could use only 170,000, and of these the Saxon contingent deserted in the heat of the fray. It was by mihtary prowess that the French Empire had been reared ; its doom was sealed by the battle of Leipzig. Napoleon sacrificed on that field another 40,000 lives, besides 30,000 prisoners and a large quantity of artillery and supplies. A fortnight later, with the remnant of his army, he recrossed the Rhine. Ger- many was freed.

The "Battle of the Nations," following within a year the disasters of the retreat from Moscow, marked the collapse of Collapse Napoleon's power outside of France. His empire and of Napo- vassal states tumbled like a house of cards. The Con- Power federation of the Rhine dissolved, and its princes has- outside of tened, with a single exception, to throw in their lot

with the victorious alHes. King Jerome Bonaparte was chased out of WestphaHa. Holland was hberated, and Wil- liam of Orange returned to his country as king. Denmark sub- mitted and by the treaty of Kiel (January, 18 14) engaged to cede Norway to Sweden in return for a monetary payment and Swedish Pomerania. Austria readily recovered the Tyrol and the Illyrian provinces and occupied Venetia and Switzerland. Even Joachim Murat deserted his brother-in-law, and, in order to retain Naples, came to terms with Austria. Only Polish Warsaw and the king of Saxony remained loyal to the Napoleonic

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 565

alliance: the territories of both were in full possession of the allies.

With the remnant of his defeated army and what young boys and old men he was able to recruit, Napoleon needlessly pro- longed the struggle on French soil. At the close of 1813 Austria prevailed upon her more or less willing alHes to offer him wonder- fully favorable terms : France might retain her "natural bound- aries" — the Rhine, the Alps, and the Pyrenees; and Napoleon might continue to rule over a region which would have gladdened the heart of a Richelieu or of a Louis XIV. But it was still victory and not peace upon which the supreme egotist had set his mind. He still dreamed of overwhelming Prussia and Russia.

Early in 1814 three large foreign armies, totahng 400,000 men, and accompanied by the emperors of Russia and Austria and the king of Prussia, invaded northern France and converged on Paris. Bliicher with his German troops campaign was advancing up the Moselle to Nancy ; Schwar- ^ ^^^4 in zenberg with the Austrians crossed the Rhine to the south at Basel and Neu Breisach ; Bernadotte in the Nether- lands was welding Swedes, Dutch, and Prussians into a northern army. Meanwhile, the great defeat which Wellington with his allied army of British, Spaniards, and Portuguese, had in- flicted upon the French at Vittoria (21 June, 1813) had for the last time driven King Joseph from Madrid and in effect cleared the whole Iberian peninsula of Napoleon's soldiers. The British general had then gradually fought his way through the Pyrenees so that in the spring of 18 14 a fourth victorious allied army in the neighborhood of Toulouse threatened Napoleon from the south. An Austrian army, which was then operating in Venetia and Lombardy, menaced France from yet a fifth direction.

Against such overwhelming odds, Napoleon displayed through- out the desperate months of February and March, 1814, the same remarkable genius, the same indomitable will, as had character- ized his earliest campaigns. If anything, his resourcefulness and his rapidity of attack were even greater. Inflicting a setback on one invader, he would turn quickly and dash against a second. Such apprehension did his tiger-like assaults excite among his opponents that as late as February he might have retained the French frontiers of 1792 if he had chosen to make peace. He

566 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

would play the game to the bitter end. On i March, the four Great Powers — Great Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia — concluded the treaty of Chaumont, definitely cementing their alliance for a period of twenty years and mutually agreeing not to make terms without each other's consent nor to desist from war until their arch-enemy had been overthrown : each con- tracting party undertook to furnish 150,000 men, and Great Britain further promised a subsidy of five milhon pounds. The fate of Napoleon was at last settled.

To describe in any detail the brilliant campaign of 18 14 lies outside our province. Suffice it to state that, after the most Surrender stubbom fighting, resistance was broken. Paris sur- °^fY!^. rendered to the allies on ^i March, and thirteen days

and Abdi- .

cation of later Napoleon signed with the allied sovereigns the Napoleon personal treaty of Fontainebleau, by which he abdi- cated his throne and renounced all rights to France for himself and his family, and, in return, was guaranteed full sovereignty of the island of Elba and an annual pension of two million francs for himself ; the ItaHan duchy of Parma was conferred upon the Empress Maria Louisa, and pensions of two and a half milHon francs were promised for members of his family. Another seven days and Napoleon bade his Old Guard an affecting fare- well and departed for Elba. In his diminutive island empire, hard by the shore of Tuscany and within sight of his native Corsica, Napoleon Bonaparte lived ten months, introducing such vigor into the administration as the island had never experienced and all the while pondering many things.

Meanwhile, in France order was emerging from chaos. In 1793 European sovereigns had banded together to invade France, „ , . to restore the divine-right monarchy of the Bourbons

Restoration , . i r i • m i i i

of the and the traditional rights of the privileged classes, and

Bourbons j-q stamp out the embryonic principles of liberty, equahty, and fraternity. The most noteworthy significance of the Era of Napoleon was the simple fact that now in 1814 the monarchs of Europe, at last in possession of France, had no serious thought of restoring social or political conditions just as they had been prior to the Revolution. Their major quarrel was not with principles but with a man. The Tsar Alexander, to whom more than to any other one person.

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 567

was due the triumph of the alHes, was a benevolent prince, well- versed in the revolutionary philosophy, considerate of popular wishes, and anxious to promote a lasting peace. Talleyrand, the man of the hour among Frenchmen, who himself had played no mean role throughout the Revolution and under Napoleon, combined with a desire to preserve the frontiers of his country a firm conviction that the bulk of his countrymen would not revert to absolute monarchy. Between Talleyrand and Alexander it was arranged, with the approval of wi'th^the"*^* the Great Powers, that in the name of "legitimacy" Revoiu- the Bourbons should be restored to the throne of f(j°eaT^ France, but with the understanding that they should fully recognize and confirm the chief social and political reforms of the Revolution. It was Ukewise arranged by the treaty of Paris (30 May, 1814), also in the name of "legitimacy," that France should regain the limits of 1792, should recover practi- cally all the colonies which Great Britain had seized during the course of the Napoleonic wars,^ and should pay no indemnity. "Legitimacy" was a brilliant discovery of Talleyrand: it justi- fied the preservation of France in the face of crushing defeat, and, if it restored the Bourbons, it did so as limited, not as absolute, monarchs.

Louis XVI's "legitimate" heir was his brother, the count of Provence, a c>Tiical, prosaic, and very stout old gentleman who had been quietly residing in an EngHsh country-house, , . ^„„,

,, 1 , T • Louis XVIII

and who now made a solemn, if somewhat unimpres- sive, state entry into Paris. The new king kept what forms of the old regime he could : he assumed the title of Louis XVIII, "king of France by the grace of God"; he reckoned his reign from the death of the dauphin ("Louis XVII") in the year 1795 ; he replaced the revolutionary tricolor by the white and lihes of his family ; out of the fullness of his divinely bestowed royal authority he granted a charter to the French people. But Louis XVIII was neither so foolish nor so principled as to insist upon the substance of Bourbon autocracy : the very Constitu- tional Charter, which he so graciously promulgated, confirmed the Revolutionary Hberties of the individual and estabhshed a

^ ^ Great Britain kept Tobago and St. Lucia in the West Indies, and Mauritius (lie de France) on the route to India.

568 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

fairly liberal form of government for France. It was obvious that the gouty old man had no desire to risk his head or to embark again upon his travels.

The same month that witnessed the unbecoming straddle of this French Bourbon between revolution and reaction, beheld the restoration of another Bourbon in the person of ReXa"'^ Ferdinand VII to the throne of Spain, and the re- tions Else- turn of Pope Pius VII, amid the enthusiastic shouts Europe"^ of the Romans, to the ancient see upon the Tiber. About the same time Piedmont and Savoy were re- stored to Victor Emmanuel I, king of Sardinia. Europe was rapidly assuming a more normal appearance. To settle the out- standing territorial questions which the overthrow of Napoleon had raised, a great congress of rulers and diplomats met at Vienna in the autumn of 1814.

Within a few months the unusual calm was rudely broken by the sudden reappearance of Napoleon Bonaparte himself upon Napoleon ^^^^ European stage. It was hardly to be expected at Elba, that he for whom the whole Continent had been too

1814 1815 gniall would be contented in tiny Elba. He nursed grievances, too. He could get no payment of the revenue secured him by the treaty of Fontainebleau ; his letters to his wife and Uttle son were intercepted and unanswered ; he was treated as an outcast. He became aware of a situation both in France and at Vienna highly favorable to his own ambition. As he foresaw, the shrinkage of the great empire into the realm of old France filled many patriotic Frenchmen with disgust, a feeling fed every day by stories of the presumption of returning emigres and of the tactless way in which the Bourbon princes treated veterans of the Grande Armee. Napoleon in time felt certain that he could count once more upon the loyalty of the French nation. That he would not be obHged to encounter again the combined forces of the European Powers he inferred from his knowledge of the ever-recurring jealousies among them and from the fact that even then Russia and Prussia on one side were quarreling with Austria and Great Britain on the other over the fate of Saxony and Poland. If some fighting were necessary, the return of French prisoners from Russia, Germany, Great Britain, and Spain would supply him with an army far larger

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 569

than that with which he had fought the briUiant campaign of 1814.

On 26 February, 18 15, Napoleon sUpped away from Elba with some twelve hundred men, and, managing to elude the British guardships, disembarked at Cannes on i March and advanced northward. Troops sent out to arrest The Epi- the arch-rebel were no proof against the familiar uni- Nap^oieon's form and cocked hat : they threw their own hats in Return to the air amid ringing shouts of vivc Vempereiir. Every- J^^ ' where the adventurer received a hearty welcome. Hundred which attested at once the unpopularity of the Bour- jyiYrck- bons and the singular attractiveness of his own per- June, 1815 sonality. The French people, being but human, put imagination in the place of reason. Without firing a shot in his defense, Napoleon's bodyguard swelled until it became an army. Marshal Ney, the "bravest of the brave," who had taken the oath of allegiance to the Bourbons and had promised Louis XVIII that he would bring Napoleon to Paris in an iron cage, deserted to him with 6000 men, and on 20 March the emperor jauntily entered the capital. Louis XVHI himself, who had assured his parliament that he would die in defense of his throne, was already in precipitate flight toward the Bel- gian frontier.

Napoleon clinched his hold upon the French people by means of an astute manifesto w-hich he promptly published. "He had come," he declared, "to save France from the out- Napoleon rages of the returning nobles ; to secure to the peasant *°^ France the possession of his land; to uphold the rights won in 1789 against a minority which sought to reestablish the privileges of caste and the feudal burdens of the last century ; France had made trial of the Bourbons ; it had done well to do so, but the experiment had failed ; the Bourbon m.onarchy had proved incapable of detaching itself from its w'orst supports, the priests and nobles ; only the dynasty which owed its throne to the Revo- lution could maintain the social work of the Revolution. . . . He renounced war and conquest ... he would govern hence- forth as a constitutional sovereign and seek to bequeath a con- stitutional crown to his son."

The emperor was as wTong in his judgment of what Europe

570 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

would do as he was right concerning the attitude of France. The statesmen who had been haggUng about treaty stipulations Napoleon at Vienna speedily forgot all their differences in the and Europe f^^^^g q{ i\^q common danger. The four Great Powers solemnly renewed their treaty of alUance, and with alacrity and unanimity all joined in signing a declaration. "In violat- ing the convention which estabhshed him in the island of Elba, Bonaparte has destroyed the only legal title to his existence. By reappearing in France with projects of disorder and destruc- tion, he has cut himself off from the protection of the law, and has shown in the face of all the world that there can be neither peace nor truce with him. Accordingly the Powers declare that Napoleon Bonaparte is excluded from ci\'il and social rela- tions, and as an enemy and disturber of the tranquilHty of the world he has incurred pubKc vengeance. ..."

In order to give force to their threats, the allies rushed troops toward France. WelHngton assembled an army of more than 100,000 British, Dutch, and Germans, and planned to cooperate with 120,000 Prussians under Bliicher near Brussels. The Austrian army under Schwarzenberg neared the Rhine. Russia and Germany were aHve with marching columns. To oppose these forces Napoleon raised an army of 200,000 men, and on 12 June, 18 1 5, quitted Paris for the Belgian frontier. His plan was to separate his opponents and to overcome them singly : it would be a repetition of the campaign of 18 14, though on a larger scale.

How Napoleon passed the border and forced the outposts

of the enemy back to Waterloo ; how there, on 18 June, he fought

„, ^ , the final great battle of his remarkable career ; how

Waterloo ° ,

his troops were mowed down by the fearful fire of his

adversaries and how even his famous Old Guard rallied gloriously but ineffectually to their last charge ; how the defeat adminis- tered by Wellington was turned at the close of the day into a mad rout through the arrival of Blucher's forces : all these mat- ters are commonplaces in the most elementary histories of mili- tary science. It has long been customary to cite the battle of Waterloo as one of the world's decisive battles. In a sense this is just, but it should be borne in mind that, in view of the firm united determination of all Europe, there was no ultimate chance

"LIBERTY, EQU.\LITY, FRATERNITY" 571

for Napoleon. If he had defeated WeUington, he would still have had to deal with Bliicher. If he should then defeat the Prussians, he would have to turn suddenly against Schwarzen- berg and the Austrians. By that time Wellington would have been sufficiently reenforced to resume the offensive, and the war would ha\-c gone on inevitably to but a single grim conclusion. The alHes could put almost limitless numbers in the field ; Na- poleon was at the end of his resources. For the conservation of human life, it was fortunate that Napoleon was overwhelmed at Waterloo and that the first battle of the campaign of 1815 was also its last. Waterloo added military prestige to the naval preeminence which Great Britain already enjoyed, and finally estabHshed the reputation of WeUington as the greatest general of his age next only to Napoleon himself. It is small wonder that the English have magnified and glorified Waterloo.^

On 21 June, Napoleon arrived in Paris, defeated and dejected. That very day the parHament, on the motion of Lafayette, declared itself in permanent session and took over all pjj^^ functions of government. The following day Napo- Overthrow leon abdicated the second time in favor of his son, and ° ^^° *°° the provisional government of France, under the skillful trim- ming of the clever Fouche, reopened negotiations with the Bourbons. On 7 July the allies reoccupied Paris, bringing the flustered old Louis XVIII "in their baggage-train." The Bourbons, thus unheroically restored, were destined for fifteen years to maintain in peace their compromise between revolution and reaction.

On 15 July, the day following the anniversary of the fall of

the Bastille, Napoleon, who had gone to Rochefort on the French

coast, with some vague idea of taking refuge in

America, delivered himself over to the commander of a at St.

British warship which was lying in the harbor. For ^„®^®°^i

, ,. ^ r ^ ■ • 1 1815-1821

us who hve a century after the stirrmg events whose

narrative has filled this chapter, it is easy to perceive that

^ An interesting side issue of the Waterloo campaign was the fate of Joachim Murat. The wily king of Naples, distrustful of the allies' guarantees, threw in his lot with his brother-in-law. His forces were speedily put to rout by the Austri- ans and he himself fled to France and later to Corsica, and was ultimately captured and shot. His action enabled still another Bourbon, the despicable Ferdinand I, to recover his throne.

572 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

the British government might safely have extended hospitahty to their famous captive and might have granted him an asylum in England. He was finally discredited in the eyes not only of the European despots but also of the vast majority of the French people; no matter how much he might burn with the flame of his old ambition, he could never again be in a position to endanger the safety or prosperity of the United Kingdom. But in 1815 Englishmen felt differently, and naturally so. To them Napoleon had been for years a more troublesome and dangerous enemy than a Philip II or a Louis XIV. By them he was deemed the unregenerate child of darkness and of the evil spirit. And " General Bonaparte," as the British authori- ties persisted in calUng him, was not suffered to touch foot upon the sacred soil of England, but was dispatched on another British warship to the rocky island of St. Helena in the south Atlantic.

On St. Helena Napoleon Kved five and a half years. He was allowed considerable freedom of movement and the society of a group of close personal friends. He spent his time in walking on the lonely island or in quarreUng with his suspicious strait- laced English jailer. Sir Hudson Lowe, or in writing treatises on history and war and dictating memoirs to his companions. These memoirs, which were subsequently published by the Marquis de Las Cases, were subtly compounded of truth and falsehood. They represented Napoleon Bonaparte in the light of a true son and heir of the Revolution, who had been raised by the will of the French people to great power in order that he might consoli- date the glorious achievements of hberty, equahty, and fraternity. According to the emperor himself, he had always been the friend of peace and of oppressed nationalities, the author of blessings which had flowed uninterruptedly upon his people until he had been thwarted by the machinations of the British and the sheer brute force of the European despots. Napoleon shrewdly fore- saw the increase of popular discontent with the repressive meas- ures which the reactionary sovereigns and statesmen of Europe were Ijound to inaugurate, and in the resulting upheaval he thought he could see an opportunity for his beloved son to build anew an empire of the French. It could hardly have been blind chance that caused him to insert in his will the jiious request

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 573

that he "be buried on the banks of the Seine in the midst of the French people whom he so dearly loved." On 5 May, 182 1, the greatest adventurer of modern times died on the island of St. Helena.

Already the history of the emperor was becoming the Na- poleonic Legend. The more his memory was revered as the noble martyr of St. Helena, the more truth withdrew .< ^^^ into the background and fiction stepped into the Napoleonic limehght. His holocausts of human life were for- *^^" gotten ; only the glory, the unconquerable prowess of his arms, was remembered. French cottages were adorned with cheap likenesses of the little corporal's features ; quaint, endearing nicknames for their hero were on villagers' lips ; and around hearth and campfire were related apocryphal anecdotes of his exploits at Lodi, at Austerhtz, and at Wagram. From a selfish despot Napoleon was returning to his mightier, if humbler, position as a cliild of the people. Thus the last years at St. Helena were far from fruitless : they proved once more that the pen is mightier than the sword, — for one day, not by feats of arms, but by the power of the Napoleonic Legend, another Bonaparte was to be seated upon the throne of France.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ERA OF NAPOLEON

If we turn now from the story of Napoleon's life to an attempt to appraise the significance of the whole era which fittingly bears his name, we are struck by its manifold achieve-

,., . J ... 1 • A Continu-

ments m politics and society, m commerce, and in ^^j^j^ ^j war. In general it was a continuation of the French the Revo- Revolution. The principles of liberty, equality, and ^j°^^^^ fraternity, which, from 1789 to 1799, had been laid down as the foundation exclusively of French political and social institutions, became, from 1799 to 181 5, the building-blocks for all European nations. The least understood and used was undoubtedly Hberty. To be sure, both the Consulate "Liberty" and the empire were concrete and substantial examples under of the replacement of the old theory of divine-right ^^° ^°° monarchy by the new idea of popular sovereignty, of governments resting, in last analysis, upon the consent of the governed.

574 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

But Napoleon did hardly more to vitalize individual liber- ties than did the benevolent despots of the eighteenth century, or those of his own day. To secure the interested support of the bourgeoisie and the peasantry, the sacred right of private property was eloquently reafhrmed, and, as a trusty weapon against possible clerical pretensions, the noble rights of hberty of conscience and Hberty of worship were grandiloquently preached ; but the less serviceable hberties of speech and of publication were confined within the narrowest limits of mili- tary and imperial toleration.

With equahty it was quite different. In all the lands annexed to France or included witliin the radius of Napoleon's direct " Equality " influence, the forms and rights of feudalism and serf- under dom wcre aboUshed, and the social equalities embodied

Napoleon ^^ ^j^^ Code NapoUon were guaranteed. Throughout southern Germany, the Netherlands, the Iberian peninsula, and a great part of Italy, as well as in France, the social aspects of the old regime underwent a thorough transformation ; interior customs lines, private roadways, toll-bridges, and internal trade restrictions were swept away ; in the place of large landed estates, with their old-time noble owners and their wretched peasants attached to the soil and suffering from burdensome tithes and dues and personal services, appeared a numerous class of peasant proprietors, owning and tilUng their own fields, free to buy, sell, or exchange them, or to move away to the grow- ing towns. Outside of Napoleon's direct influence, the land reforms of Baron vom Stein in Prussia reflected the same spirit of the age. These social gains in the direction of equahty were, in fact, the most permanent achievements of the Napoleonic Era : in spite of later reaction, it was beyond the reach of possi- bility to restore the inequaUties of the outworn feudal system.

Fraternity, or national patriotism, received a marked impetus "Frater- during the era. Communicated from France by the nity " under ardor of the revolutionary and Napoleonic soldiers, Napoleon j^ evoked ready response not only in Poland, Holland, Portugal, Spain, England, and Russia, in which countries it was already existent, but also in the Germanics and in the Itahan states, where centuries of. petty strife and jealousy seemed to have blotted it out forever. The significance of the Napoleonic

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 575

period in the history of Germany is incalculable. The diminu- tion of the number of states, the aboUtion of the effete Holy Roman Empire, the regeneration of Prussia, the War of Libera- tion, the Battle of the Nations, the consciousness of common interests, and the wave of patriotism which swept over the whole German folk, presaged before the lapse of Emphasis manv decades the poHtical unification of the Ger- ?^ Nationai-

•^ ■"■ , ism

manies and the erection of a powerful national state. Nor were the Italians devoid of a similar national feeling. The fame of Napoleon, a man of Italian blood, the temporary es- tabhshment of a "kingdom of Italy," the title of "king of Rome" conferred upon the infant heir to Napoleon's fortunes, the social reforms and the patriotic awakening throughout the peninsula, — all betokened a national destiny for the whole Italian people.

In minor pohtical ways the Napoleonic Era was not without signilicance. The Tsar was enabled finally to acquire Finland, Poland, and Turkish land as far as the River Pruth, j^i^oT thus completing the work of Peter the Great and Political Catherine the Great, and rounding out the European ^pp^'^^ss frontier of Russia to its present extent. Sweden secured Norway and a new dynasty, which, descended from Marshal Bernadotte, the interesting son of an obscure French lawyer, has reigned ever since. In the case of Portugal, the flight of the royal family to Brazil in 1807 had the curious effect of causing them for several years to hold their court in their principal colony and to govern the mother-country through regents.

Beyond continental Europe the period was of utmost impor- tance. The maritime and commercial supremacy of Great Britain, which had been seriously shaken by the War of Amer- Remark- ican Independence, was regained in the course of the able sig- Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. Of course the ^^ ^-^^ ^^^^ United States continued independent. But the great to Great \dctories of Lord Nelson over the French fleets rendered " ^ Great Britain the true mistress of the seas ; and she proceeded to utihze her naval superiority to appropriate what remaining French colonies most suited her purpose. In this ^^^j^j^gg way she possessed herself of Malta (1800), St. Lucia, Tobago (1803), and Mauritius (1810). Then, too, the depend- ence of Holland upon France, involuntary though it was most

576 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

of the time, afforded her an opportunity to seize such valu- able Dutch colonies as Ceylon (1795), Guiana (1803), and South Africa (1806). The sorry subservience of the Spanish Bourbons to Napoleon gave Great Britain a similar chance to prey upon Spanish commerce, to occupy some Spanish colonies, and to open others to her own trade : at this time the British took possession of Trinidad (1797) and Honduras (1798) and sent raiding expeditions against Buenos Aires and Montevideo (1806- 1807). The subsequent Peninsular War, in which, as we have seen, the British cooperated with the Spaniards in maintaining the latter's freedom against Napoleon, put an end to the hostile British incursions into the Spanish colonies, but it worked in another way to Great Britain's advantage. The Spanish colonies — Mexico, Central America, and the greater part of

Commerce ^ia- i- V--

South America — were thrown mto grave admmis-

trative perplexities by the conflict of authority between the two Bourbon kings, Charles IV and Ferdinand VII, and between King Joseph Bonaparte and the revolutionary juntas ; the colonists gradually got into the habit of managing their own affairs and of opening their ports to British trade ; and the result was that by 1 8 14, when Ferdinand was at length firmly established upon the Spanish throne, he was confronted by colonists, the greater number of whom had all along professed allegiance to him, but who now, accustomed to the advantages of free trade and practi- cal independence, were resolved to maintain them. The dis- ruption of the Spanish colonial empire was a direct outcome of Napoleon's career, and next to the colonists themselves the Brit- ish were the chief beneficiaries. In general, the new colonies which Great Britain acquired were intended either, as in the case of Malta, Mauritius, Ceylon, and South Africa, to strengthen her hold upon India, or, as in the case of the others, to develop her trade with Spanish America.

This naval predominance of Great Britain and the expansion of her commerce and colonial empire synchronized with the ^ ^ ^ rapid development of the Industrial Revolution within

Industry t^ 1 i t ....

England. It was the ceaseless operation of spinning

frames and power looms, of blast furnaces and steam engines,

in a country on which the French emperor's army had never

trod, that most truly worked the downfall of Napoleon.

LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY

577

I— ( e

r3 f^ 9J ;L

u , t;— " c e

<-C o Cf-ao O Soo

O^adZ °

_ 3 CO ^^

~ « C 0 ri u "

-J SPL, O

PQ

^"I^K

"W « =« 2 u '^

W""^'

pq i,

- 3 3.-

■Or2EJ!_>-3 , c ■;:: W v„ o c

■° S

E>-^

rz-

; K j= ^-TD

^0-58

o ■" pa q

D.CO'— I

ao

1°

bX

578 HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

ADDITIONAL READING

Textbook Narratives. H. E. Bourne, The Revolutionary Period in Europe, 1763-181S (1914), ch. xvii-xxvii; J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard, The Development of Modern Europe, Vol. I (1907), ch. xiv, xv; H. M. Stephens, Revolutionary Europe, i/Sg-iSis (1893), ch. vii-xi ; J. H. Rose, Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era, ijSg-iSiS (1895), ch. vii-xi; J. A. R. Marriott, The Remaking of Modern Europe, lySg-iSjS (1910), ch. vii-xi; H. T. Dyer, A History of Modern Europe from the Fall of Constantinople, 3d ed. rev. by Arthur Hassall (1901), ch. Ixi-lxvii; C. A. Fyffe, A History of Modern Europe, iyg2-i8'/8 (1896), ch. v-xii.

Standard Biographies of Napoleon. Two suggestive outHnes, either one of which may serve as an admirable introduction to more careful study : Herbert Fisher, Napoleon (191 2), in the "Home University Library"; and R. M. Johnston, Napoleon, a Short Biography (1910). August Fournier, Napoleon I, 3d rev. ed., 3 vols. (1914), perhaps the best biography, a German work, scholarly, well written, and impartial, trans, into EngHsh from the 2d German edition by A. E. Adams, 2 vols. (191 2). J. H. Rose, The Life of Napoleon I, new ed., 2 vols, in i (1907), a highly prized work, mainly political, and thoroughly British in tone; and, by the same author. The Personality of Napoleon (191 2), a collection of interesting lectures. W. M. Sloane, The Life of Napoleon Bonaparte, rev. and enlarged ed., 4 vols. (1910), confined largely to the personal history of Napoleon, with special reference to his earlier years, based upon source-material, and pro- fusely illustrated. J. C. Ropes, The First Napoleon (1900), a mihtary and political outline by an authority on several of the great campaigns of the emperor. Pierre Lanfrey, The History of Napoleon the First, Eng. trans., 2d ed., 4 vols. (1894), a severe arraignment of the character and poHcies of Napoleon by a celebrated French scholar, reaches only to the close of the year 181 1. Adolphe Thiers, Histoire du consulat et de V empire, 20 vols., highly laudatory of Napoleon, and should be read as an antidote to Lanfrey ; the portion of the work down to 1807 has been translated into English by D. F. Campbell, 2 vols, in i (1845). H. A. Taine, The Modern Regime, Eng. trans, by John Durand, 2 vols. (1890-1894), a brilliant and fascinating analysis of Napoleon's genius and a critical estimate of the importance of the institutions established by him. Frederic Masson, Napoleon et sa famille, 5th ed., 12 vols. (1897-1915), an encyclopedia of information concerning the emperor's numerous relatives, and, by the same author. Napoleon a Sainte-Helene (1912). Three volumes of an elaborate history of Napoleon appeared in 1912-1914, the work of a well-known German specialist, F. M. Kircheisen, Napoleon I : sein Leben und seine Zeit. See also, on the early life of Bonaparte, Oscar Browning, Napoleon : the First Phase, lydg-i/gj (1905) ; and, on his final years at St. Helena, Lord Rose- bery, Napoleon: the Last Phase (1900). An illuminating work is that of A. M. Broadley, Napoleon in Caricature, iygj~j82i, with an introductory essay by J. H. Rose, 2 vols. (191 1).

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 579

Illustrative Source Material. In addition to the indispensable Readings in Modern European History by J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard (1909), the following selections from the masses of source material are especially serviceable : D. A. Bingham, A Selection from the Letters and Despatches of the First Napoleon, 3 vols. (1884) ; Memoirs of the History of France during the Reign of Napoleon, dictated by him at St. Helena to the generals who shared his captivity, Eng. trans., 2d ed., 4 vols. (1823-1824) ; the correspondence of Napoleon I, published in French under the auspices of Napoleon III, 32 vols. (1858-1870), and Napoleon's military correspondence published under the auspices of the JNlinistry of War of the Third French Republic; Narrative of Captain Coignet, new French ed. (1909), Eng. trans, by Mrs. Carey, the story of the life of a soldier in the ranks. Of the abun- dant memoirs of the period, the best are those of Mme. de Remusat, cover- ing the years 1802-1808, hostile but informing, Eng. trans, by Mrs. Cashel Hoey and John Lillie (1891) ; Fauvalet de Bourrienne, Eng. trans, by J. S. Memos, 3 vols. (1892) ; Antoine de Marbot, 3 vols. ; C. F. de Meneval, covering the years 1802-1815, 3 vols. (1894) ; A. F. Miot de Melito, Eng. trans. (1881) ; L. P. de Segur, 3 vols; and C. M. de Talleyrand-Perigord, Eng. trans., 5 vols. (1891-1892). For further bibliographical suggestions, see F. M. Kircheisen, Bibliography of Napoleon (1902). An extended bib- liography is in course of publication by an Italian scholar, Alberto Lumbroso, 5 parts to date (1894-1914).

The Era of Napoleon. A very brief summary : Charles Seignobos, History of Contemporary Civilization, trans, by J. A. James (1909), pp. 150- 185. Standard general works: Cambridge Modern History, Vol. IX (1906) ; Histoire generale, V'ol. IX ; History of All Nations, Vol. XVI, The French Revolution and the Rise of Napoleon, ch. viii, ix, and Vol. XVII, The Na- poleonic Empire, by Theodor Flathe ; Wilhelm Oncken, Das Zeitalter der Revolution, des Kaiserreiches, und der Befreiungskriege, 2 vols. (1884-1886); Emile Bourgeois, Manuel kistorique de politique etrangere, 4th ed., Vol. II (1909), ch. viii-xviii. Standard works on special phases of the era : Armand Lefebvre, Histoire des cabinets de V Europe pendant le consulat et I'empire 1800-1815, 2d ed., 5 vols. (1866-1869), an admirable diplomatic history; Albert Sorel, U Europe et la revolution franc^aise, 8 vols. (1885-1904), a standard authoritative work, of which Vols. VI-VIII treat of the com- munication of revolutionary ideas to Europe during the Era of Napoleon ; L. de Lanzac de Laborie, Paris sous Napoleon, 8 vols. (1905-1913), invalu- able for a detailed study of French life under Napoleon ; Emile Levasseur, Histoire des classes ouvrieres et de I'industrie en France de lySg a 18/0, Vol. I (1903), Livre II, Le consulat et I'empire, for social history; Jean Jaures, Histoire sociallste, lySg-igoo, Vol. VI, by Paul Brousse and Henri Turot, Le consulat et V empire, i/qq-i8ij (1905), likewise for social history ; J. O. B. de Cleron d'Haussonville, L'eglise romaine et le premier empire, 1800-18 14, 5 vols. (1868-1869), for ecclesiastical affairs; Alphonse Aulard, Napoleon r^ et la monopole universitaire (191 1), for educational matters; Henri Welschinger, La censure sous le premier empire (1882), for restrictions on

58o HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE

personal liberty in France ; and for French plots and attempts against Napoleon, the works of Ernest Daudet, particularly La police ct les chouans sous le considat et V empire, 1800-1815 (1895), Histoire de V emigration, 3 vols. (1886-1890), and Uexil et la mart du General Moreau (1909) ; and Sir John Hall, General Pichegru's Treason (191 6).

Military Campaigns of Napoleon. T. A. Dodge, Napoleon : a History of the Art of War, 4 vols. (1904-1907), the work of an American army ofificer, not always accurate, but the best general account in English ; A. T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution and Empire, 1793- j8i2, loth ed., 2 vols. (1898), a justly famous book, especially valuable for the Continental System. Special campaigns : Albert \^andal, Napoleon et Alexander I^, 3d ed., 3 vols. (1893-1896) ; R. G. Burton, Napoleon's Campaigns in Italy, i/gd-iygy and 1800 (191 2), and, by the same author, From Boidogne to Austerlitz: Napoleon's Campaign of 1805 (19 12); the works of F. L. Petre, particularly Napoleon's Conquest of Prussia, 1806 (1907), Napoleon's Campaign in Poland, 1806-1807 (1906), Napoleon and the Archduke Charles (1908), Napoleon's Last Campaign in Germany, 181 J (191 2), Napoleon at Bay (1914) ; Henry Houssaye, Jena ct la campagne de 1806, with introduction by Louis Madelin (1912); £douard Driault, Austerlitz: la fin du Saint-Empire, 1804-1808 (1912) ; Charles Oman, History of the Peninsular War, a monumental work extending to the year 181 2, 5 vols. (1902-1914), and, by the same author, Wellington's Army, 1809-1814 (1912) ; Hermann Baumgarten, Geschichte Spaniens vom Aus- bruch der franzosischcn Revolution bis aiif unsere Tage, Vol. I (1865), a scholarly German treatment of the Peninsular campaign ; R. G. Burton, Napoleon's Invasion of Russia (1914) ; F. W. O. Maycock, The Invasion of France, 1814 (191 5); Oscar Browning, The Fall of Napoleon (1907), useful for the years 1813-1815 ; E. F. Henderson, Bliicher and the Uprising of Prussia against Napoleon, 1806-18 15 (191 1), in the "Heroes of the Nations" Series; D. P. Barton, Bernadotte : the First Phase, lydj-iygg (1914) ; A. F. Becke, Napoleon and Waterloo, 2 vols. (1914) ; J. C. Ropes, The Campaign of Waterloo, 2d ed. (1893).

The Germanics in the Era of Napoleon. Brief accounts : G. M. Priest, Germany since 1740 (191 5), ch. iv-vii; Ferdinand Schevill, The Making of Modern Germany (1916), ch. iii ; E. F. Henderson, A Short History of Germany, Vol. H (1902), ch. vi, vii, and, by the same author, the book on Bliicher listed in the preceding paragraph ; C. T. Atkinson, A History of Germany, 1713-1815 (1908), almost exclusively a mihtary history; H. A. L. Fisher, Studies in Napoleonic Statesmanship: Germany (1903), instruc- tive and stimulating. The best and most thorough work in English is J. R. Seeley, Life and Times of Stein, or Germany and Prussia in the Na- poleonic Age, 2 vols. (1879). Standard German works, all highly patriotic in tone : Ludwig Hausser, Deutsche Geschichte vom Tode Friedrichs des Grossen bis zur Grilndung des dciitschen Bundes, 4th ed., 4 vols. (1869) ; K. T. von Heigel, Deutsche Geschichte vom Tode Friedrichs des Grossen bis zur Aufiosung des alten Reiches, 2 vols. (1899-1911) ; Hans von Zwiedi-

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" 581

neck-Siidenhorsl , Deutsche Geschichte von der Auflosung des alien bis zur Errichlung dcs iieiicn Kaiscrreiches, 1806-1871 , 3 vols. (18Q7-IQ05), of which Vol. I deals with the years 1806-1815; Heinrich von Treitschke, Deulsclic Gcscliichle im neunzelinlen Jahrkundcrt, 5 vols. (1890-1896), of which Vol. I, in Eng. trans. (1915), covers the period down to 1814; Hein- rich Ulmann, Geschichle der Bejreiungskriege, 181 j und 1814, 2 vols. (1914- 1915), not so much military as poUtical and diplomatic; Hans Delbriick, Das Leben des Feldmarschalls Graf en Neidhardl von Gnei senate, 3d rev. ed. (1913). A reliable French view is that of Ernest Denis, V Allemagne, ijSg-iSio (1896).

Great Britain in the Era of Napoleon. Sir Herbert IMaxwell, .1 Cenlury of Empire, Vol. I, i8oi~iSj2 (1909), political and conservative; G. C. Broderick and J. K. Fothcrmgham, Political History of England, 1801- iSj/ (1906), accurate but dry, containing valuable bibliographies; J. H. Rose, William Pitt and the Great War (191 1), a notable contribution, and, by the same author, though not so excellent, Pitt and Napoleon : Essays and Letters (191 2); W. C. Russell, Horatio Nelson (1890), a convenient httle biography in the " Heroes of the Nations " Series; A. T. ISIahan, The Life of Nelson, the Embodiment of the Sea Power of Great Britain, 2 vols. (1897), a standard work; J. S. Corbett, Campaign of Trafalgar (1913), with reference to Pitt more than to Nelson ; A. T. Mahan, Sea Power in its Relation to the War of 1812, 2 vols. (1905) ; J. W. Fortescue, History of the British Army, Vols. IV-VII (1906-1912), a monumental work on the British military campaigns from 1793 to 1810; Sir W. L. Clowes (editor). The Royal Navy : a History, Vol. IV (1899), ch. xxxiv-xxxvii, for the years 1792-1802, and Vol. V (1900), for 1803-1815; J. W. Fortescue, British Statesmen of the Great War, I7qj~i8i4 (191 i), derogatory of Pitt and marked by zealous prejudice in favor of other Tory statesmen, especially Castle- reagh and Liverpool ; Sir Herbert Maxwell, The Life of Wellington, 2 vols. (1899); W. O'C. Morris, Wellington, Soldier and Statesman (1904), in "Heroes of the Nations" Series; F. J. MacCunnan, The Contemporary English View of Napoleon (1914), an interesting compilation.

INDEX

Abjuration, (Dutch) Act of, g6.

Academy, French, 195, 240, 418.

Academy of Science, Berlin, 443.

Acadia, 301, 307-309.

Act of Supremacy (English), 153.

Act of Union with Ireland (British), 431.

Act of Union with Scotland (Enghsh), 289, 430.

Africa, Portuguese in, 50-5 1 ; Dutch in, 59 ; English and French in, 302.

Agriculture, in sixteenth century, 28-36, 69- 70; in eighteenth century, 395-399; in France under Sully, 210-211; under Colbert, 239; effect of Commercial Revo- lution on, 68.

Aix-la-Chapelle, peace of (1668), 244; (1748), 311, 357-

Alais, Edict of, 214.

Albany Congress, 326.

Albigensians, 123.

Albuquerque, 55.

Alcabala, 57, 90.

Aldine Press, 179.

Alexander I, of Russia, 537-539, 540, 556, 558-560, 562, 566-567.

Alexander VI, Pope, 16, 55.

Alexandria, 114.

Alsace, 227, 228, 357.

Alva, duke of, 93, 94.

Ambassadors, first sent regularly by Venice, 17, 231. _

America, discovery of, 18, 53-54; Dutch in, 59; EngUsh in, 59-60, 300-301; French in, 60, 300-301; Portuguese in, 55, 59 n.; Spanish in, 55-57, 87.

American Independence, War of, 332-337.

Amiens, treaty of, 527, 536.

Amsterdam, 95, 96.

Anabaptists, 134-135, 145, 148 n. (See Baptists.)

AngUcanism, in sixteenth century, 148-156, 172-173; and John Knox, 146-147; and James I, 267-268; and Charles I, 273- 274; and Cromwell, 280; and James II, 287 ; and Queen Anne, 290 ; in eighteenth century, 410.

Anne, of Great Britain, 252, 289, 290.

Anthony, of Navarre, 102.

Antioch, 114.

Antwerp, 66, 93, 95, 96.

Aquinas, Thomas, 118, 159.

Aragon, 8, 9, 76, 90, 91. (See Spain.)

Arcliitccture, in sixteenth century, 186-187.

Arians, 123.

Ariosto, 194.

Aristotle, 176, 200.

Armada, Spanish, 100, 262, 304.

Armed Neutrahty of the North, (1780), 334; (1800), 526, 527.

Arndt, 557.

Arras, treaty of, 95.

Art, in sixteenth century, 185-192, 202 ; and Colbert, 240.

Artois, count of, 467, 487, 488, 491.

Asia. {See India, etc.)

Asiento, 309, 312.

Assembly, Legislative (1791-1792), 494-501.

Assembly, National Constituent (1789-1791), 473-474, 476-486, 494, 503. 512. 513-

Assembly of Notables, 460.

Assignals, 483, 513, 514.

Astrology, 197.

Augsburg, confession of, 136, 139, 146; diet of, 136; religious peace of, 136, 220, 227; War of the League of, 247-249, 289, 306- 307.

"August Days" (1789), 480-481.

Augustus II, of Saxony and Poland, 377.

Augustus III, of Saxony and Poland, 385.

Austerlitz, battle of, 538-539. 546, 554. 573-

AustraUa, 340.

Austria, in sixteenth century, 13, 76; reli- gion of, 163 ; in seventeenth century, 219- 229; in eighteenth century, 344-345. 444~ 448; and Napoleon, 554-555. 559-560. {See Habsburg Family; Holy Roman Empire.)

Austrian Succession, War of, 311, 316, 355- 357. 456.

Avignon, 121.

Azores, 51.

Azov, 379, 386.

Aztec Indians, 56.

Babeuf, 513.

"Babylonian Captivity," 121, 132.

583

584

INDEX

Bacon, Francis (Lord), 162, 196-197, 200,

415-

Bacon, Roger (Friar), 200.

Baden, 135, 146, 542.

"Baffin, 60.

"Balance of Power," 75, 80, 97, 244, 250.

Balboa, 54.

Balearic Islands, 106.

Baltimore, Lord, 300.

Banking, in sixteenth century, 66.

Bank of France, 529.

Baptism, iiS.

Baptists, 148 n., 167, 411. {See Ana- baptists.)

"Barebone's Parliament," 279.

Barry, Madame dii, 457.

Basel, council of, 116; treaty of, 506.

Bastille, 457 ; destruction of, 475-476, 478.

Batavian Republic, 506, 534.

"Battle of Saints," 335, 336.

"Battle of the Nations," 558, 564.

Bavaria, 162, 220-222, 228, 352-353, 538, 539, 542, 555.

Beachy Head, 307.

Beaton, Cardinal, 146.

Beauharnais, Eugene, 534, 541.

Beauharnais, Josephine, 514, 555.

Beccaria, 421, 424-425, 465.

"Bed of Justice," 217-218.

"Beggars" of Netherlands, 92, 94.

Belgium. (See Netherlands.)

Belgrade, 80.

Benedictines, 115.

"Benevolences," 5.

Berg, 543.

Berlin, 347, 349 ; captured by Russians, 360.

Berlin Decree, 548.

Berlin, University of, 557.

Bernadotte, General, 541, 560, 564, 565, 575.

Bible, and CathoUc Church, 159; Erasmus and, 129, 183; first printed, 179; French translation of, 143; German translations of, 133 ; King James's version of, 195 ; Luther's translation of, 195, 353; and Protestantism, 129, 165; Vulgate, 160.

Bill of Rights, 288, 482.

Black Sea, Turkish control of, 80.

Blake, Admiral, 304.

Blenheim, battle of, 253.

Blucher, 564, 565, 570-571-

Boccaccio, 194.

Bohemia, in sixteenth century, 76, 87 ; reli- gion in, 162; revolt of, 221. (See Habs- burg Family ; Holy Roman Empire.)

Boleyn, Anne, 98, 151-152.

Bombay, 303.

Bonaparte Family, genealogy of, 577.

Bonaparte, Jerome, 534, 541, 543, 549, 564.

Bonaparte, Joseph, 534, 541, 549, 552-553, 557, 565. S76._

Bonaparte, Louis, 534, 549, 550.

Bonaparte, Napoleon. (See Napoleon L)

Borgia, Cesare, 16.

Borodino, battle of, 561.

Bossuet, 235-236, 237, 263, 535.

"Boston Massacre," 330.

"Boston Tea Party," 331.

Botany Bay, 340.

Bothwell, earl of, 99.

Bougainville, Louis de, 417.

Bourbon Family, origin of, 77, 102-105; genealogy of, 108, 258; struggle of, with Habsburgs, 218-232, 249-256, 356-357, 542 ; alliance of, with Habsburgs, 358.

Bourgeoisie, or Middle Class, 69 ; and Calvinism, loi, 144, 146, 148; and Puri- tan Revolution in England, 269-270, 275, 292-293 ; in France under Henry IV, 211 ; in France under Louis XIV, 238; decline of, in Germany in seventeenth century, 343 ; general rise of, in eighteenth century, 393""394> 402-403, 426, 449; and French Revolution, 464, 467-469, 471, 489-490, 505, 510, 512, 513, 518; and Napoleon, 533, 537-

Bourges, Pragmatic Sanction of, 121.

Boyne, battle of the, 288 n., 307.

Braddock, General, 313.

Braganza, duke of, 91.

Brandenburg, 12, 224, 225, 228, 245, 254, 347~350- (See Prussia.)

Brazil, 54, 55, 59, 551.

Breitenfeld, battle of, 226.

Brissot, 498, 503, 509.

Brittany, 6, 451 n., 488.

Brumaire, Eighteenth, 517.

Bruno, Giordano, 199 n.

Brunswick, duke of, 499-501, 539.

Bucharest, 387 ; treaty of, 559.

Buckingham, duke of, 271, 272.

Budapest, 81.

Bufion, 417.

Bulgaria, in 1500, 23.

Bulls, Papal, 116 n.

Bundschuhe, 134.

Burgoyne, General, i^^.

Burgundy, county of (Franche Comt6), 87, 246; duchy of, 6, 20, 77, 78, 79.

Burke, Edmund, 339, 495.

Bute, Lord, 292, 327.

Cabinet (English), rise of, 290, 435-436. Cabot, John and Sebastian, 5, 54, 59, 262,

300. Cabral, 54, 55. Cahicrs, 470, 486.

INDEX

585

Calais, lost to England, So n., gS, 102.

Calculus, 41(3.

Calcutta, 316.

Calendar, French Revolutionary, 510.

Calicut, 51.

C'alifornia, 56.

Calmar, Union of, 21.

Calonne, 459, 460.

Calvin, i2g, 141-142, 172, 194, 408.

Calvinism, rise of, 139-148; and Thirty Years' War, 220, 229; in eighteenth cen- tury, 410, 411, 413; in England, 156, 268; in Holland, 92, 95; in Scotland, 99, 146; in France, see Huguenots.

Cambrai, League of, 18 ; peace of, 79.

Camoens, 195.

Campo Formio, treaty of, 515, 516, 526, 537.

Canada, 301, 312-315, 317. 325-326, 337.

Canning, George, 548, 553.

Canon Law, 116.

Capet, Hugh, 6.

Capitation, 454-455-

Cardinals, 113-114.

Carlstadt, 135.

Carnatic, 316-317.

Carnot, 503, 505, 506, 507, 543.

Carrier, 508.

Cartier, 54, 60, 300.

Castile, 8, 9, 75, go, 91. (See Spain.)

Castlereagh, Lord, 548.

Cateau-Cambr^sis, treaty of, 98, 105.

Cathedral, 114.

Catherine of Aragon, 5, 151, 152, 154.

Catherine of Braganza, 303.

Catherine de' Medici, of France, 101-104,

197-

Catherine II (the Great), of Russia, 334, 361, 379-388, 419, 443, 4g5.

Catholic Church, defined, 113, 11 7-1 18; in 1500, 112-124, 170; abuses in, 127-12S; reformation of, 156-164; and Protestan- tism, 124-169; in England, 79, 98, 148- 156, 267-269, 273, 280, 282-287, 289; in France, 104-105, 141-142, 144-145; in Holy Roman Empire, 11, 84-86, 1 31-13 6, 220-229, 346; in Netherlands, 92-95, 145-146; in Scandinavia, 137-139; in Scotland, 146-147 ; in Spain, 88-90, 97, loo-ioi ; in Switzerland, 139-141 ; in eighteenth centuiy, 406-410; and French Revolution, 483-484, 506, 521 ; and Napo- leon, 529, 531, 550; and art, 185, 190-191 ; and banking, 65-66 ; and colonization, 61 ; and culture, 176; and humanism, 184; and international law, 231; and national- ism, 120-122, 125; and society, 28, 35.

"Catholic League," in Thirty Years' War, 222, 224, 352.

"Cavaliers," 275, 280.

Cavendish, Henry, 417.

Cavendish, Thomas, 60.

Cervantes, 106, 195.

"Chambers of Reunion," 247.

Champlain, 211.

Champlain, Lake, 30S, 310, 313.

Chancellor, 60.

Chandarnagar, 304, 316, 319.

Charlemagne, ii, 16.

Charles, Archduke (Austrian general), 554.

Charles V, Emperor (Charles I, of Spain), 7,

58, 60, 74-87, 91, 133, 14s, 152, 161, 163,

190, 197. Charles VI, Emperor (Archduke Charles of

.'\ustria), 252-253, 344-346, 353, 355- Charles VII, Emperor (Elector of Bavaria),

355, 357- Charles (the Bold), of Burgundy, 13, 20. Charles I, of England, 191, 270-276, 296-297. Charles II, of England, 245, 277, 281-286,

297, 303, 435-

Charles, Prince (Young Pretender), 291.

Charles VII, of France, 121.

Charles VIII, of France, 6, 7, 19, 183, 186.

Charles IX, of France, loi.

Charles I, of Spain. (See Charles V, Em- peror.)

Charles II, of Spain, 243, 24g-25i.

Charles III, of Spain, 444.

Charles IV, of Spain, 506, 551-552, 576.

Charles XI, of Sweden, 376 n.

Charles XII, of Sweden, 376-379.

Charles XIII, of Sweden, 541.

ChateauroiLx, duchess of, 457.

Chaumont, treaty of, 566.

Chauvin, 327 n.

Chemistr>', 417.

Christian II, of Denmark and Norway, 137.

Christian III, of Denmark and Norway, 137.

Christian IV, of Denmark and Norway, 223.

Church and State, in sixteenth century, 112, 120-122, 167-169; in eighteenth century, 406-407; in Russia, 372; separation of, in France, 511.

Church of England. (See Anglicanism.)

Cisalpine Republic, 516, 534.

Cities, in sixteenth century, 36-43, 48-49, 6g; in eighteenth century, 3g9-402.

City-States, 14-20, 24.

"Civil Constitution of the Clergy," 484.

Clement VII, Pope, 79, 152, 158.

Clergy, Regular, 114-115; Secular, 114.

Cleves, 348.

Clive, 316-317, 338, 359-

Code Napoleon, 530, 543, 574.

Colbert, 237-241, 305, 306, 400-401.

Colet, John, 149.

586 INDEX

Coligny, Admiral de, 103. Convention, National (French), 501-512, College de France, 183, 194. S14, S24. 53°, 544-

Colonization, in sixteenth century, 55-61, "Convention Parliament," 281.

70-72; in seventeenth century, 211, 240, Cook, Captain James, 340, 417.

268-270, 299-306; in eighteenth century, Copenhagen, battle of, 527, 546, 549.

250-251, 306-319, 324-327; and Napo- "Copernican System," 198-199.

leon, 532, 567 n., 575-576; Russian, 367. Copernicus, 198, 415.

Columbus, 9, 53-56, 72. Corday, Charlotte, 492 n.

Commerce, before 1500, 17-18, 43-49; in Cordelier Club, 491, 492.

sixteenth century, 52, 56, 59, 62-69; in Corneille, 237.

eighteenth century, 399, 401-403 ; as a Cornwallis, Lord, 334, 339.

factor in modern society, xix-xx, 27; Corporation Act; 285.

British, loo-ioi, 250-251, 261, 262, 269- Corsica, 457 n., 524.

270, 277-278, 280, 292, 309, 310, 318, 322- Cortes, of Portugal, 8.

331. 33^! 341; French, 211, 239; and Cortes, of Spain, 9, 89-90, 558.

Russian expansion, 374; and the Napole- Cortez, Plernando, 56.

onic Wars, 536, 546-551. 576. {See Mer- Corvee, 31, 398.

cantilism.) Cossacks, 367.

Commercial Revolution, 62-69. Coster, Lourens, 179.

Common Prayer, Book of, 154-155, 195. "Council of Blood," 93.

Commons, House of. {See ParUament, Council of Regency, in Holy Roman Empire,

EngUsh.) 83-85.

Commonwealth, British, 276-279. "Council of Troubles," 93.

Commune, during French Revolution, 475. Councils, Church, 115-116. {See Trent, Compte Rendu, of Necker, 459 n. Council of.)

Concordat, of 1801, 529- Coup d'etat, 517, 523, 525.

Conde, Henry, prince of, 102. Courts, ecclesiastical, 121.

Conde, Louis II, prince of, 218, 228-230, Covenant, Scotch, 273-274.

237, 241, 249. Cracow, 361, 377.

Condorcet, 498, 503, 511. Cranmer, 129, 152, 154, 155, 195.

Condottieri, 17. Crete, 106.

Confederation, American Articles of, 332, Cromwell, Oliver, 64, 230, 274, 276-281,

336. 297.

Confederation of the Rliine, 542-543, 549, Cromwell, Richard, 281.

560, 563, 564. Crown Point, 309, 313.

Confession, 119. Crusades, commercial importance of, 44.

Confirmation, 118, 166. Cuba, 56, 315.

Congregational Church, 411. Curia, Roman, 114, 116, 121, 126-128, 407; Constance, Council of, 116, 132. attacked by Luther, 133 ; and Galileo, 199.

Constantine XI, Graeco-Roman Emperor, Cyprus, 106.

52, 368 n.

Constantinople, capture of, by Turks, 52; Dante, 15, 181, 194.

Orthodox Christianity at, 22, 114. Danton, 491-494, 498, 500-501, 503, 509-

Constituent Assembly. {See Assembly, Dardanelles, 387.

National Constituent.) Darnley, 99.

Constitution, British, 264-265, 279, 282, 292, Davis, 54, 60.

296, 432; French, of 1791, 485-486, 530; Declaration of Independence (United States),

French, of Year III, 502, 510-512 ; French, 332, 482.

of Year VIII, 525-526, 528; project of a "Declaration of Indulgence," 285, 287.

Russian, 443; Spanish, of 1812, 557-558; Declaratory Act, 330.

of United States, 336, 422, 485. Decretals, 115 n.

Constitutional Charter, French, of 1814, 567- "Defender of the Faith," 151.

568. Deism, 413-414, 420, 429.

Consubstantiation, 166. Demarcation, papal bull of, 55, 116.

Consulate, French, 517, 523-534- Democracy, idea of, xx, 465.

Continental Congress, American, 331-332. Denmark, Protestant Revolt in, 137; m "Continental System," 546-549- Thirty Years' War, 223-224; and Charles

Conventicle Act, 285. XII of Sweden, 376-377; and "Armed

INDEX

587

Neutrality of North," 334, 526-527; and

Napoleon, 548-540 ; loss of Norway, 564. Descartes, 107, 200-201, 415. Desmovilins, 474, 402, 500. Despotism, Benevolent or Enlightened, 440-

448, 462. Devolution, War of, 243-244. DeWitt, John, 245. Diaz, Bartholomew, 51. Diaz, Denis, 51. Diderot, 380, 4ig, 421, 443. Diet, of Holy Roman Empire, 12, 83, 228,

342, 541-542. (See Spcyer, Diets of;

and Worms, Diets of.) Diocese, 114.

"Diplomatic Revolution," 359. Directory, French, 512-517, 543. Discoveries. (See Exploration.) Dispensations, ecclesiastical, 126. Dissenters, 156, 270, 284-285. Divine Right, theory of, 235-236, 263-264,

287, 292, 433, 440, 448, 465, 468, 473. Dogma, 118.

"Domestic System," in industry, 42. Dominicans, 115. Donatello, 187. Doria, Andrea, 18. Dover, treaty of, 284. Drake, 60.

Duma, Russian, 373. Dumouriez, 498, 501, 504, 509. Dunkirk, 230, 280. Dupleix, 310-312, 315-316. Duquesne, Fort, 313, 314. Diirer, 1 90-191. Dutch. (See Netherlands.) Dutch Reformed Church, 145. Dutch War, 244-246, 349.

East India Company, Dutch, 64, 73, 401 ;

English, 60, 64-65, 71, 73, 303, 330, 337,

339, 401 ; French, 64, 73, 401. " Ecclesiastical Reservation," 136, 220. Eck, Johann, 132. Education, and Cahdn, 143 ; and Jesuits,

162; and Rousseau, 424; in Prussia, 441,

557; and Napoleon, 530-531. Edward, Fort, 313. Edward I, of England, 265. Edward VI, of England, 147, 154, 262. Egmont, count of, 93. Egj'pt, Napoleon in, 515-516. Elba, Napoleon at, 566, 568-570. Elector, Great. {See Frederick William, of

Brandenburg.) Electricity, 416-417. EHzabeth, of England, 96, 98-99, 105, 148,

15s, 162, 173, 262-263, 267.

Elizabeth, of Russia, 358, 360.

Emancipation, edict of (Prussian), 556.

Emigres, 487, 494, 499, 507-

Empire. {See Holy Roman Empire; Austria ; France, under Napoleon.)

Kiicydopcd'ui, 458.

Enghien, due d', 533.

England, in 1500, 3-6; in sixteenth century, 17, 97-101, 147-156; in seventeenth centurv', 261-293, 295-296; and wars of Louis XIV, 244-245, 248, 254; in eight- eenth century, 289-293, 298, 430-440, 461- 462; and French Revolution, 469, 470, 494-495, 504, 506, 507, 515, 521; and Napoleon, 536-573, 575-576, 581 ; and early colonization, 59-60, 300-305 ; colo- nial struggle with France, 306-321 ; colo- nial poUcy in eighteenth century, 322-331 ; loss of American colonies, 332-337 ; ex- tent of empire in 1800, 337-340, 430-431 n.

"EnHghtened Despots," 495.

Episcopal Church, 148. {See Anglicanism.)

Erasmus, 129, 149, 157, 183-184, 190, 193, 201.

Estates-General, of France, 7, 102, 144, 212, 469-470; (1614), 211; decline of, 213, 235 ; and French Revolution, 460-461, 469-474-

Esthonia, 374, 376, 378.

Eucharist, Holy, 119.

Eugene of Savoy, Prince, 253, 308.

Exclusion Bill, 285.

Exploration, xix-xx, 49-54, 70-72, 339-341, 417.

Extreme Unction, 119.

Factory-System, compared to serfdom, 35.

"Family Compact," 360.

"Farming the Taxes," 238.

Farnese, Alexander, Duke of Parma, 95, 100.

Febronianism, 409.

Ferdinand, of Aragon, 5, 8, 9, 13, 16, 24, 74, 188.

Ferdinand I, Emperor, 76, 81, 87.

Ferdinand II, Emperor, 221-224.

Ferdinand I, of Naples, 571 n.

Ferdinand VII, of Spain, 551, 568, 576.

Feuillants, 497.

Fichte, 557.

Finland, acquired by Russia, 540.

First CoaUtion, during French Revolution, 506, 515.

Fisher, John, 153.

Five-mile Act, 285.

Flanders and Flemish, 95. {See Nether- lands.)

Fleury, Cardinal, 255-256, 456.

588

INDEX

Florence, city-state of, i8, 47, 79. (See Tuscany.)

Florence, council of, 116.

Florida, 56, 317, 336.

Fontainebleau, Decree, 548; treaty of, 566, S68.

Fouche, 532, 544.

Fox, Charles James, 438, 546.

Fox, George, 411.

France, in 1500, 6-7 ; in sixteenth century, 18, 96, 101-105, no, 141-142, 144-145, 163 ; in seventeenth century, 209-249, 258-260; in eighteenth century, 249-256, 449-461, 463 ; and colonial struggle with England, 299-321, 334-336; in the Revo- lution, 464-522; under Consulate, 523- 533; under Empire, 534-581.

Franche Comte, 87. (See Burgundy.)

Francis I, Emperor of Austria. (See Fran- cis II, Emperor.)

Francis II, Emperor, 499, 537, 538, 542, 554- 555-

Francis I, of France, 7, 60, 75-80, 84, loi- 102, 141-142, 183, 186, 188, 189, 190, 194, 197, 242, 542.

Francis II, of France, 99, loi.

Franciscans, 50, 115.

Franklin, Benjamin, 326, s^St 416.

Frederick, elector palatine of Rhine, 220, 222, 229.

Frederick I, of Denmark and Norway, 137.

Frederick II (the Great), of Prussia, 313, 351, 354-362, 364-365, 380 n., 385, 387, 419, 441-445, 496, SSS-

Frederick William (the Great Elector), of Brandenburg, 348-349.

Frederick William I, of Prussia, 350-351, 441.

Frederick WilHam II, of Prussia, 448, 496, 4Q9, 543-

Frederick William III, of Prussia, 538-539, 555, 562.

Free-tenantry, rise of, 31.

French and Indian War, 312-319, 325, 326, 333, 359-

Friars, 115.

Friedland, battle of, 539.

I'riends, Society of, 411.

Frobisher, 54, 60.

Fronde, 217-218.

Frontenac, 325.

Gabelle, 398, 455.

Galicia, annexed by Austria, 361 ; and Napo- leon, 555. Galileo, 199, 415. Galvani, 416.

Gama, Vasco da, 51-52, 55, 72, 195, 303. Geneva, 142-143, 147.

Genoa, 18, 47, 106, 534.

George I, of Great Britain, 289-291, 326,

354, 436. George II, of Great Britain, 291-292, 311 n.,

354. 436. George III, of Great Britain, 326-328, 330,

436-439- Georgia, 311. Germany, early nationalism in, 81-84; after

Thirty Years' War, 229; in eighteenth

century, 342-362 ; and Napoleon, 541-

543. (See Austria; Habsburg Family;

Holy Roman Empire ; Prussia.) Ghent, Pacification of, 94. Ghibellines, 15. Ghiberti, 187.

Gibraltar, 253, 308, 309, 334. Gilbert, 59.

Gilds, Craft, 40-42, 70, 262, 399-400; Mer- chant, 37-40, 70. Girondists, 497-498, 502-503, 509. "Glorious Revolution," 286-288, 306-307,

466. Gneisenau, 556. Goa, 55. Godoy, 551. Goethe, 443. Golden Fleece, 86. "Good Works," 131. Granada, 8, 9, 75, 91. Grand Alliance, 252. "Grand Design," 210. "Grand Monarch." (See Louis XIV, of

France.) "Grand Remonstrance," 275. Grasse, Count de, 335. Gratian, 116. Gravitation, 416. Great Britain, 289, 430. (See England;

Scotland.) "Great Protestation," 267. "Great Rebellion," 274-281. Greece, 23, 386. Greek, study of, 182-183, 193. Greek Church. (See Orthodox Church.) Grenada, 317. Grenville, 327-329. Grotius, 232. Guelphs, 15. Guiana, 59 n. Guillotine, 508. (juinea, 302 n. Guise Family, 102-105, 108. Gustavus I (Vasa), of Sweden, 137-138,

224. Gustavus II (Adolphus), of Sweden, 224-

226, 374. Gustavus III, of Sweden, 444.

INDEX

589

Gustavus IV, of Sweden, 540. Gutenberg, Johan, 179.

Habeas Corpus Act, 285, 432.

Habsburg Family, origin of, 13; genealogy of, 107; in sixteenth contury, 20, 24, 76, 79, 87, 95, 163, 109; dominions of, in 1600, 219; humiliation of, in Thirty Years' War, 229-230; in eighteenth century, 344-347, 363-364; rivalry of, with Bour- bon Family, 213, 217-232, 242-256, 355- 357; alliance of, with Bourbon Family, 358-359, 459; rivalry of, with Hohenzol- lern Family, 347-362 ; and French Revolu- tion, 495-496, 499 ; and Napoleon, 542, 555.

Hague, 96.

Haiti, 56, 532.

Haller, Albrecht von, 417.

Hampden, John, 272-274.

Hanover, 354, 356, 358, 360, 534, 543.

Hanoverian Family, 289; genealogy of, 295.

Hanse (Hanseatic League), 49, 62, 70, 83, 343'.

Hardenberg, 555. 556.

Hastings, Warren, 339.

Hawke, 315.

Hawkins, 60, 67.

Helgesen, 138, 184.

Helvetic Republic. (See Switzerland.)

Henrietta Maria, 270.

Henr>' IH, of England, 266.

Henry VII, of England, 4-6, 24, 54, 150, 188, 262.

Henry VIII, of England, 6, 75, 79, 84, 86, 98, no, 147, 150-154, 262, 410.

Henry II, of France, 79, 101-103, 242.

Henry III, of France, loi, 104-105.

Henry IV, of France (Henry of Navarre), 104-105, 144, 209-211, 214, 232-233, 242, 305, 542.

Henr>', duke of Guise, 104-105.

Henr>- (the Navigator), Prince, of Portugal, 8,51,72.

Heresy, 123, 136, 407, 408.

"Heriot," 31.

Hierarchy, of Catholic Chiu-ch, 113.

"High Church" (Anglican), 166.

High Commission, Court of, 156, 274.

Hobbes, 196.

Hofmann, Melchior, 135 n.

Hohenlinden, battle of, 526.

Hohenzollern Family, origin of, 347 ; gen- ealogy of, 363 ; electors of Brandenburg, 229, 347-349; kings of Prussia, 254, 349- 352; rivalry of, with Habsburg Family, 354-362.

Holland. (See Netherlands, Dutch.)

"Holy League," 17.

Holy Orders, 119, 166.

Holy Roman Empire, in 1500, 10-14, 15, 17, 21, 24; in si.xteenth century, 75-77, 79, 81-S6, ^, 102, 117; and rise of Luthcr- anism, 133-136; and Thirty Years' War, 220-229; and international law, 231 ; and Louis XIV, of France, 243, 247, 253-254 ; in eighteenth century, 342-346; Napoleon and dissolution of, 515, 537, 541-543.

Holy Synod (Russian), 372.

Hooker, Richard, 196.

Horn, count of, 93.

Hubertusburg, treaty of, 360.

Hudson, Henry, 54, 59.

Hudson Hay, 300, 309, 401.

Huguenots, 101-105, 143. 144-145, 209, 213- 214, 241-242, 271, 306, 349, 408.

Humanism, 180-184, i93, 201.

Humboldt, Wilhelm von, 557.

"Hundred Days," 569-570.

Hundred Years' War, 4, 6, 150.

"Hundred Years' War, Second," 248.

Flungary, in 1500, 23; accession of Habs- burgs to, 76; and Turks, 80-81, 87, 106, 383; and religion, 162; and Maria Theresa, 355-356; and Joseph II, 447.

Hunter, John, 417.

Hus, John, 123, 128, 129, 132.

Hutten, Ulrich von, 84-85, 128-129.

Hyder Ah, 335.

Illyrian Provinces, 555, 564.

Inclosures, in England, 32.

Independents (English), 148, 156, 275-280.

Index, ecclesiastical, 160.

India, medieval trade with, 43-47 ; in seven- teenth century, 302-304, 321; Portuguese in, 51-53, 55; Dutch in, 59, 64; French in, 240, 303-304, 310, 311, 315-319; English in, 60, 64-65, 303, 311, 316-319, 337-339-

Indians, American, 56, 61, 67, 306, 307, 308, 312-314-

"Indulgences," 131, 159.

Industrial Revolution, 318, 412, 576.

Industrj', in sixteenth century, 40-42, 67-68, 69; in eighteenth century, 399-403, 425- 426. (See Mercantilism.)

Inquisition, ecclesiastical, 90, 92, 145, 160, 443, 552-

Inslitiites, Calvin's, 142, 194.

"Instrument of Government," 279.

Intendants, in France, 215-216, 450, 482, 528.

Inkrcursus Magnus, 5, 262.

"Intolerable Acts," 331.

Ireland, 3, 162, 163-164, 249, 275, 277, 2S8 n., 335, 337, 410-411, 431-

Isabella, of Castile, 8-10, 53, 74.

590

INDEX

Italy, in 1500, 14-19; medieval commerce "King William's War," 307.

of, 44-48, 62 ; scene of conflict between Knights Hospitalers of St. John and Malta,

Francis I and Charles V, 77-80; art in, 115.

186-194; religion in, 163; and Napoleon, Knights Templars, 115.

514-515, 526-527, 534, 57S-_ (See Papal "Knights' War," 85.

States, Sardinia, Two Sicilies, Tuscany, Knox, John, 129, 146-147.

Venice, etc.) Kosciuszko, 388.

Ivan III (the Great), of Russia, 22, 366, 368, Kublai Khan, 50.

369. Kuchuk Kainarji, treaty of, 386.

Ivan IV (the Terrible), of Russia, 22 n. Kutusov, General, 560-561.

Jacobins (French), 491, 493, 497-498, 503,

508, 524, 533. Jacobites (British), 252, 288 n., 289, 291. Jamaica, 280. James I, of England (James VI, of Scotland),

99, 200, 222, 263-264, 267-270, 272, 274,

296-297, 300. James II, of England (James VII, of Scot- land), 248, 249, 252, 282, 286-288, 291,

297-298, 307, 308. James (III), of England and Scotland ("Old

Pretender"), 289 n., 291, 308. James IV, of Scotland, 6. James V, of Scotland, 146. James VI, of Scotland. {See James I, of

England.) Janissaries, 385. Jansenism, 408. Janssen, Cornelius, 408. Jena, battle of, 539, 546, 555, 562. Jenkins's Ear, War of, 310-31 1, 356. Jenkinson, 60. Jenner, Edward, 417. Jerusalem, 114. Jesus of Nazareth, 113. Jesus, Society of (Jesuits), 98, 160-162, 306,

408-410, 443, 445, 173-174- Jews, 123. Joanna, 74.

John III (Sobieski), of Poland, 383. John II, of Portugal, 51. John, Don, of Austria, 94, 106. John George, of Saxony, 222. Jones, Inigo, 187. Jonson, 196.

Joseph II, Emperor, 444, 445-448, 495. Joseph I, of Portugal, 444. Josephine, French Empress, 514, 555. Jourdan, 506, 514.

Julius II, Pope, 16, 151, 182, 189, 190. "Justification by Faith," 131.

Karlowitz, treaty of, 345 n., 383.

Kaunitz, 358.

Kepler, 199.

Kiel, treaty of, 564.

"King George's War," 311, 357.

Lafayette, 334, 460, 472, 475, 476, 477, 480,

491, 497, 501, 571. La Fontaine, 237. La Hogue, 307. Laisscr-faire, 338, 425, 458. La Rochelle, siege of, 214. La Salle, 300, 301. Las Casas, Bartolomd de, 61, 67. Las Cases, Marquis de, 572. Laud, 273, 274. Lavoisier, 417.

Law, International, development of, 230-232. Law, John, 255-256. League of Cambrai, 18. Leclerc, 532. Legislative Assembly. {See Assembly, ht^-

islative.) "Legitimacy," 567. Leibnitz, 416.

Leipzig, battle of, 564; disputation at, 132. Leo X, Pope, 79, 127-128, 151, 158, 182, 183,

190. Leon, Ponce de, 56.

Leopold I, Emperor, 245, 247, 250, 252, 349. Leopold II, Emperor, 495, 496, 499, 543. Lepanto, battle of, 106, 383. Lessing, 443.

Leszczynski, Stanislaus, 256, 377. Let Ires de cachet, 457. Lexington, battle of, 332. Liberation, War of, 556, 562-566. Liberum Veto, 382, 385. Ligurian Republic. {See Genoa.) Lindet, 505. Linnaeus, 417. Literatiu"e, in sixteenth century, 193-196;

in Age of Louis XIV, 237-238. Lithuania. {See Poland.) Livonia, 374, 376, 378. Locke, 418-419. Lollards, 123. Lombardy, 66. Lomenie de Brienne, 460. Long Parliament, 274-281. Lords, House of. {See Parliament, English.) "Lords of the Congregation," 147. Lorraine, 230, 245-246, 249, 256, 457 n.

INDEX

591

Louis XI, of France, 6, 20, 77, 211.

Louis XII, of France, 7, 17, 18, 77, 183, 186,

188, 189, 190. Louis XIII, of France, iqi, 211-216, 217,

219, 270. Louis XIV, of France, 191, 195, 216-218,

230, 235-255, 25S-260, 263, 284, 289, 290,

301, 304-308, 343, 349. 371, 375. 408-409,

418, 454, 456, 466, 468, 503, 506, 528, 529,

535. 542. 565, 572. Louis XV, of France, 255-256, 315, 358-359.

415, 449. 456-458, 466, 468. Louis XVI, of France, 425, 458-461, 466,

469-478, 4S7-4S8, 496-504, 511, 512, 536,

567- Louis XV'II, of France, 511, 567. Louis X\'III, of France (count of Provence),

467, 4S8, 567-569, 571. Louisburg, 309, 311-314, 326. Louisiana, 301, 317, 336, 532. Louvois, 237, 240-241. Lowe, Sir Hudson, 572. Lowther, Sir James, 435, 439. Loyola, Ignatius, 160-161, 174. Liibeck, peace of, 224. Lundviile, treaty of, 527, 537, 541. Luiher, Martin, 84-85, 129-136, 142, 158,

161, 166, 184, 19s, 342, 353, 170-171. Lutheranism, 84-86, 130-140, 164-169, 220-

229, 412. Lutter, battle of, 223. Liitzen, battle of (1632), 226; (1813), 563. Luxemburg, 247, 249.

Machiavelli, 14 n., 88, 194, 231.

Madagascar, 240, 302.

Madeira, 51.

Madras, 303, 304, 311, 3 1 7-

Magdeburg, 225, 228, 348.

Magellan, 54.

Magna Carta. 264, 266, 282, 432, 482.

Mainz, archbishopric of, 12, 131.

Malplacjuet, battle of, 253.

Malta, So, 106, 575.

Manorial System, in 1500, 29-36; in eight- eenth century, 395-399.

Manufacturing. (See Gilds ; Industry ; Mercantilism.)

Marat, 491-494, 498, 509, 510, 517.

Marengo, battle of, 526, 546.

Margaret of Parma. {See Parma, duchess of.)

iMaria Louisa, 555, 566.

Maria Theresa, of Austria, 346-347, 351- 3S_2. 355-362, 387, 443-445. 459-

Maria Theresa, of France, 230, 243.

Marie Antoinette, 459, 467, 476-478, 487- 488, 495-496, 499, 508, 510.

Marie de' Medici. {See Medici, Marie de'.)

Marignano, battle of, 77.

Marlborough, 253, 308.

Marlowe, ig6.

Marseillaise, 499, 505, 544.

Marston Moor, battle of, 276.

Mary, of Burgundy, 13, 74.

Mary I (Tudor), of England, 86, g8, 147,

154-155. 190. Mary II, of England, 287-289. Mary (Stuart), Queen of Scots, 98-99, 103,

108, 147. Mass, in Catholic Church, 119, 154, 155. Massachusetts, 300, 331. Masulipatam, 317. Matrimony, 119. Matthias, Emperor, 221. Matthias Hunyadi, of Hungary, 23. Maundeville, Sir John, 45 n. Mauritius, 567 n., 575. Maximilian I, Emperor, 13, 20, 74, 190. Maximilian, of Bavaria, 220, 222, 228, 352. Mazarin, Cardinal, 216-218, 229-230, 232-

233. 235, 238, 242, 542. Medici Family, 18-19, 25 ,70, 158, 187-189. Medici, Catherine de', 101-104, 197. Medici, Lorenzo de', 19, 127, 182. Medici, Marie de', 191, 211-212, 215. Medicine, 175-176, 417. Melancthon, 136. Mendicants, 115. MercantiHsm, 63-64, 239-240, 322-324, 338,

351, 400-401. "Merchant Adventurers," 262. Metayers, 32. Methodists, 148, 412. IMethuen Treaty, 252, 289, 550. Mctz, 79, 102, 228. Mexico, 56, 74.

Michael (Romanov), of Russia, 369. Michelangelo, 186-189. Middle Class. {See Bourgeoisie.) Milan, 7, 16, 17, 74, 77-79, 87, 253, 516. Milan Decree, 548. Milton, 1 95, 196. Minorca, 309, 313, 334. 336. Mirabeau, 471-474, 487, 491-493, 543. Mir Jafir, 317.

Missionaries, Christian, 61, 115, 162. Mississippi, 56, 309, 312, 317. Mobile, 310. Moguls, 302.

Mohammed II, of Turkey, 52. Mohammedanism, 123, 170. (S'ee Turkey.) Mohacs, battle of, 81. Moldavia, 386. {See Rumania.) Moliere, 237. Moluccas. {See Spice Islands.)

592

INDEX

Monastic Orders, 114-115, 406; suppression of, in England, 154, in France, 484.

Monck, General, 28 1.

Mongols, 22, 52, 368.

Monmouth, duke of, 286.

Montcalm, 314, 315.

Montenegro, 23.

Montesquieu, 421-422, 485.

Montezuma, 56.

Montfort, Simon de, 265.

Montreal, 314, 315-

More, Sir Thomas, 150, 153, 157, 183-184, igS, 201-202.

Morea, 80.

Moreau, 506, 514, 526.

Moriscos, 91.

Moscow, 21, 368, 369, 379, 561.

Mountainists, 503.

Mijnzer, Thomas, 134 n.

Murat, Joachim, 552, 564, 571 n.

Murillo, 191, igs-

Murshidabad, 317.

Muscovy, 21-22, 366. {See Russia.)

Music, in sixteenth century, 192.

Mutiny Act, 288.

Mysore, 339.

Nantes, Edict of, 144, 209, 214, 241, 349, 408.

Naples, 7, 9, 16, 74, 76-79, 253, 256, 444 n., S16, 534. S4I, SS2, 571 n.

Napoleon I, emperor of the French, 510, 511, 514-517, 523-581, 319-

Napoleon III, emperor of the French, 573.

"Napoleonic Legend," 572-573-

National Assembly. {See Assembly, Na- tional Constituent.)

National Convention. {See Convention, National.)

National Guard, 475, 477.

Nationalism, in si.xteenth century, 3-10, 14- 15 n., 24, 81-84, 89-90; and religion, 120-122, 125, 167; and commerce, 63; and Napoleon, 518, 545, 575-

"Natural Boundaries," doctrine of, 80, 242,

243- Navarre, 8, 76, 77, 102, 105. Navigation .Jicts, 277, 304, 323-324. 325, 328,

338, 401- Near East, Problem of, 386-387. Necker, 458-459, 474, 475- Nelson, 516, 527, 538. Nepotism, 127. Netherlands, Austrian (Belgian), 95, 253,

344-346, 3S5, 357, 446-447. 4Q6, 504,. SI5- Netherlands, Dutch (Holland ; Seven

United Provinces), 57-59, QS-07, loi, 14s,

227, 229, 232, 243-249, 254, 290, 299, 306-

307, 334, 337, 356-358, S16, 534. 550, 564,

576-577- Netherlands (or Low Countries), 19-20, 25,

49, 57-58, 74, 75, 77-79, 86-89, 91-97, III.

13s. 145. 162; kingdom of, 564. Netherlands, Spanish (Belgian), 91-95, 162,

219, 227-228, 242-244, 253. New Amsterdam, 59.

New England, 148, 300-301, 307, 325-326. Newfoundland, 300, 309. New France, 301, 305, 312. "New Model," 287. New Netherland, 59, 60, 301. New Orleans, 310. New Spain, 60. "New Tories," 439. New York, 59, 301 n., 325. Newspapers, 437-438. Newton, 415-416, 418, 421. Ney, 562, 569.

Niagara, Fort, 310, 313, 314. Nijmwegen, treaty of, 246. Nile, battle of, 527, 546. Nobility, in sbcteenth century, 28-34, 9°,

loi ; French in seventeenth century, 214-

215, 237, 239; in eighteenth century, 403-

405, 464; in French Revolution, 469,

472, 479-481, 518. Noblesse de la robe, 238, 453. Non-conformists, 156. North, Lord, 292, 330, 436. North America. {See America.) Northwest Passage, 60. Norway, 21, 137, 378, 564. {See Denmark.) Nova Scotia, 309. Nystad, treaty of, 378, 381.

"Oath of the Tennis Court," 473.

Octroi, 39.

Oglethorpe, James, 311.

Ohio Company, 312.

Orange Family. {See William, of Orange.)

"Orders in Council," 548.

Ordination, 119, 166.

Orleans, duke of (Regent), 255-256, 456.

Orleans, duke of (Philippe Egalite), 503, 508.

Orthodox Church, 122; in Russia, 21-22,

368, 372-373, 380-382. Oswego, 314. Otis, James, 329.

Ottoman Empire. {See Turkey.) Ottoman Turks. {See Turkey.) Oudenarde, l)attle of, 253. Oxford Reformers, 149.

Pacifism, 210, 411-412.

Paine, Thomas, 495, 503.

Painting, in sixteenth century, 188-192.

INDEX

593

Palatinate, in Thirty Years' War, 220, 22?, 228-229,352; War of the, 247-249.

Palestrina, 192.

Pallium, 117, 126.

Panama, 54.

Papal States, 16, 78-79, 406 n., 550.

Paper, invention of, 1 78.

Paris, and the Fronde, 218; commune of, 475-476, 500 ; and the Prench Revolution, 467, 474-478, 487-488, 490-40,5, 498, SOI, 506, 508, 510, 513 ; beautification of, under Napoleon I, 532; surrender of (1814), 566; peace of (1763), 317; (1783). oo5, 336; treaty of (1814), 567.

Parish, 114.

Parlemenls, French, 217-21S, 450, 452-453, 458, 460-461.

ParUament, English (British), origin of, 265-266; under the Tudors, 4, 5, 152-156, 261-263, 266-267 ; contest with Stuarts, 267-2S8; in eighteenth century, 289- 293. 323, 327-329. 337, 403. 430-439-

Parliament, French. {See Estates-General.)

Parliament, German. (See Diet.)

Parliament, Irish, 431.

Parliament, in Netherlands. {See States- General.)

Parliament, Portuguese. {See Cortes.)

Parliament, Spanish. {See Cortes.)

Parma, duke of (Alexander Farnese), 95.

Parma, Margaret, duchess of, 92.

Parthenopaean Republic. {See Naples.)

Pascal, 408.

Patriarchate, 114.

Patrimony of Saint Peter. {See Papal States.)

Paul I, of Russia, 537.

Paul III, Pope, 158, 198.

Pavia, siege of, 78.

Peasantry, in sixteenth century, 29-36; and Protestant Revolt in Germany, 133-134, 169; French, and Richelieu, 215; and Colbert, 239 ; in eighteenth century, 395- 399, 405 ; in French Revolution, 469, 472, 479, 480, 488, 489, 518; and Napwleon, 533; in Prussia, 556.

Peasants' Revolt, in Germany, 133-135.

Penance, 11 8-1 19.

Peninsular War, 551-554, 557-558, 565-

Pennsylvania, 301, 411.

PeppereU, WiUiam, 311.

Peru, 56.

Peter I (the Great), of Russia, 369-374, 376- 379, 388.

Peter III, of Russia, 360, 380.

"Peter's Pence," 117, 407.

Petition of Right, 271-272, 282, 288.

Petrarch, 15, 180-182, 193, 194, 201.

Petrograd (St. Petersburg), 379.

Piiilip IV (the Fair), of France, 469.

Philip I, of Spain, 13, 74.

Philip II, of Spain, 55-58, 86-107, 155, 163, 187, 190, 261, 303, 572.

I'hilip III, of Spain, 96.

I'hihp IV, of Spain, 226, 230, 243.

Philip V, of Spain (Philip of Anjou), 250- 253, 256 n.

Philippines, 54, 58, 315, 317.

I'hilosophes, 419.

Pichegru, 506, 514, 533.

Piedmont, 534, 568. {See Sardinia.)

"Pilgrimage of Grace," 153.

Pilgrims, 300.

Pillnitz, Declaration of, 496.

Pitt, WiUiam (Earl of Chatham), 292, 314, 327, 360, 321.

Pitt, WiUiam (the younger), 438-439, 516, 537-538, 546.

Pius V, Pope, 106.

Pius VII, Pope, 529, 533, 550, 568.

Pius X, Pope, 117.

Pizarro, 56.

Plain (French political group), 503.

Plassey, battle of, 317.

Plebiscite, 526, 533.

Poland, in 1500, 22; religion of, 162-164, 381-382 ; personal union of, with Saxony, 353; and Sweden, 225, 376-377; and Tur- key, 383; and Prussia, 348, 361, 506; and Russia, 367, 369, 385-388; in eighteenth century, 381-383, 390; partitions of; 361, 387-388; grand-duchy of Warsaw, 540, 541, 559, 563, 564-

Pole, Cardinal, 155.

Polish Election, War of, 256, 456.

Politiques, 104-105.

Polo, Marco, 50.

Poltava, battle of, 377.

Pomerania, 228, 348, 374, 376, 378, 564.

Pompadour, Madame de, 358, 457, 459-

Pondicherry, 304, 310, 311, 317, 319.

Poniatowski, Stanislaus, 385, 388, 495.

Pope (and Papacy), claims and rights of, 113-117, 122, 159, 166, 169-170, 409; temporal rule of, 16-18, 78-79, 106, 406 n., 550; patronage of art and learning by, 183, 189-190; and Protestant Revolt, 124-156; and French Revolution, 484; and Napoleon, 529, 533, 550. "Popish Plot," 285. Port Jackson, 340. Port Royal, 307, 308.

Portugal, in 1500, 7-10; and exploration, 51-52 ; commercial importance of, 53, 55 ; religion in, 163 ; annexed by Spain, 55-56, 89-91; independence reestabUshed, 228;

2Q

594

INDEX

close relation with England, 252; in eighteenth century, 444; and Napoleon,

550-553- Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, 121. Pragmatic Sanction of Emperor Charles VI,

346, 353, 356- Prague, siege of, 359; treaty of, 226. Predestination, 165-166. Presbyterians, 143, 263, 273-276, 280, 284-

28s, 411. {See Calvinism.) Presqu' Isle, Fort, 312. Pressburg, treaty of, 538-539- "Prester John," 51. Pride's Purge, 276. Priesthood, Christian, 119. Priestley, 411, 417- Princeton, battle of, 333. Printing, 177-180, 202. Priors, 114.

Privy Council (English), 290, 432. Protectorate, British, 279-281. Protestant, origin of name, 136. Protestantism (and the Protestant Revolt),

124-174, 410-413- Provence, 6, 451 n. Provence, count of. {See Louis XVIII, of

France.) "Provisions of Oxford," 265. Prussia, 348 n. ; rise of, 347-352. 440-443 ;

a kingdom, 254, 350 ; conflict with Austria,

354-362; and French Revolution, 506;

Napoleon and regeneration of, 538-542,

555-557, 560, 562-566, 570-571, 575- {Sec

Brandenburg.) "Ptolemaic System," 197-198. PubUc Safety, Committee of, 507-508. Puerto Rico, 56. Puritanism, 143, 148, 268-269, 273-282, 284-

285, 300. Pym, John, 274. Pyrenees, Peace of the, 230, 242, 243.

Quakers, 156, 301, 411, 437.

Quebec, 301, 307, 314-31S, 3i7, 33^, 337-

Quebec Act, 331, 337-

Queen Anne's War, 252, 308.

Quesnay, 425.

Quiberon Bay, battle of, 315.

Rabelais, 194.

Racine, 237.

Raleigh, 59.

Ramillics, battle of, 253.

Raphael, 186, 189-190.

Rationalism, Eighteenth-Century, 418-426,

429. Reformation, 129. {See Protestantism and

the Protestant Revolt.)

Reformation, Catholic, 156-164. Reformed Church, 143. {See Calvinism.) Reichsdcputalionshauptschluss, 541-542. Rembrandt, 191-192. Requesens, 94. Restitution, Edict of, 224. Restoration, English, 281-287. Revolution, American, 322, 332-337, 340-

341, 431, 436, 459-460. Revolution, Enghsh, of 16S8 (1689), 286-

293, 297-298, 248. Revolution, French, 332, 424, 439, 443, 464-

522. Revolution, Religious, in sixteenth century,

124-174. Revolutionary Tribunal, 508, 511. Richelieu, Cardinal, 212-216, 219, 225-228, 232-233, 23s, 238, 242, 304, 306 n., 528, 542, 565. Rights of Man, Declaration of (French),

482. Robbia, Luca della, 187. Robespierre, 491, 493-494, 498, 503, 507,

509, 511, 514, S17- Rochelle. {Sec La Rochelle.) Rochester, John Fisher, bishop of, 153. Rockingham, 330. Rocroi, battle of, 228. Rodney, 228, 335. Roland, Madame, 498, 508. Romanov Family, 369, 389. Rome, as ecclesiastical center, 113, 114; bishop of, see Pope ; sack of, 78 ; see Papal States. Roses, Wars of the, 4. Rossbach, battle of, 359. "Rotten Boroughs," 434-43'S- "Roundheads," 275. Rousseau, 421-424, 445, 465, 490, 493,

503- Royal Council (French), 449-451. Royal Society (English), 418. Rubens, 191. Rudolph I, Emperor, 13. Rudolph II, Emperor, 221. Rumania (Rumanians, Rumans), 23, 34s,

383. {See Moldavia; Transylvania;

Wallachia.) Rump Parliament, 276-279, 281. Russia, in 1500, 21-22, 25; in seventeenth

and eighteenth centuries, 358-361, 366-

390, 443; and Napoleon, 526, 537-S41,

558-567, 575- Ryswick, treaty of, 249, 251, 307.

Sacraments, 118-119, 165-167. Salamanca, battle of, 557. Sans-culoUes, 510.

INDEX

595

Saratoga, battle of, 333-

Sardinia (Savoy, I'iedmont), 19, 76, 142, 252,

254. 356, 505. 514. 534. 568. Savonarola, ig. Saxe, Marshal, 357. Saxony, 12, 130, 132, 225, 227, 353, 356, 358-

359. 540, 564-565. 568. Scandinavian Countries, 21. (See Denmark ;

Norway ; Sweden.) Scharnhorst, 556. Scheldt, closure of the, 95. Schmaikald, League of, 85, 136. Schwarzenberg, 564, 565, 570. Science, in sixteenth century, 196-203; in

seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,

414-419, 429- Scotland, 6, 79, 146-147. 289, 430. {See

England.) Sculpture, in sbcteenth century, 187-188. " Sea Beggars," 94. Second Coalition, 516, 526, 532. Security, Committee of General, 508. See, ecclesiastical, 114. Senegal, 240, 302, 317 n., 336. Separatists, 411. (See Independents.) September Massacres, 501. Serbia (Serbs), 23, 345. Serfdom, in sixteenth century, 30-31, 32-36,

134-135; in eighteenth century, 396-399;

in Russia, 443 ; in Austria, 445, 447, 448 n. ;

abolition of, in P'rance, 479, 480-481, 528,

530; abolition of, in Napoleonic States,

543. 552; abolition of, in Prussia, 556. Servetus, 143. Settlement, Act of, 289 n. Seven Years' War, 312-319, 359-361, 385.

457. 459- Sevigne, Madame de, 237. Sforza Family, 17, 77, 78, 188. Shakespeare, 196. "Ship Monej'," 272-273, 274. Short Parliament, 274. Siberia, 367-368, 373. SiciUan Vespers, 16. Sicily, 16, 76, 87, 106, 254. (See Two

Sicilies.) Sickingen, Franz von, 84-85. Siey^s, 471-473. 49i. 503, 525- Silesia, 355, 357, 359-361, 442. Simony, 127. Six Articles, 153. Slavery (and Slave-trade), 56, 60, 61, 67,

71-72, 412, 437. 532. Slavs, 21. (See Russia, etc.) Smith, Adam, 338, 421, 425-426. Smolensk, capture of, by Napoleon, 561. Sobieski, John, 383. "Solemn League and Covenant," 275, 285.

Spain, in 1500, 7-10; in sixteenth century, 17, 18, 74-76, 87-91, 106, 109; colonial empire of, 49, 53-58, 61, 299, 308-309, 310-312, 315, 317, 334-336, 532, 576; religion in, 163, 408, 552 ; in eighteenth century, 250, 444; and England, 60, 97- loi, 269-270, 30S-309, 310-312, 315, 317, 334-336, 576; and France, 75, 97. 104-105, 227-228, 229-230, 242-254, 315, 317, 334- 336, 495, 505, 506; and Netherlands, 58- 59, 91-97, 229; and Portugal, 55-56, 90- 91, 228; and Napoleon, 532, 550-554. 557-558. 568, 576.

" Spanish Fury," 58, 94.

Spanish Succession, War of, 249-254, 257, 289, 308-309, 346, 349, 352-353. 359-

Spenser, Edmund, 195.

Speyer, Diets of, 130, 135-136-

Spice Islands, 45, 55.

St. Bartholomew's Day, Massacre of, 103- 104.

St. Benedict, 115.

St. Dominic, 115.

St. Francis of Assisi, 115.

St. Helena, Napoleon at, 571-573.

St. Just, 503, 507, 509.

St. Lucia, 567 n., 575.

St. Peter, 113.

St. Petersburg (Petrograd), 379. .

Stadion, Count, 554.

Stamp Act, 328-330.

Stamp Act Congress, 329.

Stanislaus I (Leszczynski) , of Poland, 256,

377- Stanislaus II (Poniatowski), of Poland, 385,

388, 495. Star Chamber, Court of, 5, 274. States-General, of Netherlands, 20, 96-97- Stein, Baron vom, S5S-5S6, 562. Stephen I (St. Stephen), of Hungary, 23. Stockholm, treaties of, 378. Storch, Nicholas, 134 n. Strafford, 274. Straits Settlements, 340. Strassburg, 247, 249, 499. Streltsi, 370-371. Stuart Family, 146, 263-264, 282-283, 289,

294, 300. Sufifren, 335. Sugar Act, 328. Syleiman II (the Magnificent), of Turkey,

80-81, 106, 383. 384- Sully, 210-211, 235, 238. Suraj-ud-Dowlah, 316-317- Suspects, Law of, 508. Sweden, in 1500, 21 ; religious revolution in,

137-139; and Thirty Years' War, 224-

228; and Louis XIV, 244-245; in Great

596

INDEX

Northern War, 374-379, 390; and Napo- Two Sicilies, 16, 87, 256, 344-345. 516, S34, leon, 537. 540-541. 559. 564- 57 1- (See Naples; Sicily.)

Svntzerland, 11, 139-141, 143, 229, 516, 564. Tyrol, 135, 344, 447, 539, S54-5SS, 564-

Taille, 239, 397. 45 1, 454-455-

Talleyrand, 532, S44. 552. 567.

Tasso, 194.

Tatars, 368. {See Mongols.)

Taylor, Jeremy, 196.

Terror, Reign of, 507-509.

Tetzel, 131.

Teutonic Knights, 115, 348 n.

Texas, 56.

Theology, n8.

Thermidorian Reaction, 509, 511.

Theses, Ninety-five, of Luther, 131-132.

Third Coalition, 537-540. 542.

Third Estate, 211, 238, 403, 470-474.

Thirty-nine Articles, 155, 166, 410.

Thirty Years' War, 97, 146, 218-234, 243, 342-343, 345. 348, 352.

Three-field System of Agriculture, 33.

Three Henries, War of the, 104-105.

Ticonderoga, Fort, 313, 314.

Tilly, 222, 223, 225-226.

Tilsit, treaty of, S39-54i. 549, 555. 558, 559.

Tithe, 35, 397, 411, 480.

Titian, 190.

Tobago, 336, 567 n., 575.

Toleration Act (English), 289, 410.

Tories, 286-288, 291-292, 328, 332, 436, 439.

Toul, 79, 228.

Toulon, 524, 531.

Toussaint L'Ouverture, 532.

Towns. [See Cities.)

Townshend Acts, 331.

Trade. (See Commerce.)

Trafalgar, battle of, 534, 538, 546.

Transubstantiation, 119, 166.

Transylvania, 345, 383.

Trebizond, 52.

Trent, Council of, 90, 158-160, 190.

Trenton, battle of, 333.

Triennial Act, 275.

'Troublous Times," in Russia, 369.

Tudor Family, 4-6, 109, 150-156, 261-263,

300. Tugeitdbiiiid, 557.

Turenne, 228-229, 237, 241, 246, 249. Turgot, 425, 458.

Turkey, in 1500, 23, 26; in si.xteenth cen- tury, 76, 79, 80-81, 87, 106, III ; in seven- teenth century, 247, 345, 369-370, 383; in eighteenth century, 383-387, 390; and Napoleon, 540, 559. Tuscany, 19, 444. (See Florence.) Twelve Articles, 134.

Ulm, battle of, 538.

Ultramontanism, 409.

Uniformity, Act of, 284.

Unigenilus, 409.

Unitarians, 411.

United Kingdom, 431. (See England; Ire- land; Scotland.)

United Provinces, 95. (See Netherlands, Dutch.)

United States of America, 336.

Upsala, archbishop of, 138.

Utrecht, Peace of, 253-254, 308-309, 344, 349, 356; Union of, 95.

Valmy, 501, 504.

Valois Family, 108.

Van Dyck, 191.

Varennes, Flight to, 487-488.

Vasco da Gama, 51-52, 55, 72, 195, 303.

Vauban, 237, 241, 247.

Vega, Lope de, 195.

Velasquez, 191, 195.

Venango, Fort, 313.

Vendee, La, 488, 494, 504, 506, 508.

Venice (Venetia), 16-17, 44, 46-49. 52-53.

62, 78, 80, 106, 231, 383, 515, 539, 564. Verdun, 79, 228, 501. Vergniaud, 498, 503, 509. Verrazano, 54, 60, 300. Versailles, 237, 476-47S; treaty of, 335-

337. Vervins, treaty of, 105, 209. Vespucci, Amerigo, 54. Victor Emmanuel I, of Sardinia, 568. Vienna, Congress of, 568, 570; siege of, by

Turks, 81, 383. Vinci, Leonardo da, 188-189. Vingtieme, 454-455. Virginia, 300. Visconti Family, 17, 187. Vittoria, battle of, 565. Vlachs, 23. (See Rumania.) Volta, 417.

Voltaire, 355, 380, 419-421, 443, 458, 465. Voyages. (See Exploration.) Vulgate, 160.

Wagram, battle of, 554, 573-

Wallachia, 386. (See Rumania.)

Wallcnstein, 199, 223-226, 234.

Walloon, 19, 95.

Walpole, Sir Robert, 291-293. 311. 324. 435"

436. Wandewash, 317.

INDEX

597

Warsaw Decree, 548.

Washington, George, 313, 332, 333, 334, 336.

Waterloo, battle of, 558, 570.

Wellington, Arthur WcUesley, duke of, 553,

557. 5(15. 570. \\'entworth, Thomas, 274. Wesley, John, 412. West Indies, 302. {See America.) Westphalia, kingdom of, 534, 543, 564 ;

Peace of, 07, 228-229, 231, 246, 348, 352. Whigs, 285-202, 327-328, 330, 435-439- Wilkes, 437. William III, of England, 248-249, 251, 287-

290, 307, 308, 432. {See William III, of

Orange.) William I (the Silent), of Orange, 93-94, 96. William III, of Orange, 245, 248-249. {See

William III, of England.)

William V, of Orange, 506.

William Henry, Fort, 313, 314.

Williams. Roger, 307.

Willoughby, 60.

Wittenberg, Luther at, 130-131.

Wolfe, 314-315-

Wolsey, Cardinal, 151.

Worms, Diets of, 13-14, 83, 85, 133.

Wren, Sir Christopher, 187.

Wiirttemberg, 146, 538, 539. 542-

WyclitTe, 123, 129.

Yorck, General, 562. Yorktown, battle of, 334.

ZoUvercin, project of, in sixteenth century, 83.

Zurich, 140.

Zwingli, 129, 139-140, 142, 172.

Printed in the United States of America.

OATEOVJH

;;;nted.no.sa

Q^YLOB0

COLUMBIA UNIVEHSITV LIBRARIES

0046038000

940

H326

1

i-iZs

■ I * « * « *-i *■*:»! «^.>^:«« « * « * .* "

/ «- «

» «

J? . «

* ■ *

1 . *

■-# -fi

'■■ " "■--■".';■§';#/ r

# ,_ w,....

«• ; ».'

* • *

^ .' i?.:

ir^ # :

i i\t

^1^' -J^. .^

^ . f. :^'^^

■i $: ^t

^;-€ 'f^^€".€ :^.:^^^::..^

iT^r

^ r

•# «

t *

i^ #

^- -^

^i. 4 .^

^ ./^ V^-.*^

# ■#

J ':l;:^

€ ^

..... -4 ■■i-.'^v

■^ W A" ^ '^ ^ -^ -

K^.-:

«»*»^-****-*

» *,..*.-* *...

ii,-^ 1^, ^ ^ . .3 ^ ^ . A* ^ ;* , ^ . ^v. ■■%'. ¥ life -^ir :% ^

■... t^-^ ^\^ ^ ^-^ /* -. ^' i^- ' ■■ ^.

r^ a I* ^ It ^ li. '.^ : » 11 * ^ 9^.*,. t^ .

t ^1 ^1

^'" t

^^^■^

i% ii' ' i* nil ^% ;f t -: i> t^ ^1^ ?!^/ 3k (». ti;

i> ' %

% . ^1

1^ % !^

;* 1^ ^

^: ->.

J* . ^- ; ^

i;^ * 'i

.* >. ^ :>, ^

► >. Ot '> ^ (V

. .* ^^ {> ?ik ^ . . > J^ {I W

'» U v*^'^i><.-^ f* [• %> IV ^ (»■ l» 1> <*■ . . ■ .. •-- ^ ffc. ^ f* ^ Ht, - - *

>- . .^^ .t*-. tl^. ^>, t^^ ^, ^.,* t.^ i»: N,; &^ (. ^- ?;.7k.; R.; !► -

«:%!vs%-s«.«:*:*

*.:^ ; i

# ; * " *

<•«-.'*,•■

■ * «

35^,

# :-^

4::*1