תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

maker; Colonel Fox a tinker 50 and Colonel Hewson a cobbler $1

49

51

Such were the leaders of the English rebellion, or, to speak more properly, such were the instruments by which the rebellion was consummated.52 If we now turn to France, we shall clearly see the difference between the feelings and temper of the two nations. In that country, the old protective spirit still retained its activity; and the people, being kept in a state of pupilage, had not acquired those habits of self-command and self-reliance, by which alone great things can be effected. They had been so long accustomed to look with timid reverence to the upper classes, that, even when they rose in arms, they could not throw off the ideas of submission which were quickly discarded by our ancestors. The influence of the higher ranks was, in England, constantly diminishing; in France, it was scarcely impaired. Hence it happened that, although the English and French rebellions were contemporary, and, in their origin, aimed at precisely the same objects, they were distinguished by one most important difference. This was, that the English rebels were headed by popular leaders; the French rebels by noble leaders. The bold and sturdy habits which had long been cultivated in England, enabled the middle and lower classes to supply their own chiefs out of their own ranks. In France, such chiefs were not to be found; simply because, owing to the protective spirit, such habits had not been cultivated. While, therefore, in our island, the functions of civil government, and of war, were conducted with conspicuous ability, and complete success, by butchers, by bakers, by brewers, by cobblers, and by tinkers, the 49 Bates's Late Troubles, vol. i. p. 87; Ludlow's Mem. vol. i. p. 220. 60 Walker's Hist. of Independency, part ii. p. 87.

61

Ludlow, who was well acquainted with Colonel Hewson, says that he "had been a shoemaker." Ludlow's Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 139. But this is the amiable partiality of a friend; and there is no doubt that the gallant colonel was neither more nor less than a cobbler. See Walker's Independency, part ii. p. 39: Winstanley's Martyrol. p. 123; Bates's Late Troubles, vol. ii. p. 222; Noble's Cromwell, vol. ii. pp. 251, 345, 470.

5 Walker, who relates what he himself witnessed, says, that, about 1649, the army was commanded by "colonels and superior officers, who lord it in their gilt coaches, rich apparel, costly feastings; though some of them led dray-horses, wore leather-pelts, and were never able to name their own fathers or mothers." Hist. of Independ. part. ii. p. 244. The Mercurius Rusticus, 1647, says, "Chelmsford was governed by a tinker, two cobblers, two tailors, two pedlars." Southey's Commonplace Book, third series, 1850, p. 430. And, at p. 434, another work, in 1647, makes a similar statement in regard to Cambridge; while Lord Holles assures us, that "most of the colonels and officers (were) mean tradesmen, brewers, taylors, goldsmiths, shoemakers, and the like." Holles's Memoirs, p. 149. When Whitelocke was in Sweden, in 1653, the prætor of one of the towns abused the parliament, saying, "that they had killed their king, and were a company of tailors and cob. blers." Whitelock's Swedish Embassy, vol. i. p. 205. See also a note in Carwithen's Hist. of the Church of England, vol. ii. p. 156.

struggle which, at the same moment, was going on in France, presented an appearance totally different. In that country, the rebellion was headed by men of a far higher standing; men, indeed, of the longest and most illustrious lineage. There, to be sure, was a display of unexampled splendour; a galaxy of rank, a noble assemblage of aristocratic insurgents and titled demagogues. There was the Prince de Condé, the Prince de Conti, the Prince de Marsillac, the Duke de Bouillon, the Duke de Beaufort, the Duke de Longueville, the Duke de Chevreuse, the Duke de Nemours, the Duke de Luynes, the Duke de Brissac, the Duke d'Elbœuf, the Duke de Candale, the Duke de la Tremouille, the Marquis de la Boulaye, the Marquis de Laigues; the Marquis de Noirmoutier, the Marquis de Vitry, the Marquis de Fosseuse, the Marquis de Sillery, the Marquis d'Estissac, the Marquis d'Hocquincourt, the Count de Rantzau, the Count de Montresor.

These were the leaders of the Fronde;53 and the mere announcement of their names indicates the difference between the French and English rebellions. And, in consequence of this difference, there followed some results, which are well worth the attention of those writers who, in their ignorance of the progress of human affairs, seek to uphold that aristocratic power, which, fortunately for the interests of mankind, has long been waning; and which, during the last seventy years, has, in the most civilized countries, received such severe and repeated shocks, that its ultimate fate is hardly a matter respecting which much. doubt can now be entertained.

The English rebellion was headed by men, whose tastes, habits, and associations, being altogether popular, formed a bond of sympathy between them and the people, and preserved the union of the whole party. In France, the sympathy was very weak, and therefore the union was very precarious. What sort of sympathy could there be between the mechanic and the peasant, toiling for their daily bread, and the rich and dissolute noble, whose life was passed in those idle and frivolous pursuits which debased his mind, and made his order a byword and a reproach among the nations? To talk of sympathy existing between the two classes is a manifest absurdity, and most assuredly would have been deemed an insult by those high-born men, who treated their inferiors with habitual and insolent contempt. It is true, that, from causes which have been already stated, the

63 Even De Retz, who vainly attempted to organize a popular party, found that it was impossible to take any step without the nobles; and, notwithstanding his democratic tendencies, he, in 1648, thought it advisable "tâcher d'engager dans les intérêts publics les personnes de qualité. Mém. de Joly, p. 31.

people did, unhappily for themselves, look up to those above them with the greatest veneration ;54 but every page of French history proves how unworthily this feeling was reciprocated, and in how complete a thraldom the lower classes were kept. While, therefore, the French, from their long-established habits of dependence, were become incapable of conducting their own rebellion, and, on that account, were obliged to place themselves under the command of their nobles, this very necessity confirmed the servility which caused it; and thus stunting the growth of freedom, prevented the nation from effecting, by their civil wars, those great things which we, in England, were able to bring about by ours.

Indeed, it is only necessary to read the French literature of the seventeenth century, to see the incompatibility of the two classes, and the utter hopelessness of fusing into one party the popular and aristocratic spirit. While the object of the people was to free themselves from the yoke, the object of the nobles was merely to find new sources of excitement,55 and minister to that personal vanity for which, as a body, they have always been notorious. As this is a department of history that has been little studied, it will be interesting to collect a few instances, which will illustrate the temper of the French aristocracy, and will show what sort of honours, and what manner of distinctions, those were, which this powerful class was most anxious to obtain.

That the objects chiefly coveted were of a very trifling description, will be anticipated by whoever has studied the effect which, in an immense majority of minds, hereditary distinctions produce upon personal character. How pernicious such distinctions are, may be clearly seen in the history of all the European aristocracies; and in the notorious fact that none of them have preserved even a mediocrity of talent, except in countries

Mably (Observations sur l'Hist. de France, vol. i. p. 357) frankly says, "L'exemple d'un grand a toujours été plus contagieux chez le Français que partout ailleurs." See also vol. ii. p. 267: "Jamais l'exemple des grands n'a été aussi contagieux ailleurs qu'en France; on dirait qu'ils ont le malheureux privilége de tout justifier." Rivarol, though his opinions on other points were entirely opposed to those of Mably, says, that, in France," la noblesse est aux yeux du peuple une espèce de religion, dont les gentilshommes sont les prêtres." Mém. de Rivarol, p. 94. Happily, the French Revolution, or rather the circumstances which caused the French Revolution, have utterly destroyed this ignominious homage.

The Duke de la Rochefoucauld candidly admits that, in 1649, the nobles raised a civil war, avec d'autant plus de chaleur que c'était une nouveauté." Mem. de Rochefoucauld, vol. i. p. 406. Thus too Lemontey (Etablissement de Louis XIV, p. 368): “La vieille noblesse, qui ne savait que combattre, faisait la guerre par goût, par besoin, par vanité, par ennui." Compare, in Mém. d'Omer Talon, vol. ii. pp. 467, 468, a summary of the reasons which, in 1649, induced the nobles to go to war; and on the way in which their frivolity debased the Fronde, see Lavallée, Hist. des Français, vol. iii. pp. 169, 170.

where they are frequently invigorated by the infusion of plebeian blood, and their order strengthened by the accesssion of those masculine energies which are natural to men who make their own position, but cannot be looked for in men whose position is made for them. For, when the notion is once firmly implanted in the mind, that the source of honour is from without, rather than from within, it must invariably happen that the possession of external distinction will be preferred to the sense of internal power. In such cases, the majesty of the human intellect, and the dignity of human knowledge, are considered subordinate to those mock and spurious gradations by which weak men measure the degrees of their own littleness. Hence it is, that the real precedence of things becomes altogether reversed; that which is trifling is valued more than that which is great; and the mind is enervated by conforming to a false standard of merit, which its own prejudices have raised. On this account, they are evidently in the wrong, who reproach the nobles with their pride, as if it were a characteristic of their order. The truth is, that if pride were once established among them, their extinction would rapidly follow. To talk of the pride of hereditary rank, is a contradiction in terms. Pride depends on the consciousness of self-applause; vanity is fed by the applause of others. Pride is a reserved and lofty passion, which disdains those external distinctions that vanity eagerly grasps. The proud man sees, in his own mind, the source of his own dignity; which, as he well knows, can be neither increased nor diminished by any acts except those which proceed solely from himself. The vain man, restless, insatiable, and always craving after the admiration of his contemporaries, must naturally make great account of those external marks, those visible tokens, which, whether they be decorations or titles, strike directly on the senses, and thus captivate the vulgar, to whose understandings they are immediately obvious. This, therefore, being the great distinction, that pride looks within, while vanity looks without, it is clear that when a man values himself for a rank which he inherited by chance, without exertion, and without merit, it is a proof, not of pride, but of vanity, and of vanity of the most despicable kind. It is a proof that such a man has no sense of real dignity, no idea of what that is in which alone all greatness consists. What marvel if, to minds of this sort, the most insignificant trifles should swell into matters of the highest importance ? What marvel

if such empty understandings should be busied with ribands, and stars, and crosses; if this noble should yearn after the Garter, and that noble pine for the Golden Fleece; if one man should long to carry a wand in the precincts of the court, and another

man to fill an office in the royal household; while the ambition of a third, is, to make his daughter a maid-of-honour, or to raise his wife to be mistress of the robes ?

We, seeing these things, ought not to be surprised that the French nobles, in the seventeenth century, displayed, in their intrigues and disputes, a frivolity, which, though redeemed by occasional exceptions, is the natural characteristic of every hereditary aristocracy. A few examples of this will suffice to give the reader some idea of the tastes and temper of that powerful class which, during several centuries, retarded the progress of French civilization.

Of all the questions on which the French nobles were divided, the most important was that touching the right of sitting in the royal presence. This was considered to be a matter of such gravity, that, in comparison with it, a mere struggle for liberty faded into insignificance. And what made it still more exciting to the minds of the nobles was, the extreme difficulty with which this great social problem was beset. According to the ancient etiquette of the French court, if a man were a duke, his wife might sit in the presence of the queen; but if his rank were inferior, even if he were a marquis, no such liberty could be allowed.56 So far, the rule was very simple, and, to the duchesses themselves, highly agreeable. But the marquises, the counts, and the other illustrious nobles, were uneasy at this invidious distinction, and exerted all their energies to procure for their own wives the same honour. This the dukes strenuously resisted; but, owing to circumstances which, unfortunately, are not fully understood, an innovation was made in the reign of Louis XIII., and the privilege of sitting in the same room with the queen was conceded to the female members of the Bouillon family. In consequence of this

57

Hence the duchesses were called "femmes assises;" those of lower rank "non assises." Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil, vol. i. p. 111. The Count de Ségur tells us that "les duchesses jouissaient de la prérogative d'être assises sur un tabouret chez la reine." Mém. de Ségur, vol. i. p. 79. The importance attached to this is amusingly illustrated in Mem. de Saint-Simon, vol. iii. pp. 215-218, Paris, 1842; which should be compared with De Tocqueville, Règne de Louis XV, vol. ii. p. 116, and Mem. de Genlis, vol. x. p. 383.

57 "Survint incontinent une autre difficulté à la cour sur le sujet des tabourets, que doivent avoir les dames dans la chambre de la reine; car encore que cela ne s'accorde régulièrement qu'aux duchesses, néanmoins le feu roi Louis XIII l'avoit accordé aux filles de la maison de Bouillon," &c. Mem. d'Omer Talon, vol. iii. p. 5. See also, on this encroachment on the rights of the duchesses under Louis XIII. the case of Séguier, in Duclos, Mémoires Secrets, vol. i. pp. 360, 361. The consequences of the innovation were very serious; and Tallemant des Réaux (Historiettes, vol. viii. pp. 223, 224) mentions a distinguished lady, of whom he says: "Pour satisfaire son ambition, il lui falloit un tabouret; elle cabale pour épouser le vieux Bouillon La Marck veuf pour la seconde fois." In this she failed; but, determined not to be baffled, "elle ne se rebute point, et voulant à toute force avoir un tabouret, elle épouse le fils aîné du duc de Villars; c'est un ridicule de corps et d'esprit, car il VOL. I.-31

« הקודםהמשך »