probably, there will never be any thing similar, in the' development of the human mind. The study of antiquity, and the religious sentiment, are indispensable for the literary transformation which our age needs, But although this future literature may be destined to possess two elements in common with that of the seventeenth century, there will be this profound differ ence, that it will be modified by totally different political influences. It must necessarily be an image of our political, social, and religious state, as that of the great age was a faithful representation of these in its time, The reign of Louis XIV. commenced with a stormy minority, under the regency of his mother, Anne of Austria, and Cardinal Mazarin, her minister. There was nothing, during this period of civil war, that indicated a monarch who would be able to govern by himself. Everybody was supposing that he would allow himself to be governed, like his father Louis XIII., when he suddenly gave indications of what might be expected from him. After the cessation of the civil wars, on his return from his first campaign, and his coronation, as parlia ment was about to legislate on some particular edicts, the king left Vincennes; and, coming into the house in great boots, with a whip in his hand, pronounced these words: "We know what troubles your assemblies have caused; I order those sitting in judgment on my edicts, to cease. Mr. President, I forbid you to allow any more assemblies, or one of you to ask for them.”* Thus was commenced this reign, which was to last seventy-two years, and exert so great an influence on the history of France, and on the development of humanity. Here may be foreseen the man, who afterwards said, "I * Voltaire. Age of Louis XIV. am the State;" and whose long life of seventy-seven years was spent in enforcing his absolute will in every thing. Louis XIV. governed, throughout his reign, by this maxim: "One Faith, one. King, one Law;" and nothing was spared to attain this end. The mass of the nation, who as yet counted, politically, as nothing, were no hindrance to his projects. And the aristocracy, humbled and ruined by the expenses of the court and the war, were obliged, like Parliament, to bend to the will of the monarch. Through the impulse given by this strong will, France entered upon a period of prosperity and glory. Her frontiers were extended; and several beautiful provinces, Lorraine, Flanders, FrancheComté, and Strasbourg were added to her territory: all the arts flourished under the monarch's protection; astonished Europe trembled and admired, and Frenchmen had what they value above all things-glory. The brilliant court of Louis gave tone to those of all Europe. A question of importance here presents itself: What part of the glory of this reign belongs personally to Louis XIV.? Has he received from his age more than he has given to it? or, was the glory of the age more than a reflection of his own? Was its genius an emanation of that of the prince? long since answered this question. Louis XIV. under the emblem of a sun, whose rays spread life and light around, we see what his contemporaries attributed to him. But this ambitious comparison, drawn by courtiers, must not bias our judgment; and we may legitimately inquire, if the principal merit of this prince is not that of having known how to appropriate, and to concentrate in himself, and afterward to reflect the eclat of those who sur rounded him. The celebrated St. Simon, the author of several valuable memoirs of his period, who was often near the king, avows that it was not easy to determine this question. "He was a prince," said he, "to whom you cannot deny much that is good and even great, with much that was mean and wicked; in whom, it is impossible to distinguish that which was natural from that which was borrowed." This will be sufficient to show how difficult it is to form a just idea of the merits of this prince. Even his title, "protector of letters," which seems the most incontestable of all, is yet a little problematical. Louis XIV. undoubtedly did much for the writers of his day; but they also did much more for him. And in choosing Chapelain as the distributor of his gifts, he did not give proof of great judgment. According to this same St. Simon, the mind of the king was even below mediocrity; but yet very capable of improvement. Unhappily, his education was sadly neglected. "He was scarcely taught to read and write; and he lived in such ignorance, that of the most common things relating to history, events, laws, the conduct and birth of distinguished men, he knew not a word. In consequence of this deficiency he sometimes made the grossest blunders, even in public." I know that it has been said, “A glance from Louis gave birth to Corneille;" but Delille is poetic in this remark; an unusual occurrence for him; and is also at variance with the truth. The great Corneille, before producing his magnificent works, was obliged to carry his own shoes to the cobbler at the corner, to have them mended. And when he, the author of the Cid, was near his end, he was reduced to such a point of misery, that Racine was obliged to intercede for him, as he even needed broth on his death-bed. So, you perceive, his glory had not been very profitable to him. As to the military talents of Louis XIV. it is said, he made many wars, but never fought them in person; so that his reputation as a warrior, is somewhat doubtful. The passage of the Rhine, celebrated by Boileau, was a very little thing. The river at that place and that season, was not deep; the passage was not even defended; and Louis XIV. crossed it after his army on a bridge of boats. With such generals as Turenue, Condé, and Luxembourg, he could easily triumph over his enemies, without exposing himself. He was so little of a warrior, as to abandon the easy conquest of Holland to please one of his mis tresses. But was Louis XIV. a good king? This question can hardly be proposed without awakening sad recollections in many who read these pages. The new world, like the old, has seen pilgrims arriving by hundreds, who fled before the dragoons of his majesty. It is not to a king, who by the revocation of the edict of Nantes, October, 1685, gave his country a wound, from which it may never recover, that we can give the title of good. Fifty thousand of the most respectable families, five hundred thousand of the most industrious inhabitants of France, must quit their country, to satisfy the relig ious scruples of a monarch, whose crimes still scandalize posterity. The Jesuits, always ingenious, thought to redeem the sins of their penitent, by giving him the meritorious work of extirpating heresy. It has often been pretended by the Ultramontane school, that the revocation of the Edict of Nantes was necessary to preserve the political unity of France, which had been compromised by the Reformers. Chateaubriand, who cannot be supposed to be partial to Protestantism, in one of his last writings, has made a remark worthy to be remembered: "Instead of compromising the unity of France, the Edict of Nantes, given by Henry IV., established it."* And thus speaks another, who cannot be suspected; Fenelon, the humble, charitable, and amiable bishop, who had nothing of the partisan about him; he writes to Madame de Maintenon, that Louis XIV. had "no idea of his duties as. a king." Racine seems to have been no less severe, in a work on the state of the kingdom, which he sent to Madame de Maintenon, and which brought him into disgrace. And, indeed, the people, an excellent judge in these matters, never thought of giving the title of good to Louis XIV., for in their ears these two words would clash with each other. The people, decimated by the wars, and impoverished by the taxes of the palace, murmured and suffered, and merely bore a yoke which they could not throw off their necks. And while the good Henry yet lives in their memory, they know not even the name of Louis XIV. Louis XIV., at the age of twenty-two, married Maria Theresa, the daughter of Philip IV., king of Spain, by whom he had six children. These all, with one exception, died young. But there is little to be said of this royal lady in the whole course of this long reign; for it was not to her that any looked when a favor was to be obtained from the king. Many other women, of whom the most celebrated were Madame de la Valliere, Madame de Montespan, and, lastly, Madame de Main Life of Rancé. |