diviner right, but yet was not to interfere with the "divine right" of Kings.

Elizabeth implored her father to take action for the recovery of Bohemia as well as the Palatinate, and, by her advice, Frederick refused to lay aside the title of King of Bohemia. In this dark hour of her fortunes, Elizabeth, a true Stuart, with a nature satisfied with the pleasures of the present, writes to Sir Thomas Roe, the English ambassador (she always addressed him as "honest Thom"), "yett I am still of my wilde humour, to be as merrie as I can in spite of fortune." The gentler Frederick felt his misfortunes, and especially the loss of his hereditary possessions, more keenly. "The Winter King's account was soon settled;" but the Elector's loss was harder to bear, and this loss he owed partly to Elizabeth, partly to his own imbecility.

German political sympathy was, to a great extent, with Frederick so far as the Palatinate was concerned; but it was also felt that Frederick, in taking Bohemia, had done to Ferdinand the same thing which the Emperor, in savage reprisal, had done to the Elector. The sentiment of the sacredness of hereditary possession was then strong among the German Powers. The monarchy of Bohemia was not, in a practical sense, an elective monarchy. In default of an hereditary succession, the crown of Bohemia was seizable by him who could take and hold it. The crown had on various occasions been the prey of violence and fraud, and had been mainly at the mercy of the Kaiser. Thus, Matthias compelled the weak Rudolf to cede Bohemia to him; and Matthias, when he was elected Emperor, compelled the Bohemians to accept Ferdinand. The unfortunate, if fickle, Bohemians constantly saw their religion and their liberties. outraged by Catholics and by tyrants. They sought freedom by means of a Protestant Prince, and, failing in obtaining one of power and mark, they had the misfortune to see

their ruin consummated by their last resource, Frederick. Their hope that the Union, that the German Protestant Powers, that England, would support Frederick was soon shown to be the shadow of a shade.

. Two defenders sprang up for the lost cause of Frederick and Elizabeth. One was a partisan of policy; the other a champion of chivalry. The first was Count Mansfeld; the second was Christian of Brunswick.

Mansfeld was the ablest adventurer, the most successful soldier of fortune of his land and day. He had strong reasons for hating Austria, and hated her accordingly.

Christian was a man of a very different stamp. He was Geschwisterkind (first cousin) of Elizabeth (Söltl), and was born September 10th, 1599. He was, therefore, three years younger than Elizabeth. Christian's mother, also an Elizabeth, was the daughter of Frederick II. of Denmark. Christian first met Elizabeth Stuart when, after the disastrous day of the White Mountain, she had taken refuge in Holland. He was charmed with his cousin; he felt knightly sympathy for a Queen's misfortunes: a passionate Protestant, he glowed with true zeal for Elizabeth's religion. Burning for military glory, a fanatic of chivalry, a knighterrant of romantic devotion; high-flown, sombre, and intense, Christian eagerly devoted life and fortune to his cousin and her cause. Her wore her glove in his helmet; he adopted as his motto, Alles für Ruhm und ihr, "All for glory and for her." He called himself Gottes Freund, der Pfaffen Feind—“ the friend of God, the foe of priests." When, after a wound at the siege of Breda, his arm had to be amputated, he caused the trumpets to sound while the operation was performed, and said that "the arm he had left would be enough for revenge upon his enemies." Heroic as a knightly champion, Christian was yet unsuccessful as a general. Intrepid, rash, and headstrong, he was easily beaten by the wily Tilly. Mansfeld was abler

and more successful; but their joint help had really availed but little when, on July 16th, 1662, Frederick saw himself compelled (partly by pressure put upon him by his fatherin-law) to dismiss the two generals who-the one from hatred of Austria, the other from love to Elizabethbravely maintained and kept alive a falling cause.

After the bitter step of such a dismissal, Frederick would seem to have begun to suffer from life-weariness. He stood apart, and left his affairs mainly to his sprightly wife, and to the Secretary, Russdorf.

It is impossible in this short essay to narrate all the battles, sieges, fortunes, which occurred in the great war, even in so far as such events may have indirectly affected the fortunes of the Palatine House. Much must necessarily be passed over, and I am compelled to restrict myself to those leading occurrences which were most clearly determinate of the fortunes of Germany, and by consequence of those of Elizabeth Stuart.

H. SCHÜTZ WILSON.

(To be continued.)

MR. RHYS DAVIDS' HIBBERT LECTURES.*

WR

E can hardly be surprised that Mr. Rhys Davids begins his course of interesting and suggestive lectures by declaring that "it would be a hopeless task to attempt in six Lectures, that is to say, in six hours, to give any adequate account of that great movement which has influenced the greater portion of the human race during the lapse of so many centuries." It might perhaps be possible to give a tolerably complete sketch of Buddhism in a volume of the same size as the one before us; but the result would be a mere sketch more suited to a handbook on the history of religion than to a course of lectures. For a lecturer must never forget that he has to rouse the interest of his hearers in his subject; nor can he find any more efficient means of doing so than the constant reference to points of resemblance and difference between the ideas with which they are already familiar and those which they are to meet with on the comparatively strange field of his special investigations. The lecturer, therefore, is at liberty, or rather is compelled, to make a selection from the rich accumulations of his knowledge, and to go to work eclectically, without, however, considering himself absolved from the necessity of following a definite plan.

The plan which Mr. Rhys Davids has proposed to himself is "to discuss those points in the history of Buddhism

*Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, as Illustrated by Some Points in the History of Indian Buddhism. By T. W. RHYS DAVIDS. (Hibbert Lectures, 1881.) Williams and Norgate.

which appear to throw light on the origin and growth of religious belief," and, further to explain his meaning, he adds, "This means, as I understand it, the origin and growth of religion outside, as well as inside, the circle of the Buddhist beliefs themselves."

"

The method which the lecturer promises to follow is "the comparative method," especially that which is followed in "comparative philology." In this science, we are told, "we find, firstly, that words in the more modern dialects of any family are derived, as far as possible historically, from words or roots in the older dialects." I am afraid that no one who has not worked at comparative philology" himself will be led to a correct idea of the method in question by these words. The fact is that the philologist, by comparing the facts and phenomena observed in the languages of one family known to him, and by applying certain strict rules which he has derived from his linguistic studies, endeavours to track out the older pre-historic condition of a family of speeches. He endeavours to proceed from the known to the unknown, to fix the degrees of relationship between the several members of the same family of languages, and to prove that at some remote period there was one language, out of which, in the course of time, all these dialects, which appear so different, have grown in natural or, at any rate, in explicable ways. We shall see the important bearing of the distinction here drawn when we come to the Sixth Lecture.

The second mark of "comparative philology," we are told, is that in it "general rules respecting the tendencies of the growth of language, and of vowel and consonantal change, are laid down as being of very general or even sometimes of universal application." It is very questionable whether such general rules with respect to tendencies have much value on the field of comparative philology, even