History. ARNOLD'S LECTURES. Answer 1st. The fall of the Western Empire, according to Dr. Arnold is the separating limit between Ancient and Modern History; and in my humble opinion he is perfectly justified in the selection. The present state of affairs existing in Europe commences from this period. "History so far" says our author is the biography of the living, beyond it it is the biography of the dead." At no other period before or after it, can the four great elements of Modern nationality in Europe be found to have met together. Successive ages have used and disposed these elements differently but they have added no new one to them; so that the fall of the Western Empire divides the broadest line those two periods of the history of the European nations which are designated by the names of Ancient and Modern History. By the four great elements of nationality I mean race, language, institutions and religion. The births of the different nations in Europe, will perhaps afford much light on the subject. The English nation whose power is now acknowledged in every quarter of the globe do not owe their origin to the Romans who first conquered Britain. They were strangers to Greece and strangers to Israel; not one drop of their blood has been borrowed from any but the Saxon source. The same is the case with their neighbouring nation of France. Though there is a mixture of the Gallo-Roman origin in them yet the stamp is predominantly German. Clovis and his followers had the greatest share in forming the population of France. If we take to our consideration the origin of other nations we shall find that it is after the downfall of the Western Empire that these nations were born. The limit assigned by Dr. Arnold therefore is not arbitrary. It is not mere chronological but is founded upon a very solid and tangible basis. Answer 2nd.-Mosheim in his classical history quoted a passage, which by mistake he attributed to Elgius Bishop of Eloy, regarding the depraved state of morals in the seventh century of the Christian era. It is to this effect that any man who in the period above alluded to did not try his main and might to add to the influence and riches of the clergy was accounted as the most wretched and impious of all mortals. Robertson in his notes to Charles V. without taking the trouble of referring to the text quoted the remark from Mosheim; and at length Dr. Waddington adopted the selfsame passage in his works. But being led to inquire further into the matter, Waddington after many fruitless attempts found the whole passage not in Elgius but in Dácheri one of the Benedictive writers. Thus we find that three writers of the greatest celebrity have been led to a strange error from one garbled extract. Answer 3rd.-Italy consists of number of low valleys pent up between many steep hills and mountains. These valleys have an existence quite independent of each other, in so much that many of the inhabitants of one of them are foreigners to one another; so that it will not appear very strange to say that when two of the Neapolitan naturalists wentto visit an erruption of the Majella in Abruzzi, they found there many medicinial plants which their countrymen were in the habit of importing from distant L countries. The Appenine chain running down from the north to the south of Italy, the Alps on the north, the arteries and veins of the Tiber-the river on whose banks stood that seven killed city whose name is still cherished by all the nations of the world as the parent of arts institutions and civilization-the basin of the Po, all present a very grand picture to the mental eve of the observer. "Italy" says Dr. Arnold " is like a great backbone thickly set with spines." Steep hills and mountains rise on all sides, and low pieces of habitable lands are intercepted between them. The salubriousness of the climate, in some parts of this peninsula, where every gale is odour and every breath is peace, large tracts of land lying uncultivated and uninhabitated; and the beautiful valleys I valleys of the Campana teeming with olives and roses, all prepare a most delightful banquet for the patient observer. Washed by the Mediteranean and Adriatic, on three sides, Italy appears like a long strip of land intersected by mountain sceneries of unusual grandeur and sublimity. The physical resources of the country, the majestic range of mountains running down through the middle, the fecundity of some parts, the beautiful cornfields smiling with emerald verdure, and gladdening the heart of the innocent peasant at every undulation of the green blades, the citron groves spreading their luxuriant branches, all all inspire the mind with delight and joy. But Italy is unhinbated in many parts, a circumstance which has given rise to occasional robber habits of the inhabitants. Here ends our faint description of a land which at one time gave law to the world, but which now is entirely fallen from that enviable position she once occupied in the annals of mankind. Answer 4th. In the study of Modern History the first thing that attracts our notice is the consolidation of small independent states into large kingdoms during the last three centuries. The incorporation of England and Scotland, and subsequently that of Ireland into the vast kingdom of Great Britain is of modern date. The acquisition of Franche Compte and Provence and the subsequent addition of Bretaign, Avignon Alsace and Vosges, are works of later times, Spain and Portugal were united under one sovereign; and the coalition of the Spanish and Austrian territories is the grandest illustration of the tendency above alluded to. The destruction of the free cities of Germany with the exception of Bremen, Frankfort, and Lubeck, and their formation into a vast kingdom, the kingdoms of Bohemia, and Hungary, the rise of Russia into the most collossial of empires, the kingdom of Sardina which absorbed into itself Venice and Milan, all clearly demonstrated the undoubted tendency which the last three centuries had to the annihilation of petty independent states, and their consequent coalition into vast empires. Venice destroyed the independence of Padua and Verona, Florena of Pisa and the territories of Ferrara and Urbino were included with the dominion of the Popes. Answer 5th. First of all the rise of the Austro-Spanish power which threatened the independence of the other European states presents itself to our view. The marriage of the heiress of Burgundy with the Arch-Duke Maximillian added Franche Compte and the Netherlands to the Austrian dominions. The subsequent marriage of Philip, Maximillian's son with Joanna of Spain daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, gave to Austria the whole inheritance of the crown of Spain to which were added the kingdom of Naples which had fallen under the grasp of the Spanish monarch by the termination of the struggle between the lines of Anjou and Arragon; so that when Charles V., grandson to Maximillian ascended the throne of his father in 1519 he found himself in possession of a vast empire scarcely parralelled in the annals of modern Europe. But this power did not go unchecked. It was first opposed by France, kept at bay by Francis I., humbled by the successful alliance of Henry II. with the German Protestants and finally dissolved by the abdication of Charles V. in 1555. His son Phillip succeeded to his Spanish dominions, and to the sovereignty of Naples; his brother Ferdinand to his Austrian territories. Thus passed away the first tempest of universal dominion without producing any serious injury to the affairs of Europe. But Phillip by the extent of his possessions which were still considerable, the subsequent conquest of Portugal by the death of King Sebastian in Africa, and the vast possessions and riches which fell into his hands by the discovery of America and the conquests made there, excited fresh cause of alarm. France was now very much distracted by civil and religious wars, and the danger of his power became imminent. But it was finally checked by the revolt of the Netherlands, the opposition of England and the return of France from the civil wars which raged among her sons. The dominion of Ferdinand 2nd again, excited general alarm. The conquest of the Palatinate in 1622, threatened the permanence of all the independent states. The power which principally opposed this was that of Sweeden. Austria was driven out of Lombardy by the peace of Westphalia in 1648 and after the conclusion of the peace of Pyranees in 1659, Spain retired for ever from the foremost place among European states. The dominion of Louis 16th rather that of Richelieu now took the most formidable aspect. His possessions were not very extensive, but the forts of Lisle and Dunkirk furnished him with a very great advantage. The French navy has now risen to the sovereignty of the seas. The opposing power now was England. William the third checked the power of Louis; Marlborough and Eugene overthrew it. Louis was now at once laid prostrate before England and he was only saved by a party revolution in his favour in English ministery. Though the peace of Utretcht in 1713 gave to the French prince Phillip the succession of the crown of Spain, the terms which it actually involved were extremely humiliating to Louis. Then followed a peace of nearly 70 years; after which England became in some measure the " principal centre of action." The possession of the different states of North America, the high pretensions of her naval code, and the vast extent of her colonal territories again excited general alarm. Not only France and Spain but her old ally Holland took part against her in the American war, but the enmity against her did not survive the loss of some of her valuable pessessions in America. But the most violent crises was in the beginning of the present century. The most military people in Europe became engaged for their very existence. The French Republic cradled a origine in war, was became now engaged in the accomplishment of a grand scheme of universal dominion, scarcely parralelled in the history of any other continent. "The ordinary relations of life" says Dr. Arnold "went to wrack" and every Frenchman became a soldier. "At length as if Providence seemed at first to further the ambitious views of France, her forces were at length furnished with a commander whose military abilities made him fitter to undergo all the privations of war and to carry on the grandest scheme of universal empire. This commander was Napolean of whom Lord Byron has so finely said. He assembled his mighty host of 4050000 efficient soldiers and at every way of his advance swept away a kind. Though the coalesced powers of Europe were eventually succeeded against him, yet the preservation of Europe from the hands of this wonderful genius Dr. Arnold has very justly attributed to the immediate interference of God and God alone. We give to Prussia, all the glories she achieved, to England, the honour of the crowning victory of Waterloo in 1815 but we cannot still deny that had not the signal failure of Napolean's expedition against Russia been not occasioned by a memorable frost, Europe perhaps would have still groaned under the thraldom of French tyranny. Answer 6th. The study of history both ancient and modern does by no means justify the belief that some nations are inherently superior to others. The judgment of King Archedamus is the best. According to him one man differs little from another, but training and culture constitute the entire difference. Nor does our past experience any way justify the truth of that Calvanism in matters political, which many have so strenuously supported. Judging from the experience of European history in the 18th and 19th centuries we find that France was actually superior to Austria and Spain in warlike habits and abilities, the successes on both sides were admirably balanced. While we find that Napolean was uniformly victorious, Frederick the Great gained many victories. The conquests of Napolean in Italy were equally balanced by the defeats of Moreau and Jourdan. The victories of Rosbach and Jenna counterbalanced one another. The military character of the Italians is now low yet without going to the Roman times, we find that Italy has still given birth to a Spenola, a Montecuculian Alexander and to the Prince of Parma. If we weigh the victories and defeats which the English have sustained in all their struggles with France we find that they are almost equally balanced. The defeats sustained by King Jhon are neutralized by the successes of Henry V; and the uniform victories of Marlborough are counterpoised by the successes of Marshall Saxe and the Duke of Luxemburg over King William and the Duke of Cumberland. Anwer 7th. It is impossible to conceive the unpardonable evils which generally accompany an irregular warfare. The cruel outrages of the irregular troops sparing neither sex nor age, the violent deaths and agonies of innocent sufferers, the terrible destruction of houses, and temples, in fact all the other inhuman actions committed by a set of ruthans let loose to revel in the boundlessness of rapine and carnage, cannot be justified by any means whatever. Even when a people's country is invaded, they have no right whatever to depart from the pale of civilized warfare. Battles must be fought at the country of either of the beligerents and it is an accident merely when the territories of a third party are made the scene of action. The invader of the country invades it with the prospect of an honourable peace; this is the true theory of the case. Are we justified in such cases to adopt the habits of a guerilla warfare, to shoot at stragglers and to rise promiscuously against the individuals of the invading army? But by no means if the invader wishes to complete the entire annihilation of a people he cannot now complain if his soldiers be promiscuously massacred. But even now if we consider the inefficacy of irregular army as a general rule in driving an invader from our country, and then weigh carefully the unspeakable horrors and attrocities which inevitably accompany these irregular risings we will find that the necessity of a standing army is absolute, and that all those irregular outbreaks of the multitude which many philosophers have so highly commended, cannot be allowed as they are generally found to be productive of more positive evil than of good. Answer 8th. Considering the feelings of the revolutionary party in France, whose political principles were thoroughly opposed to the antipopular, towards the names of Brutus and Cassius, we are at a loss to find with what consistency were these names cherished by the members of the party alluded to, with all the honours of glorious martyrs to the popular cause? Critically annalizing the different parties which existed in Rome during the times of Brutus and Cassius, we find that they were far from being the staunch advocates of the popular cause. They belonged to the high aristocratical party-the party which headed the proscriptions of Sylla-which played the most conspicuous part in the destruction of the Grachei-which strenuously opposed the communication of the Roman franchise to the other Italian states, and which resisted with great warmth and bitterness the enactment of the Agrarian laws. The rights and privileges of the ancient democracy of Rome were trampled by them to the dust and their honour and properties most eggregiously outraged. Far from being the true friends of the popular cause, the other members of the party Brutus and Cassius belonged to, were living examples of that iniquitious tyranny, which having bound hand and foot the quarter of the poorer population doomed them to all the miseries which grim-faced poverty and dishonour can entail upon mankind. On the contrary the individuals whom they opposed were thorough favourites of the republican party. Julius, Ceaser, an opposition to whose ambition and glory immortalized the names of Brutus and Cato in the minds of the revolutionary party in France, was not as he has been supposed to be a member of the high aristocratical party; he was the darling of the populace and the lord of their hearts. I do not mean to say, that in his affection for democracy and its principles was the genuine offspring of a sincere and cordial heart, but that all his leanings and actions were apparently republican. When he entered Rome with his well accomplished legions the ostensible purpose which he held out was the support of the Tribunitian power; and it was his affection for the multitude rather than any extraordinary degree of disinterested patriotism which actuated Brutus and Cato in the violent struggle which they waged with him. To all the parties who are strongly of a popular cast such names cannot be cherished with great inconsistency as the beaux-ideals of true commoners; so that the revolutionary party in France were sadly mistaken in the conjectures that were made in this case. Answer 9th. The coincidence of a popular and a movement party is purely accidental. They disagree as often as they are found to agree. Phillip of Macedon whose extensive and unbounded ambition leads us at the first sight to infer that he belonged to the anti-popular party, is on the contrary found from experience to have headed the party of the movement while Demosthenes, who was strongly attached to the popular case, whose blood boiled at the very name of liberty and equality, was opposed to it. The Macedonian monarch, contributed though unintentially to alter the condition both civil and political of the different Greecian states while Demosthenes would have kept it quite unimpaired. Add to this the example of Pericles. Though he was a member of the aristocratical party, he might be truly said to have headed the party of the movement |